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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: it recites "the one or rails"; however, it should recite "the one or more rails". 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.
Claims 1-11 and 14-23 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 the limitation "the rail" in the last clause ("wherein the apparatus is configured to periodically move along the rail"). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously introduces "one or more rails," and it is unclear whether "the rail" refers to any one of the one or more rails, to a particular rail, or requires that the apparatus be mounted on a single rail. For examination purposes, "the rail" is interpreted as "the one or more rails." Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the limitation to recite "the one or more rails."
Claims 2-11 and 14-23 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase ("the optical module comprises an infrared source") is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the limitation following "preferably" is treated as optional. However, the limitation is taught by the prior art in any event (see the rejection of claim 11 below, citing Steine pg. 5 ln. 28-31 and pg. 16 ln. 31 – pg. 17 ln. 10).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8-11, and 14-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 109507740 A – cited in IDS, see translation) in view of Steine (WO 2020109603 A1 – cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an aerodrome maintenance apparatus (figs. 1-2, foreign matter scanning device 2) for monitoring runway and taxiway conditions and remotely reporting a status of the runway or taxiway (fig. 1; pg. 1 abstract; pg. 6 1st ¶), the apparatus comprising:
a drive unit (pg. 5 3rd ¶, motion unit 7 comprising base 13, rollers 14, and a driving motor) arranged to mount one or more rails (figs. 1-2, track 1) alongside the runway or taxiway (pg. 4 last ¶ – pg. 5 1st ¶, two rails 1 are laid on the ground on both sides of airport runway 6 and parallel to airport runway 6) to provide movement of the apparatus along the one or more rails (pg. 5 3rd ¶, rollers 14 on both sides of base 13 run on track 1; pg. 5 9th ¶, the driving motor rotates rollers 14 so that scanning device 2 moves along rail 1 from one side to the other) while the runway or taxiway is in use (pg. 2 last ¶, Zhang distinguishes vehicle-mounted detection systems, which require the runway to be closed during detection and cannot provide uninterrupted detection; pg. 6 5th ¶ (cost economy analysis), the number of scanning devices and the scan time are selected according to a foreign object detection frequency that depends on flight volume. Further, because track 1 is located beside, rather than on, runway 6, Zhang's apparatus is capable of moving along track 1 while the runway is in use);
a detection unit (pg. 5 3rd–5th ¶, radar detection unit 11 and camera unit 12) comprising one or more sensors configured to detect one or more parameters of a surface of the runway or taxiway (pg. 5 10th ¶, radar detection unit 11 scans the surface of airport runway 6 by electromagnetic waves, and camera unit 12 three-dimensionally images the surface of airport runway 6); and
a communications unit (fig. 2, network communication device 3; pg. 5 3rd ¶, control unit 10 is wirelessly connected to main control central device 4 through network communication device 3) arranged to transfer data derived from the detection unit from the apparatus to a remote server (fig. 1, main control central device 4; pg. 4 last ¶ – pg. 5 1st ¶, main control central device 4 is installed in the terminal and is wirelessly connected to scanning device 2 through network communication device 3),
wherein the apparatus is arranged to advance along the one or more rails and transfer data representative of one or more parameters of the surface to a remote server (pg. 5 9th–11th ¶, while scanning device 2 moves along rail 1, the position information and the scanned and three-dimensional images are transmitted through network communication device 3 to management unit 15 of main control central device 4),
wherein the one or more parameters comprise foreign object debris (FOD) on the surface, and the detection unit further comprises a camera operable to scan the surface around the apparatus for the FOD (pg. 5 3rd–4th ¶, camera unit 12 is a three-dimensional, low-illumination zoom camera mounted on tower frame 8; pg. 5 10th ¶, camera unit 12 images the surface of airport runway 6 as scanning device 2 moves; pg. 6 1st ¶, the images are analyzed to determine whether foreign matter is present on airport runway 6),
wherein the detection unit is arranged such that each time FOD is detected by the detection unit, location data of the FOD is recorded to link a position of each FOD with a geographical location of the FOD (pg. 5 10th ¶, positioning unit 9 determines position information during movement of scanning device 2; pg. 6 1st ¶, once foreign matter is found, its coordinates are calculated from the position information provided by positioning unit 9 and displayed; pg. 6 2nd ¶, the foreign matter position information is stored in data storage unit 18),
wherein the apparatus is configured to periodically move along the rail to a position proximate to each FOD, use the camera to obtain a picture of the surface at the position of the FOD, and record updated visual data of the FOD (pg. 6 5th ¶, the scanning devices repeatedly scan the entire runway at a detection frequency set according to flight volume, e.g., approximately 2.5 minutes per full scan, shortened to 1.25–0.83 minutes when traffic is heavy; pg. 5 9th–10th ¶, each scan moves scanning device 2 along the full length of rail 1 while camera unit 12 images the runway surface; pg. 6 1st–2nd ¶, the images are analyzed and stored. Each traversal therefore moves the apparatus to a position proximate to each previously detected FOD, images the surface at that position, and records the resulting image data).
Zhang does not expressly disclose an on-board processor arranged to receive data from the camera and map each FOD to a map of the runway. Although Zhang's control unit 10 is mounted on scanning device 2 and receives the image data from camera unit 12 (pg. 5 3rd ¶ and 10th ¶), the image analysis and the calculation of the FOD coordinates are performed by management unit 15 of main control central device 4 (pg. 5 11th ¶; pg. 6 1st ¶).
However, Steine, in the analogous art of runway monitoring apparatus, teaches a detection unit arranged such that each data point collected is linked with location data representing the geographical location at which it was collected (pg. 3 ln. 8-12; pg. 15 ln. 14-16; claim 32), and an on-board processor arranged to receive data from the detection unit and map each data point onto a map of the runway stored in on-board memory (pg. 3 ln. 12-17; pg. 26 ln. 16-19; claim 33). Steine's detection unit includes cameras (pg. 14 ln. 8-16, visible light camera; pg. 16 ln. 10-14, FOD sensor 22 comprising an x-ray camera), and Steine expressly teaches using FOD sensor 22 to map the location of detected debris onto the generated or stored map, with the mapping performed by an on-board processor (pg. 13 ln. 28 – pg. 14 ln. 2; pg. 19 ln. 4-12; pg. 28 ln. 19-25). Steine further teaches that such processing and mapping may be performed either on board the apparatus or at a remote server (pg. 4 ln. 6-8; pg. 19 ln. 10-12). In addition, and alternatively to the extent the claim is construed to require movement directed specifically to the recorded position of each FOD, Steine teaches: when a position on the runway surface is known to have a fault or other irregularity, the apparatus is programmed to periodically move to that position, take a picture with the camera, and record the visual information obtained, returning to the same position to observe the progress over time (pg. 15 ln. 25-31; pg. 15 ln. 31 – pg. 16 ln. 5); the apparatus periodically returns to the recorded and mapped location of a detected fault to check whether it has been fixed (pg. 14 ln. 26 – pg. 15 ln. 4); the apparatus may be programmed or instructed to attend to particular locations on the runway to perform regular or scheduled scans (pg. 19 ln. 13-16); and each photo taken at a given position may be compared with previous photos taken at the same position (pg. 20 ln. 19 – pg. 21 ln. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Zhang's on-board control unit 10 to receive the data from camera unit 12 and map each detected FOD onto a stored map of the runway, and to configure Zhang's apparatus to periodically move along track 1 to the recorded position of each FOD, use camera unit 12 to obtain a picture of the surface at that position, and record the updated visual data, as taught by Steine. Because Steine expressly teaches that mapping may be performed either on board or at a remote server (pg. 19 ln. 10-12), performing the mapping in Zhang's on-board control unit 10 amounts to choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to maintain a current map of all potential hazards on the runway surface and to monitor whether a detected hazard persists or changes over time (Steine pg. 15 ln. 31 – pg. 16 ln. 5). In Zhang's system, this would also permit verification of the cleaning result that Zhang records after removal of the foreign matter (Zhang pg. 6 2nd ¶). Steine treats detected FOD and surface faults alike as hazards located on the same runway map (pg. 16 ln. 1-2; pg. 19 ln. 4-10). Zhang's apparatus already includes on-board positioning unit 9 and control unit 10 (pg. 5 3rd ¶) and repeatedly traverses the track (pg. 6 5th ¶). The modification is therefore no more than the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the drive unit comprises one or more wheels arranged to provide or assist rolling motion of the apparatus along the one or more rails (Zhang fig. 2; pg. 5 3rd ¶, the two sides of base 13 are each equipped with multiple rollers 14 that run on track 1, and the output shaft of the driving motor is connected to the central shaft of roller 14; pg. 5 9th ¶, the driving motor rotates roller 14 so that scanning device 2 moves along rail 1; see also pg. 6 claim 3 and pg. 7 claim 7, referring to element 14 as a rolling wheel and idler wheel, respectively.). Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communications unit comprises a transceiver arranged to wirelessly transfer data between the apparatus and the remote server (Zhang teaches that control unit 10 of scanning device 2 is wirelessly connected to main control central device 4 through network communication device 3 (Zhang fig. 2; pg. 4 last ¶ – pg. 5 1st ¶; pg. 5 3rd ¶). The wireless link carries data in both directions. Work instructions are sent from management unit 15 to control unit 10 (pg. 5 8th–9th ¶), and position information and image data are sent from control unit 10 to management unit 15 (pg. 5 11th ¶). The apparatus therefore necessarily includes a wireless transmitter and receiver, i.e., a transceiver. Further, Steine teaches a communications unit 30 on board the apparatus comprising a transceiver 31 arranged to wirelessly transfer data between the apparatus and a remote server, including transferring detection data to the server and receiving instructions from it (Steine pg. 20 ln. 9-19; pg. 21 ln. 6-11).). To the extent Zhang does not expressly disclose an on-board transceiver, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zhang's apparatus, as modified by Steine, with an on-board transceiver as taught by Steine. The motivation for doing so would have been to transmit detection data from the apparatus to the remote server and receive instructions from the server through a single communications component (Steine pg. 20 ln. 9-19).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the transceiver of the communications unit is operable to receive instruction information from a remote server, and the communications unit is arranged, in use, to communicate the instruction information to one or more of the drive unit and the detection unit (Zhang teaches that management unit 15 of main control central device 4 sends a work instruction, which is transmitted through network communication device 3 to control unit 10 of scanning device 2. Under the control of control unit 10, the driving motor then rotates rollers 14 to move scanning device 2 along rail 1 (Zhang fig. 2; pg. 5 8th–9th ¶). Control unit 10 is electrically connected to positioning unit 9, radar detection unit 11, camera unit 12, and the driving motor (pg. 5 3rd ¶), and the detection unit operates during the instructed movement (pg. 5 10th ¶). Further, Steine teaches a transceiver operable to receive instruction information from a remote server, including movement instructions for the drive unit and data collection instructions for the detection unit, with the communications unit passing the instruction information on to the drive unit and the detection unit (Steine pg. 4 ln. 31 – pg. 5 ln. 4; pg. 20 ln. 13-19; claim 6).). Same motivation to combine/modify as claims 1 and 6.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors of the detection unit comprises a friction meter arranged to measure and output data representative of a friction level of the runway surface (Zhang does not expressly disclose a friction meter; however, Steine teaches a friction meter 23 arranged to measure and output data representative of a friction level of a runway surface, e.g., a measured coefficient of friction (Steine pg. 5 ln. 9-15; pg. 16 ln. 16 – pg. 17 ln. 16; claim 7).). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Steine's friction meter in the detection unit of Zhang, as modified by Steine, in order to inform pilots and air traffic controllers of runway slipperiness so they can assess braking power and controllability on the runway (Steine pg. 5 ln. 10-15).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the friction meter comprises a friction measurement wheel arranged, in use, to be in contact with the surface (Zhang does not expressly disclose a friction measurement wheel; however, Steine teaches a friction measurement wheel 23a that is deployed while the apparatus is in motion and brought into contact with the surface of the runway or taxiway, with the wheel's rotation used to directly measure and calculate the friction level (Steine pg. 5 ln. 16-25; pg. 16 ln. 18-23; claim 8). Zhang's track 1 is laid on the ground directly alongside, and parallel to, runway 6 (Zhang pg. 4 last ¶ – pg. 5 1st ¶).). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount Steine's deployable friction measurement wheel on Zhang's scanning device 2 so that, when deployed, it contacts the adjacent runway surface, in order to directly measure the friction level of the runway surface through the wheel's rolling contact with it (Steine pg. 5 ln. 20-25; pg. 16 ln. 20-23). Positioning the wheel to reach the surface adjacent to the track is within the ordinary skill and creativity of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2141.03(I). Further, the test is what the combined teachings would have suggested, not whether Steine's wheeled platform could be bodily incorporated into Zhang. See MPEP 2145(III).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the friction meter comprises an optical module arranged to provide a measurement of the runway surface friction, preferably wherein the optical module comprises an infrared source (Zhang does not expressly disclose an optical module for measuring friction; however, Steine teaches a friction meter comprising an optical module that directs radiation at the runway surface and detects the reflected radiation to provide a measurement of runway surface friction (Steine pg. 5 ln. 28-33; pg. 16 ln. 25-31; claim 10), wherein the optical module comprises an infrared source (pg. 5 ln. 28-31; pg. 16 ln. 31 – pg. 17 ln. 10).). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Steine's optical module in the friction meter of Zhang, as modified by Steine, in order to measure runway surface friction without contacting the surface (Steine pg. 16 ln. 25-27). This is well suited to Zhang's track-side apparatus, whose sensors are already directed at the runway surface from track 1 (Zhang pg. 5 10th ¶).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit comprises a transmissometer operable to measure an ambient attenuation of light and output data representative of runway visibility (Zhang does not expressly disclose a transmissometer; however, Steine teaches a detection unit comprising a transmissometer operable to measure an ambient attenuation of light and output data representative of runway visibility, e.g., runway visual range (RVR) (Steine pg. 6 ln. 18-24; claim 13).). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Steine's transmissometer in the detection unit of Zhang, as modified by Steine, in order to measure runway visibility remotely and efficiently, rather than through slow, labour-intensive manual measurement (Steine pg. 1 ln. 14-17; pg. 6 ln. 27-29).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit further comprises a terrain sensor operable to scan and detect terrain surrounding the apparatus (Zhang does not expressly disclose a terrain sensor; however, Steine teaches a detection unit comprising a terrain sensor operable to scan and detect terrain surrounding the apparatus (Steine pg. 3 ln. 28-30; pg. 13 ln. 17-26; claim 3).). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Steine's terrain sensor in the detection unit of Zhang, as modified by Steine, in order to generate and maintain a map of the apparatus's surroundings, including detected obstacles and vehicles, onto which the location of detected FOD is mapped (Steine pg. 13 ln. 28 – pg. 14 ln. 2; pg. 19 ln. 4-10).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the terrain sensor comprises a LIDAR module arranged to scan and detect the surroundings of the apparatus, and output data representative of the surroundings of the apparatus (Zhang does not expressly disclose a LIDAR module; however, see Steine pg. 3 ln. 32 – pg. 4 ln. 4; pg. 4 ln. 20-22; pg. 13 ln. 20-28; claim 4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a LIDAR module as the terrain sensor of Zhang, as modified by Steine, in order to measure distances to surrounding terrain and obstacles and output a real-time 2-D or 3-D representation of the surroundings, which can be used to construct the map onto which detected FOD is mapped (Steine pg. 3 ln. 32 – pg. 4 ln. 3; pg. 13 ln. 24-30).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the drive unit is arranged to use data derived from the terrain sensor to navigate and autonomously effect movement of the apparatus along the one or more rails (Zhang teaches that the drive unit effects movement of the apparatus along the one or more rails under the control of on-board control unit 10 (Zhang pg. 5 3rd ¶ and 9th ¶). Zhang does not expressly disclose that the drive unit uses data derived from the terrain sensor to navigate and autonomously effect that movement. However, Steine teaches a drive unit arranged to use data derived from the terrain sensor to navigate and autonomously effect movement of the apparatus. The motion of the apparatus depends on the detected geography of its surroundings, and the apparatus detects and avoids obstacles in order to navigate safely (Steine pg. 4 ln. 12-19; pg. 13 ln. 11-15 and 26-28; claim 5). In light of the specification, "navigate...along the one or more rails" is reasonably interpreted as controlling the movement of the apparatus along the rails based on its detected surroundings (see applicant's publication [0066], describing autonomous motion that depends on the detected geography of the surroundings and the condition or accessibility of the rails).). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the drive unit of Zhang, as modified by Steine, to use data derived from the terrain sensor to navigate and autonomously effect movement of the apparatus along the one or more rails, as taught by Steine. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the apparatus to operate without an attending controller while detecting and avoiding obstacles in its path (Steine pg. 4 ln. 15-19; pg. 13 ln. 26-28). On a fixed track, avoiding a detected obstacle would be accomplished by slowing, stopping, or reversing the apparatus before reaching it, which is within the ordinary creativity of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2141.03(I). Applying Steine's terrain-based navigation to movement along Zhang's track is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a thermal imaging sensor configured to generate a heatmap of the surface of the runway (Zhang does not expressly disclose a thermal imaging sensor; however, Steine teaches a thermal imaging sensor used to generate a map of the heat of the surface of the runway, i.e., a heatmap (Steine pg. 15 ln. 17-20).). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Steine's thermal imaging sensor among the sensors of Zhang, as modified by Steine, in order to generate a runway surface map that can be compared with previous maps to identify changes in runway surface conditions and alert a user or remote server to those changes (Steine pg. 15 ln. 17-20; pg. 16 ln. 1-5).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a runway light detector arranged to detect a presence of runway lights and check proper functioning of lights on the runway (Zhang does not expressly disclose a runway light detector; however, Steine teaches a runway light detector arranged to detect the presence of runway lights and check the proper functioning of lights on the runway, e.g., by measuring luminosity against a threshold or historical data using the on-board camera (Steine pg. 7 ln. 16-24; pg. 14 ln. 19-28; claim 15).). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Steine's runway light detector among the sensors of Zhang, as modified by Steine, in order to identify faulty runway lights and alert air traffic control to their exact location so that they can be repaired (Steine pg. 14 ln. 26-31).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a maintenance unit arranged, in use, to perform maintenance operations on the surface of the runway or taxiway (Zhang does not expressly disclose a maintenance unit; however, Steine teaches a maintenance unit 40 arranged, in use, to perform maintenance operations on the surface of a runway or taxiway, including collecting debris based on data from the FOD sensor and applying chemicals to the runway surface (Steine pg. 7 ln. 26-30; pg. 9 ln. 4-12; pg. 18 ln. 8-9; pg. 18 ln. 31 – pg. 19 ln. 2; claim 18).). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Zhang, as modified by Steine, with Steine's maintenance unit. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the apparatus itself to address the hazards it detects, rather than requiring maintenance staff and equipment to be deployed, which Steine identifies as unreliable, expensive, and time-consuming (Steine pg. 2 ln. 9-13; pg. 7 ln. 27-30). Performing such operations on the runway surface adjacent to Zhang's track, which runs directly alongside the runway (Zhang pg. 4 last ¶ – pg. 5 1st ¶), is within the ordinary creativity of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2141.03(I).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 20, wherein the maintenance unit further comprises a wildlife repeller arranged, in use, to repel wildlife proximal to the surface (Zhang does not expressly disclose a wildlife repeller; however, Steine teaches a wildlife repeller comprising one or more of: a laser source, a speaker emitting high-frequency sound, and a spray nozzle for wildlife-repelling chemicals (Steine pg. 9 ln. 21-25; pg. 28 ln. 26 – pg. 29 ln. 6; claim 24).). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Steine's wildlife repeller in the maintenance unit of Zhang, as modified by Steine, in order to reduce the risk of wildlife interfering with flight operations, such as bird strikes. Because the repeller is carried on a moving apparatus, it can be moved toward the wildlife to disperse it more effectively than a static repeller (Steine pg. 9 ln. 25-31).
Regarding claim 22, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 20, wherein the maintenance unit further comprises a fire extinguisher, comprising an extinguishing agent tank and an extinguisher nozzle, operable to controllably release an extinguishing agent from the extinguishing agent tank (Zhang does not expressly disclose a fire extinguisher; however, see Steine pg. 10 ln. 8-15; claims 26-27). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Steine's fire extinguisher in the maintenance unit of Zhang, as modified by Steine, so that the apparatus can be moved to the source of a fire on the airfield and release extinguishing agent, reducing the risk to aerodrome personnel and improving fire reaction time (Steine pg. 18 ln. 17-20; pg. 29 ln. 20-22).
Regarding claim 23, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit further comprises one or more fire detectors (Zhang does not expressly disclose a fire detector; however, Steine teaches a detection unit comprising one or more fire detectors, e.g., an infrared sensor arranged to monitor ambient thermal radiation, a smoke detector, or a flame detector (Steine pg. 7 ln. 1-6; claim 14).). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Steine's fire detector in the detection unit of Zhang, as modified by Steine. The motivation for doing so would have been to detect fires on the runways and taxiways, which Steine identifies as a major aerodrome safety hazard, and to generate an alert signaling a potential fire (Steine pg. 7 ln. 1-3; pg. 18 ln. 11-17).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 109507740 A) in view of Steine (WO 2020109603 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matscheko (WO 2006108843 A1 – cited in IDS, see translation).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the drive unit comprises a maglev module arranged to provide magnetic levitation of the apparatus against the one or more rails. Rather, Zhang's drive unit moves the apparatus along track 1 on rollers 14 driven by a driving motor (Zhang pg. 5 3rd ¶). Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Matscheko teaches a drive unit comprising a maglev module arranged to provide magnetic levitation of an apparatus against one or more rails. See fig. 1, abstract, and pg. 3 9th ¶.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Zhang, as modified by Steine, with a drive unit comprising a maglev module arranged to provide magnetic levitation of the apparatus against the one or more rails, as taught by Matscheko. The motivation for doing so would have been to drive the apparatus along the rails (as suggested on pg. 2 3rd ¶ of Matscheko). Further, replacing Zhang's roller-based rail drive with Matscheko's magnetic levitation drive amounts to the simple substitution of one known means of moving an apparatus along a rail for another, yielding the predictable result of moving the apparatus along the rail.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 109507740 A) in view of Steine (WO 2020109603 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smoljanov (RU 2442711 C1 – cited in IDS, see translation).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the drive unit comprises a winch, arranged to engage a guide rope provided on the one or more rails to provide motion of the apparatus with respect to the one or more rails. Rather, Zhang's drive unit moves the apparatus along track 1 on rollers 14 driven by a driving motor (Zhang pg. 5 3rd ¶). However, in an analogous art, Smoljanov teaches a drive mechanism comprising a winch, arranged to engage a guide rope provided on one or more rails to provide motion of an apparatus with respect to the one or more rails. See figs. 1-3, pg. 3 1st–2nd ¶, and pg. 5 1st–3rd ¶.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Zhang, as modified by Steine, with a drive unit comprising a winch arranged to engage a guide rope provided on the one or more rails to provide motion of the apparatus with respect to the one or more rails, as taught by Smoljanov. The motivation for doing so would have been to drive/move the apparatus along the rails (as suggested on pg. 1 2nd ¶ and pg. 4 10th ¶ of Smoljanov). Further, replacing Zhang's roller-based rail drive with Smoljanov's winch-and-guide-rope drive amounts to the simple substitution of one known means of moving an apparatus along a rail for another, yielding the predictable result of moving the apparatus along the rail.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 109507740 A) in view of Steine (WO 2020109603 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Molt (US 3807532 A).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, including a drive unit (Zhang pg. 5 3rd ¶, motion unit 7) whose rollers 14 run on track 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the drive unit comprises a clamp for engaging the one or more rails so as to lock the apparatus engaged in contact or proximity with the one or more rails. Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Molt teaches a drive mechanism comprising a clamp for engaging one or more rails so as to lock an apparatus engaged in contact or proximity with the one or more rails. See figs. 1-2, abstract, col. 1 ln. 3-12, and col. 4 ln. 25-47.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the drive unit of Zhang, as modified by Steine, with a clamp for engaging the one or more rails so as to lock the apparatus engaged in contact or proximity with the one or more rails, as taught by Molt. The motivation for doing so would have been to secure and anchor the apparatus to the one or more rails (as suggested on col. 1 ln. 3-12 of Molt). Further, Zhang's rail-mounted apparatus is a known device ready for improvement, and applying Molt's known rail clamp to it would have yielded the predictable result of an apparatus that can be locked in position on the rails.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 109507740 A) in view of Steine (WO 2020109603 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilms (US 20070032925 A1 – cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang in view of Steine teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the communications unit is arranged to transfer data between the apparatus and the remote server by transmitting signals through the rails on which the drive unit is mounted. Rather, Zhang's scanning device 2 communicates with main control central device 4 over a wireless connection (Zhang pg. 4 last ¶ – pg. 5 1st ¶; pg. 5 3rd ¶). Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Wilms teaches a communications unit arranged to transfer data by transmitting signals through the rails. See fig. 1 and [0008]-[0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the communications unit of Zhang, as modified by Steine, to transfer data between the apparatus and the remote server by transmitting signals through the rails on which the drive unit is mounted, as taught by Wilms. The motivation for doing so would have been to communicate data via the rail system (as suggested in [0002] and [0008]-[0009] of Wilms). Further, replacing Zhang's wireless link with Wilms's rail-borne signal transmission amounts to the simple substitution of one known means of communicating with a rail-mounted apparatus for another, yielding the predictable result of transferring data between the apparatus and the remote server.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Allard is no longer relied upon because the "360 degrees" limitation has been deleted. Zhang, however, remains relied upon for the argued features, so the arguments are addressed below. See also the rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that Zhang does not disclose periodically moving to each FOD and obtaining updated visual data, but merely alerts a cleaning crew and assumes the FOD has been removed (Remarks, pp. 7-8). This is not persuasive. Zhang's apparatus repeatedly scans the full length of the track at a detection frequency set by flight volume (Zhang pg. 6 5th ¶ (cost economy analysis)). Each scan therefore moves the apparatus to a position proximate to each previously detected FOD, where the surface is imaged and the data is stored (pg. 5 9th–11th ¶; pg. 6 1st–2nd ¶). The claim does not require the apparatus to stop at the FOD or to confirm that maintenance was performed. See MPEP 2145(VI). Zhang also stores the cleaning result with the FOD position and images (pg. 6 2nd ¶). In any event, Steine teaches periodically returning to the recorded position of a detected hazard to photograph it and record updated visual data (Steine pg. 15 ln. 25 – pg. 16 ln. 5). Applicant's arguments against Zhang individually do not address the combination. See MPEP 2145(IV).
Regarding the rails alongside the runway and movement while the runway is in use (Remarks, p. 7), Zhang's rails run alongside runway 6 (Zhang pg. 4 last ¶ – pg. 5 1st ¶), and Zhang scans during flight operations rather than closing the runway (pg. 2 last ¶; pg. 6 5th ¶). The claim does not require an aircraft to be on the runway during movement (MPEP 2145(VI)). In any case, Zhang's track-side apparatus is capable of moving while the runway is occupied.
Applicant argues that the secondary references do not cure Zhang's deficiencies and that wheel-based devices traveling on the runway cannot provide continuous monitoring while it is occupied (Remarks, p. 8). This is not persuasive. Zhang in view of Steine teaches every limitation of claim 1. The argument also does not identify which references are allegedly wheel-based or provide supporting evidence. See MPEP 2145(I). Steine is relied upon for its mapping, revisit, sensor, and maintenance teachings, not its wheeled platform. Zhang supplies the rails, and bodily incorporation is not required. See MPEP 2145(III). Continuous monitoring is not claimed (MPEP 2145(VI)), and neither reference discourages a rail-mounted arrangement (MPEP 2145(X)(D)).
Because claim 1 remains rejected, Applicant's arguments for dependent claims 2-11 and 14-23 based on their dependency are likewise not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 5pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
