Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12-17-25 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al. (US 2016/0377862) in view of Gariel et al. (SU 2023/0023069), Kerr (US 2010/0207026) and Harris et al. (US 2021/0199976).
Regarding claim 1, Zimmerman (Fig. 1 and 2) discloses a heads-up display (HUD) system configured for use in an aircraft, the HUD system comprising:
an overhead unit configured for mounting to the aircraft (“overhead mounted HUDs or combiners” discussed in [0040]), the overhead unit including:
a combiner (24);
a projector (150); and
a camera (112, called a “camera” in [0033]) operable to generate an environment image external to the aircraft (“device for providing a computer generated image of the external scene topography” discussed in [0033]); and
a HUD computer (“a HUD computer” discussed in [0037]) coupled with the overhead unit (eg. via 150, as discussed in [0037]), the HUD computer comprising a processing system (125) operable to:
acquire the external environment image from the camera (as seen in Fig. 2, 112 provides the image data to 153, which is part of 125, see also “storing a vision frame from a vision system (VS) 112” discussed in [0031]);
cause the projector to project the HUD image (called “flight symbols”) at a determined placement location relative to the external environment (“flight symbols conformally mapped with the view of the environment through the waveguide combiner” as discussed in claim 12),
wherein the projector projects the HUD image onto the combiner (“projection system for providing images to combiners 24” discussed in [0040], and “image 58 is an image including flight control symbols and/or other HUD symbology” discussed in [0027]), and the combiner presents the HUD image overlaid on a real-world view of the external environment (“flight symbols conformally mapped with the view of the environment through the waveguide combiner” as discussed in claim 12, see also “environment 250 is viewable through a portion of the combiner 24 associated with the image 58” discussed in [0044]) and positioned such that a portion of the HUD image aligns with a corresponding characteristic in the external environment when viewed through the combiner (for example, as seen in Fig. 3); and
wherein the combiner is in a forward field of view (as seen in Fig. 1, in front of the pilot’s seat).
However, Zimmerman fails to provide details about how the flight symbols are mapped to the environment, and so fails to teach or suggest “identify a runway characteristic in the environment image,” “utilize the runway characteristic to determine a placement location for a HUD image,” or presents the HUD image “positioned such that a portion of the HUD image corresponding to the identified runway characteristic aligns with a corresponding runway characteristic.” Zimmerman also fails to teach or suggest wherein the combiner is “selectively positionable” into a forward field of view.
Gariel (Fig. 4 and 7) discloses a heads-up display (HUD) system (“head-up display (HUD)” discussed in [0072]) configured for use in an aircraft, the HUD system comprising:
a camera (112) operable to generate an environment image external to the aircraft (“cameras 112 that acquire images of the runway 106” discussed in [0026]); and
a HUD computer (110) coupled with the overhead unit (as seen in Fig. 4), the HUD computer comprising a processing system (“processing” discussed in [0035]) operable to:
acquire the external environment image from the camera (the camera 112 captures the images, as discussed in [0034], and then passes them to 110 for processing, see “110-1 processes the acquired images” discussed in [0035]);
identify a runway characteristic in the environment image (“identify runway physical features in the images” discussed in [0098]);
utilize the runway characteristic to determine a placement location for a HUD image (eg. so the overlap can be aligned with the environment image, “GUI includes graphical overlays of the runway edges 1504, runway threshold 1500, and runway centerline 1502” discussed in [0101]) by determining, based on the identified runway characteristic (in block 706, “identify common features in the images” including “three points on the runway” discussed in [0089]), spatial coordinates of the runway in the external environment (eg. corresponding to the “invariant point” 1400 seen in Fig. 14, see “invariant point may be expressed in terms of image coordinates (e.g., image X, Y coordinates)” discussed in [0090]), and adjusting at least one of a position, a scale, or an orientation of the HUD image to match the spatial coordinates of the runway (eg. “GUI elements that indicate various runway features” discussed in [0101] and as seen in Fig. 15); and
cause the display to display the HUD image at the determined placement location relative to the external environment (eg. “GUI includes graphical overlays of the runway edges 1504…” as discussed above, see also and “runway features 1500, 1502, 1504 may be rendered in a manner that enhances the visibility of the detected features,” both discussed in [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman to identify a runway characteristic in the environment image and utilize the runway characteristic to determine a placement location for a HUD image as taught by Gariel because this “enhances the visibility of the detected features” of the runway to allow the pilot to land the plane more easily.
However, Gariel only teaches adjusting the placement of a HUD image in camera-generated environment image but not in relation to the external environment. Therefore, Zimmerman and Gariel fail to teach or suggest wherein determining a placement location for a HUD image included adjusting at least one of a position, a scale, or an orientation of the HUD image to match the spatial coordinates of the runway “in the external environment.”
Kerr (Fig. 1, 2, and 4) discloses a heads-up display (HUD) system configured for use in an aircraft, the HUD system comprising:
a sensor (38) operable to generate an environment image external to the aircraft (“imaging a visible light view, at 104” discussed in [0040]); and
a HUD computer (14), the HUD computer comprising a processing system (“computer 14 for additional processing” discussed in [0032]) operable to:
acquire the external environment image from the sensor (“generate an image of the surrounding background scene” discussed in [0012]);
identify a runway characteristic in the environment image (the “surrounding background scene” includes “runway edges, runway markings” as discussed in [0012], while “identifying and enhancing local image features through edge definition procedures or other object identification procedures, at 126, to create signal 42S” is discussed in [0045]);
utilize the runway characteristic to determine a placement location for a HUD image by determining, based on the identified runway characteristic (eg. the “features” discussed above), spatial coordinates of the runway in the external environment (“calculating an image based on available navigational data and recognizable target features, and generating an image in proper perspective that is fit to the recognizable features in the sensed image” discussed in [0045]), and adjusting at least one of a position, a scale, or an orientation of the HUD image to match the spatial coordinates of the runway in the external environment (“aligning the displayed fused video image with pilot perspective of the real world” and “shifting the fused video image on head-up display 16” discussed in [0050]); and
cause the HUD image to be displayed at the determined placement location relative to the external environment (as discussed above, “used with a head-up display, the method may include aligning the displayed fused video image with pilot perspective of the real world” discussed in [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman and Gariel to utilize the runway characteristic to determine a placement location for a HUD image by determining, based on the identified runway characteristic, spatial coordinates of the runway in the external environment, and adjusting at least one of a position, a scale, or an orientation of the HUD image to match the spatial coordinates of the runway in the external environment as taught by Kerr because this allows the pilot to “observe the ambient background scene without the need for enhanced vision” but still “maintaining a computer-generated image of identified light sources, useful data may be provided, without unneeded clutter” (see [0048]).
However, Zimmerman, Gariel, and Kerr fail to teach or suggest wherein the combiner is “selectively positionable” into a forward field of view.
Harris (Fig. 1-3) discloses a heads-up display (HUD) system configured for use in an aircraft, the HUD system comprising:
an overhead unit (including 10, 20, and 30, seen in Fig. 1) configured for mounting to the aircraft (eg. mounted overhead in the ceiling, see “ceiling mounted projector assembly” discussed in [0016]), the overhead unit including:
a combiner (10);
a projector (20); and
wherein the projector projects the HUD image onto the combiner (“present an image from the projector in the user's line of sight” discussed in [0016]), and the combiner presents the HUD image overlaid on a real-world view of the external environment (“present a projected image to the user in the line of sight of the user, to combine the projected image with the real world view beyond the cockpit” discussed in [0001]); and
wherein the combiner is selectively positionable (eg. the different positions seen in Fig. 1-3, see also “support mechanism for supporting the optical combiner to be movable between an operational position and a stowage position” discussed in [0004]) into a forward field of view (“the operational position being in a line of sight of the user, facing a user” discussed in [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman, Gariel, and Kerr so the combiner is selectively positionable as taught by Harris because the “stowage position can provide some protection for the optical combiner” when not in use (see [0014]).
Regarding claim 2, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris disclose a HUD system as discussed above, and Gariel further discloses wherein the camera is a forward-looking camera (as seen in Fig. 1, 112 faces forward) and the environment image is a forward-looking image of the area in front of the aircraft (eg. as seen in Fig. 3, showing the runway in front of the plane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris disclose a HUD system as discussed above, and Gariel further discloses wherein the runway characteristic is a location of a runway (eg. the edge, see “runway physical features may also include runway edges” discussed in [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris disclose a HUD system as discussed above, and Gariel further discloses wherein the runway characteristic is an edge of the runway (“runway edges” discussed above, and in [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 5, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris disclose a HUD system as discussed above, and Gariel further discloses wherein the processing system is configured to utilize computer vision techniques to identify the runway characteristic (“identify runway physical features in the images using one or more detection algorithms,” and more specifically, computer vision techniques such as “object detection frameworks (e.g., Viola-Jones)” discussed in [0098])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 10, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris disclose a HUD system as discussed above, and Gariel further discloses wherein the processing system is configured to receive a stream of images from the camera (“image stream” discussed in [0027], see also “sequence of images” discussed in [0035]), identify the runway characteristic within each of the stream of images (“features that may be detected and tracked from image to image” discussed in [0034]), determine the placement location for the HUD image based the identified runway characteristics (as discussed above, for example so the HUD image overlap can be aligned with the environment image, “GUI includes graphical overlays of the runway edges 1504, runway threshold 1500, and runway centerline 1502” discussed in [0101]), and continuously cause the projector to display the HUD image at the determined placement location (“runway features 1500, 1502, 1504 may be rendered in a manner that enhances the visibility of the detected features” discussed in [0101], see also “GUI element 300” displayed in Fig. 15, which is continuously displayed, see “update the predicted landing zone 300” discussed in [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 11, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris disclose a HUD system as discussed above, and Gariel further discloses wherein the processing system is configured to identify a plurality of runway characteristics in the environment image (“identify runway physical features in the images” including “runway perimeter and runway markings including runway thresholds 1500, the runway centerline 1502, touch down zones, fixed distance marks, and runway letters/numbers. The runway physical features may also include runway edges 1504” as discussed in [0098]) and utilize the runway characteristics to determine a placement location for the HUD image (eg. including runway thresholds, centerline, and edges, see “runway features 1500, 1502, 1504 may be rendered in a manner that enhances the visibility of the detected features” discussed in [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, Harris, and Hausmann et al. (US 2020/0378791).
Regarding claim 13, Zimmerman (Fig. 1 and 2) discloses a heads-up display (HUD) system configured for use in an aircraft, the HUD system comprising:
an overhead unit configured for mounting to the aircraft (“overhead mounted HUDs or combiners” discussed in [0040]), the overhead unit including:
a combiner (24);
a projector (150); and
a camera (112, called a “camera” in [0033]) operable to generate an environment image external to the aircraft (“device for providing a computer generated image of the external scene topography” discussed in [0033]); and
a HUD computer (“a HUD computer” discussed in [0037]) coupled with the overhead unit (eg. via 150, as discussed in [0037]), the HUD computer comprising a processing system (125) operable to:
acquire the external environment image from the camera (as seen in Fig. 2, 112 provides the image data to 153, which is part of 125, see also “storing a vision frame from a vision system (VS) 112” discussed in [0031]);
cause the projector to project the HUD image (called “flight symbols”) at a determined placement location relative to the external environment (“flight symbols conformally mapped with the view of the environment through the waveguide combiner” as discussed in claim 12),
wherein the projector projects the HUD image onto the combiner (“projection system for providing images to combiners 24” discussed in [0040], and “image 58 is an image including flight control symbols and/or other HUD symbology” discussed in [0027]), and the combiner presents the HUD image overlaid on a real-world view of the external environment (“flight symbols conformally mapped with the view of the environment through the waveguide combiner” as discussed in claim 12, see also “environment 250 is viewable through a portion of the combiner 24 associated with the image 58” discussed in [0044]) and positioned such that a portion of the HUD image aligns with a corresponding characteristic in the external environment when viewed through the combiner (for example, as seen in Fig. 3); and
wherein the combiner is in a forward field of view (as seen in Fig. 1, in front of the pilot’s seat).
However, Zimmerman fails to provide details about how the flight symbols are mapped to the environment, and so fails to teach or suggest “identify a runway characteristic in the environment image,” or “utilize the runway characteristic to determine a placement location for a HUD image.” Zimmerman also fails to teach or suggest wherein the flight symbols specifically include a “runway pictogram,” or wherein the combiner is “selectively positionable” into a forward field of view.
Gariel (Fig. 4) discloses a heads-up display (HUD) system (“head-up display (HUD)” discussed in [0072]) configured for use in an aircraft, the HUD system comprising:
a camera (112) operable to generate a forward-looking environment image external to the aircraft (“cameras 112 that acquire images of the runway 106” discussed in [0026], see Fig. 3 which shows the runway in front of the plane); and
a HUD computer (110) coupled with the overhead unit (as seen in Fig. 4), the HUD computer comprising a processing system (“processing” discussed in [0035]) operable to:
acquire the external environment image from the camera (the camera 112 captures the images, as discussed in [0034], and then passes them to 110 for processing, see “110-1 processes the acquired images” discussed in [0035]);
identify a runway characteristic in the environment image (“identify runway physical features in the images” discussed in [0098]), the identified runway characteristic including an edge detection of a runway found depicted in the external environment image (“runway physical features may also include runway edges” discussed in [0098]);
utilize the runway characteristic to determine a placement location for a HUD image (eg. so the overlap can be aligned with the environment image, “GUI includes graphical overlays of the runway edges 1504, runway threshold 1500, and runway centerline 1502” discussed in [0101]) by determining, based on the identified runway characteristic (in block 706, “identify common features in the images” including “three points on the runway” discussed in [0089]), spatial coordinates of the runway in the external environment (eg. corresponding to the “invariant point” 1400 seen in Fig. 14, see “invariant point may be expressed in terms of image coordinates (e.g., image X, Y coordinates)” discussed in [0090]), and adjusting at least one of a position, a scale, or an orientation of the HUD image to match the spatial coordinates of the runway (eg. “GUI elements that indicate various runway features” discussed in [0101] and as seen in Fig. 15); and
cause the display to display the HUD image at the determined placement location relative to the external environment (eg. “GUI includes graphical overlays of the runway edges 1504…” as discussed above, see also and “runway features 1500, 1502, 1504 may be rendered in a manner that enhances the visibility of the detected features,” both discussed in [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman to identify a runway characteristic in the environment image and utilize the runway characteristic to determine a placement location for a HUD image as taught by Gariel because this “enhances the visibility of the detected features” of the runway to allow the pilot to land the plane more easily.
However, Gariel only teaches adjusting the placement of a HUD image in camera-generated environment image but not in relation to the external environment. Therefore, Zimmerman and Gariel fail to teach or suggest wherein determining a placement location for a HUD image included adjusting at least one of a position, a scale, or an orientation of the HUD image to match the spatial coordinates of the runway “in the external environment.”
Kerr (Fig. 1, 2, 4, and 7) discloses a heads-up display (HUD) system configured for use in an aircraft, the HUD system comprising:
a sensor (38) operable to generate an environment image external to the aircraft (“imaging a visible light view, at 104” discussed in [0040]); and
a HUD computer (14), the HUD computer comprising a processing system (“computer 14 for additional processing” discussed in [0032]) operable to:
acquire the external environment image from the sensor (“generate an image of the surrounding background scene” discussed in [0012]);
identify a runway characteristic in the environment image, the identified runway characteristic including an edge detection of a runway found depicted in the external environment image (the “surrounding background scene” includes “runway edges” as discussed in [0012], while “identifying and enhancing local image features through edge definition procedures or other object identification procedures, at 126, to create signal 42S” is discussed in [0045]);
utilize the detected edge of the depicted runway to determine a placement location for a pictogram in a HUD image (eg. see Fig. 7) by determining, based on the identified runway characteristic (eg. the “features” discussed above), spatial coordinates of the runway in the external environment (“calculating an image based on available navigational data and recognizable target features, and generating an image in proper perspective that is fit to the recognizable features in the sensed image” discussed in [0045]), and adjusting at least one of a position, a scale, or an orientation of the pictogram to match the spatial coordinates of the runway in the external environment (“aligning the displayed fused video image with pilot perspective of the real world” and “shifting the fused video image on head-up display 16” discussed in [0050]); and
cause the HUD image to be displayed at the determined placement location relative to the external environment (as discussed above, “used with a head-up display, the method may include aligning the displayed fused video image with pilot perspective of the real world” discussed in [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman and Gariel to utilize the runway characteristic to determine a placement location for a HUD image by determining, based on the identified runway characteristic, spatial coordinates of the runway in the external environment, and adjusting at least one of a position, a scale, or an orientation of the HUD image to match the spatial coordinates of the runway in the external environment as taught by Kerr because this allows the pilot to “observe the ambient background scene without the need for enhanced vision” but still “maintaining a computer-generated image of identified light sources, useful data may be provided, without unneeded clutter” (see [0048]).
However, Zimmerman, Gariel, and Kerr fail to teach or suggest wherein the combiner is “selectively positionable” into a forward field of view or a “runway pictogram” in the HUD image.
Harris (Fig. 1-3) discloses a heads-up display (HUD) system configured for use in an aircraft, the HUD system comprising:
an overhead unit (including 10, 20, and 30, seen in Fig. 1) configured for mounting to the aircraft (eg. mounted overhead in the ceiling, see “ceiling mounted projector assembly” discussed in [0016]), the overhead unit including:
a combiner (10);
a projector (20); and
wherein the projector projects the HUD image onto the combiner (“present an image from the projector in the user's line of sight” discussed in [0016]), and the combiner presents the HUD image overlaid on a real-world view of the external environment (“present a projected image to the user in the line of sight of the user, to combine the projected image with the real world view beyond the cockpit” discussed in [0001]); and
wherein the combiner is selectively positionable (eg. the different positions seen in Fig. 1-3, see also “support mechanism for supporting the optical combiner to be movable between an operational position and a stowage position” discussed in [0004]) into a forward field of view (“the operational position being in a line of sight of the user, facing a user” discussed in [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman, Gariel, and Kerr so the combiner is selectively positionable as taught by Harris because the “stowage position can provide some protection for the optical combiner” when not in use (see [0014]).
However, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris fail to teach or suggest a “runway pictogram” in the HUD image.
Hausmann (Fig. 1, 2, 4, and 5) discloses a heads-up display (HUD) system (“a HUD (head-up display) projection” discussed in [0029]) configured for use in an aircraft, the HUD system comprising:
an overhead unit (44) including:
a projector (“projection” discussed in [0029]); and
a sensor (60) operable to generate an environment image external to the aircraft (“image of an approaching runway area in an airport environment” discussed in [0008]); and
a HUD computer (including 36 and 42, “36 includes a processor” discussed in [0027], and 42 is directly called a processor in [0025]) coupled with the overhead unit (eg. to provide images to 44, as discussed in [0026] and seen in Fig. 2), the HUD computer comprising a processing system operable to:
acquire the external environment image from the sensor (eg. via 67, 72, and 78);
identify a runway characteristic in the environment image, the identified runway characteristic including an edge detection of a runway found depicted in the external environment image (“detect one or more features of the approaching runway area 12, such as, for example, the edges 68” discussed in [0031]);
utilize the detected edge of the depicted runway to determine a placement location for a runway pictogram in a HUD image (runway pictogram 74, called “symbology,” is placed along the detected edges, see “lines 76 that correspond to the runway edges 68” discussed in [0032]); and
cause the projector to project the HUD image including the runway pictogram at the determined placement location (“overlay the symbology 74 onto the visual image from the EVS 38” discussed in [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris so that the HUD image includes a runway pictogram and the projector displays the HUD image including the runway pictogram at the determined placement location as taught by Hausmann because this improves visibility of the runway details, “aiding the pilot and/or other crew members in landing the aircraft 10 on the approaching runway area 12” (see [0033]).
Regarding claim 16, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, Harris, and Hausmann disclose a HUD system as discussed above, and Hausmann further discloses wherein the HUD computer (including 36 and 42 as discussed above) includes a communication interface (52 and 56) configured to receive attitude and heading information from an attitude and heading reference system (“IRU 48a, GPS 48b, and the FMS 50 provide data such as aircraft positioning, heading, attitude, and a flight plan to the SVS 36” discussed in [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, Harris, and Hausmann for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 17, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, Harris, and Hausmann disclose a HUD system as discussed above, and Gariel further discloses wherein the processing system is configured to receive a stream of images from the camera (“image stream” discussed in [0027], see also “sequence of images” discussed in [0035]), identify the runway characteristic within each of the stream of images (“features that may be detected and tracked from image to image” discussed in [0034]), determine the placement location for the HUD image based the identified runway characteristics (as discussed above, for example so the HUD image overlap can be aligned with the environment image, “GUI includes graphical overlays of the runway edges 1504, runway threshold 1500, and runway centerline 1502” discussed in [0101]), and continuously cause the projector to project the HUD image at the determined placement location (“runway features 1500, 1502, 1504 may be rendered in a manner that enhances the visibility of the detected features” discussed in [0101], see also “GUI element 300” displayed in Fig. 15, which is continuously displayed, see “update the predicted landing zone 300” discussed in [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, Harris, and Hausmann for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, Harris, and Hausmann disclose a HUD system as discussed above, and Gariel further discloses wherein the processing system is configured to identify a plurality of runway characteristics in the environment image (“identify runway physical features in the images” including “runway perimeter and runway markings including runway thresholds 1500, the runway centerline 1502, touch down zones, fixed distance marks, and runway letters/numbers. The runway physical features may also include runway edges 1504” as discussed in [0098]) and utilize the runway characteristics to determine a placement location for the HUD image (eg. including runway thresholds, centerline, and edges, see “runway features 1500, 1502, 1504 may be rendered in a manner that enhances the visibility of the detected features” discussed in [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, Harris, and Hausmann for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 19, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, Harris, and Hausmann disclose a HUD system as discussed above, and Hausmann further discloses wherein the HUD image includes a plurality of pictograms (multiple 74 seen in Fig. 5, called “symbology” in [0033]) and the processing system is configured to utilize a plurality of runway characteristics (“post-processing processor 70 identifies the runway area features, for example, specifically the runway edges 68” discussed in [0032]) to determine placement locations for the pictograms (eg. “lines 76 that correspond to the runway edges 68” discussed in [0032], with “overlay the symbology 74 onto the visual image from the EVS 38” discussed in [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, Harris, and Hausmann for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 6, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris as applied to claims 1, 4 and 11 above, and further in view of Hausmann.
Regarding claim 6, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris disclose a HUD system as discussed above, however fail to teach or suggest wherein the HUD image includes a runway pictogram and the processing system is operable to compare the runway pictogram to the edge of the runway to determine the placement location for the runway pictogram.
Hausmann discloses a heads-up display (HUD) system configured for use in an aircraft, the HUD system comprising:
a HUD image including a runway pictogram (runway pictogram 74, called “symbology” in [0033]) and the processing system is operable to compare the runway pictogram to the edge of the runway to determine the placement location for the runway pictogram (“lines 76 that correspond to the runway edges 68” discussed in [0032], and “overlay the symbology 74 onto the visual image from the EVS 38” discussed in [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris so that the HUD image includes a runway pictogram and the processing system is operable to compare the runway pictogram to the edge of the runway to determine the placement location for the runway pictogram as taught by Hausmann because this improves visibility of the runway, “aiding the pilot and/or other crew members in landing the aircraft 10 on the approaching runway area 12” (see [0033]).
Regarding claim 9, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris disclose a HUD system as discussed above, however fail to teach or suggest wherein the HUD computer includes a communication interface configured to receive attitude and heading information from an attitude and heading reference system.
Hausmann (Fig. 1, 2, 4, and 5) discloses a heads-up display (HUD) system (“a HUD (head-up display) projection” discussed in [0029]) configured for use in an aircraft, the HUD system comprising:
an overhead unit (44) including:
a projector (“projection” discussed in [0029]); and
a sensor (60) operable to generate an environment image external to the aircraft (“image of an approaching runway area in an airport environment” discussed in [0008]); and
a HUD computer (including 36 and 42, “36 includes a processor” discussed in [0027], and 42 is directly called a processor in [0025]) coupled with the overhead unit (eg. to provide images to 44, as discussed in [0026] and seen in Fig. 2),
wherein the HUD computer includes a communication interface (52 and 56) configured to receive attitude and heading information from an attitude and heading reference system (“IRU 48a, GPS 48b, and the FMS 50 provide data such as aircraft positioning, heading, attitude, and a flight plan to the SVS 36” discussed in [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris so the HUD computer includes a communication interface configured to receive attitude and heading information from an attitude and heading reference system as taught by Hausmann because this allows information about the position and status of the airplane to be displayed to the pilot.
Regarding claim 12, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris disclose a HUD system as discussed above, however fail to teach or suggest wherein the HUD image includes a plurality of pictograms and the processing system is configured to utilize the plurality of runway characteristics to determine placement locations for the pictograms.
Hausmann discloses a heads-up display (HUD) system configured for use in an aircraft, the HUD system comprising:
a HUD image including a plurality of pictograms (74, called “symbology” in [0033]) and a processing system is configured to utilize a plurality of runway characteristics (“post-processing processor 70 identifies the runway area features, for example, specifically the runway edges 68” discussed in [0032]) to determine placement locations for the pictograms (eg. “lines 76 that correspond to the runway edges 68” discussed in [0032], with “overlay the symbology 74 onto the visual image from the EVS 38” discussed in [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris so that the HUD image includes a plurality of pictograms and the processing system is configured to utilize the plurality of runway characteristics to determine placement locations for the pictograms as taught by Hausmann because this improves visibility of the runway details, “aiding the pilot and/or other crew members in landing the aircraft 10 on the approaching runway area 12” (see [0033]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman, Gariel, and Harris as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stewart et al. (US 2007/0019297).
Regarding claim 7, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris disclose a HUD system as discussed above, however fail to teach or suggest wherein the overhead unit and the HUD computer are integrated within a common housing.
Stewart (Fig. 1, 2, and 4) discloses a heads-up display (HUD) system configured for use in an aircraft, the HUD system comprising:
an overhead unit (10) configured for mounting to the aircraft (seen in Fig. 1, see also “HUD 10 is mounted above the pilot's head on the ceiling” discussed in [0058]), the overhead unit including:
a combiner (18);
a projector (including display elements such as 24, 26, 28, 30, etc. see also “display images that would be projected onto the combiner 18” discussed in [0064]); and
a HUD computer (34, called a “controller” in [0059]), the HUD computer comprising a processing system (called a “microprocessor circuit” in [0060]);
wherein the overhead unit and the HUD computer are integrated within a common housing (as seen in Fig. 4B, the HUD computer 34 is integrated inside the same housing 12 as the elements of overhead unit 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris so the overhead unit and the HUD computer are integrated within a common housing as taught by Stewart because this allows the HUD system to take up less space inside the cockpit.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wood (US 6,434,863).
Regarding claim 8, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris disclose a HUD system as discussed above, however fail to teach or suggest wherein the overhead unit and the HUD computer are positioned within discrete housings.
Wood (Fig. 1 and 9) discloses a heads-up display (HUD) system configured for use in an aircraft, the HUD system comprising:
an overhead unit (10, which includes elements such as 14, 16, and 20 as seen in Fig. 1) configured for mounting to the aircraft (“mounted above the pilot's or copilot's seat” discussed in column 1, lines 17 and 18), the overhead unit including:
a combiner (14);
a projector (16, with “optical unit adapted to project an image” discussed in column 2, lines 52-53); and
a HUD computer (152), the HUD computer comprising a processing system (“the computer processes information” discussed in column 1, line 14);
wherein the overhead unit and the HUD computer are positioned within discrete housings (as seen in Fig. 9, see also “HUD computer 152 is positioned in cockpit 142 at a location remote from system 10” discussed in column 9, lines 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, and Harris so the overhead unit and the HUD computer are positioned within discrete housings as taught by Wood because this allows the computer to be placed farther back in the cockpit, providing easier access in case it requires repairs.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, Harris, and Hausmann as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Stewart.
Regarding claim 14, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, Harris, and Hausmann disclose a HUD system as discussed above, however fail to teach or suggest wherein the overhead unit and the HUD computer are integrated within a common housing.
Stewart (Fig. 1, 2, and 4) discloses a heads-up display (HUD) system configured for use in an aircraft, the HUD system comprising:
an overhead unit (10) configured for mounting to the aircraft (seen in Fig. 1, see also “HUD 10 is mounted above the pilot's head on the ceiling” discussed in [0058]), the overhead unit including:
a combiner (18);
a projector (including display elements such as 24, 26, 28, 30, etc. see also “display images that would be projected onto the combiner 18” discussed in [0064]); and
a HUD computer (34, called a “controller” in [0059]), the HUD computer comprising a processing system (called a “microprocessor circuit” in [0060]);
wherein the overhead unit and the HUD computer are integrated within a common housing (as seen in Fig. 4B, the HUD computer 34 is integrated inside the same housing 12 as the elements of overhead unit 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, Harris, and Hausmann so the overhead unit and the HUD computer are integrated within a common housing as taught by Stewart because this allows the HUD system to take up less space inside the cockpit.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, Harris, and Hausmann as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Wood.
Regarding claim 15, Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, Harris, and Hausmann disclose a HUD system as discussed above, however fail to teach or suggest wherein the overhead unit and the HUD computer are positioned within discrete housings.
Wood (Fig. 1 and 9) discloses a heads-up display (HUD) system configured for use in an aircraft, the HUD system comprising:
an overhead unit (10, which includes elements such as 14, 16, and 20 as seen in Fig. 1) configured for mounting to the aircraft (“mounted above the pilot's or copilot's seat” discussed in column 1, lines 17 and 18), the overhead unit including:
a combiner (14);
a projector (16, with “optical unit adapted to project an image” discussed in column 2, lines 52-53); and
a HUD computer (152), the HUD computer comprising a processing system (“the computer processes information” discussed in column 1, line 14);
wherein the overhead unit and the HUD computer are positioned within discrete housings (as seen in Fig. 9, see also “HUD computer 152 is positioned in cockpit 142 at a location remote from system 10” discussed in column 9, lines 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zimmerman, Gariel, Kerr, Harris, and Hausmann so the overhead unit and the HUD computer are positioned within discrete housings as taught by Wood because this allows the computer to be placed farther back in the cockpit, providing easier access in case it requires repairs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
In view of the amendments, the reference of Kerr has been added for new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M BLANCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-5890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9-5.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 5712727772. 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.
/JONATHAN M BLANCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights