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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
The examiner received a request for continued examination (RCE) dated 26 June 2026 with amended claims in response to the final rejection office action dated 26 March 2026 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding rejections”, “outstanding objections”, “prior office action”, and the like). No new matter was entered.
Regarding the examiner's interpretation of NOTAM, the examiner reviewed the following resource provided by the applicant (https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/aero_guide/) but found no explicit definition/structure as to what constitutes a NOTAM versus any other type of message/alert. Applicant asserts that a delineating feature in the remarks dated 26 June 2026 is "NOTAMs 'alert pilots to time-critical aeronautical information that is either temporary or not sufficiently known in advance to permit publication on aeronautical charts'"; this merely describes what the alert does (alert pilots to time-critical information) rather than what it is. Further, applicant themselves state "As one example of typical usage of the term in this field…", indicating that other examples are present which may change the usage of the term. Put simply, what separates a NOTAM from any other message? Does it contain a positive limitation of requiring location and time information but a negative limitation of not showing up on another navigation sub-system? Applicant appears to be making an argument that a NOTAM is different when compared to a standard message or alert in that the NOTAM comprises "time-critical important updated aeronautical information"; what constitutes "time-critical" or "important"? Would a pilot not consider indicated air speed to be time-critical and/or important? What about the position of a surrounding aircraft? The examiner notes that applicant has not provided a redefinition and the linked reference provided by the applicant supposedly showing that the term is known in the art does not provide a patentable difference from other forms of message/notice other than name alone. The examiner respectfully requests that if a particular structure of NOTAM is intended, that it be positively claimed as such in the instant claims. At this time, the examiner will continue to interpret NOTAM broadly but notes that references provided continue to read upon NOTAMs in particular.
Regarding "aeronautical chart", the examiner reviewed the following resource provided by the applicant (https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/aero_guide/) but found no explicit definition as to what constitutes an "aeronautical chart" versus any other "map" as a term of the art. Further, the examiner reviewed the instant specification and found only exemplary embodiments of an "aeronautical chart" in addition to the verbiage of paragraph [0014] which states "To help contextualize aviation operation information, users reading a NOTAM may refer to a map, such as an aeronautical chart". Therefore, the examiner will broadly interpret "aeronautical chart" to pertain to any form of map. The examiner respectfully requests that if a narrower definition of the term is intended to explicitly amend the claim set to claim as such; the examiner will not improperly narrow the claim language based upon exemplary embodiments.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, the examiner reviewed the amendments to the independent claims in addition to the arguments presented starting on page [13] of the remarks and found the arguments persuasive in light of the amendments made. Applicant's inventive concept is more clearly conveyed in the instant claims and the inventive concept present a practical application. Therefore, all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the examiner notes that instances of new matter and indefinite claim language have been removed. Therefore, all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 103) rejections, the examiner notes that arguments are moot as applicant has amended the claim language. New grounds for rejection, necessitated by claim amendment with Request for Continued Examination, can be found below.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 26 June 2026. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-21 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent claims. All pending claims (1 and 3-21) are rejected, as indicated below.
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.
Regarding "aeronautical chart", the examiner paragraph [0014] which states "To help contextualize aviation operation information, users reading a NOTAM may refer to a map, such as an aeronautical chart". Therefore, the examiner will broadly interpret "aeronautical chart" to pertain to any form of map.
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, 3-4, 9-12, 15-17, and 21 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 ForeFlight (NPL – “ForeFlight Feature Focus: Global Graphical NOTAMs”, provided in this office action as a PDF providing screen captures and corresponding transcript from a YouTube video, published 24 May 2022, hereinafter ForeFlight) in further 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 subsystem comprising at least a processor; and a storage subsystem comprising at least a computer-readable storage device, the storage subsystem comprising an aeronautical chart and instructions executable by the logic subsystem to (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 (an aeronautical chart))
display the aeronautical chart on the display device along with a graphical airspace on the aeronautical chart, the graphical airspace representing an airspace, (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 a status of the NOTAM at a specified temporal location along a flight plan of the aircraft based upon temporal information of the NOTAM, display [a first graphic overlay on the graphical airspace when a determined status of the NOTAM is currently active], and display [a second graphic overlay on the graphical airspace when the determined status of the NOTAM is currently inactive as well as being active at the specified temporal location, the first graphic overlay having a different appearance than the second graphic overlay]. (Col [11] Lines [46-53], Col [12] Lines [4-14, 56-60], Col [13] Lines [1-20], and Figure [3A, 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 instant claim 1 in two ways; first, overlay appearances that depend upon the status of the NOTAM, and second, communication with a generic electronic flight bag (EFB).
Regarding the first difference, ForeFlight, in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic control systems, teaches determine a status of the NOTAM at a specified temporal location [along a flight plan of the aircraft] based upon temporal information of the NOTAM, display a first graphic overlay on the graphical airspace when a determined status of the NOTAM is currently active, and display a second graphic overlay on the graphical airspace when the determined status of the NOTAM is currently inactive as well as being active at the specified temporal location, the first graphic overlay having a different appearance than the second graphic overlay. (Timestamps [0:19, 0:27, 0:40, 0:48, 0:51, 0:58] and corresponding transcript during the times noted, ForeFlight teaches an airspace map with a plurality of NOTAMs shown in various different formats/overlays and explicitly states starting at 0:34 “NOTAMs are color coded red, yellow, or grey based on type, severity, and active times. The most severe airspace restrictions first appear in yellow two hours before becoming active and turn red upon activation…”. In this example, the NOTAM is explicitly described as being yellow two hours before activation (a temporal aspect to accompany the displayed location) (a second graphic overlay when the NOTAM is currently inactive as well as becoming active at the specified temporal location), and then turns red upon activation (thus, a first graphic overlay when the NOTAM is currently active))
McCusker and ForeFlight are in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic control systems. 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 with the switching display overlays of ForeFlight as this is an obvious design choice that is in the interest of assisting a pilot to identify current status of zones of interest in an airspace (ForeFlight, “easily identify airspace restrictions, military exercises, and more that could impact your flight plan” – Timestamp 1:34 transcript text, considered motivation). ForeFlight is merely relied upon to show that it was known in the art at the time of effective filing to have an analogous air traffic control system that displays NOTAMs with different graphical elements/styles depending upon a status of the NOTAM; merely providing different graphical elements to identify these NOTAMs is an obvious modification of McCusker. This constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the second difference regarding an 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 independent claims 9 and 15: McCusker discloses A method for a computing device comprising an aeronautical chart, the computing device being 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 an aeronautical chart and instructions executable by the logic subsystem to (per claim 15) (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 (aeronautical chart). Further, a method alternative is disclosed)
displaying the aeronautical chart on a display device of the computing device along with a graphical airspace on the aeronautical chart, the graphical airspace representing an airspace, and (per claim 9) / display the aeronautical chart on the display device along with a graphical airspace on the aeronautical chart, the graphical airspace representing an airspace, 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 a status of the NOTAM at a specified temporal location along a flight plan of the aircraft based upon temporal information of the NOTAM, 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 NOTAM is currently inactive; and (per claim 9) / for each NOTAM of the plurality of NOTAMs, determine a status of the NOTAM at a specified temporal location along a flight plan of the aircraft based upon temporal information of the NOTAM, determine 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, determine that the status of the NOTAM is currently 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 [first graphic overlay on the graphical airspace for the NOTAM when the NOTAM is currently active] and displaying a [second graphic overlay on the graphical airspace when the NOTAM is currently inactive as well as being active at the specified temporal location, the first graphic overlay having a different appearance than the second graphic overlay]. (per claim 9) / display, for each NOTAM, a [first graphic overlay on the graphical airspace for the NOTAM when the NOTAM is currently active] and display a [second graphic overlay on the graphical airspace when the NOTAM is currently inactive as well as being active at the specified temporal location, the first graphic overlay having a different appearance than the second graphic overlay]. (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 instant claims 9 and 15 in two ways; first, overlay appearances that depend upon the status of the NOTAM, and second, communication with a generic electronic flight bag (EFB).
Regarding the first difference, ForeFlight, in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic control systems, teaches displaying, for each NOTAM, a first graphic overlay on the graphical airspace for the NOTAM when the NOTAM is currently active and displaying a second graphic overlay on the graphical airspace when the NOTAM is currently inactive as well as being active at the specified temporal location, the first graphic overlay having a different appearance than the second graphic overlay. (per claim 9) / display, for each NOTAM, a first graphic overlay on the graphical airspace for the NOTAM when the NOTAM is currently active and display a second graphic overlay on the graphical airspace when the NOTAM is currently inactive as well as being active at the specified temporal location, the first graphic overlay having a different appearance than the second graphic overlay. (per claim 15) (Timestamps [0:19, 0:27, 0:40, 0:48, 0:51, 0:58] and corresponding transcript during the times noted, ForeFlight teaches an airspace map with a plurality of NOTAMs shown in various different formats/overlays and explicitly states starting at 0:34 “NOTAMs are color coded red, yellow, or grey based on type, severity, and active times. The most severe airspace restrictions first appear in yellow two hours before becoming active and turn red upon activation…”. In this example, the NOTAM is explicitly described as being yellow two hours before activation (a temporal aspect to accompany the displayed location) (a second graphic overlay when the NOTAM is currently inactive as well as becoming active at the specified temporal location), and then turns red upon activation (thus, a first graphic overlay when the NOTAM is currently active))
McCusker and ForeFlight are in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic control systems. 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 with the switching display overlays of ForeFlight as this is an obvious design choice that is in the interest of assisting a pilot to identify current status of zones of interest in an airspace (ForeFlight, “easily identify airspace restrictions, military exercises, and more that could impact your flight plan” – Timestamp 1:34 transcript text, considered motivation). ForeFlight is merely relied upon to show that it was known in the art at the time of effective filing to have an analogous air traffic control system that displays NOTAMs with different graphical elements/styles depending upon a status of the NOTAM; merely providing different graphical elements to identify these NOTAMs is an obvious modification of McCusker. This constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the second difference regarding an 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 claims 3 and 10: Parent claims 1 and 9, respectively, are unpatentable over McCusker in view of ForeFlight in further 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 second graphic overlay comprises a hatched overlay, and wherein the first graphic overlay comprises a solid overlay. (per claim 3) / wherein displaying the second graphic overlay on the graphical airspace comprises displaying the second graphic overlay with a hatched overlay, and wherein displaying the first graphic overlay comprises displaying the first graphic overlay with a solid overlay. (per claim 10) (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 1 is unpatentable over McCusker in view of ForeFlight in further view of Moravek. McCusker further discloses wherein the instructions executable to determine whether the NOTAM is currently active or currently 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 claims 11 and 16: Parent claims 9 and 15, respectively, are unpatentable over McCusker in view of ForeFlight in further view of Moravek. McCusker further discloses further comprising determining whether the NOTAM includes a schedule, and [when the NOTAM is determined to not include the schedule, determining that the NOTAM is currently active]. (per claim 11) / wherein the instructions 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 NOTAM is currently 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, respectively, are unpatentable over McCusker in view of ForeFlight in further 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 NOTAM is currently active, and when the schedule of the NOTAM is determined to not be currently operative, determining that the NOTAM is currently 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 NOTAM is currently active, and when the schedule of the NOTAM is determined to not be currently operative, determine that the NOTAM is currently 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.
Regarding claim 21: Parent claim 4 is unpatentable over McCusker in view of ForeFlight in further view of Moravek. McCusker further discloses wherein the one or more data attributes extracted from the NOTAM comprise one or more of an effectivity data attribute or a schedule, wherein the instructions executable to determine the status of the NOTAM at the specified temporal location along the flight plan is based upon one or more of the effectivity data attribute or the schedule, and wherein the instructions are further executable to determine whether the NOTAM is currently inactive [based at least upon a current time]. (Col [11] Lines [46-53], Col [12] Lines [4-14, 56-60], Col [13] Lines [1-20], and Figure [3A, 4-6], McCusker discloses extracting data attributes such as dates that the NOTAM are in effect for status with a corresponding location)
McCusker does not explicitly disclose that a determination of whether the NOTAM is active or inactive is based on a current time.
However, ForeFlight, in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic control systems, teaches determine whether the NOTAM is currently inactive based at least upon a current time (Timestamp [0:36-0:58], ForeFlight shows a current time in the upper left corner of the display and indicates areas as inactive or active based upon the periods of activity of each NOTAM and the current time)
McCusker and ForeFlight are in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic control systems. 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 state that dates of NOTAM effect depend upon current time (as taught by ForeFlight), as this is implicit. As dates of effect are disclosed in McCusker, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to understand that if the current period is within a date/time of effect that the NOTAM is active, with the opposite being true as well. ForeFlight is merely relied upon as a secondary teaching reference to show a current time corresponding to times/dates of activity of NOTAMs to determine if they are active or inactive.
Claims 5, 7, 13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCusker in view of ForeFlight in further 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 ForeFlight in further view of Moravek. McCusker further discloses wherein the first graphic overlay further comprises a source attribute indicating a source of the NOTAM, and wherein the instructions executable to display the first 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 first graphic overlay having a first source attribute [when the NOTAM is a NOTAM from a first source], and display the first 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 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 ForeFlight in further view of Moravek in further 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, respectively, are unpatentable over McCusker in view of ForeFlight in further view of Moravek. McCusker further discloses wherein the first graphic overlay further comprises a source attribute indicating a source of the NOTAM, and wherein displaying the first graphic overlay for the NOTAM comprises (per claim 13) / wherein the first graphic overlay further comprises a source attribute indicating a source of the NOTAM, and wherein the instructions executable to display the first 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 first graphic overlay having a first source attribute [when the NOTAM is a NOTAM from a first source], and displaying the first graphic overlay having a second source attribute [when the NOTAM is a NOTAM from a second source.] (per claim 13) / display the first graphic overlay having a first source attribute [when the NOTAM is a NOTAM from a first source], and display the first 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 ForeFlight in further view of Moravek in further 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 ForeFlight 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 first 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 first 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 ForeFlight in further 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 second graphic overlay for a selected NOTAM, stop displaying the second graphic overlay for the selected NOTAM. (per claim 8) / further comprising, in response to receiving a user input requesting a display toggle for the second graphic overlay for a selected NOTAM, stopping to display the second 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 2014/0253585 A1
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF
N-FLIGHT MESSAGES
Paul Dominic et al.
Filed: 11 Mar 2013
Pub: 11 Sep 2014
Discusses displaying graphical elements to a user that change based upon status of the message.
2
US 2011/0231036 A1
Aircraft Communications Radio Tuning System and Method
Yogesha et al.
Filed: 22 Mar 2010
Pub: 22 Sep 2011
Discusses display details for an aircraft based on received data, the display indicating in two different display paradigms the status of an element.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights