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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
The examiner received amendments to the claims and remarks/arguments dated 27 February 2026 in response to the non-final rejection office action dated 27 October 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding rejections”, “outstanding objections”, “prior office action”, and the like). No new matter was entered.
Regarding outstanding claim objections, the examiner notes that by way of amendment, all claim objections have been addressed and resolved. All outstanding claim objections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 18 for failing to claim appropriate structure of the apparatus, the examiner notes that applicant has amended the claim terminology to be consistent with disclosure verbiage and description. Regarding "aircraft piloting assistance device", the examiner notes that the term invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (detailed below) but due to the description given in Figure [1] and Paragraph [0075], a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is withheld. However, the "event management device" continues to not be adequately described with regards to structure. The examiner reviewed the specification and drawings and is still unable to definitively state what, exactly, is an "event management device". Merely describing that the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) term "comprises" an "event management device" does not enable a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand the physical structure of the invention. Analogous rationale applies to "event management device", "generation unit", and "notification classification and processing unit". Corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are found below.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 2 for "certified" and "non-certified", the examiner notes that while one of the instances of each term was removed, the others in claim 2 persist. As such, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 2 persists.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for "importance" and "urgency" of claim 10, the examiner notes that the terms now recite a "predefined" criteria, remedying the noted issue. Thus, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 10 is withdrawn.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for "environmental categories" of claim 11, the examiner notes that the problematic language has been removed. Thus, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 11 is withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 15 for "type", the examiner notes that the problematic language has been removed. Thus, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 15 is withdrawn.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 17, the examiner notes that claim 17 has been amended to prevent signals per se interpretation, now definitely reciting a "non-transitory computer readable storage device". Thus, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 17 is withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding prior art rejections (35 U.S.C. 102), the examiner first notes that arguments are moot as applicant has amended the claims. Further, the examiner considered applicant's arguments on pages 13-16 of the remarks dated 27 February 2026 but did not find them persuasive. Applicant argues on page 14 that the prior art is missing features of claim 1, providing a delineating note that "paragraphs [0066] and [0067] of VIAL deal with a simple example of displaying an electronic alert of the type "electronic notification". However, the notion of electronic notification in VIAL is quite different from the notion of notification as defined in the claim, in terms of structure, of data and of resulting technical processing". The examiner respectfully disagrees; the terminology utilized in the instant claims such as "metadata", "information", "datum", etc. are generic in nature, allowing interpretation under BRI to include the disclosure/teachings of the prior art. The instant claims do not currently differentiate between types of data to the point where the prior art does not read upon the instant claims. Further, applicant appears to argue for a particular order of steps, however the claims as recited in the instant claims do not limit the subject matter as such at this time. Applicant argues that the prior art lacks certain aspects (see page 15), however the examiner provided direct reference to the prior art sections that read upon the language of note. As an example, the teachings of the prior art are not, as apparently asserted by the applicant, mere display; Vial teaches that display is in response to a series of processing/evaluation steps (Paragraph [0020]). New grounds of rejection, necessitated by claim amendment, may be found below.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 27 February 2026. Claim 4 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 18 are independent claims. Claims 1-3 and 5-18 are pending and rejected, as noted further below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states "…generating at least one notification for each received suggestion as a function of said at least one of said at least one item of information…". The underlined portion contains grammatical errors.
Claim 1: Claim 1 now recites "…the processing step…" and "said notification processing step". The examiner notes that these phrases improperly reference prior steps, leading to a lack of antecedent basis.
Claims 1 and 18 recite a list of alternatives in the limitation "…wherein said timestamps comprise…" but prior to the final alternative, an Oxford comma is not present. The examiner recommends use of an Oxford comma to prevent lack of clarity as to what items may or may not be required.
Claim 18: Claim 18 now recites "…receive, from the event management device… , and wherein the aircraft piloting assistance comprises:". The examiner notes that the word "device" is missing from "aircraft piloting assistance device". The term "the aircraft piloting assistance" lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 18: Claim 18 now recites "…comprises a notification classification and processing unit configure to perform…", lacking "d" after "configure" to read as "…comprises a notification classification and processing unit configured to perform…".
Claim 18: Claim 18 now recites in the penultimate limitation "…in the processing operation…" and "in said notification processing operation". The examiner notes that the terms "processing operation" and "notification processing operation" were not previously established, leading to lack of antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
"aircraft piloting assistance device" - claim 18
"event management device" - claim 18
"generation unit" - claim 18
"notification classification and processing unit" - claim 18
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding "aircraft piloting assistance device", the examiner notes that paragraph [0075] and Figure [1] provide a basis for understanding.
Regarding "event management device", "generation unit", and "notification classification and processing unit", the examiner notes that neither the specification nor the drawings provides sufficient structure to convey to a person having ordinary skill in the art what the aforementioned components physically are. As such, a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for the aforementioned terms is provided below.
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 1-3, 5-18 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.
(1) Claim 18: Claim limitations “event management device”, “generation unit”, and “notification classification and processing unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The examiner notes that neither the specification nor the drawings provides sufficient structure to convey to a person having ordinary skill in the art what the aforementioned components physically are. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
(2) Claim 1: Claim 1 now recites in the penultimate limitation "…wherein a first class V corresponds to…and a second class W corresponds to…". As "a first class V" and "a second class W" were previously recited and initiated in the claim, the examiner is unsure if a second set of classes is now required. As it is unclear if the limitations introduce additional classes or if they improperly refer to the previously-initiated classes, the claim is rendered indefinite. Dependent claims continue to references the classes but do not appear to differentiate between the apparent two instances. As the dependent claims do not remedy the noted issue, all dependent claims are rejected as well due to dependency upon a rejected base claim.
(3) Claim 2: Claim 2 states "said systems of certified avionics and/or of non-certified avionics.." First, the terms lack antecedent basis, as "said" implies that the terms were previously utilized; however, the prior terms were removed via amendment. Second, the terms "certified avionics" and "non-certified avionics" are terms of relative degree. In consideration of the metes and bounds of the claim language, the examiner consulted the specification for guidance and found paragraph [0004], which discusses the rationale/characteristics of the aforementioned avionics systems. However, while the examiner appreciates the discussion of intent and examples, these do not appear to be explicit redefinitions, and "certification" is a term of relative degree. For example, a system may be "certified" by a certain maintenance entity but not by an oversight entity. Further, a system that is certified in one country may not be certified in another. Ultimately, the examiner is unsure as to what, exactly, may constitute a "certified" or "non-certified" system, even in light of the background given in the specification, the terms then render the claim indefinite. For prior art purposes, the examiner will consider any avionics system to read upon the claims.
Claim 3 depends upon claim 2 and does not remedy the noted issue; it is therefore rejected due to dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Therefore, the examiner notes that the above-noted phrases are indefinite and fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed above.
As all independent claims (1 and 18) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the dependent claims fail to remedy all noted issues, all pending claims (1-3, 5-18) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vial (US 2010/0145553 A1; hereinafter Vial).
Regarding independent claims 1 (method) and 18 (apparatus): Vial discloses An aircraft piloting assistance method for assisting piloting of an aircraft implemented in an aircraft piloting assistance device, comprising an event management device for generating mission adaptation suggestions from mission data sources, the aircraft piloting assistance device processing mission adaptation suggestions to assist the piloting of the aircraft, wherein the method comprises the following steps consisting in: (per claim 1) (As a preliminary note, recitation of “for assisting…” and “to assist…” recite an intended use, and the applicable phrases are not afforded significant patentable weight. Paragraph [0006, 0013-0017, 0053-0054, 0066-0068, 0071, 0080] and Figure [1-3], Vial discloses a method of processing events/faults of a device/system installed on an aircraft and determining consequences such as restrictions to configuration of the aircraft (a suggestion) received from management systems of the aircraft (current or future mission data)) / An aircraft piloting assistance device for assisting piloting of an aircraft comprising an event management device, said event management device being configured to generate mission adaptation suggestions from mission data sources, the aircraft piloting assistance device being configured to process said mission adaptation suggestions to assist the piloting of the aircraft, wherein the event management device is configured to (per claim 18) (As a preliminary note, recitation of “for assisting…” and “to assist…” recite an intended use, and the applicable phrases are not afforded significant patentable weight. Paragraph [0006, 0013-0017, 0053-0054, 0066-0068, 0071, 0080, 0130-0138], claim [9], and Figure [1-3, 11], Vial discloses a method of processing events/faults of a device/system installed on an aircraft and determining consequences such as restrictions to configuration of the aircraft (a suggestion) received from management systems of the aircraft (current or future mission data). Vial discloses that the method may be embodied in a physical architecture, comprising elements such as a CPU, memory, and interface (thus, a device))
receiving, from the event management device, at least one suggestion, said suggestion comprising at least one item of information and at least one datum related to a construction of said suggestion; (per claim 1) / receive, from the event management device, at least one suggestion, said suggestion comprising at least one item of information and at least one datum related to a construction of said suggestion, and wherein the aircraft piloting assistance comprises: (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0051-0054, 0069, 0071, 0080], Vial discloses detection of an event/fault and determining consequences/suggestions. The consequence/suggestion comprises configuration changes and/or mission restrictions and form such as a message)
generating at least one notification for each received suggestion as a function of said at least one of said at least one item of information, the notification comprising said suggestion and metadata structured from a metadata register, the metadata comprising one or more timestamps; and (per claim 1) / a generation unit configured to generate at least one notification for each received suggestion as a function of at least one of said at least one item of information, the notification comprising said suggestion and metadata, the metadata comprising one or more timestamps; and (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0053-0054, 0066-0069, 0071, 0080, 0093-0094] and Figure [5], Vial discloses generating a consequence/suggestion corresponding to the fault (constituting metadata). Further, the notifications contain date and time information (thus, a timestamp))
storing said at least one notification in a notifications memory; (per claim 1) / a notifications memory configured to store said at least one notification; (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0053, 0059, 0100-0101, 0132], Vial discloses that the potential consequences of an event are stored in memory)
the method further comprising at least one iteration of the following steps: (per claim 1) / wherein the aircraft piloting assistance device further comprises a notification classification and processing unit configure to perform one or more iterations of the following operations consisting in: (per claim 18) (The examiner first notes that the “units” may reasonably be lines of code, cores of a processor, etc., and as such, any portion of the system of Vial that discloses the steps may read upon this language. Paragraph [0055, 0063, 0120-0126] and Figure [10], Vial discloses that the operations/method may be performed and repeated (at least one iteration))
applying a classification operation to a notification stored in the notifications memory, said classification operation associating a class X with the notification, said class being determined as a function of predefined rules from a set of predefined classes comprising at least a first class V and a second class W, said predefined rules depending on a set of criteria among weighting criteria, criteria defined by an ontology and criteria defined by rules; and (per claim 1) / applying a classification operation to a notification stored in the notifications memory, said classification operation associating a class X with the notification, said class being determined as a function of predefined rules from a set of predefined classes comprising at least a first class V and a second class W, said predefined rules depending on a set comprising weighting criteria, criteria defined by an ontology and/or criteria defined by rules; and (per claim 18) (First, the examiner notes that the phraseology chosen does not indicate that all three of “weighting criteria”, “criteria defined by an ontology”, and “criteria defined by rules” are necessary, however the examiner notes that all of the aforementioned terms are highly generic in nature, and merely satisfying a generic check/rule/etc. would read upon the language. This is further justified in that claim 18 recites “and/or”. Paragraph [0067-0069, 0071, 0090, 0093-0094, 0103], Vial discloses categorization/classification of faults, such as “open items” and “deferred items” (at least two classes). Alternatively or additionally, “class” is broad and reasonably includes a subsystem of the aircraft, in which case Vial discloses detecting faults in certain systems such as the fuel pressure or deicing systems. Further still, a priority may reasonably constitute a “class”, and Vial discloses that simple alerts may be generated for small issues whereas direct display of commands may be generated for more important issues)
applying processing to said notification as a function of the determined class X, said processing comprising a step of rendering the notification on a Human-Machine interface if the class X meets a display condition depending on whether the class X belongs to the first class V or the second class W, said rendering using at least one display form and display dynamics defined as a function of the metadata associated with the notification; (per claim 1) / processing said notification as a function of the determined class X, said processing comprising rendering the notification on a Human-Machine interface if the class X meets a display condition depending on whether the class X belongs to the first class V or the second class W, said rendering using at least one display form and display dynamics defined as a function of the metadata associated with the notification; (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0020, 0046, 0060-0063, 0066-0069, 0090, 0093-0094, 0103] and Figure [4-6, 8-9], Vial discloses that the notification is presented to a pilot in the form of a message on a display (a human-machine interface) if it meets a condition (a fault occurs). Regarding the aforementioned “class” interpretation; the examiner notes that in the first case (open or deferred items), a pilot may select to see these particular items. In the second case (certain systems), Vial discloses that details regarding the particular system may be displayed (displaying only the details for that system, such as that seen in Figure [8]). Finally, in the third case (level of importance/priority), Vial discloses that simple alerts may be generated for small issues whereas direct display of commands may be generated for more important issues)
wherein a first class V corresponds to a state “to be executed” indicating that the notification is to be executed in the processing step and a second class W corresponds to a state “to be archived” indicating that the notification is to be archived in a backup memory connected to said mission data sources, in said notification processing step; and (per claim 1) / wherein the first class V corresponds to a state “to be executed” indicating that the notification is to be executed in the processing operation and the second class W corresponds to a state “to be archived” indicating that the notification is to be archived in a backup memory connected to said mission data sources, in said notification processing operation; and (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0090, 0100], Vial discloses classifications such as “open items” (to be executed) and “deferred items” (to be archived). The notifications are stored (archived) in memory. Further, as the “processing notification” is open-ended, the language is not particularly limiting regarding timing of the steps)
wherein said timestamps comprise at least one timestamp among a generation timestamp associated with the generation of said notification, at least one classification timestamp associated with the classification of said notification, at least one processing timestamp associated with the processing of said notification and at least one action timestamp related to the execution of an action. (per claim 1) (First, the examiner notes that only one is necessary due to “at least one timestamp among” preceding the list. Second, the examiner notes that “associated with” means that the timestamp need not directly correlate at the exact moment the following event occurred, but merely be “associated with” the event. Third, a timestamp “related to the execution of an action” means that any time stamp associated with any action would read upon this language. Paragraph [0053-0054, 0066-0069, 0071, 0080, 0093-0094] and Figure [5], Vial discloses that the notifications contain date and time information (thus, a timestamp such as an action and/or generation timestamp))
Regarding claim 2: Vial discloses parent claim 1. Vial further discloses wherein the mission data sources comprise data acquired from avionics systems, external sources, and/or sources inside the aircraft, the method further comprising a step of transferring data to said systems of certified avionics and/or of non-certified avionics. (Paragraph [0002, 0052, 0104-0117], Vial discloses that a fault is receive from an aircraft system or an external system or data from the pilot (at least sources inside the aircraft). Further, Vial discloses that commands presented may control the aircraft systems such as activation/deactivation of pumps (thus, transferring data/commands to systems of the avionics))
Regarding claim 3: Vial discloses parent claim 2. Vial further discloses wherein the data transfer step comprises a step of rendering said notification on at least one other Human-Machine interface connected to said avionics systems. (Paragraph [0022, 0041-0047, 0069-0070], Vial discloses a plurality of displays pertaining to avionics systems, and that displays may be made on at least one device (indicating others). A plurality of screens are disclosed as displaying/rendering pertinent information. Screens 200 and 205, for instance, display information (two distinct interfaces))
Regarding claim 5: Vial discloses parent claim 1. Vial further discloses wherein said classes further comprise a third class U identifying a "standby" notification indicating that the notification is to be placed on standby. (Paragraph [0090] and Figure [5], Vial discloses classifications such as “open items” (to be executed) and “deferred items” (to be archived). While paragraph [0090] primarily discloses open and deferred items, Figure [5] shows a third classification/technical condition of “temporary items”, which reasonably reads upon the claim set, as a “standby” condition is not particularly limiting. An item that is not addressed immediately is on “standby” for a non-zero amount of time, which reasonably includes that of “temporary items”. Alternatively, the deferred items may be considered “standby” whereas the temporary items are “to be archived”, or any combination thereof)
Regarding claim 6: Vial discloses parent claim 5. Vial further discloses wherein if the classification steps associates the class X to the third class U or the first class V, the processing step comprises reiterating the step of applying a classification operation. (Paragraph [0055, 0063, 0090, 0120-0126] and Figure [10], Vial discloses that the classification meets an “or” condition of “executed” or “deferred items”. Further, processing is repeated)
Regarding claim 7: Vial discloses parent claim 6. Vial further discloses wherein the step of reiterating the classification operation is triggered as a function of at least one operation among: controlling a duration determined from the timestamp metadata; modifying the data acquired during a mission; and/or controlling an action detected on the Human-Machine interface. (The examiner notes that only one is necessary due to “at least one” and “and/or”. Paragraph [0055, 0063, 0120-0126] and Figure [10], Vial discloses that the operations/method may be performed and repeated (at least one iteration) based on detection of another event (modifying the data acquired during a mission))
Regarding claim 8: Vial discloses parent claim 1. Vial further discloses wherein if the classification step associates the class X to the second class W, the processing step comprises a step of deleting said notification from the notifications memory and a step of archiving said notification in said backup memory. (Paragraph [0090, 0100], Vial discloses that notifications are stored in memory (the term “backup” is merely a label and not necessarily a different physical component but rather a different portion of the same component). If a fault is on the deferred list, it is removed from the open list)
Regarding claim 9: Vial discloses parent claim 1. Vial further discloses wherein the metadata register further comprises: simple metadata associated with the notifications comprising an item of information or an action relating to at least one mission parameter, said information or action being determined from said suggestion; and (Paragraph [0054, 0069], Vial discloses multiple examples of consequences/suggestions/restrictions, such as maximum flight altitude, maximum engine power, mere alerts, etc. that all constitute items of information and/or actions related to parameters (power/altitude/etc.))
Regarding claim 10: Vial discloses parent claim 1. Vial further discloses wherein the metadata register further comprises a priority metadata associated with the notifications, said priority metadata being determined from said suggestion and updated at each step of the method, said priority metadata being associated with a predefined importance and/or a predefined urgency of the information or actions relating to at least one mission parameter, said priority metadata comprising at least two priority indicators, including a high priority indicator and a moderate priority indicator. (Paragraph [0103], Vial discloses priority associated with faults pertaining to importance of consequences, including at least two variations of priority such as “not an important consequence” (moderate priority) and “having direct consequences for the safety of the aircraft” (high priority), each with corresponding indication, such as “a simple alert” in the former case and “page comprising the parameters and/or the representations of the corresponding commands is displayed directly” in the latter case)
Regarding claim 11: Vial discloses parent claim 1. Vial further discloses wherein the metadata register comprises metadata defining a category of the information and/or actions relating to said suggestion. (Paragraph [0067-0069, 0071, 0090, 0093-0094, 0103, 0106] and Figure [5], Vial discloses categorization/classification of faults, such as “open items” and “deferred items” (at least two classes). Alternatively or additionally, “class” is broad and reasonably includes a subsystem of the aircraft, in which case Vial discloses detecting faults in certain systems such as the fuel pressure or deicing systems. Further still, a priority may reasonably constitute a “class”, and Vial discloses that simple alerts may be generated for small issues whereas direct display of commands may be generated for more important issues. Finally, the status of aircraft systems is contained within this information (such as a fault within a certain system))
Regarding claim 12: Vial discloses parent claim 1. Vial further discloses wherein said display form defined as a function of the metadata associated with a notification comprises a first display form and a second display form, with the rendering step using the first display form to generate the display of at least: (Paragraph [0090, 0104-0111] and Figure [4-9], Vial discloses a plurality of display forms, such as showing states of equipment as on or off. Further, colors can indicate the status of equipment (green is a first display form and red is a second). Further still, Figures [4-5] show exemplary embodiments of user interfaces, wherein Figure [5] provides a basis to display further information)
a first graphical element, with the selection of said graphical element triggering the second display form; and (Paragraph [0090] and Figure [5], Vial discloses that the right part of the interface shown on Figure [5] has selections for status, logbook, history, and flight data)
a second graphical element containing an item of information or an action relating to at least one mission parameter, with said information or action being determined from said suggestion, with the selection of said graphical element triggering the display of said information or action in a first zone of the second display form. (Paragraph [0088-0092] and Figure [5], Vial discloses that the right part of the interface shown on Figure [5] has selections for status, logbook, history, and flight data, showing a plurality of selectable options such as “MORE”, “PIC ACCEPT”, selection of “STATUS”, “LOGBOOK”, etc. pertaining to items of information related to mission parameters)
Regarding claim 13: Vial discloses parent claim 12. Vial further discloses wherein the rendering step comprises counting the notifications that have not been rendered using the second display form, which provide a number of non-rendered notifications, wherein the rendering step uses the first display form to further generate a display of said number of non-rendered notifications. (Paragraph [0088-0092] and Figure [5], Vial discloses counting and incrementing notifications, displaying a number of notifications. See Figure [5] showing DEFERRED ITEMS ------ 3)
Regarding claim 14: Vial discloses parent claim 11. Vial further discloses wherein the rendering step uses the second display form to generate the display of at least: the first zone comprising a first set of at least one graphical element, generated from a suggestion of a notification whose class X is associated to the first class V, the graphical elements of the first set comprising displaying at least one item of information or an action relating to at least one mission parameter, said item of information or action being determined from said suggestion, said graphical elements further comprising displaying at least one duration defined by the timestamp metadata of said suggestion; (Paragraph [0088-0092] and Figure [4-9], Vial discloses a plurality of display forms showing graphical elements/information pertaining to suggestions/alerts/etc. For example, Figure [5] shows that when a notification is present as a deferred item, it is incremented in the right side of the window (DEFERRED ITEMS ----- 3). Further, Figure [5] shows a timestamp in the window in addition to an expiration (thus, a duration))
a second zone comprising a second set of at least one graphical element selected in a selection step, the selection of said graphical elements of the second set triggering filtering of the rendering of the notifications according to filtering criteria; (Paragraph [0088-0092] and Figure [4-9], Vial discloses that a multitude of groups of information (such as shown on Figure [5]) may be selected and corresponding sub-information pertaining to the selection is presented, and thus, filtered)
a third zone comprising a third set of at least one graphical element, generated from a suggestion of a notification whose class X is associated to the second class W, the third set comprising a triggering graphical element, with the selection of said triggering graphical element triggering the display or the occlusion of the third zone; and (Paragraph [0088-0092] and Figure [4-9], Vial discloses that a multitude of groups of information (such as shown on Figure [5]) may be selected and corresponding sub-information pertaining to the selection is presented, such as any one of “open items”, “deferred items”, and “temporary items” (any of which is a third set/class))
a fourth zone comprising a fourth set of at least one graphical element, with the selection of said graphical element triggering the interruption of the rendering step. (Paragraph [0088-0092, 0104-0111] and Figure [4-9], Vial discloses the ability to transition between windows of information. The selection of one piece of information, such as selection of one of the lists, interrupts rendering of the other lists by way of entering a submenu. Further, as an alternative, selection of a component status (such as pump on or off) interrupts the rendering of the opposing status)
Regarding claim 15: Vial discloses parent claim 12. Vial further discloses wherein if, after an iteration of the step of applying a classification operation to a notification, the class X of the notification is associated to the first class V, and if the class X of the notification was previously associated to the third class U in a previous iteration of the classification step, then the rendering step uses the first display form for a duration defined by the timestamp metadata of said notification. (Paragraph [0088-0092] and Figure [4-9], Vial discloses a plurality of display forms showing graphical elements/information pertaining to suggestions/alerts/etc. Further, Figure [5] shows a timestamp in the window in addition to an expiration (thus, a duration))
Regarding claim 16: Vial discloses parent claim 12. Vial further discloses wherein if, after an iteration of the step of applying a classification operation to a notification, the class X of the notification is associated to the first class V, and if the class X of the notification was previously associated to the third class U in a previous iteration of the classification step, with said notification being associated with complex metadata, then the rendering step uses the second display form. (Paragraph [0088-0094], Vial discloses an example wherein a fault of low fuel pressure is registered and the system simultaneously 1) alerts the pilot and requests verification of parameters and 2) displays navigation information to indicate advised landing zones (concatenation of several items of information/actions related to the fuel pressure/mission parameter) (thus, complex) resulting in a second display form (indicated zones))
Regarding claim 17: Vial discloses parent claim 1. Vial further discloses A non-transitory computer readable storage device comprising a computer program configured to execute the method of [claim 1]. (Paragraph [0119, 0130-0140, 0144] and Figure [10-11], Vial discloses an embodiment of the invention pertaining to software stored in memory (non-transitory examples given such as ROM) with execution by a processing unit)
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 BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights