Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts:
Chatrenet describes a cockpit tablet mounted on a pivoting arm that can move between a frontal position and a lateral position to clear the frontal zone, for fatigue reduction and compliance with safety rules during takeoff or landing. See, e.g., Chatrenet at [0013]. The Examiner notes that "Chatrenet however appears to be silent regarding...wherein the in-flight position is at an elevation relative to the pilot seat such that a top portion of the touch screen is at least a threshold distance below a headrest of the pilot seat." See Office action at pp. 4-5. Chatrenet does not teach "the coaxial segments configured such that, during extension from the stowed position to the in-flight position, the top portion of the touch screen remains at least the threshold distance below the headrest of the pilot seat" because Chatrenet does not disclose a movement mechanism for the pivoting arm that limits the height of the tablet. For example, the rail (element 24 of Figures 7A and 7B) of Chatrenet is not described as being configured such that the top of the touch screen remains at least the threshold distance below the headrest of the pilot seat.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Respective to the limitations regarding “the threshold distance below the headrest of the pilot seat,” Examiner respectfully asserts that such a specified distance is taught by Hanchett, as will be set forth in further detail below. Regarding "the coaxial segments configured such that, during extension from the stowed position to the in-flight position, the top portion of the touch screen remains at least the threshold distance below the headrest of the pilot seat,” Examiner respectfully asserts that such a limitation is disclosed by the structure of Chatrenet. At least Paragraph 0101 and Figures 7A – 7B of Chatrenet disclose the rail system by which the touch screen moves between a stowed and deployed position, which is specifically recited to extend “in a plane parallel to the sitting plane.” The rail being configured in this specific plane in the configuration displayed in the Figures below in the view of the Examiner indicates that, while moving from a stowed to deployed position along the rail, the top portion of the touch screen can never exceed the mandated separation distance when moving from stowed to deployed, thus limiting the height of the tablet to the configured level. Thus, Examiner respectfully asserts that the system of Chatrenet anticipates the required configuration of the present claimed invention, and Applicant Arguments above are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
616
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hanchett describes configurable vehicle equipment based on a driver's geometric profile. The Examiner cites to [0066]-[0068] of Hanchett as teaching "the in-flight position is at an elevation relative to the pilot seat such that a top portion of the touch screen is at least a threshold distance below a headrest of the pilot seat." See Office action at page 5. Hanchett states " [t]he angle from top of the seat to the instrument control panel on the dashboard may take into account the seated height of the driver, and in particular the position of the driver's eyes, with respect to the position of the steering wheel in front of the dashboard and instrument control panel." See Hanchett at [0068]. However, being able to adjust the angle from top of the seat to the instrument control panel does not teach limiting a top portion of the touch screen to be "at least a threshold distance below a headrest of a pilot seat." Further, Hanchett is silent with regard to "the top portion of the touch screen [remaining] at least the threshold distance below the headrest of the pilot seat" when a mechanical arm attached to the touch screen is extended. For example, Hanchett does not disclose that the movement of the instrument control panel is executed such that the top of the panel is a threshold distance below the headrest of the seat during the movement.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully asserts that the combination of distances and relative angles taught by Hanchett between the seat and instrument control panel render obvious the “threshold distance below a headrest of the pilot seat” the top portion of the touchscreen is at in the in-flight position. Specifically, an angle between a top of a seat and instrument control panel is taught in at least Paragraph 0068 of Hanchett, as well as a distance between the seat and controls as taught in at least Paragraphs 0066 – 0068. While a height from the top of the seat to the control panel alone is not specifically recited, Examiner respectfully asserts that such a distance is a mere geometric computation based on the aforementioned two geometric characteristics, such that the height between the top of seat and control panel cannot be set to a value independent of the relationship between angle and seat to control panel distance, each of which are configured for the vehicle occupant. Therefore, prescribing an angle and separation distance for the controls to be positioned at for the occupant sets a required [i.e. threshold] distance below the headrest of the pilot seat for the control panel to be positioned at through the above-described geometric relationship. Regarding the movement of the control panel remaining below this threshold distance, Examiner respectfully asserts that such limitation(s) are disclosed by Chatrenet, as set forth above, in the movement of components [specifically a control interface] between a stowed and deployed position, which, as the rail the interface slides along is parallel to the seat bottom as set forth above, maintains a distance below a top of the vehicle seat when moving between a stowed and deployed position [i.e. the movement of the instrument control panel is executed such that the top of the panel is a threshold distance below the headrest of the seat during the movement]. Thus, Applicant arguments above are not persuasive.
Stiehl was cited with respect to other aspects of Applicant's independent claims 19 and 20, and also does not teach the claimed "coaxial segments configured such that, during extension from the stowed position to the in-flight position, the top portion of the touch screen remains at least the threshold distance below the headrest of the pilot seat."
None of the other combinations of references cited against the dependent claims teach or suggest (nor does the Examiner allege that they teach or suggest) the claimed "coaxial segments configured such that, during extension from the stowed position to the in-flight position, the top portion of the touch screen remains at least the threshold distance below the headrest of the pilot seat."
In view of the above, claims 1, 19, 20, and the claims depending therefrom are distinguishable over the references cited. Applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
For at least the reasons set forth above, and those set forth below with respect to the specific claim rejections under 35 USC 103, Examiner respectfully maintains the rejections of Independent and Dependent Claims under 35 USC 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 - 4, 6, 8, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatrenet (US 2014/0091604 A1) in view of Hanchett (US 2022/0281470 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Chatrenet discloses: A movable control interface, comprising: (Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraphs 0010 & 0013 an assembly for an aircraft cockpit comprising a display and control device displaceable between a first and second position [i.e. a movable control interface])
an electronic touch screen configured to render for display an interface for an aerial vehicle through which the aerial vehicle is controlled; and (Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraphs 0043, 0075, & 0077 wherein a touch screen tablet [i.e. an electronic touch screen] may form a display and control device for enabling interaction between the crew member and equipment of the aircraft, including through the use of digital controls on the display surface of the touch screen tablet [i.e. an interface for an aerial vehicle through which the aerial vehicle is controlled])
a mechanical arm coupled to the touch screen, the mechanical arm including one or more segments to releasably hold the touch screen to a fixable position from a plurality of positions, within a cockpit of the aerial vehicle, (Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraph 0036 wherein the display and control device [i.e. touch screen as set forth above] may be mounted relative to the seat by means of a mounting system, including a pivoting arm [i.e. a mechanical arm coupled to the touch screen]. At least Paragraphs 0036 – 0038 of Chatrenet further disclose wherein the arm may move through both translation and pivoting through a pivoting arm and slide system [i.e. the mechanical arm including one or more segments] to move the display between first, second, and stowed positions as further disclosed in at least Paragraph 0051 [i.e. releasably hold the touch screen to a fixable position from a plurality of positions, within a cockpit of the aerial vehicle])
the plurality of positions including at least a stowed position that is away from a pilot seat and an in-flight position that is in front of the pilot seat (Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraph 0051 and Figures 6A – 6C below wherein the touch screen tablet may be moved between a plurality of positions, including a first, second, and stowed position [i.e. a plurality of positions including an in-flight and stowed position]. At least Paragraphs 0083 – 0086 of Chatrenet disclose the configuration of the first and second positions, the first being a configuration in which the touch screen tablet is arranged to be used in front of a crew member when sitting in the seat, and the second being a configuration in which the tablet is used from the side [i.e. the first and second positions are in-flight positions])
PNG
media_image2.png
580
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
514
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the one or more segments comprise coaxial segments, the coaxial segments configured such that, during extension from the stowed position to the in-flight position, the top portion of the touch screen remains at least the threshold distance below the headrest of the pilot seat. (Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraphs 0100 – 0103 wherein the assembly may include a slide system comprising a rail [Element 24 of Figures 7A and 7B, below] and sliding support mounted to one another [i.e. wherein the one or more segments comprise coaxial segments]. Chatrenet further discloses in at least Paragraphs 0101 – 0103 as well as in Figures 7A & 7B below wherein a sliding system configured to translate the arm holding the touch screen may include a rail extending in a plane parallel to the sitting plane of the seat. As the rail is parallel to the sitting plane of the seat, and the touch screen is configured to translate along the rail while moving from a stowed to deployed position, at no point in the translation along the rail will the screen top exceed the threshold set distance below the headrest of the pilot seat as the height is static over the course of the translation [i.e. during extension from the stowed position to the in-flight position, the top portion of the touch screen remains at least the threshold distance below the headrest of the pilot seat])
PNG
media_image1.png
616
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chatrenet however appears to be silent regarding:
Wherein the in-flight position is at an elevation relative to the pilot seat such that a top portion of the touch screen is at least a threshold distance below a headrest of the pilot seat.
However Hanchett teaches wherein a positioning of a user interface may be determined and set for a vehicle such that an instrument control panel is automatically positioned to a specified angle and distance relative to a driver seat.
Wherein the in-flight position is at an elevation relative to the pilot seat such that a top portion of the touch screen is at least a threshold distance below a headrest of the pilot seat. (However Hanchett teaches in at least Paragraphs 0066 & 0067 wherein a geometric profile may be set for a particular vehicle for a driver, including distances and angles between components of a vehicle. This may include, as taught in at least Paragraph 0068 of Hanchett, an angle between a top of a seat and instrument control panel, taking into account the seated height of the driver, and a distance between the seat and controls as taught in at least Paragraphs 0066 – 0068 [i.e. together through the geometric relationship, a threshold elevation between the headrest (top) of the seat and instrument control panel]. At least Paragraph 0075 of Hanchett further teaches wherein the geometric profile is used to set the position of equipment in the vehicle automatically upon a driver entering the vehicle)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Chatrenet by incorporating the positioning of the interface at a specific level relative to the top of the seat as taught by Hanchett.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hanchett in at least Paragraphs 0068 & 0069, the position of the driver’s eyes with respect to the control panel may be accounted for, such that the best settings for the position of equipment for the driver of the vehicle may be determined and used, improving the operator accessibility of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 2:
The movable control interface of claim 1, wherein the one or more segments include discrete and interlocking segments.
Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraphs 0100 – 0103 wherein the assembly may include a slide system comprising a rail and sliding support mounted [i.e. interlocked] to one another and coupled to the pivoting arm [i.e. the one or more segments include discrete and interlocking segments].
Regarding Claim 3:
The movable control interface of claim 1, wherein the one or more segments extend towards the pilot seat from the stowed position to the in-flight position using the coaxial segments of the one or more segments, each of the coaxial segments configured to slide along a different coaxial segment, an innermost coaxial segment of the coaxial segments movable relative to other coaxial segments of the coaxial segments.
Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraphs 0100 – 0103 wherein the assembly may include a slide system comprising a rail [other coaxial segments, Element 24 of Figures 7A and 7B, below] and sliding support [i.e. an inner coaxial segment] mounted to one another [i.e. different coaxial segments configured to slide along one another] and coupled to the pivoting arm, the slide system configured to translate relative to the seat [towards and away from the seat as depicted below] to displace the touch screen between the first and second position [i.e. between the stowed and in-flight position].
PNG
media_image4.png
584
444
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4:
The movable control interface of claim 3, wherein the one or more segments extend in a straight line.
Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraph 0105 wherein the rail configuration into which the slide is mounted may be linear [i.e. the one or more segments extend in a straight line].
Regarding Claim 6:
The movable control interface of claim 1, wherein the pilot seat is coupled to an arm rest console comprising: an arm rest having a front portion, the arm rest adjacent to the pilot seat; and a mechanical controller stick across from the touch screen and in front of the front portion of the arm rest, the mechanical controller stick structured for movement to enable an operator to control navigation of the aerial vehicle.
Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraphs 0024 & 0066 wherein the pilot seat includes an arm rest [i.e. an arm rest having a front portion adjacent to the pilot seat] with an installed mini control stick to be used by the crew member when sitting in the seat [i.e. a mechanical controller stick across from the touch screen and in front of the front portion of the arm rest, the mechanical stick controller structured for movement to enable an operator to control navigation of the aerial vehicle]. At least Figures 6A – 6C and 7A – 7B of Chatrenet, above, include the mini stick, depicted as Element 40.
Regarding Claim 8:
The movable control interface of claim 1, wherein the touch screen is farther from the pilot seat in the stowed position than in the in-flight position.
Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraph 0051 and Figures 6A – 6C, above, wherein when the touch screen is in the stowed position [Figure 6C] the touch screen is further from the pilot seat than when the touch screen is being used in-flight [Figure 6A].
Regarding Claim 16:
The movable control interface of claim 1, wherein the mechanical arm comprises one or more hinges to rotate the touch screen to the fixable position.
Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraphs 0038 & 0039 wherein the mounting system may comprise a ball joint [i.e. one or more hinges] connecting the display and control device to the pivoting arm to change the orientation of the display device [i.e. to rotate the touch screen to the fixable position].
Claim(s) 5, 7, & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatrenet (US 2014/0091604 A1) in view of Hanchett (US 2022/0281470 A1) as applied to claims 1 & 6 above, and further in view of Zaneboni (US 2014/0175222 A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
The movable control interface of claim 1, wherein the in-flight position is 60-90 centimeters in front of the pilot seat.
The combination of Chatrenet and Hanchett does not appear to specifically disclose a dimension for the in-flight position of the interface.
However Zaneboni teaches in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0022 wherein a movable instrument panel may be positioned such that the radius of the arc of the circle is less than the average length of an upper human limb, specifically between 80 and 150 cm, falling in the recited range of 60 – 90 cm. Based on the relative distance of the instrument panel from the seat depicted by Figures 1 & 2 of Zaneboni, below, the recited arc radius range of Zaneboni corresponds to the distance of the instrument panel from the seat.
PNG
media_image5.png
572
472
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Chatrenett and Hanchett by incorporating the dimension of the instrument panel relative to the seat as taught by Zaneboni.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Zaneboni in at least Paragraph 0021, the accessibility of the instrument panel by the operator may be improved, improving the comfort of the pilot.
Regarding Claim 7:
The movable control interface of claim 6, wherein the touch screen in the in-flight position is a maximum of 75 centimeters above the top of the mechanical controller stick to enable the operator to view an environment through a windshield of the aerial vehicle.
Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraphs 0024 & 0066 wherein the pilot seat includes an arm rest [i.e. an arm rest having a front portion adjacent to the pilot seat] with an installed mini control stick to be used by the crew member when sitting in the seat. The combination of Chatrenet and Hanchett, however, does not appear to specifically disclose a dimension for the in-flight position of the interface.
However Zaneboni teaches in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0022 wherein a movable instrument panel may be positioned such that the radius of the arc of the circle is less than the average length of an upper human limb, specifically between 80 and 150 cm. Based on the instrument panel and seat depicted by Figure 2 of Zaneboni, annotated below, and the pixel value of relative lines drawn, as well as an assumed radius of 115 cm of the interface [the midpoint of the range recited] the ratio between distance from an arm to the top of the panel [where the mini stick is disposed] and the known panel length is 58 pixels/123 pixels, which corresponds to approximately 54 cm, less than the recited 75 cm maximum.
PNG
media_image6.png
268
448
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Chatrenett and Hanchett by incorporating the dimension of the instrument panel relative to the seat as taught by Zaneboni.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Zaneboni in at least Paragraph 0021, the accessibility of the instrument panel and arm control by the operator may be improved, improving the comfort of the pilot.
Regarding Claim 12:
The movable control interface of claim 1, wherein the threshold distance is 30 centimeters.
The combination of Chatrenet and Hanchett does not appear to specifically disclose a dimension for the threshold distance defining the distance of the interface below the headrest of the seat.
However Zaneboni teaches in at least Paragraph 0036 & 0043 wherein a reference axis [Element 1 of Figures 1 & 2, above] may be defined corresponding to a line of sight of the pilot, the instrument panel being raised or lowered to a satisfactory level in order to ensure pilot line of sight. Based on the instrument panel and seat depicted by Figure 2 of Zaneboni, annotated above, and the pixel value of relative lines drawn, as well as an assumed radius of 115 cm of the interface [the midpoint of the range recited] the ratio between line of sight to the top of the panel and the known panel length is 32 pixels/123 pixels, which corresponds to approximately 29.9 cm, almost precisely the recited 30 cm threshold distance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Chatrenett and Hanchett by incorporating the dimension of the instrument panel relative to the seat as taught by Zaneboni.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Zaneboni in at least Paragraph 0021, the accessibility of the instrument panel by the operator may be improved along with ensuring adequate line of sight, improving the comfort of the pilot.
Claim(s) 9 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatrenet (US 2014/0091604 A1) in view of Hanchett (US 2022/0281470 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Elvir (GB 2568669 A).
Regarding Claim 9:
The movable control interface of claim 1, wherein the mechanical arm comprises a locking mechanism to maintain the touch screen in the stowed position until one or more safety criteria are determined by an aerial vehicle control and interface system of the aerial vehicle to be met.
The combination of Chatrenet and Hanchett does not appear to specifically disclose safety criteria to maintain the touch screen in the stowed position.
However Elvir teaches in at least Paragraph 0028 wherein a control signal being output or not may be based on a seatbelt being engaged, the control signal being taught in at least Paragraph 0030 to be a signal for deploying a user operated control device [i.e. touch screen] from a stowed to deployed position [i.e. a locking mechanism maintains the control device in a stowed position until the safety criteria of the seatbelt device being buckled is met], the arrangement being further taught in at least Paragraph 0081.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Chatrenett and Hanchett by incorporating the requirement that a seatbelt be engaged prior to the deployment of the user operated control device from a stowed position as taught by Elvir.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Elvir in at least Paragraph 0081, the use of seatbelts or other safety devices may be encouraged by coupling the use of the control device to the requirement that they be engaged, improving the safety of the users of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 10:
The movable control interface of claim 9, wherein the one or more safety criteria include a seat belt lock state.
The combination of Chatrenet and Hanchett does not appear to specifically disclose safety criteria specifically including a seatbelt lock state to maintain the touch screen in the stowed position.
However Elvir teaches in at least Paragraph 0028 wherein a control signal being output or not may be based on a seatbelt being engaged, the control signal being taught in at least Paragraph 0030 to be a signal for deploying a user operated control device [i.e. touch screen] from a stowed to deployed position [i.e. the one or more safety criteria include a seat belt lock state], the arrangement being further taught in at least Paragraph 0081 of Elvir.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatrenet (US 2014/0091604 A1) in view of Hanchett (US 2022/0281470 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lampazzi (US 2019/0375514 A1).
Regarding Claim 11:
The movable control interface of claim 1, wherein the aerial vehicle is a rotorcraft.
Chatrenet discloses wherein the interface is disposed in a generalized aircraft, however not specifically a rotorcraft.
However Lampazzi teaches in at least Paragraphs 0012 & 0026 wherein a helicopter [i.e. rotorcraft] may be provided with an adjustable user interface that may be positioned for optimum reach and accessibility from either pilot seat as taught in at least Paragraph 0027.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Chatrenett and Hanchett by incorporating the use of an adjustable user interface in a helicopter as taught by Lampazzi.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Lampazzi in at least Paragraphs 0026 & 0027, a helicopter may be improved by providing information and control at an accessible reach to either pilot seat, improving control of the rotorcraft.
Claim(s) 13 - 15 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatrenet (US 2014/0091604 A1) in view of Hanchett (US 2022/0281470 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stiehl (US 2024/0109499 A1).
Regarding Claim 13:
The movable control interface of claim 1, wherein the mechanical arm comprises one or more actuators that cause the one or more segments to automatically move the touch screen to the position.
The combination of Chatrenet and Hanchett does not appear to specifically disclose the use of actuators in the mechanical arm to automatically move the touch screen to the position.
However Stiehl teaches in at least Paragraph 0029 wherein a display may be coupled with a robotic arm including one or more motors or actuators in order to move the display between different positions, including a stowed and deployed position in a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Chatrenett and Hanchett by incorporating the use of one or more actuators in the robotic arm to position the display as taught by Stiehl.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Stiehl in at least Paragraph 0029, the display may be positioned automatically when desired to be in or not in operation, improving the control of the display position by improving control of the robotic arm.
Regarding Claim 14:
The movable control interface of claim 13, wherein the mechanical arm is coupled to an aerial vehicle control and interface system configured to cause the one or more actuators to cause the one or more segments to automatically move in response to a user instruction provided through the touch screen.
The combination of Chatrenet and Hanchett does not appear to specifically disclose causing the one or more actuators to automatically move responsive to a user input from a touch screen.
However Stiehl teaches in at least Paragraphs 0007, 0033, & 0041 wherein a display mounted in a vehicle may be moved between a stowed and deployed position [i.e. automatically moved] based on a touch input supplied from a user to an edge display [i.e. a user instruction provided through the touch screen], which may comprise capacitive touch sensor electrodes and pixel arrays as taught in at least Paragraph 0025 of Stiehl.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Chatrenett and Hanchett by incorporating the movement of a display between a stowed and deployed position based on a user input to the touch surface of the display as taught by Stiehl.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Stiehl in at least Paragraph 0033 and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, a user may direct the deployment or stowing of the display, improving user control and accessibility of the display.
Regarding Claim 15:
The movable control interface of claim 13, wherein the mechanical arm is coupled to an aerial vehicle control and interface system configured to cause the one or more actuators to cause the one or more segments to automatically move in response to determining an operator is located in the pilot seat.
The combination of Chatrenet and Hanchett does not appear to specifically disclose causing the one or more actuators to automatically move responsive to an operator being located in the pilot seat.
However Stiehl teaches in at least Paragraph 0041 wherein a pressure sensor may be disposed in a seat to detect an arrival of a seated user, among other sensors to detect the arrival of said user, responsive to which the control circuitry may use a positioner [i.e. actuator] to rotate the display from a stowed to deployed position [i.e. the segments are moved in response to determining an operator is located in the seat].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Chatrenett and Hanchett by incorporating the deployment of the display responsive to the detection of the arrival of a seated user as taught by Stiehl.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Stiehl in at least Paragraph 0041, the display may be automatically deployed upon sensing the user has arrived in the seat, improving the convenience of the display to the user.
Regarding Claim 17:
The movable control interface of claim 1, wherein the plurality of positions includes a plurality of pilot position preferences, and wherein the mechanical arm is coupled to an aerial vehicle control and interface system configured to cause the touch screen to move to one of the plurality of pilot position preferences in response to determining a pilot is seated in the pilot seat.
Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraphs 0083 – 0086 wherein the display, when deployed, may be positioned in one of a first and second positions, the first being a configuration in which the touch screen tablet is arranged to be used in front of a crew member when sitting in the seat, and the second being a configuration in which the tablet is used from the side [i.e. the first and second positions are a plurality of pilot position preferences]. The combination of Chatrenet and Hanchett however does not appear to specifically disclose causing the one or more actuators to automatically move the display to one of said positions responsive to an operator being located in the pilot seat.
However Stiehl teaches in at least Paragraph 0041 wherein a pressure sensor may be disposed in a seat to detect an arrival of a seated user, among other sensors to detect the arrival of said user, responsive to which the control circuitry may use a positioner [i.e. actuator] to rotate the display from a stowed to deployed position [i.e. the segments are moved in response to determining an operator is located in the seat].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have further modified the combination of Chatrenett and Hanchett by incorporating the deployment of the display responsive to the detection of the arrival of a seated user as taught by Stiehl.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Stiehl in at least Paragraph 0041, the display may be automatically deployed upon sensing the user has arrived in the seat, improving the convenience of the display to the user.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatrenet (US 2014/0091604 A1) in view of Hanchett (US 2022/0281470 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jacobs (US 2020/0214456 A1).
Regarding Claim 18:
The movable control interface of claim 1, wherein the mechanical arm is configured to move the touch screen to the stowed position in response to an emergency evacuation of the aerial vehicle.
The combination of Chatrenet and Hanchett does not appear to specifically disclose moving the touch screen to the stowed position in response to an emergency evacuation.
However Jacobs teaches in at least Paragraph 0102 wherein during an emergency evacuation situation, an “all close” or “all open” command may be sent to a single chair or all chairs, an “open” or “closed” state including an orientation of a tray attachment as an in-use or opening orientation, the tray paralleling the interface of the present claimed invention [i.e. the interface is moved from an in-use to stowed/open position in response to an emergency situation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Chatrenet by incorporating the automatic opening of vehicle seat devices in response to an emergency evacuation condition as taught by Jacobs.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Jacobs in at least Paragraph 0102, and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, opening all devices that may be obstructing seats during an emergency situation may assist in evacuating from said seats during said situation, improving the safety of the vehicle during an emergency situation.
Claim(s) 19 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatrenet (US 2014/0091604 A1) in view of Hanchett (US 2022/0281470 A1) and Stiehl (US 2024/0109499 A1).
Regarding Claim 19:
Chatrenet discloses: display one or more user input controls at a touch screen for an aerial vehicle through which the aerial vehicle is controlled; (Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraphs 0043, 0075, & 0077 wherein a touch screen tablet [i.e. an electronic touch screen] may form a display and control device for enabling interaction between the crew member and equipment of the aircraft, including through the use of digital controls on the display surface of the touch screen tablet [i.e. an interface for an aerial vehicle through which the aerial vehicle is controlled])
the mechanical arm includes one or more segments to releasably hold the touch screen to a fixable position, of a plurality of positions, within a cockpit of the aerial vehicle, (Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraph 0036 wherein the display and control device [i.e. touch screen as set forth above] may be mounted relative to the seat by means of a mounting system, including a pivoting arm [i.e. a mechanical arm coupled to the touch screen]. At least Paragraphs 0036 – 0038 of Chatrenet further discloses wherein the arm may move through both translation and pivoting through a pivoting arm and slide system [i.e. the mechanical arm including one or more segments] to move the display between first, second, and stowed positions as further disclosed in at least Paragraph 0051 [i.e. releasably hold the touch screen to a fixable position from a plurality of positions, within a cockpit of the aerial vehicle])
the plurality of positions including at least a stowed position that is away from a pilot seat and an in-flight position that is in front of the pilot seat (Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraph 0051 and Figures 6A – 6C above wherein the touch screen tablet may be moved between a plurality of positions, including a first, second, and stowed position [i.e. a plurality of positions including an in-flight and stowed position]. At least Paragraphs 0083 – 0086 of Chatrenet disclose the configuration of the first and second positions, the first being a configuration in which the touch screen tablet is arranged to be used in front of a crew member when sitting in the seat, and the second being a configuration in which the tablet is used from the side [i.e. the first and second positions are in-flight positions])
and the one or more segments comprise coaxial segments, the coaxial segments configured such that, during extension from the stowed position to the in-flight position, the top portion of the touch screen remains at least the threshold distance below the headrest of the pilot seat; (Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraphs 0100 – 0103 wherein the assembly may include a slide system comprising a rail [Element 24 of Figures 7A and 7B, below] and sliding support mounted to one another [i.e. wherein the one or more segments comprise coaxial segments]. Chatrenet further discloses in at least Paragraphs 0101 – 0103 as well as in Figures 7A & 7B below wherein a sliding system configured to translate the arm holding the touch screen may include a rail extending in a plane parallel to the sitting plane of the seat. As the rail is parallel to the sitting plane of the seat, and the touch screen is configured to translate along the rail while moving from a stowed to deployed position, at no point in the translation along the rail will the screen top exceed the threshold set distance below the headrest of the pilot seat as the height is static over the course of the translation [i.e. during extension from the stowed position to the in-flight position, the top portion of the touch screen remains at least the threshold distance below the headrest of the pilot seat])
Chatrenet however appears to be silent regarding:
Implementation as: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store instructions, the instructions when executed by a processor of an aerial vehicle control and interface system cause the aerial vehicle control and interface system to:
receive a movement instruction via the one or more user input controls, the movement instruction configured to cause movement of a mechanical arm coupled to the touch screen, wherein:
Wherein the in-flight position is at an elevation relative to the pilot seat such that a top portion of the touch screen is at least a threshold distance below a headrest of the pilot seat;
and operate the mechanical arm according to the movement instruction.
However Stiehl teaches wherein a display mounted in a vehicle may be moved between a stowed and deployed position responsive to a user input to an edge display.
Implementation as: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store instructions, the instructions when executed by a processor of an aerial vehicle control and interface system cause the aerial vehicle control and interface system to: (However Stiehl teaches in at least Paragraph 0026 wherein the operations involving the control of vehicle components, including the display, may be implemented using software instructions stored on non-transitory computer readable storage media, including non-volatile memory and implemented by processing circuitry [i.e. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store instructions… implemented by a processor])
receive a movement instruction via the one or more user input controls, the movement instruction configured to cause movement of a mechanical arm coupled to the touch screen, wherein: …and operate the mechanical arm according to the movement instruction. (However Stiehl teaches in at least Paragraphs 0007, 0033, & 0041 wherein a display mounted in a vehicle may be moved between a stowed and deployed position [i.e. operated] based on a touch input supplied from a user to an edge display [i.e. based on a movement instruction via the one or more user input controls], which may comprise capacitive touch sensor electrodes and pixel arrays as taught in at least Paragraph 0025 of Stiehl)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Chatrenet by incorporating the movement of a display between a stowed and deployed position based on a user input to the touch surface of the display as taught by Stiehl.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Stiehl in at least Paragraph 0033 and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, a user may direct the deployment or stowing of the display, improving user control and accessibility of the display.
However Hanchett teaches wherein a positioning of a user interface may be determined and set for a vehicle such that an instrument control panel is automatically positioned to a specified angle and distance relative to a driver seat.
Wherein the in-flight position is at an elevation relative to the pilot seat such that a top portion of the touch screen is at least a threshold distance below a headrest of the pilot seat; (However Hanchett teaches in at least Paragraphs 0066 & 0067 wherein a geometric profile may be set for a particular vehicle for a driver, including distances and angles between components of a vehicle. This may include, as taught in at least Paragraph 0068 of Hanchett, an angle between a top of a seat and instrument control panel, taking into account the seated height of the driver, and a distance between the seat and controls as taught in at least Paragraphs 0066 – 0068 [i.e. together, a threshold elevation between the headrest (top) of the seat and instrument control panel]. At least Paragraph 0075 of Hanchett further teaches wherein the geometric profile is used to set the position of equipment in the vehicle automatically upon a driver entering the vehicle)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Chatrenet by incorporating the positioning of the interface at a specific level relative to the top of the seat as taught by Hanchett.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hanchett in at least Paragraphs 0068 & 0069, the position of the driver’s eyes with respect to the control panel may be accounted for, such that the best settings for the position of equipment for the driver of the vehicle may be determined and used, improving the operator accessibility of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 20:
Chatrenet discloses: displaying one or more user input controls at a touch screen for an aerial vehicle through which the aerial vehicle is controlled; (Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraphs 0043, 0075, & 0077 wherein a touch screen tablet [i.e. an electronic touch screen] may form a display and control device for enabling interaction between the crew member and equipment of the aircraft, including through the use of digital controls on the display surface of the touch screen tablet [i.e. an interface for an aerial vehicle through which the aerial vehicle is controlled])
the mechanical arm includes one or more segments to releasably hold the touch screen to a fixable position, of a plurality of positions, within a cockpit of the aerial vehicle, (Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraph 0036 wherein the display and control device [i.e. touch screen as set forth above] may be mounted relative to the seat by means of a mounting system, including a pivoting arm [i.e. a mechanical arm coupled to the touch screen]. At least Paragraphs 0036 – 0038 of Chatrenet further discloses wherein the arm may move through both translation and pivoting through a pivoting arm and slide system [i.e. the mechanical arm including one or more segments] to move the display between first, second, and stowed positions as further disclosed in at least Paragraph 0051 [i.e. releasably hold the touch screen to a fixable position from a plurality of positions, within a cockpit of the aerial vehicle])
the plurality of positions including at least a stowed position that is away from a pilot seat and an in-flight position that is in front of the pilot seat (Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraph 0051 and Figures 6A – 6C above wherein the touch screen tablet may be moved between a plurality of positions, including a first, second, and stowed position [i.e. a plurality of positions including an in-flight and stowed position]. At least Paragraphs 0083 – 0086 of Chatrenet disclose the configuration of the first and second positions, the first being a configuration in which the touch screen tablet is arranged to be used in front of a crew member when sitting in the seat, and the second being a configuration in which the tablet is used from the side [i.e. the first and second positions are in-flight positions])
and the one or more segments comprise coaxial segments, the coaxial segments configured such that, during extension from the stowed position to the in-flight position, the top portion of the touch screen remains at least the threshold distance below the headrest of the pilot seat; (Chatrenet discloses in at least Paragraphs 0100 – 0103 wherein the assembly may include a slide system comprising a rail [Element 24 of Figures 7A and 7B, below] and sliding support mounted to one another [i.e. wherein the one or more segments comprise coaxial segments]. Chatrenet further discloses in at least Paragraphs 0101 – 0103 as well as in Figures 7A & 7B below wherein a sliding system configured to translate the arm holding the touch screen may include a rail extending in a plane parallel to the sitting plane of the seat. As the rail is parallel to the sitting plane of the seat, and the touch screen is configured to translate along the rail while moving from a stowed to deployed position, at no point in the translation along the rail will the screen top exceed the threshold set distance below the headrest of the pilot seat as the height is static over the course of the translation [i.e. during extension from the stowed position to the in-flight position, the top portion of the touch screen remains at least the threshold distance below the headrest of the pilot seat])
Chatrenet however appears to be silent regarding:
Implementation as: A method comprising:
receiving a movement instruction via the one or more user input controls, the movement instruction configured to cause movement of a mechanical arm coupled to the touch screen, wherein:
Wherein the in-flight position is at an elevation relative to the pilot seat such that a top portion of the touch screen is at least a threshold distance below a headrest of the pilot seat;
and operating the mechanical arm according to the movement instruction.
However Stiehl teaches wherein a display mounted in a vehicle may be moved between a stowed and deployed position responsive to a user input to an edge display.
receiving a movement instruction via the one or more user input controls, the movement instruction configured to cause movement of a mechanical arm coupled to the touch screen, wherein: … and operating the mechanical arm according to the movement instruction. (However Stiehl teaches in at least Paragraphs 0007, 0033, & 0041 wherein a display mounted in a vehicle may be moved between a stowed and deployed position [i.e. operated] based on a touch input supplied from a user to an edge display [i.e. based on a movement instruction via the one or more user input controls], which may comprise capacitive touch sensor electrodes and pixel arrays as taught in at least Paragraph 0025 of Stiehl)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Chatrenet by incorporating the movement of a display between a stowed and deployed position based on a user input to the touch surface of the display as taught by Stiehl.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Stiehl in at least Paragraph 0033 and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, a user may direct the deployment or stowing of the display, improving user control and accessibility of the display.
However Hanchett teaches wherein a positioning of a user interface may be determined and set for a vehicle such that an instrument control panel is automatically positioned to a specified angle and distance relative to a driver seat.
Implementation as A method (However Hanchett teaches in at least Paragraph 0088 wherein a method may be performed by a vehicle for setting the position of vehicle equipment with respect to a geometric profile)
Wherein the in-flight position is at an elevation relative to the pilot seat such that a top portion of the touch screen is at least a threshold distance below a headrest of the pilot seat; (However Hanchett teaches in at least Paragraphs 0066 & 0067 wherein a geometric profile may be set for a particular vehicle for a driver, including distances and angles between components of a vehicle. This may include, as taught in at least Paragraph 0068 of Hanchett, an angle between a top of a seat and instrument control panel, taking into account the seated height of the driver, and a distance between the seat and controls as taught in at least Paragraphs 0066 – 0068 [i.e. together, a threshold elevation between the headrest (top) of the seat and instrument control panel]. At least Paragraph 0075 of Hanchett further teaches wherein the geometric profile is used to set the position of equipment in the vehicle automatically upon a driver entering the vehicle)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Chatrenet by incorporating the positioning of the interface at a specific level relative to the top of the seat as taught by Hanchett.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hanchett in at least Paragraphs 0068 & 0069, the position of the driver’s eyes with respect to the control panel may be accounted for, such that the best settings for the position of equipment for the driver of the vehicle may be determined and used, improving the operator accessibility of the vehicle.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Ory (US 2019/0111785 A1): Ory recites a multipurpose dashboard for a vehicle, including driving controls, and a workspace panel including a touchscreen. Based on the driving status of the own vehicle, the workstation, including the touchscreen, may be stored or deployed for access by a user.
Hansen (US 11,124,219 B2): Hansen recites a stowable vehicle control system, configured to extend, retract, and pivot the user interface between positions. Depending on the determined position of the control interface, the operation mode of the vehicle may be modified, including to autonomously operate the vehicle.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights