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 .
1. This action is responsive to application filed May 13, 2025.
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.
2. Claims 17-18 are 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 1 recites :” display on the display a synthetic depiction of a positioning of a landing runway and/or of an approach lighting system towards the runway, at a displayed position of the runway and/or of the approach lighting system; and an inconsistencies detector configured to detect inconsistencies between the displayed position from the synthetic depiction and an actual viewing position on the display of the runway and/or of the approach lighting system, the inconsistencies detector being configured to: identify, in an optical image of the space in front of the aircraft, at least one row of lights extending transversely to an axis of the runway; characterize the identified at least one row of lights and determine a determined position of the row of lights relative to the runway from among a plurality of possible positions of rows of lights extending transversely to an axis of the runway, and calculate the actual viewing position on the display of the runway and/or of the approach lighting system using the determined position of the identified at least one row of lights.” Claim 17 then states “An enhanced vision method implemented in an aircraft equipped with the enhanced vision system according to claim 1, the method comprising”. Claim 17 then recites the display, detecting, detecting, identifying, characterizing and determining steps of claim 1 again. It is unclear whether the steps are performed again or whether claim 17 is an independent claim that does not incorporate the system of claim 1.
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.
3. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “detecting an inconsistency between the displayed position from the synthetic depiction and the actual viewing position on the display of the runway and/or of the approach lighting system; detecting the inconsistency between the displayed position from the synthetic depiction and the actual viewing position on the display of the runway and/or of the approach lighting system comprising: identifying in an optical image of the space in front of the aircraft, at least one row of lights extending transversely to an axis of the runway; characterizing, via the inconsistencies detector, the identified at least one row of lights, to determine a determined position of the at least one row of lights relative to the runway from among a plurality of possible positions of rows of lights extending transversely to an axis of the runway, determining an actual position on the display of the runway and/or of the approach lighting system using the determined position of the at least one row of lights”.
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an aircraft enhanced vision system”, “a display”, “a display generator” and “inconsistencies detector” in claim 1; “inconsistencies detector” in claim 17, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, detecting, detecting, identifying, characterizing and determining in the context of this claim encompasses the user to mentally determine an inconsistency, identify at least one row of lights, determine position of row of lights and calculate the actual position of the lights to be displayed.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements- “an aircraft enhanced vision system”, “a display”, “a display generator” and “inconsistencies detector” in claim 1; “inconsistencies detector” in claim 17 to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of detect position of lights and determining inconsistencies in the determined positions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1 and 17 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). In particular, the claims recite additional elements of “displaying on the display via the display generator, a synthetic depiction of the positioning of a runway and/or of an approach lighting system towards the runway at a displayed position of the runway and/or of the approach lighting system”. This displaying step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tiana et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,917,191 (referred to hereafter as Tiana).
As to claims 1 and 17, Tiana teaches an aircraft enhanced vision system and method comprising:
a display configured to view a space in front of an aircraft, and a display generator on the display configured to display on the display a synthetic depiction of a positioning of a landing runway and/or of an approach lighting system towards the runway, at a displayed position of the runway and/or of the approach lighting system (see col. 3 lines 64-col. 4 lines 16); and
an inconsistencies detector configured to detect inconsistencies between the displayed position from the synthetic depiction and an actual viewing position on the display of the runway and/or of the approach lighting system (see col. 4 lines 35-59),
the inconsistencies detector being configured to:
identify, in an optical image of the space in front of the aircraft, at least one row of lights extending transversely to an axis of the runway (see col. 5 lines 15-33);
characterize the identified at least one row of lights and determine a determined position of the row of lights relative to the runway from among a plurality of possible positions of rows of lights extending transversely to an axis of the runway (see col. 5 lines 15-33 and col. 8 lines 31-col. 9 lines 15), and
calculate the actual viewing position on the display of the runway and/or of the approach lighting system using the determined position of the identified at least one row of lights (see col. 5 lines 15-33 and col. 8 lines 31-col. 9 lines 15).
As to claim 14, Tiana teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the inconsistencies detector is configured to determine an actual distance between the at least one row of lights and at least one light adjacent to the at least one row of lights using the distance on the optical image between the at least one row of lights and the adjacent light, and a measured height of the aircraft relative to the ground (see col. 8 lines 55-col. 9 lines 15).
As to claim 15, Tiana teaches the system according to claim 14, wherein the inconsistencies detector is configured to assume a predetermined actual distance gap between the light adjacent to the at least one row of lights and the at least one row of lights, and then is configured to calculate an assumed height of the aircraft relative to the ground, using the assumed distance between the lights, and to compare the assumed height of the aircraft relative to the ground with the measured height of the aircraft relative to the ground (see col. 9 lines 16-30).
As to claim 16, Tiana teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the inconsistencies detector is configured to generate a warning signal when the difference between the position displayed on the display of the synthetic depiction and the actual viewing position on the display of the runway and/or of the approach lighting system calculated by the inconsistencies detector is greater than a given threshold (see col. 9 lines 1-15).
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.
4. Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiana in view of Ganille et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0406040 (referred to hereafter as Ganille).
As to claim 13, Tiana teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the inconsistencies detector configured to determine the determined position of the at least one row of lights with respect to the runway from among the plurality of possible positions of rows of lights extending transversely to an axis of the runway from an analysis of a region of the optical image comprising the at least one row of lights (see col. 5 lines 15-33 and col. 8 lines 31-col. 9 lines 15).
Tiana does not explicitly teach detector comprises an artificial intelligence engine. Ganille teaches an artificial intelligence engine configured to determine lights on a runway (see para. 66-67). It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the at the effective filling data of the application to use an artificial intelligence engine in Tiana as taught by Ganille that doing so would automatically generate training data aimed at training an artificial intelligence to recognize a runway for an aircraft in conditions of degraded visibility as taught by Ganille.
5. The prior art of record does not teach the limitations of claims 2-12 and 18.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights