DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 14 would be allowable if (#1) rewritten to overcome all pending objection(s) and all pending rejection(s) set forth in this Office action; and (#2) rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Priority Status
Foreign priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Preliminary Amended Claim(s) 9-16 is/are examined in this office 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.
Amendment to The Drawings
The amendments to The Drawings filed 6 January 2025 are acknowledged.
Amendment to The Specification
The amendments to The Specification filed 6 January 2025 are acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following Three-Prong Analysis will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke § 112(f) or (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) are “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for”.1, 2
Structural placeholders that do not invoke § 112(f) or (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) are “circuit for,” “detent mechanism,” “digital detector for,” “reciprocating member,” “connector assembly,” “perforation,” “sealingly connected joints,” and “eyeglass hanger member.”3, 4
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“route acquisition processing unit which” (See Claim 1. The Examiner takes the position “which” is an alternative linking phrase to “so that”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit so that” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”.);
“weather risk acquisition processing unit which” (See Claim 1. The Examiner takes the position “which” is an alternative linking phrase to “so that”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit so that” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”.);
“first display processing unit which” (See Claim 1. The Examiner takes the position “which” is an alternative linking phrase to “so that”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit so that” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”.);
“second display processing unit which” (See Claim 1. The Examiner takes the position “which” is an alternative linking phrase to “so that”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit so that” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”.);
“altitude adjustment processing unit which” (See Claim 13. The Examiner takes the position “which” is an alternative linking phrase to “so that”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit so that” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”.);
“alert processing unit which” (See Claim 15. The Examiner takes the position “which” is an alternative linking phrase to “so that”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit so that” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”.); and
“telegram generation processing unit which” (See Claim 16. The Examiner takes the position “which” is an alternative linking phrase to “so that”; therefore, the recited claim language “unit so that” is considered equivalent to said non-structural generic placeholder “unit for”.).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
THIS SECTION IS NOT A REJECTION! The Examiner expresses that this particular section of the office action identifies and clarifies how the means-plus-function limitation(s) listed above are interpreted during examination and further acts as a formal statement on claim interpretation that is recorded into the prosecution history. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 12 recites “is capable of switching” in line 8 but this language does not positively recite “switching” is in action. The Examiner objects to this claim language because “is capable of” represents a maybe step. To overcome this objection, The Examiner suggests removing “is capable of” to positively recite said “switching” step is 100% executed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(B) or (pre-AIA ) Second Paragraph
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.
Claim(s) 12-16 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the weather risks except the some weather risks if the some weather risks of the plurality of types of weather risks”. The limitation is indefinite because “the weather risks” isn’t 100% clear which category it belongs to since there are two categories – (category 1) “a plurality of the weather risks” introduced in line 3 and (category 2) “some weather risks” introduced in line 8. Clarity is requested. In order to move prosecution forward, The Examiner will interpret the entire indefinite limitation as “at least one weather risks”.
Claims 13-16 are rejected based on dependency.
Nonstatutory Subject Matter 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.
Claim(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim(s) 9-16 fail(s) Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) Test and therefore directed to non-statutory subject matter. A product claim requires at least one physical characteristic/feature. In this particular case, the preamble presents a product claim such as a “device” comprising a plurality of units (i.e., “route acquisition processing unit”; “weather risk acquisition processing unit”; “first display processing unit”; “second display processing unit”) where each unit is interpreted as a smaller graphical object in a larger graphical user interface under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Claim(s) constructed of only software per se immediately fail the § 101 test because a product when claimed without any structural recitations is not directed to any of the statutory categories. (Please refer to MPEP § 2106.03 (I).)
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140331161 A1 (“Venkataswamy”) and further in view of US 20240019572 A1 (“Joyce”).
As to Claim 9, Venkataswamy discloses A route determination assistance device for assisting in determining an aircraft route (see at least Abstract, Fig. 1 with associated text), comprising:
a route acquisition processing unit which acquires a route (e.g., “flight path 202” from Fig. 2) (see at least Fig. 2 with associated text, [0028]);
a weather risk acquisition processing unit which acquires a weather risk as three-dimensional information (see at least Abstract, Fig. 2 and 4 with associated text; in particular, [0028] and [0035]);
a first display processing unit which displaying, in plan view, at least each of the route and the weather risk together (see at least Abstract, Fig. 2 and 4 with associated text. Venkataswamy illustrates displays two perspectives on one screen, the first person view portion of the screen in Fig. 2 and 4 are mapped as a “first display processing unit”.); and
a second display processing unit (see right-bottom corner of Fig. 2 and/or center-bottom of Fig. 4) which displays an overhead view section of airspace around an aircraft (Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 have a perspective view dedicated to an overhead view and this portion is mapped as a “second display processing unit”.).
Venkataswamy does not directly disclose a second display processing unit which displays a route and a weather risk together on a cross section cut vertically along the route.
However, Joyce teaches a second display processing unit (e.g., “511B” from Fig. 5A-5B) a route and a weather risk together on a cross section cut vertically along the route (see at least [0004]-[0005], Fig. 5A-5B with associated text. Joyce shows in Fig. 5A-5B a first screen portion and a second screen portion.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art BEFORE the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Venkataswamy’s invention by incorporating various perspective views in a graphical user interface as taught by Joyce in order to allow a flight crew to select information for display (see at least [0005]).
As to Claim 10, Venkataswamy discloses wherein[:]
the route acquisition processing unit acquires a plurality of types of routes which have a takeoff point and a landing point in common (see at least [0027], [0029], [0031], Fig. 1-2 with associated text. Venkataswamy discloses the many phases of an entire flight and capability of displaying the flight path during each phase for the entire flight.),
the first display processing unit displays, in plan view, at least each of the plurality of types of routes and the weather risk together (see at least [0027], [0029], [0031], [0037], Fig. 1-2 and 4-6 with associated text), and
the second display processing unit displays, on an overhead view section of airspace around an aircraft (see at least Fig. 2 and 4 with associated text).
Venkataswamy does not directly disclose a cross section cut vertically along one route selected from a plurality of types of routes, the one route and the weather risk together.
However, Joyce teaches a cross section cut vertically along one route selected from a plurality of types of routes, the one route and the weather risk together (see at least [0004]-[0005], Fig. 5A-5B with associated text). (Same motivation and rationale to combine as Claim 9)
As to Claim 11, Venkataswamy discloses wherein[:]
the weather risk acquisition processing unit acquires a plurality of types of the weather risks (see at least Abstract, Fig. 1-2 and 4 with associated text; in particular, [0031]-[0032]),
the first display processing unit
displays the plurality of types of routes and the plurality of types of weather risks together as a three-dimensional image (see at least [0027], [0029], [0031], [0037], Fig. 1-2 and 4-6 with associated text), and
displays different types of the weather risks overlap of a region while giving priority to one weather risk over another weather risks (see at least [0027], [0029], [0031], [0037], Fig. 1-2 and 4-6 with associated text. Venkataswamy discloses “only the most severe weather symbols within a predetermined distance inside the weather envelope 226 will be displayed in order to de-clutter the visual display 200.”), and
the second display processing unit (see at least Fig. 2 and 4 with associated text).
Venkataswamy does not directly disclose displays, on a cross section cut vertically along one route selected from the plurality of types of routes, the one route and a plurality of weather risks together, and displays, in a region where different weather risks overlap of a region of the cross section.
However, Joyce teaches:
displays, on a cross section cut vertically along one route selected from the plurality of types of routes, the one route and a plurality of weather risks together (see at least Fig. 5A-5B with associated text), and
displays, in a region where different weather risks overlap of a region of the cross section (see at least Fig. 5A-5B with associated text). (Same motivation and rationale to combine as Claim 9)
Claim(s) 12 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataswamy in view of Joyce and further in view of US 9057773 B1 (“Fersdahl”).
As to Claim 12, Venkataswamy discloses wherein[:]
the weather risk acquisition processing unit acquires a plurality of types of the weather risks (see at least Abstract, Fig. 1-2 and 4 with associated text; in particular, [0031]-[0032]),
the first display processing unit
displays the plurality of types of routes and the plurality of types of weather risks together as a three-dimensional image (see at least [0027], [0029], [0031], [0037], Fig. 1-2 and 4-6 with associated text), and
displays some weather risks of the plurality of types of weather risks in a three-dimensional image (see at least [0027], [0029], [0031], [0037], Fig. 1-2 and 4-6 with associated text), and
the second display processing unit displays a two-dimensional image (see at least Fig. 2 and 4 with associated text).
Venkataswamy does not directly disclose is capable of switching from a three-dimensional image to a two-dimensional image, and display the weather risks except the some weather risks if the some weather risks of the plurality of types of weather risks are switched from a three-dimensional image to two-dimensional by a display processing unit.
However, Joyce teaches display the weather risks except the some weather risks if the some weather risks of the plurality of types of weather risks in a two-dimensional image on a first display processing unit (see at least Fig. 5A-5B with associated text. Refer to 112 Rejection for interpretation.). (Same motivation and rationale to combine as Claim 9)
The Venkataswamy + Joyce Combination does not directly disclose is capable of switching from a three-dimensional image to a two-dimensional image, and switched from a three-dimensional image to two-dimensional.
However, Fersdahl teaches is capable of switching from a three-dimensional image to a two-dimensional image (see at least Fig. 5 with associated text), and switched from a three-dimensional image to two-dimensional image (see at least Fig. 5 with associated text). 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 Venkataswamy + Joyce Combination by incorporating a switching view function as taught by Fersdahl in order for a weather information display that provides more information than a conventional display with a horizontal profile and a vertical profile (see at least Col 1, lines 27-30).
As to Claim 15, Venkataswamy discloses an alert processing unit which, if (The word “if” is condition language and the Examiner takes the position a no wind, clear day is present thus no weather risk is in the immediate area; therefore this limitation never occurs.) the weather risk is present within a predetermined distance from at least either one of (Only one option is required to satisfy an “at least either one of” limitation.) a takeoff point and a landing point of the route, provides a warning display (a display of a warning icon regarding a lightning strike risk level present within the predetermined distance)(Note: The Examiner applies prior art based on an assumption Applicant’s future amendment will remove the “if” conditional language. See at least [0031], Fig. 2-3 and 5 with associated text. Observe Element 230 in Fig. 2.).
Venkataswamy does not directly disclose a telegram.
However, Joyce teaches a telegram (e.g., “message”) (see at least [0058]-[0059]). (Same motivation and rationale to combine as Claim 9)
As to Claim 16, Venkataswamy discloses a notification generation processing unit which, if (The word “if” is condition language and the Examiner takes the position a no wind, clear day is present thus no weather risk is in the immediate area; therefore this limitation never occurs.) the weather risk is present within a predetermined distance from at least either one of (Only one option is required to satisfy an “at least either one of” limitation.) a takeoff point and a landing point of the route, generates a notification regarding the weather risk present within the predetermined distance )(Note: The Examiner applies prior art based on an assumption Applicant’s future amendment will remove the “if” conditional language. See at least [0031], Fig. 2-3 and 5 with associated text. Observe Element 230 in Fig. 2.).
Venkataswamy does not directly disclose a telegram generation processing unit that generates a telegram.
However, Joyce teaches a telegram generation processing unit that generates a telegram (see at least [0058]-[0059]). (Same motivation and rationale to combine as Claim 9)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataswamy in view of Joyce in view of Fersdahl and further in view of US 20060271249 A1 (“Testrake”).
As to Claim 13, Venkataswamy discloses a second display processing unit (see at least Fig. 2 and 4 with associated text).
Venkataswamy does not directly disclose an altitude adjustment processing unit which adjusts an altitude of the route displayed by the second display processing unit.
However, Joyce teaches an altitude of the route displayed by a second display processing unit (see at least 5A-5B with associated text). (Same motivation and rationale to combine as Claim 9)
The Venkataswamy + Joyce + Fersdahl Combination does not directly disclose an altitude adjustment processing unit which adjusts an altitude.
However, Testrake teaches an altitude adjustment processing unit which adjusts an altitude (see at least [0016], [0082], [0085]). 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 Venkataswamy + Joyce + Fersdahl Combination by incorporating software for correcting data as taught by Testrake in order to provide increased accuracy across a series of altitude measurements (see [0027]).
Written Authorization Required for Internet Communication
MPEP § 502.03 II, “Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application by the examiner. except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the office and the applicant including applicant’s representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview, such as an interview agenda, it must be placed in the application. THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION MAY BE SUBMITTED VIA EFS-WEB, MAIL, OR FAX. It cannot be submitted by email.”
Contact Information
Primary Examiner Calvin Cheung’s contact information is listed at the bottom, and he is best reached MONDAY-THURSDAY, 0700-1700 ET. If attempts to reach the primary by telephone are unsuccessful, the primary’s supervisor, ERIN PIATESKI, is available at telephone number (571) 270-7429.
Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice for scheduling an examiner interview that will be performed over telephone or video conferencing (using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CALVIN CHEUNG/
Direct Office Number (571) 270-7041
Email and Fax send to Calvin.Cheung@USPTO.GOV
1 Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 27 /Wednesday, February 9, 2011 /Notices located at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-2841.pdf, center column, page 6 of 14.
2 MPEP § 2181 (I)(A), first paragraph
3 Federal Register /Vol. 76, No. 27 /Wednesday, February 9, 2011 /Notices located at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-2841.pdf, center column, page 6 of 14.
4 MPEP § 2181 (I)(A), second paragraph