DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is responsive to the amendment filed 2/17/2026 and IDS filed 10/10/2025 and 12/12/2025.
In the amendment Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1, 10 and 16 are the independent claim.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2025 and 12/12/2025 has been entered, and considered by the examiner.
Withdrawn Rejections
5. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
6. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-8, 10 and 12-20 with cited reference of Zammit (U.S. 9,710,145) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
7. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 3 with cited references of Zammit (U.S. 9,710,145,) in view of Wilson (U.S. Pub 2011/0313597) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
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 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.
8. Claims 1-8, 10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zammit (U.S. 9,710,145, filed Aug. 31, 2015) in view of Michiyasu (U.S. Pub 2009/0201271, filed Oct. 6, 2005).
Regarding Independent claims 1 and 10, Zammit discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising stored 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:
generate a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising: an avatar of an aerial vehicle (see Fig. 10 & col. 16, lines 1-20, discloses layout of an interface that comprises an aircraft symbol representative of an avatar);
one or more aerial vehicle attitude indicators corresponding to orientation of the aerial vehicle about one or more of a longitudinal axis or a lateral axis (see Fig. 4 & col. 11, lines 55-67 & col. 12, lines 20-40, discloses attitude indicators representing the orientation of the aerial vehicle about an axis that includes an artificial horizon 20 that depicts pitch, roll and sideslip etc. in addition to lateral and vertical navigation modes);
a window including a first set of visual elements for displaying a first set of flight information (see Fig. 7 & col. 14 lines 5-67, discloses an avatar of the aerial vehicle, one or more vehicle attitude indicators and a representation of the environment in which the aerial vehicle travels that collectively represent a first set of displayed flight-related visual elements); and
a representation of an environment in which the aerial vehicle travels (see Fig. 4 & col. 11, lines 55-67, discloses an artificial horizon 20 that represents an environment);
receive a user interaction via the GUI, the user interaction mapped to an instruction to modify a navigation of the aerial vehicle, wherein the user interaction comprises a gesture of one or more fingers against a touch screen interface through which the aerial vehicle is controlled (see col. 16, lines 60-67 & col. 18, lines 25-35, discloses use of touchscreen gestures to modify a navigation of the vehicle by changing waypoint positions);
determine the modification of the one or more aerial vehicle attitude indicators based on the received user interaction via the GUI (see fig. 9 & col. 15 lines 15-45, discloses modifying vehicle attitude indicators based on heading changes via gestures);
transmit an instruction to a controller coupled with an actuator of the aerial vehicle to modify an operation of the actuator based on the determined modification (see col. 9, lines 45-67, discloses inputting data to control systems via device 216 that includes flaps & undercarriage including hydraulic control, thus inherently including actuator control); and
update the GUI to display the modification of the one or more aerial vehicle attitude indicators (see figs. 7-9 & col. 17, lines 15-50, discloses updating the touch screen display unit to reflect changes in heading); and Zammit teaches an aerial vehicle and interface system comprising a GUI that displays an avatar of the aerial vehicle including attitude indicators and vehicle orientation with support for touchscreen gestures to modify navigation and update the displayed indicators based on the interactions. Zammit however fails to teach updating the GUI to display a second reduced set of flight information in response to an emergency condition of the aerial vehicle in addition to determining which elements should be removed or prioritized during emergency conditions.
Michiyasu discloses:
responsive to determining that the aerial vehicle is in an emergency condition, update the window to display a second set of visual elements for displaying a second set of flight information corresponding to the emergency condition, the second set of visual elements being fewer than the first set of visual elements (see paragraphs 69, 84-86, 96-100, 101 and 130, discloses determining an emergency condition and automatically modifying the displayed information to present only critical or emergency-relevant elements while suppressing or removing nonessential content. Explicitly teaching reducing the display to a minimum subset of information necessary during emergencies). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated the system of Michiyasu to enhance the aerial vehicle GUI with emergency-responsive display functionality. Michiyasu discloses that reducing nonessential display under emergency conditions improves usability and focus attention on critical information in paragraphs 78-79, 107, 128 and 137.
Regarding Dependent claims 2, 12 and 17, Zammit discloses wherein the instructions to determine the modification to the one or more aerial vehicle attitude indicators further comprises instructions to: track a current angle of one or more of the lateral axis or the longitudinal axis of the aerial vehicle relative to a level angle of the longitudinal axis when the aerial vehicle is maintaining level flight (see col. 11, lines 35-46, discloses control parameters that include a flight path angle & see Fig. 4 & col. 11, lines 55-67 & col. 12, lines 20-40, discloses attitude indicators representing the orientation of the aerial vehicle about an axis that includes an artificial horizon 20 that depicts pitch, roll and sideslip etc. in addition to lateral and vertical navigation modes).
Regarding Dependent claim 3, with dependency of claim 1, Zammit discloses wherein the representation of the environment includes a fixed horizon line (see Fig. 4 & col. 11, lines 55-67 & col. 12, lines 20-40, discloses attitude indicators representing the orientation of the aerial vehicle about an axis that includes an artificial horizon 20 that depicts pitch, roll and sideslip etc. in addition to lateral and vertical navigation modes).
Regarding Dependent claim 4, with dependency of claim 1, Zammit discloses wherein the representation of the environment includes a representation of a surface of earth absent shapes of land and objects located on the surface of the earth (see Fig. 4 & col. 11, lines 55-67 & col. 12, lines 20-40, discloses attitude indicators representing the orientation of the aerial vehicle about an axis that includes an artificial horizon 20 that depicts pitch, roll and sideslip etc. in addition to lateral and vertical navigation modes).
Regarding Dependent claims 5, 13 and 18, Zammit discloses wherein the one or more aerial vehicle attitude indicators are concentric circles centered at the avatar of the aerial vehicle (see figs. 4-8).
Regarding Dependent claims 6, 14 and 19, Zammit discloses wherein the user interaction is one or more of a swipe of a finger in a first direction, a swipe of the finger in a circle, or a swipe of multiple fingers in a second direction (see col. 12, lines 24-36).
Regarding Dependent claim 7, with dependency of claim 1, Zammit discloses wherein the instructions to modify the navigation of the aerial vehicle is one or more of a speed modification, a lateral orientation modification, a heading modification, or a vertical position modification (see col. 12, lines 20-55).
Regarding Dependent claim 8, with dependency of claim 1, Zammit discloses wherein the instructions to receive the user interaction via the GUI corresponding to the modification further comprises instructions to change a current navigation state to a previous navigation state, and wherein the user interaction includes a plurality of taps in succession against the touch screen (see col. 16, lines 60-67 & col. 18, lines 25-35, discloses use of touchscreen gestures to modify a navigation of the vehicle by changing waypoint positions).
Regarding Dependent claims 15, and 20, Zammit discloses wherein the instruction to modify the operation of the actuator includes changing a current navigation state to a previous navigation state, and wherein the user interaction includes a plurality of taps in succession against the touch screen (see col. 16, lines 60-67 & col. 18, lines 25-35, discloses use of touchscreen gestures to modify a navigation of the vehicle by changing waypoint positions).
Regarding Independent claim 16, Zammit discloses An aerial vehicle control and interface system comprising:
a universal vehicle control interface for an aerial vehicle, the universal vehicle control interface configured to: receive input commands from an operator of the aerial vehicle (see col. 16, lines 1-26, discloses enhanced flight control unit (EFCU) has a universal vehicle control interface of the aircraft that receives user input commands); and
provide for display a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising: an avatar of the aerial vehicle (see Fig. 10 & col. 16, lines 1-20, discloses layout of an interface that comprises an aircraft symbol representative of an avatar);
one or more aerial vehicle attitude indicators corresponding to orientation of the aerial vehicle about one or more of a longitudinal axis or a lateral axis (see Fig. 4 & col. 11, lines 55-67 & col. 12, lines 20-40, discloses attitude indicators representing the orientation of the aerial vehicle about an axis that includes an artificial horizon 20 that depicts pitch, roll and sideslip etc. in addition to lateral and vertical navigation modes); and
a representation of an environment in which the aerial vehicle travels (see Fig. 4 & col. 11, lines 55-67, discloses an artificial horizon 20 that represents an environment); and
a universal avionics control router configured to: generate the GUI; receive a user interaction via the GUI , the user interaction mapped to an instruction to modify a navigation of the aerial vehicle, wherein the user interaction comprises a gesture of one or more fingers against a touch screen interface through which the aerial vehicle is controlled (see col. 16, lines 60-67 & col. 18, lines 25-35, discloses use of touchscreen gestures to modify a navigation of the vehicle by changing waypoint positions);
determine a modification of the one or more aerial vehicle attitude indicators based on the received user interaction via the GUI (see fig. 9 & col. 15 lines 15-45, discloses modifying vehicle attitude indicators based on heading changes via gestures);
transmit an instruction to a controller coupled with an actuator of the aerial vehicle to modify an operation of the actuator based on the determined modification (see col. 9, lines 45-67, discloses inputting data to control systems via device 216 that includes flaps & undercarriage including hydraulic control, thus inherently including actuator control); and
update the GUI to display the modification of the one or more aerial vehicle attitude indicators (see figs. 7-9 & col. 17, lines 15-50, discloses updating the touch screen display unit to reflect changes in heading); and Zammit teaches an aerial vehicle and interface system comprising a GUI that displays an avatar of the aerial vehicle including attitude indicators and vehicle orientation with support for touchscreen gestures to modify navigation and update the displayed indicators based on the interactions. Zammit however fails to teach updating the GUI to display a second reduced set of flight information in response to an emergency condition of the aerial vehicle in addition to determining which elements should be removed or prioritized during emergency conditions.
Michiyasu discloses:
responsive to determining that the aerial vehicle is in an emergency condition, update the window to display a second set of visual elements for displaying a second set of flight information corresponding to the emergency condition, the second set of visual elements being fewer than the first set of visual elements (see paragraphs 69, 84-86, 96-100, 101 and 130, discloses determining an emergency condition and automatically modifying the displayed information to present only critical or emergency-relevant elements while suppressing or removing nonessential content. Explicitly teaching reducing the display to a minimum subset of information necessary during emergencies). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated the system of Michiyasu to enhance the aerial vehicle GUI with emergency-responsive display functionality. Michiyasu discloses that reducing nonessential display under emergency conditions improves usability and focus attention on critical information in paragraphs 78-79, 107, 128 and 137.
9. Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zammit (U.S. 9,710,145, filed Aug. 31, 2015) in view of Michiyasu (U.S. Pub 2009/0201271, filed Oct. 6, 2005) further in view of Wilson (U.S. Pub 2011/0313597, filed Jun. 22, 2010).
Regarding Dependent claims 9, and 11, Zammit teaches an aerial vehicle and interface system comprising a GUI that displays an avatar of the aerial vehicle including attitude indicators and vehicle orientation with support for touchscreen gestures to modify navigation and update the displayed indicators based on the interactions. Zammit however fails to teach updating the GUI to display a second reduced set of flight information in response to an emergency condition of the aerial vehicle in addition to determining which elements should be removed or prioritized during emergency conditions. Michiyasu discloses reducing the display to a minimum subset of information necessary during emergencies (see paragraphs 69, 84-86, 96-100, 101 and 130). Michiyasu fails to explicitly teach any wind indicator. Wilson discloses wherein the GUI further comprises a wind indicator depicting a direction of wind in the environment (see paragraph 42, discloses use of indicators via annotations in the display regarding wind speed and directions). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application have incorporated supplemental weather-related data that indicates wind information into the touchscreen display of Zammit. One motivation is to avoid hazardous weather by accounting for wind information during flight.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments filed 2/17/2026 has been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
5/27/2026
Prosecution Insights