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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 7/11/2025. Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 9/16/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
2. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
3. Claims 3 and 5 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.
4. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the graphical representation of the speed needed for the ownship aircraft to maintain separation" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “The graphical representation” is introduced in Claim 2 but Claim 3 is dependent on Claim 1.
5. Claim 5 recites the limitation "a direction of second the triangle" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that this limitation is a typographical error and should read as −a direction of the second triangle.− This is the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim. However as currently claimed, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the triangle.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafaat (US 20170103660 A1) in view of Vanderkamp (US 9387938 B1).
10. Regarding Claim 1, Shafaat teaches a terrain awareness device configured to mount on an ownship aircraft, the terrain awareness device comprising (Shafaat: [0038]):
Memory; processing circuitry coupled to the memory and configured to (Shafaat: [0065] and [0066]):
Determine a terrain feature in a travel path of the ownship aircraft (Shafaat: [0038]);
During an approach to a runway, present on the display a first symbol representative of the ownship aircraft (Shafaat: [0041] and [0043]);
And during the approach to the runway, present on the display a second symbol representative of a second aircraft, wherein a position of the first symbol relative to the second symbol is indicative of a position of the ownship aircraft relative to the second aircraft (Shafaat: [0039] and [0041]).
Shafaat fails to explicitly teach to present, on a display, a graphical representation indicating a height of the terrain feature relative to an altitude of the ownship aircraft.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vanderkamp teaches to present, on a display, a graphical representation indicating a height of the terrain feature relative to an altitude of the ownship aircraft (Vanderkamp: [Column 3, Lines 51-56] and [Column 7, Lines 30-41]).
Shafaat and Vanderkamp are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shafaat to incorporate the teachings of Vanderkamp to present a graphical representation indicating a height of the terrain feature relative to an altitude of the ownship aircraft because it provides the benefit of identifying potential hazards to increase the situational awareness of the pilots as explicitly explained in [Column 7, Lines 30-41] and [Column 11, Lines 22-25] of Vanderkamp.
11. Regarding Claim 2, Shafaat and Vanderkamp remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Shafaat teaches to present, on the display, a graphical representation of a speed needed for the ownship aircraft to maintain separation with the second aircraft during an approach to a runway (Shafaat: [0046] and [0047] Note that displaying circle 12 to indicate to the pilots that the ownship speed is too high and needs to slow down to maintain a safe spacing is equivalent to a graphical representation of speed needed for the ownship to maintain separation with the second aircraft.).
12. Regarding Claim 4, Shafaat and Vanderkamp remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Shafaat teaches the first symbol comprises a first triangle and a direction of the first triangle is indicative of a direction of the ownship aircraft (Shafaat: [0013]).
13. Regarding Claim 5, Shafaat and Vanderkamp remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Shafaat teaches the second symbol comprises a second triangle and a direction of second the triangle is indicative of a direction of the second aircraft relative to the ownship aircraft (Shafaat: [0013] and [0041]).
14. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafaat (US 20170103660 A1), in view of Vanderkamp (US 9387938 B1), and in further view of Barber (US 20200339275 A1).
15. Regarding Claim 3, Shafaat and Vanderkamp remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Shafaat and Vanderkamp fail to explicitly teach the graphical representation of the speed needed for the ownship aircraft to maintain separation with the second aircraft during the approach to the runway comprises an I-shaped icon and an arrow pointing to the I-shaped icon, wherein a position of the arrow relative to a top or bottom of the 1-shaped icon indicates a speed of the ownship aircraft relative to the speed needed for the ownship aircraft to maintain separation with the second aircraft during the approach to the runway.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Barber teaches the graphical representation of the speed needed for the ownship aircraft to maintain separation with the second aircraft during the approach to the runway comprises an I-shaped icon and an arrow pointing to the I-shaped icon (Barber: [0041]),
Wherein a position of the arrow relative to a top or bottom of the 1-shaped icon indicates a speed of the ownship aircraft relative to the speed needed for the ownship aircraft to maintain separation with the second aircraft during the approach to the runway (Barber: [0039] and [0045]).
Shafaat, Vanderkamp, and Barber are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shafaat and Vanderkamp to incorporate the teachings of Barber to use an I-shaped icon to indicate a speed of the ownship aircraft relative to the speed needed for the ownship to maintain separation with the second aircraft because it provides the benefit of improved safety and pilot situational awareness by maintaining aircraft separation as explicitly explained in [0030] and [0039] of Barber.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights