FMLADETAILED 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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 and similarly claims 4,-6, 10, 15-20, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the term “undesirable objects.” As claimed the term is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed “undesirable” cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. The term “undesirable” is classified as a subjective term and is therefore defined as relative terminology under MPEP2173.05(b). Without an objective standard for measuring the scope of the term, subjective terminology renders the claim indefinite. Review of the specification reveals at paragraph [0049] “The undesirable objects can be a person, vehicle, or any other object that can impose a security threat to the aircraft.” Although the specification defines the term “undesirable object” as any object that can impose a security threat, a “security threat” lacks an explicit and objective standard for determining what is or is not a threat. In that neither the claims nor the specification provide objective standard for measuring the scope of the term, the term renders the claim indefinite. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “object.”
Regarding claim 11, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “analyze the first data and/or the second data to define an alarm zone around the aircraft.” As claimed the limitation is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. The claimed first and second data correspond respectively to a radar sensor and camera both configured to identify individual objects proximal to an aircraft. It is unclear how a single object detected near an aircraft can be used to define an alarm zone surrounding an entire aircraft. Review of the specification reveals on paragraph [0059] “In various aspects, the stand alarm zones 440, 450, 460 may be defined to have an oval, rectangular, or other shape;” however, the Examiner can not find further clarification indicating how an alarm zone encompassing the entire aircraft can be produced using an individual target. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “alarm zone” and clearly disclose what the term application means as it is not clear how the Applicant intends to limit the term based on review of the specification.
Regarding claim 12, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “receive a signal indicating a completion of a security check of the aircraft; and indicate an armed state of the alarm zone by changing a visual characteristic of the alarm zone on the display screen.” As claimed the limitation is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. The limitation indicates that a security check is performed before the first and second data are analyzed. It is unclear how an alarm zone can be created from data that is waiting to be analyzed for the completion of a security check. Review of the specification reveals on paragraph [0085] “analyzing the first data and the second data at block 730 of method 700 may be performed responsive to the completion of the security check of the aircraft.;” however, the Examiner cannot find further clarification regarding the limitation. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “security check” and clearly disclose what the term application means as it is not clear how the Applicant intends to limit the term based on review of the specification.
Claims 2-16 and 18-19 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 17 (and its dependents) recites a method. The claim therefore recites a process.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 17 recites,
analyzing the first data and the second data to identify presence of one or more undesirable objects proximal to the aircraft
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation in the form of calculating a location and distance (See specification, [0079]). The limitation further recites comparing values in order to identify an object as “Undesirable.” Thus, this limitation also recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claim 18 recites,
determining a location and a distance of the one or more undesirable objects based on the first data.
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation in the form of calculating a location and distance. Thus, this limitation also recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Claim 19 recites,
the one or more undesirable objects are identified based on predetermined physical or virtual markers.
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation comparing values in order to identify an object as “Undesirable.” Thus, this limitation also recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claim 17 also recites,
receiving first data from one or more radar sensors configured to scan an area proximal to an aircraft and second data from one or more cameras configured to capture visuals of the area
This limitation recites mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
Claim 17 also recites,
receiving first data from one or more radar sensors configured to scan an area proximal to an aircraft and second data from one or more cameras configured to capture visuals of the area
This limitation recites mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 17 further recites,
transmitting one or more notification signals to a user device upon detection of the one or more undesirable objects, wherein the one or more notification signals indicate a security threat
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components, i.e. an interactive user display, after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well- understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Good (US 20160150195 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Good discloses
An aircraft surveillance system (“In the incident monitoring mode, the processor can enable external imagers of the aircraft to acquire video images from outside the aircraft,” [0005]) comprising: one or more radar sensors configured to scan an area proximal to an aircraft (“ the motion sensors 110, 115 may be implemented using radar sensors” [0022]) and provide first data corresponding to scanning of the area (“The motion sensors 110, 115 can be oriented so that their respective coverage areas are arranged to provide up to a full three-dimensional 360-degree detection coverage” [0018]); one or more cameras configured to capture visuals of the area and provide second data (“The video imagers 120-1 . . . 120-12 that are employed may vary depending on the implementation. In general, each video imager can be implemented using a video camera or other image capture apparatus” [0030]) corresponding to captured visuals of the area (“The video imagers 120-1 . . . 120-12 are disposed at the locations on the aircraft 100 and oriented so that their respective fields of view are arranged to provide up to a full three-dimensional 360-degree effective field of view 125 of the aircraft 100” [0027]); and one or more processors in communication with the one or more radar sensors and the one or more cameras (FIG.2, Part.220), the one or more processors, individually or in combination, configured to: receive the first data from the one or more radar sensors (“As noted above, the sensors can include motion sensors that detect movement in the vicinity of the aircraft 100 “ [0054]) and the second data from the one or more cameras (“the video imagers acquire video images of various regions around the aircraft 100” [0053]); analyze the first data and the second data to identify presence of one or more undesirable objects proximal to the aircraft (“The images can include detected objects, when present, and therefore, the video imagers 120-1 . . . 120-12 are operable to acquire an image of objects that might be located within a predetermined range of distances and within a field of view associated with the video imagers 120-1 . . . 120-12.” [0029] & “The motion sensors 110, 115 are used to detect objects that may be present within their detection zone (e.g., within a particular region that is in the vicinity of the aircraft 100). “ [0020]); and provide a notification (“The processor 220 can also generate an incident report message and communicate the incident report message from the aircraft 100 to an external computer (not illustrated)“ [0044]) upon detection of the one or more undesirable objects (“when a sensor, for example, detects an object or person in vicinity of the aircraft, it transmits a detection signal to the processor 220 to indicate that the object or person has been detected near the aircraft” [0055]), wherein the notification indicates a security threat (“An object can refer to, for example, any material thing that is capable of approaching and/or coming into contact with an aircraft. Examples objects can include a vehicle, a projectile, a person, an animal, etc.” [0018]).
Regarding claim 2, Good discloses
The aircraft surveillance system of claim 1, wherein to provide the notification, the one or more processors are configured to transmit one or more notification signals to one or more user devices (“The processor 220 can also generate an incident report message and communicate the incident report message from the aircraft 100 to an external computer “ [0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Good discloses
The aircraft surveillance system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive an actuation signal from one or more data sources (“the processor 220 can activate an incident monitoring mode. In one embodiment, the incident monitoring mode can be automatically activated any time the processor 220 determines (at 310) that the aircraft is on the ground, stationary and/or parked.” [0052]), wherein the one or more processors are configured to analyze the first data and the second data responsive to receiving the actuation signal (FIG.3, Steps.320 & 345).
Regarding claim 4, Good discloses
The aircraft surveillance system of claim 1, wherein the notification includes information related to a location and a distance of the one or more undesirable objects with respect to the aircraft (“ The final incident report file can include the pre-event video data and the post-event video […] information regarding trigger events and specific sensors that generated the detection signals, data measured by the sensors that generated the detection signals, information regarding date, time, and location of the incident, etc” [0061]).
Regarding claim 5, Good discloses
The aircraft surveillance system of claim 4, wherein to identify the presence of the one or more undesirable objects, the one or more processors are configured to determine the location and the distance of the one or more undesirable objects based on the first data (“detect an object and to determine its position with respect to the aircraft, distance from the aircraft, etc” [0022]).
Regarding claim 6, Good discloses
The aircraft surveillance system of claim 1, wherein to identify the presence of the one or more undesirable objects, the one or more processors are configured to: detect objects in the first data (“motion sensors 110, 115 may be implemented using radar sensors, laser sensors, infrared sensors, light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensors, infrared or laser range finders that use a set of infrared or laser sensors and triangulation techniques to detect an object and to determine its position with respect to the aircraft, distance from the aircraft, etc” [0022])and the second data (“ information from one or more of these types of sensors can be used in conjunction with video data from the video imagers 120 to detect moving objects.” [0022]); and identify the one or more undesirable objects within the objects based on one or more predetermined markers (“The time interval between sending the signal and receiving the echo can be used to determine the distance between the sensor and a detected object.” [0021]).
Regarding claim 7, Good discloses
The aircraft surveillance system of claim 1, wherein a first radar sensor within the one or more radar sensors is configured to scan a substantially upper outer surface area of the aircraft (“the motion sensors 110, 115 may be disposed along (e.g., embedded at) […] the top-most portion of the aircraft fuselage [0019]) and a second radar sensor within the one or more radar sensors is configured to scan a substantially lower outer surface area of the aircraft (“the motion sensors 110, 115 may be disposed along (e.g., embedded at) […] the bottom-most portion of the aircraft fuselage [0019]), wherein a first camera within the one or more cameras is configured to scan the substantially upper outer surface area of the aircraft (“video imager 120-12 may be disposed along the top-most portion of the aircraft fuselage to allow viewing of at least part of the region above the aircraft.” [0027]) and a second cameras within the one or more cameras is configured to scan the substantially lower outer surface area of the aircraft (“Video imager 120-6 may be disposed along the bottom-most portion of the aircraft fuselage” [0027]).
Regarding claim 8, Good discloses
The aircraft surveillance system of claim 7, wherein the first radar sensor and the second radar sensor are placed proximal to a front end (FIG.1, Part.110-7) and a rear end of the aircraft (FIG.1, Part.110-2), respectively, wherein the first camera and the second camera are placed proximal to the front end (FIG.1, Part.120-7) and the rear end of the aircraft, respectively (FIG.1, Part.120-2).
Regarding claim 9, Good discloses
The aircraft surveillance system of claim 1, wherein the one or more cameras include at least one of a high-resolution camera, a pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) camera, a fixed camera, or an infrared camera (“the video imagers 120-1 . . . 120-12 may be implemented using cameras such as high-definition video cameras, video cameras with low-light capability for night operations and/or cameras with infrared (IR) capability, or any combinations thereof, etc.”[0030]).
Regarding claim 10, Good discloses
The aircraft surveillance system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to identify the one or more undesirable objects using at least one of an image processing technique, video analytics, and/or radar data analysis (“ information from one or more of these types of sensors can be used in conjunction with video data from the video imagers 120 to detect moving objects.” [0022]).
Regarding claim 17, Good discloses
A method comprising: receiving first data from one or more radar sensors (“ the motion sensors 110, 115 may be implemented using radar sensors” [0022]) configured to scan an area proximal to an aircraft (“In the incident monitoring mode, the processor can enable external imagers of the aircraft to acquire video images from outside the aircraft,” [0005]) and second data from one or more cameras configured to capture visuals of the area (“The video imagers 120-1 . . . 120-12 that are employed may vary depending on the implementation. In general, each video imager can be implemented using a video camera or other image capture apparatus” [0030]); analyzing the first data and the second data to identify presence of one or more undesirable objects proximal to the aircraft (“The images can include detected objects, when present, and therefore, the video imagers 120-1 . . . 120-12 are operable to acquire an image of objects that might be located within a predetermined range of distances and within a field of view associated with the video imagers 120-1 . . . 120-12.” [0029] & “The motion sensors 110, 115 are used to detect objects that may be present within their detection zone (e.g., within a particular region that is in the vicinity of the aircraft 100). “ [0020])); and transmitting one or more notification signals to a user device upon detection of the one or more undesirable objects (“The processor 220 can also generate an incident report message and communicate the incident report message from the aircraft 100 to an external computer (not illustrated)“ [0044]), wherein the one or more notification signals indicate a security threat (“An object can refer to, for example, any material thing that is capable of approaching and/or coming into contact with an aircraft. Examples objects can include a vehicle, a projectile, a person, an animal, etc.” [0018]).
Regarding claim 18, Good discloses
The method of claim 17, further comprising determining a location and a distance of the one or more undesirable objects based on the first data (“ The final incident report file can include the pre-event video data and the post-event video […] information regarding trigger events and specific sensors that generated the detection signals, data measured by the sensors that generated the detection signals, information regarding date, time, and location of the incident, etc” [0061]).
Regarding claim 19, Good discloses
The method of claim 17, wherein the one or more undesirable objects are identified based on predetermined physical or virtual markers (“motion sensors 110, 115 may be implemented using radar sensors, laser sensors, infrared sensors, light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensors, infrared or laser range finders that use a set of infrared or laser sensors and triangulation techniques to detect an object and to determine its position with respect to the aircraft, distance from the aircraft, etc” [0022]).
Regarding claim 20, Good discloses
A system comprising: one or more processors (FIG.2, Part.220); and one or more memories each communicatively coupled with at least one of the one or more processors and each storing all or some portion of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors, individually or in any combination (“The system includes a computer comprising a processor and a memory comprising a temporary buffer” [0006]), to: receive first data from one or more radar sensors configured to scan an area proximal to an aircraft (“ the motion sensors 110, 115 may be implemented using radar sensors” [0022]) and second data from one or more cameras configured to capture visuals of the area (“The video imagers 120-1 . . . 120-12 that are employed may vary depending on the implementation. In general, each video imager can be implemented using a video camera or other image capture apparatus” [0030]); analyze the first data and the second data to identify presence of one or more undesirable objects proximal to the aircraft (“The images can include detected objects, when present, and therefore, the video imagers 120-1 . . . 120-12 are operable to acquire an image of objects that might be located within a predetermined range of distances and within a field of view associated with the video imagers 120-1 . . . 120-12.” [0029] & “The motion sensors 110, 115 are used to detect objects that may be present within their detection zone (e.g., within a particular region that is in the vicinity of the aircraft 100). “ [0020]); and transmit one or more notification signals to a user device upon detection of the one or more undesirable objects (“The processor 220 can also generate an incident report message and communicate the incident report message from the aircraft 100 to an external computer (not illustrated)“ [0044]), wherein the one or more notification signals indicate a security threat (“An object can refer to, for example, any material thing that is capable of approaching and/or coming into contact with an aircraft. Examples objects can include a vehicle, a projectile, a person, an animal, etc.” [0018]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Good (US 20160150195 A1) in view of BATEMAN (EP2669704A1).
Regarding claim 11, Good discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Good discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: analyze the first data and/or the second data to define an alarm zone around the aircraft (“The field of view of the video imagers 120-1 . . . 120-12 can vary depending on the implementation and design of the aircraft 100 so that the detection zone can be varied either by the operator or automatically depending on other information” [0031]);
Although Good discloses a display, Good does not appear to explicitly display the alarm zone on a display screen. BATEMAN discloses, display the alarm zone on a display screen (FIG.8, Part.140-1).
BATEMAN teaches in the same field of endeavor of aircraft surveillance systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Good with the teachings of BATEMAN to incorporate the features of displaying an alarm zone on a display screen so as to gain the advantage of improving object and threat recognition [0061-0063, BATEMAN]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 12, Good as modified by BATEMAN discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Good discloses wherein, the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a signal indicating a completion of a security check of the aircraft (“At 345, the processor 220 regularly checks/monitors to determine whether a trigger event has occurred” [0055]);
Although Good discloses a display, Good does not appear to explicitly display the alarm zone on a display screen. BATEMAN discloses, indicate an armed state of the alarm zone by changing a visual characteristic of the alarm zone on the display screen (“Position and distance of obstacles (e.g., other vehicles/aircraft, buildings, etc.) detected are visually represented on an EFB application display with multiple alert modes (e.g., clear, caution, and warning modes)” [0038] & fig.8, Part.140-1)
BATEMAN teaches in the same field of endeavor of aircraft surveillance systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Good with the teachings of BATEMAN to incorporate the features of changing a visual characteristic of the alarm zone on the display screen in order to indicate an armed state so as to gain the advantage of improving object and threat recognition [0061-0063, BATEMAN]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 13, Good as modified by BATEMAN discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Good discloses wherein, the one or more processors are configured to analyze the first data and the second data responsive to the completion of the security check of the aircraft (“For instance, when a sensor, for example, detects an object or person in vicinity of the aircraft, it transmits a detection signal to the processor 220 to indicate that the object or person has been detected near the aircraft.” [0055]).
Regarding claim 14, Good as modified by BATEMAN discloses all the limitations of claim 13. Although Good discloses the use of a display and steps related to generating an incident report, Good does not appear to explicitly disclose displaying a notification on the display screen. BATEMAN discloses wherein, the one or more processors are configured to display the notification on the display screen (“Position and distance of obstacles (e.g., other vehicles/aircraft, buildings, etc.) detected are visually represented on an EFB application display with multiple alert modes (e.g., clear, caution, and warning modes).” [0038])
BATEMAN teaches in the same field of endeavor of aircraft surveillance systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Good with the teachings of BATEMAN to incorporate the features of displaying a notification on the display screen in order to indicate an armed state so as to gain the advantage of improving object and threat recognition [0061-0063, BATEMAN]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 16, Good as modified by BATEMAN discloses all the limitations of claim 13. Although Good discloses the use of a display and steps related to generating an incident report, Good does not appear to explicitly disclose displaying one or more visual characteristics of the one or more undesirable objects. BATEMAN discloses wherein, the one or more processors are configured to display the notification including one or more visual characteristics of the one or more undesirable objects (“Position and distance of obstacles (e.g., other vehicles/aircraft, buildings, etc.) detected are visually represented on an EFB application display with multiple alert modes (e.g., clear, caution, and warning modes).” [0038])
BATEMAN teaches in the same field of endeavor of aircraft surveillance systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Good with the teachings of BATEMAN to incorporate the features of displaying a notification on the display screen in order to indicate an armed state so as to gain the advantage of improving object and threat recognition [0061-0063, BATEMAN]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Good (US 20160150195 A1) as modified by BATEMAN (EP2669704A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Monroe(US 20070130599 A1)
Regarding claim 15, Good as modified by BATEMAN discloses all the limitations of claim 13. Although Good as modified by BATEMAN discloses the use of a display, they do not appear to explicitly disclose displaying a zoomed view of the one or more undesirable objects. Monroe discloses wherein, the one or more processors are configured to display the notification including a zoomed view of the one or more undesirable objects (“as a camera begins transmission to the server, the display screen will be activated to show the image.” [0085])
Monroe teaches in the same field of endeavor of aircraft surveillance systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Good as modified by BATEMAN with the teachings of Monroe to incorporate the features of displaying a zoomed view of the one or more undesirable objects so as to gain the advantage of improving surveillance capacity [0073, Monroe]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Tran(US 20210089134 A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0236] “The system assists the flight control system 80 by identifying the objects as potential “threats”.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights