DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/983,775 filed on July 20, 2026 in which claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, and 12 were amended and claims 4 and 13 were cancelled.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liberman, US Patent 9,889,947 (hereinafter Liberman) in view of Mead et al., US Publication 2022/0068146 (hereinafter Mead), each cited on the Notice of References Cited dated March 20, 2026.
Regarding claim 1, Liberman discloses a display system for a vehicle, comprising “a display configured to present a dynamic horizontal situation display.” (Liberman col. 7, l. 63-col. 8, l. 3 and Fig. 22). Additionally, Liberman discloses “a processor programmed to receive vehicle data from at least one vehicle sensor, the vehicle data indicating at least one of roll, pitch, and yaw of the vehicle” (Liberman col. 7, ll. 1-19) where the processor obtains roll, pitch, and yaw of the vehicle. Liberman previously disclosed that this data is received from a sensor system. (Liberman col. 2, ll. 27-46). Further, Liberman discloses “present, via the display, at least one ownship cue symbol overlaid on the horizontal situation display” (Liberman col. 3, l. 54-col. 4, l. 6 and Fig. 22) where polygon 200 is the aircraft orientation cue and represents the ownship A/C, making it an ownship cue. This is shown overlaid on the horizontal situation display in Fig. 22. Moreover, Liberman discloses “dynamically update the at least one ownship cue symbol based on at least one of the roll, pitch, and yaw of the vehicle based on the vehicle data to provide visual aids regarding the at least one of roll, pitch, and yaw to a pilot” Liberman col. 3, l. 54-col. 4, l. 6) where polygon 200 is dynamically modified to reflect the roll, yaw, and pitch.
Likewise, Liberman discloses “a window symbol” (Liberman Figs. 22) where an unnumbered window symbol is shown that matches the window symbol of Applicant’s window symbol 234 as shown in present Figs. 20-30D. Liberman also discloses “wherein the ownship cue [is arranged] to represent at least one of the pitch and yaw” (Liberman col. 5, ll. 51-67) where polygon 200 (i.e., the ownship cue, as discussed above) includes a representation of the yaw angle.
Liberman does not appear to explicitly disclose that the window symbol itself is arranged within the ownship cue and is what represents the pitch or yaw and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the ownship cue includes a window symbol arranged within the ownship cue to represent at least one of the pitch and yaw.”
However, Mead discloses an aircraft display system that displays ownship cues “wherein the ownship cue includes a window symbol arranged within the ownship cue to represent at least one of the pitch and yaw” (Mead ¶ 40 and Fig. 3) where aircraft reference symbol 306 (i.e., a window symbol) intersects with pitch ladder scale 320 to indicate the current pitch and is shown in Fig. 3 to be between (i.e., is within) ownship cues 312. The present specification does not appear to explicitly define the term “window symbol” and, therefore, any symbol inside an ownship cue that represents at least one of a pitch and a yaw is a window symbol within the scope of these claims.
Liberman and Mead are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of aircraft display systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Liberman and Mead before him or her to modify the interface of Liberman to include the interface element of Mead.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Liberman teaches the “base device” of an aircraft user interface including an ownship cue and indicators for roll, pitch, and yaw. Further, Mead teaches the “known technique” for including a window arranged within the ownship cue that represents the pitch of the aircraft that is applicable to the base device of Liberman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system because such a modification would merely require the addition of the computer code that renders the display of Mead into the computer code of Liberman that handles the user interface.
Regarding claim 10, it merely recites the method performed by the display of claim 1. The method comprises performing the various functions. The combination of Liberman and Mead comprises performing the same functions. Thus, claim 10 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the combination Liberman and Mead discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 10 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination Liberman and Mead discloses “wherein the ownship cue includes at least one leg having a leg length, wherein the leg length indicates at least one of the roll and pitch” (Liberman col. 5, ll. 16-36) where the length of a side (i.e., a leg) of polygon 200 is used to indicate roll.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the combination Liberman and Mead discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 2 and 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination Liberman and Mead discloses “wherein the at least one leg dynamically rotates according to the yaw” (Liberman col. 5, ll. 51-67) where polygon 200 is depicted at different angles (i.e., rotated) based on the yaw.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liberman in view of Mead, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and in further view of Maji et al., US Patent 11,450,216 (hereinafter Maji), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated March 20, 2026.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the combination Liberman and Mead discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 10 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination Liberman and Mead does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the processor is further programmed to receive location data of a target from at least one environmental sensor; and present, via the display, a warning arc cue overlaid on the horizontal situation display, wherein the warning arc cue forms a semi-circle surrounding the target to provide trajectory feedback to the pilot.”
However, Maji discloses an aircraft display system configured “to receive location data of a target from at least one environmental sensor” (Maji col. 8, l. 60-col. 9, l. 13) where sensor system 14 determines the location of target aircraft 10. Additionally, Maji discloses “present, via the display, a warning arc cue overlaid on the horizontal situation display, wherein the warning arc cue forms a semi-circle surrounding the target to provide trajectory feedback to the pilot” (Maji col. 7, l. 44-67 and Fig. 3, see also col. 13, ll. 20-47) by placing a ring (i.e., two semi-circles) around target aircraft 10. The statement that the warning arc cue is “to provide trajectory feedback to the pilot” is a statement of intended use and not accorded any patentable weight as currently claimed.1
Liberman, Mead, and Maji are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of aircraft display systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Liberman, Mead, and Maji before him or her to modify the display of Liberman to include the warning semi-circle of Maji.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the emphasis provided by such a ring around the target would enhance the safety of the system by increasing the likelihood that the pilot would recognize the target on the display.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al., US Publication 2013/0302008 (hereinafter Kwon) in view of Crouch et al., US Publication 2022/0101734 (hereinafter Crouch), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated March 20, 2026.
Regarding claim 6, Kwon discloses a display system for a vehicle, comprising “a display configured to present a dynamic vehicle display” (Kwon ¶ 5) where the terminal may be a vehicle mounted terminal. Additionally, Kwon discloses “at least one user interface configured to receive driver commands” (Kwon ¶¶ 47, 57) by receiving user input via a “a keypad, a dome switch, a touchpad (e.g., static pressure/capacitance), a jog wheel, and a jog switch” (Kwon ¶ 47) or a “touchscreen” (Kwon ¶ 57) each of which are user interfaces. Because the display may be a vehicle display, any input may come from the driver of the vehicle. Further, Kwon discloses “a processor programmed to receive at least one command from the user interface.” (Kwon ¶ 76). Moreover, Kwon discloses “detect successive instances of a same command” (Kwon ¶¶ 101-102) by recognizing repeated issuances of the same command. Finally, Kwon discloses “update the display to visually indicate a pulse sequence for each successive instance of the same command, wherein the pulse sequence includes a plurality of pulses displayed over time, each corresponding to a detected instance of the same command” (Kwon ¶¶ 99-102, Fig. 5) by disclosing that a pulse sequence is displayed over time, in the form of the arrows shown in Fig. 5.
Although Kwon discloses the use of the display in a vehicle, it does not appear to explicitly disclose its use in an aircraft and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “a display configured to present a dynamic aviation display; at least one user interface configured to receive pilot commands.”
However, Crouch discloses a display system for a vehicle, comprising “a display configured to present a dynamic aviation display.” (Crouch ¶ 7). Additionally, Crouch discloses “at least one user interface configured to receive pilot commands” (Crouch ¶ 79) where a voice interface is configures to receive voice commands from the pilot. Further, Crouch discloses a processor (Crouch ¶ 84) programmed to “receive at least one command from the user interface” (Crouch ¶ 79) where a voice interface receives the pilot command “VHF One One Thirty Three.”
Kwon and Crouch are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle displays.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kwon and Crouch before him or her to modify the vehicle display feedback method of Kwon to include the feedback display method in an aircraft of Crouch.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Kwon differs from the claimed invention by including a generic vehicle display in place of avionic display claimed. Further, Crouch teaches that avionic displays were well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the avionic display of Crouch for the generic vehicle display of Kwon because both are merely vehicle displays.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kwon and Crouch discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kwon and Crouch discloses “wherein the pulse sequence is indicated by an arrow on an XYZ grid, the arrow corresponding to the direction of the command” (Kwon ¶¶ 99-102, Fig. 5) (Kwon ¶¶ 99-102, Fig. 5) by disclosing that a pulse sequence is displayed over time, in the form of the arrows shown in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kwon and Crouch discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kwon and Crouch discloses “wherein the pulse sequence is indicated by a text, the text indicating a number of same commands” (Crouch ¶ 79) where the confirmation banner indicates that the command was received and confirmed, which indicates the same command was received twice (i.e., a number of same commands).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kwon and Crouch discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Kwon and Crouch discloses “wherein the pulse sequence is indicated by a progressive bar, the bar increasing in length based on a number of the same commands” (Crouch ¶ 77, see also Kwon Fig. 5) where the addition of chicklet 216 to the empty bar increases the length of that bar based on the number of second same commands.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 20, 2026, with respect to the objection to the title, the objection to the drawings, the objection to claim 5, the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 7-10) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the title, the objection to the drawings, the objection to claim 5, the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed June 20, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, respectively (Remarks 12-13 and 15-16) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed June 20, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 and 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, respectively, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the contents of which are now incorporated into claim 1, Applicant argues that Mead fails to disclose “wherein the ownship cue includes a window symbol arranged within the ownship cue to represent at least one of the pitch and yaw.” (Remarks 11). Specifically, Applicant argues “Mead does not disclose that the ‘aircraft reference symbol 306’ includes any ‘window symbol arranged within’ the aircraft reference symbol” or “that the ‘pitch ladder scale 320’ is arranged within the ‘aircraft reference symbol 306.’” Instead, Applicant argues, “Mead expressly lists the ‘pitch ladder scale 320’ and the ‘aircraft reference symbol 306’ as separate display elements that are ‘displayed or otherwise rendered overlying the terrain 304.’" (Remarks 11). Applicant then expressly indicates that in the presented arguments, the “aircraft reference symbol 306” is understood as the ownship cue. (Remarks 12). The examiner disagrees.
First, regarding Applicant’s argument that “Mead expressly lists the ‘pitch ladder scale 320’ and the ‘aircraft reference symbol 306’ as separate display elements,” to conclude that Mead fails to teach this limitation, if this logic was adopted then Applicant’s own specification would also fail to provide support for this limitation because it also discloses that the ownship cue and the window symbol are separate display elements. For instance, Figs. 5, 7, 11, 15B, 16B, 18B, 22A, 22B, 23A, and 29 each show the ownship cue without and separate from the window symbol.
Second, regarding Applicant’s argument that “Mead does not disclose that the ‘aircraft reference symbol 306’ includes any ‘window symbol arranged within’ the aircraft reference symbol” or “that the ‘pitch ladder scale 320’ is arranged within the ‘aircraft reference symbol 306,’” this argument is not responsive to the rejection. Contrary to Applicant’s argument, the ownship cue was never mapped to “aircraft reference symbol 320” as argued.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, Applicant argues that this claim is allowable for the same reasons as claim 1. (Remarks 13). Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that Maji fails to disclose “wherein the processor is further programmed to receive location data of a target from at least one environmental sensor; and present, via the display, a warning arc cue overlaid on the horizontal situation display, wherein the warning arc cue forms a semi-circle surrounding the target to provide trajectory feedback to the pilot.” Specifically, Applicant argues “Maji does not disclose or suggest presenting ‘a warning arc cue overlaid on the horizontal situation display’” because “Maji discloses highlighting an area of EVS image data corresponding to target traffic” because “[a]n image-processed area of EVS imaging data is not the claimed "warning arc cue" and is not disclosed as being ‘overlaid on the horizontal situation display.’” (Remarks 14). The examiner disagrees.
Maji explicitly discloses that “a ring” (i.e., two semi-circle arcs) are displayed around “traffic target” aircraft 10. (Maji col. 7, ll. 44-67 and Fig. 3). Additionally, Maji discloses that the purpose of this ring includes uses a “a warning alert” when the ownship is too close to the traffic target, making it a “a warning arc cue.” (Maji col. 13, ll. 20-47). Finally, Maji Fig. 3 that the image is presented from above, making the displayed image a “horizontal situation display.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues that “Maji does not disclose than highlighted area ‘forms a semi-circle surrounding the target.’” (Remarks 14). The examiner disagrees.
Maji explicitly discloses that “a ring” (i.e., two semi-circle arcs) are displayed around “traffic target” aircraft 10. (Maji col. 7, ll. 44-67 and Fig. 3). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues that “the warning arc cue [of claim 5 is]to be presented ‘to provide trajectory feedback to the pilot’”" while “Maji states that ‘[a] display is generated based on the EVS imaging data and the highlighted EVS imaging data.’" (Remarks 14-15).
In response to Applicant's argument that Maji fails to disclose that the cue is “to provide trajectory feedback to the pilot,” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
1 “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Prosecution Insights