DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 4/21/2026. In the amendment, claims 1, 5, 7, 11-12, 14, 18 and 20 have been amended, claims 3-4, 9-10, 16-17 are now canceled and claims 21-26 are newly added. Overall, claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-15 and 18-26 are pending in this application.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 9,791,694 B1 to Haverkamp et. al. (Haverkamp).
In Reference to Claim 1
Haverkamp teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A display system comprising:
a processor (102), one or more receivers (112) configured to receive navigational information (from avionics systems), wherein the processor (102) is configured to determine a position of a vehicle (the aircraft) based on the navigational information (from avionics systems) (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 2 lines 36-50 and column 4 lines 1-11, “Referring to FIG. 1, an embodiment of a transparent display system 100 according to the inventive concepts disclosed herein is shown. The computer system 100 includes a processor 102 and memory 104 connected to the processor 102 for storing computer executable code. The transparent display system 100 also includes a transparent flexible display film 106 connected to the processor 102. In some embodiments, a touch-sensitive film 108 connected to the processor 102 may overlay the transparent flexible display film 106. In some embodiments, a camera 110 may be connected to the processor 102 for head or eye tracking. Further, in some cases a head tracking system other than the camera 110 may be implemented, such as an inertial measuring unit, an optical tracker, a magnetic tracker, or combinations thereof” and “In some embodiments, the transparent display system 300 may receive data from an avionics system indicating the position and orientation of the aircraft, and produce graphical representations of important phenomena, approximately overlaid against the actual phenomena from the pilot's perspective based on the likely position of the pilots head. For example, the position or direction of otherwise invisible weather phenomena such as clear air turbulence may be indicated. Likewise, runway edges may be accentuated or “Lanes in the sky” as described in by FAA NextGen may be outlined against the actual sky”);
an optical sensor configured to capture an eye movement of a passenger of the vehicle (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 2 lines 36-50, “Referring to FIG. 1, an embodiment of a transparent display system 100 according to the inventive concepts disclosed herein is shown. The computer system 100 includes a processor 102 and memory 104 connected to the processor 102 for storing computer executable code. The transparent display system 100 also includes a transparent flexible display film 106 connected to the processor 102. In some embodiments, a touch-sensitive film 108 connected to the processor 102 may overlay the transparent flexible display film 106. In some embodiments, a camera 110 may be connected to the processor 102 for head or eye tracking. Further, in some cases a head tracking system other than the camera 110 may be implemented, such as an inertial measuring unit, an optical tracker, a magnetic tracker, or combinations thereof”); and
at least one screen (106) that is configured to be translucent or transparent, wherein the at least one screen (106) is configured to display data based on the navigational information and the eye movement (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 2 lines 51-67, column 3 lines 1-6, column 3 lines 41-53 “The transparent flexible display film 106 may comprise transparent conductors based on silver nanowires and organic light emitting diodes (OLED), active matrix organic light emitting diodes (AMOLED) or other appropriate technology for creating a transparent flexible display film 106. Silver nanowires have significantly higher optical and electrical conductivity than other currently used materials such as indium tin oxide (ITO) and other transparent conductors. In one embodiment, the transparent flexible display film 106 may be applied to a glass windshield; alternatively, the transparent flexible display film 106 may be incorporated into the Laminated glass windshield of an aircraft or other vehicle to create safety glass with embedded display capability. The direct use of the windshield as compared to a combiner allows the processor 102 to display HUD or other appropriate information directly in the operator's view. A person skilled in the art may appreciate that “transparent,” as used in the present disclosure refers to light transmission sufficient to allow a user to resolve external details through a window including transparent flexible display film 106”, “The transparent display system 100 may also include an antenna 112 connected to the processor 102. The processor 102 receives data corresponding to an external event, such as a weather related phenomena, and renders an image of the external event on the transparent flexible display film 106. The processor 102 may select a rendering location based on a known location and orientation of the transparent flexible display film 106 and a location of the external event based on the received data”),
wherein the at least one screen (transparent flexible display films) is configured to be positioned over a window (701, 708) of the vehicle, wherein the processor (102) is configured to determine an orientation of the at least one screen (701, 708) with respect to a point of interest (704) outside of the vehicle, and wherein the processor (102) is configured to modify and display content (702, 710) via the at least one screen (701, 708) based on an angle at which the passenger is viewing the at least one screen (701, 708) and based on the orientation of the at least one screen (701, 708) (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 4 lines 48-67, column 5 lines 1-11, “Referring to FIGS. 7A-7C, environmental views of an embodiment of a transparent display system 700 according to the inventive concepts disclosed herein are shown incorporated into an aircraft. An aircraft includes windshields 708 and exterior windows 701 including transparent flexible display films. A computer generating images on the transparent flexible display films, and connected to avionics systems on board the aircraft, may identify visual events, such as a proximate aircraft 704, that should be highlighted or data that may be represented visually. In one embodiment, the computer knows or is calibrated to know the location of the pilot's head 706. The computer generates visual indicia 702 at a location on the transparent flexible display film corresponding to the intersection of a line defined by the pilot's head 706 and an indicated visual event, such as the proximate aircraft 704, and the exterior window 701 or windshield 708 as appropriate. The visual indicia 702 indicate where the pilot should look to visually identify a critical event. The location of the visual indicia 702 on the transparent flexible display film may be updated periodically based on orientation of the aircraft and the changing location of the proximate aircraft 704”, “In addition, the computer may identify the pilot's actual line-of-sight 712, for example with an eye-tracking camera, and project a motion line 710 on the transparent flexible film indicating where the pilot should look to see the visual indicia 702. Further, the computer may render a visual representation of “lanes in the sky” 708 based on known, defined locations of such lanes 708 and the position and orientation of the aircraft and the known location of the pilot's head 706”).
In Reference to Claim 7
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that when executed by at least one processor (102), cause the at least one processor (102) to perform functions comprising:
receiving navigational information, determining a position of a vehicle based on the navigational information (from avionics systems) (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 4 lines 1-11 “In some embodiments, the transparent display system 300 may receive data from an avionics system indicating the position and orientation of the aircraft, and produce graphical representations of important phenomena, approximately overlaid against the actual phenomena from the pilot's perspective based on the likely position of the pilots head. For example, the position or direction of otherwise invisible weather phenomena such as clear air turbulence may be indicated. Likewise, runway edges may be accentuated or “Lanes in the sky” as described in by FAA NextGen may be outlined against the actual sky”);
determining an environment of the vehicle (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 5 lines 22-26 “Some embodiments render a synthesized view of the external environment around the vehicle, including visual representations of information received from an on-board data sensor or from an external source through an antenna”);
displaying the environment of the vehicle on at least one screen (701, 708) that is configured to be translucent or transparent, wherein the at least one screen (701, 708) is configured to display data based on the navigational information (from avionics systems), wherein the at least one screen (701, 708) is configured to be positioned over a window (701, 708) of the vehicle; determining an orientation of the at least one screen (701, 708) with respect to a point of interest outside (704) of the vehicle; and modifying and displaying content via the at least one screen (701, 708) based on an angle at which a passenger is viewing the at least one screen (701, 708) and based on the orientation of the at least one screen (701, 708) (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 4 lines 48-67, column 5 lines 1-11, “Referring to FIGS. 7A-7C, environmental views of an embodiment of a transparent display system 700 according to the inventive concepts disclosed herein are shown incorporated into an aircraft. An aircraft includes windshields 708 and exterior windows 701 including transparent flexible display films. A computer generating images on the transparent flexible display films, and connected to avionics systems on board the aircraft, may identify visual events, such as a proximate aircraft 704, that should be highlighted or data that may be represented visually. In one embodiment, the computer knows or is calibrated to know the location of the pilot's head 706. The computer generates visual indicia 702 at a location on the transparent flexible display film corresponding to the intersection of a line defined by the pilot's head 706 and an indicated visual event, such as the proximate aircraft 704, and the exterior window 701 or windshield 708 as appropriate. The visual indicia 702 indicate where the pilot should look to visually identify a critical event. The location of the visual indicia 702 on the transparent flexible display film may be updated periodically based on orientation of the aircraft and the changing location of the proximate aircraft 704”, “In addition, the computer may identify the pilot's actual line-of-sight 712, for example with an eye-tracking camera, and project a motion line 710 on the transparent flexible film indicating where the pilot should look to see the visual indicia 702. Further, the computer may render a visual representation of “lanes in the sky” 708 based on known, defined locations of such lanes 708 and the position and orientation of the aircraft and the known location of the pilot's head 706”).
In Reference to Claim 14
A vehicle display comprising:
a processor (102); one or more receivers (112) configured to receive navigational information, wherein the processor (102) is configured to determine a position of a vehicle (the aircraft) based on the navigational information (from avionics systems), wherein the processor (102) is configured to determine a surrounding environment of the vehicle (the aircraft) (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 2 lines 36-50, column 4 lines 1-11 and column 5 lines 22-26, “Referring to FIG. 1, an embodiment of a transparent display system 100 according to the inventive concepts disclosed herein is shown. The computer system 100 includes a processor 102 and memory 104 connected to the processor 102 for storing computer executable code. The transparent display system 100 also includes a transparent flexible display film 106 connected to the processor 102. In some embodiments, a touch-sensitive film 108 connected to the processor 102 may overlay the transparent flexible display film 106. In some embodiments, a camera 110 may be connected to the processor 102 for head or eye tracking. Further, in some cases a head tracking system other than the camera 110 may be implemented, such as an inertial measuring unit, an optical tracker, a magnetic tracker, or combinations thereof” and “In some embodiments, the transparent display system 300 may receive data from an avionics system indicating the position and orientation of the aircraft, and produce graphical representations of important phenomena, approximately overlaid against the actual phenomena from the pilot's perspective based on the likely position of the pilots head. For example, the position or direction of otherwise invisible weather phenomena such as clear air turbulence may be indicated. Likewise, runway edges may be accentuated or “Lanes in the sky” as described in by FAA NextGen may be outlined against the actual sky” and “Some embodiments render a synthesized view of the external environment around the vehicle, including visual representations of information received from an on-board data sensor or from an external source through an antenna”); and
at least one screen (106) configured to be translucent or transparent, wherein the at least one screen (106) is configured to display the surrounding environment of the vehicle (the aircraft) with a data overlay (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 2 lines 51-67, column 3 lines 1-6, column 3 lines 41-53 “The transparent flexible display film 106 may comprise transparent conductors based on silver nanowires and organic light emitting diodes (OLED), active matrix organic light emitting diodes (AMOLED) or other appropriate technology for creating a transparent flexible display film 106. Silver nanowires have significantly higher optical and electrical conductivity than other currently used materials such as indium tin oxide (ITO) and other transparent conductors. In one embodiment, the transparent flexible display film 106 may be applied to a glass windshield; alternatively, the transparent flexible display film 106 may be incorporated into the Laminated glass windshield of an aircraft or other vehicle to create safety glass with embedded display capability. The direct use of the windshield as compared to a combiner allows the processor 102 to display HUD or other appropriate information directly in the operator's view. A person skilled in the art may appreciate that “transparent,” as used in the present disclosure refers to light transmission sufficient to allow a user to resolve external details through a window including transparent flexible display film 106”, “The transparent display system 100 may also include an antenna 112 connected to the processor 102. The processor 102 receives data corresponding to an external event, such as a weather related phenomena, and renders an image of the external event on the transparent flexible display film 106. The processor 102 may select a rendering location based on a known location and orientation of the transparent flexible display film 106 and a location of the external event based on the received data”),
wherein the at least one screen (transparent flexible display films) is configured to be positioned over a window (701, 708) of the vehicle, wherein the processor (102) is configured to determine an orientation of the at least one screen (701, 708) with respect to a point of interest (704) outside of the vehicle, and wherein the processor (102) is configured to modify and display content (702, 710) via the at least one screen (701, 708) based on an angle at which the passenger is viewing the at least one screen (701, 708) and based on the orientation of the at least one screen (701, 708) (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 4 lines 48-67, column 5 lines 1-11, “Referring to FIGS. 7A-7C, environmental views of an embodiment of a transparent display system 700 according to the inventive concepts disclosed herein are shown incorporated into an aircraft. An aircraft includes windshields 708 and exterior windows 701 including transparent flexible display films. A computer generating images on the transparent flexible display films, and connected to avionics systems on board the aircraft, may identify visual events, such as a proximate aircraft 704, that should be highlighted or data that may be represented visually. In one embodiment, the computer knows or is calibrated to know the location of the pilot's head 706. The computer generates visual indicia 702 at a location on the transparent flexible display film corresponding to the intersection of a line defined by the pilot's head 706 and an indicated visual event, such as the proximate aircraft 704, and the exterior window 701 or windshield 708 as appropriate. The visual indicia 702 indicate where the pilot should look to visually identify a critical event. The location of the visual indicia 702 on the transparent flexible display film may be updated periodically based on orientation of the aircraft and the changing location of the proximate aircraft 704”, “In addition, the computer may identify the pilot's actual line-of-sight 712, for example with an eye-tracking camera, and project a motion line 710 on the transparent flexible film indicating where the pilot should look to see the visual indicia 702. Further, the computer may render a visual representation of “lanes in the sky” 708 based on known, defined locations of such lanes 708 and the position and orientation of the aircraft and the known location of the pilot's head 706”).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 8, 12-13, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haverkamp in view of Pub No. US 2018/0299530 A1 to Polynin et. al. (Polynin).
In Reference to Claim 2
Haverkamp teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The display system of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the navigational information (avionic system) includes at least one of radionavigation information, satellite information, or area information (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 4 lines 48-67, column 5 lines 1-11).
Haverkamp teaches having the avionic system to determine the locations of the aircrafts. However Haverkamp does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to that avionic system includes at least one of radionavigation information, satellite information, or area information. However, it is very known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that avionic system includes at least one of radionavigation information, satellite information, or area information. For example, Polynin teaches that the aircraft avionics systems includes at least one of radionavigation information, satellite information, or area information. Polynin further implicitly teaches that having such system provides accurate determination of the location of the aircraft (see at least Polynin Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 18-19, 24). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the avionic system of Haverkamp include at least one of radionavigation information, satellite information, or area information as evidence by Polynin and in order to provide accurate determination of the location of the aircraft as taught by Polynin.
In Reference to Claim 6
Haverkamp teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The display system of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the processor (102) is configured to determine the position of the vehicle based on vehicle positional information from one or more vehicle sensors (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 4 lines 48-67, column 5 lines 1-11).
Haverkamp teaches having the avionic system to determine the locations of the aircrafts. However Haverkamp does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to that avionic system includes one or more vehicle sensors. However, it is very known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that avionic system includes one or more vehicle sensors. For example, Polynin teaches that the aircraft avionics systems include one or more vehicle sensors (202). Polynin further implicitly teaches that having such sensors (202) provides accurate determination of the location of the aircraft (see at least Polynin Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 18-19, 24-25). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the avionic system of Haverkamp include includes one or more vehicle sensors as evidence by Polynin and in order to provide accurate determination of the location of the aircraft as taught by Polynin.
In Reference to Claim 8
Haverkamp teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 7 (see rejection to claim 7 above), wherein the navigational information (avionic system) includes at least one of radionavigation information, satellite information, or area information (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 4 lines 48-67, column 5 lines 1-11).
Haverkamp teaches having the avionic system to determine the locations of the aircrafts. However Haverkamp does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to that avionic system includes at least one of radionavigation information, satellite information, or area information. However, it is very known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that avionic system includes at least one of radionavigation information, satellite information, or area information. For example, Polynin teaches that the aircraft avionics systems includes at least one of radionavigation information, satellite information, or area information. Polynin further implicitly teaches that having such system provides accurate determination of the location of the aircraft (see at least Polynin Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 18-19, 24). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the avionic system of Haverkamp include at least one of radionavigation information, satellite information, or area information as evidence by Polynin and in order to provide accurate determination of the location of the aircraft as taught by Polynin.
In Reference to Claim 12
Haverkamp teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 7 (see rejection to claim 7 above), wherein determining the position of the vehicle comprises determining the position of the vehicle based on vehicle positional information from one or more vehicle sensors (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 4 lines 48-67, column 5 lines 1-11).
Haverkamp teaches having the avionic system to determine the locations of the aircrafts. However Haverkamp does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to that avionic system includes one or more vehicle sensors. However, it is very known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that avionic system includes one or more vehicle sensors. For example, Polynin teaches that the aircraft avionics systems include one or more vehicle sensors (202). Polynin further implicitly teaches that having such sensors (202) provides accurate determination of the location of the aircraft (see at least Polynin Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 18-19, 24-25). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the avionic system of Haverkamp include includes one or more vehicle sensors as evidence by Polynin and in order to provide accurate determination of the location of the aircraft as taught by Polynin.
In Reference to Claim 13
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 12 (see rejection to claim 12 above), wherein the vehicle positional information comprises an angle of attack, an airspeed, or a turn indicator (see at least Polynin Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 18-19, 24-25).
In Reference to Claim 15
Haverkamp teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The vehicle display of claim 14 (see rejection to claim 14 above), wherein the navigational information (avionic system) includes at least one of radionavigation information, satellite information, or area information (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 4 lines 48-67, column 5 lines 1-11).
Haverkamp teaches having the avionic system to determine the locations of the aircrafts. However Haverkamp does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to that avionic system includes at least one of radionavigation information, satellite information, or area information. However, it is very known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that avionic system includes at least one of radionavigation information, satellite information, or area information. For example, Polynin teaches that the aircraft avionics systems includes at least one of radionavigation information, satellite information, or area information. Polynin further implicitly teaches that having such system provides accurate determination of the location of the aircraft (see at least Polynin Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 18-19, 24). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the avionic system of Haverkamp include at least one of radionavigation information, satellite information, or area information as evidence by Polynin and in order to provide accurate determination of the location of the aircraft as taught by Polynin.
In Reference to Claim 19
Haverkamp teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The vehicle display of claim 14 (see rejection to claim 14 above), wherein the processor is configured to determine the position of the vehicle based on vehicle positional information from one or more vehicle sensors (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 4 lines 48-67, column 5 lines 1-11).
Haverkamp teaches having the avionic system to determine the locations of the aircrafts. However Haverkamp does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to that avionic system includes one or more vehicle sensors. However, it is very known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that avionic system includes one or more vehicle sensors. For example, Polynin teaches that the aircraft avionics systems include one or more vehicle sensors (202). Polynin further implicitly teaches that having such sensors (202) provides accurate determination of the location of the aircraft (see at least Polynin Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 18-19, 24-25). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the avionic system of Haverkamp include includes one or more vehicle sensors as evidence by Polynin and in order to provide accurate determination of the location of the aircraft as taught by Polynin.
In Reference to Claim 20
The vehicle display of claim 19 (see rejection to claim 19 above), wherein the vehicle positional information comprises an angle of attack, an airspeed, or a turn indicator (see at least Polynin Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 18-19, 24-25).
Claim(s) 5, 11, 18, 21, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haverkamp in view of Pub No. US 2018/0017791 A1 to (Beckman).
In Reference to Claim 5
Haverkamp teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The display system of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the at least one screen (701, 708) is configured to display a shading that is aligned with a light source outside of the vehicle (aircraft) (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 4 lines 48-67, column 5 lines 1-11).
Haverkamp does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to display a shading that is aligned with a light source outside of the vehicle (aircraft). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the at least one screen (701, 708) is configured to display a shading that is aligned with a light source outside of the vehicle. For example, Beckman teaches to have a screen (101) configured to display a shading that is aligned with a light source outside of the vehicle (109). Beckman further teaches that having such system and performing such function provides reduction of the amount of light permitted to enter that user's field of vision (see at least Beckman Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 37-39, 41, 47 and 85). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Haverkamp to include the at least one screen is configured to display a shading that is aligned with a light source outside of the vehicle as taught by Beckman in order to reduce the amount of light permitted to enter that user's field of vision.
In Reference to Claim 11
Haverkamp teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 7 (see rejection to claim 7 above), the functions further comprising displaying a shading that is aligned with a light source outside of the vehicle (aircraft) (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 4 lines 48-67, column 5 lines 1-11).
Haverkamp does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to displaying a shading that is aligned with a light source outside of the vehicle (aircraft). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the at least one screen (701, 708) is configured to displaying a shading that is aligned with a light source outside of the vehicle. For example, Beckman teaches to have a screen (101) configured to displaying a shading that is aligned with a light source outside of the vehicle (109). Beckman further teaches that having such system and performing such function provides reduction of the amount of light permitted to enter that user's field of vision (see at least Beckman Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 37-39, 41, 47 and 85). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Haverkamp to include the at least one screen is configured to displaying a shading that is aligned with a light source outside of the vehicle as taught by Beckman in order to reduce the amount of light permitted to enter that user's field of vision.
In Reference to Claim 18
Haverkamp teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The vehicle display of claim 14 (see rejection to claim 14 above), wherein the at least one screen (701, 708) is configured to project onto the data via display a shading that is aligned with a light source outside of the vehicle (aircraft) (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 4 lines 48-67, column 5 lines 1-11).
Haverkamp does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to display a shading that is aligned with a light source outside of the vehicle (aircraft). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the at least one screen (701, 708) is configured to display a shading that is aligned with a light source outside of the vehicle. For example, Beckman teaches to have a screen (101) configured to display a shading that is aligned with a light source outside of the vehicle (109). Beckman further teaches that having such system and performing such function provides reduction of the amount of light permitted to enter that user's field of vision (see at least Beckman Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 37-39, 41, 47 and 85). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Haverkamp to include the at least one screen is configured to display a shading that is aligned with a light source outside of the vehicle as taught by Beckman in order to reduce the amount of light permitted to enter that user's field of vision.
In Reference to Claim 21
The display system of claim 5 (see rejection to claim 5 above), wherein the processor (102) is configured to change a color or an intensity of the content displayed by the at least one screen based on the presence or the absence of the shading (see at least Beckman Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 37-39, 41, 47 and 85).
In Reference to Claim 23
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11 above), the functions further comprising changing a color or an intensity of the content displayed by the at least one screen based on the presence or the absence of the shading (see at least Beckman Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 37-39, 41, 47 and 85).
In Reference to Claim 25
The vehicle display of claim 18 (see rejection to claim 18 above), wherein the processor is configured to change a color or an intensity of the content displayed by the at least one screen based on the presence or the absence of the shading (see at least Beckman Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 37-39, 41, 47 and 85).
Claims 22, 24, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haverkamp in view of Pub No. US 2019/0113776 A1 to Ibrahim et. al. (Ibrahim).
In Reference to Claim 22
Haverkamp teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The display system of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the processor (102) is configured to cause the at least one screen (701, 708) to display connecting flight information that corresponds to the passenger (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 4 lines 48-67, column 5 lines 1-11).
Haverkamp does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the at least one screen (701, 708) to display connecting flight information that corresponds to the passenger. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have screen to display connecting flight information that corresponds to the passenger. For example, Ibrahim teaches that the screen (112) can display connecting flight information that corresponds to the passenger. Ibrahim further teaches that performing such step provides interactive display that enhance the passenger experience (see at least Ibrahim Figs. 1-10 and paragraphs 28, 37-38, 45-46, 61). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Haverkamp to perform the function of to display connecting flight information that corresponds to the passenger in order to provide interactive display that enhance the passenger experience.
In Reference to Claim 24
Haverkamp teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 7 (see rejection to claim 7 above), the functions further comprising causing the at least one screen to display connecting flight information that corresponds to the passenger (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 4 lines 48-67, column 5 lines 1-11).
Haverkamp does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the at least one screen (701, 708) to display connecting flight information that corresponds to the passenger. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have screen to display connecting flight information that corresponds to the passenger. For example, Ibrahim teaches that the screen (112) can display connecting flight information that corresponds to the passenger. Ibrahim further teaches that performing such step provides interactive display that enhance the passenger experience (see at least Ibrahim Figs. 1-10 and paragraphs 28, 37-38, 45-46, 61). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Haverkamp to perform the function of to display connecting flight information that corresponds to the passenger in order to provide interactive display that enhance the passenger experience.
In Reference to Claim 26
Haverkamp teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The vehicle display of claim 14 (see rejection to claim 14 above), wherein the processor is configured to cause the at least one screen to display connecting flight information that corresponds to the passenger (see at least Haverkamp Figs. 1-7 and column 4 lines 48-67, column 5 lines 1-11).
Haverkamp does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the at least one screen (701, 708) to display connecting flight information that corresponds to the passenger. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have screen to display connecting flight information that corresponds to the passenger. For example, Ibrahim teaches that the screen (112) can display connecting flight information that corresponds to the passenger. Ibrahim further teaches that performing such step provides interactive display that enhance the passenger experience (see at least Ibrahim Figs. 1-10 and paragraphs 28, 37-38, 45-46, 61). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Haverkamp to perform the function of to display connecting flight information that corresponds to the passenger in order to provide interactive display that enhance the passenger experience.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 11-15 and 18-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub No. US 2024/0255289 A1 to Bagon et. al. (Bagon) teaches a screen which display content in external environment.
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 BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights