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 final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 17 July 2026. Claims 1-20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Objections to the specification and drawings were made in error and are withdrawn. Arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) claim interpretation have been fully considered and are not persuasive. No structure has been recited in the claims regarding “automatic flight control system” and “head-up display” therefore the 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) interpretation is sustained. Amendments to claim 9 have been fully considered and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and are persuasive therefore, rejection to claims 9-11 and 13 is withdrawn. Arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claims 1 and 12 has been fully considered, is not persuasive, and rejection has been sustained.
Examiner’s Response- Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Hedrick teaches feature A, B, C, D and part of feature E while Kawalkar teaches the second half of Feature E and all of feature F. Applicant's argument that Hedrick teaches against the claimed invention as described int the specification is not persuasive since the claimed language does not restrict the use of displaying the current autopilot mode. Further, the argument that Kawalkar does not teach feature C, E and F is not convincing because Hedrick teaches feature C. Further, the symbols of Kawalkar display a current altitude and distance to destination and current flight path and under broadest reasonable interpretation of features E, symbol carrying a current value and F displayed in different colors specific to the current mode of engaged or disengaged are taught by Kawalkar. The different colors are interpreted as a graphic charter, and the speed and acceleration change symbols which are positioned on the current flight path are interpreted as displaying a current value. Current flight path is a current value which contains altitude and distance parameters as part of the flight path. Argument that the aircraft symbol 202 is not what changes color but the other symbols is not persuasive since the reference does not explicitly prohibit the aircraft symbol 202 from changing color. Nonetheless, the other symbols 206 are positioned on the current flight path which is interpreted as displaying a current value, and they are to be rendered in different colors based on the managed or disengaged mode of the autopilot system.
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 07/23/2026 has been considered by examiner.
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 and 15
Head-up display controller in claim 15
Automatic flight controller in claim 15
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 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 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”.
Upon reviewing the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a head-up display controller:
[0091] The head-up display 30, and indeed the head-down display 10, can be controlled by a computer referred to for the sake of convenience as a “display computer 45”. A display computer 45 is thus connected to the head-up display 30 and the head-down display 10 by a wired or wireless connection. The display computer 45 and the automatic flight control computer 21 may possibly form one and the same computer.
[0092] The display computer 45 may comprise one or more symbol generator computers. For example, the display computer 45 may comprise a head-up symbol generator computer and a head-down symbol generator computer. According to another example, the display computer 45 may comprise a single symbol generator computer. Each symbol generator computer may, for example, comprise at least one processor and at least one memory, at least one integrated circuit, at least one programmable system, or at least one logic circuit, these examples not limiting the scope to be given to the term “symbol generator computer”. The term “processor” may refer equally to a central processing unit or CPU, a graphics processing unit or GPU, a digital signal processor or DSP, a microcontroller, etc.
Upon reviewing the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for an automatic flight controller:
[0078] The actuator or actuators may be controlled by an automatic flight control computer 21 connected by wired or wireless links to the actuator or actuators 25. By way of example, the automatic flight control computer 21 may comprise at least one processor and at least one memory, at least one integrated circuit, at least one programmable system, or at least one logic circuit, these examples not limiting the scope to be given to the term “computer”. The term “processor” may refer equally to a central processing unit or CPU, a graphics processing unit or GPU, a digital signal processor or DSP, a microcontroller, etc.
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).
Regarding Claim 15, Hedrick in view of Kawalkar teaches, a system for assisting the piloting of an aircraft, comprising: a head-up display; a head-up display controller for controlling the head- up display (the autothrottle mode display 210 along with display de-coder or driver circuitry, which interfaces the djisplay device with an autothrottle controller is implemented as part of the information displayed on a heads-up display, see at least, ¶46, Hedrick); and an automatic flight controller, the automatic flight controller including a human-machine selection interface for choosing an operating mode from among several predetermined modes including a disengaged mode and an engaged mode 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 controller being configured, in the engaged mode, to control at least one actuator of the aircraft 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); and wherein the head-up display controller is configured to detect an applied current mode from among the several predetermined operating modes and control the head-up display to display a symbol carrying the current value on 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); and 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 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 (current autothrottle modes may be displayed in a first graphic charter or color, white, when in the armed-disengaged state and in a second graphic charter or color, green, when in the armed-engaged state, see at least, ¶62, Hedrick).
Hedrick does not explicitly teach control the head-up display to display a symbol carrying the current value on the head-up display; and 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.
Kawalkar, directed to a system and method for enhanced display of vehicle displays teaches, control the display to display 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 and speed change symbols 206 depict symbols arranged on a current flight path, see at least, ¶ Col 4 Line 54-56, Kawalkar); and 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 (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 control the display to display a symbol carrying the current value on the display; and 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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11, 13-14 and 16-20 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
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 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