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
The amendment filed on January 27, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 12 have been
amended. The remaining claims are in original or previously presented form. Therefore, claims 1-12 are
pending in the application. Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims.
Applicant's arguments, see applicant’s Remarks for U.S.C. § 103, filed on 01/27/2026 regarding
U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, applicant argues Gannon and Schwindt do not disclose detecting each modification in the setting value and verifying that each detected modification in the setting value corresponds to a validation signal.
However, Gannon discloses receiving a vocal response to determine whether an expected verification signal(the pilot’s feedback) is required at all, which indicates the determination of whether the signal is a validation signal. Furthermore, the system of Gannon determining that the vocal response is consistent with the received instruction implies the system first identifies the incoming voice data as a validation signal before determining if it consistent.( Gannon Paragraph 25, the processor 110 processes the received instruction to determine if the instruction is one that requires a vocal response (204)……the received vocal response is then processed to verify that the vocal response is consistent with the received instruction (208). Gannon Paragraph 7, a system for validating data entry in response to an instruction received in an aircraft cockpit includes an avionics system user interface, a receiver, a microphone, and a processor. The receiver is adapted to receive an instruction that requires a vocal response from an aircraft pilot and a manual entry, by the aircraft pilot, of a setting using the avionics system user interface…the processor is coupled to receive the voice data and is configured, upon receipt thereof, to verify that the vocal response is consistent with the received instruction, process the received instruction and the vocal response to determine if there are any inconsistencies therebetween )
On page 7, applicant’s remark asserts that Schwindt fails to disclose the validation signal is electrical signal.
As discussed above, Gannon discloses receiving a voice response to verify the consistency of the instruction, which indicates Gannon has the capability to determine a validation signal. Furthermore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, a voice response can be an interactive response system that operates as an electronic signal where the voice response is converted into an electrical form in order to be interpreted by a computer. Gannon further discloses a haptic feedback signal generated by a target value entered by a pilot through a user interface. The haptic feedback signal generated by the target value indicates an electronic signal. (Gannon, paragraph 6, The avionics system user interface is coupled to receive haptic feedback signals and is configured, upon receipt thereof, to generate haptic feedback. The receiver is adapted to receive an instruction that requires an aircraft pilot to manually enter a target value into an avionics system using the avionics system user interface).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 8, applicant asserts that claim 12 rejection should be withdrawn for reasons analogous
to those set forth in in claim 1.
However, as shown in this section of the office action, reasons for the withdrawal for claim 1
rejection have not been found persuasive. Therefore, independent claim 12’s rejection is maintained.
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 (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.
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 1,2,3,7,11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gannon (US 20150081137 A1) (hereinafter Gannon) in view of Lafon (US 20180307323 A1) (hereinafter Lafon) in further view of Schwindt (US 20220139233 A1) (hereinafter Schwindt).
Regarding claim 1, Gannon teaches an interaction system in the cockpit of an aircraft(According to the specification, the interaction system receives an operator’s selection of value corresponding to avionics system control. Similarly, Gannon discloses an avionics system that receives a target value/instruction from a user. Gannon, paragraph 6, a system for validating data entry in response to an instruction received in an aircraft cockpit includes an avionics system user interface, a receiver, and a processor), the interaction system comprising:
An operator setting values associated with the at least one avionics system(The specification discloses setting values are values that are selected by an operator to control the one or more avionics systems. Gannon discloses receiving values through vocal and manual entry through avionics system’s user interface. Gannon, paragraph 7, the receiver is adapted to receive an instruction that requires a vocal response from an aircraft pilot and a manual entry, by the aircraft pilot, of a setting using the avionics system user interface), a setting signal corresponding to a setting value selected by an operator following a first action(Gannon discloses receiving target values from a pilot and generating haptic feedback signals to generate haptic feedback. Gannon, paragraph 6, The processor is coupled to receive at least data representative of the instruction and is configured to determine the target value that should be set by the aircraft pilot using the avionics system user interface, and supply the haptic feedback signals to the avionics system user interface during the manual entry by the aircraft pilot), and a validation signal corresponding to validation of the selected setting value following a second action by the operator( According to the specification, a validation signal corresponds to a validation of the selected setting value following a second input from operator to determine the consistency with the first action of the operation. Similarly Gannon has a mechanism of confirming the setting value generated in the first input with a second validating input by vocal verification method. Gannon, paragraph 7 a system for validating data entry in response to an instruction received in an aircraft cockpit includes an avionics system user interface, a receiver, a microphone, and a processor. The microphone is adapted to receive the vocal response from the aircraft pilot and is configured, upon receipt thereof, to supply voice data representative of the vocal response supplied by the aircraft pilot. The processor is coupled to receive the voice data and is configured, upon receipt thereof, to verify that the vocal response is consistent with the received instruction, process the received instruction and the vocal response to determine if there are any inconsistencies therebetween, generate an alert when a determination is made that there are inconsistencies, and supply haptic feedback to the avionics system user interface during the manual entry by the aircraft pilot) the setting signal being an electronic signal (Gannon discloses a haptic feedback signal generated by a target value entered by a pilot through a user interface. The haptic feedback signal generated by the target value indicates an electronic signal. Gannon, paragraph 6, the avionics system user interface is coupled to receive haptic feedback signals and is configured, upon receipt thereof, to generate haptic feedback. The receiver is adapted to receive an instruction that requires an aircraft pilot to manually enter a target value into an avionics system using the avionics system user interface. );
a display module displaying the selected setting value and generating a feedback signal comprising a graphic signature of the setting value displayed(The specification does not explicitly specify what the graphic signature is, therefore it has been assumed to be a graphic image that is displayed by the display module. Gannon, paragraph 17, The display device 108 is in operable communication with, and is coupled to receive image rendering display commands from, the processor 110.The display device is configured, upon receipt of the image rendering display commands, to render one or more images, and thereby supply visual feedback to the aircraft pilot 112 ); and
a processing module receiving each feedback signal from said display module(Gannon discloses a user interface that is installed on a display device, and the user interface receives feedback signal. The processing module of Gannon is in communication with the display device and feedback signal generator. Gannon, paragraph 14, user interface 102 is additionally coupled to receive haptic feedback signals and is configured, upon receipt of these signals, to generate haptic feedback. Gannon, paragraph 18, The processor 110 is in operable communication with the user interfaces 102, and more specifically, with each of the haptic feedback generators 103. The processor 110 is also in operable communication with the receiver 104, the microphone 106, and the display device 108) and each validation signal from said setting medium(The specification discloses validation signal corresponds to a validation of the selected setting value following a second input from operator to determine the consistency with the first action of the operation. As discussed above, Gannon has a similar mechanism of confirming the setting value generated in the first input with a second validating input by vocal verification method. Gannon, paragraph 7 a system for validating data entry in response to an instruction received in an aircraft cockpit includes an avionics system user interface, a receiver, a microphone, and a processor. The microphone is adapted to receive the vocal response from the aircraft pilot and is configured, upon receipt thereof, to supply voice data representative of the vocal response supplied by the aircraft pilot),
While Gannon teaches about receiving target values of setting for avionics system as well as validating of an input, it fails to teach a controlling at least one avionics system with setting values; a setting medium that can generate setting signal from the setting value selected by the operator, the setting medium generating setting signal; detecting each modification in the setting value and verifying that each detected modification in the setting value corresponds to a validation signal.
However, Lafon, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches a about detecting a signal from a user to generate control instruction to control avionics equipment, discloses controlling at least one avionics system with setting values(Lafon, paragraph 2, detecting a signal from a user to generate at least one control instruction for controlling the avionics equipment of an aircraft);
a setting medium that generates a signal to perform instructions received from an operator (The specification discloses a setting medium is a rotator. Similarly, Lafon discusses an interactive means that allow a user to interact with the aircraft for the purpose of performing an instruction (such as piloting instructions) which form a detection of signals. And the interactive means may include rotator. Lafon, Paragraph 7, By way of example, aircraft cockpits comprise interactive means, generally mechanical, of the rotator, contactor, pushbutton or switch type).The setting medium generating setting signal(The specification discloses a setting medium is a rotator, and it is associated with avionics system, such as autopiloting. Similarly, Lafon discusses an interactive means that allow a user to interact with the aircraft for the purpose of performing an instruction (such as piloting instructions) which form a detection of signals, and the interactive means may include rotator. Lafon, paragraph 6, Aircraft cockpits are usually equipped with a variety of interactive means that allow a user to interact with the aircraft for the purpose of performing an instruction, such as piloting instruction or modification of the display on a display screen. All of these interactive means then form a means of detection of signals of the use. Lafon, Paragraph 7, By way of example, aircraft cockpits comprise interactive means, generally mechanical, of the rotator, contactor, pushbutton or switch type)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gannon with Lafon’s setting medium(rotator) to generate the signal for performing instruction based on values selected by an operator. The values selected can correspond to different types of control of the avionics system. Gannon discloses the data entry/ selection of values by an operator, but it specifically fails to disclose a setting medium(rotator) that set the setting to perform the instructions. Lafon addresses this deficiency by its rotator that is used as an interactive means which allow a user to interact with the aircraft to perform an instruction such as piloting instruction. By using a rotator, it is possible to handle multiple settings such as altitude setting and heading selection through single interface. Additionally, it helps avoid accidental inputs such as touchscreen inputs by validating entry with different action ensuring safety in piloting operations.
The combination of Gannon and Lafon specifically fails to disclose a system detecting each modification in the setting value and verifying that each detected modification in the setting value corresponds to a validation signal.
However, Schwindt, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about updating and validating updates to a flight plan for safe flight, discloses detecting each modification in the setting value (Schwindt, paragraph 12, an aircraft can be operating in accordance with a first flight plan having a first set of flight parameters. The avionics device can receive an update (e.g., a change or modification) to at least a portion of the first flight plan. For example, the change to at least a portion of the first flight plan can comprise a change to any one or more of the first flight parameters) and verifying that each detected modification in the setting value corresponds to a validation signal(Schwindt, paragraph 5, The system comprises an avionics device adapted to verify an updated flight plan, and to perform the steps of: receiving, a change to the first flight plan, the change to the first flight plan comprising a second set of flight parameters, receiving at least one of terrain data and (SUA) data; and performing a safety validation of the second set of flight parameters, wherein the safety validation comprises: comparing the second set of flight parameters with the received at least one of terrain data and SUA data, and determining, based on the comparison, whether the second set of flight parameters plan presents a risk to safe flight.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gannon and Lafon with Schwindt to detect a modified inputs different from the first and second entry of an operator. Even though Schwindt discloses the entry of modified flight plan parameters, same implementation can be used to detect modified setting values entered by an operator regarding different avionics system. Furthermore, Schwindt discloses a comparing of first and second set of parameters to validate safety level. After the detection of a modified setting, it is possible to compare the compatibility of the modified setting with the validation mechanism of Gannon. By incorporating the modification detection of Schwindt, it is possible to detect unexpected error that could arise because of modified parameters that are not compatible with other actions of operator, and alert the operator to a potential input error or conflicting inputs. Furthermore, accidental and unauthorized modification can be prevented ensuring better safety.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gannon, Lafon, and, Schwindt teaches the interaction system according to claim 1(Gannon, paragraph 6, a system for validating data entry in response to an instruction; Lafon, paragraph 6, an interactive means with rotator; Schwindt, paragraph 5 avionics device adapted to verify an updated flight plan ), wherein said processing module issues an alert when a detected modification in the setting value does not correspond to any validation signal(Gannon performs the validation using vocal response, which is similar to entering the validation value with rotator or touchscreen. Schwindt further identifies modified parameters that can be used to determine the compatibility of different actions. Gannon, paragraph 22, the processor 110 may also be configured to compare the received instruction and the confirming vocal response to determine if there are any inconsistencies between the two. Preferably, in such embodiments, the processor is further configured to generate an alert when it determines that there are indeed inconsistencies. Schwindt, paragraph 12, an aircraft can be operating in accordance with a first flight plan having a first set of flight parameters. The avionics device can receive an update (e.g., a change or modification) to at least a portion of the first flight plan. For example, the change to at least a portion of the first flight plan can comprise a change to any one or more of the first flight parameters).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gannon, Lafon, and, Schwindt teaches the interaction system according to claim 1(Gannon, paragraph 6, a system for validating data entry in response to an instruction; Lafon, paragraph 6, an interactive means with rotator; Schwindt, paragraph 5 avionics device adapted to verify an updated flight plan), wherein said setting medium sets the setting values associated with different avionics systems(The specification discloses setting values are values that are selected by an operator to control the one or more avionics systems, and a setting medium can be a rotator or touchscreen. The specification further discloses avionics systems includes autopiloting. As discussed above, Lafon discloses an interactive means that allow a user to interact with the aircraft for the purpose of performing an instruction which form a detection of signals, and the interactive means may include rotator. Furthermore, Lafon discussed the interactive means can be used to perform piloting instruction. Lafon, Paragraph 6, Aircraft cockpits are usually equipped with a variety of interactive means that allow a user to interact with the aircraft for the purpose of performing an instruction, such as piloting instruction or modification of the display on a display screen. All of these interactive means then form a means of detection of signals of the user. Lafon, Paragraph 7 By way of example, aircraft cockpits comprise interactive means, generally mechanical, of the rotator, contactor, pushbutton or switch type. Gannon, Paragraph 13, The user interfaces 102 may vary in configuration and implementation. For example, one or more of the user interfaces may be touchscreen user interfaces).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gannon, Lafon, and, Schwindt teaches the interaction system according to claim 1(Gannon, paragraph 6, a system for validating data entry in response to an instruction; Lafon, paragraph 6, an interactive means with rotator; Schwindt, paragraph 5 avionics device adapted to verify an updated flight plan), wherein the setting signal and the validation signal are generated and transmitted by said setting medium in a segregated manner(Gannon’s manual entry of first action data through user interface such as touchscreen and the vocal validation of data entry indicates its segregated manner of action. Gannon, paragraph 13, Each of the user interfaces 102 is configured to receive manual input from a user 112 (e.g., an aircraft pilot) and supply to user interface data to the processor 110. The user interfaces 102 may vary in configuration and implementation. For example, one or more of the user interfaces may be touchscreen user interfaces, rotational knobs, push-buttons, joysticks, and trackballs. Gannon, paragraph 7, a system for validating data entry in response to an instruction received in an aircraft cockpit includes an avionics system user interface, a receiver, a microphone, and a processor. The receiver is adapted to receive an instruction that requires a vocal response from an aircraft pilot and a manual entry, by the aircraft pilot, of a setting using the avionics system user interface).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Gannon, Lafon, and, Schwindt teaches the interaction system according to claim 1(Gannon, paragraph 6, a system for validating data entry in response to an instruction; Lafon, paragraph 6, an interactive means with rotator; Schwindt, paragraph 5 avionics device adapted to verify an updated flight plan.), wherein the validation signal presents a discrete signal(The specification discloses validation signal presents a discrete signal of “1” when second action is performed or “0” when in all other cases. Gannon’s teaching of requiring vocal validation as a requirement in some cases but not others shows the system can determine if a vocal validation was received and return a discrete result that’s either received or not received. Gannon, paragraph 15, the communications will include instructions that require a vocal response from the aircraft pilot, while in other cases the communications will not. Gannon, paragraph 7, a system for validating data entry in response to an instruction received in an aircraft cockpit includes an avionics system user interface, a receiver, a microphone, and a processor. The receiver is adapted to receive an instruction that requires a vocal response from an aircraft pilot and a manual entry, by the aircraft pilot, of a setting using the avionics system user interface.).
Regarding claim 12, Gannon teaches an interaction method in the cockpit of an aircraft(According to the specification, the interaction system receives an operator’s selection of value corresponding to avionics system control. Similarly, Gannon discloses an avionics system that receives a target value/instruction from a user. Gannon, paragraph 6, a method of validating data entry in response to an instruction received in an aircraft cockpit includes receiving, in an aircraft cockpit, an instruction that requires an aircraft pilot to manually enter a target value into an avionics system using an avionics system user interface), the method comprising:
a setting signal corresponding to a setting value selected by an operator following a first action(Gannon discloses receiving target values from a pilot and generating haptic feedback signals to generate haptic feedback. Gannon, paragraph 6, The processor is coupled to receive at least data representative of the instruction and is configured to determine the target value that should be set by the aircraft pilot using the avionics system user interface, and supply the haptic feedback signals to the avionics system user interface during the manual entry by the aircraft pilot), and a validation signal corresponding to a validation of the selected setting value following a second action by the operator(According to the specification, a validation signal corresponds to a validation of the selected setting value following a second input from operator to determine the consistency with the first action of the operation. Similarly Gannon has a mechanism of confirming the setting value generated in the first input with a second validating input by vocal verification method. Gannon, paragraph 7 a system for validating data entry in response to an instruction received in an aircraft cockpit includes an avionics system user interface, a receiver, a microphone, and a processor. The microphone is adapted to receive the vocal response from the aircraft pilot and is configured, upon receipt thereof, to supply voice data representative of the vocal response supplied by the aircraft pilot. The processor is coupled to receive the voice data and is configured, upon receipt thereof, to verify that the vocal response is consistent with the received instruction, process the received instruction and the vocal response to determine if there are any inconsistencies therebetween, generate an alert when a determination is made that there are inconsistencies, and supply haptic feedback to the avionics system user interface during the manual entry by the aircraft pilot) the setting signal being an electronic signal (Gannon discloses a haptic feedback signal generated by a target value entered by a pilot through a user interface. The haptic feedback signal generated by the target value indicates an electronic signal. Gannon, paragraph 6, The avionics system user interface is coupled to receive haptic feedback signals and is configured, upon receipt thereof, to generate haptic feedback. The receiver is adapted to receive an instruction that requires an aircraft pilot to manually enter a target value into an avionics system using the avionics system user interface);
displaying the setting value selected by a display module(Gannon, paragraph 21, the processor 110 may also be configured, at least in some embodiments, to supply image rendering display commands to the display device 108. As noted above, the display device 108 is configured, in response to received image rendering display commands, to display various types of information. In the depicted embodiment, the image rendering display commands the processor 110 supplies causes the display device 108 to render at least the instruction that was received by the receiver 104);
generating a feedback signal comprising a graphic signature of the displayed setting value; receiving each feedback signal from the display module(The specification does not explicitly specify what the graphic signature is, therefore, it has been assumed to be a graphic image that is displayed by the display module. Gannon, paragraph 17, The display device 108 is in operable communication with, and is coupled to receive image rendering display commands from, the processor 110.The display device is configured, upon receipt of the image rendering display commands, to render one or more images, and thereby supply visual feedback to the aircraft pilot 112 ) and each validation signal from the setting medium(The specification discloses validation signal corresponds to a validation of the selected setting value following a second input from operator to determine the consistency with the first action of the operation. As discussed above, Gannon has a similar mechanism of confirming the setting value generated in the first input with a second validating input by vocal verification method. Gannon, paragraph 7 a system for validating data entry in response to an instruction received in an aircraft cockpit includes an avionics system user interface, a receiver, a microphone, and a processor. The microphone is adapted to receive the vocal response from the aircraft pilot and is configured, upon receipt thereof, to supply voice data representative of the vocal response supplied by the aircraft pilot);
While Gannon teaches about receiving target values of setting for avionics system as well as validating an input, it fails to teach a method to control at least one avionics system with setting values; generating by a setting medium setting signal; detecting each modification in the setting value; and verifying that each detected modification of the setting value corresponds to a validation signal.
However, Lafon, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches a method for detecting a signal from a user to generate control instruction for controlling the avionics equipment of an aircraft, discloses a method to control at least one avionics system with setting values(Lafon, paragraph 2, detecting a signal from a user to generate at least one control instruction for controlling the avionics equipment of an aircraft); generating by a setting medium setting signal(The specification discloses a setting medium is a rotator, and it’s associated with avionics system, such as autopiloting. Similarly, Lafon discusses an interactive means that allow a user to interact with the aircraft for the purpose of performing an instruction (such as piloting instructions) which form a detection of signals, and the interactive means may include rotator. Lafon, paragraph 6, Aircraft cockpits are usually equipped with a variety of interactive means that allow a user to interact with the aircraft for the purpose of performing an instruction, such as piloting instruction or modification of the display on a display screen. All of these interactive means then form a means of detection of signals of the use. Lafon, Paragraph 7, By way of example, aircraft cockpits comprise interactive means, generally mechanical, of the rotator, contactor, pushbutton or switch type).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gannon with Lafon’s setting medium(rotator) to generate the signal for performing instruction based on values selected by an operator. The values selected can correspond to different types of control of the avionics system. Gannon discloses the data entry/ selection of values by an operator, but it specifically fails to disclose a setting medium(rotator) that set the setting to perform the instructions. Lafon addresses this deficiency by its rotator that is used as an interactive means which allow a user to interact with the aircraft to perform an instruction such as piloting instruction. By using a rotator, it is possible to handle multiple settings such as altitude setting and heading selection through single interface. Additionally, it helps avoid accidental inputs such as touchscreen inputs by validating entry with different action ensuring safety in piloting operations.
The combination of Gannon and Lafon specifically fails to disclose detecting each modification in the setting value; and verifying that each detected modification of the setting value corresponds to a validation signal.
However, Schwindt, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about… detecting each modification in the setting value(Schwindt, paragraph 12,an aircraft can be operating in accordance with a first flight plan having a first set of flight parameters. The avionics device can receive an update (e.g., a change or modification) to at least a portion of the first flight plan. For example, the change to at least a portion of the first flight plan can comprise a change to any one or more of the first flight parameters) and verifying that each detected modification of the setting value corresponds to a validation signal(Schwindt, paragraph 5, The system comprises an avionics device adapted to verify an updated flight plan, and to perform the steps of: receiving, a change to the first flight plan, the change to the first flight plan comprising a second set of flight parameters, receiving at least one of terrain data and (SUA) data; and performing a safety validation of the second set of flight parameters, wherein the safety validation comprises: comparing the second set of flight parameters with the received at least one of terrain data and SUA data, and determining, based on the comparison, whether the second set of flight parameters plan presents a risk to safe flight).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gannon and Lafon with Schwindt to detect a modified inputs different from the first and second entry of an operator. Even though Schwindt discloses the entry of modified flight plan parameters, same implementation can be used to detect modified setting values entered by an operator regarding different avionics system. Furthermore, Schwindt discloses a comparing of first and second set of parameters to validate safety level. After the detection of a modified setting, it is possible to compare the compatibility of the modified setting with the validation mechanism of Gannon. By incorporating the modification detection of Schwindt, it is possible to detect unexpected error that could arise because of modified parameters that are not compatible with other actions of operator, and alert the operator to a potential input error or conflicting inputs. Furthermore, accidental and unauthorized modification can be prevented ensuring better safety.
Claims 4,5,and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gannon (US 20150081137 A1) (hereinafter Gannon) in view of Lafon (US 20180307323 A1) (hereinafter Lafon) ) in further view of Schwindt (US 20220139233 A1) (hereinafter Schwindt) in further view of Aymeric (EP 2199748 B1) (hereinafter Aymeric).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gannon, Lafon, and, Schwindt teaches the interaction system according to claim 1(Gannon, paragraph 6, a system for validating data entry in response to an instruction; Lafon, paragraph 6, an interactive means with rotator; Schwindt, paragraph 5 avionics device adapted to verify an updated flight plan), wherein said setting medium comprises a rotator( Lafon discloses a rotator for interaction with the operator, but it does not specifically disclose a rotation capability of the rotator. Lafon, paragraph 7, aircraft cockpits comprise interactive means, generally mechanical, of the rotator, contactor, pushbutton or switch type.) and wherein the second action corresponds to an action other than rotation of said rotator(The second action is similar to the second signal which are both received from the operator after the first action/signal. Lafon, Paragraph 15, detection of a second signal of the user, the second signal being distinct from the first signal).
The combination of Gannon, Lafon, and, Schwindt specifically fails to disclose a system wherein said setting medium comprises a rotator, wherein the first action corresponds to a rotation of said rotator.
However, Aymeric, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about cockpit display and control systems for aircraft disclose a system wherein said setting medium comprises a rotator, wherein the first action corresponds to a rotation of said rotator( Aymeric indicates that its rotator has a rotation capability. Aymeric, paragraph 38, a rotation of a rotator makes it possible to adjust the displayed value of a setpoint of the second set that a pressure makes it possible to activate the value of the selected setpoint as the current setpoint to be processed by the flight computer).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gannon, Lafon, and, Schwindt with Aymeric to include a rotator that has a rotation capability. Even though Lafon discloses a rotator for interaction with the operator, it does not specifically disclose the rotation capability of the rotator. Gannon’s first manual data entry can be performed by the Aymeric’s rotation of rotator as a first action of the operator. By implementing the rotation of the rotator as the first action, it is possible for the rotator to continuously adjust values set by an operator by rotating the rotator. Additionally, rotating of the rotator is easier to perform with fewer steps and it has high reliability.
Regarding claim 5, the combination Gannon, Lafon, Schwindt, and Aymeric teaches the interaction system according to claim 4(Gannon, paragraph 6, a system for validating data entry in response to an instruction; Lafon, paragraph 6, an interactive means with rotator; Schwindt, paragraph 5 avionics device adapted to verify an updated flight plan; Aymeric, paragraph 38, a rotation of a rotator makes it possible to adjust the displayed value of a setpoint), wherein said setting medium comprises a multifunction rotator(Aymeric discloses a rotator with plurality of function such as rotation of the rotator and pressing on the rotator. Aymeric, Paragraph 38, a rotation of a rotator makes it possible to adjust the displayed value of a setpoint of the second set. Aymeric, Paragraph 45, Pressing the first rotator activates the value for which the on-board computer takes account).
Regarding claim 6, the combination Gannon, Lafon, Schwindt, and Aymeric teaches the interaction system according to claim 4, wherein the second action corresponds to press on said rotator(Aymeric disclose a rotator with pressing capability. The vocal validation of Gannon can be substituted for the pressing action on the rotator of Aymeric as a second action. Aymeric, Paragraph 45, Pressing the first rotator activates the value for which the on-board computer takes account).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gannon (US 20150081137 A1) (hereinafter Gannon) in view of Lafon (US 20180307323 A1) (hereinafter Lafon) in further view of Schwindt (US 20220139233 A1) (hereinafter Schwindt) in further view of Fine (US 20210082166 A1) (hereinafter Fine).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gannon, Lafon, and, Schwindt teaches the interaction system according to claim 1(Gannon, paragraph 6, a system for validating data entry in response to an instruction; Lafon, paragraph 6, an interactive means with rotator; Schwindt, paragraph 5 avionics device adapted to verify an updated flight plan),
The combination of Gannon, Lafon, and, Schwindt specifically fails to disclose a system wherein the graphic signature of the displayed setting value is generated by an analysis of pixels representing the setting value displayed by said display module.
However, Fine, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about a graphic processing for avionics system that can be embed in an aircraft, discloses a system wherein the graphic signature of the displayed setting value is generated by an analysis of pixels representing the setting value displayed by said display module(As discussed above, the specification does not explicitly specify what the graphic signature is, therefore, it has been assumed to be a graphic image that is displayed by the display module. Fine, paragraph 37 displaying pixel(s) on a screen, the method being implemented by a graphics processor and comprising: Fine, paragraph 38, generating at least one set of pixel(s) to be displayed; Fine, paragraph 39, monitoring each set of pixel(s), with the determination of a list of graphic context information item(s) for at least one pixel and the delivery of said list to an external electronic supervision device, which is able to be connected to the graphics processor ).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gannon, Lafon, and, Schwindt with Fin’s pixel monitoring and graphics processor to display the setting values set by the operator. Graphic images generated by evaluated pixel help with accurate display of critical settings such as piloting parameters.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gannon (US 20150081137 A1) (hereinafter Gannon) in view of Lafon (US 20180307323 A1) (hereinafter Lafon) in further view of Schwindt (US 20220139233 A1) (hereinafter Schwindt) in further view of Urbanski (US 20200110523 A1) (hereinafter Urbanski).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Gannon, Lafon, and, Schwindt teaches the interaction system according to claim 1(Gannon, paragraph 6, a system for validating data entry in response to an instruction; Lafon, paragraph 6, an interactive means with rotator; Schwindt, paragraph 5 avionics device adapted to verify an updated flight plan), processing module(As discussed above, the processing module receives feedback signal, and Gannon discloses receiving feedback signal. Gannon, paragraph 14,user interface 102 is additionally coupled to receive haptic feedback signals and is configured, upon receipt of these signals, to generate haptic feedback )
The combination of Gannon, Lafon, and, Schwindt specifically fails to disclose an interaction system further comprising a first control chain and a first monitoring chain, wherein said display module is integrated in said first control chain and wherein said processing module is integrated in said first monitoring chain.
However, Urbanski, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about a command control system of a system commanded via a graphic interface in avionic field, discloses an interaction system further comprising a first control chain(The specification discloses the first control chain comprises an acquisition module. Similarly, Urbanski has a first subsystem which comprises first calculation module that acquires interaction data from the operator. Urbanski, paragraph 16, a first control subsystem comprising a first computing module able to acquire interaction data describing the interactions of the operator related to the graphic interface, associate these interaction data with a command, and generate a command signal corresponding to this command) and a first monitoring chain(According to the specification, the first monitoring chain has a structure similar to that of the first control chain, and it monitors the operation of the first control chain. The second subsystem of Urbanski discloses a similar monitoring subsystem that monitors operation of the aircraft by its surveillance system. Urbanski, paragraph 78, the current operational context of the aircraft is for example determined by corresponding surveillance systems and is acquired by the second control subsystem.), wherein said display module is integrated in said first control chain(Urbanski, paragraph 79, the first computing module 31 is integrated into the graphic computer implementing the operation of the graphic interface 14, the second module 32 acquires, from the module 31, the display context of the graphic interface 14 in order to interpret the acquired interaction data) and wherein said processing module is integrated in said first monitoring chain( Urbanski, paragraph 78, the current operational context of the aircraft is for example determined by corresponding surveillance systems and is acquired by the second control subsystem).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gannon, Lafon, and, Schwindt with Urbanski’s to include different subsystem that control and monitor operation of avionics system. By including multiple subsystems, it is possible to separate each subsystem for specific role. Additionally, plurality of subsystems allow independent validation of the setting values selected by an operator. Furthermore, it creates redundancy, in cases where one subsystem fails, other subsystem can perform operator’s instructions.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Gannon, Lafon, Schwindt and, Urbanski teaches The interaction system according to claim 9, further comprising a second control chain(The specification does not disclose a difference between the first and second control chain, therefore, the second control chain is assumed to comprises an acquisition module which is similar to first subsystem of Urbanski which comprises first calculation module that acquires interaction data from the operator. Urbanski, paragraph 16, a first control subsystem comprising a first computing module able to acquire interaction data describing the interactions of the operator related to the graphic interface, associate these interaction data with a command, and generate a command signal corresponding to this command)and a second monitoring chain, said second monitoring chain receiving the validation signal to control a setting value(The second monitoring chain is similar to third control subsystem of Urbanski as it receives a confirmation signal (similar to validation signal) to generate a resultant command signal that controls the avionics system. Urbanski, paragraph 24, the third control subsystem is able to acquire all of the confirmation signals coming from the second control subsystem and to select one of these confirmation signals to consolidate it with the command signal; Urbanski, paragraph 25, the third control subsystem is capable of generating the resulting command signal when the command signal and the confirmation signal to be consolidated correspond to the same command. Urbanski, paragraph 32, when the command is compatible with the operational context, generating a confirmation signal corresponding to this command; and consolidating the command signal and the confirmation signal in order to generate a resultant command signal intended to command the commanded system) displayed by said second control chain(Urbanski, paragraph 28, the third control subsystem is integrated in the commanded system; Urbanski, paragraph 29, at least one interaction of the operator in connection with the graphic interface is done on a screen displaying this graphic interface).
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 BESUFEKAD LEMMA TESSEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6850. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 5712727298. 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.
/BESUFEKAD LEMMA TESSEMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights