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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1-45 are currently pending.
2. Claims 1, 6, 12, 15, 20, 26, 31, 36, and 42 are currently amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 7/3/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
9. Claims 1-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortenbaugh (US 9216816 B2), in view of List (US 20240124152 A1), and in further view of Pennell (US 20140232568 A1).
10. Regarding Claim 1, Fortenbaugh teaches a method of dynamically moving graphical elements of a user interface of a flight control system, the method comprising (Fortenbaugh: [Column 2, Lines 26-30]):
Determining aircraft authority limits based on at least one state signal indicating an aircraft state, wherein the aircraft authority limits indicate an extent to which one or more control signals can command an aircraft (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18] and [Column 5, Lines 29-33]);
Determining one or more proximities between the aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority limits (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 11-13], [Column 4, Lines 59-76; Column 5, Lines 1-6], and [Column 5, Lines 55-58] Note that displaying the actuator positioning relative to the control limits of the aircraft is equivalent determining the proximities between the aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority. Also, note the determination of proximities of aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority limits is equivalent to the symbol 405 displayed relative to the control limits 409 and impending hazardous conditions in Figs. 4A-4C.);
And automatically moving the graphical elements of the user interface to one or more positions on the user interface based on the determined one or more proximities… and wherein a first set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a first inceptor (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 1-5], [Column 4, Lines 41-48], and [Column 5, Lines 58-60] Note that morphing the envelope is equivalent to automatically moving the graphical elements of the user interface based on determined proximities.).
Fortenbaugh fails to explicitly teach wherein the determined one or more proximities indicate an amount of available authority the aircraft has in one or more actuation axes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, List teaches wherein the determined one or more proximities indicate an amount of available authority the aircraft has in one or more actuation axes (List: [0045] and [0050] Note that Figs. 2A and 2B indicate an amount of available authority the aircraft has in one or more actuation axes. The input 124 is rendered on the display so the pilot can determine the proximity to a limited aircraft authority in a specific axis (pitch, roll, yaw, lift indicated by 208a-d). The cross hatching indicates the limitation for the aircraft authority (120) and the solid section indicates the aircraft input (124). Comparing 120 and 124 is equivalent to determining the proximity between the aircraft authority limit and the aircraft state (e.g., yaw).).
Fortenbaugh and List are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fortenbaugh to incorporate the teachings of List to indicate an amount of available authority the aircraft has in an actuation axis because it provides the benefit of increasing awareness for the pilots of the aircraft. This provides the additional benefit of increased safety for the aircraft and passengers to avoid over-commanding the aircraft to a state that is not safe based on the current state and environment of the aircraft.
Fortenbaugh and List discloses the claimed invention except for a second set of one or more graphical elements is associated with a second inceptor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to render a second set of one or more graphical elements associated with the second inceptor, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor aircraft control, Pennell teaches wherein a first set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a first inceptor and a second set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a second inceptor (Pennell: [0099], [0110], and [0117]).
Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fortenbaugh and List to incorporate the teachings of Pennell to include a second set of one or more graphical elements associated with a second inceptor because it provides the benefit of increasing awareness for the pilots in order to control the aircraft within the limits of multiple systems, as explained in [0133].
47. Regarding Claim 2, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Pennell teaches receiving, via one or more inceptors, the one or more control signals to control an aircraft; converting the one or more control signals to one or more actuator commands based at least in part on feedback received from one or more aircraft sensors; and outputting the one or more actuator commands to control the aircraft (Pennell: [0052] and [0054]).
48. Regarding Claim 3, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Pennell teaches converting the one or more control signals comprises: mapping the one or more control signals to one or more desired commands; and inputting the one or more desired commands into a control law algorithm (Pennell: [0055] and [0056]).
11. Regarding Claim 4, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches determining the aircraft authority limits is further based on one or more of: inverting a control allocation function; an engine status; envelope protection limits; a flight status; and one or more actuator commands (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18]).
12. Regarding Claim 5, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied above in Claim 4, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches inverting the control allocation function comprises solving one or more optimization problems based on one or more of: achieved forces; achieved moments; and actuator limits (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 49-52] and [Column 4, Lines 59-63]).
13. Regarding Claim 6, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches the first set of one or more graphical elements and the second set of one or more graphical elements graphical elements comprise: one or more polygons; and one or more points associated with the one or more polygons (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18] and [Column 4, Lines 41-48]).
14. Regarding Claim 7, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Pennell teaches each of the one or more polygons comprise: one or more outer polygons; and one or more inner polygons within the one or more outer polygons (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18], [Column 4, Lines 25-33], and [Column 4, Lines 41-48] Note that control limit 409 is equivalent to the outer polygons and regions 413 are equivalent to inner polygons within the outer polygons indicated by the dashed lines. Also, note that the dashed line 421 in Fig. 4C is equivalent to an inner polygon.).
15. Regarding Claim 8, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches the one or more polygons are rectangles (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18] and [Column 4, Lines 41-48] Note that the graphical element (aircraft control limit 209) is a rectangle.).
16. Regarding Claim 9, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches each side of each of the one or more polygons correspond to control limits of an actuation axis (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18]).
17. Regarding Claim 10, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied above in Claim 9, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches the actuation axis comprises one of: a longitudinal thrust axis; a vertical thrust axis; a lateral thrust axis; and a roll-, pitch-, or yaw-rate axis (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 6-13]).
18. Regarding Claim 11, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches a distance between one of the one or more points and a side of one of the one or more polygons corresponds to an amount of authority for control limits of a corresponding actuation axis (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 1-5], [Column 4, Lines 11-13], and [Column 4, Lines 14-18]).
19. Regarding Claim 12, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches the first set of one or more graphical elements and the second set of one or more graphical elements comprise: one or more closed curvilinear shapes; and one or more points associated with the one or more closed curvilinear shapes (Fortenbaugh: [Column 3, Lines 54-56] Note that the symbol (pipper) 405 is an oval which is equivalent to a closed curvilinear shape.).
20. Regarding Claim 13, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches the one or more closed curvilinear shapes are ovals (Fortenbaugh: [Column 3, Lines 54-56] Note that the symbol (pipper) 405 is an oval which is equivalent to a closed curvilinear shape.).
21. Regarding Claim 14, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches outputting an alert to a pilot of the aircraft when the one or more proximities exceed a predetermined threshold (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 25-33] and [Column 4, Lines 41-48] Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cueing the pilot to exercise caution by changing the flight envelope and displaying dashed lines to indicate when the aircraft is operating in impending hazardous conditions is equivalent to outputting an alert.).
22. Regarding Claim 15, Fortenbaugh teaches a system for dynamically moving graphical elements of a user interface of a flight control system, comprising (Fortenbaugh: [Column 2, Lines 26-30]):
Determining aircraft authority limits based on at least one state signal indicating an aircraft state, wherein the aircraft authority limits indicate an extent to which one or more control signals can command the aircraft (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18] and [Column 5, Lines 29-33]);
Determining one or more proximities between the aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority limits (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 11-13], [Column 4, Lines 59-76; Column 5, Lines 1-6], and [Column 5, Lines 55-58] Note that displaying the actuator positioning relative to the control limits of the aircraft is equivalent determining the proximities between the aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority. Also, note the determination of proximities of aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority limits is equivalent to the symbol 405 displayed relative to the control limits 409 and impending hazardous conditions in Figs. 4A-4C.);
And automatically moving the graphical elements of the user interface to one or more positions on the user interface based on the determined one or more proximities… and wherein a first set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a first inceptor (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 1-5], [Column 4, Lines 41-48], and [Column 5, Lines 58-60] Note that morphing the envelope is equivalent to automatically moving the graphical elements of the user interface based on determined proximities.).
Fortenbaugh fails to explicitly teach at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: wherein the determined one or more proximities indicate an amount of available authority the aircraft has in one or more actuation axes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, List teaches at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations comprising (List: [0084] and [0087]):
Wherein the determined one or more proximities indicate an amount of available authority the aircraft has in one or more actuation axes (List: [0045] and [0050] Note that Figs. 2A and 2B indicate an amount of available authority the aircraft has in one or more actuation axes. The input 124 is rendered on the display so the pilot can determine the proximity to a limited aircraft authority in a specific axis (pitch, roll, yaw, lift indicated by 208a-d). The cross hatching indicates the limitation for the aircraft authority (120) and the solid section indicates the aircraft input (124). Comparing 120 and 124 is equivalent to determining the proximity between the aircraft authority limit and the aircraft state (e.g., yaw).).
Fortenbaugh and List are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fortenbaugh to incorporate the teachings of List to indicate an amount of available authority the aircraft has in an actuation axis because it provides the benefit of increasing awareness for the pilots of the aircraft. This provides the additional benefit of increased safety for the aircraft and passengers to avoid over-commanding the aircraft to a state that is not safe based on the current state and environment of the aircraft.
Fortenbaugh and List discloses the claimed invention except for a second set of one or more graphical elements is associated with a second inceptor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to render a second set of one or more graphical elements associated with the second inceptor, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor aircraft control, Pennell teaches wherein a first set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a first inceptor and a second set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a second inceptor (Pennell: [0099], [0110], and [0117]).
Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fortenbaugh and List to incorporate the teachings of Pennell to include a second set of one or more graphical elements associated with a second inceptor because it provides the benefit of increasing awareness for the pilots in order to control the aircraft within the limits of multiple systems, as explained in [0133].
49. Regarding Claim 16, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Pennell teaches receiving, via one or more inceptors, the one or more control signals to control an aircraft; and converting the one or more control signals to one or more actuator commands based at least in part on feedback received from one or more aircraft sensors; and outputting the one or more actuator commands to control the aircraft (Pennell: [0052] and [0054]).
50. Regarding Claim 17, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Pennell teaches converting the one or more control signals comprises: mapping the one or more control signals to one or more desired commands; and inputting the one or more desired commands into a control law algorithm (Pennell: [0055] and [0056]).
23. Regarding Claim 18, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches determining the aircraft authority limits is further based on one or more of: inverting a control allocation function; an engine status; envelope protection limits; a flight status; and one or more actuator commands (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18]).
24. Regarding Claim 19, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remains as applied above in Claim 18, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches inverting the control allocation function comprises solving one or more optimization problems based on one or more of: achieved forces; achieved moments; and actuator limits (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 49-52] and [Column 4, Lines 59-63]).
25. Regarding Claim 20, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Fortenbaugh the first set of one or more graphical elements and the second set of one or more graphical elements comprise: one or more polygons; and one or more points associated with the one or more polygons (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18] and [Column 4, Lines 41-48]).
26. Regarding Claim 21, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remains as applied above in Claim 20, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches each of the one or more polygons comprise: one or more outer polygons; and one or more inner polygons within the one or more outer polygons (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18], [Column 4, Lines 25-33], and [Column 4, Lines 41-48] Note that control limit 409 is equivalent to the outer polygons and regions 413 are equivalent to inner polygons within the outer polygons indicated by the dashed lines. Also, note that the dashed line 421 in Fig. 4C is equivalent to an inner polygon.).
27. Regarding Claim 22, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remains as applied above in Claim 20, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches the one or more polygons are rectangles (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18] and [Column 4, Lines 41-48] Note that the graphical element (aircraft control limit 209) is a rectangle.).
28. Regarding Claim 23, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remains as applied above in Claim 20, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches each side of each of the one or more polygons correspond to control limits of an actuation axis (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18]).
29. Regarding Claim 24, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remains as applied above in Claim 23, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches the actuation axis comprises one of: a longitudinal thrust axis; a vertical thrust axis; a lateral thrust axis; and a roll-, pitch-, or yaw-rate axis (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 6-13]).
30. Regarding Claim 25, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remains as applied above in Claim 20, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches a distance between one of the one or more points and a side of one of the one or more polygons corresponds to an amount of authority for control limits of a corresponding actuation axis (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 1-5], [Column 4, Lines 11-13], and [Column 4, Lines 14-18]).
31. Regarding Claim 26, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches the first set of one or more graphical elements and the second set of one or more graphical elements comprise: one or more closed curvilinear shapes; and one or more points associated with the one or more closed curvilinear shapes (Fortenbaugh: [Column 3, Lines 54-56] Note that the symbol (pipper) 405 is an oval which is equivalent to a closed curvilinear shape.).
32. Regarding Claim 27, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remains as applied above in Claim 26, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches the one or more closed curvilinear shapes are ovals (Fortenbaugh: [Column 3, Lines 54-56] Note that the symbol (pipper) 405 is an oval which is equivalent to a closed curvilinear shape.).
33. Regarding Claim 28, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches the operations further comprise: outputting an alert to a pilot of the aircraft when the one or more proximities exceed a predetermined threshold (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 25-33] and [Column 4, Lines 41-48] Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cueing the pilot to exercise caution by changing the flight envelope and displaying dashed lines to indicate when the aircraft is operating in impending hazardous conditions is equivalent to outputting an alert.).
54. Regarding Claim 29, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Pennell teaches the aircraft state is based on at least two of: a sensor measurement, a response received from at least one actuator, and a signal from an input device (Pennell: [0050] and [0073]).
55. Regarding Claim 30, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Pennell teaches the aircraft state is based on at least two of: a sensor measurement, a response received from at least one actuator, and a signal from an input device (Pennell: [0050] and [0073]).
34. Regarding Claim 31, Fortenbaugh teaches a method of dynamically moving graphical elements of a user interface of a flight control system, the method comprising (Fortenbaugh: [Column 2, Lines 26-30]):
Determining aircraft authority limits based on at least one state signal indicating an aircraft state, wherein: the aircraft authority limits indicate an extent to which one or more control signals can command an aircraft… (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18] and [Column 5, Lines 29-33]),
Determining one or more proximities between the aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority limits (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 11-13], [Column 4, Lines 59-76; Column 5, Lines 1-6], and [Column 5, Lines 55-58] Note that displaying the actuator positioning relative to the control limits of the aircraft is equivalent determining the proximities between the aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority. Also, note the determination of proximities of aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority limits is equivalent to the symbol 405 displayed relative to the control limits 409 and impending hazardous conditions in Figs. 4A-4C.);
And automatically moving the graphical elements of the user interface to one or more positions on the user interface based on the determined one or more proximities… and wherein a first set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a first inceptor (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 1-5], [Column 4, Lines 41-48], and [Column 5, Lines 58-60] Note that morphing the envelope is equivalent to automatically moving the graphical elements of the user interface based on determined proximities.).
Fortenbaugh fails to explicitly teach the aircraft state includes at least one of: a force experienced by the aircraft, an orientation of the aircraft, a position of the aircraft, or a movement of the aircraft.
However, in the same field of endeavor, List teaches the aircraft state includes at least one of: a force experienced by the aircraft, an orientation of the aircraft, a position of the aircraft, or a movement of the aircraft (List: [0044] and [0045]).
Fortenbaugh and List are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fortenbaugh to incorporate the teachings of List for the aircraft state to include an orientation of the aircraft or force experienced by the aircraft because it provides the benefit of increasing awareness for the pilots of the aircraft to avoid over-commanding the aircraft to a state that is not safe. It would have been beneficial for the aircraft state to include an orientation of the aircraft or force experienced by the aircraft because the proximity to the aircraft authority limit can be compared in each axis based on the input.
Fortenbaugh and List discloses the claimed invention except for a second set of one or more graphical elements is associated with a second inceptor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to render a second set of one or more graphical elements associated with the second inceptor, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor aircraft control, Pennell teaches wherein a first set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a first inceptor and a second set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a second inceptor (Pennell: [0099], [0110], and [0117]).
Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fortenbaugh and List to incorporate the teachings of Pennell to include a second set of one or more graphical elements associated with a second inceptor because it provides the benefit of increasing awareness for the pilots in order to control the aircraft within the limits of multiple systems, as explained in [0133].
51. Regarding Claim 32, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remains as applied above in Claim 31, and further, Pennell teaches receiving, via one or more inceptors, the one or more control signals to control an aircraft converting the one or more control signals to one or more actuator commands based at least in part on feedback received from one or more aircraft sensors; and outputting the one or more actuator commands to control the aircraft (Pennell: [0052] and [0054]).
52. Regarding Claim 33, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remains as applied above in Claim 32, and further, Pennell teaches converting the one or more control signals comprises: mapping the one or more control signals to one or more desired commands; and inputting the one or more desired commands into a control law algorithm (Pennell: [0055] and [0056]).
35. Regarding Claim 34, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied as above in Claim 31, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches determining the aircraft authority limits is further based on one or more of: inverting a control allocation function; an engine status; envelope protection limits; a flight status; and one or more actuator commands (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18]).
36. Regarding Claim 35, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied as above in Claim 34, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches inverting the control allocation function comprises solving one or more optimization problems based on one or more of: achieved forces; achieved moments; and actuator limits (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 49-52] and [Column 4, Lines 59-63]).
37. Regarding Claim 36, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied as above in Claim 31, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches the first set of one or more graphical elements and the second set of one or more graphical elements comprise: one or more polygons; and one or more points associated with the one or more polygons (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18] and [Column 4, Lines 41-48]).
38. Regarding Claim 37, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied as above in Claim 36, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches each of the one or more polygons comprise: one or more outer polygons; and one or more inner polygons within the one or more outer polygons (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18], [Column 4, Lines 25-33], and [Column 4, Lines 41-48] Note that control limit 409 is equivalent to the outer polygons and regions 413 are equivalent to inner polygons within the outer polygons indicated by the dashed lines. Also, note that the dashed line 421 in Fig. 4C is equivalent to an inner polygon.).
39. Regarding Claim 38, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied as above in Claim 36, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches the one or more polygons are rectangles (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18] and [Column 4, Lines 41-48] Note that the graphical element (aircraft control limit 209) is a rectangle.).
40. Regarding Claim 39, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied as above in Claim 36, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches each side of each of the one or more polygons correspond to control limits of an actuation axis (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18]).
41. Regarding Claim 40, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied as above in Claim 39, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches the actuation axis comprises one of: a longitudinal thrust axis; a vertical thrust axis; a lateral thrust axis; and a roll-, pitch-, or yaw-rate axis (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 6-13]).
42. Regarding Claim 41, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied as above in Claim 36, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches a distance between one of the one or more points and a side of one of the one or more polygons corresponds to an amount of authority for control limits of a corresponding actuation axis (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 1-5], [Column 4, Lines 11-13], and [Column 4, Lines 14-18]).
43. Regarding Claim 42, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied as above in Claim 31, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches the first set of one or more graphical elements and the second set of one or more graphical elements comprise: one or more closed curvilinear shapes; and one or more points associated with the one or more closed curvilinear shapes (Fortenbaugh: [Column 3, Lines 54-56] Note that the symbol (pipper) 405 is an oval which is equivalent to a closed curvilinear shape.).
44. Regarding Claim 43, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied as above in Claim 42, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches the one or more closed curvilinear shapes are ovals (Fortenbaugh: [Column 3, Lines 54-56] Note that the symbol (pipper) 405 is an oval which is equivalent to a closed curvilinear shape.).
45. Regarding Claim 44, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied as above in Claim 31, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches outputting an alert to a pilot of the aircraft when the one or more proximities exceed a predetermined threshold (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 25-33] and [Column 4, Lines 41-48] Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cueing the pilot to exercise caution by changing the flight envelope and displaying dashed lines to indicate when the aircraft is operating in impending hazardous conditions is equivalent to outputting an alert.).
56. Regarding Claim 45, Fortenbaugh, List, and Pennell remain as applied as above in Claim 31, and further, Pennell teaches the aircraft state is based on at least two of: a sensor measurement, a response received from at least one actuator, and a signal from an input device (Pennell: [0050] and [0073]).
Response to Arguments
57. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-45 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Pennell (US 20140232568 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of a first and second set of graphical elements associated with a first and second inceptor in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0099], [0110], and [0117]. Pennell teaches a display that renders the aircraft limits for multiple systems.
58. Fortenbaugh (US 9216816 B2), in view of List (US 20240124152 A1), and in further view of Pennell (US 20140232568 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
59. Claims 1-45 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
60. 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.
61. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights