DETAILED 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being unpatentable by Ander et al. (U.S. 2012/0138759 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ander discloses a method of providing information to a person in an aircraft (Ander [0003] “a method for aiding landing of a rotary wing aircraft, wherein a pilot of the rotary wing aircraft is provided with a display arranged to display symbology to the pilot overlaid on a scene viewed by the pilot” Ander teaches a method of providing aiding landing to a pilot in an aircraft, the method comprising:
obtaining information from an environment external to the aircraft (Ander, [0121] “one aircrew member, the pilot, will operate the rotary wing aircraft controls and maintain a watch on external references outside the cockpit” and [0122] “then control of the aircraft will be passed between aircrew based on the best visibility of external references” Ander teaches obtain information from an environment external to the aircraft (external references outside the cockpit); and
providing a display on a head worn display device worn by the person, the display depicting the obtained information superimposed on a real image viewed through the display (Ander, [0013] “arranged to generate landing symbology representative of the determined location of the desired landing point; and a display arranged to display generated landing symbology to the pilot overlaid on a scene viewed by the pilot” and [0038] “A pilot wearing the helmet 12 views a real world scene 16 along a line of sight 18 through a visor of the helmet 12 and through the helmet mounted display 13” Ander teaches providing a display on a helmet worn by a pilot, the display obtains information overlaid (e.g., symbology representative of the determined location of the desired landing point) on a real image through the display.
Regarding Claim 2, Ander discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a marker indicative of a size of an area of ground in the external environment within which the aircraft can land (Ander, [0071] “FIG. 12. The landing symbology provides the pilot with cues regarding the condition of the aircraft with respect to the ground surface of the desired landing point” and [0074] “The markers 221 are orientated at the cardinal points (North, East, South and West), and are positioned on the circumference of the circle 220” Ander teaches generating a maker(markers 221) indicative of a size of an area of ground in the external environment which the aircraft can land;
wherein:
the display comprises the marker (Ander, [0071] “FIG. 12 “the conformal ground awareness landing symbology in conjunction with existing well known aircraft instrument symbology displayed to the pilot via a helmet mounted display” and [0072], [0074] “The landing symbology includes: Three dimensional markers 221” the display includes the marker (221);
the real image is an image of terrain below the aircraft; and the marker is superimposed over the terrain (Ander, [0048] “The generated landing symbology is outputted at output 86 to be viewed by a pilot, who will observe a real world conformal display of ground referenced landing symbology overlaid on the real world scene 70” and [0107] “Fig. 18, the landing symbology markers 302 and 304 will need to be approximately 23 metres from a central position of the aircraft 300, the greatest look-down direction 314 inhibits the view of the pilot of the terrain 306 below the aircraft 300” Ander teaches the real world scene is an image of terrain (306) below the aircraft 300 and the markers 302, 304 overlaid over the terrain (Fig. 18).
Regarding Claim 3, Ander discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising moving the marker relative to the terrain to locate a clear landing area in the terrain (Ander, [0101] “FIG. 14, arrow cue 292 on the display 280 allows a pilot to maintain orientation within the limitations of the relatively small field of view of the display 280” and [0102] Arrow cue 292 shows the pointing angle of the longitudinal axis of the rotary wing aircraft with respect to the landing symbology markers 282 to 290” Ander teaches moving the marker (referred arrow cue 292 as a signal marker, Fig. 14) to the left the terrain (Fig. 15) to locate a clear landing area between markers 282, 290,
Regarding Claim 4, Ander discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising selecting the position of the marker associated with the clear landing area and providing navigation directions to the pilot to steer to the clear landing area, and optionally further comprising providing additional information on the display associated with the marker (Ander, Fig. 14, [0102] Arrow cue 292 shows the pointing angle of the longitudinal axis of the rotary wing aircraft with respect to the landing symbology markers 282 to 290” and [0103] “FIG. 15, the display 280 indicates that although there is a small forward velocity with no lateral components as indicated by the vertical position of cues 294 and 296 and the pilot is looking off to the left, arrow cue 292. Accordingly, there is a risk of disorientation of the pilot under heavily degraded visibility conditions occurring during a brown out” Ander teaches selecting the marker (282, 290) with the clearing landing area (Fig. 14) and providing navigation directions to the pilot (Arrow cue 292 shows the pointing angle of the longitudinal axis of the rotary wing aircraft with respect to the landing symbology markers 282 to 290) can cause a risk of disorientation of the pilot under heavily degraded visibility conditions occurring during a brown out.
Regarding Claim 5, Ander discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the marker is a circle with a diameter corresponding to the size of the area of ground (Ander, [0071] “FIG. 12 “the conformal ground awareness landing symbology in conjunction with existing well known aircraft instrument symbology displayed to the pilot via a helmet mounted display” and [0072], [0073] “The landing symbology includes: A circle 220 or other shape representing the safe clearance required for the aircraft” and [0074] “Three dimensional markers 221” Ander teaches the markers (221) make a circle (220) with a diameter corresponding to the size of the area of landing ground;
Regarding Claim 6, Ander discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising generating the marker in response to pilot input or in response to operation of the display (Ander, [0076] The circle 220 and associated markers 221 and 222 can be a complete circle, as illustrated, or may be broken, for example a semi-circle to provide an indication of an entry gate for the pilot, the pilot entering the desired landing area through the open part of the circle 220” Ander teaches for a semi-circle, in response to the desired landing area through the open part of the circle 220, generating markers 221, 222 to complete circle.
Regarding Claim 7, Ander discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the information is information identifying a point of interest in the external environment (Ander, [0125] “Once calculated the desired landing point can be displayed on a map, photograph or a similar representation of the area of interest to assist the aircrew in assessing the suitably of the location for landing” Ander teaches a calculated designed landing point can be displayed on a map representation of the external area of interest to assist the aircrew in assessing the suitably of the location for landing.
Regarding Claim 8, Ander discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the point of interest is a person or object being searched (Ander, [0125] “Once calculated the desired landing point can be displayed on a map, photograph or a similar representation of the area of interest to assist the aircrew in assessing the suitably of the location for landing” Ander teaches the point of interest is a calculated desired land point to assist the aircrew in assessing the suitably of the location for landing.
Regarding Claim 9, Ander discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising saving the information and, optionally, transmitting the information to other devices (Ander, [0126] “The activation arrangement can also include a means to modify a desired landing point, to provide a tactical heading for the rotary wing aircraft, also be capable of storing a desired landing point” Ander teaches an activation arrangement can save (store) the information (a desired landing point) and transmitting (providing) the information (a tactical heading) to other aircraft.
Regarding Claim 10, Ander discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the information is defined as geolocational or positional data (Ander, [0125] “Once calculated the desired landing point can be displayed on a map, photograph or a similar representation of the area of interest to assist the aircrew in assessing the suitably of the location for landing” Ander teaches the information is defined as geolocational a calculated desired landing point, and, optionally, wherein the information is saved with other information relative to the point of interest (Ander, [0126] “The activation arrangement also be capable of storing a desired landing point” Ander teaches the information, a desired landing point, is saved relative to the point (area) of interest.
Regarding Claim 15, Ander discloses a display apparatus for a person in an aircraft (Ander, [0003] “a display arranged to display symbology to the pilot overlaid on a scene viewed by the pilot” Ander teaches a display apparatus for a pilot in an aircraft, including a head worn display and configured to perform according to the method of claim 1 (Ander, [0012] “the pilot viewing the desired landing point through a helmet or head mounted display worn by the pilot” Ander teaches a pilot wears a helmet or HMD to view the desired landing point (performing method).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ander et al. (U.S. 2012/0138759 A1) in view of Lacko et al. (U.S. 2017/0168658 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Ander discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the information defines speed and trajectory to arrive at a predetermined flight position (Ander, [0079] “A display 225, typically in numerical format to indicate the distance between the aircraft and the desired landing point and the time required to reach the desired landing point at the current aircraft speed” Ander teaches a display provides the current aircraft speed and distance/time to arrive at a predetermined flight location.
However, Ander does not explicitly teach the information defines trajectory and optionally wherein the information includes real-time cues to enable the person to maintain, accelerate or decelerate the speed to reach a predefined speed at the predetermined flight position.
Lacko teaches the information defines trajectory (Lacko [0163] The final GUI would use area (gray in this example) defined by constructed lines and the FMS vertical trajectory, as shown in FIG. 21E” Lacko teaches the information defines trajectory (the FMS vertical trajectory, Fig. 21E), and
optionally wherein the information includes real-time cues to enable the person to maintain, decelerate the speed to reach a predefined speed at the predetermined flight position (Lacko, [0063] “In order to provide distance required to decelerate from initial speed to final speed, flight model needs to be provided with information: aircraft configuration” and [0148] “FIG. 14. The final gate (1000ft or 500ft) is depicted on the flight path, a short bar symbol indicates the position where the aircraft will have the final configuration change with the optimum scenario” and [0161] Such cue defines for pilots a zone (in this example grey zone) with following meaning. When the aircraft approaches the beginning of the grey zone (point 1), aircraft needs to increase its drag and decelerate in order to be stabilized” Lacko teaches provide information of a real-time cues (Fig. 14) to decelerate the speed to reach a predefined speed (final speed) at the predetermined flight position (the final gate).
Ander and Lacko are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, system and method for image processing and try to solve similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made for modifying the method of Ander to combine with information of a trajectory (as taught by Lacko) in order to provide information of a trajectory because Lacko can provide the information defines trajectory (the FMS vertical trajectory, Fig. 21E) (Lacko, Fig. 21E, [0163]). Doing so, it allows the crew to fly the most energy efficient (e.g., with the lowest possible costs) and quiet approach while still assuring that the approach is stabilized and safe (Lacko, [0049]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ander et al. (U.S. 2012/0138759 A1) in view of Lacko et al. (U.S. 2017/0168658 A1) and further in view of De Mers et al. (U.S. 2012/0140070 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, the method of claim 11, a combination of Ander and Lacko does not explicitly teach wherein the information is displayed in the form of a ramp.
However, De Mers teaches the information is displayed in the form of a ramp (De Mers, [0038] “FIG. 4, a view of the actual environment ahead of the aircraft on approach to a runway is shown. The actual image 400 comprises, a runway 402, a ramp 408, a terminal building 410, and aircraft 412” De Mers teaches the information is displayed including a ramp 408. Fig. 4.
Ander, Lacko and De Mers are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, system and method for image processing and try to solve similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made for modifying the method of Ander to combine with a ramp (as taught by De Mers) in order to apply a ramp on a display because De Mers can provide the information is displayed including a ramp 408. Fig. 4 (De Mers, Fig. 4, [0038]). Doing so, it may provide a view of the actual environment ahead of the aircraft on approach to a runway for service (De Mers, [0038]).
Claims 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ander et al. (U.S. 2012/0138759 A1) in view of Varga et al. (U.S. 2013/0162632 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, the method of claim 1, Ander does not explicitly teach wherein the information defines terrain features and wherein the display displays a highlighted zone incorporating the terrain features, and optionally wherein the highlighted zone indicates a zone in space that the aircraft should avoid.
However, Varga teaches the information defines terrain features and wherein the display displays a highlighted zone incorporating the terrain features, and optionally wherein the highlighted zone indicates a zone in space that the aircraft should avoid (Varga, [0082] FIG. 3A shows the augmented perception of a pilot view using a HUD360 1 where safe terrain surface 8, cautionary terrain surface 13, and critical terrain surfaces 9 and 10 are identified and highlighted” and [0083] “In FIG. 3B unsafe terrain is highlighted as a critical surface 9 (can be colored red). These surfaces can be highlighted and/or colored in the see-through display view 4 so that it is clear to the pilot which surface needs to be avoided” Varga teaches information defines terrain features as critical or non-critical surfaces and terrains are highlighted and the critical terrain surface is highlighted (colored read) and is clear to the pilot which surface needs to be avoided.
Ander and Varga are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, system and method for image processing and try to solve similar problems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made for modifying the method of Ander to combine with defining terrain features (as taught by Varga) in order to apply the critical terrain surface is the pilot which surface needs to be avoided because Varga can provide information defines terrain features as critical or non-critical surfaces and terrains are highlighted and the critical terrain surface is highlighted (colored read) and is clear to the pilot which surface needs to be avoided (Varga, Fig. 3A, 3B, [0082], [0083]). Doing so, it allows a pilot or user to be more able to adapt in abnormal circumstances where operating components are not functioning optimally (Varga, [0008]).
Regarding Claim 14, the method of claim 13, Ander does not explicitly teach wherein the terrain features are at least one of mountain ridges and valleys.
However, Varga teaches the terrain features are at least one of mountain ridges and valleys (Varga, [0083] Aircraft direction, position, and velocity are also used to help determine if a landscape such as a mountain or a hill” Varga teaches the terrain features are at least one of mountain, ridges (hill).
Ander and Varga are combinable see rationale in claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Lemoine et al. (U.S. 2023/0196931 A1) and He et al. (U.S. 2012/0056759 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOA VU whose telephone number is (571)272-5994. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00- 4:00.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/KHOA VU/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights