Ex Parte Mannon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 2, 2018

14149619 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/149,619
89941 7590
HONEYWELL/S&S
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
01107/2014
07/05/2018
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Pamela Mannon
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
H0042836-5447/l 121-573US 1557
EXAMINER
PECHE, JORGE 0
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAMELA MANNON and RA TAN KHA TWA
Appeal2017-010255
Application 14/149,619
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JUSTIN BUSCH, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9--18, and 20-24, which
represent all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
February 23, 2017 ("App. Br."), Reply Brief filed July 31, 2017 ("Reply
Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed May 30, 2017 ("Ans.") and the Final
Office Action mailed June 16, 2016 ("Final Act.").
2 Appellants identify Honeywell International Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010255
Application 14/ 149, 619
ii 1.
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to aircraft obstacle awareness. Spec.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
determining, by a processor, a location of an obstacle
relative to an aircraft based on received information; and
generating, by the processor, a graphical user interface
based on the location of the obstacle, the graphical user
interface comprising a graphical representation of the aircraft, a
graphical representation of the obstacle, and an indication of the
area of unknown associated with the obstacle, wherein the area
of unknown comprises an area for which the processor is
unable to determine the presence or absence of obstacles based
on the received information.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10-16, 18, and 20 3-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by, or alternatively under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over, Brunetti et al. (US 2012/0029738
Al; published Feb. 2, 2012). Final Act. 4--9.
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brunetti in view of Wilson et al. (US 2011/0010082
Al; published Jan. 13, 2011). Final Act. 9-11.
3 Claim 20 depends from claim 19, which is not currently pending. For
purposes of this appeal, we presume that claim 20 depends from claim 18.
2
Appeal2017-010255
Application 14/ 149, 619
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments.
The Obviousness Rejection
Claim 1
Appellants argue Brunetti does not disclose or suggest the method of
claim 1, which recites, in part,
determining, by a processor, a location of an obstacle relative to
an aircraft based on received information; and generating, by
the processor, a graphical user interface based on the location of
the obstacle, the graphical user interface comprising a graphical
representation of the aircraft, a graphical representation of the
obstacle, and an indication of [an] area of unknown associated
with the obstacle, wherein the area of unknown comprises an
area for which the processor is unable to determine the presence
3
Appeal2017-010255
Application 14/ 149, 619
or absence of obstacles based on the received information.
App. Br. 6-7.
Figure 4 of Brunetti is reproduced below.
FIG.,4
:3~~
~~ -~
( 41
\ l
' ' / ('
\ ('
~ '4t
42 42
35.
t
\
I
Figure 4 of Brunetti illustrates an outline 37 representing the intersection of
the outer surface of obstacle 0 and at least one of regions R. Brunetti i-f 7 6.
Appellants dispute that Brunetti describes that the part of Figure 4 on the
other side of the outline 37 from the indication 39 representing a disk 7 of a
rotor 3 of the helicopter is "an indication of anything in particular." App.
Br. 8.
The Examiner, however, also relies on Figure 9 of Brunetti in
rejecting claim 1. See Final Act. 6 (referring to "Figures 1, 2, 4, 9 and
related texts"). Figure 9 of Brunetti is reproduced below.
4
Appeal2017-010255
Application 14/ 149, 619
l.J..._.,...._..._...,,,...._...._..._ .... ..._ ... ..._..._1J"''''"""""-"""""""""'""'""'~
~
~
1
-' < .......
Figure 9 of Brunetti illustrates an enlarged view of further parts of the Figure
4 interface. Brunetti i-f 25. Brunetti explains in the description
corresponding to Figure 9 that "[i]n the event of a malfunction of any one of
sensors 10, 10', 10", control unit 20 is designed to indicate on display 36 the
outline portion of obstacle 0 not swept by the malfunctioning sensor 10, 10',
1 O" ." Brunetti i-f 101 (emphasis added); see Final Act. 6 (citing "Figures 1,
2, 4, and 9 and related texts"). Thus, Brunetti will "indicate on display 36" a
portion of an obstacle not swept by a sensor, which teaches "an indication of
the area of unknown associated with the obstacle, wherein the area of
unknown comprises an area for which the processor is unable to determine
5
Appeal2017-010255
Application 14/ 149, 619
the presence or absence of obstacles based on the received information," as
recited in claim 1, because the portion of the obstacle not swept is
"associated with the obstacle."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as
unpatentable over Brunetti. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of
independent claims 10 and 18, as well as claims 2, 11, and 14 as
unpatentable over Brunetti, for which Appellants present the same or
essentially the same arguments as claim 1.
Dependent claim 7
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Brunetti teaches the elements
of claim 7, including
determining, by the processor, a threat level of at least one of
the obstacle or the area of unknown based on a distance
between the at least one of the obstacle or the area of unknown
and the aircraft; and generating, by the processor, at least one of
the graphical representation of the obstacle or the indication of
the area of unknown to include a characteristic that represents
the determined threat level of the at least one of the obstacle or
the area of unknown.
Ans. 10-12. Appellants argue that Brunetti's description of indication 43 is
not relevant to the portion of Brunetti' s figures that the Examiner asserts
illustrates an "area of unknown." Reply Br. 9-10. As the Examiner points
out, however, Figure 4 contains three graphical interfaces with a respective
lowest distance between the center of the aircraft (Q) to a point (P) of the
obstacle, where one of red, green or yellow color is displayed within an
indication 43 according to a threshold value, to inform a pilot whether or not
an obstacle poses a threat to the safety of the aircraft. Ans. 11. As the
6
Appeal2017-010255
Application 14/ 149, 619
Examiner explains, and we agree, claim 7 requires a threat level of at least
one of the obstacle or the area of unknown. We agree with the Examiner
that Brunetti teaches multiple safety zones over a region that overlap a
detected obstacle, where in one example, an area 101 is described as
containing a red color characteristic to alert the pilot of threat to the safety of
the aircraft. Ans. 11-12 (citing Brunetti Abstract, i-fi-186-101; Fig. 9).
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 7 as
unpatentable over Brunetti. For the same reasons, we also sustain the
rejection of claims 15, 16, and 20, for which Appellants present the same
arguments or no additional arguments.
Dependent Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 1 and recites the method of claim 1,
"wherein the area of unknown comprises a two-dimensional ground area or a
volume of space that the obstacle blocks from a view of a sensor onboard the
aircraft." Appellants argue Brunetti does not describe a "two-dimensional
ground area" behind outline 37 in Figure 4 as "an indication of the area of
unknown," as recited in claim 1, from which claim 21 depends. App.
Br. 18-19. First, we note that the claim recites a "two-dimensional ground
area or a volume of space that the obstacle blocks from a view of a sensor
onboard the aircraft." Moreover, as the Examiner explains, "standard
electromagnetic radiation signals for aircraft collision avoidance cannot
properly penetrate across natural obstacle[ s] and accurately detect reflected
electromagnetic radiation signal from other obstacles behind said natural
obstacle O." Ans. 3--4, 17-18 (referring to response to Group 1).
7
Appeal2017-010255
Application 14/ 149, 619
An aircraft system can display detected obstacle[ s] and generate
a shadow/white area, as being depicted on Figure 4 (Brunetti' et
al.' s reference), to indicate that a presence or absence of an
obstacle behind a mountain cannot be determined and not to be
traversed by the aircraft to avoid potential loss of life.
Id. In the absence of sufficient evidence or line of technical reasoning to the
contrary, the Examiner's response is reasonable and we find no reversible
error. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 21 as
unpatentable over Brunetti. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 23, for which Appellants present the same or essentially the
same arguments. App. Br. 20.
Dependent Claim 22
Claim 22 depends from claim 1 and recites
[ t ]he method of claim 1, wherein determining the location of
the obstacle relative to the aircraft comprises determining the
location of a ground obstacle relative to the aircraft while the
aircraft is on the ground, and wherein the indication of the area
of unknown is associated with the ground obstacle.
Appellants argue there would have been no apparent reason for a person of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Brunetti to include
"'determining the location of the obstacle ... while the aircraft is on the
ground' because the method of Brunetti is focused on 'collision between the
blades of one of the rotors and the obstacle' during 'rescue or salvage
operations in emergency situations."' App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 11. Therefore,
Appellants argue, Brunetti fails to disclose or suggest "determining the
location of the obstacle ... while the aircraft is on the ground," as recited in
claim 22. Id. However, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Brunetti's
8
Appeal2017-010255
Application 14/ 149, 619
helicopter can display a detected obstacle and unknown region associated
with the detected obstacle when it is on the ground and in operation before
takeoff. Ans. 18-19 (citing Brunetti i-fi-13, 140-144; Figures 1 and 9).
Brunetti explicitly discusses the purpose of the invention is related to
assisting maneuvering during takeoff or landing, when the aircraft is at a
substantially zero speed, which encompasses "on the ground" as recited in
claim 22. Brunetti i13.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 22 as
unpatentable over Brunetti. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection
of dependent claim 24, for which Appellants present the same or essentially
the same arguments. App. Br. 21.
Dependent claims 9 and 1 7
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites, in part,
receiving, by the processor, user input requesting a different
view of the aircraft; and in response to receiving the user input,
generating, by the processor, a second graphical user interface
comprising a second graphical representation of the aircraft, the
second graphical representation of the aircraft presenting the
different view of the aircraft.
The Examiner finds Figures 5 and 6 of Wilson teach a different
representation of an aircraft, presented when the user manually selects
certain graphical control elements. Ans. 21-22 (citing Wilson, Figs. 5, 6,
i-fi-13, 22, 55, 42). Appellants allege Wilson does not describe Figure 6 as
being in response to receiving a user input requesting a different view of the
aircraft. App. Br. 23; Reply Br. 12-13. We are not persuaded by this
argument because Wilson explains that a user can "adjust (or scroll) a
navigational map" and "ascertain the relative real-world positioning of the
9
Appeal2017-010255
Application 14/ 149, 619
aircraft," as further illustrated in the examples of Figures 6 and 8, which
teach the disputed limitations of claim 9. See Wilson i-fi-122, 55, Figs. 6, 8.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 9 as
unpatentable over Brunetti.
For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 17, for
which Appellants present the same or essentially the same arguments. App.
Br. 23.
Dependent Claims 4, 5, 12, and 13
Appellants argue with respect to dependent claim 4, and similarly
with respect to claim 12, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
understood the "unknown region," as labeled by the Examiner in the
annotated version of Brunetti's Figure 4 provided in the Final Office Action,
to have included "a graphical object positioned on an opposite side of the
graphical representation of the obstacle from the aircraft." App. Br. 11, 15
(emphasis omitted). For example, Brunetti does not describe this "unknown
region" in Figure 4 as a graphical object of an indication of an area of
unknown. We agree with Appellants that Brunetti's Figure 4 does not
appear to disclose or suggest a graphical object positioned on "an opposite
side of the graphical representation of the obstacle from the aircraft." Id.
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 13, Appellants argue the
region depicted behind the obstacle in Figure 4 of Brunetti is not "a
graphical object that increases in width in a direction away from the
graphical representation of the obstacle." App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted).
We agree, because we are unable to discern which portion of Figure 4 the
Examiner alleges is "behind the obstacle" in Figure 4. Id. Accordingly, on
10
Appeal2017-010255
Application 14/ 149, 619
this record, we do not sustain the § 102 or § 103 rejection of dependent
claims 4, 5, 12, and 13.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the rejections of claims 1, 2, 7, 9--11, 14--18, and 20-24
under § 103. Because our decision is dispositive regarding patentability of
these claims, we need not reach the Examiner's alternative anticipation
rejection of those claims.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 12, and 13.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 7, 9--11, 14--18,
20-24 is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11