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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 17, 2025 is considered by
the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “exterior light projectors configured to project” in claims 27 and 29, and “interior light projectors configured to project” in claims 37 and 39.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 27, 29, 37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 27 and 37, “exterior light projectors” is not described in the Specification as it fails to describe the structure of each unit as stated in the 112(f) claim interpretation. As a result it is unclear what structure is intended to be used for performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 29 and 39, “interior light projectors” is not described in the Specification as it fails to describe the structure of each unit as stated in the 112(f) claim interpretation. As a result it is unclear what structure is intended to be used for performing the claimed function.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “exterior light projectors configured to project” in claims 27 and 37 and “interior light projectors configured to project” in claims 29 and 39 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For the purposes of the prior art rejections below, the term “exterior light projector” has been interpreted as “video projector”, and the term “interior light projector” has been interpreted as “projector”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 21 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed
toward an abstract idea with significantly more.
Regarding claim 21,
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claim 21 is directed toward a system with processors and memory devices which stores instructions for the purposes of executing operations which consists of the processes of accessing passenger data indicative of passenger characteristics which are indicative of passenger itinerary information for an aircraft, computing sensory cues comprising a visual cue or a sound for projection by output devices of the aircraft, and activating output devices to project the sensory cues (a machine). Therefore, claim 21 is 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 21 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 21 recites:
A computing system, comprising:
one or more processors;
and one or more memory devices, the one or more memory devices storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising:
accessing passenger data indicative of one or more passenger characteristics, the one or more passenger characteristics comprising data indicative of passenger itinerary information for an aircraft;
based on the passenger data, computing one or more sensory cues for projection by one or more output devices of the aircraft, wherein the one or more sensory cues comprise at least one of a visual cue or a sound indicative of the one or more passenger characteristics;
and activating the one or more output devices to project the one or more sensory cues.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process”
because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “accessing”, “computing”, and “activating”, in the context of this claim encompasses a person (pilot) looking at information collected and forming a simple judgment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at 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, as a whole, integrates the abstract into the 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, a computing system, processor, and memory are provided for the purpose of implementing the abstract ideas. However, these features are mere computers and do not give practical application to the accessing, computing, and activating steps.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent claim 21 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, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Dependent claim 23 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 23 uses the limitation of “activating the plurality of light projectors such that the plurality of light projectors project the visual cue onto a parking area for the aircraft or onto the aircraft”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 31,
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claim 31 is directed toward a method which involves the process of accessing passenger data via computing devices indicative of passenger characteristics which are indicative of passenger itinerary information for an aircraft, computing sensory cues comprising a visual cue or a sound for projection by output devices of the aircraft, and activating output devices to project the sensory cues (a process). Therefore, claim 31 is 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 31 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 31 recites:
A method, comprising:
accessing, via one or more computing devices, passenger data indicative of one or more passenger characteristics, the one or more passenger characteristics comprising data indicative of passenger itinerary information for an aircraft;
computing, via the one or more computing devices, one or more sensory cues for projection by one or more output devices of the aircraft based on the passenger data, wherein the one or more sensory cues comprise at least one of a visual cue or a sound indicative of the one or more passenger characteristics;
and activating the one or more output devices to project the one or more sensory cues.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process”
because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “accessing”, “computing”, and “activating”, in the context of this claim encompasses a person (pilot) looking at information collected and forming a simple judgment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at 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, as a whole, integrates the abstract into the 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, a computing device is provided for the purpose of implementing the abstract ideas. However, this features is a mere computer and does not give practical application to the accessing, computing, and activating steps.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent claim 31 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, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Dependent claim 33 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 33 uses the limitation of “and activating the one or more output devices comprises activating the plurality of light projectors such that the plurality of light projectors project the visual cue onto a parking area for the aircraft or onto the aircraft”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 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.
For the purposes of the prior art rejections below:
The term “interior light projector” has been interpreted to be a projector.
The term “exterior light projector” has been interpreted to be a video projector.
Claims 21-24 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shannon (U.S. Patent No. 10593217) in view of McNair, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10890926).
Regarding claim 21, Shannon teaches: A computing system, comprising: one or more processors; (Fig. 7, Col. 22, lines 33-38: "…processors (701) and (801) [processors] may be any programmable microprocessor, microcomputer or multiple processor chip or chips that can be configured by software instructions (applications) to perform a variety of functions, including the functions of the various embodiments described above [system consisting of processors].)
and one or more memory devices, the one or more memory devices storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: (Fig. 7, Col. 22, lines 42-46: "…internal memory [memory devices] […] processors (701) and (801) may include internal memory sufficient to store the application software instructions [storing instructions].")
accessing passenger data indicative of one or more passenger characteristics, the one or more passenger characteristics comprising data indicative of passenger itinerary information for an aircraft (Col. 19, lines 54-60: "the processor of the mobility service provider (140) may send a flight request to the processor of the vertiport management platform (106) [accessing passenger data]. The flight request may include information related to the requested trip, such as the desired starting and arrival destination, the user's current location, the number of passengers, estimated weights of passengers and bags or other gear, etc [passenger characteristics indicative of passenger itinerary info for aircraft].").
Shannon does not teach based on the passenger data, computing one or more sensory cues for projection by one or more output devices of the aircraft, wherein the one or more sensory cues comprise at least one of a visual cue or a sound indicative of the one or more passenger characteristics; and activating the one or more output devices to project the one or more sensory cues.
In a similar field of endeavor (identification of aircraft take-off and landing events), McNair, et al. teaches: based on the passenger data, computing one or more sensory cues for projection by one or more output devices of the aircraft, wherein the one or more sensory cues comprise at least one of a visual cue or a sound indicative of the one or more passenger characteristics; (Col. 5, lines 17-20: "In a landing context, the instruction set can further indicate, for example, an orientation of the aircraft (100) within the region (160), a direction or location for passenger disembarkation or cargo unloading [passenger characteristics]" ; Col. 5, lines 25-29: "…the flight control system (180) of the aircraft (100), in conjunction with sensors on the aircraft (100), can detect the emission states and thereby derive the instruction set [computing sensory cues]." ; Col. 4, line 65 to Col. 5, lines 1-6: "…the ground control system (190) can establish a set of emission states for the emitters (114) and individually control the emitters (114) to produce emissions in correspondence to the emission states. The emission states can include a state in which no emission is produced, states in which, for example, light of a specific color, hue and/or brightness is produced, states in which light of a specific color, hue and/or brightness is configurably flashed (e.g., blinking states) and/or other states [visual cues - sensory cues].").
and activating the one or more output devices to project the one or more sensory cues (Col. 4, line 65 to Col. 5, line 1: "…the ground control system (190) can establish a set of emission states for the emitters (114) and individually control the emitters (114) to produce emissions in correspondence to the emission states [activating output devices to project sensory cues].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shannon to include the teaching of McNair, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the execution of the detection of aircraft take-off and landing events (McNair, et al. Col. 1, lines 46-59).
Regarding claim 22, Shannon and McNair, et al. remain as applied to claim 21, and in a further embodiment, teach: The computing system of claim 21, wherein each of the one or more sensory cues comprise at least one of a visual cue or an auditory cue (McNair, et al. Col. 11, lines 3-6: "…the emitters (514(1)), (514(2)) and (514(3)) can convey an instruction set for a take-off event to be executed by the aircraft (500) [visual cue - light emitters].").
Regarding claim 23, Shannon and McNair, et al. remain as applied to claim 22, and in a further embodiment, teach: The computing system of claim 22, wherein: the one or more output devices comprises a plurality of light projectors; (McNair, et al. Col. 11, lines 3-6: "…the emitters (514(1)), (514(2)) and (514(3)) can convey an instruction set for a take-off event to be executed by the aircraft (500) [plurality of light projectors]")
the visual cue comprises an activation pattern of the plurality of light projectors; (McNair, et al. Col. 14, lines 6-9: "In one aspect, the emitters 514(1), 514(2) and 514(3) can define a region within the landing area for the take-off event, such that the region is at least partially bound, or demarcated, by the emitters 514(1), 514(2) and 514(3) [activation pattern with respect to plurality of light projectors].")
and activating the one or more output devices comprises activating the plurality of light projectors such that the plurality of light projectors project the visual cue onto a parking area for the aircraft or onto the aircraft (McNair, et al. Col. 4, line 65 to Col. 5, line 1: "…the ground control system (190) can establish a set of emission states for the emitters (114) and individually control the emitters (114) to produce emissions in correspondence to the emission states [activating output devices to project sensory cues]." ; McNair, et al. Col. 5, lines 17-20: "In a landing context, the instruction set can further indicate, for example, an orientation of the aircraft (100) within the region (160), a direction or location for passenger disembarkation or cargo unloading [visual cues onto a parking area for aircraft]").
Regarding claim 24, Shannon and McNair, et al. remain as applied to claim 23, and in a further embodiment, teach: The computing system of claim 23, wherein the visual cue comprises a color indicative of the one or more passenger characteristics (McNair, et al. Col. 5, lines 17-20: "In a landing context, the instruction set can further indicate, for example, an orientation of the aircraft (100) within the region (160), a direction or location for passenger disembarkation or cargo unloading [passenger characteristics]" ; McNair, et al. Col. 5, lines 25-29: "…the flight control system (180) of the aircraft (100), in conjunction with sensors on the aircraft (100), can detect the emission states and thereby derive the instruction set [computing sensory cues]." ; McNair, et al. Col. 4, line 65 to Col. 5, lines 1-6: "…the ground control system (190) can establish a set of emission states for the emitters (114) and individually control the emitters (114) to produce emissions in correspondence to the emission states. The emission states can include […] light of a specific color, hue and/or brightness is produced, states in which light of a specific color, hue and/or brightness is configurably flashed (e.g., blinking states) and/or other states [visual cue comprises color].").
Regarding claim 31, Shannon teaches: A method, comprising: accessing, via one or more computing devices, passenger data indicative of one or more passenger characteristics, the one or more passenger characteristics comprising data indicative of passenger itinerary information for an aircraft (Block (404), Col. 16, lines 61-65: "In block (404), the vertiport management platform may determine requested flights. Requested flights may be flight requests for transportation of one or more passengers from a starting location, such as a starting vertiport, starting address, etc. to a destination location, such as an arrival vertiport, arrival address, etc [passenger characteristics comprising itinerary info for aircraft].").
Shannon does not teach computing, via the one or more computing devices, one or more sensory cues for projection by one or more output devices of the aircraft based on the passenger data, wherein the one or more sensory cues comprise at least one of a visual cue or a sound indicative of the one or more passenger characteristics; and activating the one or more output devices to project the one or more sensory cues.
In a similar field of endeavor (identification of aircraft take-off and landing events), McNair, et al. teaches: computing, via the one or more computing devices, one or more sensory cues for projection by one or more output devices of the aircraft based on the passenger data, wherein the one or more sensory cues comprise at least one of a visual cue or a sound indicative of the one or more passenger characteristics; (Col. 5, lines 17-20: "In a landing context, the instruction set can further indicate, for example, an orientation of the aircraft (100) within the region (160), a direction or location for passenger disembarkation or cargo unloading [passenger characteristics]" ; Block (610), Col. 12, lines 27-33: At block (610), the landing area controller (202) transforms the instruction sets into emission states of the emitters (214). In general, the block (610) can include translating, converting and/or mapping the instruction sets to the emission states as described with respect to FIG. 2, where the emission states can correspond to states that are previously established and stored in the configurations (218) [computing sensory cues]." ; Col. 4, line 65 to Col. 5, lines 1-6: "…the ground control system (190) can establish a set of emission states for the emitters (114) and individually control the emitters (114) to produce emissions in correspondence to the emission states. The emission states can include a state in which no emission is produced, states in which, for example, light of a specific color, hue and/or brightness is produced, states in which light of a specific color, hue and/or brightness is configurably flashed (e.g., blinking states) and/or other states [visual cues - sensory cues].")
and activating the one or more output devices to project the one or more sensory cues (Block (612), Col. 12, lines 34-36: "At block (612), the landing area controller (202) causes the emitters (214) to produce emissions in correspondence to the emission states [activating output devices to project sensory cues].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shannon to include the teaching of McNair, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the execution of the detection of aircraft take-off and landing events (McNair, et al. Col. 1, lines 46-59).
Regarding claim 32, Shannon and McNair, et al. remain as applied to claim 31, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 31, wherein each of the one or more sensory cues comprise at least one of a visual cue or an auditory cue (McNair, et al. Col. 11, lines 3-6: "…the emitters (514(1)), (514(2)) and (514(3)) can convey an instruction set for a take-off event to be executed by the aircraft (500) [visual cue - light emitters].").
Regarding claim 33, Shannon and McNair, et al. remain as applied to claim 32, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 32, wherein: the one or more output devices comprises a plurality of light projectors; (McNair, et al. Col. 11, lines 3-6: "…the emitters (514(1)), (514(2)) and (514(3)) can convey an instruction set for a take-off event to be executed by the aircraft (500) [plurality of light projectors]")
the visual cue comprises an activation pattern of the plurality of light projectors; (McNair, et al. Col. 14, lines 6-9: "…the emitters 514(1), 514(2) and 514(3) can define a region within the landing area for the take-off event, such that the region is at least partially bound, or demarcated, by the emitters 514(1), 514(2) and 514(3) [activation pattern with respect to plurality of light projectors].")
and activating the one or more output devices comprises activating the plurality of light projectors such that the plurality of light projectors project the visual cue onto a parking area for the aircraft or onto the aircraft (McNair, et al. Block (612), Col. 12, lines 34-36: "At block (612), the landing area controller (202) causes the emitters (214) to produce emissions in correspondence to the emission states [activating output devices to project sensory cues]." ; McNair, et al. Col. 5, lines 17-20: "In a landing context, the instruction set can further indicate, for example, an orientation of the aircraft (100) within the region (160), a direction or location for passenger disembarkation or cargo unloading [visual cues onto a parking area for aircraft]").
Regarding claim 34, Shannon and McNair, et al. remain as applied to claim 33, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 33, wherein the visual cue comprises a color indicative of the one or more passenger characteristics (McNair, et al. Col. 5, lines 17-20: "In a landing context, the instruction set can further indicate, for example, an orientation of the aircraft (100) within the region (160), a direction or location for passenger disembarkation or cargo unloading [passenger characteristics]" ; McNair, et al. Block (610), Col. 12, lines 27-33: At block (610), the landing area controller (202) transforms the instruction sets into emission states of the emitters (214). In general, the block (610) can include translating, converting and/or mapping the instruction sets to the emission states as described with respect to FIG. 2, where the emission states can correspond to states that are previously established and stored in the configurations (218) [computing sensory cues]." ; McNair, et al. Col. 4, line 65 to Col. 5, lines 1-6: "…the ground control system (190) can establish a set of emission states for the emitters (114) and individually control the emitters (114) to produce emissions in correspondence to the emission states. The emission states can include […] light of a specific color, hue and/or brightness is produced, states in which light of a specific color, hue and/or brightness is configurably flashed (e.g., blinking states) and/or other states [visual cues comprises color].").
Claims 25-26 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shannon (U.S. Patent No. 10593217) and McNair, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10890926) in view of Garing, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10237511).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Shannon and McNair, et al. does not teach the computing system of claim 23, wherein the visual cue comprises text indicative of the one or more passenger characteristics.
In a similar field of endeavor (aircraft projection information displays), Garing, et al. teaches: The computing system of claim 23, wherein the visual cue comprises text indicative of the one or more passenger characteristics (Col. 12, lines 38-45: "In another example, the graphical element (338) can be a display of a unique passenger seat assignment such as a passenger name or a logo associated with the passenger such as their business/employer logo [passenger characteristics]. […] any image can be projected including text [text]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Shannon and McNair, et al. to include the teaching of Garing, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of dynamically displaying information to aircraft passengers and flight crew (Garing, et al. Col. 3, line 59 to Col. 4, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 26, Shannon, McNair, et al., and Garing, et al. remain as applied to claim 25, and in a further embodiment, teach: The computing system of claim 25, wherein the text is indicative of at least one of a passenger seating assignment or an estimated arrival time (Garing, et al. Col. 12, lines 38-45: "In another example, the graphical element (338) can be a display of a unique passenger seat assignment such as a passenger name or a logo associated with the passenger such as their business/employer logo [passenger seating assignment and examples]. […] any image can be projected including text [text]").
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Shannon and McNair, et al. does not teach the method of claim 33, wherein the visual cue comprises text indicative of the one or more passenger characteristics.
In a similar field of endeavor (aircraft projection information displays), Garing, et al. teaches: The method of claim 33, wherein the visual cue comprises text indicative of the one or more passenger characteristics (Col. 12, lines 38-45: "In another example, the graphical element (338) can be a display of a unique passenger seat assignment such as a passenger name or a logo associated with the passenger such as their business/employer logo [passenger characteristics]. […] any image can be projected including text [text]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Shannon and McNair, et al. to include the teaching of Garing, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of dynamically displaying information to aircraft passengers and flight crew (Garing, et al. Col. 3, line 59 to Col. 4, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 36, Shannon, McNair, et al., Garing, et al. remain as applied to claim 35, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 35, wherein the text is indicative of at least one of a passenger seating assignment or an estimated arrival time (Garing, et al. Col. 12, lines 38-45: "In another example, the graphical element (338) can be a display of a unique passenger seat assignment such as a passenger name or a logo associated with the passenger such as their business/employer logo [passenger seating assignment and examples]. […] any image can be projected including text [text]").
Claims 27-30 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shannon (U.S. Patent No. 10593217) and McNair, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10890926) in view of Nahmiyace, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9769440).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Shannon and McNair, et al. does not teach the computing system of claim 21, wherein the one or more output devices are located onboard the aircraft, and the one or more output devices comprises one or more exterior light projectors configured to project light onto a parking area for the aircraft.
In a similar field of endeavor (exterior aircraft lighting projection), Nahmiyace, et al. teaches: The computing system of claim 21, wherein the one or more output devices are located onboard the aircraft, (Col. 3, lines 19-22: "…such a projection device is advantageously integrated into the lighting and signalling systems with which the aeroplane is traditionally equipped [output devices are located onboard aircraft].")
and the one or more output devices comprises one or more exterior light projectors configured to project light onto a parking area for the aircraft (Col. 3, lines 28-34: "The device visible in FIG. 2 therefore comprises a power lighting source (1), intended to ensure the aeroplane's traditional lighting and signalling functions, a video projector (2) intended to ensure the projection of the video images, and a combining system (3), ensuring the combining of the luminous fluxes arising from the power lighting source (1) and from the video projector (2) [exterior light projector]." ; Col. 1, lines 45-50: "…projecting video images onto other surfaces, in particular on the ground. It may for example involve projecting on the ground complementary information useful to the pilot, such as the alignment of the aircraft with respect to the runway, its speed etc., or to the ground personnel, for example to identify safety zones [exterior light projectors - project light onto parking area on ground for aircraft].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Shannon and McNair, et al. to include the teaching of Nahmiyace, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of projecting images on the ground from an aircraft (Nahmiyace, et al. Col. 1, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 28, Shannon, McNair, et al., and Nahmiyace, et al. remain as applied to claim 27, and in a further embodiment, teach: The computing system of claim 27, wherein the one or more sensory cues comprises an exterior visual cue indicative of a walking path along the parking area for a passenger of the aircraft (McNair, et al. Col. 5, lines 17-20: "In a landing context, the instruction set can further indicate, for example, an orientation of the aircraft (100) within the region (160), a direction or location for passenger disembarkation or cargo unloading, combinations of the foregoing and/or the like [guiding passenger along a walking path for aircraft]." ; McNair, et al. Col. 5, lines 25-29: "In certain embodiments, the flight control system (180) of the aircraft (100), in conjunction with sensors on the aircraft (100), can detect the emission states and thereby derive the instruction set [computing sensory cues].").
Regarding claim 29, Shannon, McNair, et al., and Nahmiyace, et al. remain as applied to claim 27, and in a further embodiment, teach: The computing system of claim 27, wherein the one or more output devices further comprises one or more interior light projectors configured to project light onto an interior surface of the aircraft (Garing, et al. Col. 4, lines 25-27: "…directed to detecting a status of a passenger within a passenger suite of an aircraft cabin [interior of passenger section of aircraft]" ; Garing, et al. Col. 4, lines 46-51: "For example, FIG. 1A is an aisle-side perspective view of the passenger suite (100) illustrating an aperture (106) for the projector (102) [interior light projector] disposed on a surface of the static element (104) through which the projector (102) projects a graphical element (138) onto a projection surface (130) [projector projects lighted display onto interior surface of aircraft].")
Regarding claim 30, Shannon, McNair, et al., and Nahmiyace, et al. remain as applied to claim 29, and in a further embodiment, teach: The computing system of claim 29, wherein the one or more sensory cues further comprises an interior visual cue on the interior surface of the aircraft that is indicative of a seating assignment for a passenger of the aircraft (Garing, et al. Col. 12, lines 24-28: "…the projector (202) (FIG. 2) or any other implementation of the projector (202) described above is one part of a projection system that can be configured to display a graphical element such as graphical element (338) (FIG. 3) onto a projection surface (330) [interior visual cue on interior surface of aircraft]" ; Garing, et al. Col. 12, lines 38-42: "…the graphical element (338) can be a display of a unique passenger seat assignment such as a passenger name or a logo associated with the passenger such as their business/employer logo [seating assignment for passenger of aircraft].").
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Shannon and McNair, et al. does not teach the method of claim 31, wherein the one or more output devices are located onboard the aircraft, and the one or more output devices comprises one or more exterior light projectors configured to project light onto a parking area for the aircraft.
In a similar field of endeavor (exterior aircraft lighting projection), Nahmiyace, et al. teaches: The method of claim 31, wherein the one or more output devices are located onboard the aircraft, (Col. 3, lines 19-22: "…such a projection device is advantageously integrated into the lighting and signalling systems with which the aeroplane is traditionally equipped [output devices are located onboard aircraft].")
and the one or more output devices comprises one or more exterior light projectors configured to project light onto a parking area for the aircraft (Col. 3, lines 28-34: "The device visible in FIG. 2 therefore comprises a power lighting source (1), intended to ensure the aeroplane's traditional lighting and signalling functions, a video projector (2) intended to ensure the projection of the video images, and a combining system (3), ensuring the combining of the luminous fluxes arising from the power lighting source (1) and from the video projector (2) [exterior light projector]." ; Col. 1, lines 45-50: "…projecting video images onto other surfaces, in particular on the ground. It may for example involve projecting on the ground complementary information useful to the pilot, such as the alignment of the aircraft with respect to the runway, its speed etc., or to the ground personnel, for example to identify safety zones [exterior light projectors - project light onto parking area on ground for aircraft].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Shannon and McNair, et al. to include the teaching of Nahmiyace, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of projecting images on the ground from an aircraft (Nahmiyace, et al. Col. 1, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 38, Shannon, McNair, et al., and Nahmiyace, et al. remain as applied to claim 37, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 37, wherein the one or more sensory cues comprises an exterior visual cue indicative of a walking path along the parking area for a passenger of the aircraft (McNair, et al. Col. 5, lines 17-20: "In a landing context, the instruction set can further indicate, for example, an orientation of the aircraft (100) within the region (160), a direction or location for passenger disembarkation or cargo unloading, combinations of the foregoing and/or the like [guiding passenger along a walking path for aircraft]." ; McNair, et al. Block (610), Col. 12, lines 27-28: "At block (610), the landing area controller (202) transforms the instruction sets into emission states of the emitters (214) [computing sensory cues].").
Regarding claim 39, Shannon, McNair, et al., and Nahmiyace, et al. remain as applied to claim 37, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 37, wherein the one or more output devices further comprises one or more interior light projectors configured to project light onto an interior surface of the aircraft (Garing, et al. Col. 4, lines 25-27: "…directed to detecting a status of a passenger within a passenger suite of an aircraft cabin [interior of passenger section of aircraft]" ; Garing, et al. Col. 4, lines 46-51: "For example, FIG. 1A is an aisle-side perspective view of the passenger suite (100) illustrating an aperture (106) for the projector (102) [interior light projector] disposed on a surface of the static element (104) through which the projector (102) projects a graphical element (138) onto a projection surface (130) [projector projects lighted display onto interior surface of aircraft].").
Regarding claim 40, Shannon, McNair, et al., and Nahmiyace, et al. remain as applied to claim 39, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 39, wherein the one or more sensory cues further comprises an interior visual cue on the interior surface of the aircraft that is indicative of a seating assignment for a passenger of the aircraft (Garing, et al. Col. 12, lines 24-28: "…the projector (202) (FIG. 2) or any other implementation of the projector (202) described above is one part of a projection system that can be configured to display a graphical element such as graphical element (338) (FIG. 3) onto a projection surface (330) [interior visual cue on interior surface of aircraft]" ; Garing, et al. Col. 12, lines 38-42: "In another example, the graphical element (338) can be a display of a unique passenger seat assignment such as a passenger name or a logo associated with the passenger such as their business/employer logo [seating assignment for passenger of aircraft].").
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ma (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170197710) teaches various methods, systems, and devices for the use of transporting passengers from between locations using automated vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, including the use of landing assistant equipment using visual markers consisting of various lighting sources.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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, ANGELA Y ORTIZ can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights