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.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
The examiner received amendments to the claim set in addition to remarks/arguments dated 25 February 2026 in response to the non-final rejection office action dated 25 November 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding rejections”, “outstanding objections”, “prior office action”, and the like). New matter was entered, and is discussed further in the applicable 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) rejections below.
First, regarding applicant's statement on page 10 of the remarks regarding the examiner's interpretation of NOTAMs, the examiner does not find the argument against the examiner’s interpretation of NOTAM to be persuasive. The examiner provided the exact verbiage from the instant application specification and bases the interpretation listed upon the description. Applicant's attempt to delineate a NOTAM from another form of notification by stating "Therefore, NOTAMs are text publications for specific information relevant aviation operations and not any text publication for alerts" is not found persuasive, as there is no apparent difference between the two listed alternatives. Particularly, the examiner considers "text publications for specific information relevant aviation operations" and "text publications for alerts" to be analogous, as there is no apparent differentiation between "specific information relevant aviation operations" and "alerts". Applicant is kindly encouraged to amend the claim set to delineate NOTAMs from "text publications for alerts" in the event that a more narrow definition is intended.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation for terms "logic subsystem" and "memory subsystem", the examiner has reviewed the amended claim set and determined that sufficient structure is provided for the aforementioned terms to prevent further 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation for the aforementioned terms is withdrawn.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections pertaining to claims drawn to a mental process, the examiner has reviewed the applicant's arguments on pages 12-14 of the remarks and does not find the arguments to be persuasive. Applicant argues that "the human mind is not equipped to display such graphic overlays on a display device. Applicant also believes that a human mind is not equipped to obtain a plurality of NOTAMs and contextualize sufficient content in each NOTAM to determine whether each NOTAM is active or inactive in a timely manner, especially while performing aviation operations", noting two (summarized) points of 1) the human mind cannot display overlays and 2) the human mind cannot process multiple NOTAMs in a timely manner while also performing other operations (though multiple only requires two). The examiner respectfully disagrees with both of the aforementioned points. Regarding the first point, the examiner notes that the prior office action did not state that display of overlays took place in the human mind. See page 10 of the prior office action; the examiner stated "Regarding the steps of 'display a graphical airspace representing an airspace on the display device'…the examiner notes that these steps are mere pre-solutionary and post-solutionary activities that amount to no more than data collection and data output." Applicant appears to be arguing per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.A. that "A claim with limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind does not recite a mental process", however applicant is directed to the same section where it states "In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to 'collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,' where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind". The examiner notes that pilots and others in aviation receive and interpret messages on a daily basis; merely providing a displayed output of analogous information falls under the aforementioned criteria. Further, MPEP 2106.05(g), which discusses insignificant extra-solution activity further justifies this determination, as it provides the basis for examination, stating "Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: […] iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis, and display". The examiner provided rationale as to why the display did not meaningfully limit the claim on pages 11-12, for example. Regarding the second point, applicant argues that a multitude of NOTAMs may not reasonably be registered/processed by the human mind due to other circumstances. The examiner notes that this is conjecture; the ability of the human mind depends upon experience, knowledge, general well-being, amongst an infinite number of other variables. Further, the other circumstances are irrelevant as they are not necessarily claimed in the claimed invention to further occupy the operator; the examiner insists that simply receiving and processing the data from two NOTAMs is well within the general level of experience of one having ordinary skill in the art and thus disagrees with the second noted point. Therefore, the applicant's arguments against the mental process interpretation are not persuasive, and new grounds of rejection (necessitated by amendment) are presented below.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for "an official NOTAM" and "a company NOTAM", the examiner notes that amendments have remedied the noted issue; all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, the applicant appears to argue that the primary reference (McCusker et al., US 10,290,216 B1, hereinafter McCusker) discloses symbolically representing text-based obstacle data on an electronic map, using data derived from textual communications but does not disclose representing an airspace from geospatial aviation data, obtaining a plurality of NOTAMs, determining the status of the NOTAMs, and overlaying and asserts that McCusker does not completely disclose the claimed invention. The examiner notes that arguments are moot as applicant has amended the claim language. As noted in the prior office action, McCusker does not explicitly disclose having overlays of different appearance based on a determine active/inactive status. The outstanding 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection is withdrawn in favor of new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, the examiner has reviewed the applicant's arguments but has not found them to be persuasive. Put simply (though applicant is kindly directed to the detailed analysis in the corresponding claim rejections below for further detail), McCusker merely differed in previous presentation of the independent claims in that McCusker did not explicitly disclose having different appearances of textual communication outputs based upon status. However, the examiner noted on page [20-21] of the prior office action, for example, that McCusker discloses having graphic overlays based upon dates that the notification is in effect and status, and thus implicitly discloses that the overlay is dependent upon an activity/inactivity status. The secondary reference was merely relied upon to explicitly show that two different overlays based upon status were also well known in the art at the time of effective filing, with rationale to combine on page [21]. Thus, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments presented against the combination of references in the prior office action. The examiner has reviewed the applicant's arguments but notes that arguments are moot as applicant has amended the claim set. New grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, are provided below.
Regarding the outstanding non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejections, the arguments presented are moot as applicant has amended the claim language. The examiner considered the amendments against the US Patent previously noted and determined that withdrawal of the outstanding non-statutory double patenting rejections to be proper. Thus, all NSDP rejections are withdrawn.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 25 February 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected, as noted further below. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that the specification provides a definition for NOTAMs in paragraph [0013] as "…Notice to Air Missions (NOTAMs) are text publications that alert users (e.g., pilots, flight dispatchers, etc.) of information relevant to aviation operations." Therefore, the examiner will interpret any form of text publications that alert users as a "NOTAM" for purposes of examination.
Regarding "computing device" as recited in claims 1-8 and 15-20, the examiner notes that first, a computing device is generally known in the art and second, Figure [3] and paragraphs [0022-0023] provide the requisite knowledge for understanding what a computing device may pertain to. Thus, the term is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Regarding "effective" of claims 9 and 15, the examiner notes that "effective" is interpreted in the sense of "in effect" rather than "effectiveness" as an attribute per the description of paragraphs [0019-0020], for example. Thus, a message that is currently in effect is "effective" and one that is not is "not effective". Therefore, the aforementioned terminology in light of the specification is currently interpreted to be definite.
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 1, 9, and 15 (claims 1-20 as all independent claims are rejected, thus also including all dependent claims by dependency) 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 written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The most recent revision of the claim set incorporates claim language “…the storage subsystem comprising geospatial aviation data…” and “…display a graphical airspace representing an airspace from the geospatial aviation data…” (using claim 1 as an example, but analogous language was added to independent claims 9 and 15). The examiner has reviewed the specification and is unable to locate where “geospatial aviation data” is defined or discussed. Not only does the storage disclosed contain this data, but it is apparently utilized in order to display a graphical representation of the airspace. As this data does not appear to have been described or defined previously and now is a requirement in order to produce the claimed invention, the examiner considers its addition to be new matter. A corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided below, as the examiner is also unsure as to what data, exactly, is included in the group of “geospatial aviation data”.
As all independent claims (1, 9, and 15) recite this limitation and the dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency, all pending claims (dependent claims by dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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, 9, and 15 (claims 1-20 as all independent claims are rejected, thus also including all dependent claims by dependency) 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.
The most recent revision of the claim set incorporates claim language “…the storage subsystem comprising geospatial aviation data…” and “…display a graphical airspace representing an airspace from the geospatial aviation data…” (using claim 1 as an example, but analogous language was added to independent claims 9 and 15). The examiner has reviewed the specification and is unable to locate where “geospatial aviation data” is defined or discussed. Not only does the storage disclosed contain this data, but it is apparently utilized in order to display a graphical representation of the airspace. In order to determine if the claims are definite, the examiner must have a requisite for understanding what may or may not be considered data that is “geospatial aviation data”; for example, is current aircraft position considered this form of data? What about weather data (as it occurs in the space of the aircraft)? Is data that is not directly pertaining to position or geography, but rather supports the aforementioned data (such as fuel level, as this impacts the range of the aircraft) included as well? The examiner ultimately is unsure what may be encompassed by this “data”; the term renders the claim indefinite.
Therefore, the examiner notes that this phrase is indefinite and fails 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, 9, and 15) recite this limitation and the dependent claims do not resolve the deficiency, all pending claims (dependent claims by dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-8 are directed to an apparatus. Therefore, claims 1-8 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in MPEP 2106, the claims are to analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groupings of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A computing device comprising:
a display device;
a logic subsystem in communication with an electronic flight bag on an aircraft, the logic subsystem comprising at least a processor; and
a storage subsystem comprising at least a computer-readable storage device, the storage subsystem comprising geospatial aviation data and instructions executable by the logic subsystem to
display a graphical airspace representing an airspace from the geospatial aviation data on the display device,
obtain a plurality of notice to air missions (NOTAMs) related to the airspace, and
for each NOTAM of the plurality of NOTAMs, determine whether a status of the NOTAM is active or inactive and display a graphic overlay on the graphical airspace, the graphic overlay having a different appearance based at least upon whether a determined status of the NOTAM is active or inactive.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Regarding the steps of “display a graphical airspace representing an airspace on the display device”, “obtain one or more notice to air missions (NOTAMs)…”, and “for each NOTAM of the one or more NOTAMs, display a graphic overlay…”, the examiner notes that these steps are mere pre-solutionary and post-solutionary activities that amount to no more than data collection and data output. The “metal process” then pertains to the determination regarding status of the NOTAM, which may be performed in the human mind, including when two (a plurality of) NOTAMs are present, as a person of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably able to read two NOTAMs and generally understand if one or both are active/inactive. Noting the claim interpretation provided above, a human may reasonably obtain a message and determine a generic status of the message using the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computing device comprising:
a display device;
a logic subsystem in communication with an electronic flight bag on an aircraft, the logic subsystem comprising at least a processor; and
a storage subsystem comprising at least a computer-readable storage device, the storage subsystem comprising geospatial aviation data and instructions executable by the logic subsystem to
display a graphical airspace representing an airspace from the geospatial aviation data on the display device,
obtain a plurality of notice to air missions (NOTAMs) related to the airspace, and
for each NOTAM of the plurality of NOTAMs, determine whether a status of the NOTAM is active or inactive and display a graphic overlay on the graphical airspace, the graphic overlay having a different appearance based at least upon whether a determined status of the NOTAM is active or inactive.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
Regarding the additional limitations of a computing device, display device, logic subsystem (generically in communication with another component that is not directly claimed), and storage subsystem, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the claim elements reference generic components, which amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity as necessary data gathering and outputting. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. To summarize, the steps of obtaining data and display are insignificant extra-solution activity (pre- and post-solutionary) amounting to no more than necessary data gathering and outputting and the generic computing equipment is considered generic linking to a technological environment using generic computing components. The “mental process” then pertains to the mere determination of a status of the NOTAM. As discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of generic computer components does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because they are merely an attempt at generic linking, as mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible and as such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 2-8, the claims specify and/or further limits similar to the previously addressed abstract idea above and does not recite additional limitations that present a practical application nor amount to “significantly more” for analogous reasons above.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5-8: The claims merely further describe a design choice as to how data may be output/displayed (thus, post-solutionary data processing and outputting as insignificant extra-solution activity; see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 4: The claim merely further describes that the determination (the mental process noted above) may be based upon an attribute extracted from the NOTAM (merely further limiting the abstract idea, as a human would be able to mentally process certain “attributes” of messages provided to them).
Regarding Claims 9-20, these are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 15-20 are directed to an apparatus and claims 9-14 are directed to a method. Therefore, claims 9-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in MPEP 2106, the claims are to analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groupings of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 9 recites:
A method for a computing device comprising geospatial aviation data, the computing device in communication with an electronic flight bag on an aircraft, the method comprising:
displaying a graphical airspace representing an airspace from the geospatial aviation data on a display device, and obtaining a plurality of notice to air missions (NOTAMs), the plurality of NOTAMs being related to the airspace;
for each NOTAM of the plurality of NOTAMs, determining whether a status of the NOTAM is active or inactive by
determining whether the NOTAM is currently effective based at least upon an effective data attribute extracted from the NOTAM, and
when the NOTAM is determined to not be currently effective, determining that the status of the NOTAM is inactive; and
displaying, for each NOTAM, a graphic overlay on the graphical airspace for the NOTAM, the graphic overlay having a first appearance when the determined status of the NOTAM is inactive, and having a second appearance when the determined status of the NOTAM is active.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Regarding the steps of “displaying a graphical airspace representing an airspace on the display device”, “obtaining a notice to air missions (NOTAM)…”, and “displaying a graphic overlay…”, the examiner notes that these steps are mere pre-solutionary and post-solutionary activities that amount to no more than data collection and data output. The “metal process” then pertains to the determination regarding status and effectiveness of the NOTAM, which may be performed in the human mind , including when two (a plurality of) NOTAMs are present, as a person of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably able to read two NOTAMs and generally understand if one or both are active/inactive. Noting the claim interpretation provided above, a human may reasonably obtain a message and determine a generic status of the message using the human mind. Therefore, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for a computing device comprising geospatial aviation data, the computing device in communication with an electronic flight bag on an aircraft, the method comprising:
displaying a graphical airspace representing an airspace from the geospatial aviation data on a display device, and obtaining a plurality of notice to air missions (NOTAMs), the plurality of NOTAMs being related to the airspace;
for each NOTAM of the plurality of NOTAMs, determining whether a status of the NOTAM is active or inactive by
determining whether the NOTAM is currently effective based at least upon an effective data attribute extracted from the NOTAM, and
when the NOTAM is determined to not be currently effective, determining that the status of the NOTAM is inactive; and
displaying, for each NOTAM, a graphic overlay on the graphical airspace for the NOTAM, the graphic overlay having a first appearance when the determined status of the NOTAM is inactive, and having a second appearance when the determined status of the NOTAM is active.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
Regarding the additional limitation of a computing device (generally in communication with another generic component that is not directly claimed) and a display device, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the claim elements reference generic components, which amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity as necessary data gathering and outputting. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. To summarize, the steps of obtaining data and display are insignificant extra-solution activity (pre- and post-solutionary) amounting to no more than necessary data gathering and outputting and the generic computing equipment is considered generic linking to a technological environment using generic computing components. The “mental process” then pertains to the mere determination of a status (including whether it is effective) of the NOTAM. As discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of generic computer components does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because they are merely an attempt at generic linking, as mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible and as such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 9 above with the exception of reciting a computing device (again, merely in communication with a generic component that is not directly claimed), display device, logic subsystem, and storage subsystem, which are all additional generic linking elements akin to the computing device and display device noted in analogous claim 9, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claims 10-14 and 16-20, the claims specify and/or further limits similar to the previously addressed abstract idea above and does not recite additional limitations that present a practical application nor amount to “significantly more” for analogous reasons above.
Regarding claims 13-14 and 18-20: The claims merely further describe a design choice as to how data may be output/displayed (thus, post-solutionary data processing and outputting as insignificant extra-solution activity; see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claims 10-12 and 16-17: The claims merely further describe that the determination (the mental process noted above) may be based upon further attributes extracted from the NOTAM (merely further limiting the abstract idea, as a human would be able to mentally process certain “attributes” of messages provided to them).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-4, 9-12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCusker et al. (US 10,290,216 B1; date of patent 14 May 2019, hereinafter McCusker) in view of Moravek et al. (US 2017/0320589 A1; published 09 Nov 2017, hereinafter Moravek).
Regarding independent claim 1: McCusker discloses A computing device comprising: a display device; a logic subsystem in communication with an [electronic flight bag] on an aircraft, the logic system comprising at least a processor; and a storage subsystem comprising at least a computer-readable storage device, the storage subsystem comprising geospatial aviation data and instructions executable by the logic subsystem to (First, the examiner notes that “geospatial aviation data” is being interpreted broadly as any data encompassing or drawn to a working environment of an aircraft. Col [5] Lines [4-53] and Figures [2A-2B], McCusker discloses a system comprising at least one server, display, memory, and controllers including processors, all in communication with each other and at least partially taking place on an aircraft. The storage at least includes map data (geospatial aviation data))
display a graphical airspace representing an airspace from the geospatial aviation data on the display device, (Col [5] Lines [3-6], Col [9] Lines [57-59] and Figures [4-6], McCusker discloses displaying an airspace using map data)
obtain a plurality of notice to air missions (NOTAMs) related to the airspace, and (Col [4] Lines [32-37], Col [11] Lines [19-22, 46-53], Col [12] Lines [4-14], McCusker discloses obtaining textual communications (disclosed as an example, NOTAMs) pertaining to, for example, obstacles related to the airspace. McCusker explicitly discloses obtaining a plurality of textual communications (“one or more textual communications”), the textual communications pertaining to NOTAMs from “An object of the system and method disclosed herein is to retrieve textual (e.g., NOTAM) communications and symbolically represent…”)
for each NOTAM of the plurality of NOTAMs, [determine whether a status of the NOTAM is active or inactive] and display a graphic overlay on the graphical airspace, the graphic overlay having a different appearance based at least upon whether a determined status of the NOTAM is [active or inactive]. (Col [11] Lines [46-53], Col [12] Lines [4-14, 56-60], Col [13] Lines [1-20], and Figure [4-6], McCusker discloses displaying graphic overlays for textual communications converted to symbolic (graphic overlay) form, the symbolic representation being dependent upon extracted information such as “dates the obstacle notification (e.g. NOTAM) is in effect, obstacle type, elevation, status, and/or any other information embedded in the textual communication”. Further, “the aircraft display system 212 and/or the aircraft server 212 is configured to update the electronic map 400 to include one or more symbolic representations based on obstacle data (e.g., obstacle type 302, obstacle coordinates 304, obstacle elevation/height 306, and/or obstacle status 308”. McCusker discloses different types of symbolic representations based on factors such as aircraft type, range of the map, and status)
The disclosure of McCusker then differs from the invention of claim 1 in two ways; first, having a display dependent upon a status of a NOTAM being active or inactive, and second, being communicatively coupled to a generic electronic flight bag (EFB).
Regarding the first difference of determine whether a status of the [NOTAM] is active or inactive and having a different appearance based upon […] active or inactive, Moravek, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches determine whether a status of the [NOTAM] is active or inactive and having a different appearance based upon […] active or inactive (Paragraph [0002, 0029, 0045, 0049] and Figure [4], Moravek teaches obtaining information from reports including NOTAMs. Further, Moravek teaches outputting graphical representations obtained from the data with visually distinguishable (different) patterns that indicate if a runway (and by extension, the NOTAM itself) is active or inactive)
McCusker and Moravek are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of McCusker to explicitly include two different appearances of a symbol depending upon a status of active or inactive, as taught by Moravek, in the interest of assisting a pilot quickly ascertain flight parameters (Moravek, Paragraph [0054], motivation). McCusker discloses that the symbolic representation depends upon status/effect and one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it an obvious modification to merely specify that the appearance of the symbolic representation differed depending upon the extracted status information. Moravek is merely relied upon to show that it was known in the art at the time of effective filing to have icons/graphical elements displayed with different appearances based upon an active/inactive attribute status. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to make this change in order to more easily differentiate between symbolic representations.
Further, regarding electronic flight bag, the examiner notes that Moravek, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, also teaches a logic subsystem in communication with an electronic flight bag on an aircraft (Paragraph [0055-0057] and Figure [9], Moravek teaches a system in communication with an EFB)
McCusker and Moravek are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of McCusker to communicate with an EFB, as taught by Moravek, in order to use a well-known component to transmit, display, and analyze data (Moravek, Paragraph [0057], motivation) as a matter of design choice. The examiner notes that an EFB is merely peripherally claimed and not tied into the inventive concept, simply reciting an additional element that has no particular impact on the claimed invention. Merely peripherally claiming communication with a well-known avionics component (an EFB) is an obvious variant of McCusker, as evidenced by the teachings of Moravek. Thus, this serves as merely a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over McCusker in view of Moravek. McCusker further discloses wherein the instructions executable to display the graphic overlay on the graphical airspace comprise instructions executable to display the graphic overlay with a [first appearance] when the determined status of the NOTAM is inactive and display the graphic overlay with a [second appearance] when the determined status of the NOTAM is active. (Col [11] Lines [46-53], Col [12] Lines [4-14], and Figure [4-6], McCusker discloses displaying symbolic representations of textual data based on a status of the notification and/or dependent upon the dates that the notification is in effect)
McCusker discloses a symbolic output/representation dependent upon the activity status of a message. McCusker does not explicitly disclose providing two different appearances dependent upon this.
Moravek, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft displays, teaches graphic overlay with a first appearance and graphic overlay with a second appearance (Paragraph [0002, 0029, 0045, 0049] and Figure [4], Moravek teaches obtaining information from reports including NOTAMs. Further, Moravek teaches outputting graphical representations obtained from the data with visually distinguishable (different) patterns that indicate if a runway (and by extension, the NOTAM itself) is active or inactive)
McCusker and Moravek are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of McCusker to explicitly include two different appearances of a symbol depending upon a status of active or inactive, as taught by Moravek, in the interest of assisting a pilot quickly ascertain flight parameters (Moravek, Paragraph [0054], motivation) as a matter of design choice. McCusker discloses that the symbolic representation depends upon status/effect and one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it an obvious modification to merely specify that the appearance of the symbolic representation differed depending upon the extracted status information. Moravek is merely relied upon to show that it was known in the art at the time of effective filing to have icons/graphical elements displayed with different appearances based upon an active/inactive attribute status. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to make this change in order to more easily differentiate between symbolic representations.
Regarding claim 3: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over McCusker in view of Moravek. McCusker does not explicitly disclose hatched and solid overlays.
However, Moravek, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches wherein the first appearance of the graphic overlay comprises a hatched overlay, and wherein the second appearance of the graphic overlay comprises a solid overlay. (Paragraph [0032, 0045, 0047, 0050, 0052-0053] and Figure [6-8], Moravek teaches a plurality of display patterns such as filled and hatched)
McCusker does not explicitly disclose providing two different appearances dependent upon this, however this is merely a matter of design choice. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have found it an obvious modification of McCusker to merely provide two different appearances of a symbol depending upon the status of the message. McCusker discloses that the symbolic representation depends upon status/effect and one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it an obvious modification to merely specify that the appearance of the symbolic representation differed depending upon the extracted status information. Moravek is merely relied upon to show that it was known at the time of effective filing, in an analogous field of endeavor, to have icons/graphical elements displayed with different appearances based upon an attribute status. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to make this change in order to more easily differentiate between symbolic representations.
Regarding claim 4: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over McCusker in view of Moravek. McCusker further discloses wherein the instructions executable to determine whether the NOTAM is active or inactive is based at least upon one or more data attributes extracted from the NOTAM. (See parent claims for active/inactive determination; the examiner is using the disclosure of McCusker to show that the status indication is based upon an extracted data attribute. Col [11] Lines [46-53], Col [12] Lines [4-14], and Figure [4-6], McCusker discloses extracting attributes from the textual message (NOTAM) including a status/in effect)
Regarding independent claims 9 and 15: McCusker discloses A method for a computing device comprising geospatial aviation data, the computing device in communication with an [electronic flight bag] on an aircraft, the method comprising: (per claim 9) / A computing device comprising: a display device; a logic subsystem in communication with an [electronic flight bag] on an aircraft, the logic subsystem comprising at least a processor; and a storage subsystem comprising at least a computer-readable storage device, the storage subsystem comprising geospatial aviation data and instructions executable by the logic subsystem to (per claim 15) (First, the examiner notes that “geospatial aviation data” is being interpreted broadly as any data encompassing or drawn to a working environment of an aircraft. Col [4] Lines [15-17, 32-41, 57-62], Col [5] Lines [4-53] and Figures [2A-2B], McCusker discloses a system comprising at least one server, display, memory, and controllers including processors, all in communication with each other and at least partially taking place on an aircraft. The storage at least includes map data (geospatial aviation data). Further, a method alternative is disclosed)
displaying a graphical airspace representing an airspace from the geospatial aviation data on a display device, and (per claim 9) / display a graphical airspace representing an airspace from the geospatial aviation data on the display device, and (per claim 15) (Col [5] Lines [3-6], Col [9] Lines [57-59] and Figures [4-6], McCusker discloses displaying an airspace using map data)
obtaining a plurality of notice to air missions (NOTAMs), the plurality of NOTAMs being related to the airspace; (per claim 9) / obtain a plurality of notice to air missions (NOTAMs), the plurality of NOTAMs being related to the airspace, (per claim 15) (Col [4] Lines [32-37], Col [11] Lines [19-22, 46-53], Col [12] Lines [4-14], McCusker discloses obtaining textual communications (disclosed as an example, NOTAMs) pertaining to, for example, obstacles related to the airspace. McCusker explicitly discloses obtaining a plurality of textual communications (“one or more textual communications”), the textual communications pertaining to NOTAMs from “An object of the system and method disclosed herein is to retrieve textual (e.g., NOTAM) communications and symbolically represent…”)
for each NOTAM of the plurality of NOTAMs, determining whether a status of the NOTAM is active or inactive by determining whether the NOTAM is currently effective based at least upon an effective data attribute extracted from the NOTAM, and when the NOTAM is determined to not be currently effective, determining that the status of the NOTAM is inactive; and (per claim 9) / for each NOTAM of the plurality of NOTAMs, determine whether a status of the NOTAM is active or inactive by determining whether the NOTAM is currently effective based at least upon an effective data attribute extracted from the NOTAM, and when the NOTAM is determined to not be currently effective, determining that the status of the NOTAM is inactive, and (per claim 15) (Col [11] Lines [13-30, 46-53], Col [12] Lines [4-14, 56-60], Col [13] Lines [1-20], and Figure [4-6], McCusker discloses determining a status and if a notification is in effect. Further, McCusker discloses displaying graphic overlays for textual communications converted to symbolic (graphic overlay) form, the symbolic representation being dependent upon extracted information such as “dates the obstacle notification (e.g. NOTAM) is in effect, obstacle type, elevation, status, and/or any other information embedded in the textual communication”. Further, “the aircraft display system 212 and/or the aircraft server 212 is configured to update the electronic map 400 to include one or more symbolic representations based on obstacle data (e.g., obstacle type 302, obstacle coordinates 304, obstacle elevation/height 306, and/or obstacle status 308”. McCusker discloses different types of symbolic representations based on factors such as aircraft type, range of the map, and status)
displaying, for each NOTAM, a graphic overlay on the graphical airspace for the NOTAM, the graphic overlay having a [first appearance] when the determined status of the NOTAM is inactive, and having a [second appearance] when the determined status of the NOTAM is active. (per claim 9) / display, for each NOTAM, a graphic overlay on the graphical airspace for the NOTAM, the graphic overlay having a [first appearance] when the determined status of the NOTAM is inactive, and having a [second appearance] when the determined status of the NOTAM is active. (per claim 15) (Col [11] Lines [46-53], Col [12] Lines [4-14], and Figure [4-6], McCusker discloses displaying graphic overlays for textual communications converted to symbolic (graphic overlay) form, the symbolic representation being dependent upon extracted information such as “dates the obstacle notification (e.g. NOTAM) is in effect, obstacle type, elevation, status, and/or any other information embedded in the textual communication”. Further, “the aircraft display system 212 and/or the aircraft server 212 is configured to update the electronic map 400 to include one or more symbolic representations based on obstacle data (e.g., obstacle type 302, obstacle coordinates 304, obstacle elevation/height 306, and/or obstacle status 308”)
The disclosure of McCusker then differs from the invention of the aforementioned claims in two ways; first, having a different display dependent upon a status of a NOTAM being active or inactive, and second, being communicatively coupled to a generic electronic flight bag (EFB).
Regarding the first difference of determine whether a status of the [NOTAM] is active or inactive and the graphic overlay having a first appearance when the determined status of the NOTAM is inactive, and having a second appearance when the determined status of the NOTAM is active., Moravek, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches determine whether a status of the [NOTAM] is active or inactive and the graphic overlay having a first appearance when the determined status of the NOTAM is inactive, and having a second appearance when the determined status of the NOTAM is active. (Paragraph [0002, 0029, 0045, 0049] and Figure [4], Moravek teaches obtaining information from reports including NOTAMs. Further, Moravek teaches outputting graphical representations obtained from the data with visually distinguishable (different) patterns that indicate if a runway (and by extension, the NOTAM itself) is active or inactive)
McCusker and Moravek are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of McCusker to explicitly include two different appearances of a symbol depending upon a status of active or inactive, as taught by Moravek, in the interest of assisting a pilot quickly ascertain flight parameters (Moravek, Paragraph [0054], motivation). McCusker discloses that the symbolic representation depends upon status/effect and one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it an obvious modification to merely specify that the appearance of the symbolic representation differed depending upon the extracted status information. Moravek is merely relied upon to show that it was known in the art at the time of effective filing to have icons/graphical elements displayed with different appearances based upon an active/inactive attribute status. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to make this change in order to more easily differentiate between symbolic representations.
Further, regarding electronic flight bag, the examiner notes that Moravek, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, also teaches a logic subsystem in communication with an electronic flight bag on an aircraft (Paragraph [0055-0057] and Figure [9], Moravek teaches a system in communication with an EFB)
McCusker and Moravek are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of McCusker to communicate with an EFB, as taught by Moravek, in order to use a well-known component to transmit, display, and analyze data (Moravek, Paragraph [0057], motivation) as a matter of design choice. The examiner notes that an EFB is merely peripherally claimed and not tied into the inventive concept, simply reciting an additional element that has no particular impact on the claimed invention. Merely peripherally claiming communication with a well-known avionics component (an EFB) is an obvious variant of McCusker, as evidenced by the teachings of Moravek. Thus, this serves as merely a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10: Parent claim 9 is unpatentable over McCusker in view of Moravek, disclosing appearances depending upon status. McCusker does not explicitly disclose hatched and solid overlays. McCusker discloses determination of active messages, as noted in the parent claim.
However, Moravek, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft displays, teaches wherein displaying the graphic overlay with the first appearance on the graphical airspace [when the determined status of the NOTAM is inactive] comprises displaying the graphic overlay with a hatched overlay, and displaying the graphic overlay with the second appearance on the graphical airspace [when the determined status of the NOTAM is active] comprises displaying the graphic overlay with a solid overlay. (Paragraph [0032, 0045, 0047, 0050, 0052-0053] and Figure [6-8], Moravek teaches a plurality of display patterns such as filled and hatched)
McCusker does not explicitly disclose providing two different appearances dependent upon this, however this is merely a matter of design choice. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have found it an obvious modification of McCusker to merely provide two different appearances of a symbol depending upon the status of the message. McCusker discloses that the symbolic representation depends upon status/effect and one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it an obvious modification to merely specify that the appearance of the symbolic representation differed depending upon the extracted status information. Moravek is merely relied upon to show that it was known at the time of effective filing, in an analogous field of endeavor, to have icons/graphical elements displayed with different appearances based upon an attribute status. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to make this change in order to more easily differentiate between symbolic representations.
Regarding claims 11 and 16: Parent claims 9 and 15 are unpatentable over McCusker in view of Moravek. McCusker further discloses wherein determining whether the status of the NOTAM is active or inactive (see parent claims) further comprises determining whether the NOTAM includes a schedule, and [when the NOTAM is determined to not include the schedule, determining that the status of the NOTAM is active.] (per claim 11) / wherein the instructions executable to determine the status of the NOTAM are further executable to determine whether the NOTAM includes a schedule, and [when the NOTAM is determined to not include the schedule, determine that the status of the NOTAM is active.] (per claim 16) (Col [11] Lines [46-53], Col [12] Lines [4-14], and Figure [4-6], McCusker discloses determining if a notification is in effect (thus, a schedule) and a status)
While McCusker does not explicitly disclose that if a schedule is not included to determine that the NOTAM is active, this is implicitly taught and merely an obvious variant of McCusker. As McCusker discloses obtaining an obstacle status and determination that the notification is in effect, continued persistence of an obstacle despite potentially dates of effect would then continue to indicate that the obstacle is active. Thus, the determination is an obvious variant of the disclosure of McCusker and is patentably indistinct.
Regarding claims 12 and 17: Parent claims 11 and 16 are unpatentable over McCusker in view of Moravek. McCusker further discloses wherein determining whether the NOTAM includes the schedule comprises determining whether the schedule of the NOTAM is currently operative based at least upon one or more data attributes extracted from the NOTAM, [when the schedule of the NOTAM is determined to be currently operative, determining that the status of the NOTAM is active, and when the schedule of the NOTAM is determined to not be currently operative, determining that the status of the NOTAM is inactive.] (per claim 12) / wherein the instructions executable to determine whether the NOTAM includes the schedule comprise instructions executable to determine whether the schedule of the NOTAM is currently operative based at least upon one or more data attributes extracted from the NOTAM, [when the schedule of the NOTAM is determined to be currently operative, determine that the status of the NOTAM is active, and when the schedule of the NOTAM is determined to not be currently operative, determine that the status of the NOTAM is inactive.] (per claim 17) (Col [11] Lines [46-53], Col [12] Lines [4-14], and Figure [4-6], McCusker discloses extracting attributes of the textual messages to produce a symbolic representation, including a determination of when the messages are in effect and status)
While McCusker does not explicitly disclose that a message is taught to be active when within effective dates/times and not active when not within effective dates/times, this is implicitly taught through recitation of “extract the…dates that the obstacle notification (e.g. NOTAM) is in effect, …, status…” and merely an obvious variant of McCusker. As McCusker discloses obtaining an obstacle status and determination that the notification is in effect, a determination of activity is implied based on the timeline of when the notification is in effect. Thus, the determination is an obvious variant of the disclosure of McCusker and is patentably indistinct.
Claims 5, 7, 13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCusker in view of Moravek in further view of Kroen (US 2012/0218127 A1; hereinafter Kroen).
Regarding claim 5: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over McCusker in view of Moravek. McCusker further discloses wherein the graphic overlay further comprises a source attribute indicating a source of the NOTAM, and wherein the instructions executable to display the graphic overlay on the graphical airspace comprise instructions executable to (Col [11:13-30] and Col [12:4-14], McCusker discloses obtaining textual communications from a server (source) with communication/transmission indicating originating from this source)
display the graphic overlay having a first source attribute [when the NOTAM is a NOTAM from a first source, and] display the graphic overlay having a second source attribute [when the NOTAM is a NOTAM from a second source.] (Col [11] Lines [46-53], Col [12] Lines [4-14], and Figure [4-6], McCusker discloses extracting attributes of the textual messages to produce a symbolic representation)
McCusker does not explicitly disclose a differentiation between a first and second source.
However, Kroen, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft monitoring systems, teaches first source attribute when the NOTAM is a NOTAM from a first source, and second source attribute when the NOTAM is a NOTAM from a second source (Paragraph [0066], Kroen teaches receiving input from data sources including FAA (official) and data published by individual airlines (company) (two different sources))
McCusker and Kroen are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of McCusker to include graphical outputs based upon the source of data, as this is merely a matter of design choice. Receiving data from a plurality of sources (Kroen) was known in the art, as was display of symbolic representations received from data originating from the aforementioned sources. Merely specifying different graphical representations/attributes based upon the source of data is a matter of obvious design choice and is patentably indistinct from the prior art of note. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it obvious to merely change a display format as needed to indicate to an operator a source of data.
Regarding claim 7: Parent claim 5 is unpatentable over McCusker in view of Moravek in view of Kroen. McCusker further discloses wherein the first source attribute comprises a first color, and the second source attribute comprises a second color. (Col [13] Lines [1-10], McCusker discloses changing the color of the symbolic representation)
Regarding claims 13 and 18: Parent claims 9 and 15 are obvious over McCusker in view of Moravek. McCusker further discloses wherein the graphic overlay further comprises a source attribute indicating a source of the NOTAM, and wherein displaying the graphic overlay for the NOTAM comprises (per claim 13) / wherein the graphic overlay further comprises a source attribute indicating a source of the NOTAM, and wherein the instructions executable to display the graphic overlay on the graphical airspace comprise instructions executable to (per claim 18) (Col [11:13-30] and Col [12:4-14], McCusker discloses obtaining textual communications from a server (source) with communication/transmission indicating originating from this source)
displaying the graphic overlay having a first source attribute [when the NOTAM is a NOTAM from a first source], and displaying the graphic overlay having a second source attribute [when the NOTAM is a NOTAM from a second source.] (per claim 13) / display the graphic overlay having a first source attribute [when the NOTAM is a NOTAM from a first source], and display the graphic overlay having a second source attribute [when the NOTAM is a NOTAM from a second source.] (per claim 18) (Col [11] Lines [46-53], Col [12] Lines [4-14], and Figure [4-6], McCusker discloses extracting attributes of the textual messages to produce a symbolic representation)
McCusker does not explicitly disclose a differentiation between an “official” message and a “company” message.
However, Kroen, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft monitoring systems, teaches first source attribute when the NOTAM is a NOTAM from a first source, and second source attribute when the NOTAM is a NOTAM from a second source (per claims 13 and 18) (Paragraph [0066], Kroen teaches receiving input from data sources including FAA (official) and data published by individual airlines (company) (different sources))
McCusker and Kroen are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of McCusker to include graphical outputs based upon the source of data, as this is merely a matter of design choice. Receiving data from a plurality of sources (Kroen) was known in the art, as was display of symbolic representations received from data originating from the aforementioned sources. Merely specifying different graphical representations/attributes based upon the source of data is a matter of obvious design choice and is patentably indistinct from the prior art of note. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it obvious to merely change a display format as needed to indicate to an operator a source of data.
Regarding claim 20: Parent claim 18 is unpatentable over McCusker in view of Moravek in view of Kroen. McCusker further discloses wherein the first source attribute comprises a first color, and the second source attribute comprises a second color. (Col [13] Lines [1-10], McCusker discloses changing the color of the symbolic representation)
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCusker in view of Moravek in further view of Kroen in further view of Karthikeyan et al. (US 2011/0202206 A1; hereinafter Karthikeyan).
Regarding claims 6 and 19: Parent claims 5 and 18 (respectively) are unpatentable over McCusker in view of Moravek in further view of Kroen, using the rationale provided in the parent claim for sources. McCusker further discloses wherein the first source attribute comprises a first tag, the second source attribute comprises a second tag, and wherein the instructions executable to display the graphic overlay comprise instructions executable to [display either the first tag or the second tag attached to a border of the graphical airspace.] (per claim 6) / wherein the first source attribute comprises a first tag, the second source attribute comprises a second tag, and wherein the instructions executable to display the graphic overlay comprise instructions executable to [display either the first tag or the second tag attached to a border of the graphical airspace.] (per claim 19) (Col [11:13-30] and Col [12:4-14], McCusker discloses obtaining textual communications from a server (source) with communication/transmission indicating originating from this source)
McCusker does not explicitly disclose attaching a tag to a border of the graphical airspace.
However, Karthikeyan, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation systems, teaches display either the first tag or the second tag attached to a border of the graphical airspace (per claims 6 and 19) (Paragraph [0027-0035] and Figure [2], Karthikeyan teaches inclusion of the NOTAM identifier on a face/edge (and therefore, a border of the 3D object) of a graphical representation of the NOTAM area)
McCusker and Karthikeyan are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of McCusker to include graphical outputs in certain formats as taught by Karthikeyan, as this is merely a matter of design choice. Placement of a tag along a border of, within, or adjacent to another graphical element is not a patentable distinction over the prior art of note and is merely a matter of obvious design choice to suit the preferences of an operator.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCusker in view of Moravek in further view of Rao et al. (US 2023/0392954 A1; hereinafter Rao).
Regarding claims 8 and 14: Parent claims 1 and 9 (respectively) are unpatentable over McCusker in view of Moravek. McCusker does not explicitly disclose a feature to stop displaying a NOTAM.
However, Rao, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches wherein the instructions are further executable to, in response to receiving a user input requesting a display toggle for the graphic overlay for a selected NOTAM, stop displaying the graphic overlay for the selected NOTAM. (per claim 8) / further comprising, in response to receiving a user input requesting a display toggle for the graphic overlay for a selected NOTAM, stopping to display the graphic overlay for the selected NOTAM. (per claim 14) (Paragraph [0040] and Figure [4-5], Rao teaches a selectable user interface element to decline, disregard, or otherwise ignore a NOTAM (a toggle))
McCusker and Rao are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of McCusker to include an element to toggle a NOTAM as taught by Rao in the interest of allowing an operator the ability to remove indicators that are deemed unnecessary. The inclusion of a display toggle is well-known, routine, and conventional in the art and including this feature is an obvious matter of design decision.
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2020/0066163 A1
Restricted Airspace Monitoring Systems and Methods
Emsbach et al.
Filed: 21 Aug 2018
Pub: 27 Feb 2020
Discusses providing outputs from NOTAMs to a display based upon a restricted airspace being active or inactive.
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