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 filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the independent claim 1, Applicant argues the amended claims provide technical distinction that Reddy (US 20170291723) does not disclose. Applicant argues that Reddy relies upon location based tagging, such that if a user is at a location, a task is assumed to be complete, which contrasts with claim 1’s required determining a result based on imaging an onboard system and receiving sensor data. Applicant argues Reddy does not perform image analysis to determine an inspection result and uses image comparison only as a secondary audit for repairs which is not an automated determination of a pre-flight status based on real time image analysis integrated with sensor data. Applicant argues that Reddy does not disclose imaging indicia on the aircraft and, while the cited paragraphs [0030] and [0031] describe capturing images of aircraft equipment, the reference does not mention scanning barcodes, QR codes, or serial numbers, whereas the instant application defines indicia as identification markers in [0034], which is technically distinct from scanning specific identification indicia to identify a component. Therefore, Applicant argues Reddy does not anticipate independent claim 1. Applicant argues Reddy’s checklist completion is based on a location presence check, not image analysis, and the image data is used for a different purpose, as a quality audit for already completed repairs, which is a secondary verification step, not the primary determination of a pre-flight inspection result, whereas the claim requires real-time operational determinations based on current image data of the onboard system, not comparisons to default images of repaired sections. Applicant argues Reddy does not describe obtaining sensor data from aircraft’s onboard system or displaying an augmented visual. Applicant argues Reddy’s image comparison is a binary comparison that checks whether the repaired section looks like a default image and does not perform image analysis to determine the current operational status of an onboard system. Applicant argues Lamkin (US 20170004610) does not teach the device communicating with a sensor of an onboard system and the Office’s assertion mischaracterizes the disclosure of the reference, as Lamkin uses a multi-layer architecture with strict isolation between the user device and the aircraft system and points to paragraph [0015] of Lamkin. Applicant argues the user device of Lamkin never communicates with the aircraft sensors and instead there are intermediary components between the user device and the sensors, which contrasts with the present application, which requires direct communication. Applicant argues Lamkin does not teach the augmented visual and image analysis features and does not use a camera to image the onboard system or perform image analysis, and is functionally different than the claim’s. Therefore, Applicant concludes Reddy and Lamkin do not teach the claims, a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established, and therefore is allowable.
However, indeed, Reddy alone does not teach each and every feature of the newly amended independent claim, as the amendment has necessitated the inclusion of Lamkin, as such arguments directed to the newly amended features of claim 1, which Reddy was not previously cited to are moot.
In regards to the remaining arguments against Reddy, Reddy recites, as the Applicant appears to acknowledge, performing a comparison between images captured by a camera of a device of a user when the user arrives at a particular location associated with a flight checklist item with stored images to determine the correctness of completion of each flight checklist item. When the checklist item is determined to be incorrectly completed, it is not a completed checklist item. The Applicant appears to misinterpret or misrepresent the disclose of the reference: an assumption of completion is not made solely based upon location, rather instead the disclosure describes that completion can only be determined by the user having been at the location of the checklist task item and then imaging be performed to determined correctness of completion. Without the user being located at the checklist task item’s location, a user would not be able to perform operations on the item, and therefore completion of the task cannot be performed. Then, image analysis is performed to determine how properly the completion of the checklist item has been performed by comparing a captured image with a stored image of the relevant item, and only after such image analysis can the checklist item be considered properly and fully completed. This does not appear to contrast in any way with what the claim recites, broadly to “cause the processor to determine a result of the pre-flight inspection for display on the graphical checklist, wherein the result is based upon at least a first data obtained from imaging a first onboard system of aircraft using the camera” and “perform image analysis to determine and display a desired information regarding the first onboard system”, which is comfortably read upon by the recitations of Reddy, that at least image comparison is performed, which necessarily requires image analysis, even through a binary comparison, to determine and display information in some way desired and regarding the images system that a checklist item has been completed. It is unclear to the Examiner why the Applicant’s admitted disclosure of Reddy of a “secondary audit for repairs”, which is performed automatically, directly to determine if a checklist item has been completed or not would not be the claimed image analysis or how the cited paragraphs do not cause the processor to determine a result of a pre-flight inspection for display on a graphical checklist, wherein the result is based upon at least first data obtained from imaging a first onboard system of the aircraft using a camera through performing image analysis to determine and display desired information regarding a first onboard system, which is exactly what the claim requires and at least what is recited within the disclosure of Reddy. The claim does not appear to preclude any sort of secondary verification step or quality audit when it is executed by the processor to determine a result of a pre-flight inspection for display from imaging an onboard system with image analysis, and as such, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that when a disclosure performs the recited operations, it must read upon the claim.
Further, the claim does not appear to recite at any point performing an automated determination of a pre-flight status based on real time image analysis integrated with sensor data, as the Applicant suggests, and merely recites computerized operations of image analysis, that do not have any real time or automatic component, or integration of image analysis and sensor data. If the Applicant firmly believes these features to be important to their claims, the Examiner strongly encourages the Applicant to actually amend the claims to recite such features, rather than arguing for features the claims simply do not reflect. Likewise, the claim does not require determining any current operational status of any kind at any point, instead, the claim only requires determining a “result of the pre-flight inspection” and displaying “desired information”, which is far broader than the current operational status argued by the Applicant. Once again, if the Applicant believes these features to be key to their invention, the Examiner strongly encourages them to amend the claims to actually recite such features, rather than arguing features the claims simply do not reflect. Similarly, independent claim 1 does not recite any kind of imaging indicia, in fact, it is not until dependent claim 3 that any sort of imaging indicia is even suggested within the claims. How precisely the Applicant expects a feature in an entirely different claim could make the independent claim more novel or non-obvious is unclear. As such, the Examiner will choose not to forego the established standards of patent examining, and the limitations of other claims will not be read into the independent claim. Still further, the specification does not appear to define the indicia, but instead merely recites examples as “indicia 300 can include but is not limited to: QR code, bar code, serial number or other identifier” not merely the Applicant’s suggested QR codes, bar codes, or serial numbers, but instead all of these and other identifiers, and as such, far broader application of imaging indicia is more than appropriate. No scanning of specific identification indicia is recited at any point within any claim, instead data is generically obtained from imaging indica only in dependent claims. Similarly, if the Applicant finds these features to be fundamentally important to their application, the Examiner suggests actually amending these features into the independent claims, rather than arguing features the independent claims do not reflect.
Nonetheless, Reddy does still teach that images are captured when the user arrives at a particular location associated with a flight checklist item by the user’s computing device and the images are compared with stored images to determine the correctness of completion of each flight checklist item. This compares indicia within the images depicting the particular components corresponding to the particular flight checklist item. This may come in most any form, for example shape, color, texture, reflectivity, or the like, all of which have long been standard in image comparison operations.
Reddy is not and has never been asserted to teach obtaining sensor data from aircraft’s onboard system or displaying an augmented visual. Instead Lamkin has been relied upon for these limitations. Lamkin teaches, as the Applicant quite helpfully points out, an aircraft sensor communicates information to an on-board aircraft network, which communicates with a one-way isolation interface, which communicates with a preprocessor, which communications with a transceiver, which communicates with a further transceiver, and still further transceivers, which communicates with a user device. This is quite clearly, and seemingly by the Applicant’s own admission of indirect communication between the aircraft sensors, the processor, and the user device, which is precisely what is required by the claim. The claim does not require at any point anywhere, or in fact in any claim anywhere, that the user device and the sensor communicate directly, and instead recites “the result is additionally based upon a second data obtained from communicating with a sensor of at least one of the first onboard system or a second onboard system of the aircraft via the communication device”, which is far broader and allows for indirect communication, despite the Applicant’s assertions. It is unclear where from the claims as recited and from the Applicant’s arguments where any requirement of direct communication is recited within the claim. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have interpreted the claim as alleged by the Applicant and instead interpreted the claim for what is actually recites, that by some communication operation, communication is performed between a communication unit with a processor and an aircraft sensor or a second onboard system of the aircraft. This involves no mischaracterization at any point.
Lamkin then presents an image on a display including an image of an aircraft component based on a field of view of a user or orientation of the device augmented with condition information, such as pre-flight operations to be performed. This is precisely the required augmented visual image of the claims. By the combination of Reddy as modified by Lamkin, image analysis is performed using camera images and sensor data is acquired through communication, and then an augmented visual image is displayed, which is what is required by the claim.
As such, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues independent claims 9 and 16 recite similar features to independent claim 1 and therefore are allowable for the same reasons.
This argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons as given above.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent and dependent claim has been fully rejected and for the reasons as given above.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 16, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy (US 20170291723) in view of Lamkin et al. (US 20170004610).
In regards to claim 1, Reddy teaches a system for aiding a pre-flight inspection of an aircraft, comprising: (Fig 1, 2.)
a processor; ([0023], [0024] processor performs operations.)
a memory; ([0023], [0024] memory stores instructions for operation by processor.)
a camera; ([0030] image capture device includes a camera.)
a user interface, the user interface including a user input system and a user output system, the user interface configured for presenting a graphical checklist for the pre-flight inspection of the aircraft; ([0021], [0023], [0026], [0027] computing device of user is used to present and display flight checklist to user and receives user input through user interface. [0017] flight checklist may be particularly a pre-flight checklist.) and
a communications device; ([0020] computing device may communicate over communications network which includes or serves as communications device.)
wherein the memory includes instructions, the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine a result of the pre-flight inspection for display on the graphical checklist, wherein the result is based upon at least a first data obtained from imaging a first onboard system of aircraft using the camera; ([0023], [0024] memory stores instructions for operation by processor. [0026], [0032], [0034], [0039] notifications and alerts may be displayed through the user interface based on results of the flight checklist, at least for example, when an item of the checklist is incomplete an alert is displayed, which is a result of the flight checklist displayed on the user interface, and the flight checklist may be filtered to show completed or incomplete items, which further displays a result of the flight checklist. [0021], [0030], [0031] images are captured when the user arrives at a particular location associated with a flight checklist item by the user’s computing device and the images are compared with stored images to determine the correctness of completion of each flight checklist item. This determines a result of the flight checklist based upon at least first image data of a system of the aircraft using a camera and displays the results on the flight checklist.) and
wherein, using at least the first data, the memory includes instructions, the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: perform image analysis to determine and display a desired information regarding the first onboard system. ([0023], [0024] memory stores instructions for operation by processor. [0021], [0030], [0031] images are captured when the user arrives at a particular location associated with a flight checklist item by the user’s computing device and the images are compared with stored images to determine the correctness of completion of each flight checklist item. This comparison is image analysis determined and displaying desired information of a particular first onboard system.)
Reddy does not teach:
wherein the result is additionally based upon a second data obtained from communicating with a sensor of at least one of the first onboard system or a second onboard system of the aircraft via the communications device, wherein, using at least the first data, the memory includes instructions, the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: display, via the user interface, an augmented visual of the first onboard system and
However, Lamkin teaches a user’s augmented vision display system, such as a tablet computer or the like, communicates with an aircraft’s on-board network to receive data from the aircraft’s flight management system and aircraft sensors ([0015], [0017]). This communicates with a second onboard system of the aircraft, the on-board network, and indirectly communicates with the aircraft’s flight management system and aircraft’s sensors. This information is then used to validate a pre-flight checklist ([0021]). An image is presented on display of components of the aircraft within a field of view of the user’s device augmented with condition information (Fig 2C, [0022]), which is an augmented visual displayed of an onboard system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the flight checklist validation system of Reddy, by incorporating the teachings of Lamkin, such that the flight checklist of Reddy is further validated by the user device communicating with an on-board network of the aircraft which communicates with the aircraft’s flight management and aircraft’s sensors, which is then used to further validate that flight checklist items have been performed, and the user device further displays a visual of aircraft’s systems within a field of view augmented with checklist items relevant to the particular aircraft system.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Lamkin, this allows for providing improved monitoring and inspection ([0002]).
In regards to claim 3, Reddy, as modified by Lamkin, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first data is obtained from imaging indicia on the aircraft. ([0021], [0030], [0031] images are captured when the user arrives at a particular location associated with a flight checklist item by the user’s computing device and the images are compared with stored images to determine the correctness of completion of each flight checklist item. This compares indicia within the images depicting the particular components corresponding to the particular flight checklist item.)
In regards to claim 8, Reddy, as modified by Lamkin, teaches the system of claim 2.
Reddy also teaches the system may determine that a user is not physically present at a particular location associated with a flight checklist item, which is a determination that a user is within a close proximity of a particular system of the aircraft ([0039]).
Lamkin teaches determining that a user device is within proximity of particular aircraft equipment as being within a threshold distance and selects only information to be included in communication relevant to the particular aircraft equipment, while the user walks around the vehicle ([0018], [0022], [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the flight checklist validation system of Reddy, as already modified by Lamkin, by further incorporating the teachings of Lamkin, such that particularly only information about a particular aircraft equipment within a threshold distance proximity of the user’s device is communicated with the user device from aircraft sensors.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Lamkin in regards to claim 1.
In regards to claim 9, Reddy teaches a method for completing a pre-flight inspection of an aircraft, comprising: (Figs 3-6.)
receiving a first data regarding a first onboard system of the aircraft using at least a camera of a personal electronic device, ([0021], [0030], [0031] images are captured using camera of computing device of user when the user arrives at a particular location associated with a flight checklist item, where images show particular aircraft equipment.)
determining, without user input, a result of one or more checklist items on the personal electronic device based upon the first data; ([0021], [0030], [0031] images are captured using camera of computing device of user when the user arrives at a particular location associated with a flight checklist item, where images show particular aircraft equipment, and the images are compared with stored images to determine the correctness of completion of each flight checklist item. This determines a result of the flight checklist based upon at least image data of a system of the aircraft using a camera and displays the results on the flight checklist without user input.)
displaying the result on the personal electronic device; ([0026], [0032], [0034], [0039] notifications and alerts may be displayed through the user interface based on results of the flight checklist, at least for example, when an item of the checklist is incomplete an alert is displayed, which is a result of the flight checklist displayed on the user interface, and the flight checklist may be filtered to show completed or incomplete items, which further displays a result of the flight checklist.) and
Reddy does not teach:
receiving a second data from a sensor of at least one of the first onboard system or a second onboard system of the aircraft;
wherein the result is additionally based upon the second data obtained from communicating with the sensor; and
wherein the displaying uses the first data to provide an augmented visual of the first onboard system based on a determined result of the pre-flight inspection.
However, Lamkin teaches a user’s augmented vision display system, such as a tablet computer or the like, communicates with an aircraft’s on-board network to receive data from the aircraft’s flight management system and aircraft sensors ([0015], [0017]). This communicates with a second onboard system of the aircraft, the on-board network, and indirectly communicates with the aircraft’s flight management system and aircraft’s sensors. This information is then used to validate a pre-flight checklist ([0021]). An image is presented on display of components of the aircraft within a field of view of the user’s device augmented with condition information (Fig 2C, [0022]), which is an augmented visual displayed of an onboard system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the flight checklist validation method of Reddy, by incorporating the teachings of Lamkin, such that the flight checklist of Reddy is further validated by the user device communicating with an on-board network of the aircraft which communicates with the aircraft’s flight management and aircraft’s sensors, which is then used to further validate that flight checklist items have been performed, and the user device further displays a visual of aircraft’s systems within a field of view augmented with checklist items relevant to the particular aircraft system.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Lamkin, this allows for providing improved monitoring and inspection ([0002]).
In regards to claim 10, Reddy, as modified by Lamkin, teaches the method of claim 9.
Claim 10 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 8 above, therefore claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
In regards to claim 16, Reddy teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage device including instructions, which when executed by a machine, configure the machine to: ([0023], [0024] processor performs instructions stored in memory.)
receive at least a first data obtained from imaging a first onboard system of aircraft using a camera of a personal electronic device; ([0021], [0030], [0031] images are captured using camera of computing device of user when the user arrives at a particular location associated with a flight checklist item, where images show particular aircraft equipment.)
determine, without user input, a result of based upon the first data; ([0021], [0030], [0031] images are captured using camera of computing device of user when the user arrives at a particular location associated with a flight checklist item, where images show particular aircraft equipment, and the images are compared with stored images to determine the correctness of completion of each flight checklist item. This determines a result of the flight checklist based upon at least image data of a system of the aircraft using a camera and displays the results on the flight checklist without user input.) and
display, without user input, the result on a graphical checklist of the personal electronic device; ([0026], [0032], [0034], [0039] notifications and alerts may be displayed through the user interface based on results of the flight checklist, at least for example, when an item of the checklist is incomplete an alert is displayed, which is a result of the flight checklist displayed on the user interface, and the flight checklist may be filtered to show completed or incomplete items, which further displays a result of the flight checklist.)
wherein the result is additionally based upon the second data obtained from communicating with the sensor, wherein the instructions, when executed by the machine, configure the machine to: perform image analysis to determine and display a desired information regarding the first onboard system. ([0023], [0024] memory stores instructions for operation by processor. [0021], [0030], [0031] images are captured when the user arrives at a particular location associated with a flight checklist item by the user’s computing device and the images are compared with stored images to determine the correctness of completion of each flight checklist item. This comparison is image analysis determined and displaying desired information of a particular first onboard system.)
Reddy does not teach:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the machine, configure the machine to receive second data obtained from communicating with a sensor of at least one of the first onboard system or a second onboard system of the aircraft; and
wherein the result is additionally based upon the second data obtained from communicating with the sensor, wherein the instructions, when executed by the machine, configure the machine to: display an augmented visual of the first onboard system.
However, Lamkin teaches a user’s augmented vision display system, such as a tablet computer or the like, communicates with an aircraft’s on-board network to receive data from the aircraft’s flight management system and aircraft sensors ([0015], [0017]). This communicates with a second onboard system of the aircraft, the on-board network, and indirectly communicates with the aircraft’s flight management system and aircraft’s sensors. This information is then used to validate a pre-flight checklist ([0021]). An image is presented on display of components of the aircraft within a field of view of the user’s device augmented with condition information (Fig 2C, [0022]), which is an augmented visual displayed of an onboard system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the flight checklist validation instructions of Reddy, by incorporating the teachings of Lamkin, such that the flight checklist of Reddy is further validated by the user device communicating with an on-board network of the aircraft which communicates with the aircraft’s flight management and aircraft’s sensors, which is then used to further validate that flight checklist items have been performed, and the user device further displays a visual of aircraft’s systems within a field of view augmented with checklist items relevant to the particular aircraft system.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Lamkin, this allows for providing improved monitoring and inspection ([0002]).
In regards to claim 17, Reddy, as modified by Lamkin, teaches the storage device of claim 16, wherein the first data is obtained from imaging indicia on the aircraft. ([0021], [0030], [0031] images are captured when the user arrives at a particular location associated with a flight checklist item by the user’s computing device and the images are compared with stored images to determine the correctness of completion of each flight checklist item. This compares indicia within the images depicting the particular components corresponding to the particular flight checklist item.)
In regards to claim 21, Reddy, as modified by Lamkin, teaches the method of claim 10.
Reddy also teaches images are captured when the user arrives at a particular location associated with a flight checklist item by the user’s computing device and the images are compared with stored images to determine the correctness of completion of each flight checklist item ([0021], [0030], [0031]). This comparison is image analysis determined and displaying desired information of a particular first onboard system.
Lamkin further teaches a user’s augmented vision display system, such as a tablet computer or the like, communicates with an aircraft’s on-board network to receive data from the aircraft’s flight management system and aircraft sensors ([0015], [0017]). This information is then used to validate a pre-flight checklist ([0021]). An image is presented on display of components of the aircraft within a field of view of the user’s device augmented with condition information (Fig 2C, [0022]), which is an augmented visual displayed of an onboard system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the flight checklist validation method of Reddy, as already modified by Lamkin, by further incorporating the teachings of Lamkin, such that as the augmented visual is displayed, the augmentation of a checklist item is displayed at least in part based upon image analysis comparing images to determine correctness of completion of each flight checklist item.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Lamkin in regards to claim 1.
Claims 4-7, 11-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy in view of Lamkin, in further view of Arnoux et al. (US 20200277086).
In regards to claim 4, Reddy, as modified by Lamkin, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the desired information includes at least a name of the first onboard system and ([0026], [0032], [0034], [0039] notifications and alerts may be displayed through the user interface based on results of the flight checklist, at least for example, when an item of the checklist is incomplete an alert is displayed, which is a result of the flight checklist displayed on the user interface, and the flight checklist may be filtered to show completed or incomplete items, which further displays a result of the flight checklist. At least filtering displays names of each item and component.)
Reddy also teaches that particular aircraft equipment is imaged and analyzed as part of the flight checklist for a particular airplane which is then compared with a retrieved image from a server storing the corresponding retrieved images of how the relevant images are supposed to look ([0021], [0030], [0031]). As this is of a particular aircraft, all determinations of the flight checklist items are particular to that aircraft and therefore also that type of aircraft.
Reddy, as modified by Lamkin, does not teach: wherein the desired information includes at least an indication via user interface if the first onboard system is within an acceptable operational range or outside an acceptable operational range according to a type of aircraft and current weather conditions.
However, Arnoux teaches using a user’s portable device with an interface to determine at least whether a landing gear pressure change of an aircraft is within an acceptable or unacceptable range based upon the ambient temperature of the environment ([0051]-[0055]). Temperature is a current weather condition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the flight checklist validation system of Reddy, as already modified by Lamkin, by incorporating the teachings of Arnoux, such that at least flight checklist items relating to the landing gear of the aircraft determine if a pressure change of the wheels of the aircraft is within an acceptable or unacceptable range at least in part based on the ambient temperature, which is a current weather condition, and this information is displayed on the display of the user’s device as in Reddy.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Arnoux, this allows for improved tire pressure and therefore reduced wear and increased safety of the aircraft ([0002]).
In regards to claim 5, Reddy, as modified by Lamkin and Arnoux, teaches the system of claim 4, the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause processor to: generate and display an alert of a potential anomaly with the user interface. ([0023], [0024] processor performs instructions stored in memory. [0026], [0032], [0034], [0039] notifications and alerts may be displayed through the user interface based on results of the flight checklist, at least for example, when an item of the checklist is incomplete an alert is displayed, which is a result of the flight checklist displayed on the user interface of a potential anomaly, and the flight checklist may be filtered to show completed or incomplete items, which further displays a result of the flight checklist.)
In regards to claim 6, Reddy, as modified by Lamkin and Arnoux, teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the desired information includes a measurement of a component of the first onboard system determined using the first data ([0021], [0030], [0031], [0047] image capturing device captures still or video images of each flight checklist item which are compared with corresponding 2D or 3D default images, which requires measurement both through imaging the hues, saturations, and values to capture the image and by comparing particular feature details.)
Arnoux teaches using a user’s portable device with an interface to determine at least whether a landing gear pressure change of an aircraft is within an acceptable or unacceptable range based upon the ambient temperature of the environment ([0051]-[0055]). This verifies that the landing gear tire is operating correctly by having an acceptable pressure change.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the flight checklist validation system of Reddy, as already modified by Lamkin and Arnoux, by further incorporating the teachings of Arnoux, such that the flight checklist of Reddy includes measuring components of at least the landing gear tire pressure change which is verified to be operating correctly when acceptable.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Arnoux in regards to claim 4.
In regards to claim 7, Arnoux teaches using a user’s portable device with an interface to determine at least whether a landing gear pressure change of an aircraft is within an acceptable or unacceptable range based upon the ambient temperature of the environment ([0051]-[0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the flight checklist validation system of Reddy, as already modified by Lamkin and Arnoux, by further incorporating the teachings of Arnoux, such that particularly at least the landing gear system of the aircraft is monitored as part of the flight checklist.
The motivation to do so is the same as acknowledged by Arnoux in regards to claim 4.
In regards to claim 11, Reddy, as modified by Lamkin, teaches the method of claim 10.
Claim 11 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 6 above, therefore claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
In regards to claim 12, Reddy, as modified by Lamkin and Arnoux, teaches the method of claim 11.
Claim 12 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 4 above, therefore claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
In regards to claim 13, Reddy, as modified by Lamkin and Arnoux, teaches the method of claim 12.
Claim 13 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 5 above, therefore claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
In regards to claim 18, Reddy, as modified by Lamkin, teaches the storage device of claim 17.
Claim 18 recites a storage device having substantially the same features of claim 4 above, therefore claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
In regards to claim 19, Reddy, as modified by Lamkin and Arnoux, teaches the storage device of claim 18.
Claim 19 recites a storage device having substantially the same features of claim 6 above, therefore claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
In regards to claim 20, Reddy, as modified by Lamkin and Arnoux, teaches the storage system of claim 19.
Reddy also teaches the system may determine that a user is not physically present at a particular location associated with a flight checklist item, which is a determination that a user is within a close proximity of a particular system of the aircraft ([0039]).
Lamkin teaches a user’s augmented vision display system, such as a tablet computer or the like, communicates with an aircraft’s on-board network to receive data from the aircraft’s flight management system and aircraft sensors ([0015], [0017]). This communicates with a second onboard system of the aircraft, the on-board network, and indirectly communicates with the aircraft’s flight management system and aircraft’s sensors. This information is then used to validate a pre-flight checklist ([0021]). Lamkin further teaches determining that a user device is within proximity of particular aircraft equipment as being within a threshold distance and selects only information to be included in communication relevant to the particular aircraft equipment, while the user walks around the vehicle ([0018], [0022], [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the flight checklist validation instructions of Reddy, as already modified by Lamkin and Arnoux, by further incorporating the teachings of Lamkin, such that the flight checklist of Reddy is further validated by the user device communicating with an on-board network of the aircraft which communicates with the aircraft’s flight management and aircraft’s sensors, which is then used to further validate that flight checklist items have been performed and such that particularly only information about a particular aircraft equipment within a threshold distance proximity of the user’s device is communicated with the user device from aircraft sensors.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Lamkin, this allows for providing improved monitoring and inspection ([0002]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy in view of Lamkin and Arnoux, in further view of Nance (US 8042765).
In regards to claim 14, Reddy, as modified by Lamkin and Arnoux, teaches the method of claim 12.
Arnoux teaches using a user’s portable device with an interface to determine at least whether a landing gear pressure change of an aircraft is within an acceptable or unacceptable range based upon the ambient temperature of the environment ([0051]-[0055]).
Reddy, as modified by Lamkin and Arnoux, does not teach:
and wherein the first data is obtained from indicia on a strut of the landing gear system.
However, Nance teaches imaging a landing gear and landing gear strut to determine the rate of compression of the landing gear (Col 8 lines 17-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the flight checklist validation system of Reddy, as already modified by Lamkin and Arnoux, by further incorporating the teachings of Arnoux and incorporating the teachings of Nance, such that particularly at least the landing gear system of the aircraft is monitored as part of the flight checklist by imaging the landing gear and landing gear struts and identifying them within images.
The motivation to monitor landing gear is the same as acknowledged by Arnoux in regards to claim 4. The motivation to monitor landing gear struts is that, as acknowledged by Nance, this allows for better monitoring of landing gear state and whether inspection is required (Col 4 lines 8-15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davidson et al. (US 20220398929) teaches a user interface for operating a pre-flight checklist.
Lamkin et al. (EP 3112813) teaches displaying a pre-flight checklist on a user’s personal device.
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 MATTHIAS S WEISFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-7258. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM - 4:00 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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at Ramya.Burgess@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights