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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to: Application filed on October 21st, 2024
Claims 1-20 are pending claims.
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 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 1-3, 5-9, 11-14, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domaradzki et al., US 2017/0228095 A1 in view of Lin et al., US 2020/0089366 A1.
As for independent claim 1:
Domaradzki discloses a method comprising:
receiving aviation operations display data associated with an aircraft (0017, 0018, see pilot application and GUI with altitude, speed, tilt, location, fuel);
capturing aviation operations impact data using one or more aircraft components of the aircraft, wherein the aviation operations impact data is indicative of an aviation instability event (0020, 0022, 0036, see one or more sensors disposed in the plane which provide data that can be used to identify turbulent motion, accelerations from taking off or landing, touchscreen sensor measuring force of the instability event);
generating aviation stability adjustment data (0034, 0036, 0037, see turbulence detector applies measured sensor accelerations and hand movement rate data to determine that the movement was caused by turbulent motion, compute GUI displacement that moves the GUI in the same manner as the turbulent motion changed the relative location of the hand to the screen, 0043);
generating a stabilized aviation operations interface component based on the aviation stability adjustment data and the aviation operations display data, wherein the stabilized aviation operations interface component comprises one or more stabilized aviation operations display items (0040, 0043, 0048, see moved to maintain spatial relationship and GUI shift along with using a saved pre turbulence spatial relationship as the reference state in 0045);
causing the stabilized aviation operations interface component to be rendered to an aviation operations interface of a device (0017, 0018, 0021, see display adapter outputs the modified GUI on the touch display of a cockpit multi-function display).
Domaradzki does not disclose by applying the aviation operations impact data to an aviation stability adjustment model. Lin discloses by applying the aviation operations impact data to an aviation stability adjustment model in 0007, 0021, 0022. In the cited sections Lin discloses machine learned motion prediction model comprising RNN, a recurrent neural network, that is trained to received motion data descriptive of a location of a user input object over time. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Domaradzki to incorporate the teaching of Lin machine learned motion prediction model, thus reducing latency that the device responds before the input action completes and improved stability (Lin, 0023, 0024, 0046)
As for dependent claim 2:
Domaradzki– Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the aviation operations interface comprises one or more touch zones (0018, 0023, Domaradzki discloses screen defines sensing region allowing the device to receive user input at the interactive elements and a touch adapter identifier the location in the screen user is contacting).
As for dependent claim 3:
Domaradzki– Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the stabilized aviation operations interface component comprises one or more remapped touch zones (0024, 0043, Domaradzki discloses after the turbulence detector modifiers the GUI, the detector contains the info to map locations of user interaction in the sensing region to the shifted locations of the interactive elements in the GUI to determine which element the user contacted and registration zones follow the displaced display items).
As for dependent claim 5:
Domaradzki– Lin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying aviation operations data; generating an aviation operations interface component based on the aviation operations data, wherein the aviation operations interface component comprises one or more aviation operations display items; and causing the aviation operations interface component to be rendered on the aviation operations interface (0017, 0018, Domaradzki discloses the pilot application generating the unmodified GUI containing display items for altitude, speed, location, fuel levels, and displaying the GUI normal on the touch display device).
As for dependent claim 6:
Domaradzki– Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the aviation instability event is one or more of a landing associated with the aircraft, a takeoff associated with the aircraft, weather associated with the aircraft, or turbulence associated with the aircraft (0003, 0020, Domaradzki discloses turbulent motion turbulence in an aircraft and acceleration from taking off or landing an aircraft).
As for dependent claim 7:
Domaradzki– Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the aviation operations impact data is captured when the aircraft is performing an aviation mission (0022, 0020, Domaradzki discloses receive the sensor data during in-flight turbulence, take off, and landing of the aircraft).
As for dependent claim 8:
Domaradzki– Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the device is a flight management system, an electronic flight bag, or a multi-function control and display unit (0018, Domaradzki discloses GUI is displayed on a multi-function touch display device allowing the use to change parameters of the vehicle).
As for dependent claim 9:
Domaradzki– Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the device is physically secured to the aircraft (0002, 0018, Domaradzki discloses combining several flight instruments and controls into a single display and control system installed in the cockpit of an aircraft).
As for dependent claim 11:
Domaradzki– Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the aviation stability adjustment data is representative of an estimated position change of the device (0041, 0042, Domaradzki discloses determining the movement of the hand and touchscreen corresponds to an accelerator or force measured by an accelerometer on the touchscreen, turbulent motion causes the screen or hand to move relative to the other for compensating Gui displacement based on the position change).
As for dependent claim 12:Claim 12 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 1 and is respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
As for dependent claims 12-14, 16-18, 20:Claims 16-14, 16-18, 20 contain substantial subject matter as claimed in claims 1-3, 5-6, 8 and are respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domaradzki et al., US 2017/0228095 A1 in view of Lin et al., US 2020/0089366 A1 in further view of Woodell, US 8,902,100 B1.
As for dependent claim 4:
Domaradzki–Sukumar do not disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying predicted aviation operations impact data; and determining that the aircraft is predicted to be impacted by the aviation instability event based on the predicted aviation operations impact data. Woodell discloses identifying predicted aviation operations impact data; and determining that the aircraft is predicted to be impacted by the aviation instability event based on the predicted aviation operations impact data in 5: 35-54, 8:60-65 10:23-33. In the cited sections Woodell discloses aircraft hazard warning system estimating probability of turbulence and output predictive overflight assessment along with alerting the crew with hazard indication. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Domaradzki and Lin to incorporate the teaching of Woodell of predicting turbulence, thus improving the safety of the system and send hazard indication (Woodell, 6:35-54).
As for dependent claim 15:Claim 15 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 4 and is respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domaradzki et al., US 2017/0228095 A1 in view of Lin et al., US 2020/0089366 A1 and in further view of Sukumar, US 2014/0043241 A1.
As for dependent claim 10:
Domaradzki and Lin do not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the aviation stability adjustment data is representative of an estimated position change of an eye gaze of an operator of the aircraft. Sukumar discloses wherein the aviation stability adjustment data is representative of an estimated position change of an eye gaze of an operator of the aircraft in 0021, 0029, 0044. In the cited sections Sukumar discloses flight deck touch screen controllers and eye gaze tracking and detecting system using sensors positioned near the touch screen. Sukumar further discloses adjusting interface button boundary values based on the tracked gaze data. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Domaradzki and Lin to incorporate the teaching of Sukumar of gaze tracking system, thus identify turbulence induced involuntary movement and adjust user interface from the tracked gaze data (Sukumar, 0041, 0044).
As for dependent claim 19:Claim 19 contains substantial subject matter as claimed in claim 10 and is respectfully rejected along the same rationale.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. 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.
/David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights