DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/983,775 filed on December 17, 2024 in which claims 1-14 were presented for examination.
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 1-14 are pending, of which claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101; claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); claims 1-3, 6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1); and claims 4, 5, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 27, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a) states: “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible” (emphasis added). Thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the recitation of “a number of second same commands” in claim 8 and “a number of the second same commands” in claim 9 lacks antecedent basis in the present specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the various components in Figures 2-32 are small, unfocused and difficult to read and, as a result, lack satisfactory reproduction characteristics under 37 C.F.R. § § 1.84(l). Additionally, these figures appear to be screenshots, which constitute photographs, which are not ordinarily permitted in utility patent applications. See 37 C.F.R. § § 1.84(b)(1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9 refers to a “progressive bar,” which does not appear to be a known term of art. However, the present claim appears to define a “progressive” bar as a “bar increasing in length based on a number of the second same commands.” Therefore, any bar that increases in length based on a number of the second same commands shall be deemed as a “progressive bar” within the scope of the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation ending at line 2 appears to be missing necessary punctuation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1-5 and 10-14, these claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims recite, when considered individually or as a display system and a method for displaying flight data. Therefore, claims 1-5 and 10-14 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the § 101 rejection. Representative claim 1 recites:
1. A display system for a vehicle, comprising:
a display configured to present a dynamic horizontal situation display;
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,
present, via the display, at least one ownship cue symbol overlaid on the horizontal situation display, and
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 roll, pitch, and yaw to a pilot.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation/s constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, within the context of this claim the emphasized region can be performed by pen and paper as a person recognizes the roll, pitch, or yaw of a vehicle. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim/s, as a whole, integrate/s the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A display system for a vehicle, comprising:
a display configured to present a dynamic horizontal situation display;
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,
present, via the display, at least one ownship cue symbol overlaid on the horizontal situation display, and
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 roll, pitch, and yaw to a pilot.
For the following reason/s, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “the display” and “the processor” the examiner submits that these limitations are instructions to “apply it.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Additionally, the limitation of “receive vehicle data from at least one vehicle sensor, the vehicle data indicating at least one of roll, pitch, and yaw of the vehicle” is mere data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Further, the additional limitations that the symbol is “overlaid on the horizontal situation display” and that the updating is “based on the vehicle data” is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Finally, the statement that the updating is “to provide the visual aids regarding roll, pitch, and yaw to a pilot” is a statement of intended use and is not accorded any patentable weight.
In particular, the steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general of displaying data).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the processor and display amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receive vehicle data from at least one vehicle sensor, the vehicle data indicating at least one of roll, pitch, and yaw of the vehicle” is well understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Liberman, US Patent 9,889,947, as discussed below.
Further, the additional limitations that the symbol is “overlaid on the horizontal situation display” and that the updating is “based on the vehicle data” is also well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Liberman, US Patent 9,889,947, as discussed below. Finally, the statement that the updating is “to provide the visual aids regarding roll, pitch, and yaw to a pilot” is a statement of intended use and is not accorded any patentable weight.
Hence, claims 1 and 10 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 11-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite additional display characteristics. Each of the further limitations expound upon the mental process and do not recite additional elements integrating the mental process into a practical application or additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 and 11-14 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-5 and 10-14 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 6-9, these claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims recite, when considered individually or as a whole, a display system for a vehicle. Therefore, claims 6-9 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 6 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the § 101 rejection. Representative claim 6 recites:
6. A display system for a vehicle, comprising:
a display configured to present a dynamic aviation display;
at least one user interface configured to receive pilot commands;
a processor programmed to
receive at least one command from the user interface,
determine if a second and subsequent same command was received, and
update the display to visually indicate a pulse sequence in response to receiving a second same command.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, determining if a second and subsequent same command was received in the context of this claim encompasses a process that a human can perform while watching another human. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claims, as a whole, integrate the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
6. A display system for a vehicle, comprising:
a display configured to present a dynamic aviation display;
at least one user interface configured to receive pilot commands;
a processor programmed to
receive at least one command from the user interface,
determine if a second and subsequent same command was received, and
update the display to visually indicate a pulse sequence in response to receiving a second same command.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the “display,” the “user interface,” and the “processor,” the examiner submits that these limitations are instructions to “apply it.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Regarding the additional limitation of receiving at least one command from the user interface, the examiner submits that this limitation is mere data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Regarding the additional limitation of updating the display to visually indicate a pulse sequence in response to receiving the second same command, the examiner submits that this is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
In particular, these elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying data).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Accordingly, the additional limitations does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 6 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the display, user interface, and processor amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
And as discussed above, the additional limitation of receiving a command from the user interface is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Crouch et al., US Publication 2022/0101734, as discussed below.
And as discussed above, the additional limitations of updating the display is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Crouch et al., US Publication 2022/0101734, as discussed below.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim7-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite additional insignificant extra solution activities related to the mental process. Each of the further limitations expound upon the mental process and do not recite additional elements integrating the mental process into a practical application or additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, dependent claims 7-9 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 6-9 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, these claims include the limitations “receive vehicle data from at least one vehicle sensor, the vehicle data indicating at least one of roll, pitch, and yaw of the vehicle” and “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 roll, pitch, and yaw to a pilot,” or similar. (Emphasis added).
As can be seen in the emphasized portions above, the system and method only requires receiving “at least one of” roll, pitch or yaw, but later requires displaying a cue that provides information based on all three of roll, pitch, and yaw. Thus, these claims allow for a situation in which no data is received on one of the characteristics but is still, somehow, displayed.
Therefore, the examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of the present invention, rendering it indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the examiner shall interpret these limitations as “receive vehicle data from at least one vehicle sensor, the vehicle data indicating at least one of roll, pitch, and yaw of the vehicle” and “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 roll, pitch, and yaw to a pilot.”
Regarding claims 2-5 and 11-14, these claims depend from one of the above claims and, therefore, inherit the rejection of that claim.
Regarding claim 6, this claim refers to “a second and subsequent same command” at line 6 and “a second same command” at line 8. These are subject to two, mutually exclusive interpretations.
First, this may be interpreted as a typographical error and that both should refer to the same command.
Second, due to the alternate wording, these may be interpreted to refer to two different “same commands.”
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See also Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB 2017) (precedential) (affirming the holding in Ex parte Miyazaki).
Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Regarding claims 7-9, each of these claims depends from claim 6 above and, therefore, inherits the rejection of that claim.
Regarding claims 6-9, these claims refer to a “pulse sequence.” This does not appear to be a known term of art as used in the context of this claim, nor does the present specification define this term. Based on the examiner’s research a pulse sequence appears to be understood by those in the aviation industry to be a sequence of pulses provided by some force, such as electricity, light, or magnetism, that are used to measure something, such as distance. (Google Search Results for “aircraft pulse sequence”, performed February 24, 2026, Pages 1-5). The only discussion of “pulses” in the present specification discuses pulses as “commands” and not sequences. (Spec. ¶¶ 110-111). Additionally, the specification references Fig. 31 and 32, but as discussed above, these figures are not legible and, therefore, cannot be used to determine the meaning of a “pulse sequence.” Therefore, the examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of this term, rendering it indefinite.
For purposes of examination, a “pulse sequence” shall be interpreted as any user interface response to receiving a command.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liberman, US Patent 9,889,947 (hereinafter Liberman).
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. Finally, 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 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.
Regarding claim 10, it merely recites the method performed by the display of claim 1. The method comprises performing the various functions. Liberman 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, Liberman discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 10 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Liberman 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, Liberman discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 2 and 12 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Liberman 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 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crouch et al., US Publication 2022/0101734 (hereinafter Crouch).
Regarding claim 6, 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.” Moreover, Crouch discloses “determine if a second and subsequent same command was received” (Crouch ¶ 79) where the pilot selects the second chiclet icon created as a result of his voice command, meaning that the selection is a “same command” that is received. Finally, Crouch discloses “update the display to visually indicate a pulse sequence in response to receiving a second same command” (Crouch ¶ 79) where confirmation banner 214 indicates that the command was received and confirmed.
Regarding claim 8, Crouch discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Crouch discloses “wherein the pulse sequence is indicated by a text, the text indicating a number of second 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 second same commands).
Regarding claim 9, Crouch discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Crouch discloses “wherein the pulse sequence is indicated by a progressive bar, the bar increasing in length based on a number of the second same commands” (Crouch ¶ 77) where the addition of chicklet 216 to the empty bar increases the length of that bar based on the number of second same commands.
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 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liberman in view of Mead et al., US Publication 2022/0068146 (hereinafter Mead).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Liberman discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 10 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Liberman 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 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.
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.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liberman in view of Maji et al., US Patent 11,450,216 (hereinafter Maji).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Liberman discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 10 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Liberman 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) 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 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 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch in view of Sitnikov, US Publication 2014/0113721 (hereinafter Sitnikov).
Regarding claim 7, Crouch discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Crouch does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the pulse sequence is indicated by an arrow on an XYZ grid, the arrow corresponding to the direction of the command.
However, Sitnikov discloses a flight interface including a user interface element in the form of an arrow on an XYZ grid (Sitnikov ¶ 57) that indicates the direction of travel as commands by a user. (Sitnikov ¶ 49).
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Sitnikov was combined with Crouch, the travel command of Sitnikov would occur after confirmation as taught by Crouch. Therefore, the combination of Crouch and Sitnikov at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “wherein the pulse sequence is indicated by an arrow on an XYZ grid, the arrow corresponding to the direction of the command,” rendering it obvious.
Crouch and Sitnikov are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of aircraft user interfaces.
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 Crouch and Sitnikov before him or her to modify the interface of Crouch to include the arrow of Sitnikov.
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). Crouch teaches the “base device” for an aircraft display interface. Further, Sitnikov teaches the “known technique” for displaying an arrow in response to receiving a command on an aircraft user interface that is applicable to the base device of Crouch. 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 merely requires the addition of computer code which is with the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art..
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Wang et al., US Publication 2019/0096270, A user interface for displaying roll, pitch, and yaw information.
Lawson, US Publication 2023/0415911, A user interface for displaying roll, pitch, and yaw information.
List et al., US Publication 2024/0124152, A user interface for displaying roll, pitch, and yaw information.
Courtin et al., US Publication 2024/0271963, A user interface for displaying roll, pitch, and yaw information.
He et al., US Publication 2024/0355214, A user interface for displaying roll, pitch, and yaw information.
Shamasundar, US Publication 2024/0361894, A user interface for displaying roll, pitch, and yaw information.
Zwiener et al., US Publication 2025/0146839, A user interface for displaying roll, pitch, and yaw information.
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).