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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Amendment filed on 07/08/2026.
In the Instant amendment, claims 1, 6-8 and 14-15 have been amended; Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims; Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended limitations recited in amended claims 1, 6-8 and 14-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mecklem et al. (“Mecklem,” US 2020/0202732), published on June 25, 2020, in view of Subramaniyan et al. (“Subramaniyan,” US 10,854,092), issued on Dec. 01, 2020.
Regarding claim 1, Mecklem discloses a method comprising:
segmenting a graphical user interface (GUI) by a plurality of GUI colors into a plurality of color-segmented graphical user interfaces (pars. 0023 and 0053-0057; Figs. 3B-3C and 4-6; the DAA gauge displays one or more best path bands in a third color distinct from the first color and the second color; see also pars. 0048 and 0067; viewpoint display 152 displays a graphical feature (e.g., a color-coded geometric shape) in the display 108 to identify the boundaries of the navigation alert region 214);
detecting a plurality of contours within the plurality of color-segmented graphical user interfaces (pars. 0023, 0048 and 0053-0057; Figs. 3B-3C and 4-6; a map view of the viewpoint display 152 displays a graphical feature (e.g., a color-coded geometric shape) in the display 108 to identify the boundaries of the navigation alert region 214);
computing a plurality of GUI feature descriptions and a plurality of GUI bounds for the plurality of contours (pars. 0026-0028, 0074 and 0082-0087; Figs. 5-6; the other aircraft text 438 of the graphic feature 412 presents information associated with the other aircraft 106; numeric text of range limits of the alert band 426A (e.g., 97 and 141) and numeric text of range limits of the alert band 426B (e.g., 0 and 320) are presented in identifier regions 430);
combining the plurality of GUI colors, the plurality of GUI feature descriptions, and the plurality of GUI bounds into a GUI composition (pars. 0023, 0053-0057, 0074 and 0082-0087; Figs. 3B-3C and 4-6; aircraft flight information display for an aircraft that provides information regarding a particular airspace around the aircraft); and
comparing the GUI composition with a widget composition of a widget to detect the widget composition is present in the graphical user interface (pars. 0039, 0061 and 0091, the flightpath estimation instructions 142 compare the estimated proximities between the ownship 104 and each of the other aircraft 106 to various thresholds 162 (e.g., a well clear volume threshold and a mid-air collision volume threshold) to determine whether the estimated future flightpaths are expected to result in a separation violation condition; the aircraft flight information system 102 compares the separation distances to the well clear volume threshold).
Mecklem discloses a plurality of color-segmented graphical user interfaces as cited above, but does not explicitly disclose the plurality of color-segmented graphical user interfaces each comprising a different one of the plurality of GUI colors; the plurality of contours of each of the plurality of color-segmented graphical user interfaces; and the plurality of GUI bounds for each of the plurality of color-segmented graphical user interface.
However, Subramaniyan discloses a cockpit display of an aircraft including a plurality of color-segmented graphical user interfaces each comprising a different one of the plurality of GUI colors (Subramaniyan: col. 16, lines 9-27; Figs. 5A-5B; color-coded segments 535 including red segment 520, yellow segment 525, and green segment 527); the plurality of contours of each of the plurality of color-segmented graphical user interfaces (Subramaniyan: col. 16, lines 9-27 color-coded segments 535. Figs. 5A-5B; the pilot by looking at the color-coded segments 535, can match a segment (ex. red segment 520, yellow segment 525, and green segment 527) to the current time moving window 540 and easily gauge the remaining amount of time in the colored segment to complete the A-CDM event); and the plurality of GUI bounds for each of the plurality of color-segmented graphical user interface (Subramaniyan: col. 16, lines 9-27; Figs. 5A-5B; color-coded segments 535 including red segment 520, yellow segment 525, and green segment 527).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Subramaniyan with the system/method of Mecklem. One would have been motivated to provide pilots with a color-segmented display enabling the pilots easily to gauge the remaining amount of time in the colored segment to coordinate airport collaborative decision-making (A-CDM) events (Subramaniyan: abstract and col. 16, lines 9-27).
