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 Objections
Claim 1 recites “transmit, in the second time period, the second GUI to second display device”. The examiner suggests the following amendment: “transmit, in the second time period, the second GUI to the second display device”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 12, 15-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dame et al. (Pub. No. 2017/0134786), in view of Mohr et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0075871).
Regarding claim 1, Dame discloses an in-flight entertainment and communications (IFEC) system for displaying celestial bodies in an aircraft (See par. 1), the IFEC system comprising:
a database storing images and/or videos of celestial bodies (Pars. 18-19 and 24 describe a content database configured to store images of celestial objects);
display devices in the aircraft (Fig. 2A shows a plurality of display screens 241-244); and
a processor operably coupled to the database and the display devices (Display server 235 in Fig. 2A inherently has a processor), wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain a first set of flight data from the aircraft (Par. 24 describes obtaining a current location of the aircraft, and par. 28 describes obtaining the aircraft’s flight trajectory which includes “information related to the flight schedule, orientation, and/or direction of the aircraft” and “information from the pre-determined flight plan associated with the aircraft and/or the rotations and position of the earth. The rotation and position of the earth relative to the flight path may provide the exact or close to exact location of the aircraft during the flight path”),
generate, in a first time period, a first (Par. 16: “a system that receives content associated with the flight trajectory, stores the content, obtains the location of the aircraft, and selects a representative subset of the stored content to be displayed or rendered to passengers in-flight is preferred… The flight trajectory may include information related to the aircraft's flight plan and also information related to the rotation and position of the earth”. In particular, the first subset of images, including celestial objects, is displayed on interior surfaces (e.g. ceiling) or display screens (e.g. screens 241-244) based on obtained flight data, such as the aircraft’s current location, direction, and orientation. It could be said that the first subset of images is also based on a first position of a first display screen (e.g. display screen 241 in Fig. 2A) because this position is tied to the position of the aircraft. Furthermore, par. 6 discloses: “When in-flight, the content may be displayed on at least one interior surface in the aircraft. The content may continue to be updated, in real-time, based on changes to the location of the aircraft”. This implies that the first subset of images is also based on a first time period (e.g. the current time period) because real-time updating suggests that image content is refreshed after a predefined period of time (e.g. every 10 minutes)),
transmit, in the first time period, the first (See par. 29),
obtain a second set of flight data from the aircraft; generate, in a second time period after the first time period, a second (As explained earlier, Dame discloses that the displayed images of celestial objects continue to be updated in real-time. This implies that at a second time period (e.g. 10 minutes later), a second subset of images is obtained from the server and displayed on the display screens (e.g. display screen 242, which is being interpreted as the second display device). The second subset of images is selected based on the location of the moving aircraft at the second time period (second set of flight data). Since the position of the display screen 242 at the second time period is tied to the aircraft’s position at the second time period (for examining purposes, it is being interpreted as the second position of the display screen 242), it could be said that the second subset of images is also based on a second position of a second display device. Dame further discloses in par. 33 that “Synthetic content may be presented on top of the images that are already presented to the passengers or in addition to the images already presented… For example, if a second aircraft is flying above the aircraft, the display screens may be updated with image(s) of the second aircraft on top of the images that are presently displayed. The image(s) of the second aircraft may be referred to as the synthetic content”. Thus, if a second aircraft is flying above the aircraft during the second time period, the image(s) of the second aircraft can be presented on top of the images of the celestial objects that are already presented. As a result, it could be said that the second subset of images is arranged and/or modified in a different manner than the first subset of images).
Dame, however, does not explicitly disclose a first GUI that includes the first subset of images and a second GUI that includes the second subset of images.
In the same field of in-flight entertainment and communication, Mohr teaches providing an interactive map for passengers in a commercial passenger vehicle wherein the interactive map is included in a GUI that allows a user to select different map features, e.g. weather, events, and deals (See Figs. 6A-6C and pars. 37-38).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the GUI taught by Mohr into Dame to allow a user to select different map features.
Regarding claim 2, Dame in view of Mohr teaches the IFEC system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first or second display device comprises either a projector configured to project the first GUI and the second GUI onto a ceiling of the aircraft or a screen on the ceiling of the aircraft (Dame, par. 33: “FIG. 3A illustrates an example of the preferred embodiment where real-time sky images (or a moving map of celestial images) 305 is displayed on the ceiling panels inside an airplane 300”).
Regarding claim 3, Dame in view of Mohr teaches the IFEC system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate the first GUI further based on a cabin class associated with at least one of the first or second display device (See Dame, pars. 35 and 39).
Regarding claim 6, Dame in view of Mohr teaches the IFEC system of claim 1, wherein the first set of flight data includes an indication that the aircraft is at a first position along a flight route, and wherein the second set of flight data includes an indication that the aircraft is at a second position along the flight route and different from the first position (Dame, par. 33: “The images 305 presented here in FIG. 3 may be based on the current location of the aircraft. The images 305 may represent images of a night sky view including stars, moon, and/or planets. The images 305 may also be updated or refreshed continuously due to any changes of the aircraft's position while in-flight”).
Regarding claim 7, Dame in view of Mohr teaches the IFEC system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate the first GUI by retrieving the first GUI from the database, and wherein the processor is configured to generate the second GUI by retrieving the second GUI from the database (Dame, par. 33: “In the preferred embodiment, the passengers of an aircraft may be presented with a subset of the one or more images that were previously downloaded and stored in the server. The images 305 presented here in FIG. 3 may be based on the current location of the aircraft”).
Regarding claim 8, Dame in view of Mohr teaches the IFEC system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate each of the first GUI and the second GUI based on the images and/or videos of celestial bodies stored on the database (In Dame, the first and second subsets of images of the celestial objects are stored in the content database and retrieved according to the aircraft’s current location).
Claims 12, 15 and 16 recite similar limitations as respective claims 1, 7 and 8, but they are directed to a method. Since Dame also discloses such a method (See Claim 1, for example), these claims could be rejected under the same rationales set forth in the rejections of their respective claims.
Regarding claim 17, Dame in view of Mohr teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising:
receiving a user input selecting an event
generating, in a third time period after the second time period, a third GUI including one or more images and/or videos of the selected event; and
transmitting, in the third time period, the third GUI to a third display device in the aircraft (Fig. 6B of Mohr and the associated description describes receiving a user input selecting an “Events” button, and generating a map showing the location and time of upcoming events as a result).
In view of Mohr’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Dame by incorporating events such as a rocket launch, a sunrise, a sunset, a solar eclipse, or a lunar eclipse into the events map to inform a user of upcoming events related to the celestial objects.
Claim 20 recite similar limitations as claim 1, but it is directed to a computer readable medium. Since Dame discloses in par. 41 that “the terms “computer” and “processor” both refer to devices comprising a processing unit (e.g., a central processing unit) and some form of memory (i.e., computer-readable medium) for storing a program which is readable by the processing unit”, claim 20 could be rejected under the same rationale set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dame in view of Mohr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khafizova (Pat. No. US 10,346,016).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Dame in view of Mohr teaches the IFEC system of claims 1 and 4 respectively, wherein at least one of the first or second display device includes
a second GUI portion including a view of the sky from the aircraft and displayable on the second screen portion (See Dame, Figs. 3A-3B and pars. 33-34);
Dame in view of Mohr, however, does not teach a first GUI portion and a third GUI portion as recited in claim 5.
In the same field of map rendering, Khafizova teaches displaying an enlarged map region nested within another map region (See Fig. 3B and col. 7, lines 30-43). The enlarged map region 308b could be interpreted as a first GUI portion that includes an enlarged image and displayable on a first screen portion. On the other hand, the map region 310 could be interpreted as a third GUI portion that includes a plurality of objects (streets, cities, etc.) and one or more overlays identifying one or more of the plurality of objects (labels identifying the streets, cities, etc.), and displayable on a third screen portion.
In light of Khafizova’s teaching of nested maps, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Dame by displaying, next to the second GUI portion, a third GUI portion that includes graphics rendering of the celestial objects, each having a label identifying its name. When the user selects a particular celestial object, a first GUI portion would be displayed within the third GUI portion and include an enlarged image of the selected celestial object. The motivation would have been to allow the user to see an enlarged version of the selected celestial object and see the rest of the celestial objects visible so that they can easily relate the celestial objects (Khafizova, col. 7, lines 16-20).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dame in view of Mohr as applied to respective claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Mondragon et al. (Pub. No. 2013/0063340).
Regarding claim 9, Dame in view of Mohr teaches the IFEC system of claim 1,
In the same field of IFEC, Mondragon teaches an in-flight entertainment system comprising a display and a camera configured to track eye movement of a passenger to determine a location on the display screen where the passenger’s eyes are focused on, and based on the location, the system can increase the size of a user selectable indicia (See par. 70).
In light of Mondragon’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an eye-tracking camera into the IFEC system of Dame such that when tracked eye movement from the camera is received in a third time period after the second time period, the IFEC system would generate a location-based third GUI according to where the user is looking at on a third display screen (e.g. display screen 243), wherein the third GUI would have the size of a user selectable indicia (e.g. buttons “Weather”, “Events”, or “Deals”) increase when it is determined that user is looking at a location that appears to be close but not within the area of the user selectable indicia. The motivation would have been to facilitate the user’s selection based on their gaze.
Claim 18 recite similar limitations as claim 9, but it is directed to a method. Since Dame also discloses such a method (See Claim 1, for example), claim 18 could be rejected under the same rationale set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dame in view of Mohr as applied to respective claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Mondragon et al. (Pub. No. 2013/0066526; “Mondragon 2” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10, Dame in view of Mohr teaches the IFEC system of claim 1,
In the same field of IFEC, Mondragon 2 teaches an in-flight entertainment system comprising a display and a camera configured to track body movement of a passenger, and based on a track location where the passenger is pointing, the in-flight entertainment system would select a menu item or other selectable object on a display (See par. 56).
In light of Mondragon 2’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an body movement-tracking camera into the IFEC system of Dame such that when body movement from the camera is received in a third time period after the second time period, the IFEC system would generate a location-based third GUI according to where the user is pointing to on a third display screen (e.g. display screen 243), wherein the third GUI would select a menu item (e.g. buttons “Weather”, “Events”, or “Deals”) or a celestial object when it is determined that user is pointing to the menu item or celestial object. The motivation would have been to facilitate the user’s selection based on their gesture.
Claim 19 recite similar limitations as claim 10, but it is directed to a method. Since Dame also discloses such a method (See Claim 1, for example), claim 19 could be rejected under the same rationale set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Claim(s) 11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dame in view of Mohr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Curtright (Pat. No. US 6,314,370).
Regarding claim 11, Dame in view of Mohr teaches the IFEC system of claim 1, wherein the first set of flight data includes An improved image display system configured to receive and display content, including one or more images and/or parametric data, associated with the flight trajectory of an aircraft is described herein”).
Dame in view of Mohr, however, does not disclose that in addition to the flight trajectory, the flight data also includes GPS data or altitude data.
In the same field of in-flight map display, Curtright teaches using an altimeter or a GPS receiver to determine current altitude of a moving vehicle, e.g. an aircraft (Col. 2, lines 54-63).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Dame by including, in the display server, altitude data obtained from an altimeter or GPS receiver, as taught by Curtright. The motivation would have been to display the moving map from a desired perspective (Curtright, col. 2, lines 60-63).
Regarding claim 13, Dame in view of Mohr teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the first set of flight data includes a current position Based on the location of the aircraft, the image display system selects a subset of the one or more stored images and displays the subset of the one or more images to at least one interior surface in the aircraft such that passengers may experience the imagery of the open sky or earth while in-flight”).
Dame in view of Mohr, however, does not disclose that the flight data also includes altitude data, and generating the first GUI comprises arranging or modifying the one or more images of celestial bodies to correspond to a perspective of the celestial bodies from the current position and the current altitude of the aircraft.
In the same field of in-flight map display, Curtright teaches using an altimeter or a GPS receiver to determine current altitude of a moving vehicle, e.g. an aircraft (Col. 2, lines 54-63). Curtright further discloses arranging a map image to correspond to a perspective of the map image from the current position and the current altitude of the aircraft (See Claim 22).
In light of Curtright’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Dame by including, in the display server, altitude data obtained from an altimeter or GPS receiver, and generating the first GUI by arranging images of the celestial objects to correspond to a perspective of the celestial objects from the current position and the current altitude of the aircraft. The motivation would have been to present images of the celestial objects to the passengers as realistic as possible.
Regarding claim 14, Dame in view of Mohr teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the first set of flight data includes a first position of the aircraft at a first time, wherein the second set of flight data includes a second position of the aircraft at a second time after the first time, and wherein generating the second GUI comprises updating the first GUI to correspond to a
Dame in view of Mohr, however, does not disclose that the view of the celestial objects corresponds to a perspective of the celestial objects as seen from the second position of the aircraft at the second time.
In the same field of in-flight map display, Curtright discloses arranging a map image to correspond to a perspective of the map image from the current position and the current altitude of an aircraft (See Col. 2, lines 54-63, and Claim 22).
In light of Curtright’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Dame by including, in the display server, altitude data obtained from an altimeter or GPS receiver, and generating the second GUI by updating the first GUI to correspond to a perspective of the celestial bodies from the second position of the aircraft at the second time. The motivation would have been to present images of the celestial objects to the passengers as realistic as possible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1591. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm EST.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/PHONG X NGUYEN/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights