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 .
1. This communication is responsive to the application filed 5/13/2024.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 12 and 20 are independent claims. This action is made Non-Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (“He” US 2022/0215767) in view of Graham et al (“Graham” US 2022/0148440).
Regarding claim 20, He discloses a system comprising:
a procedure database maintaining a raster image for an aircraft procedure (see fig 5, 502; e.g., retrieve pre-stored raster data);
a flight management system (FMS) to maintain a flight plan for an aircraft (see paragraphs [0028]-[0029]; e.g., retrieve flight plan data);
a display device (see fig 1, 104; e.g., raster display); and
a processing system coupled to the display device, the FMS and the procedure database to provide a graphics layer deconfliction service configurable to (see paragraphs [0003]-[0004]; e.g., “The raster data forms an image and many existing Navigational display elements overlap with raster image elements. The overlapping elements may have different features, such as different colors, shapes, and/or dimensions. These differences and the overlap can lead to significant display clutter and increased flight crew workload to declutter and deconflict navigational data associated with chart image data….Hence, it is desirable to provide a raster data display without significant display clutter.”): and
analyze the portion of the procedure chart graphics layer to identify a first object depicted in the raster image (see paragraphs [0031]-[0035]; e.g., waypoint).
He does not expressly disclose analyze a flight plan graphics layer to identify a region of interest overlapping at least a portion of the raster image concurrently presented within a procedure chart graphics layer on the display device; map the first object depicted in the raster image to a second object in the flight plan graphics layer; nor modify presentation of the second object in the flight plan graphics layer when a first set of one or more attributes associated with the first object in the raster image match a second set of one or more attributes associated with the second object in the flight plan graphics layer.
However, Graham discloses analyze a flight plan graphics layer to identify a region of interest overlapping at least a portion of the raster image concurrently presented within a procedure chart graphics layer on the display device (see paragraphs [0025], [0034] and [0044]; e.g., identify overlapping of multiple layers);
map the first object depicted in the raster image to a second object in the flight plan graphics layer (see paragraphs [0034], [0037], [0039]-[0041] and [0047]; e.g., waypoint is “mapped” to both layers; e.g., “analyze the different data layers of a navigational map GUI display 200 presented on the display 130 to identify any selectable graphical elements presented within a threshold distance of the touch location within the respective data layer. In this manner, the processing unit 120 may identify any waypoints or other navigational reference points depicted within a threshold distance of the touch location, any airports or landing locations depicted within a threshold distance of the touch location, any airspaces that overlap or encompass the touch location, any air traffic within a threshold distance of the touch location, and/or the like. In this regard, in some embodiments, the processing unit 120 may exclude certain data layers from analysis or consideration (e.g., the terrain layer).”); and
modify presentation of the second object in the flight plan graphics layer when a first set of one or more attributes associated with the first object in the raster image match a second set of one or more attributes associated with the second object in the flight plan graphics layer (see paragraph [0041]; e.g., “automatically identifies the JAGAL waypoint label as the probable graphical element to be selected based on the JAGAL waypoint being part of the current flight plan 202…Thereafter, the user may manipulate the waypoint task menu 400 to review, analyze, modify or configure the constraints, characteristics, attributes or other properties associated with the JAGAL waypoint.”). It would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the present invention to include Graham’s teachings in He’s user interface in an effort to improve the navigability of, and ease of interaction with, a displayed route of travel.
Claim 1 is similar in scope to claim 20 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Graham discloses wherein analyzing the upper layer comprises identifying the region of interest corresponding to a geographic area associated with the lower layer (see paragraph [0025]; e.g. “overlapping geographic locations or regions”).
Regarding claim 3, He discloses wherein analyzing the portion of the lower layer comprises color sampling the geographic area within the lower layer to extract a first subset of pixels corresponding to the first object depicted within the geographic area (see paragraph [0003]; e.g., overlapping elements can have different colors; extraction of pixels to identify color attributes is well known in the art).
Regarding claim 4, He discloses further comprising analyzing the first subset of pixels to identify the first set of one or more attributes associated with the first object (see paragraph [0003]; e.g., overlapping elements can have different colors; extraction of pixels to identify color attributes is well known in the art).
Regarding claim 5, He discloses further comprising analyzing a second subset of pixels corresponding to the second object in the upper layer to identify the second set of one or more attributes associated with the second object (see paragraph [0003]; e.g., overlapping elements can have different colors; extraction of pixels to identify color attributes is well known in the art).
Regarding claim 6, Graham discloses wherein mapping the first object comprises identifying the second object in the upper layer within a threshold distance of the first object depicted in the lower layer (see claim 1 above where threshold is discussed).
Regarding claim 7, He discloses wherein analyzing the portion of the lower layer comprises shape sampling the geographic area within the lower layer to extract a first subset of pixels corresponding to the first object depicted within the geographic area (see paragraph [0003]; e.g., overlapping elements can have different shapes; extraction of pixels to identify shape attributes is well known in the art).
Regarding claim 8, Graham discloses wherein modifying presentation of the second object in the upper layer comprises automatically setting a visibility attribute associated with the second object to invisible (see paragraph [0050]; e.g., “menu GUI elements to modify the data layers presented on the display, adjust the zoom factor or range of the display, pan the display, and/or the like may be hidden or removed to declutter the navigational map display”).
Regarding claim 9, He discloses the lower layer comprises a procedure chart associated with a procedure for an aircraft; the upper layer comprises a graphical representation of a flight plan for the aircraft; the first object comprises a waypoint associated with the procedure; and the second object comprises a graphical representation of the waypoint associated with the graphical representation of the flight plan, wherein the flight plan comprises the waypoint (see claim 20 above).
Regarding claim 10, Graham discloses wherein modifying presentation of the second object in the upper layer comprises hiding a label associated with the graphical representation of the waypoint associated with the graphical representation of the flight plan (see paragraph [0050]; e.g., “menu GUI elements to modify the data layers presented on the display, adjust the zoom factor or range of the display, pan the display, and/or the like may be hidden or removed to declutter the navigational map display”).
Regarding claim 11, He discloses the lower layer comprises a raster image of the procedure chart; the graphical representation of the flight plan comprises a plurality of vector graphics objects within the upper layer; the first object comprises a first subset of pixels within the raster image; and the second object comprises a second subset of pixels comprising a vector graphics object of the plurality of vector graphics objects within a threshold distance of the first subset of pixels (see claim 20 above; also see paragraph [0003]; e.g., overlapping elements can have different features; extraction of pixels to identify feature attributes is well known in the art).
Claims 12-19 are similar in scope to claims 20, 2-3, 5-6 and 9-11, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dirnecker et al (US 2022/0341748).
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHAWN N TILLERY whose telephone number is (571)272-6480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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, William L Bashore can be reached at (571) 272-4088. 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.
/RASHAWN N TILLERY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights