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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application amendment filed December 20, 2025. Claims 1-9 & 11-20 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. IN202311086408, filed on December 18, 2023.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims submitted on December 20, 2025 overcome some of the prior art rejections and do not overcome some of the prior art rejections for the reasons below.
The drawing objection is overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-10, filed December 2, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2005/0012599 A1, to DeMatteo (newly of record).
Applicant's arguments filed December 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pg. 10-11 of the arguments, the applicant argues that Bates and Kathol does not disclose “an affirmative determination that the preset suggestion mode is available”. Particularly, Bates does not teach whether the “preset suggestion mode” is “available”. However, the examiner disagrees. The claim as-written is interpreted as a check as to whether or not there is a “profile” or preferences for the passenger. In the case of Bates, the invention determines the passenger in question via biographic or demographic information and displays the personalized display menu based on the travel profile (Bates Claim 1). This process of Bates has an inherent check (i.e. affirmative determination) that a profile or list of preferences exists based on the biographic or demographic information of the user. For these reasons, the rejection for this particular amended limitation is maintained.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 & 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0061471 A1, to Bates et al., (hereafter Bates) (previously of record) in view of US 2005/0012599 A1, to DeMatteo (newly of record).
Regarding Claim 1, as shown above, Raju discloses A system comprising:… one or more controllers communicatively coupled to the processors configured to execute a set of program instructions stored in a memory, the set of program instructions configured to cause the one or more processors to (Bates [0018]-[0020], Examiner Note: Bates discloses a computer (i.e. controller), 100, with memory, 103, and a processor, 101 which carries out program instructions, and a display screen, 152):
…activate the preset suggestion mode based on a user input of the suggestion mode activation area via the (Bates [0048], Examiner Note: Bates discloses that once a selection is made from the initial list (i.e. suggestions) (i.e. a user input of the suggestion mode activation area), the list is updated (i.e. preset suggestion mode is activated) to better fit the user (i.e. preferences));
wherein the activation of the preset suqqestion mode is further based on an affirmative determination that the preset suqqestion mode is available, wherein the affirmative determination that the preset suqqestion mode is available is based on a user identification (Bates [0027] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Bates discloses that the user must be identified (i.e. affirmative determination) before the specifically curated items (i.e. preset suggestion mode));
enable a selection of preset preferences based on the activation of the preset suggestion mode (Bates [0020], Examiner Note: Bates discloses the user’s choice then generating an updated list (i.e. preset preferences));
receive the preset preferences based on preset preference user input via the touchscreen display (Bates [0020], Examiner Note: Bates discloses the user being able to select from the initial list of choices (i.e. suggestions), updating the list (i.e. preferences));
receive aircraft data comprising at least flight data (Bates [0061], Examiner Note: Bates discloses the travel segments (i.e. flight data) being used to determine the list of suggestions and preferences);
generate, via a neural network, preset suggestions based on the preset preferences and the aircraft data (Bates [0041], Examiner Note: Bates discloses using neural network to generate predicted preference listings);
display the preset suggestions on the GUI (Bates [0027]-[0033] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Bates discloses a screen which shows the initial list suggestions to the user); and
direct [an action] based on the preset suggestions and at least one of 1) a user input acceptance of the preset suggestions or 2) an automatic acceptance of the preset suggestions (Bates [0020], Examiner Note: Bates discloses the user selecting a good or service of the initial list of suggestions)…
However, Bates does not specifically disclose a touchscreen display;… a suggestion mode activation area dedicated to activate a preset suggestion mode;…an adjustment of the cabin features, wherein the cabin features include at least one of: a window level of one or more window shades; temperature control systems; or a cabin lighting level of one or more lights.
DeMatteo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a touchscreen display (DeMatteo [0030] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: DeMatteo teaches a touchscreen display); a suggestion mode activation area dedicated to activate a preset suggestion mode; an adjustment of the cabin features, wherein the cabin features include at least one of: a window level of one or more window shades; temperature control systems; or a cabin lighting level of one or more lights (DeMatteo [0041], Examiner Note: DeMatteo teaches user profiles in which the user selects on the screen (i.e. area dedicated) which activates the custom user presets for air conditioning, music, and cabin lighting).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the system for providing customized entertainment or productivity options to passengers of Bates with the touchscreen display and selection of user comfort options of DeMatteo in order to provide reconfigurable displays to permit more than one display mode depending on the user (DeMatteo [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding Claim 2, Bates in view of DeMatteo teaches The system of Claim 1, wherein the preset suggestions are further based on the user identification corresponding and unique to the user (Bates [0027], Examiner Note: Bates discloses the predictive preference selections being based on specific user identification (e.g. Ms. Johnson)).
Regarding Claim 3, Bates in view of DeMatteo teaches The system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to train the neural network based on the preset preferences (Bates [0022], Examiner Note: Bates discloses the neural network learning based on patterns or relationships with passengers and their traits).
Regarding Claim 4, Bates in view of DeMatteo teaches The system of Claim 1, wherein the GUI comprises a preset display area (Bates [0027] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Bates discloses a display menu of items on the display screen which is selectable).
Regarding Claim 5, Bates in view of DeMatteo teaches The system of Claim 4, wherein the preset display area comprises the suggestion mode activation area (Bates [0027]-[0033] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Bates discloses a screen which shows the initial list suggestions to the user).
Regarding Claim 6, Bates in view of DeMatteo teaches The system of Claim 1, wherein the aircraft data further comprises occupancy data based on occupancy sensors configured to sense the user in the aircraft cabin and to associate the user with a user identification (Bates [0020], Examiner Note: Bates discloses determining whether a seat is occupied (i.e. occupancy data from occupancy sensors) and whether the passenger is seated in the assigned seat (i.e. user identification)).
Regarding Claim 11, Bates in view of DeMatteo teaches The system of Claim 1, wherein the aircraft data further comprises aircraft usage data (Bates [0020], Examiner Note: Bates discloses aircraft data which includes passenger data including whether seats are occupied or assigned (i.e. usage data)).
Regarding Claim 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 2. Therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 3. Therefore, claim 14 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 4. Therefore, claim 15 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 5. Therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 6. Therefore, claim 17 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
Claims 7-9 & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0061471 A1, to Bates et al., (hereafter Bates) (previously of record) in view of US 2005/0012599 A1, to DeMatteo (newly of record) as applied to claims 1 & 12 above, and further in view of US 2021/0362874 A1, to Gunaratnage et al. (hereafter Gunaratnage) (previously of record).
Regarding Claim 7, Bates in view of DeMatteo teaches The system of Claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the GUI comprises a feature list area configured to list the cabin features.
Gunaratnage, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the GUI comprises a feature list area configured to list the cabin features (Gunaratnage [0003], Examiner Note: Gunaratnage teaches a GUI which incorporates touch areas for cabin features such as lighting or inflight entertainment systems).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the system for providing customized entertainment or productivity options to passengers of Bates in view of DeMatteo with the cabin feature list area in order to provide passengers with convenient access to cabin controls (Gunaratnage [0002]).
Regarding Claim 8, Bates in view of DeMatteo teaches The system of Claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the GUI comprises a default preset list area and a custom preset list area.
Gunaratnage teaches wherein the GUI comprises a default preset list area (Gunaratnage [0003], Examiner Note: Gunaratnage teaches a GUI which incorporates touch areas for cabin features such as lighting or inflight entertainment systems) and a custom preset list area (Gunaratnage [0020], Examiner Note: Gunaratnage teaches a graphical representation (i.e. area) that can be used to allow for a degree of customization and restructuring by the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the system for providing customized entertainment or productivity options to passengers of Bates in view of DeMatteo with the custom cabin feature list area in order to provide passengers with convenient access to cabin controls (Gunaratnage [0002]).
Regarding Claim 9, Bates in view of DeMatteo teaches, The system of Claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the GUI comprises a cabin image area comprising a visual representation of the cabin features.
Gunanaratnage teaches wherein the GUI comprises a cabin image area comprising a visual representation of the cabin features (Gunanaratnage Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Gunanaratnage teaches a display with visual representations of features such as lighting and audio levels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the system for providing customized entertainment or productivity options to passengers of Bates in view of DeMatteo with the visual cabin feature display in order to provide passengers with convenient access to cabin controls (Gunaratnage [0002]).
Regarding Claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 7, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 7. Therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 8, and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 8. Therefore, claim 19 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 9, and it has been determined that claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 9. Therefore, claim 20 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 9.
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 MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached on (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MICHAEL TYLER EVAN DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666