DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control unit” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 10, 19 recite the limitation “changing a translucency of the at least one connection … based on an age of the turbulence measurements”. It is not clear how the age of the connection is determined. Is it based on the age of both data points used to create the connection? If so, is the age of the two datapoints used required to be the same? If the two datapoints are sensed at a different time, which age is used as the age of the segment? The scope of the claims could not be determined and is considered to be indefinite.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, 20 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1, 10 recite the broad recitation “one or more aircraft flights”, and the claims 2, 11 recite “the one or more aircraft flights includes multiple aircraft flights” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen [US 20240203268] in view of Crosmer et al. [US 9223020] and Gurusamy et al. [US 20180238996].
As to claim 1 is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 10.
As to claims 2-9 are rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claims 11-18, respectively.
As to claim 10. Jensen discloses A turbulence detection and presentation system comprising:
a control unit, [fig. 1a, 0047] dedicated processor 107 or processors 102a, 109a, configured to obtain turbulence datapoints indicative of at least locations and turbulence measurements obtained during one or more aircraft flights, [fig. 7, 0139, 0143] receive three sensed turbulence reports at three positions 710a-c and three different times t0 - t-2 for aircraft 710,
the control unit configured to identify increases or decreases between the turbulence measurements in the turbulence datapoints, [fig. 9b, 0156] determine trend in turbulence intensity between data points in time and provide a trend vector indicator 942,
the control unit configured to direct an output device to generate a visual representation of the turbulence datapoints, [fig. 9b, 0156] display a trend vector indicator 942a based on the detected turbulence intensity change, and at least one connection between the turbulence datapoints, [fig. 7, 8a, 9b], and visually present the visual representation via the output device, [fig. 9b, 0155, 0156] data displayed,
the turbulence datapoints displayed to visually indicate and differentiate between the turbulence measurements, [fig. 7, 9b, 0143, 0156] change in fill color of the icons indicate the change in turbulence intensity, the connections displayed to visually indicate turbulence between the locations of the turbulence measurements, [fig. 9b, 0156] a trend in turbulence between two datapoints connected by a line is indicated on the display, and
the control unit configured to automatically change an indication attribute of the at least one connection displayed via the output device in real-time based on an age of the turbulence measurements, [fig. 7, 0140] a time interval Δt between datapoints selectable by the pilot is indicated as 751; wherein each segment represents a time length equal to the selected interval Δt; [fig. 7, 8a, 0139, 0145] wherein each datapoint is indicated by a time indicator to show how long ago was the datapoint is before the previous datapoint as ti, ti-1, etc …, [fig. 8a] wherein each segment is represented with a changing attribute indicating the age of the segment that is updated as the aircraft moves and the current datapoint is added at the next selected interval,
Jensen fails to disclose wherein the control unit is configured to change a frequency at which the turbulence datapoints are obtained responsive to identifying the increases or decreases between the turbulence measurements in the turbulence datapoints; wherein the indication attribute for the age of the segment is a translucency.
Crosmer teaches a system and method for weather detection; wherein the system detects turbulence using data sensed by an aircraft sensor 302 and displays the data on the aircraft display 306, [col. 5, lines 13-34]; wherein the system changes the sampling rate based on detected weather severity, [col. 11, lines 29-42], including a change in turbulence, [col. 6, line 60 – col. 7, line 8]; wherein data segments are selected based on the age of the data, [col. 12, lines 58-63].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jensen with that of Crosmer so that the system can provide detailed data for severe conditions that change more frequently to allow the pilot make an informed decision.
The combination of Jensen and Crosmer fail to explicitly disclose wherein the indication attribute for the age of the segment is a translucency.
Jensen teaches a system and method that tracks the time of each datapoint and indicates the time at which the data is collected on the display of the aircraft along each connection segment; wherein the time, naturally, is in order of the age of the datapoint, [fig. 7, 8a, 0139, 0140, 0145].
Gurusamy teaches a method and system for providing live weather data onboard an aircraft wherein the system presents connected weather data connected using lines according timestamps and indicates the age of the data on the lines using varying levels of transparency, [0026, 0039, 0054].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Jensen and Crosmer with that of Gurusamy so that the pilot can easily identify the more relevant data on the screen and avoid spending more time trying to identify the more relevant data on the screen.
As to claim 11. Jensen discloses The turbulence detection and presentation system of claim 10, wherein the one or more aircraft flights includes two aircraft flights, [fig. 7, 0139] aircrafts 710, 720, 730, and the control unit is configured to obtain two sets of the turbulence datapoints with each of the two sets associated with one of the two aircraft flights, [fig. 7, 0139].
As to claim 12. Jensen discloses The turbulence detection and presentation system of claim 10, wherein the control unit is configured to direct the output device to visually present the at least one connection as connecting a first measured of the turbulence measurements during a first aircraft flight of the one or more aircraft flights and a last measured of the turbulence measurements during the first aircraft flight, [fig. 7, 0139, 0143].
As to claim 13. Jensen discloses The turbulence detection and presentation system of claim 10, wherein the control unit is configured to direct the output device to visually display one or more segments within the at least one connection, [fig. 7], each of the one or more segments visually connecting a pair of the turbulence measurements within the at least one connection, [fig. 7] line connecting measurements 710a-c for path and measurement of aircraft 710.
As to claim 14. Jensen discloses The turbulence detection and presentation system of claim 13 wherein the control unit is configured to direct the output device to visually present each of the one or more segments to represent the turbulence measurement in the pair that was measured before the turbulence measurement in the pair that was measured later, [fig. 7] the line for flight 710 has multiple segments connecting different data points 710a-c at a sequential time interval.
As to claim 15. the combination of Jensen and Crosmer fails to disclose The turbulence detection and presentation system of claim 14, wherein the control unit is configured to direct the output device to visually present each of the one or more segments in a same color as the turbulence measurement in the pair that was measured before the turbulence measurement in the pair that was measured later to visually indicate turbulence in airspace between the turbulence measurements in the pair.
Gurusamy teaches a method and system for providing live weather data onboard an aircraft wherein the system presents connected weather data connected using lines according timestamps and indicates the age of the data on the connecting lines, [0026], using varying colors associated with the age of the data, [0054].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Jensen and Crosmer with that of Gurusamy so that the pilot can easily identify the more relevant data to indicate the freshness and reliability of the data.
As to claim 16. J the combination of Jensen and Crosmer fails to disclose The turbulence detection and presentation system of claim 10, wherein the control unit is configured to direct the output device to visually present the at least one connection in one or more colors to visually represent turbulence in airspace between the turbulence datapoints.
Gurusamy teaches a method and system for providing live weather data onboard an aircraft wherein the system presents connected weather data connected using lines according timestamps and indicates the age of the data on the connecting lines, [0026], using varying colors associated with the age of the data, [0054].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Jensen and Crosmer with that of Gurusamy so that the pilot can easily identify the more relevant data to indicate the freshness and reliability of the data.
As to claim 17. Jensen discloses The turbulence detection and presentation system of claim 10, wherein the control unit is configured to direct the output device to visually present the turbulence datapoints as sparse representations of the turbulence measurements, [fig. 7], and the at least one connection to represent turbulence in airspace between the sparse representations, [fig. 9b, 0156] a trend indicator 942a-c used to show the change in turbulence data between two data points connected using a line segment; [0052] wherein statistical analysis is used to determine turbulence value between two measured data points.
As to claim 18. Jensen discloses The turbulence detection and presentation system of claim 10, wherein the control unit is configured to direct a flight control system to automatically change a flight path of an aircraft to avoid turbulence between two or more of the turbulence datapoints, [0006, 0030] data used to determine areas to avoid on the flight path of the aircraft.
One of ordinary skill in the art can easily understand that changes in flight path are is performed by one of the two options which includes the autopilot or the human pilot.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jensen so the flightpath can be adjusted automatically based on the determined turbulence value as nothing but selected form one of the two available ways to change the flight path.
Claim(s) 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in view of Gurusamy.
As to claim 19. Jensen discloses A method comprising:
obtaining sparsely located datapoints each representing a turbulence measurement, [fig. 7, 0139, 0143], a location of the turbulence measurement, and a time at which the turbulence measurement was measured, [fig. 7, 0139, 0143] receive three sensed turbulence reports at three positions 710a-c and three different times t0 - t-2 for aircraft 710;
identifying increases or decreases between the turbulence measurements in pairs of the datapoints, [fig. 9b, 0156] determine trend in turbulence intensity between data points in time and provide a trend vector indicator 942;
determining turbulence in airspace between the turbulence measurements in each of the pairs of the datapoints [fig. 9b, 0156] determine trend in turbulence intensity between data points in time and provide a trend vector indicator 942, [0052] perform statistical operation on data sensed between periodic transmissions to report interim intensity; and
visually presenting connections between the datapoints in each of the pairs, [fig. 7, 8a, 9b, 0143, 0156], the connections representing the turbulence in the airspace between the turbulence measurements in each of the pairs of the datapoints, [fig. 9b, 0156] a trend indicator 942a-c used to show the change in turbulence data between two data points connected using a line segment; [0052] wherein statistical analysis is used to determine statistical turbulence value between two measured data points,
automatically changing an indication attribute of the at least one connection displayed via the output device in real-time based on an age of the turbulence measurements at which the turbulence measurement was measured, [fig. 7, 0140] a time interval Δt between datapoints selectable by the pilot is indicated as 751; wherein each segment represents a time length equal to the selected interval Δt; [fig. 7, 8a, 0139, 0145] wherein each datapoint is indicated by a time indicator to show how long ago was the datapoint is before the previous datapoint as ti, ti-1, etc …, [fig. 8a] wherein each segment is represented with a changing attribute indicating the age of the segment that is updated as the aircraft moves and the current datapoint is added at the next selected interval,
Jensen teaches a system and method that tracks the time of each datapoint and indicates the time at which the data is collected on the display of the aircraft along each connection segment; wherein the time, naturally, is in order of the age of the datapoint, [fig. 7, 8a, 0139, 0140, 0145].
Gurusamy teaches a method and system for providing live weather data onboard an aircraft wherein the system presents connected weather data connected using lines according timestamps and indicates the age of the data on the lines using varying levels of transparency, [0026, 0039, 0054].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jensen with that of Gurusamy so that the pilot can easily identify the more relevant data on the screen and avoid spending more time trying to identify the more relevant data on the screen.
As to claim 20. Jensen discloses The method of claim 19, further comprising: automatically controlling flight of an aircraft based on the turbulence in the airspace between the turbulence measurements in each f the pairs of the datapoints, [0006, 0030] data used to determine areas to avoid on the flight path of the aircraft.
One of ordinary skill in the art can easily understand that changes in flight path are is performed by one of the two options which includes the autopilot or the human pilot.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jensen so the flightpath can be adjusted automatically based on the determined turbulence value as nothing but selected form one of the two available ways to change the flight path.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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 BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688