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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2025 was filed and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings that were filed on 03/08/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 17, and 20 are currently amended.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "can include" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the icing conditions are required or merely an optional condition within the hypothetical aircraft conditions, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mast et al. (US 20230002071 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Mast, in view of over Holder et al. (US 20230127968 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Holder, and in further view of over Suiter et al. (US 20140343765 A1), and herein after will be referred to as Suiter.
Regarding Claim 1, Mast teaches a system for generating and displaying one or more range rings on an aircraft (Flight guidance system to display glide range ring of the aircraft; [0022]), the system comprising: a processor (The controller architecture encompassing a number of individual processors; [0027]);
a display device operably connected to the processor, the display device comprising a user interface (Avionics display device connected to the controller architecture with a pilot input interface; [0025] [0032] [0042]);
a communication device operably connected to the processor (A datalink subsystem, located in the flight guidance system, wirelessly transmits and receives data from external sources; [0025]); and
computer-readable memory operably connected to the processor, the computer-readable memory encoded with instructions that, when executed by the processor (Controller architecture including computer-readable instructions that embody an algorithm; [0027] [0029]), cause the system to:
receive aircraft data from an aircraft avionics system of the aircraft operably connected to the communication device (Flight parameter sensors supplying aircraft data to the controller architecture and the controller architecture connected to the datalink subsystem; FIG. 1 [0025] [0030]);
calculate a …range of the aircraft based upon…the aircraft data (Computes the range from configuration and aircraft data; [0079]);
calculate a…range of the aircraft based upon… the aircraft data (Computes the range from configuration and aircraft data; [0079]);
generate a…range ring based upon the…range of the aircraft, wherein the…range ring is a visual depiction of the…range of the aircraft (Generating and displaying a range ring as a visual depiction of the glide range; [0084]);
Mast does not explicitly teach receive a first user configuration input via the user interface of the display device, wherein the first user configuration input comprises a first set of hypothetical aircraft conditions and/or configurations; receive a second user configuration input via the user interface of the display device, wherein the second user configuration input comprises a second set of hypothetical aircraft conditions and/or configurations; calculate a first range[[s]] of the aircraft based upon the first user configuration input; and calculate a second range of the aircraft based upon the second user configuration input.
However, Holder discloses a cockpit capability display system in which the pilot enters prospective query parameters and the system computes the corresponding capabilities for that input. Holder teaches receiving a first user configuration input from a pilot considering modifying or altering the operation of the aircraft by manually inputting one or more query parameters (speed, altitude, arrival time, or the like) entered via user input device ([0016] [0030]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of “receive a first user configuration input via the user interface of the display device, wherein the first user configuration input comprises a first set of hypothetical aircraft conditions and/or configurations” because the pilot enters a set of parameters to the user interface in which the aircraft has not yet achieved, equivalent to a hypothetical condition. Holder further teaches receiving a second, different user configuration input, where the pilot specifies different ranges of values for different input query parameters ([0051]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of “receive a second user configuration input via the user interface of the display device, wherein the second user configuration input comprises a second set of hypothetical aircraft conditions and/or configurations” because the pilot specifies different values for the input query parameters, a second set of user conditions distinct from the first. Furthermore, if Holder’s disclosure were characterized as modifying a single query rather than a whole separate configuration input, receiving a second set of user conditions and computing a second range is a repeated application of the same operation ([0016] [0030] [0033]); applying that known technique a second time to obtain a second range would yield predictable results of a second range. Holder further teaches calculating potential trajectories defining the capability envelope that satisfies the input query parameters based on the aircraft’s operating status and environmental conditions ([0033]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitations “calculate a first/second range of the aircraft based upon the first/second user configuration input” because the system computes the aircraft’s trajectory capability for the user input given the current operating status, applying the same computation to the second input set yields the claimed second range.
Mast and Holder are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of range display systems and address the same problem of providing situational awareness of aircraft reach/capability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mast’s range ring system to incorporate the teachings of the pilot’s input prospective condition parameters as taught by Holder based on the motivation that the pilot obtains a range for a hypothetical condition set. Holder teaches the pilot manually entering one or more query parameters such as a particular speed and/or altitude at a particular waypoint ([0016]) are the same flight parameters from which Mast computes its glide range ([0031] [0079-0083]). The modification of the pilot’s prospective speed/altitude for the input to Mast’s range computation would predictably result in a system that computes a range of the aircraft from a user entered hypothetical condition set and aircraft data.
Mast and Holder does not explicitly teach generate a first range ring based upon the first range of the aircraft, wherein the first range ring is a visual depiction of the first range of the aircraft; generate a second range ring[[s]] based upon the second range[[s]] of the aircraft, wherein the second range ring[[s]] is a visual depiction[[s]] of the second range[[s]] of the aircraft; and display the first and second range rings on the display device.
However, Suiter discloses a flight assistant with automatic configuration and landing site selection that generates range rings on a display. Suiter teaches visually depicting range rings of an aircraft range ([0011]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of “ generate a first range ring based upon the first range of the aircraft, wherein the first range ring is a visual depiction of the first range of the aircraft” because the system shows a graphical range ring that indicates the aircraft range. Suiter further teaches generating and displaying multiple range rings concurrently on a single display by displaying the initial target radii calculated by the system and landing opportunities within calculated ranges ([0064] [0061]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitations of “generate a second range ring[[s]] based upon the second range[[s]] of the aircraft, wherein the second range ring[[s]] is a visual depiction[[s]] of the second range[[s]] of the aircraft; and display the first and second range rings on the display device” because the system displays multiple range rings at the same time on the display that provides multiple landing opportunities based on different conditions. Applying the concurrent range rings to the first and second ranges computed for the two condition sets yields the first and second range rings displayed together. Suiter’s display of multiple range rings confirms that rendering more than one range ring at once is within the ordinary skill.
Mast, Holder and Suiter are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of avionic range display systems and address the same problem of aircraft reach/capability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of Mast and Holder to provide the computed range rings concurrently on the display as taught by Suiter based on the motivation that the display of the range rings aids the pilot in making a decision and displaying the reachable ranges for a plurality of scenarios at once letting the pilot compare them, as explicitly detailed in Suiter “a pilot may opt to select on (or off) a graphical range ring indicating an engine out best glide range” ([0011]). This modification would predictably result in a configuration display in which a first range ring for a first user entered hypothetical condition set and a second range ring for a second user entered hypothetical condition set are generated and displayed, allowing the pilot to compare how the two condition sets affect the aircraft’s reach.
Regarding Claim 2, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 1. Mast and Holder does not explicitly teach the first and second range[[s]] rings of the aircraft are displayed as overlays on the display device.
However, Suiter teaches displaying a plurality of range rings as landing opportunities on a single Multi-Function Display (MFD) ([0061]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because rendering the first and second range rings concurrently as circles on the MDF image displays them as overlays. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combined system of Mast and Holder to provide the computed range rings as concurrent overlays on the display as taught by Suiter based on the motivation that the display of the range rings aids the pilot in making a decision and displaying the reachable ranges for a plurality of scenarios at once letting the pilot compare them. This modification would predictably result in an interface in which the first and second range rings appear as overlays on the display device.
Regarding Claim 3, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 1. Mast further teaches calculate a current range of the aircraft based upon a current flight condition, wherein the current flight condition is based upon the aircraft data (Computes the current glide range from the current flight conditions (headwinds and maneuvers); [0078]);
generate a visual depiction of the current range of the aircraft (Generates the glide range ring visualization; [0084]); and
display the visual depiction of the current range of the aircraft on the user interface within the display device (Displays the range ring on the MFD; [0033] [0066]).
Regarding Claim 4, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 3. Mast further teaches the current flight condition includes an indication of whether an engine is inoperative (Flight guidance system provides avionics data including engine status which detects when an engine out or an engine is inoperative occurs; [0025]).
Regarding Claim 5, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 1. Mast does not explicitly teach the first user configuration input and the second user configuration input include[[s]] a landing gear configuration, an aircraft wing configuration, an altitude, and/or an airspeed.
However, Holder teaches receiving a user configuration input from a pilot considering modifying or altering the operation of the aircraft by manually inputting one or more query parameters (speed, altitude, arrival time, or the like) entered via user input device ([0016] [0030]). Holder further teaches receiving a second, different user configuration input, where the pilot specifies different ranges of values for different input query parameters ([0051]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of “the first user configuration input and the second user configuration input include[[s]] a landing gear configuration, an aircraft wing configuration, an altitude” because the pilot specifies different values for the input query parameters, a second set of user conditions distinct from the first. Furthermore, if Holder’s disclosure were characterized as modifying a single query rather than a whole separate configuration input, receiving a second set of user conditions and computing a second range is a repeated application of the same operation ([0016] [0030] [0033]); applying that known technique a second time to obtain a second range would yield predictable results of a second range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of the pilot inputting query parameters of speed and altitude as taught by Holder based on the motivation to enable the pilot to evaluate the aircraft’s range under a specified altitude and airspeed, as explicitly stated by Holder “a particular speed and/or altitude at a particular waypoint.” ([0016]). This modification would predictably result in a system in which the pilot’s entered hypothetical configuration input would comprise of an altitude and/or airspeed where the range is computed.
Regarding Claim 6, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 1. Mast further teaches generate a visual depiction of waypoint markers, wherein the waypoint markers are indicative of landing sites; and display the visual depiction of the waypoint markers on the user interface within the display device (Triangles are used as airport waypoint markers indicative of landing sites and displayed on the MFD; [0069]).
Regarding Claim 7, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 6. Mast further teaches
the visual depiction of the waypoint markers are displayed as overlays in relation to the visual depiction of the first and second range rings on the display device (The waypoint markers and the range ring are on the same INAV/MFD map; FIGS. 7-9 [0069] [0066]).
Regarding Claim 8, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 1. Mast further teaches the first range ring of the aircraft is a glide ring corresponding to the first user configuration input and/or aircraft data indicating a zero-thrust condition (The range ring is a glide ring and the aircraft data indicates an engine-out signal for a zero-thrust condition; [0084] [0030]).
Regarding Claim 9, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 8. Mast does not explicitly teach the first set of hypothetical aircraft conditions and/or configurations is a preset category representing a predefined aircraft status.
However, Holder discloses that the user selects the query parameters from selectable fixed preset categories including input query parameters that corresponds to the aircraft’s current operating state ([0030] [0051]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the user is able to select fixed preset parameters from a drop-down/radio-button which includes maintaining the current operating state configuration. In the applicant’s own specification, a “predefined aircraft status” includes the “current flight conditions, wherein all the aircraft parameters and aircraft configuration elements are input as per the current status of the aircraft” ([0019]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of selecting query parameters from a selectable fixed preset categories that includes the aircraft’s current operating state as taught by Holder based on the motivation to reduce the pilot’s workload by selecting preset categories that represent predefined aircraft status rather than manually entering every parameter. This modification would predictably result in a user interface in which the first hypothetical set is selected from a preset category representing a predefined aircraft status.
Regarding Claim 10, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 1. Mast does not explicitly teach the second set of hypothetical aircraft conditions and/or configurations is a preset category representing a predefined aircraft status.
However, Holder discloses that the user selects the query parameters from selectable fixed preset categories including input query parameters that corresponds to the aircraft’s current operating state ([0030] [0051]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitation because the user is able to select fixed preset parameters from a drop-down/radio-button which includes maintaining the current operating state configuration. In the applicant’s own specification, a “predefined aircraft status” includes the “current flight conditions, wherein all the aircraft parameters and aircraft configuration elements are input as per the current status of the aircraft” ([0019]). Furthermore, if Holder’s disclosure were characterized as modifying a single query rather than a whole separate configuration input, receiving a second set of user conditions and computing a second range is a repeated application of the same operation ([0016] [0030] [0033]); applying that known technique a second time to obtain a second range would yield predictable results of a second range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of selecting query parameters from a selectable fixed preset categories that includes the aircraft’s current operating state as taught by Holder based on the motivation to reduce the pilot’s workload by selecting preset categories that represent predefined aircraft status rather than manually entering every parameter. This modification would predictably result in a user interface in which the second hypothetical set is selected from a preset category representing a predefined aircraft status.
Regarding Claim 11, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 1. Mast further teaches the display device is housed within a cockpit of the aircraft and is viewable by an aircraft operator (The display device is carried into the aircraft cockpit and is viewable by the pilot; [0032]).
Regarding Claim 12, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 1. Mast does not explicitly teach the hypothetical aircraft conditions can include icing conditions.
However, Holder discloses icing among the conditions affecting aircraft operation that the system obtains and accounts for ([0027]). Holder establishes that icing is a known aircraft condition that bears on the aircraft’s operation and reach. The input by the user entering the hypothetical aircraft conditions is already supported in claim 1 and that icing, a known condition, can be one of those user entered hypothetical conditions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the base system to include icing as a hypothetical condition that the pilot can enter based on the motivation to allow the pilot to evaluate the aircraft’s range under icing conditions. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results where Holder recognizes icing conditions and the user-input and range computation from Mast. This modification would predictably result in a system in which the pilot may enter icing as one of the hypothetical conditions for computing and displaying a range ring.
Regarding Claim 13, Mast teaches a method for generating and displaying one or more range rings on an aircraft (Flight guidance system to display glide range ring of the aircraft; [0022]), the method comprising:
receiving aircraft data from an aircraft avionics system of the aircraft, the aircraft avionics system being operably connected to a communication device (Flight parameter sensors supplying aircraft data to the controller architecture and the controller architecture connected to the datalink subsystem; FIG. 1 [0025] [0030]);
calculating a…range of the aircraft based upon the…aircraft data (Computes the range from configuration and aircraft data; [0079]);
calculating a…range of the aircraft based upon the…aircraft data (Computes the range from configuration and aircraft data; [0079]);
generating a…range ring based upon the…range of the aircraft, wherein the…range ring is a visual depiction of the…range of the aircraft (Generating and displaying a range ring as a visual depiction of the glide range; [0084]);
Mast does not explicitly teach receiving a first user configuration input via a user interface of a display device, wherein the first user configuration input comprises a first set of hypothetical aircraft conditions and/or configurations; receiving a second user configuration input via the user interface of the display device, wherein the second user configuration input comprises a second set of hypothetical aircraft conditions and/or configurations; calculating a first range[[s]] of the aircraft based upon the first user configuration input and the aircraft data; and calculating a second range of the aircraft based upon the second user configuration input and the aircraft data.
However, Holder discloses a cockpit capability display system in which the pilot enters prospective query parameters and the system computes the corresponding capabilities for that input. Holder teaches receiving a first user configuration input from a pilot considering modifying or altering the operation of the aircraft by manually inputting one or more query parameters (speed, altitude, arrival time, or the like) entered via user input device ([0016] [0030]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of “receiving a first user configuration input via a user interface of a display device, wherein the first user configuration input comprises a first set of hypothetical aircraft conditions and/or configurations” because the pilot enters a set of parameters to the user interface in which the aircraft has not yet achieved, equivalent to a hypothetical condition. Holder further teaches receiving a second, different user configuration input, where the pilot specifies different ranges of values for different input query parameters ([0051]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of “receiving a second user configuration input via the user interface of the display device, wherein the second user configuration input comprises a second set of hypothetical aircraft conditions and/or configurations” because the pilot specifies different values for the input query parameters, a second set of user conditions distinct from the first. Furthermore, if Holder’s disclosure were characterized as modifying a single query rather than a whole separate configuration input, receiving a second set of user conditions and computing a second range is a repeated application of the same operation ([0016] [0030] [0033]); applying that known technique a second time to obtain a second range would yield predictable results of a second range. Holder further teaches calculating potential trajectories defining the capability envelope that satisfies the input query parameters based on the aircraft’s operating status and environmental conditions ([0033]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitations “calculating a first/second range of the aircraft based upon the first/second user configuration input” because the system computes the aircraft’s trajectory capability for the user input given the current operating status, applying the same computation to the second input set yields the claimed second range.
Mast and Holder are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of range display systems and address the same problem of providing situational awareness of aircraft reach/capability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mast’s range ring system to incorporate the teachings of the pilot’s input prospective condition parameters as taught by Holder based on the motivation that the pilot obtains a range for a hypothetical condition set. Holder teaches the pilot manually entering one or more query parameters such as a particular speed and/or altitude at a particular waypoint ([0016]) are the same flight parameters from which Mast computes its glide range ([0031] [0079-0083]). The modification of the pilot’s prospective speed/altitude for the input to Mast’s range computation would predictably result in a system that computes a range of the aircraft from a user entered hypothetical condition set and aircraft data.
Mast and Holder does not explicitly teach generating a first range ring based upon the first range of the aircraft, wherein the first range ring is a visual depiction of the first range of the aircraft; generating a second range ring[[s]] based upon the second range[[s]] of the aircraft, wherein the second range ring[[s]] is a visual depiction[[s]] of the second range[[s]] of the aircraft; and displaying the one or more first and second range rings on the display device.
However, Suiter discloses a flight assistant with automatic configuration and landing site selection that generates range rings on a display. Suiter teaches visually depicting range rings of an aircraft range ([0011]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of “generating a first range ring based upon the first range of the aircraft, wherein the first range ring is a visual depiction of the first range of the aircraft” because the system shows a graphical range ring that indicates the aircraft range. Suiter further teaches generating and displaying multiple range rings concurrently on a single display by displaying the initial target radii calculated by the system and landing opportunities within calculated ranges ([0064] [0061]). These teachings are equivalent to the claimed limitations of “generating a second range ring[[s]] based upon the second range[[s]] of the aircraft, wherein the second range ring[[s]] is a visual depiction[[s]] of the second range[[s]] of the aircraft; and display the first and second range rings on the display device” because the system displays multiple range rings at the same time on the display that provides multiple landing opportunities based on different conditions. Applying the concurrent range rings to the first and second ranges computed for the two condition sets yields the first and second range rings displayed together. Suiter’s display of multiple range rings confirms that rendering more than one range ring at once is within the ordinary skill.
Mast, Holder and Suiter are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of avionic range display systems and address the same problem of aircraft reach/capability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of Mast and Holder to provide the computed range rings concurrently on the display as taught by Suiter based on the motivation that the display of the range rings aids the pilot in making a decision and displaying the reachable ranges for a plurality of scenarios at once letting the pilot compare them, as explicitly detailed in Suiter “a pilot may opt to select on (or off) a graphical range ring indicating an engine out best glide range” ([0011]). This modification would predictably result in a configuration display in which a first range ring for a first user entered hypothetical condition set and a second range ring for a second user entered hypothetical condition set are generated and displayed, allowing the pilot to compare how the two condition sets affect the aircraft’s reach.
Regarding Claim 14, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 13. Mast and Holder does not explicitly teach the first and second range rings of the aircraft are displayed as overlays on the display device.
However, Suiter teaches displaying a plurality of range rings as landing opportunities on a single Multi-Function Display (MFD) ([0061]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation because rendering the first and second range rings concurrently as circles on the MDF image displays them as overlays. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combined system of Mast and Holder to provide the computed range rings as concurrent overlays on the display as taught by Suiter based on the motivation that the display of the range rings aids the pilot in making a decision and displaying the reachable ranges for a plurality of scenarios at once letting the pilot compare them. This modification would predictably result in an interface in which the first and second range rings appear as overlays on the display device.
Regarding Claim 15, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 13. Mast further teaches calculating a current range of the aircraft based upon a current flight condition, wherein the current flight condition is based upon the aircraft data (Computes the current glide range from the current flight conditions (headwinds and maneuvers); [0078]);
generating a visual depiction of the current range of the aircraft (Generates the glide range ring visualization; [0084]); and
displaying the visual depiction of the current range of the aircraft on the user interface within the display device (Displays the range ring on the MFD; [0033] [0066]).
Regarding Claim 16, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 15. Mast further teaches the current flight condition includes an indication of whether an engine is inoperative (Flight guidance system provides avionics data including engine status which detects when an engine out or an engine is inoperative occurs; [0025]).
Regarding Claim 17, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 13. Mast does not explicitly teach the first user configuration input and the second user configuration input include[[s]] a landing gear configuration, an aircraft wing configuration, an altitude, and/or an airspeed.
However, Holder teaches receiving a user configuration input from a pilot considering modifying or altering the operation of the aircraft by manually inputting one or more query parameters (speed, altitude, arrival time, or the like) entered via user input device ([0016] [0030]). Holder further teaches receiving a second, different user configuration input, where the pilot specifies different ranges of values for different input query parameters ([0051]). This teaching is equivalent to the claimed limitation of “the first user configuration input and the second user configuration input include[[s]] a landing gear configuration, an aircraft wing configuration, an altitude” because the pilot specifies different values for the input query parameters, a second set of user conditions distinct from the first. Furthermore, if Holder’s disclosure were characterized as modifying a single query rather than a whole separate configuration input, receiving a second set of user conditions and computing a second range is a repeated application of the same operation ([0016] [0030] [0033]); applying that known technique a second time to obtain a second range would yield predictable results of a second range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the base system to incorporate the teachings of the pilot inputting query parameters of speed and altitude as taught by Holder based on the motivation to enable the pilot to evaluate the aircraft’s range under a specified altitude and airspeed, as explicitly stated by Holder “a particular speed and/or altitude at a particular waypoint.” ([0016]). This modification would predictably result in a system in which the pilot’s entered hypothetical configuration input would comprise of an altitude and/or airspeed where the range is computed.
Regarding Claim 18, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 13. Mast further teaches generating a visual depiction of waypoint markers, wherein the waypoint markers are indicative of landing sites; and displaying the visual depiction of the waypoint markers on the user interface within the display device (Triangles are used as airport waypoint markers indicative of landing sites and displayed on the MFD; [0069]).
Regarding Claim 19, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 18. Mast further teaches the visual depiction of the waypoint markers are displayed as overlays in relation to the visual depiction of the one or more range rings on the display device (The waypoint markers and the range ring are on the same INAV/MFD map; FIGS. 7-9 [0069] [0066]).
Regarding Claim 20, Mast, Holder, and Suiter remains as applied above in claim 13. Mast further teaches the first range ring of the aircraft is a glide ring corresponding to the first user configuration input and/or aircraft data indicating a zero-thrust condition (The range ring is a glide ring and the aircraft data indicates an engine-out signal for a zero-thrust condition; [0084] [0030]) and
wherein the glide ring is indicative of how far the aircraft can glide based upon the first user configuration input and the aircraft data (Conveys to the pilot the glide range remaining distances; [0084]).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent, most relevant, to applicant's disclosure.
Price (US 6573841 B2)
Yochum (US 20160297540 A1)
Covington (US 8825237 B2)
Rahmes (US 8660716 B1)
Barraci (US 20130231803 A1)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8 and 9, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Mast fails to teach, disclose, or suggest at least “a first range ring based upon” “a first set of hypothetical aircraft conditions and/or conditions” and “a second range ring based upon” “a second set of hypothetical aircraft conditions” as amended in claims 1 and 13. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Mast alone. The amended limitation is taught by the combination of Mast, Holder, and Suiter. Mast discloses a range ring system and computing the visualization of glide range from aircraft data ([0084] [0082]). Holder discloses the user configuration input of hypothetical condition sets where the pilot “a pilot considering whether to modify or alter future operation of the aircraft at his or her own volition may manually input one or more query parameters that the pilot would like to satisfy (e.g., a particular speed and/or altitude at a particular waypoint, a particular arrival time at a particular waypoint, a particular amount of fuel remaining at a particular waypoint, and/or the like)” ([0016]), entered through GUI elements such as “one or more combo boxes, text boxes, list boxes, drop-down menus, radio buttons or other GUI elements that allow the user to identify what parameters are to be utilized for a capability query (e.g., speed, altitude, a waypoint or other navigational reference point or geographic location, fuel burn, arrival time, etc.) along with the desired values (or range thereof) for the selected parameters to be satisfied by the aircraft 102.” ([0030]). Holder further teaches that the pilot may “modify the input query parameters” to define different queries ([0051]), supporting a first and a second condition set. Suiter discloses a range ring and the display of plural range rings on a cockpit display “display landing opportunities within ranges (Rl, RP1, RP2) as circles (ellipses) on an aircraft's Multi-Function Display (MFD) or the like.” ([0061]) and “Onboard display unit 700 also displays initial target radii calculated by the system for immediate landing 222, landing as soon as possible 220, and landing as soon as practicable 218, as well as a no-wind opportunity radius 214.” ([0064]).
Applicant argues that Mast fails to teach, disclose, or suggest each and every element set forth in amended independent claims 1 and 13. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Mast alone. The amended limitation is taught by the combination of Mast, Holder, and Suiter as stated above. Accordingly, the claims remain rejected based on a new ground of rejection necessitated by the amended claims.
Conclusion
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 EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON whose telephone number is (571)272-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/EDWARD ANDREW IZON DIZON/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights