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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regrading claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 20, filed 24 September 2021, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
He (US 2012/0133529) is brought in to teach the canceled claim 6 limitation with the concept of fading in the EVS image as the EVS and SVS system matches between the image flow velocity (paragraph 68) where the EVS is essentially not visible when there is no match with a weighted value of zero (paragraph 66).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 - 5, 9, 16, and 18 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,359,931 in view of Krishna et al. (US 2015/0019048) and He (US 2012/0133529). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3, 7 – 11, 16, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,359,931 anticipates claims 1 - 5, 9, 16, and 18 – 20.
AN 18/769542
US 11,359,931
A vision guidance system of an aircraft, the system comprising:
A vision guidance system of an aircraft, the system comprising:
a synthetic vision system;
an enhanced vision system;
one or more data processors operatively coupled to the synthetic vision system and to the enhanced vision system; and
non-transitory machine-readable memory operatively coupled to the one or more data processors and storing instructions executable by the one or more processors and configured to cause the one or more processors to:
a synthetic vision system;
an enhanced vision system;
a display device defining a display area;
one or more data processors operatively coupled to the display device, to the synthetic vision system and to the enhanced vision system; and
non-transitory machine-readable memory operatively coupled to the one or more data processors and storing instructions executable by the one or more processors and configured to cause the one or more processors to:
cause simultaneous display of a first selectable object and of a second selectable object in the display area of the display device, the first selectable object being associated with an activation of a combined vision guidance operating mode of the vision guidance system and the second selectable object being associated with an activation of a synthetic vision guidance operating mode of the vision guidance system, the combined vision guidance operating mode including use of a combination of synthetic vision and enhanced vision, and the synthetic vision guidance operating mode including use of synthetic vision without enhanced vision; and after a selection of the first selectable object associated with the combined vision guidance operating mode, cause an activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode;
wherein the instructions are also configured to cause the one or more processors to: while the combined vision guidance operating mode is active, determine that an enhanced vision system of the aircraft is unavailable; then cause automatic deactivation of the combined vision guidance operating mode; and cause automatic activation of the synthetic vision guidance operating mode.
cause arming of a combined vision guidance operating mode of the vision guidance system after receiving an input indicative of a desired activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode and before the aircraft has reached a threshold condition permitting activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode; and
when the aircraft has reached the threshold condition, cause activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode, the combined vision guidance operating mode including use of a combination of synthetic vision and enhanced vision.
(Claim 9) wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode after a threshold condition has been met
wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause a performance of one or more aircraft system checks before arming the combined vision guidance operating mode
The system of US 11,359,931 does not expressly disclose cause arming of a combined vision guidance operating mode of the vision guidance system after receiving an input indicative of a desired activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode and before the aircraft has reached a threshold condition permitting activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode. Krishna discloses regarding any CVS mode described above, a mode override option may be provided for the pilot to choose an alternate mode other than the one provided automatically by the system (paragraphs 34 and 38). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify the system of US 11,359,931 to allow a user to manually override CVS display modes at any time, superseding the automatic activation of CVS display modes.
The system of US 11,359,931 does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause a performance of one or more aircraft system checks before arming the combined vision guidance operating mode. He discloses if the aircraft finds itself in a low visibility environment where the EVS 12 cannot detect any terrain features, then the image weighting decisioner 18 determines that the EVS image velocity and the SVS image moving velocity do not match at all and thus may assign a zero weighting to the EVS image intensity, thus the EVS is not displayed overlapping with the SVS (paragraph 66) and by fading in the EVS image as the EVS system begins to match its view to that of the SYS system, the pilot receives a growing assurance that the EVS system is in fact displaying the expected terrain as he approaches the airfield, thus at process 160 the EVS image is displayed at an intermediate intensity based on the closeness of the match between the image flow velocity of the EVS system and the moving velocity of the SYS system (paragraph 68). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify system of US 11,359,931 to not utilize the EVS image when the system determines that the SVS image and EVS image do not match up thus functionally deactivating the EVS image, and when the SVS image and EVS image do match up to a certain threshold then functionally activating the EVS image with the SVS image being a CVS image.
AN 18/769542
1
20
2-5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
US 11,359,931
1, 9
16, 25
3, 7, 8
9
1
16
10
11
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 13, 15, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 97 – 107, 109, and 111 of copending Application No. 19/027,761 (reference application) in view of Krishna et al. (US 2015/0019048) and He (US 2012/0133529). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because aims 97 – 107, 109, and 111 of copending Application No. 19/027,761 anticipates claims 1 – 5, 7 – 13, 15, and 20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
AN 18/769542
AN 19/027,761
A vision guidance system of an aircraft, the system comprising:
A vision guidance system of an aircraft, the system comprising:
a synthetic vision system;
an enhanced vision system;
one or more data processors operatively coupled to the synthetic vision system and to the enhanced vision system; and
non-transitory machine-readable memory operatively coupled to the one or more data processors and storing instructions executable by the one or more processors and configured to cause the one or more processors to:
a synthetic vision system;
one or more data processors operatively coupled to the synthetic vision system; and
non-transitory machine-readable memory operatively coupled to the one or more data processors and storing instructions executable by the one or more processors and configured to cause the one or more processors to:
cause arming of a combined vision guidance operating mode of the vision guidance system after receiving an input indicative of a desired activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode and before the aircraft has reached a threshold condition permitting activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode; and
cause arming of a synthetic vision guidance operating mode of the vision guidance system after receiving an input indicative of a desired activation of the synthetic vision guidance operating mode and before the aircraft has reached a threshold condition permitting activation of the synthetic vision guidance operating mode; and
when the aircraft has reached the threshold condition, cause activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode, the combined vision guidance operating mode including use of a combination of synthetic vision and enhanced vision.
when the aircraft has reached the threshold condition, cause activation of the synthetic vision guidance operating mode
wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause a performance of one or more aircraft system checks before arming the combined vision guidance operating mode
(Claim 99) wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause a performance of one or more aircraft system checks before arming the synthetic vision guidance operating mode.
The system of US 11,359,931 does not expressly disclose an enhanced vision system and the combined vision guidance operating mode including use of a combination of synthetic vision and enhanced vision. Krishna discloses the CVS display includes a synthetic image 150 and a sensory image 151 overlaid over a portion of the synthetic image (paragraph 34). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify the system of AN 19/027,761 to incorporate a combined vision system that incorporates the synthetic vision system and the enhanced vision system
The system of AN 19/027,761 does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause a performance of one or more aircraft system checks before arming the combined vision guidance operating mode. He discloses if the aircraft finds itself in a low visibility environment where the EVS 12 cannot detect any terrain features, then the image weighting decisioner 18 determines that the EVS image velocity and the SVS image moving velocity do not match at all and thus may assign a zero weighting to the EVS image intensity, thus the EVS is not displayed overlapping with the SVS (paragraph 66) and by fading in the EVS image as the EVS system begins to match its view to that of the SYS system, the pilot receives a growing assurance that the EVS system is in fact displaying the expected terrain as he approaches the airfield, thus at process 160 the EVS image is displayed at an intermediate intensity based on the closeness of the match between the image flow velocity of the EVS system and the moving velocity of the SYS system (paragraph 68). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify system of AN 19/027,761 to not utilize the EVS image when the system determines that the SVS image and EVS image do not match up thus functionally deactivating the EVS image, and when the SVS image and EVS image do match up to a certain threshold then functionally activating the EVS image with the SVS image being a CVS image.
AN 18/769542
1
20
2-5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16-19
AN 19/027,761
97, 99
109, 111
98
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8 – 15, and 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishna et al. (US 2015/0019048) in view of He (US 2012/0133529).
Regarding independent claim 1, Krishna teaches a vision guidance system of an aircraft (Figures 1A, 1B), the system comprising:
a synthetic vision system (paragraph 34: the CVS display includes a synthetic image 150 and a sensory image 151 overlaid over a portion of the synthetic image; paragraph 23: The CVS system may also use other data sources such as terrain database, obstacle database);
an enhanced vision system (paragraph 34: the CVS display includes a synthetic image 150 and a sensory image 151 overlaid over a portion of the synthetic image; paragraph 23: the imaging sensor 125 may include the CVS sensor);
one or more data processors operatively coupled to the synthetic vision system and to the enhanced vision system (paragraph 23 and Figure 1A: the processor 104 may include a CVS processor); and
non-transitory machine-readable memory operatively coupled to the one or more data processors and storing instructions executable by the one or more processors (paragraph 21: The processor 104 may be any one of numerous known general-purpose microprocessors or an application specific processor that operates in response to program instructions. In the depicted embodiment, the processor 104 includes on-board RAM (random access memory) 103, and on-board ROM (read only memory) 105, and/or other non-transitory data storage media known in the art. The program instructions that control the processor 104 may be stored in either or both the RAM 103 and the ROM 105) and configured to cause the one or more processors to:
cause arming of a combined vision guidance operating mode of the vision guidance system after receiving an input indicative of a desired activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode and before the aircraft has reached a threshold condition permitting activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode (paragraph 38: Regarding any mode described above, a mode override option may be provided for the pilot to choose an alternate mode other than the one provided automatically by the system; paragraph 34: mode of CVS based on different stages of the approach); and
when the aircraft has reached the threshold condition, cause activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode, the combined vision guidance operating mode including use of a combination of synthetic vision and enhanced vision (paragraph 35: The presently described method may feature automatic transitioning between the above-noted modes. For example, once the aircraft starts descending, the CVS may be displayed in normal mode. Near the IAF 203, the CVS image may transition into the track mode, where the image is centered on the FPV. Near the FAF 204, once the runway is in view, the CVS image may transition into the runway lock mode so that the image is centered on the runway. If the landing is aborted and a missed approach is performed, the runway image will slide out of the view and the CVS image will again automatically transition to track mode).
Krishna does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause a performance of one or more aircraft system checks before arming the combined vision guidance operating mode. He discloses if the aircraft finds itself in a low visibility environment where the EVS 12 cannot detect any terrain features, then the image weighting decisioner 18 determines that the EVS image velocity and the SVS image moving velocity do not match at all and thus may assign a zero weighting to the EVS image intensity, thus the EVS is not displayed overlapping with the SVS (paragraph 66) and by fading in the EVS image as the EVS system begins to match its view to that of the SYS system, the pilot receives a growing assurance that the EVS system is in fact displaying the expected terrain as he approaches the airfield, thus at process 160 the EVS image is displayed at an intermediate intensity based on the closeness of the match between the image flow velocity of the EVS system and the moving velocity of the SYS system (paragraph 68). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Krishna's system to not utilize the EVS image when the system determines that the SVS image and EVS image do not match up thus functionally deactivating the EVS image, and when the SVS image and EVS image do match up to a certain threshold then functionally activating the EVS image with the SVS image being a CVS image. One would be motivated to do so because the pilot receives a growing assurance that the EYS system is in fact displaying the expected terrain as he approaches the airfield.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Krishna teaches wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause arming of the combined vision guidance operating mode when a synthetic vision image is displayed on a display device of the aircraft (paragraph 38: Regarding any mode described above, a mode override option may be provided for the pilot to choose an alternate mode other than the one provided automatically by the system; paragraph 34: mode of CVS based on different stages of the approach).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Krishna teaches wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause arming of the combined vision guidance operating mode when the aircraft is within a prescribed distance of the aircraft from a destination airport or runway (paragraph 35: The presently described method may feature automatic transitioning between the above-noted modes. For example, once the aircraft starts descending, the CVS may be displayed in normal mode. Near the IAF 203, the CVS image may transition into the track mode, where the image is centered on the FPV. Near the FAF 204, once the runway is in view, the CVS image may transition into the runway lock mode so that the image is centered on the runway. If the landing is aborted and a missed approach is performed, the runway image will slide out of the view and the CVS image will again automatically transition to track mode).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Krishna teaches wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause arming of the combined vision guidance operating mode when the aircraft is within a horizontal guidance of an instrument landing system localizer (paragraph 32: by rotating the image in coincidence with the horizon, the rectangular sensory image 151 provides more information that is relevant to the pilot. Horizon information is generally available in PFD/CVS systems).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Krishna teaches wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause arming of the combined vision guidance operating mode when a radio altitude acquired by the aircraft is valid (paragraph 35: The presently described method may feature automatic transitioning between the above-noted modes. For example, once the aircraft starts descending, the CVS may be displayed in normal mode. Near the IAF 203, the CVS image may transition into the track mode, where the image is centered on the FPV. Near the FAF 204, once the runway is in view, the CVS image may transition into the runway lock mode so that the image is centered on the runway. If the landing is aborted and a missed approach is performed, the runway image will slide out of the view and the CVS image will again automatically transition to track mode. Examiner notes CVS modes are activated based on measured altitude).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Krishna teaches wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause arming of the combined vision guidance operating mode when the synthetic vision system of the aircraft does not have a failure (paragraph 30: the amount that the sensory image 151 is shifted from center (i.e., up, down, left, or right) of the synthetic image 150 depends upon the attitude of the aircraft. For example, a five degree banking turn will shift the image 151 to the left or right by a relatively small amount, whereas a thirty degree banking turn will shift the image 151 by a relatively larger amount. Likewise, a five degree descending angle will shift the image 151 downward by a relatively small amount, whereas a ten degree descending angle will shift the image 151 downward by a relatively larger amount. All forms and amounts of lateral and vertical translation of the sensory image 151 within the synthetic image 150 will thus be understood to be within the scope of the present disclosure. Examiner notes operation of CVS modes without failures; paragraph 35: If the landing is aborted and a missed approach is performed, the runway image will slide out of the view and the CVS image will again automatically transition to track mode).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Krishna teaches wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause arming of the combined vision guidance operating mode when a database of the synthetic vision system is unexpired (paragraph 23: the processor 104 may further receive navigation information from navigation sensors 113 or 114, identifying the position of the aircraft. In some embodiments, information from navigation database 108 may be utilized during this process. Having navigation information, the processor 104 may be further configured to receive information from runway database 110. Examiner notes the use of the database is utilizing data that are up-to-date for the particular runway data, terrain data, obstacle data, etc.).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Krishna teaches wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause arming of the combined vision guidance operating mode when the enhanced vision system of the aircraft does not have a failure (paragraph 30: the amount that the sensory image 151 is shifted from center (i.e., up, down, left, or right) of the synthetic image 150 depends upon the attitude of the aircraft. For example, a five degree banking turn will shift the image 151 to the left or right by a relatively small amount, whereas a thirty degree banking turn will shift the image 151 by a relatively larger amount. Likewise, a five degree descending angle will shift the image 151 downward by a relatively small amount, whereas a ten degree descending angle will shift the image 151 downward by a relatively larger amount. All forms and amounts of lateral and vertical translation of the sensory image 151 within the synthetic image 150 will thus be understood to be within the scope of the present disclosure. Examiner notes operation of CVS modes without failures; paragraph 35: If the landing is aborted and a missed approach is performed, the runway image will slide out of the view and the CVS image will again automatically transition to track mode).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Krishna teaches wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause arming of the combined vision guidance operating mode when a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) of the aircraft is in a satellite-based augmentation system (SBAS) mode of operation (paragraph 24: The GPS receiver is a common embodiment of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS); paragraph 25: The GPS receiver 122, upon receipt of the GPS broadcast signals from at least three, and preferably four, or more of the GPS satellites, determines the distance between the GPS receiver 122 and the GPS satellites and the position of the GPS satellites. Based on these determinations, the GPS receiver 122, using a technique known as trilateration, determines, for example, aircraft position, groundspeed, and ground track angle).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Krishna teaches wherein the threshold condition comprises an altitude of the aircraft (paragraph 34 and Figure 6: The flight path 201 depicts a normal approach and descent toward a runway 202, with the approach terminating as a missed approach).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Krishna teaches wherein the threshold condition comprises a distance of the aircraft from a runway (paragraph 34 and Figure 6: The flight path 201 depicts a normal approach and descent toward a runway 202, with the approach terminating as a missed approach).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 are similar in scope as to claim 1, thus the rejections for claim 1 hereinabove are applicable to claim 20.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishna et al. (US 2015/0019048) in view of Bergqvist (“Dassaults FalconEye Combined Vision System Achieves Certification”, 13 October 2016).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Krishna does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause annunciation of the arming of the combined vision guidance operating mode on a display device of the aircraft, however Krishna does disclose various CVS modes of normal mode, track mode, and lock mode (paragraph 34). Bergqvist discloses “CVS ON” annunciation text (page 1, Figure 1, bottom left). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Krishna's system to display a “CVS ON” annunciation text in the primary display screen. One would be motivated to do so because this would inform the pilot if the images generated are synthetic or real images.
Regarding dependent claim 3, the combination of Krishna’s and Bergqvist’s systems teaches wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause annunciation of the activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode on the display device of the aircraft (Bergqvist, page 1, Figure 1, bottom left: “CVS ON” annunciation text).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishna et al. (US 2015/0019048) in view of He (US 2012/0035789).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Krishna does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to: after activating the combined vision guidance operating mode, determine that the enhanced vision is unavailable; then cause automatic deactivation of the combined vision guidance operating mode; and cause automatic activation of a synthetic vision guidance operating mode including the use of synthetic vision without enhanced vision. He discloses the EFVS 100 may turn off or the enhancement feature may be turned off when the aircraft descends below a certain altitude relative to the touchdown zone so that the pilot can not use the EFVS 100 to perform the actually landing and must visually identify the approach runway signature through the cockpit window (paragraph 31). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Krishna's system while using the CVS, after a predetermined height condition is to turn off the EVS. One would be motivated to do so because this would help a pilot to easily identify runway signature through cockpit window.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishna et al. (US 2015/0019048) in view of He (US 2012/0035789) and Bergqvist (“Dassaults FalconEye Combined Vision System Achieves Certification”, 13 October 2016).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Krishna does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause annunciation of the activation of the synthetic guidance operating mode. Bergqvist discloses “CVS ON” annunciation text (page 1, Figure 1, bottom left). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Krishna's system to display a “CVS ON” annunciation text in the primary display screen. One would be motivated to do so because this would inform the pilot if the images generated are synthetic or real images.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY J CHOW whose telephone number is (571)272-8078. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM-7PM.
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, Devona Faulk can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/JEFFREY J CHOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights