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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 07/09/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: it recites “detect units”; however, it should recite “detection unit”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 109507740 A – cited in IDS, see translation) in view of Allard (US 20010037163 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an aerodrome maintenance apparatus (figs. 1-2, element 2) for monitoring runway and taxiway conditions and remotely reporting a status of the runway or taxiway (fig. 1), the apparatus comprising:
a drive unit (pg. 5 3rd ¶, “apparatus 2 comprises a motion unit 7”) arranged to mount one or more rails (figs. 1-2, element 1; pg. 5 1st ¶, “rail 1”) to provide movement of the apparatus along the one or more rails (figs. 1-2; pg. 5 3rd ¶, “apparatus 2 comprises a motion unit 7,…wherein the movement unit 7 comprises a base 13, a roller 14 and a driving motor; two sides of the base side (13) are respectively equipped with multiple rollers can run on the track 1”);
a detection unit (pg. 5 4th – 5th ¶, foreign matter scanning apparatus 2 includes an “image pickup unit 12” and a “radar detecting unit 11”) comprising one or more sensors configured to detect one or more parameters of a surface of the runway or taxiway (fig. 1; pg. 5 10th ¶, “using the radar detection unit 11 by means of electromagnetic waves to scan the surface of the airport runway 6, and transmitted to the control unit 10, at the same time using the camera unit 12 for three-dimensional imaging the surface of the airport runway 6, and transmitted to the control unit 10”); and
a communications unit (fig. 2, element 3) arranged to transfer data derived from the detection unit from the apparatus to a remote server (fig. 1 element 4 (element 4 reads on the “remote server”); pg. 5 11th ¶, the main control center device 4 is installed in the terminal building and is wirelessly connected to the foreign matter scanning device 2 via the 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 10th ¶, “in the moving process of foreign body scanning device 2, utilizing the determined foreign matter scanning device positioning unit 9 2 position information and airport runway 6 itself on the foreign matter position information and transmitted to the control unit 10, using the radar detection unit 11 by means of electromagnetic waves to scan the surface of the airport runway 6, and transmitted to the control unit 10, at the same time using the camera unit 12 for three-dimensional imaging the surface of the airport runway 6, and transmitted to the control unit 10; ; 4) control unit 10 converts the received position information, the scanning image and three-dimensional image through the network communication device 3 directly or through the information interaction unit 16 transmitted to the management unit of the 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 (fig. 1; pg. 5 3rd ¶, “the foreign matter scanning apparatus 2 comprises…camera unit 12”; fig. 1; pg. 5 10th ¶, “using the radar detection unit 11 by means of electromagnetic waves to scan the surface of the airport runway 6, and transmitted to the control unit 10, at the same time using the camera unit 12 for three-dimensional imaging the surface of the airport runway 6, and transmitted to the control unit 10” ; pg. 6 1¶, “the scanned image and three-dimensional image analysis in order to determine whether the airport runway 6 there is foreign, once the foreign matter”).
However, Zhang does not expressly disclose the camera operable to scan the surface 360 degrees around the apparatus for the FOD; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Allard teaches a robot-mounted omnidirectional (360°) camera for panoramic capture, e.g., “a camera such as an omnicam is rotatably mounted on the robot and is able to capture images in 360 degrees without requiring the robot to turn in place” ([0049]) and “in other embodiments the robot can turn in place in order to capture 360 degree images” ([0049]). Allard further describes mounting arrangements with head/neck-mounted cameras having pan/tilt/zoom controls ([0033]–[0035], [0054]), evidencing known configurations for achieving full-surround imaging on a mobile apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Zhang’s image pickup unit 12 with the panoramic/omnidirectional camera arrangement taught by Allard ([0049]; [0033]–[0035], [0054]) in order to provide full-surround coverage of the runway surface and thereby improve FOD detection. Such a substitution represents no more than the predictable use of a known camera design (360° panoramic) in place of another known design (narrow field of view) to achieve the recognized benefit of comprehensive situational awareness.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang in view of Allard discloses 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).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Allard discloses 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 fig. 2; pg. 5 3rd ¶).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in view of Allard discloses 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 units (Zhang fig. 2; pg. 5 8th-11th ¶).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 109507740 A) in view of Allard (US 20010037163 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 Allard discloses 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; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Matscheko discloses a drive unit comprising a maglev module arranged to provide magnetic levitation of an apparatus against the one or more rails. See fig. 1, abstract and pg. 3 9th ¶.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filling of the claimed invention to provide a drive unit comprising a maglev module arranged to provide magnetic levitation of an apparatus against the one or more rails as taught by Matscheko in the apparatus taught by Zhang In view of Allard. The motivation for doing so would have been to drive the apparatus (as suggested on pg. 2 3rd ¶ of Matscheko)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 109507740 A) in view of Allard (US 20010037163 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 Allard discloses 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 rails; however, in an analogous art, Smoljanov teaches a drive mechanism comprising a winch, arranged to engage a guide rope provided on the one or more rails to provide motion of an apparatus with respect to the one or rails. See figs. 1-3, pg. 3 1st – 2nd ¶, and pg. 5 1st – 3rd ¶.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filling of the claimed invention to provide a drive mechanism comprising a winch, arranged to engage a guide rope provided on the one or more rails to provide motion of an apparatus with respect to the one or rails as taught by Smoljanov in the apparatus taught by Zhang In view of Allard. The motivation for doing so would have been to drive/move the apparatus (as suggested on pg. 1 2nd ¶ and pg. 4 10th ¶ of Smoljanov).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 109507740 A) in view of Allard (US 20010037163 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Molt (US 3807532 A).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Allard discloses the apparatus according to claim 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 the 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 for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filling of the claimed invention to provide a drive mechanism comprises a clamp for engaging the one or more rails so as to lock an apparatus engaged in contact or proximity with the one or more rails as taught by Molt in the apparatus taught by Zhang in view of Allard. The motivation for doing so would have been to secure/anchor the apparatus to the one or more rails (as suggested on col 1 ln 3-12 of Molt).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 109507740 A) in view of Allard (US 20010037163 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 Allard discloses 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; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Wilms teaches a communications unit is arranged to transfer data transmitting signals through the rails. See fig. 1 and [0008]-[0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filling of the claimed invention to provide 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 as taught by Wilms in the apparatus taught by Zhang in view of Allard. The motivation for doing so would have been to communicate data via a rail system (as suggested [0002] and [0008]-[0009] of Wilms).
Claims 9-11, and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 109507740 A) in view of Allard (US 20010037163 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steine (WO 2020109603 A1 – cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang in view of Allard discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose 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; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Steine teaches one or more sensors of a detection unit comprising a friction meter arranged to measure and output data representative of a friction level of a runway surface. See pg. 16 ln 16 to pg. 17 ln 16 and claims 7-10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filling of the claimed invention to provide one or more sensors of a detection unit comprising a friction meter arranged to measure and output data representative of a friction level of a runway surface as taught by Steine in the apparatus taught by Zhang in view of Allard. The motivation for doing so would have been to measure the surface friction (as suggested on pg. 16 ln 16 to pg. 17 ln 16 and claims 7-10 of Steine).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang in view of Allard and 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 (Steine pg. 16 ln 16 to pg. 17 ln 16 and claims 8).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang in view of Allard and 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 (Steine pg. 16 ln 16 to pg. 17 ln 16 and claim 10).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang in view of Allard discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the detection unit comprises a transmissometer operable to measure an ambient attenuation of light and output data representative of runway visibility; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Steine teaches a detection unit comprising a transmissometer operable to measure an ambient attenuation of light and output data representative of runway visibility. See pg. 6 ln 18-31 and claim 13 & 25.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filling of the claimed invention to provide a detection unit comprising a transmissometer operable to measure an ambient attenuation of light and output data representative of runway visibility as taught by Steine in the apparatus taught by Zhang in view of Allard. The motivation for doing so would have been to measure a runway visual range (as suggested on pg. 6 ln 18-31 of Steine).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang in view of Allard discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the detection unit further comprises a terrain sensor operable to scan and detect terrain surrounding the apparatus; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Steine teaches a detection unit comprising a terrain sensor operable to scan and detect terrain surrounding an apparatus. See pg. 3 ln 28 to pg. 4 ln 22 and claims 3-5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filling of the claimed invention to provide a detection unit comprising a terrain sensor operable to scan and detect terrain surrounding an apparatus as taught by Steine in the apparatus taught by Zhang in view of Allard. The motivation for doing so would have been to scan and detect terrain surrounding the apparatus (as suggested on pg. 3 ln 28 to pg. 4 ln 22 and claims 3-5 of Steine).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang in view of Allard and 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 (Steine pg. 3 ln 28 to pg. 4 ln 22 and claims 3-5).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang in view of Allard and Steine discloses 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 (Steine pg. 3 ln 28 to pg. 4 ln 22 and claims 3-5)
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang in view of Allard discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more sensors comprise a thermal imaging sensor configured to generate a heatmap of the surface of the runway; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Steine teaches one or more sensors comprising a thermal imaging sensor configured to generate a map of the heat of the surface of a runway. See pg. 15 ln 18-20.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filling of the claimed invention to provide one or more sensors comprising a thermal imaging sensor configured to generate a map of the heat of the surface of a runway as taught by Steine in the apparatus taught by Zhang in view of Allard. The motivation for doing so would have been to generate a map of the heat of the surface of the runway (as suggested on pg. 15 ln 18-20 of Steine).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang in view of Allard discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose 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; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Steine teaches one or more sensors comprising a runway light detector, arranged to detect the presence of runway lights and check the proper functioning of lights on the runway. See pg. 14 ln 19 to pg. 15 ln 7 and claim 15.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filling of the claimed invention to provide one or more sensors comprising a runway light detector, arranged to detect the presence of runway lights and check the proper functioning of lights on the runway as taught by Steine in the apparatus taught by Zhang in view of Allard. The motivation for doing so would have been to detect the presence of runway lights and check the proper functioning of lights on the runway (as suggested on pg. 14 ln 19 to pg. 15 ln 7 and claim 15 of Steine).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang in view of Allard discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose it further comprising a maintenance unit arranged, in use, to perform maintenance operations on the surface of the runway or taxiway; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Steine teaches a maintenance unit arranged, in use, to perform maintenance operations on the surface of a runway or taxiway. See pg. 7 ln 26-30 and claim 18.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filling of the claimed invention to provide a maintenance unit arranged, in use, to perform maintenance operations on the surface of a runway or taxiway as taught by Steine in the apparatus taught by Zhang. The motivation for doing so would have been to perform maintenance operations on the surface of a runway or taxiway (as suggested on pg. 7 ln 26-30 and claim 18 of Steine).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang in view of Allard and 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 (Steine pg. 9 ln 21-31 and claim 24).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 20.
Regarding claim 22, Zhang in view of Allard and 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 (Steine pg. 10 ln 8-15 and claims 26-27).
Same motivation to combine/modify as claim 20.
Regarding claim 23, Zhang in view of Allard discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the detection unit further comprises one or more fire detectors; nonetheless, in an analogous art, Steine teaches a detection unit further comprising one or more fire detectors. See pg. 7 ln 1-6 and claim 14.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of first filling of the claimed invention to provide a detection unit further comprising one or more fire detectors as taught by Steine in the apparatus taught by Zhang in view of Allard. The motivation for doing so would have been to monitor ambient thermal radiation and detect fires (as suggested on pg. 7 ln 1-6 and claim 14 of Steine).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to new combination of references including new prior art being used in the current rejection. The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/QUAN ZHEN WANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685