DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the response filed on 4/27/2026.
Claims 1-17 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 3, 5-10, and 17 have been amended. Claim 1 is an independent claim.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites “select a set of astronomical objects and events (AOEs) from an AOEs database, wherein the selected set of AOEs satisfy a relevance rule to what is viewable by a passenger through a window of an aircraft based on the aircraft geographic location and heading”, which can be recognized as a concept that can be performed in the human mind (note the selection of a set of objects satisfying a certain criteria involving a certain location and heading and the knowledge of what is viewable by a passenger through a window based on that certain location and heading which is a judgement based on observations and/or evaluations) which falls within the “Mental Process” groupings of abstract ideas, but for the recitation of generic computer components (at least one network interface, at least one processor connected to communicate through the at least one network interface; and at least one memory). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the above-indicated limitation is merely an instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The recitation of generic computer components (at least one network interface, at least one processor …, and at least one memory) does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional elements of “obtain an aircraft geographic location and heading” and “communicate the selected set of AOEs to a display device to display an indication of the AOEs in the selected set of AOEs which are viewable by the passenger” amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data input/gathering and output and that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor, a network interface, and a memory to perform the determining steps described above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The “obtain …” and “communicate … to a display device to display …” steps are further considered well-understood, routine, and conventional in view of the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicating that mere gathering, collection or receipt/transmittal of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Neither can insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, these limitations, taken alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or recite significantly more that the abstract idea.
Thus, this independent claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims respectively recite additional limitations of: select(ing) different sets satisfying different relevance rules… (claims 2, 4, 7, 8, and 13), determine a point-of-interest location along the flight path (claim 8), generate a unique set of AOEs … (claims 7 and 8), determine an estimated time of arrival and time of departure along a flight path for viewing the solar eclipse or lunar eclipse (claim 10), determine a graphical indication of where the passenger can look out the window (claim 14). All of these additional limitations also constitute steps reciting concepts that can be performed in the human mind involving judgments based on observations and/or evaluations, which fall within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. Therefore, these dependent claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements of “obtain a flight path” (claims 4 and 8), “obtain a passenger's geographic home location and geographic destination location” (claim 7), “obtain orbital paths and timelines of Earth orbital AOEs …” (claim 13), “retrieve from the AOEs database textual and/or graphical information on characteristics of the selected one of the AOEs” (claim 12) ,“communicate with the display …” (claim 12), and “display …” (claims 14-17) all amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity related to data input/gathering and output as well as data presentation. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional “obtain(ing)”, “retriev(ing)”, and “communicat(ing)” steps are further considered well-understood, routine, and conventional in view of the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicating that mere gathering, collection or receipt/transmittal of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Mere insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional “display” steps are also further considered well-understood, routine, and conventional in view of the “Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) indicating that mere presentation or display is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Therefore, these limitations, taken alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or recite significantly more that the abstract idea.
Thus, these dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner Comments
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dame et al., US 2017/0134786 Al (hereinafter as Dame) in view of Stavaeus et al., US PGPUB 2008/0021636 Al (hereinafter as Stavaeus).
Regarding independent claim 1, Dame teaches an in-flight entertainment (IFE) system [note the system of fig. 1; note the in-flight entertainment in [0001]; see also [0041]] comprising:
at least one network interface [note the network connection shown in fig, 1; see the Ethernet switch in [0029] and the bus in [0041]];
at least one processor connected to communicate through the at least one network interface [note the processor in [0041]]; and
at least one memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor to perform operations [see [0041]] comprising to:
obtain an aircraft geographic location and heading [note in [0036]-[0037] obtaining the location of the aircraft and the direction and/or orientation (heading)];
select a set of astronomical objects and events (AOEs) from an AOEs database wherein the selected set of AOEs satisfy a relevance rule to what is viewable based on the aircraft geographic location [note in fig. 4, step 403 selecting a subset of content based on the aircraft location; note in [0020] the selection of content from a server storage and especially note the images of celestial objects; see also fig.3 A and [0033] indicating stars, moons, and/or planets]; and
communicate the selected set of AOEs to a display device to display an indication of the AOEs in the selected set of AOEs which are viewable [note in fig. 4, step 404 the display of the subset which follows a communication to display; note the instructions to display in [0029]; note the different display devices and displayed indications described in [0031]–[0036]].
Dame does not explicitly teach that satisfying the relevance rule to what is viewable is by a passenger through a window of an aircraft and is based on the aircraft heading.
Stavaeus teaches a relevance rule for selecting content based on what is viewable by a passenger through a window of an aircraft [see e.g. [0015]; [0034]; [0037]-[0038] and [0041] all indicating relevance based on a field of view of a passenger through a window] and based on the aircraft heading [note in [0026] utilizing the position and direction of the aircraft; note in [0015] and [0034]-[0038] and [0048] utilizing the direction and the window position and direction in relation to the aircraft heading direction in the selection of relevant landmarks].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Dame and Stavaeus before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Stavaeus’ relevance rule for selecting content based on what is viewable by a passenger through a window of an aircraft and based on the aircraft heading to the content selection rule taught by Dame. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to limit the content selection in a manner that is close to reality for each passenger thus making it more personalized and real, as suggested by Stavaeus [again see e.g. [0038] and [0041]].
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Dame further teaches selecting the set of AOEs from the AOE database that satisfy the relevance rule for what AOEs are viewable at the geographic location of the aircraft [note in [0020] selecting content based on the current location of the aircraft; see also fig. 4, step 403].
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. The combined art further teaches that the operation to select the set of AOEs from the AOE database, further comprises to:
estimate the passenger's field-of-view through a window based on the location of the passenger's seat in a direction across the aircraft and based on the aircraft geographic location and heading [note in [0036]-[0037] of Dame obtaining the location of the aircraft and the direction and/or orientation (heading); note also in [0026] of Stavaeus utilizing the position and direction of the aircraft; note in [0041] of Stavaeus the field of view through the window and note in [0015] and [0034]-[0038] and [0048] of Stavaeus the window position and the direction with respect to the aircraft affecting the selection of relevant landmarks]; and
select the set of AOEs from the AOE database that satisfy the relevance rule for what AOEs are viewable by the passenger with the estimated field-of-view [see portions cited for the previous limitation; see again fig. 4, step 404 of Dame and e.g. [0038] and [0080] of Stavaeus].
Refer to the rejection of claim 1 for motivations to combine.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Dame further teaches that selecting the set of AOEs from the AOE database further comprises to:
obtain a flight path of the aircraft [note in [0036] receiving flight path]; and
select the set of AOEs from the AOE database that satisfy the relevance rule for what AOEs will become viewable along the flight path of the aircraft [note also in [0036] receiving all the sets of images related to the flight trajectory, i.e. what will become viewable along the flight path].
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Dame further teaches displaying an image of the AOEs in the selected set on a ceiling of the aircraft with a projection device [note the projectors in [0023]; note the option of ceiling display in [0033] and fig. 3A; note the instruction to display the selected content e.g. in [0029]].
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Dame further teaches displaying an image of the AOEs in the selected set on a display unit in the aircraft [note the display screen option in [0023], [0032], and [0035]; note the instruction to display the selected content e.g. in [0029]].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dame in view of Stavaeus, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kneuper et al., US Patent No. 10,540,903 B2 (hereinafter as Kneuper).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Dame further teaches:
obtaining a flight path of the aircraft [note in [0036] receiving flight path]; and
selecting the set of AOEs and indications that satisfy the relevance rule for what AOEs will become viewable along the flight path [note also in [0036] receiving all the sets of images related to the flight trajectory, i.e. what will become viewable along the flight path; note in fig. 4, step 404 the display of the subset].
The previously combined art does not teach receiving a passenger input through a user interface of the display device displaying the flight path to move a virtual airplane along the flight path and determining changes to the selected set of AOEs and indication of the AOEs.
Kneuper teaches receiving a user input through a user interface of a display device displaying the flight path to move a virtual airplane along the flight path and determining changes to a selected set of features corresponding to the updated location of the virtual airplane [see fig. 6 and the description col. 11, lines 28-41 indicating a user input (on 418) through an interface that moves virtual airplane 420 along a flight path and determines corresponding changes in forecasted weather].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Kneuper before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kneuper’s teaching of receiving a user input through a user interface of a display device displaying the flight path to move a virtual airplane along the flight path and determining changes to a selected set of features corresponding to the updated location of the virtual airplane to the passenger display taught by Dame and the selection of corresponding sets of AOEs and indications taught by taught by Dame. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to allow passengers to have a visual simulation showing what objects then can expect to see along their flight, similar to the scenario of a pilot projecting forecasted weather representations along the flight path in the example given by Kneuper [see col. 11, lines 28-45].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dame in view of Stavaeus, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Garber, US PGPUB 2018/0118377 Al (hereinafter as Garber).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. The previously combined art teaches, as per the rejection of claim 1, selecting a set of astronomical objects and events (AOEs) from an AOEs database that satisfy a relevance rule to what is viewable by a passenger through a window of the aircraft; and communicating with the display device to display an indication of the AOEs in the selected set which are viewable by the passenger [See the rejection of claim 1].
The previously combined art does not teach obtaining orbital paths and timelines of Earth orbital AOEs from the AOEs database. Neither does it teach selecting a set of the Earth orbital AOEs that satisfy the relevance rule.
Garber teaches obtaining orbital paths and timelines of Earth orbital objects from a database; and selecting a set of the Earth orbital objects that satisfy a relevance rule [note in [0018] the objects with corresponding orbits and associated times; note from [0015] that positions of near-earth objects (NEO) are known at any given time; see the orbital paths in fig. 4 note the databases in [0021]; note the selection in [0022]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Garber before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dame’s framework to specify obtaining information of Earth orbital AOEs and selecting these objects, as per the teachings of Garber, as satisfying the relevance rules taught by Dame. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable rendezvousing of an aerial vehicle with a plurality of space objects such as NEO in the solar system, as suggested by Garber [see e.g. [0014]].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dame in view of Stavaeus, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Rakshit et al., US PGPUB 2020/0126276 Al (hereinafter as Rakshit).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
The previously combined art does not teach determining a graphical indication of where the passenger can look out the window; nor displaying the graphical indication of where the passenger can look out the window on a display device associated with the passenger.
Rakshit teaches determining a graphical indication of where a passenger can look out a window; and displaying the graphical indication of where the passenger can look out the window on a display device associated with the passenger [note e.g. in [0030] the visual indicator of an object of interest indicating a location a user can look out the window displayed on an AR display associated with the user; see also [0080] and fig. 4; note the icon 402 displayed at a location corresponding to a location of the actual object of interest (the police officer); note from [0054] and [0088] that the visual indicators can be displayed on a tablet computer used by a passenger].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Rakshit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dame’s framework to specify determining a graphical indication of where the passenger can look out the window; and displaying the graphical indication of where the passenger can look out the window on a display device associated with the passenger, as per the teachings of Rakshit. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to draw attention of the passenger to the object of interest, as suggested by Rakshit [again, see e.g. [0030]].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dame in view of Stavaeus, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Pujia et al., US PGPUB 2018/0234707 Al (hereinafter as Pujia).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Dame further teaches displaying an image of the AOEs in the selected set [note the instruction to display the selected content e.g. in [0029]].
The previously combined art does not explicitly teach displaying an image of the AOEs in the selected set on a passenger electronic device (PED) of the passenger.
Pujia teaches displaying content on a passenger electronic device (PED) of a passenger [see [0018]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of the previously combined art and Pujia before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dame’s display of an image of the AOEs in the selected set by explicitly specifying displaying it on a passenger electronic device (PED) of the passenger, as per the teachings of Pujia. The motivation for this obvious combination of teachings would be to enable offering content to a particular passenger in a personalized way through their own device, as suggested by Pujia [again see e.g. [0018]].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7, 8, 10, and 12 would also be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and also rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Claim amendments in view of the informalities as previously listed under the Claim Objections section have been considered and are accepted. Accordingly, these claim objections have respectfully been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that “The amended independent claim does not recite a concept that can be performed in the human mind. However, Appellant respectfully submits that the combination of steps to "select a set of astronomical objects and events (AOEs) from an AOEs database, wherein the selected set of AOEs that satisfy a relevance rule to what is viewable by a passenger through a window of an aircraft based on the aircraft geographic location and heading; and communicate the selected set of AOEs to with a display device to display an indication of the AOEs in the selected set of AOEs which are viewable by the passenger" cannot merely be performed in the human mind. These recitations of the claim expressly recite how the selected set of AOEs are selected and used. Thus, Appellant respectfully submits that "select a set of astronomical objects and events (AOEs) from an AOEs database, wherein the selected set of AOEs that satisfy a relevance rule to what is viewable by a passenger through a window of an aircraft based on the aircraft geographic location and heading; and communicate the selected set of AOEs to with a display device to display an indication of the AOEs in the selected set of AOEs which are viewable by the passenger" cannot merely be performed in the human mind.” [p. 2 of the Response to Office Action].
Examiner respectfully notes that the amended limitation “select a set of astronomical objects and events (AOEs) from an AOEs database, wherein the selected set of AOEs that satisfy a relevance rule to what is viewable by a passenger through a window of an aircraft based on the aircraft geographic location and heading” still recites a judicial exception since the selection of a set of objects satisfying a certain criteria involving a certain location and heading and the knowledge of what is viewable by a passenger through a window based on that certain location and heading is still a judgement based on knowledge, observations, and/or evaluations) which falls within the “Mental Process” groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitation involving communicating the selected set of AOEs to with a display device to display an indication of the AOEs in the selected set of AOEs which are viewable by the passenger amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output and that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the “communicating …” step is further considered well-understood, routine, and conventional in view of the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicating that mere receipt/transmittal of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, these amended limitations, taken alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or recite significantly more that the abstract idea.
Thus, Examiner respectfully reasserts the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of pending claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 12-17. Applicant is respectfully referred to the complete rejections reasserted and updated above for further details.
Applicant's prior art arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “The Office Action appears to be equating Dame's "subset of stored images/content" with "a set of AOEs from an AOEs database" of Claim 1. Dame's "content database" stores imagery (e.g., sky images), and Dame selects a subset of imagery for display. (Id.). Dame is not selecting a "set of astronomical objects and events" as objects/events, nor selecting them "from an AOEs database." Even where Dame mentions "moving map of celestial objects" in [0033], the described mechanism remains rendering/displaying imagery synchronized to location/trajectory-not producing a set/list of AOEs. Furthermore, amended Claim l's output is an "indication of the AOEs in the selected set. which are viewable." Whereas, Dame's output is the subset of images displayed on interior surfaces (e.g., a night sky image). (Id.).” [pp. 4-5 of the Response to Office Action].
Examiner respectfully notes that Dame clearly teaches selecting and displaying a subset of content (as in fig. 4) wherein the content comes from a content database 120, as described in [0020]. Examiner further notes that the Dame clearly teaches in [0020] that the content may comprise images of celestial objects which is an explicit example of a set of AOEs recited in the claim. Thus, Dame further teaches displaying a selected subset of the images of celestial objects which is an indication of the AOEs in the selected set of AOEs as required by the claim limitation. Thus, Examiner respectfully asserts that Dame clearly and sufficiently teaches this feature of amended independent claim 1.
Thus, Examiner respectfully reasserts the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dame in view of Stavaeus. Applicant is referred to the full and updated rejection, as presented above for further details.
The rejections of the dependent claims are also thus respectfully reasserted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner notes from the cited art:
US Patent No. 12165528 B2, which teaches which teaches displaying features of interest in association with a flight path [see e.g. figs. 5-12].
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 MARIA S AYAD whose telephone number is (571)272-2743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am - 4:30 pm. Alt, Friday, EST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/MARIA S AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights