DETAILED ACTION
*Note in the following document:
1. Texts in italic bold format are limitations quoted either directly or conceptually from claims/descriptions disclosed in the instant application.
2. Texts in regular italic format are quoted directly from cited reference or Applicant’s arguments.
3. Texts with underlining are added by the Examiner for emphasis.
4. Texts with
5. Acronym “PHOSITA” stands for “Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art”.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 21/30 recites the limitation "the operator" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is because the cited operator of the aircraft could be the pilot inside the aircraft or a remote operator of the aircraft. For compact examination purpose, the cited operator is interpreted as the pilot of the aircraft since the disclosure of the current application fails to disclose the existence of a remote operator.
Other dependent claims are rejected due to their dependency on their respective independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Independent Claim 21/30 is a software claim. However the software claimed in Claim 21 and 30 comprises a display device. The specification fails to disclose how a software which is a collection of instructions, data, or programs can comprise a display device which is a hardware element. Other dependent claims are rejected due to their dependency.
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 21-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 21-37 recite an avionic display software. A software is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer, the software itself is not a process and a claim for a software, without the computer-readable medium needed to realize the computer program's functionality, is treated as nonstatutory functional descriptive material since software per se is not capable of performing any function (See MPEP 2106).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-37 would be allowable if above 101 and 112 rejections are overcome through amendment.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art, either individually or in combination, fails to disclose or render obviousness the limitation of wherein the sky veil is rendered as a band stationary in the rendered image during roll of the aircraft; and wherein the sky veil is rendered at least partially transparent along a width thereof such that a width of a transparent region of the sky veil depends on a roll angle of the aircraft; and wherein the transparent region is further rendered along the width of the sky veil in such a position as to be indicative of the direction of the sky as claimed in independent Claim 21 and the limitation of when the roll angle satisfies a first condition, the distance satisfies a first relation with the roll angle and wherein, when the roll angle satisfies a second condition, the distance satisfies a second relation with the roll angle; and when the distance satisfies the first relation with the roll angle, the distance increases proportionally with the roll angle and, when the distance satisfies the second relation with the roll angle, the distance decreases proportionally with the roll angle as claimed in independent Claim 30. The closest prior art, Jain et al. (US 2013/0147823 A1), teaches or suggests all the limitations (Fig.1-6) cited by independent Claim 21/30 except above two limitation. It is not obvious for a PHOSITA to include above cited limitations to the sky veil of Jain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGCHUN HE whose telephone number is (571)270-7218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 MT.
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, Xiao M Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
/YINGCHUN HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613