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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 134 and 135 are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims 134 and 135 an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 120 – 124 and 130 - 135 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3, 18, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/769,542 (reference application) in view of Firra (US 2007/0008188). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 – 3, 18, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/769,542 (reference application) in view of Firra (US 2007/0008188) anticipates claims 120 – 124 and 130 – 135.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
AN: 19/028,514
AN 18/769,542
a vision guidance system of an aircraft, the system comprising:
a vision guidance system of an aircraft, the system comprising:
a synthetic vision system;
a synthetic vision system;
an enhanced vision system;
an enhanced vision system;
a multifunction controller disposed in a glare shield panel of the aircraft;
one or more data processors operatively coupled to the multifunction controller, to the synthetic vision system and to the enhanced vision system; and
one or more data processors operatively coupled to the synthetic vision system and to the enhanced vision system; and
non-transitory machine-readable memory operatively coupled to the one or more data processors and storing instructions executable by the one or more processors and configured to cause the one or more processors to:
non-transitory machine-readable memory operatively coupled to the one or more data processors and storing instructions executable by the one or more processors and configured to cause the one or more processors to:
after receiving an input indicative of a desired activation of a combined vision guidance operating mode of the vision guidance system via the multifunction controller, cause activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode, the combined vision guidance operating mode including use of a combination of synthetic vision and enhanced vision.
cause arming of a combined vision guidance operating mode of the vision guidance system after receiving an input indicative of a desired activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode and before the aircraft has reached a threshold condition permitting activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode; and
when the aircraft has reached the threshold condition, cause activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode, the combined vision guidance operating mode including use of a combination of synthetic vision and enhanced vision,
wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause a performance of one or more aircraft system checks before arming the combined vision guidance operating mode.
AN: 19/028,514
120
131
121
132
122
133
123
134
124
135
125
136
126
137
127
138
128
139
129
130
AN: 18/769,542
1
20
1
20
2, 3
1
20
18
1
20
System of AN: 18/769,542 does not expressly disclose a multifunction controller disposed in a glare shield panel of the aircraft. Firra discloses the cockpit instrumentation 100 also includes MFDs on a glare shield 30 (paragraph 38). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify system of AN: 18/769,542 to incorporate multifunction display on a glareshield of an aircraft.
Claims 120 – 126 and 130 - 137 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 5, 7, 9, 10, 15 – 17, 19 – 21, 23, 25, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,359,931. Although the claims 134 and 135 at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 – 5, 7, 9, 10, 15 – 17, 19 – 21, 23, 25, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,359,931 anticipate claims 120 – 126 and 130 - 137.
AN: 19/028,514
US 11,359,931
a vision guidance system of an aircraft, the system comprising:
a vision guidance system of an aircraft, the system comprising:
a synthetic vision system;
a synthetic vision system;
an enhanced vision system;
an enhanced vision system;
a multifunction controller disposed in a glare shield panel of the aircraft;
a display device defining a display area;
(Claim 2) wherein the display device is part of a multifunction controller disposed in a glare shield panel of the aircraft
one or more data processors operatively coupled to the multifunction controller, to the synthetic vision system and to the enhanced vision system; and
one or more data processors operatively coupled to the display device, to the synthetic vision system and to the enhanced vision system; and
non-transitory machine-readable memory operatively coupled to the one or more data processors and storing instructions executable by the one or more processors and configured to cause the one or more processors to:
non-transitory machine-readable memory operatively coupled to the one or more data processors and storing instructions executable by the one or more processors and configured to cause the one or more processors to:
cause simultaneous display of a first selectable object and of a second selectable object in the display area of the display device, the first selectable object being associated with an activation of a combined vision guidance operating mode of the vision guidance system and the second selectable object being associated with an activation of a synthetic vision guidance operating mode of the vision guidance system, the combined vision guidance operating mode including use of a combination of synthetic vision and enhanced vision, and the synthetic vision guidance operating mode including use of synthetic vision without enhanced vision; and
after receiving an input indicative of a desired activation of a combined vision guidance operating mode of the vision guidance system via the multifunction controller, cause activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode, the combined vision guidance operating mode including use of a combination of synthetic vision and enhanced vision.
after a selection of the first selectable object associated with the combined vision guidance operating mode, cause an activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode;
wherein the instructions are also configured to cause the one or more processors to:
while the combined vision guidance operating mode is active, determine that an enhanced vision system of the aircraft is unavailable;
then cause automatic deactivation of the combined vision guidance operating mode; and
cause automatic activation of the synthetic vision guidance operating mode.
AN: 19/028,514
120
131
121
132
122
133
123
134
124
135
125
136
126
137
127
138
128
139
129
130
US 11,359,931
1, 2
16, 17
3
19
7
23
9
25
10
26
4
20
5
21
15
Claims 120, 125, 126, 130, 132, 136, and 137 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 4, 7, 13 – 16, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,300. Although the claims 134 and 135 at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 – 4, 7, 13 – 16, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,300 anticipate claims 120, 125, 126, 130, 132, 136, and 137.
AN: 19/028,514
US 12,066,300
a vision guidance system of an aircraft, the system comprising:
a vision guidance system of an aircraft, the system comprising:
a synthetic vision system;
a synthetic vision system;
an enhanced vision system;
an enhanced vision system;
a multifunction controller disposed in a glare shield panel of the aircraft;
one or more display devices;
(Claim 2) a multifunction controller via which the first single user input is received, the multifunction controller being disposed in a glare shield panel of the aircraft.
one or more data processors operatively coupled to the multifunction controller, to the synthetic vision system and to the enhanced vision system; and
one or more data processors operatively coupled to the one or more display devices, to the synthetic vision system and to the enhanced vision system; and
non-transitory machine-readable memory operatively coupled to the one or more data processors and storing instructions executable by the one or more processors and configured to cause the one or more processors to:
non-transitory machine-readable memory operatively coupled to the one or more data processors and storing instructions executable by the one or more processors and configured to cause the one or more processors to:
after receiving an input indicative of a desired activation of a combined vision guidance operating mode of the vision guidance system via the multifunction controller, cause activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode, the combined vision guidance operating mode including use of a combination of synthetic vision and enhanced vision.
after receiving a firsts user input indicative of a desired activation of a combined vision guidance operating mode combining synthetic vision and enhanced vision, cause an activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode of the aircraft in an absence of a second user input indicative of a desired display mode of the one or more display devices of the aircraft,
wherein the activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode comprises causing:
automatic activation of a system monitor configured to monitor an integrity of an aircraft system; and automatic commanding of a desired display mode of the one or more display devices.
AN: 19/028,514
120
131
121
132
122
133
123
134
124
135
125
136
126
137
127
138
128
139
129
130
US 12,066,300
1, 2
13, 14
3, 7
15, 19
4, 7
16, 19
1
13
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 120, 125 – 131, and 136 – 139 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Firra (US 2007/0008188).
Regarding independent claim 120, Firra teaches a vision guidance system of an aircraft (Figure 2), the system comprising:
a synthetic vision system (paragraph 80: synthetic vision system);
an enhanced vision system (paragraph 80: enhanced vision system);
a multifunction controller (paragraph 38: the cockpit instrumentation 100 also includes MFDs) disposed in a glare shield panel of the aircraft (paragraph 38: glare shield 30);
one or more data processors operatively coupled to the multifunction controller, to the synthetic vision system and to the enhanced vision system (paragraph 36: programmable multifunction display MFDs 70, configurable display controller 50; paragraph 38: displays/configurable controllers 111, 112); and
non-transitory machine-readable memory operatively coupled to the one or more data processors and storing instructions executable by the one or more processors (paragraph 36: programmable multi-functional display MFDs 70, configurable display controller 50; paragraph 38: displays/configurable controllers 111, 112) and configured to cause the one or more processors to:
after receiving an input indicative of a desired activation of a combined vision guidance operating mode of the vision guidance system via the multifunction controller (paragraphs 78 – 80 and Figure 8: menu options may be selected by activating the control buttons 410 and 420 adjacent to the menu options displayed on the screen 400. For example, the weather radar operation may be toggled "on" and "off" depending on the preferences of the pilot by selecting the button 600), cause activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode, the combined vision guidance operating mode including use of a combination of synthetic vision and enhanced vision (Figure 8: Toggle buttons for “SVS” and “EVS FUSED”).
Regarding dependent claim 125, Firra teaches wherein causing activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode comprises automatically causing a primary flight display device and a head-up display device of a flight deck of the aircraft to each display an image comprising synthetic vision (paragraph 49 and Figure 2: Displays 120 on the glareshield 30).
Regarding dependent claim 126, Firra teaches wherein the input is a first input and the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to, after receiving a second input via the multifunction controller (paragraphs 78 – 80 and Figure 8: menu options may be selected by activating the control buttons 410 and 420 adjacent to the menu options displayed on the screen 400. For example, the weather radar operation may be toggled "on" and "off" depending on the preferences of the pilot by selecting the button 600), the second input being indicative of a desired change in display mode of a head-down display of a flight deck of the aircraft, execute the change in display mode of the head-down display (paragraph 49 and Figure 2: Displays 141 – 144 on the primary flight display).
Regarding dependent claim 127, Firra teaches wherein the change in display mode is a transition to an image comprising synthetic vision (paragraphs 78 – 80 and Figure 8: menu options may be selected by activating the control buttons 410 and 420 adjacent to the menu options displayed on the screen 400. For example, the weather radar operation may be toggled "on" and "off" depending on the preferences of the pilot by selecting the button 600; Figure 8: Toggle buttons for “SVS” and “EVS FUSED”).
Regarding dependent claim 128, Firra teaches wherein the change in display mode is a transition to an image comprising a combination of synthetic vision and enhanced vision (paragraphs 78 – 80 and Figure 8: menu options may be selected by activating the control buttons 410 and 420 adjacent to the menu options displayed on the screen 400. For example, the weather radar operation may be toggled "on" and "off" depending on the preferences of the pilot by selecting the button 600; Figure 8: Toggle buttons for “SVS” and “EVS FUSED”).
Regarding dependent claim 129, Firra teaches wherein the change in display mode is a transition to an image that excludes synthetic vision and enhanced vision (paragraphs 78 – 80 and Figure 8: menu options may be selected by activating the control buttons 410 and 420 adjacent to the menu options displayed on the screen 400. For example, the weather radar operation may be toggled "on" and "off" depending on the preferences of the pilot by selecting the button 600; Figure 8: Toggle buttons for “SVS” and “EVS FUSED”).
Regarding independent claim 130, Firra teaches an aircraft comprising the system as defined in claim 120 (paragraph 27: an aircraft comprising the aircraft display system).
Regarding claims 131 and 136 - 139, claims 131 and 136 - 139 are similar in scope as to claims 120 and 125 - 128, thus the rejections for claims 120 and 125 - 128 hereinabove are applicable to claims 131 and 136 - 139.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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 134 and 135 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 134 and 135 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims 134 and 135 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.
Claim(s) 123, 124, 134 and 135 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firra (US 2007/0008188) in view of Krishna et al. (US 2015/0019048).
Regarding dependent claim 123, Firra does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause activation of the combined vision guidance operating mode after a threshold condition has been met. Krishna discloses “The presently described method may feature automatic transitioning between the above- noted modes. For example, once the aircraft starts descending, the CVS may be displayed in normal mode. Near the IAF 203, the CVS image may transition into the track mode, where the image is centered on the FPV. Near the FAF 204, once the runway is in view, the CVS image may transition into the runway lock mode so that the image is centered on the runway. If the landing is aborted and a missed approach is performed, the runway image will slide out of the view and the CVS image will again automatically transition to track mode” (paragraph 35). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Firra's system to automatically monitor various altitude decision for automatically put the display system in CVS mode. One would be motivated to do so because this would provide added safety to the aircraft such as when landing.
Regarding dependent claim 124, the combination of Firra’s and Krishna’s systems teaches wherein the threshold condition comprises an altitude of the aircraft (Krishna, paragraph 35: once the aircraft starts descending, the CVS may be displayed in normal mode).
Regarding claims 134 and 135, claims 134 and 135 are similar in scope as to claims 123 and 124, thus the rejections for claims 123 and 124 hereinabove are applicable to claims 134 and 135.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY J CHOW whose telephone number is (571)272-8078. The examiner can normally be reached on 11AM-7PM.
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, Devona Faulk can be reached on 571-272-7515. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFREY J CHOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights