DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This is a non-final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-13 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 07/09/2024 has been considered by examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to Fig. 6, Fig. 7 and Figs 8A-8B as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: ¶ 23-25 describe Figures 6, 7 and 8A-8B which are missing from the drawings. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Automatic flight control system in claims 1 and 12
Head-up display in claim 12
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for an automatic flight control system:
[0079] Moreover, this automatic flight control system 20 may be provided with a human-machine adjustment interface connected by a wired or wireless link to the automatic flight control computer 21 in order to parameterize the value or values of the setpoint or setpoints.
[0085] Moreover, the automatic flight control system 20 is provided with a human-machine selection interface 22 that enables the operator 6 to choose, for one or more parameters PAR, an automatic flight control mode referred to more simply as an operating mode. This operating mode may be either a disengaged mode, an engaged mode or an armed mode. When the disengaged mode is activated for a parameter, the automatic flight control system takes no action for this parameter. When the armed mode is activated for a parameter, a setpoint value may be parameterized. When the engaged mode is activated to maintain a parameter PAR, the automatic flight control system 20, and in particular the automatic flight control computer 21, is configured to control at least one actuator 25 in order to bring the value of the parameter PAR, evaluated with the required sensing device or devices, towards a setpoint value.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a head-up display:
[0013] For example, a head-up display may comprise a screen of a helmet worn by a pilot, a retinal projection device, a windshield projection means, or a device known as a “head-up display” or HUD. A head-up display may comprise, for example, a system referred to as a “head-mounted display”, a system referred to as a “head-worn display”, a system referred to as a “near-eye display”, or indeed a system referred to as a “helmet-mounted display” when the system is mounted on a helmet, or indeed a system referred to, for example, as a “helmet-mounted sight and display”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 is indefinite because “the method comprises controlling the head-up display with the control system and displaying the setpoint value opposite the symbol on the head-up display" is not grammatically correct. It is unclear how a setpoint value and symbol are opposite. It is unclear if the limitation means that the setpoint value is positioned at an opposite location from the symbol or if it means the setpoint value and symbol are opposites of each other.
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEDRICK; Geoffrey S. M. et al. (US 20220258872 A1) in view of Kawalkar; Amit Nishikant (US 9663241 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hedrick teaches, a method for assisting the piloting of an aircraft comprising a head-up display and an automatic flight control system (the autothrottle mode display 210 is implemented as part of the information displayed on a heads-up display, see at least, ¶46, Hedrick), the automatic flight control system comprising a human-machine selection interface for choosing an operating mode from among several predetermined operating modes comprising a disengaged mode and an engaged mode (pressing the autothrottle mode selector 208 button while not in any armed state 604 arms the autothrottle and repeated presses of the button toggles between the plurality of modes: thrust armed, speed armed and off, see at least, ¶63, Hedrick) in order to request the automatic control of at least one parameter, the automatic flight control system being configured, in the engaged mode, to control at least one actuator of the aircraft in order to bring a current value of the parameter towards a setpoint value (when the autothrottle system 300 is in an armed state 604, PCL 202 can be moved to adjust the autothrottle target torque or speed value, see at least, ¶64, Hedrick), the method comprising the following steps: detecting, with a control system, an applied current mode from among the several predetermined operating modes; and controlling the head-up display with the control system (the autothrottle controller responds to actuation of the autothrottle mode input device by displaying information indicative of a selected one of the plurality of autothrottle control modes on the display device, see at least, ¶10 and 62, Hedrick), and displaying the current mode on the head-up display, wherein the displaying the current mode on the head-up display is carried out according to a graphic charter specific to the current mode in order to display the current mode, a first graphic charter applied during the disengaged mode being different from a second graphic charter applied during the engaged mode (see at least, ¶62, Hedrick).
Hedrick does not explicitly teach displaying a symbol carrying the current value on the head-up display, wherein the displaying of a symbol carrying the current value on the head-up display is carried out according to a graphic charter specific to the current mode in order to display the current mode, a first graphic charter applied during the disengaged mode being different from a second graphic charter applied during the engaged mode
Kawalkar, directed to a system and method for enhanced display of speed change and deceleration and/or acceleration points on vehicle displays teaches,
displaying a symbol carrying the current value on the display (Fig. 2 aircraft symbol 202 is rendered at a position that is representative of aircraft altitude and distance to is destination which is a symbol carrying the current value, see at least, ¶ Col 4 Line 54-56, Kawalkar), wherein the displaying of a symbol carrying the current value on the display is carried out according to a graphic charter specific to the current mode in order to display the current mode, a first graphic charter applied during the disengaged mode being different from a second graphic charter applied during the engaged mode (Fig. 2 depicts speed change point symbols 206 to be rendered in different colors based on a first color when the managed mode is engaged and a second color when the managed mode is disengaged , see at least, ¶ Col 6 Line 35-50, Kawalkar).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hedrick’s head-up display to incorporate the teachings of Kawalkar which teaches displaying a symbol carrying the current value on the display, wherein the displaying of a symbol carrying the current value on the display is carried out according to a graphic charter specific to the current mode in order to display the current mode, a first graphic charter applied during the disengaged mode being different from a second graphic charter applied during the engaged mode since they are both related to aircraft displays and incorporation of the teachings of Kawalkar would increase the situational awareness of pilots using the unique and intuitive symbology regarding speed change trends, locations and expected accelerations and decelerations of and aircraft flight plan.
Regarding Claim 12, Hedrick in view of Kawalkar teaches, an aircraft (Fig. 1 aircraft 100, see at least, ¶28, Hedrick) comprising a head-up display (Fig. 2 autothrottle mode display 210 may be part of the information displayed on a heads-up display, see at least, ¶28, Hedrick) and an automatic flight control system (Fig. 3 block diagram illustrating an autothrottle control system 300, see at least, ¶47, Hedrick), the automatic flight control system comprising a human-machine selection interface for choosing an operating mode from among several predetermined modes comprising a disengaged mode and an engaged mode in order to request the automatic control of at least one parameter (pressing the autothrottle mode selector 208 button while not in any armed state 604 arms the autothrottle and repeated presses of the button toggles between the plurality of modes: thrust armed, speed armed and off, see at least, ¶63, Hedrick), the automatic flight control system being configured, in the engaged mode, to control at least one actuator of the aircraft in order to bring a current value of the controlled parameter towards a setpoint value (when the autothrottle system 300 is in an armed state 604, PCL 202 can be moved to adjust the autothrottle target torque or speed value, see at least, ¶64, Hedrick), the aircraft comprising a control system for controlling the head-up display (the autothrottle controller responds to actuation of the autothrottle mode input device by displaying information indicative of a selected one of the plurality of autothrottle control modes on the display device, see at least, ¶10 and 62, Hedrick), wherein the control system and the head-up display are configured to apply the method according to claim 1 (See rejection for claim 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it appears they would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and rewritten to overcome the 35 USC 101 and 112 rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights