To 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the language:
graphically presenting aviation-focused weather information, the method comprising:
receiving, weather information for a select geographic location and a select time period, the select time period comprising a plurality of consecutive days, each day comprising a plurality of consecutive hours, and the weather information comprising aviation-specific weather conditions associated with the select time period; and
displaying, the aviation-specific weather conditions using a plurality of graphical elements in a first region
each graphical element corresponding to a respective one of the consecutive calendar days and each aviation-specific weather condition having an assigned color-coding or shading, wherein each graphical element is configured to graphically depict the aviation-specific weather condition for each hour of the corresponding calendar day using the assigned color-coding or shading.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses graphically presenting aviation-focused weather information, the method comprising; construed by the examiner as a preamble setting forth intended use; receiving, weather information for a select geographic location and a select time period, the select time period comprising a plurality of consecutive days, each day comprising a plurality of consecutive hours, and the weather information comprising aviation-specific weather conditions associated with the select time period; and; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; displaying, the aviation-specific weather conditions using a plurality of graphical elements in a first region; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; each graphical element corresponding to a respective one of the consecutive calendar days and each aviation-specific weather condition having an assigned color-coding or shading, wherein each graphical element is configured to graphically depict the aviation-specific weather condition for each hour of the corresponding calendar day using the assigned color-coding or shading; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., observation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites:
A computer-implemented method for
at one or more processors,
on a display unit of an electronic device, a graphical user interface configured to graphically present
of the graphical user interface,
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-8 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claims 9-14 are directed to a device and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 9 under prong 1 of step 2A, the language:
receive weather information for a select geographic location and a select time period, the select time period comprising a plurality of consecutive days, each day comprising a plurality of consecutive hours, and the weather information comprising aviation-specific weather conditions associated with the select time period; and
display the aviation-specific weather conditions using a plurality of graphical elements in a first region of the graphical user interface, each graphical element corresponding to a respective one of the consecutive calendar days and each aviation-specific weather condition having an assigned color-coding or shading, wherein each graphical element is configured to graphically depict the aviation-specific weather condition for each hour of the corresponding calendar day using the assigned color-coding or shading.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 9 discloses receive weather information for a select geographic location and a select time period, the select time period comprising a plurality of consecutive days, each day comprising a plurality of consecutive hours, and the weather information comprising aviation-specific weather conditions associated with the select time period; and; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; display the aviation-specific weather conditions using a plurality of graphical elements in a first region of the graphical user interface, each graphical element corresponding to a respective one of the consecutive calendar days and each aviation-specific weather condition having an assigned color-coding or shading, wherein each graphical element is configured to graphically depict the aviation-specific weather condition for each hour of the corresponding calendar day using the assigned color-coding or shading; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 9 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 9 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 9 further recites:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions which, when executed by an electronic device with a display unit, causes the electronic device to:
a graphical user interface configured to graphically present
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 9 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 9 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 10-14 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 9 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claims 15-20 are directed to a system and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 15 under prong 1 of step 2A, the language:
A system for graphically presenting aviation-focused weather information, the system comprising:
receiving, weather information for a select geographic location and a select time period, the select time period comprising a plurality of consecutive days, each day comprising a plurality of consecutive hours, and the weather information comprising aviation-specific weather conditions associated with the select time period; and
displaying, the aviation-specific weather conditions using a plurality of graphical elements in a first region of the graphical user interface, each graphical element corresponding to a respective one of the consecutive calendar days and each aviation-specific weather condition having an assigned color-coding or shading, wherein each graphical element is configured to graphically depict the aviation-specific weather condition for each hour of the corresponding calendar day using the assigned color-coding or shading.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 15 discloses A system for graphically presenting aviation-focused weather information, the system comprising; construed by the examiner as a preamble setting forth intended use; receiving, weather information for a select geographic location and a select time period, the select time period comprising a plurality of consecutive days, each day comprising a plurality of consecutive hours, and the weather information comprising aviation-specific weather conditions associated with the select time period; and; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; displaying, the aviation-specific weather conditions using a plurality of graphical elements in a first region of the graphical user interface, each graphical element corresponding to a respective one of the consecutive calendar days and each aviation-specific weather condition having an assigned color-coding or shading, wherein each graphical element is configured to graphically depict the aviation-specific weather condition for each hour of the corresponding calendar day using the assigned color-coding or shading; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 15 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 15 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 15 further recites:
a display unit configured to present information and receive one or more user inputs;
one or more processors; and
memory configured to store one or more programs,
the one or more programs being configured for execution by the one or more processors and including instructions for:
at one or more processors,
on the display unit, a graphical user interface configured to graphically present
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 15 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 15 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 16-20 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 15 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan et al. (US 7,185,044 B2), hereinafter Ryan, in view of Turner et al. (US 2020/0173809 A1), hereinafter Turner.
Regarding claim 1, Ryan discloses A computer-implemented method for graphically presenting aviation-focused weather information, the method comprising:
receiving, at one or more processors, weather information for a select geographic location and a select time period, (Ryan; e.g., see col. 18, lines 31-41 disclosing the system is used for the delivery of content and other data to any type of product, such as the wireless phones (113), personal digital assistants (PDAs) (116), TV products (115), and computers (117), as well as different platforms, such as web, wireless, etc.; examiner notes all of the above cited electronics necessarily comprise one or more processors, memory, and programs for performing the functions set forth; e.g., see col. 17, lines 31-53; see also figs. 8A-8B illustrating the geographic location of Dallas, TX for the dates of July 16 and July 17, respectively; wherein a map of the geographic location is also displayed; see also col. 12, lines 60-65 disclosing fig. 8(a) shows the local weather page for Dallas, Tex. for Jul. 16, 2000. When the consumer selects a different day in the temporal navigator, the current conditions presentation component shows the conditions or predicted conditions for the selected day and the maps navigator is also changed to display a map corresponding to that selected day).
the select time period comprising a plurality of consecutive days, each day comprising a plurality of consecutive hours, and the weather information comprising aviation-specific weather conditions associated with the select time period; and (Ryan, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also figs. 8A-8B illustrating a “Daily Forecast” of SUN-MON-TUE-WED-THU-FRI-SAT, wherein each day coordinates with a high and low temperature and UV index; construed by the examiner as aviation specific weather conditions; further included is an “Hour by Hour Forecast” is provided in conjunction with the day; see also col. 15, lines 29-32 disclosing by selecting the present day, the consumer obtains a more detailed break down of the weather conditions for the day, such as hour by hour, day conditions, night conditions, and almanac data; see also col. 5, lines 40-50 disclosing aviators can obtain weather information that is of interest to them, such as wind speed and the jet stream, which differs from the weather information presented to golfers, which may be temperature and precipitation. The systems and methods of the invention, in contrast, tie the weather information to specific activities; see also fig. 2E illustrating a drop down of activities which includes “aviation;” construed by the examiner to be “aviation-specific”).
displaying, on a display unit of an electronic device, a graphical user interface configured to graphically present the aviation-specific weather conditions using a plurality of graphical elements in a first region of the graphical user interface, (Ryan, e.g., see rejection as applied above to figs. 2E and 8A-8B, wherein figs 8A-8B explicitly illustrating several graphical elements in at least the modules relating to the “Daily Forecast,” “Current Conditions,” and “maps;” examiner notes the first region is construed as the “Current Conditions,” and the “Maps,” wherein both display graphical elements to include Cloudiness; construed as visibility; also disclosed is probability of snow; construed as icing information; also illustrated are atmospheric fronts which necessarily convey turbulence information as fronts are known in the art to produce sharp changes in temperature, pressure, and wind direction; examiner notes that all of which are construed as aviation-specific weather conditions; and wherein fig. 2E and col. 15, lines 29-32 disclose the use of aviation specific weather conditions; see also col. 18, lines 42-65 disclosing the system (100) preferably adopts a model-view-controller design paradigm (MVC) to enable the business logic to be separated from the presentation, thereby making it easier to modify either one without affecting the other. The model part can be shared among any number of view and controller objects. The view part relates to presenting the model’s data to the outside world and can take the form of a graphical user interface (GUI), generated speech, audible tones, printouts, or even non-user oriented output, such as turning on an air conditioner).
each graphical element corresponding to a respective one of the consecutive calendar days and each aviation-specific weather condition having an assigned color-coding or shading, (Ryan, e.g., see rejection as applied above regarding col. 12, lines 60-65 disclosing representation of data correspondent to the selected day; see also figs. 2E and 8A-8B; see also col. 5, lines 40-50 disclosing aviation specific data; see also col. 13, lines 14-17 disclosing the local weather interface may also include a weather alert presentation component, as shown in figs. 8(A) and 8(B) below the tabs. This presentation component appears as part of the local weather interface only when a weather alert has been issued for the geographical region selected by the consumer. The weather alert is preferably color coded to indicate its severity, with urgent severe weather being displayed in red and non-urgent in yellow).
wherein each graphical element is configured to graphically depict a general weather condition for each hour of the corresponding calendar day using the assigned color coding or shading. (Ryan, e.g., see rejection as applied above to col. 18, lines 42-65 disclosing the use of a GUI; see also above to figs. 8A-8B explicitly illustrating an “Hour by Hour Forecast,” wherein the Hour by Hour Forecast discloses changes in temperature throughout the day; construed by the examiner as a general weather condition; examiner notes that black is a color and is displayed in black which is construed as the assigned color).
Ryan is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing graphically depict[ing] the aviation-specific weather conditions for each hour.
However, Turner further discloses: graphically depict[ing] the aviation-specific weather conditions for each hour. (Turner, e.g., see fig. 3 illustrating GUI (300) on a display (301), specifically to upper portion (302) and lower portion (304), wherein upper portion (302) provides an approximate timeframe of the flight in the lower portion (304) according to raster (316) which corresponds to point in lower portion (318); examiner notes a sliding time frame is provided at the bottom of lower portion (304), wherein “turb 1900” is explicitly illustrated in the sliding time bar which is construed as turbulence at 1900; see also para. [0038] disclosing fig. 3 depicts one example of a graphical user interface (GUI) (300) on a display (301) (e.g., monitor, tablet, smart phone, etc.), the GUI including for example an upper portion (302) and a lower portion (304). The lower portion shows, for example, a vertical profile of the map along the flight path at all relevant altitudes, and all estimated arrival times. Essentially, the lower portion is an X-Y plot of time (301) along the X-axis and altitude (312) along the Y-axis. A selector (also known as a “scrubber”) (314), is used to move in either direction (left or right) along the time axis. The act of moving the selector through time is known as “scrubbing.” A raster point (316) on the map corresponds to a point (318) in the lower portion, the point showing, a position on a flight path (320), altitude and time. The forecasted raster data corresponds to a polygonal shapes (322) in the lower portion. In one embodiment, as shown here, the polygonal shapes are made up of a base shape, for example, rectangles grouped with other like ones, here, colors corresponding to severity of the weather shown by the rendered raster data. The forecasted data comes in spans of time, for example, time span (324). When the raster point in question crosses the boundary of a forecast period, the raster tile for the next forecast period must be used. This effectively leads the blended tiles using multiple forecast periods; see also para. [0026] disclosing that the method of creating polygonal bands out of the raster data for turbulence and other weather-related raster-based forecast data).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Ryan with Turner’s graphically depicting the aviation-specific weather conditions for each hour for at least the reasons that top-down slices of weather into a layered view allows the user to visualize the entire atmosphere around the aircraft, while removing weather that will not affect them because it is forecast for a time when they are not there, as taught by Turner; e.g., see para. [0028].
Regarding claim 2, Ryan in view of Turner discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of graphical elements are arranged adjacently across the first region of the graphical user interface. see rejection as applied to claim 1, specifically to figs. 8A-8B illustrating adjacent elements of “Current Conditions” and “Maps,” which is construed above as the first region.
Regarding claim 9, Claim 9 recites A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions which, when executed by an electronic device with a display unit, cause the electronic device to: receive weather information for a select geographic location and a select time period, the select time period comprising a plurality of consecutive days, each day comprising a plurality of consecutive hours, and the weather information comprising aviation-specific weather conditions associated with the select time period; and display a graphical user interface configured to graphically present the aviation-specific weather conditions using a plurality of graphical elements in a first region of the graphical user interface, each graphical element corresponding to a respective one of the consecutive calendar days and each aviation-specific weather condition having an assigned color-coding or shading, wherein each graphical element is configured to graphically depict the aviation-specific weather condition for each hour of the corresponding calendar day using the assigned color-coding or shading., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ryan in view of Turner for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Claim 10 recites The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the plurality of graphical elements are arranged adjacently across the first region of the graphical user interface., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ryan in view of Turner for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, Claim 15 recites A system for graphically presenting aviation-focused weather information, the system comprising: a display unit configured to present information and receive one or more user inputs; one or more processors; and memory configured to store one or more programs, the one or more programs being configured for execution by the one or more processors and including instructions for: receiving, at one or more processors, weather information for a select geographic location and a select time period, the select time period comprising a plurality of consecutive days, each day comprising a plurality of consecutive hours, and the weather information comprising aviation-specific weather conditions associated with the select time period; and displaying, on the display unit, a graphical user interface configured to graphically present the aviation-specific weather conditions using a plurality of graphical elements in a first region of the graphical user interface, each graphical element corresponding to a respective one of the consecutive calendar days and each aviation-specific weather condition having an assigned color-coding or shading, wherein each graphical element is configured to graphically depict the aviation-specific weather condition for each hour of the corresponding calendar day using the assigned color-coding or shading., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ryan in view of Turner for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Claim 16 recites The system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of graphical elements are arranged adjacently across the first region of the graphical user interface., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ryan in view of Turner for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 2.
Claims 3-4, 11-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Turner, in further view of Rainey et al. (US 2017/0300840 A1), hereinafter Rainey.
Regarding claim 3, Ryan in view of Turner is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method of claim 1, wherein each graphical element comprises a plurality of segments arranged adjacently across a width of the graphical element, each segment representing a respective hour of the corresponding calendar day.
However, Rainey further discloses: wherein each graphical element comprises a plurality of segments arranged adjacently across a width of the graphical element, each segment representing a respective hour of the corresponding calendar day. (Rainey, e.g., see fig. 4A illustrating a plurality of graphical elements comprising a plurality of Segments; e.g., segment 452 illustrating an hourly forecast for Hagerstown, MD on Jul. 7 between the hours of 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., wherein adjacent to hourly forecast (452a) is A Current Conditions element (454a) comprising segments of data for the 3:40 p.m. corresponding to the Jul. 7 calendar day, wherein adjacent to Current Conditions is an Hourly Forecast (452b) for Rockville, MD for Jul. 7 between the hours of 4 p.m. and 7 p.m.; see also paras. [0046] – [0049] disclosing the embodiment of fig. 4a).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Ryan in view of Turner’s method with Rainey’s each graphical element comprises a plurality of segments arranged adjacently across a width of the graphical element, each segment representing a respective hour of the corresponding calendar day for at least the reasons that the graphical user interface may be utilized such that a user may be enabled to view and compare the same user specified weather conditions in multiple locations at the same time, as taught by Rainey; e.g., see para. [0049].
Regarding claim 4, Ryan in view of Turner, in further view of Rainey is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method of claim 3, wherein each segment is configured to graphically depict the color or shading assigned to the aviation-specific weather condition that is associated with the corresponding hour.
However, Rainey further discloses: wherein each segment is configured to graphically depict the color or shading assigned to the aviation-specific weather condition that is associated with the corresponding hour. (Rainey, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 3; see also paras. [0066]-[0068] disclosing the notification thresholds (332) include a notification when the hourly forecast predicts ice. Accordingly, the forecast for 1 am, and 3-5 am may include a notification. For example, the hourly forecast for those time periods may be colored red. Notifications may have tiered levels of severity. In one example, a purple colored notification may be severe than a red colored notification and a green colored notification may indicate a reduction in severity. The system (200) may compare forecast data to previous forecast data and output a notification based on a change from the previous forecast. For example, the module (920) output at 12 am forecast rain for 5 am and 6 am. The module (910) indicates that the previous forecast at 11 pm forecasts ice for 5 am and 6 am. Accordingly, the graphical user interface (380) may output a notification indicating a reduction in severity. For example, the hourly forecasts for those time periods in the module (920) may be colored green).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Ryan in view of Turner, in further view of Rainey’s method with Rainey’s each segment is configured to graphically depict the color or shading assigned to the aviation-specific weather condition that is associated with the corresponding hour for at least the reasons that color coding weather events by hour easily draws the attention of the user to easily identifiable, important data.
Regarding claim 11, Claim 11 recites The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein each graphical element comprises a plurality of segments arranged adjacently across a width of the graphical element, each segment representing a respective hour of the corresponding calendar day., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ryan in view of Turner, in further view of Rainey for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, Claim 12 recites The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein each segment is configured to graphically depict the color or shading assigned to the aviation-specific weather condition that is associated with the corresponding hour., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ryan in view of Turner, in further view of Rainey for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, Claim 17 recites The system of claim 15, wherein each graphical element comprises a plurality of segments arranged adjacently across a width of the graphical element, each segment representing a respective hour of the corresponding calendar day., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ryan in view of Turner, in further view of Rainey for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, Claim 18 recites The system of claim 17, wherein each segment is configured to graphically depict the color or shading assigned to the aviation-specific weather condition that is associated with the corresponding hour., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ryan in view of Turner, in further view of Rainey for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 4.
Claims 5-6, 7-8, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Turner, in further view of Watts (US 2013/0226452 A1), hereinafter Watts.
Regarding claim 5, Ryan in view of Turner is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method of claim 1, wherein the aviation-specific weather conditions comprise a flight category for each hour of the select time period.
However, Watts further discloses: wherein the aviation-specific weather conditions comprise a flight category for each hour of the select time period. (Watts, e.g., see figs. 18-19 illustrating an atmospheric index of an atmospheric state comprising VRF (Visual Flight Rules), MVFR (Marginal Visual Flight Rules), LFR (Low Instrument Flight Rules) and IFR (Instrument Flight Rules), all of which are coded with a particular graphic and color to indicate a range of feet respective of AGL (Above Ground Level); see also fig. 24 illustrating an atmospheric state index correspondent to a map with those particular graphics and colors, which is coordinated with a sliding bar located at the bottom of the display indicating time, and a second sliding bar indicating altitude above ground level; wherein the time slider in correlation with the flight category is construed by the examiner as “for each hour of the selected time period;” see also para. [0236] disclosing the common Atmospheric State Index “ASI” runs from 0 to 100 with a corresponding graphical presentation shown in for example fig. 24. The common scale would have different descriptors depending on the hazard; construed by the examiner as displaying the appropriate atmospheric state index; see also paras. [0248]-[0249] disclosing the limitations of figs. 18-19; see also paras. [0254]-[0257] disclosing the embodiment of fig. 24).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Ryan in view of Turner’s method with Watts’ aviation-specific weather conditions comprise a flight category for each hour of the select time period for at least the reasons that an ASI index simplifies hazards, wherein an operator may develop a range for the particular procedure related to travel tolerance parameters, as taught by Watts; e.g., see para. [0248].
Regarding claim 6, Ryan in view of Turner, in further view of Watts discloses The method of claim 5, wherein the flight category is selected from a group consisting of Low Instrument Flight Rules (“LIFR”), Instrument Flight Rules (“IFR”), Marginal Visual Flight Rules (“MVFR”), and Visual Flight Rules (“VFR). see rejection as applied to claim 5; e.g., figs. 18-19 and 24 disclosing LIFR, IFR, MVFR, and VFR.
Regarding claim 7, Ryan in view of Turner, in further view of Watts discloses The method of claim 5, further comprising: determining the flight category for each hour of the select time period based on ceiling information and visibility information associated with the corresponding hour. see rejection as applied to claim 5; e.g., figs. 18-19, wherein figs. 18-19 both disclose “by definition, IFR is ceiling less than 1,000 feet AGL and/or visibility less than 3 miles while LIFT is a sub-category of IFR. By definition, VFR is ceiling greater than or equal to 3,000 feet AGL and visibility greater than or equal to 5 miles while MVFR is a subcategory of VFR;” construed by the examiner as necessarily corresponding to/based on ceiling information and visibility information, wherein fig. 24 correlates the two pieces of two into one graphical representation.
Regarding claim 8, Ryan in view of Turner, in further view of Watts is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The method of claim 7, wherein for each hour, determining the flight category comprises: determining a first flight condition based on the corresponding ceiling information; determining a second flight condition based on the corresponding visibility information; identifying one of the first flight condition and the second flight condition as a poorer flight condition; and selecting the flight category based on the poorer flight condition.
However, Watts further discloses: determining a first flight condition based on the corresponding ceiling information; (see rejection as applied to claim 5, specifically to figs. 18-29 and 24, wherein a time slider is provided for correlating data with a time; see also Watts, e.g., see figs. 18-19 disclosing the atmospheric scale index (ASI), wherein the flight condition is a color coded visibility; e.g., light blue to dark blue, to light green, to dark green, to yellow falls within the Visual Flight Rules, wherein the ceiling information is disclosed as greater than 3,000 feet AGL; examiner notes all of light blue to dark blue, to light green, to dark green, to yellow are construed as indicators of VFR, wherein visibility ranges from 5 (yellow) to 10 (light blue) miles and is construed as a first flight condition).
determining a second flight condition based on the corresponding visibility information; (Watts, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also figs. 18-19 disclosing the atmospheric scale index (ASI), wherein the flight condition is a color coded visibility; e.g., orange to pink falls within the Marginal Visual Flight Rules MVFR, wherein the visibility is explicitly disclosed as 3 to 5 miles; examiner notes all of orange to pink are construed as indicators of MVFR, wherein visibility ranges from 3 (pink) to 5 (orange) miles and is construed as a second flight condition).
identifying one of the first flight condition and the second flight condition as a poorer flight condition; and see rejection as applied above wherein light blue to yellow indicates further visibility and orange to pink indicates poorer visibility; e.g., more visibility to less visibility flight conditions; see also (Watts; e.g., see para. [0248] disclosing the intensity of the hazard increases from left-right, as previous displays, thus providing a uniform and consistent color-coding scale corresponding to the ASI index).
selecting the flight category based on the poorer flight condition. (Watts, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also para. [0246] disclosing the user (e.g., pilot) may define certain degrees of acceptable turbulence (or other hazards) levels that they are either comfortable or approved for operating under, in which case, according to certain embodiments, at least those degrees deemed unacceptable (e.g., operating above a “Severe”=60-69) could be configured to flash according to their color coding scheme, having a marking thereon (e.g., “XXX”), incorporate a combination thereof, or any of a variety of alternative “warning indicators” for users of potentially adverse hazard conditions; construed by the examiner as the flight category; that they, per their customized settings, should avoid).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Ryan in view of Turner, in further view of Watts’s method with Watts’ for each hour, determining the flight category comprises: determining a first flight condition based on the corresponding ceiling information; determining a second flight condition based on the corresponding visibility information; identifying one of the first flight condition and the second flight condition as a poorer flight condition; and selecting the flight category based on the poorer flight condition for at least the reasons that it would be beneficial to apprise a pilot of the conditions under which the operator can conduct flight based on his specific license; e.g., VFR vs. IFR, as taught by Watts; e.g., see para. [0248].
Regarding claim 13, Claim 13 recites The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the aviation-specific weather conditions comprise a flight category for each hour of the select time period., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ryan in view of Turner, in further view of Watts for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, Claim 14 recites The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 13, further comprising: determining the flight category for each hour of the select time period based on ceiling information and visibility information associated with the corresponding hour., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ryan in view of Turner, in further view of Watts for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, Claim 19 recites The system of claim 15, wherein the aviation-specific weather conditions comprise a flight category for each hour of the select time period., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ryan in view of Turner, in further view of Watts for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, Claim 20 recites The system of claim 19, wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: determining the flight category for each hour of the select time period based on ceiling information and visibility information associated with the corresponding hour., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ryan in view of Turner, in further view of Watts for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 9,349,296 B2 to Wiesemann et al. relates to methods and systems for dynamically providing contextual weather information.
US 9,234,982 B2 to Ramaiah et al. relates to aircraft systems and methods for displaying weather information along a flight path.
US 7,349,830 B2 to Gilbert et al. relates to weather profiles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is (571)272-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.