Regarding claim 2, Mecklem and Subramaniyan disclose the method of claim 1.
The combination of Mecklem and Subramaniyan further discloses wherein the widget composition comprises a plurality of widget colors, a plurality of widget feature descriptions, and a plurality of widget bounds, wherein comparing the GUI composition with the widget composition to detect the widget composition is present in the graphical user interface (Figs. 4-6) comprises:
matching the plurality of widget feature descriptions to the plurality of GUI feature descriptions and verifying that the plurality of widget colors associated with the plurality of widget feature descriptions match the plurality of GUI colors which are associated with the plurality of GUI feature descriptions (pars. 0039, 0061 and 0091, the flightpath estimation instructions 142 compare the estimated proximities between the ownship 104 and each of the other aircraft 106 to various thresholds 162 (e.g., a well clear volume threshold and a mid-air collision volume threshold) to determine whether the estimated future flightpaths are expected to result in a separation violation condition; the aircraft flight information system 102 compares the separation distances to the well clear volume threshold; Subramaniyan: col. 16, lines 9-27 color-coded segments 535. Figs. 5A-5B; the pilot by looking at the color-coded segments 535, can match a segment (ex. red segment 520, yellow segment 525, and green segment 527) to the current time moving window 540 and easily gauge the remaining amount of time in the colored segment to complete the A-CDM event);
determine a plurality of widget origin points in the graphical user interface for the plurality of GUI feature descriptions which match the plurality of widget feature descriptions based on the plurality of widget bounds and the plurality of GUI bounds (pars. 0031-0032, 0091-0093 and 0104-0105; Figs. 4-6; the modules may estimate a future flightpath of the other aircraft 106 based on the current flightpath of the other aircraft 106 and determine consequences of various alternate flightpaths that the other aircraft 106 could take with respect to the ownship 104; Subramaniyan: col. 16, lines 9-27 color-coded segments 535. Figs. 5A-5B; the pilot by looking at the color-coded segments 535, can match a segment (ex. red segment 520, yellow segment 525, and green segment 527) to the current time moving window 540 and easily gauge the remaining amount of time in the colored segment to complete the A-CDM event); and
determining the plurality of widget origin points are at a common point on the graphical user interface (pars. 0031-0032, 0091-0093 and 0104-0105; Figs. 4-6; for each of the other aircraft 106 in violation of the well clear threshold, the aircraft flight information system 102 determines ranges of second alert bands for flightpaths of the ownship 104 that will result in violation of the mid-air collision volume threshold Subramaniyan: col. 16, lines 9-27 color-coded segments 535. Figs. 5A-5B; the pilot by looking at the color-coded segments 535, can match a segment (ex. red segment 520, yellow segment 525, and green segment 527) to the current time moving window 540 and easily gauge the remaining amount of time in the colored segment to complete the A-CDM event).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Mecklem and Subramaniyan disclose the method of claim 1.
The combination of Mecklem and Subramaniyan further discloses wherein the plurality of GUI feature descriptions comprise at least one of edges, corners, blobs, ridges, colors, key points, or moments (Mecklem: pars. 0077-0081 and 0084-0087; Figs. 4-6; Subramaniyan: col. 16, lines 9-27 color-coded segments 535. Figs. 5A-5B).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Mecklem and Subramaniyan disclose the method of claim 1.
The combination of Mecklem and Subramaniyan further discloses wherein the plurality of color-segmented graphical user interface each comprise [sic] a different one of the plurality of GUI colors and none of the other of the plurality of GUI colors (Mecklem: Figs. 3B-3C and 4-6; Subramaniyan: Figs. 5A-5B), wherein each of the plurality of color-segmented graphical user interfaces comprises one or more of the plurality of contours (Mecklem: pars. 0023, 0048 and 0053-0057; Figs. 3B-3C and 4-6; a map view of the viewpoint display 152 displays a graphical feature (e.g., a color-coded geometric shape) in the display 108 to identify the boundaries of the navigation alert region 214; Subramaniyan: col. 16, lines 9-27 color-coded segments 535. Figs. 5A-5B; red segment 520, yellow segment 525, and green segment 527), wherein the plurality of contours are detected as joining all pixels that are contiguous in respective ones of the plurality of color-segmented graphical user interface (Mecklem: Figs. 3B-3C and 4-6; Subramaniyan: Figs. 5A-5B).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Mecklem and Subramaniyan disclose the method of claim 1.
The combination of Mecklem and Subramaniyan further discloses wherein the plurality of GUI bounds comprise a position of the plurality of contours relative to an origin point of the plurality of GUI bounds and a size of the plurality of contours (Mecklem: pars. 0023, 0048 and 0053-0057; Figs. 3B-3C and 4-6; a map view of the viewpoint display 152 displays a graphical feature (e.g., a color-coded geometric shape) in the display 108 to identify the boundaries of the navigation alert region 214; Subramaniyan: col. 16, lines 9-27 color-coded segments 535. Figs. 5A-5B; red segment 520, yellow segment 525, and green segment 527).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is directed to a verification computer corresponding to the method recited in claim 1. Claim 8 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 9, Mecklem and Subramaniyan disclose the verification computer of claim 8.
The combination of Mecklem and Subramaniyan further discloses wherein the verification computer is configured to generate the widget composition and maintain the widget composition in the memory (Mecklem: par. 0027; Fig. 1; the memory device(s) 116, the input device(s) 118, the communication interface(s) 120, the display device(s) 122, and other output devices 124 are directly or indirectly coupled to the processor(s) 114).
The motivation is the same that of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is directed to a verification computer corresponding to the method recited in claim 2. Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to a verification computer corresponding to the method recited in claim 4. Claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is directed to a verification computer corresponding to the method recited in claim 6. Claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, Mecklem discloses a system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a verification computer (Fig. 1) comprising:
a memory maintaining program instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the program instructions causing the one or more processors to (pars. 0027-0028; Fig. 1):
segment a graphical user interface (GUI) by a plurality of GUI colors into a plurality of color-segmented graphical user interfaces (pars. 0023 and 0053-0057; Figs. 3B-3C and 4-6; the DAA gauge displays one or more best path bands in a third color distinct from the first color and the second color; see also pars. 0048 and 0067; viewpoint display 152 displays a graphical feature (e.g., a color-coded geometric shape) in the display 108 to identify the boundaries of the navigation alert region 214);
detect a plurality of contours within the plurality of color-segmented graphical user interfaces; compute a plurality of GUI feature descriptions and a plurality of GUI bounds for the plurality of contours (pars. 0023, 0048 and 0053-0057; Figs. 3B-3C and 4-6; a map view of the viewpoint display 152 displays a graphical feature (e.g., a color-coded geometric shape) in the display 108 to identify the boundaries of the navigation alert region 214);
combine the plurality of GUI colors, the plurality of GUI feature descriptions, and the plurality of GUI bounds into a GUI composition (pars. 0023, 0053-0057, 0074 and 0082-0087; Figs. 3B-3C and 4-6; aircraft flight information display for an aircraft that provides information regarding a particular airspace around the aircraft); and
compare the GUI composition with a widget composition of a widget to detect the widget composition is present in the graphical user interface (pars. 0039, 0061 and 0091, the flightpath estimation instructions 142 compare the estimated proximities between the ownship 104 and each of the other aircraft 106 to various thresholds 162 (e.g., a well clear volume threshold and a mid-air collision volume threshold) to determine whether the estimated future flightpaths are expected to result in a separation violation condition; the aircraft flight information system 102 compares the separation distances to the well clear volume threshold); and
a cockpit display system comprising one or more definition files defining the widget, wherein the cockpit display system is configured to generate the graphical user interface (pars. 0006-0007 and 0027-0030; Fig. 1; the memory device(s) 116 store instructions 126 that are executable by the processor(s) 114 to perform various operations associated with receiving and presenting information descriptive of an airspace around the ownship 104, presenting flight advice to a pilot, receiving and processing flight control input from the pilot, and communicating commands 110 to the ownship 104).
Mecklem discloses a plurality of color-segmented graphical user interfaces as cited above, but does not explicitly disclose the plurality of color-segmented graphical user interfaces each comprising a different one of the plurality of GUI colors; the plurality of contours of each of the plurality of color-segmented graphical user interfaces; and the plurality of GUI bounds for each of the plurality of color-segmented graphical user interface.
However, Subramaniyan discloses a cockpit display of an aircraft including a plurality of color-segmented graphical user interfaces each comprising a different one of the plurality of GUI colors (Subramaniyan: col. 16, lines 9-27; Figs. 5A-5B; color-coded segments 535 including red segment 520, yellow segment 525, and green segment 527); the plurality of contours of each of the plurality of color-segmented graphical user interfaces (Subramaniyan: col. 16, lines 9-27 color-coded segments 535. Figs. 5A-5B; the pilot by looking at the color-coded segments 535, can match a segment (ex. red segment 520, yellow segment 525, and green segment 527) to the current time moving window 540 and easily gauge the remaining amount of time in the colored segment to complete the A-CDM event); and the plurality of GUI bounds for each of the plurality of color-segmented graphical user interface (Subramaniyan: col. 16, lines 9-27; Figs. 5A-5B; color-coded segments 535 including red segment 520, yellow segment 525, and green segment 527).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Subramaniyan with the system/method of Mecklem. One would have been motivated to provide pilots with a color-segmented display enabling the pilots easily to gauge the remaining amount of time in the colored segment to coordinate airport collaborative decision-making (A-CDM) events (Subramaniyan: abstract and col. 16, lines 9-27).
The combination of Mecklem and Subramaniyan further disclose therein the one or more processors segment the graphical user interface into the plurality of color-segmented graphical user interfaces in response to the cockpit display system generating the graphical user interface (Mecklem: pars. 0023 and 0053-0057; Figs. 3B-3C and 4-6; the DAA gauge displays one or more best path bands in a third color distinct from the first color and the second color; see also pars. 0048 and 0067; viewpoint display 152 displays a graphical feature (e.g., a color-coded geometric shape) in the display 108 to identify the boundaries of the navigation alert region 214; Subramaniyan: col. 16, lines 9-27; Figs. 5A-5B; color-coded segments 535 including red segment 520, yellow segment 525, and green segment 527).
Regarding claim 19, Mecklem and Subramaniyan disclose the system of claim 15.
The combination of Mecklem and Subramaniyan further discloses one or more flight displays, wherein the cockpit display system causes the one or more flight displays to display the graphical user interface (Mecklem: pars. 0022-0025, 0064, 0077, and 0081-0083; Figs. 5-6; the coverage area indicator 414 surrounds a region for which the aircraft flight information system 102 displays data associated with the other aircraft 106; Subramaniyan: col. 16, lines 9-27 color-coded segments 535. Figs. 5A-5B; the pilot by looking at the color-coded segments 535, can match a segment (ex. red segment 520, yellow segment 525, and green segment 527) to the current time moving window 540 and easily gauge the remaining amount of time in the colored segment to complete the A-CDM event).
The motivation is the same that of claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is directed to a system corresponding to the method recited in claim 2. Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mecklem et al. (“Mecklem,” US 2020/0202732), published on June 25, 2020, in view of Subramaniyan et al. (“Subramaniyan,” US 10,854,092), issued on Dec. 01, 2020, and further in view of Jacquel et al. (“Jacquel,” US 2017/0238842), published on Aug. 24, 2017.
Regarding claim 3, Mecklem and Subramaniyan disclose the method of claim 2.
Mecklem discloses determining the plurality of widget origin points are at the common point (Mecklem: pars. 0064, 0077 and 0081-0083; Figs. 4-6; icon 416 for the ownship 104, a flightpath indicator 418, ownship text 420, and a compass rose 422 centered on the ownship 104).
Mecklem and Subramaniyan disclose determining the plurality of the widget origin points as recited above, but do not explicitly disclose a pixel tolerance is added to the plurality of widget origin points when determining the plurality of widget origin points.
However, Jacquel discloses a video-based monitoring device wherein a pixel tolerance is added to the plurality of widget origin points when determining the plurality of widget origin points (Jacquel: par. 0108; Fig. 6; the values of one or more of the Red, Green, or Blue pixels at the seed point 614 are stored, and then the fill operation adds neighboring pixels whose color values are within a tolerance of the seed point 614).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Jacquel with the system/method of Mecklem and Subramaniyan. One would have been motivated to smoothing the area around seed point to avoid instance where the seed point is an outlier with color values (Jacquel: par. 0108).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is directed to a verification computer corresponding to the method recited in claim 3. Claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mecklem et al. (“Mecklem,” US 2020/0202732), published on June 25, 2020, in view of Subramaniyan et al. (“Subramaniyan,” US 10,854,092), issued on Dec. 01, 2020, and further in view of Marasimha et al. (US 2013/0287256), published on Cot. 31, 2013.
Regarding claim 5, Mecklem and Subramaniyan disclose the method of claim 4.
Mecklem and Subramaniyan do not explicitly disclose the plurality of GUI feature descriptions are Zernike moments.
However, Marasimha discloses a method/system for real time image recognition, wherein the plurality of GUI feature descriptions are Zernike moments (pars. 0055 and 0074; the Zernike moment defines the shape of the object in the captured image and are stored as descriptors in a central server).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Narasimha with the system/method of Mecklem and Subramaniyan. One would have been motivated to defining the shape of the object in the captured image (Narasimha: par. 0074).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a verification computer corresponding to the method recited in claim 5. Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mecklem et al. (“Mecklem,” US 2020/0202732), published on June 25, 2020, in view of Subramaniyan et al. (“Subramaniyan,” US 10,854,092), issued on Dec. 01, 2020, and further in view of Lin et al. (“Lin,” US 2014/0198702), published on Jul. 17, 2014.
Regarding claim 16, Mecklem and Subramaniyan disclose the system of claim 15.
The combination Mecklem and Subramaniyan further discloses an avionics system configured to execute one or more user applications generates one or more function calls to the cockpit display system (Mecklem: pars. 0026-0030; Figs. 1 and 4-6).
Mecklem and Subramaniyan do not explicitly disclose the system is configured to generate the graphical user interface based on the one or more function calls.
However, Lin discloses a system wherein the system is configured to generate the graphical user interface based on the one or more function calls (Lin: par. 0037; the user interface module 215 generates the interface in response to application programming interfaces (APIs) or other function calls corresponding to the application 104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Lin with the system/method of Mecklem and Subramaniyan. One would have been motivated to create GUI for user interaction based on one or more function calls (Lin: par. 0037).
Regarding claim 17, Mecklem, Subramaniyan and Lin discloses the system of claim 16.
The combination of Mecklem, Subramaniyan and Lin further discloses one or more sensors configured to generate avionics data, wherein the one or more user applications generate the one or more function calls based on the avionics data (Mecklem: pars. 0023 and 0027-0030; DAA gauge and sensor data; Lin: pars. 0037 and 0051-0052).
The motivation is the same that of claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 18, Mecklem, Subramaniyan and Lin disclose the system of claim 16.
The combination of Mecklem, Subramaniyan and Lin further discloses wherein the one or more user applications are configured to update the one or more function calls based on user interface feedback from the one or more user interface elements (Mecklem: pars. 0027-0030; Lin: 0051-0056; the update may be resumed upon activation of the device based on feedback information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Lin with the system/method of Mecklem and Subramaniyan. One would have been motivated to perform software update based on feedback information (Lin: par. 0037).
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 extension fee 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH K PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3230. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM (EST).
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, William L Bashore can be reached on (571) 272-4088. 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.
/LINH K PHAM/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2174
