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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In an amendment filed 02/09/2026, claims 1, 9 and 11 have been amended, and claims 13-21 have been cancelled. Currently, claims 1-12 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: there is lack of antecedent basis for the recitation “said object”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 3 and 11 presents the same issues if/after the outstanding objections for claims 1 and 9 are corrected.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 20220051585 A1), further in view of Frey et al. (US 20250208619 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Robinson teaches an augmented reality system for a pilot in a cockpit of an aircraft flying in real airspace, said aircraft having a geospatial location, and orientation in said real airspace at a given moment, (Para 49, 140-149.)
a computer content presentation system for generating virtual airspace corresponding to said real airspace and at least one virtual object in said virtual airspace, said object having a geospatial location in said virtual airspace, said object's geospatial location in said virtual airspace being independent of said aircraft's geospatial location in said real airspace; (Para 41, 150-171.)
a screen through which said pilot has a field of view of said real airspace outside of said aircraft; a display configured to cause virtual content comprising an image of a portion of said virtual airspace corresponding to said field of view of said real airspace to overlay said field of view of said real airspace, wherein said object is displayed based on its geospatial location in said virtual airspace independent of said geospatial location of said aircraft in said real airspace such that said view shows said virtual object from a perspective consistent with said aircraft's geospatial location and orientation in said real airspace;. (Para 41, 150-171.)
However Robinson does not teach and wherein said object is based on ADS-B data received from a source external to said augmented reality system.
However Frey teaches wherein said object is based on ADS-B data received from a source external to said augmented reality system. (Para 134)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Robinson with Frey to teach wherein said object is based on ADS-B data received from a source external to said augmented reality system in order to produce the predictable result of training with the augmented reality system by monitoring the movement of other aircrafts using ADS-B.
Regarding claim 2, Robinson and Frey already teach the augmented reality system of claim 1,
And Robinson further teaches wherein said third party data comprises at least one of automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B), airborne warning and control system (AWACS) data, map/terrain data, weather data, taxiing data, jamming signal map/data, electromagnetic map data, or intelligence data. (Para 199)
Regarding claim 3, Robinson and Frey already teach the augmented reality system of claim 1,
And Robinson further teaches wherein said virtual content comprises said speed of said object, and orientation of said object in said geospatial location. (Para 41, 141-171.)
Regarding claim 4, Robinson and Frey already teach the system of claim 1,
And Robinson further teaches wherein said display comprises at least one of a head-mounted display (HMD), eyeglasses, Head-Up Display (HUD), smart contact lenses, a virtual retinal display, an eye tap, a Primary Flight Display (PFD) and a cockpit glass. (Para 163)
Regarding claim 5, Robinson and Frey already teach the augmented reality system of claim 4,
And Robinson further teaches wherein said display is a see-through display. (Para 163)
Regarding claim 6, Robinson and Frey already teach the augmented reality system of claim 5,
And Robinson further teaches wherein said system comprises a helmet worn by said pilot, said helmet comprising said display. (Para 163)
Regarding claim 9, refer to rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, refer to rejection for claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, refer to rejection for claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, refer to rejection for claim 4.
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 20220051585 A1), in view of Frey et al. (US 20250208619 A1), further in view of Landers (US 20220114906 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Robinson and Frey already teach the augmented reality system of claim 6, However Robinson and Frey do not teach further comprising a helmet position sensor system configured to determine a location and orientation of said helmet within said cockpit.
However Landers teach comprising a helmet position sensor system configured to determine a location and orientation of said helmet within said cockpit. (Para 469)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Robinson and Frey with Landers to teach a helmet position sensor system configured to determine a location and orientation of said helmet within said cockpit in order further enhance the function of the head mounted display.
Regarding claim 8, Robinson, Frey and Landers already teach the augmented reality system of claim 7,
And Landers further teaches wherein said representation is displayed on said display relative also to said location and orientation of said helmet in said cockpit. (Para 489-490)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/HANG LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626