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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the implied language of the first sentence. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: Should not “advanced surface movement guidance and control system of the airport” include the acronym (ASMGCS). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: misspelled word “deice”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 limitation “a threshold quantity of portions” is not understood. Applicant should define threshold quantity of portions before using it in a claim to further limit an “intersection”. Examiner interprets this phrase to mean that there is a minimum number of portions in the display of each intersection.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parthasarathy (US2015/0260525) in view of Clark et al (US2005/0283305).
A computing device for routing aircraft ground movements at an airport (0004), comprising:
a touch screen (0032 “display device 102 (e.g. a touchscreen)”, fig. 5 at 519) configured to display a map (many figures & claim 22) of an airfield of an airport (0041 “landing and/or departure locations (e.g., airports, airstrips, runways, landing strips,”);
a memory (0028 last sentence, “memory elements”); and
a processor (“processor 112”) configured to execute executable instructions (fig. 1) stored in the memory ( fig. 1, 0044 first 2 sentences) to:
receive, via the touch screen:
a touch selection (pointing hand) on the touch screen (fig. 5) of a portion of an aircraft ground movement route (502, 504, 506) displayed in the map of the airfield (0041 “the flight management system 108…landing and/or departure locations (e.g., airports, airstrips, runways, landing strips, heliports, helipads, and the like)”); and
a touch drag on the touch screen (claim 3) of the selected portion of the route to a different intersection (0004 “intersection (a waypoint)”) of the airfield displayed in the map (Abstract, 0011, 0057, 0061); and
display on the touch screen, responsive to the selected portion of the route being touch dragged on the touch screen to the different intersection (figures 11 & 12, “intersection 1108”) of the airfield, a zoomed-in view of the different intersection (0031 “the graphical adjustment is implemented in a manner that improves situational awareness”, 0038 “display system 100 and enables a user to indicate, select, or otherwise manipulate content displayed on the display device 102, as described in greater detail”), wherein the zoomed-in view of the different intersection includes a plurality of possible portions of the different intersection to select.
Parthasarathy does not disclose that the system is for ground movement and that a zoomed-in view of the different intersection includes a plurality of possible portions of the different intersection to select.
Clark discloses a computing device (fig. 1) for routing aircraft ground movements at an airport (figures 4-6) with a zoomed-in view (0032 “Zoom softkey 230 allows the user to change the scale of the displayed map”) of an intersection includes a plurality of possible portions of the different intersection to select (0006 last sentence, 0015 2nd sentence).
At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to improve the data visualization of Parthasarathy with
the zoom-in1 to a mapped intersection and displaying a selection list of additional choices as taught by Clark. The obviousness combination follows the KSR case law rationale C; use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim 2 Parthasarathy in view of Clark discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to receive, via the touch screen (0032, 0057 ), a touch selection on the touch screen (0057 “signals created by movement along touchscreen 519 are sensed by graphics module 114 (FIG. 1) and continuously transmitted to processor 112 where they are converted to reflect their numerical equivalents”) of one of the plurality of possible portions of the different intersection in the zoomed-in view (Clark figures 4-6 & 0015 “system 20 automatically pans and zooms the display so as to fully display the last selected segment and its intersection(s) with any segment(s)”).
Claim 3 Clark discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of possible portions of the different intersection to select include a plurality of points in the different intersection (figures 4 to 6 show touch screen with numerous points of different intersections e.g., 0031 “224d indicates the insertion point for the next entry”).
Claim 4 Clark discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of possible portions of the different intersection to select include a plurality of segments (0031 e.g., “segment softkeys (224b, c, d)” & 226a) of the different intersection (0027 “menu softkeys 220a-e that may be activated by the user to select the type of segments for entry (i.e., Runways, Taxiways, Concourses, or Hold)”).
Claim 5 Clark discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the zoomed-in view is displayed over a portion of the map of the airfield (0018 “database 24 may contain multiple airport layouts including, but not limited to, runways”).
Claim 7 Clark discloses the computing device of claim 1, wherein the different intersection is one of a number of pre-defined intersections (0016 last sentence, 0023 “map database 24 for all gates and/or runways within a predefined distance of the aircraft starting location”) for which a zoomed-in view is to be displayed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parthasarathy (US2015/0260525) in view of Clark et al (US2005/0283305) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Castor et al (US6282488).
Parthasarathy in view of Clark does not disclose an advanced surface movement guidance and control system of the airport (ASMGCS).
Castor discloses a computing device (fig. 5) for routing aircraft ground movements at an airport (col. 1 ll 58-59) utilizing an advanced surface movement guidance and control system of the airport (ASMGCS) (col. 1 ll 63-67). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill in this art to augment the system of Parthasarathy in view of Clark with a ASMGCS as taught by Castor. A motivation for this would be to use a well proven system to control ground movement on the runways of Parthasarathy in view of Clark. This obviousness combination follows the KSR case law rationale C; use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claims 9-10, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al (US2005/0283305) in view of Parthasarathy (US2015/0260525).
A method for routing aircraft ground movements at an airport (Title), comprising:
receiving, via a touch screen of a computing device (Abstract 2nd sentence):
a touch selection on the touch screen (0034 “taxiway or runway is selected by touch”) of a portion of an aircraft ground movement route (“ground taxi routes”) displayed in a map of an airfield of an airport on the touch screen (figures 4-6); and
a touch drag on the touch screen of the selected portion of the route to a different intersection of the airfield displayed in the map (figures 4-6 show airfield intersections, 0015 “user makes a selection, the system 20 automatically pans and zooms the display so as to fully display the last selected segment and its intersection(s)”);
displaying on the touch screen, responsive to the selected portion of the route being touch dragged on the touch screen to the different intersection of the airfield, a zoomed-in view (0032 “Zoom softkey 230 allows the user to change the scale of the displayed map”) of the different intersection, wherein the zoomed-in view includes a plurality of possible portions of the different intersection to select (0015 “the system 20 automatically pans and zooms the display so as to fully display the last selected segment and its intersection(s)”);
and receiving, via the touch screen, a touch selection on the touch screen of one of the plurality of possible portions (0027 “computer 26 to determine possible route segments that join the currently selected route; segment and display separately those possible route segments as individual softkeys on the map so that the user may select”) of the different intersection in the zoomed-in view (0006 last sentence, 0015 2nd sentence).
Clark does not disclose the touchscreen operation of touch dragging on the touchscreen.
Parthasarathy discloses a method for routing aircraft ground movements at an airport utilizing a touchscreen (“display device 102 (e.g. a touchscreen)”) with finger dragging (0057 “using a finger”) of the screen to display more options or possible selections (0050 “by dragging with a cursor to reveal what is underneath”). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill to use the well-known application of finger dragging on a touchscreen as taught by Parthasarathy to simplify operation of Clark. This obviousness combination follows the KSR case law rationale C; use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim 10 Clark discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the method includes adjusting, by the computing device, the aircraft ground movement route according to the selected portion of the different intersection (fig. 2 especially box 82, figures 4-6 boxes 224a ROUTE & 226b ACTIVATE).
Claim 12 Clark discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the method includes displaying, in the map on the touch screen, the adjusted aircraft ground movement route (0024 last sentence, fig. 2 box 82).
Claim 13 Clark discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the adjusted aircraft ground movement route is displayed as a dashed line in the map (0033 or 0035 1st sentence) on the touch screen.
Claim 14 Clark discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the adjusted aircraft ground movement route is displayed in the zoomed-in view (0006 last sentence, 0015 2nd sentence).
Claim 15 Parthasarathy discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the zoomed-in view of the different intersection comprises a zoom window (0005 “windowing of information”, 0047 “pull-down window”).
Claim 16 Clark discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the touch selection comprises a tap of the one of the plurality of possible portions of the different intersection in the zoomed-in view on the touch screen (0032).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al (US2005/0283305) in view of Parthasarathy (US2015/0260525).
A non-transitory computer (0017 1st sentence) readable medium having computer readable instructions stored thereon that are executable by a processor to:
display, on a touch screen (Abstract 2nd sentence, 0017 “ input/output devices 22 may be combined into a single device such as, for example, a touchscreen”), a map of an airfield of an airport (figures 4-6);
receive, via the touch screen:
a touch selection on the touch screen of a portion of an aircraft ground movement route displayed in the map of the airfield (figures 4-6 show airfield with ground taxi runways); and
a touch drag on the touch screen of the selected portion of the route to a different intersection of the airfield displayed in the map (figures 4-6 show airfield intersections, 0015 “user makes a selection, the system 20 automatically pans and zooms the display so as to fully display the last selected segment and its intersection(s)”);
determine, responsive to the selected portion of the route being touch dragged on the touch screen to the different intersection of the airfield (0015, 0016, 0024), whether to display a zoomed-in view (0006 last sentence, 0015 2nd sentence) of the different intersection on the touch screen; and
display the zoomed-in view of the different intersection on the touch screen responsive to determining to display the zoomed-in view, wherein the zoomed-in view of the different intersection includes a plurality of possible portions (0027 “computer 26 to determine possible route segments that join the currently selected route; segment and display separately those possible route segments as individual softkeys on the map so that the user may select”) of the different intersection to select (0015 “the system 20 automatically pans and zooms the display so as to fully display the last selected segment and its intersection(s)”).
Clark does not disclose the touchscreen operation of touch dragging on the touchscreen.
Parthasarathy discloses a method for routing aircraft ground movements at an airport utilizing a touchscreen (“display device 102 (e.g. a touchscreen)”) with finger dragging (0057 “using a finger”) of the screen to display more options or possible selections (0050 “by dragging with a cursor to reveal what is underneath”). At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill to use the well-known application of finger dragging on a touchscreen as taught by Parthasarathy to simplify operation of Clark. This obviousness combination follows the KSR case law rationale C; use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Neither Clark nor Parthasarathy disclose that their computer/processor systems is a non-transitory computer readable medium. At the time the invention was made it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill to have the computing device of Clark in view of Parthasarathy use a non-transitory computer readable medium. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This obviousness combination follows the KSR case law rationale D; applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 18 Clark discloses the computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein the plurality of possible portions of the different intersection to select include: a point in the different intersection; and a segment of the different intersection (0023 last 2 sentences, 0031 “Route sub-menu 222 may show runways and taxiways available… 224d indicates the insertion point for the next entry.”).
Claim 19 Clark discloses the computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein the selected portion of the aircraft ground movement route includes an intersection of the airfield through which the aircraft ground movement route currently passes (0006 last sentence, claims 10 & 16 see figs 4-6).
Claim 20 Clark discloses the computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein the different intersection is an intersection of the airfield through which the aircraft ground movement route does not currently pass (claims 10, 14 & 16 reveal course of ground movement n figures 4-6 with various interactions of movement through intersections).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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.
MICHAEL C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 .
1 Also known as “semantic zoom”, “drill-down menu” and “flyout or popover”.
Prosecution Insights