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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 12 have been amended.
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 4-12, and 15-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 4-7, 9-12, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohideen et al. (US 2017/0030735), hereinafter referred to as Mohideen, in view of Mori et al. (US 2023/0418310), hereinafter referred to as Mori, and Soler (US 2010/0321488), hereinafter referred to as Soler. Mohideen, Mori, and Soler are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of assisting landing of an aerial vehicle.
Regarding claim 1, Mohideen teaches:
A method of assisting landing of an aerial vehicle based on an image, comprising: acquiring an aerial vehicle landing image, including a landing area of the aerial vehicle (“In step 620, the first and second images are compared to identify a moving object. In step 625, the moving object may be identified as the carrier. In many flight environments, the carrier associated with the landing location may be the only moving object, and thus, may be identified as the carrier using image subtraction and/or optical flow estimation techniques.” – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0049),
captured by a camera installed on the aerial vehicle ("In one exemplary embodiment, the sensors 150 may include sensors configured to detect a light signature originating from outside the aircraft, such as a visible low light television camera, an infrared camera, and millimeter wave (MMW) camera or any other light sensing device capable of capturing an image or otherwise detecting light either within or outside of the visible spectrum." – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0026);
and estimating a location ("The exemplary embodiments discussed above are particular useful in landing on a carrier in an ocean environment, which may otherwise provide challenging operating conditions with respect to wind and wake turbulence during landing and takeoff Based on this information, the pilot knows the appearance, type, and lateral position of the target landing environment. This enables the pilot to perform the referencing task during a landing operation more quickly and accurately." – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0026)
and direction of the aerial vehicle based on the recognized digital landing marker ("In one exemplary embodiment, the landing information 250 may include symbology for the landing platform 260 that accurately represents the actual landing platform on the individual carrier, including any applicable marking or shapes… As also shown, symbology representing the landing platform 260 also includes markings in the form of an “H” symbol, which in this situation indicates that the landing platform 260 is intended for helicopters and provides a reference for alignment or orientation." – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0037) (The examiner notes that while Mohideen does not explicitly teach recognizing a ”digital landing marker” as claimed, Mohideen does teach using sensor data to recognize features such as marking or shapes which are specific to a particular landing area, wherein the recognized features serve a substantially similar function as the claimed recognized digital landing marker (“As noted above and discussed in greater detail below, this information may be based on data collected by sensors 150. As such, the landing information 250, including the landing platform 260, is presented in a manner that is specific to the individual carrier.” – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0037). As set forth in further detail below, the reference by Mori explicitly teaches the use of a landing marker in a manner which could be readily combined with the teachings of Mohideen to reach the claimed invention);
generating a landing guide object for guiding the aerial vehicle ("Broadly, exemplary embodiments described herein provide visual display systems and methods for aircraft. More specifically, the display systems and methods provide additional and/or more convenient landing information superimposed with other navigation and control information when approaching a landing platform, particularly a movable platform. In one exemplary embodiment, the characteristics of the movable platform may be identified with onboard sensors, e.g., sensors that are typically associated with an enhanced vision system. The symbology presented to the operator may include symbology associated with the movement of the landing platform." – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0015) (The examiner notes that the symbology presented to the operator which is associated with a landing platform as taught by Mohideen corresponds to the claimed landing guide objects);
to sequentially pass through a safety area ("In the view of FIG. 2, the aircraft is at a distance from the carrier such that the landing information 250 obscures any visual depiction of the carrier, which in this scenario is a ship. At a closer distance, the carrier is depicted on the visual display 200 in a form representative of the actual appearance of the carrier, similar to other portions of the environment." – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0034) (The examiner notes that the carrier which includes the landing platform as taught by Mohideen corresponds to the claimed safety area, because it indicates an area for which safety margins are considered to ensure a suitable landing (“In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, the system 100 may consider the safety margins of the carrier and/or the aircraft during the landing situation when displaying the landing symbology 450. For example, in the situation of FIG. 5, the pitch and roll have relatively high magnitudes, as indicated by the attitude symbology, and may unsuitable for continuing the landing operation.” – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0042)),
a final approach and take-off area (FATO), and a touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF), based on the estimated location and direction of the aerial vehicle (“As appropriate, additional lighting or markings corresponding to the touchdown and liftoff area (TLOF) and/or final approach and takeoff area (FATO) may be represented.” – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0037);
detecting the landing area from the acquired aerial vehicle landing image (“For example, image recognition technology that forms part of the SVS 112 or EVS 114 may be used to identify the landing location.” – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0049);
generating a landing assistance image by combining the acquired aerial vehicle landing image and the landing guide object ("In particular, the decision unit 116 is configured to correlate or register the images from the SVS 112 and EVS 114, determine how to combine the images, and facilitate display of the resulting image. In one exemplary embodiment, the decision unit 116 functions to overlay an image from the EVS 114 on top of the image from the SVS 112 with additional flight management and control symbology." – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0020),
the landing assistance image including information on the aerial vehicle’s position, direction and entry route (“FIG. 4 is a further exemplary visual display 400 that may be rendered by the aircraft system 100 of FIG. 1 in accordance with an exemplary embodiment. The display 400 of FIG. 4 is similar to the three-dimensional synthetic perspective view of the type shown in FIG. 2 and depicts landing symbology 450 representing a target landing environment. As above, the display 400 shows, among other things, computer generated symbols representing a zero pitch reference line 402, a flight path marker 404, attitude indicator 406, and terrain 410.” – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0040);
displaying the generated landing assistance image in real time (“As shown, FIG. 2 depicts an exemplary visual display 200 in the form of a three-dimensional synthetic perspective view of the real-time aircraft operating environment of the type presented on a primary flight display.” – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0032)
via a screen onboard the aerial vehicle (In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the system 100 displays images from the SVS 112 and the EVS 114 on the same display screen (e.g., display device 170).” – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0020);
providing the landing assistance image to allow a pilot to visually recognize and manually control the aerial vehicle, or to allow a flight control system to perform an autopilot program, based on the landing assistance image (“Accordingly, the enhanced display of the landing information can provide important information in a more convenient position for the pilot for easy recognition and evaluation. As such, during an approach and/or landing operation, the pilot can concentrate on the landing information without detracting attention from the navigation and control.” – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0052),
wherein the vertiport includes a first area corresponding to the TLOF, a second area corresponding to the FATO ("As appropriate, additional lighting or markings corresponding to the touchdown and liftoff area (TLOF) and/or final approach and takeoff area (FATO) may be represented. As noted above and discussed in greater detail below, this information may be based on data collected by sensors 150. As such, the landing information 250, including the landing platform 260, is presented in a manner that is specific to the individual carrier." – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0037),
and a third area corresponding to the safety area ("In the view of FIG. 2, the aircraft is at a distance from the carrier such that the landing information 250 obscures any visual depiction of the carrier, which in this scenario is a ship. At a closer distance, the carrier is depicted on the visual display 200 in a form representative of the actual appearance of the carrier, similar to other portions of the environment." – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0034) (The examiner notes that the carrier which includes the landing platform as taught by Mohideen corresponds to the claimed third area).
Mohideen does not explicitly disclose, but Mori teaches:
recognizing a digital landing marker installed at a vertiport from the acquired aerial vehicle landing image (“The image processing unit 32 performs image processing on an image captured by the camera 10 to calculate center positions of the small markers 72 and the large markers 74 (see FIG. 5). First, with reference to FIG. 5, a case in which the small marker 72 (No. 1), whose center position coincides with a center position of the target landing point 2 (Cx, Cy), is recognized in the image will be described.” – see at least Mori: paragraph 0058),
wherein the digital landing markers are respectively installed in the first area and the second area, and the digital landing marker installed in the first area has a smaller size than the digital landing marker installed in the second area (“The large marker group 74G includes a plurality of large markers 74 that are larger in size than the small markers 72 are. The large markers 74 are arranged side by side such that center positions of the large markers 74 are different from the center positions of the small markers 72 and the center positions of the large markers 74 are different from each other. The large markers 74 are arranged such that centers thereof are shifted from the target landing point 2. The large markers 74 are also arranged at positions farther away from the target landing point 2 than the small markers 72 are.” – see at least Mori: paragraph 0043)
so that the second area is recognized prior to the first area (“In addition, the marker group 7G includes the small markers 72 and the large markers 74 that are arranged at positions farther away from the target landing point 2 than the small markers 72 are. According to this configuration, it is easier to recognize the large markers 74 even though the altitude of the vertical take-off and landing aircraft 1 is relatively high, and the small markers 72 cannot be recognized in the image. Therefore, the target landing point 2 can be more stably captured.” – see at least Mori: paragraph 0107) (The examiner notes that Fig. 4 of Mori as shown below illustrates an example embodiment in which large markers are installed in an outer area, wherein the large markers are larger than the small markers installed in an area which contains the target landing point).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mohideen with these above aforementioned teachings from Mori to include recognizing a digital landing marker installed at a vertiport from the acquired aerial vehicle landing image, wherein the digital landing markers are respectively installed in the first area and the second area, and the digital landing marker installed in the first area has a smaller size than the digital landing marker installed in the second area so that the second area is recognized prior to the first area. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Mori’s automatic landing system with Mohideen’s aircraft landing assistance system in order to use the landing markers as a reference to calculate a position and orientation of an aircraft relative to a landing site (“The guidance calculation unit 34 calculates the relative position (X, Y) between the vertical take-off and landing aircraft 1 and the target landing point 2 based on the center position (Cx′, Cy′) of the small marker 72 or the center position (Cx″, Cy″) of the large marker 74 calculated by the image processing unit 32, an azimuth of the camera 10, that is, an aircraft heading of the vertical take-off and landing aircraft 1, an altitude of the vertical take-off and landing aircraft 1 (the relative altitude Δh with respect to the target landing point 2), and an offset amount (Dx, Dy) of each of the markers 72 and 74 with respect to the target landing point 2.” – see at least Mori: paragraph 0067). Doing so would provide the benefit of using the landing markers to guide an aircraft to a target landing location (“As described above, in the third embodiment, the example in which the marker shape of each marker 7 is variable has been described. In the third embodiment as described above, as in the first embodiment, the acquisition of the relative position (X, Y) by using the marker group 7G, which includes the markers 7, enables the vertical take-off and landing aircraft 1 to be more stably guided to the target landing point 2.” – see at least Mori: paragraph 0029).
The examiner notes that, as set forth in further detail above, Mohideen similarly teaches recognizing markings and shapes of a landing platform to identify the landing platform, and determine a relative position and orientation between an aircraft and the landing platform, in a manner which is substantially similar to the method of guiding an aircraft landing as taught by Mori. Mohideen further acknowledges that methods of identifying a landing platform which are not explicitly recited by Mohideen could be readily integrated into the system taught by Mohideen (“In other embodiments, other steps may be implemented to confirm and/or identify the carrier. In further embodiments, the landing platform on the carrier is additionally identified. In alternate embodiments, other types of sensor data may be collected to identify the carrier and platform. For example, image recognition technology that forms part of the SVS 112 or EVS 114 may be used to identify the landing location.” – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0049). As such, the method of using landing markers to guide an aircraft landing as taught by Mori could be readily integrated into the system of Mohideen to provide the aforementioned benefits.
Mohideen does not explicitly disclose, but Soler teaches:
calculating a matching degree based on a visual comparison between the generated landing guide object and the detected landing area (“a third step of comparing the first symbol with data of a geographical database, the comparison giving a first integrity condition for the data; a fourth step, carried out according to the value of the first condition, of displaying the first symbol on a display” – see at least Soler: paragraphs 0047-0048) (The examiner notes that the value of the integrity condition as taught by Soler corresponds to the claimed matching degree);
controlling the landing guide object to be differently displayed according to the calculated matching degree to visually indicate a reliability of a correspondence between the generated landing guide object and the detected landing area (“An advantage of the representation of symbols, according to the invention, extracted from the image capture device such as the EVS and displayed on the HUD, is that in case of non-integrity of the data correlated by the VALIDATION component, the display of the symbols extracted from the CAPTURE component can be automatically or manually suspended.” – see at least Soler: paragraph 0090);
and wherein the matching degree is calculated based on a deviation between a position of the detected landing area in the image and a position of the generated landing guide object (“A VALIDATION component makes it possible to compare the two symbols RUNWAY 1 and RUNWAY 2, notably their similarity and their position in one and the same reference frame. The computations of correlation between the two symbols can be performed on the basis of the contours of the runways generated by the displayed symbology. Notably, the correlation can integrate the width of the runway, the length of the runway, the axis of the runway.” – see at least Soler: paragraph 0070).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mohideen with these above aforementioned teachings from Soler to include calculating a matching degree based on a visual comparison between the generated landing guide object and the detected landing area, controlling the landing guide object to be differently displayed according to the calculated matching degree to visually indicate a reliability of a correspondence between the generated landing guide object and the detected landing area, and wherein the matching degree is calculated based on a deviation between a position of the detected landing area in the image and a position of the generated landing guide object. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Soler’s method of validating the integrity of data representing a runway with Mohideen’s aircraft landing assistance system in order to verify and validate the consistency of data relating to a runway (“The VALIDATION component makes it possible to verify and validate the consistency of the data relating to the position of the runway in space and its relative position with respect to the heading of the aircraft.” – see at least Soler: paragraph 0075). Doing so would provide the benefit of displaying data to a pilot which has had its integrity validated, thereby increasing safety (“The presentation of the symbol generated on the basis of the SYMBOL 1 component according to the invention can be either displayed or computed and not displayed. The representation of symbols generated by the SYMBOL 1 component may be similar to symbols already generated by other equipment, such as the landing runway. The VALIDATION component verifies the integrity of the data originating from various items of equipment with the data of the CAPTURE component. This verification allows the pilot to obtain an enhancement to safety as regards the information displayed in the HUD.” – see at least Soler: paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 4, Mohideen in view of Mori and Soler teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Mohideen further teaches:
wherein generating the landing guide object comprises generating based on the location and direction of the aerial vehicle, a landing guide object for guiding the aerial vehicle to enter the first area of the vertiport ("As appropriate, additional lighting or markings corresponding to the touchdown and liftoff area (TLOF) and/or final approach and takeoff area (FATO) may be represented. As noted above and discussed in greater detail below, this information may be based on data collected by sensors 150. As such, the landing information 250, including the landing platform 260, is presented in a manner that is specific to the individual carrier." – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 5, Mohideen in view of Mori and Soler teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Mohideen further teaches:
wherein generating the landing guide object comprises generating based on the location and direction of the aerial vehicle for each of the first to third areas, landing guide objects for sequentially guiding entry into the third area, the second area, and the first area of the aerial vehicle ("As shown, FIG. 2 depicts an exemplary visual display 200 in the form of a three-dimensional perspective view of the real-time aircraft operating environment of the type presented on a primary flight display. As described above, the position and appearance of the images and other symbology on the visual display 200 may be dynamically generated by the processing unit 110 based on input from the database 120, navigation system 130, flight management system 140, sensors 150, and/or communications unit 160. In the example of FIG. 2, the display 200 is primarily a synthetic image generated by the SVS 112 with a sensor (or video) image generated by the EVS 114 selectively displayed in front of and covering a synthetic portion of the environment as an insert. As noted above, the sensor image is appropriately registered with the synthetic image by the decision unit 116. In other exemplary embodiments, characteristics of the image may be based on images collected by the EVS 114, which are then used to modify or improve the synthetic portions of the image generated by the SVS 112. In the depicted exemplary embodiment, the sensor image corresponds to landing information 250, as will be discussed in greater detail below." – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 6, Mohideen in view of Mori and Soler teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Mohideen further teaches:
wherein the landing guide objects for each of the first to third areas are displayed differently ("In one exemplary embodiment, the landing information 250 may include symbology for the landing platform 260 that accurately represents the actual landing platform on the individual carrier, including any applicable marking or shapes. As such, in the depicted embodiment, the landing platform 260 is a conformal, circular shaped landing pad, although other shapes and configurations can be provided. As also shown, symbology representing the landing platform 260 also includes markings in the form of an “H” symbol, which in this situation indicates that the landing platform 260 is intended for helicopters and provides a reference for alignment or orientation. As appropriate, additional lighting or markings corresponding to the touchdown and liftoff area (TLOF) and/or final approach and takeoff area (FATO) may be represented. As noted above and discussed in greater detail below, this information may be based on data collected by sensors 150. As such, the landing information 250, including the landing platform 260, is presented in a manner that is specific to the individual carrier." – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 7, Mohideen in view of Mori and Soler teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Mohideen further teaches:
further comprising: generating a route guidance object based on a flight route for flight to a destination of the aerial vehicle ("In the depicted exemplary embodiment, the display 200 shows, among other things, computer generated symbols representing a zero pitch reference line (e.g., commonly referred to as a horizon line) 202, a flight path marker (also known as a flight path vector or velocity vector) 204, attitude indicator 206, and terrain (e.g., identified generally as element 210)." – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0032) (The examiner notes that the flight path marker as taught by Mohideen corresponds to the claimed route guidance object);
and displaying a route guidance image based on the generated route guidance object, wherein the route guidance image includes a first route guidance image or a second route guidance image according to a horizontal distance between the aerial vehicle and the vertiport ("In some embodiments, the size of symbology representing the landing information 250 may be a function of the distance of the target platform from the aircraft. For example, at least portions of the landing information 250 represent the actual appearance of the landing platform, such as in a manner proportional to the actual size relative to the other aspects of the landing environment." – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 9, Mohideen in view of Mori and Soler teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Mohideen further teaches:
wherein, when displaying the second route guidance image, the second route guidance image is displayed by adjusting a curve of the route guidance object indicating a route between the aerial vehicle and the vertiport ("As a result of the exemplary embodiments discussed above, the energy parameters of the landing platform and carrier may be presented to the operator. In the scenarios presented above, the high seas may cause varying motion of the carrier, which when happen in tandem with low visibility would otherwise degrade the visual cues of the operator. However, the displays 200, 400 enable the operator to adjust the position of the aircraft dynamically according to the carrier movement as the aircraft approaches the carrier. The data collected by the sensors 150, typically used in the EVS 114, enables the system 100 to track and evaluate the moving platform for display on the primary flight display. As a result, exemplary embodiments enable the evaluation, display and consideration of energy parameters of the landing platform (including pitch and roll) to provide a more accurate representation of the landing environment." – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 10, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 1 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 1 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 1 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is substantially similar to claim 4 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 4 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is substantially similar to claim 5 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 5 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is substantially similar to claim 6 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 6 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is substantially similar to claim 7 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 7 as has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is substantially similar to claim 9 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 9 as has been set forth above.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohideen in view of Mori and Soler, further in view of Shadmi et al. (US 2012/0176497), hereinafter referred to as Shadmi. Shadmi is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of assisting landing of an aerial vehicle.
Regarding claim 8, Mohideen in view of Mori and Soler teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Mohideen further teaches:
wherein, when displaying the second route guidance image, a vertiport object indicating the vertiport is displayed on one area of a screen ("As also shown, symbology representing the landing platform 260 also includes markings in the form of an “H” symbol, which in this situation indicates that the landing platform 260 is intended for helicopters and provides a reference for alignment or orientation." – see at least Mohideen: paragraph 0037),
Mohideen does not explicitly disclose, but Shadmi teaches:
and the transparency of the vertiport object is adjusted when the aerial vehicle approaches the vertiport within a predetermined distance ("According to a non-limiting example, the technique of overlaying an image, or portion of an image, can be used as segments of the current image start and then become more obscured. The transparency of the images can be varied depending on the application of the method to render a view of the landing zone." – see at least Shadmi: paragraph 0068).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mohideen with these above aforementioned teachings from Shadmi such that the transparency of the vertiport object is adjusted when the aerial vehicle approaches the vertiport within a predetermined distance. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Shadmi’s method of varying the transparency of guidance images with Mohideen’s system for displaying a landing platform in order to update a guidance image as a vehicle approaches a landing zone (“In another optional embodiment a second plurality of images are captured during the vehicle's approach to the landing zone and the second plurality of images are used to update the three-dimensional model.” – see at least Shadmi: paragraph 0014). Doing so would provide the benefit of adjusting the way the displayed image is rendered such that a user can readily interpret the displayed information (“A variety of techniques is known in the art for augmenting the live images, including blending, weighted average, and transparency. The rendered view of the landing zone is a combination of segments of the current image for visible segments of the landing zone with simulated segments from the three-dimensional model for segments of the landing zone that are obscured. The rendered view provides sufficient information to provide a view of the obscured landing zone. The view can be displayed on a display system 214.” – see at least Shadmi: paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 19, this claim is substantially similar to claim 8 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 8 as has been set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 21 January 2026 with respect to claims 1, 4-12, and 15-20 have been considered but are moot because in view of the new grounds of rejection based on the teachings of the newly relied upon reference by Soler, which has been introduced to address the amended claims.
In particular, the Applicant asserts that the previously applied references do not teach or suggest the limitations which have been newly added to the independent claims, including “calculating a matching degree based on a visual comparison between the generated landing guide object and the detected landing area”, “controlling the landing guide object to be differently displayed according to the calculated matching degree to visually indicate a reliability of a correspondence between the generated landing guide object and the detected landing area”, and “wherein the matching degree is calculated based on a deviation between a position of the detected landing area in the image and a position of the generated landing guide object”. In the previous presentation of the claims, in particular claim 2 as previously presented, the claim language did not specify that the claimed “matching degree” is calculated based on a visual comparison between the generated landing guide object and the detected landing area, nor that the matching degree is calculated based on a deviation between a position of the detected landing area in the image and a position of the generated landing guide object. As such, the claimed matching degree was previously recited broadly enough such that Mohideen was considered to sufficiently teach the corresponding limitations as previously presented, as set forth in further detail in the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Non-Final Rejection filed 22 October 2025.
In view of the Applicant’s amendments, the examiner acknowledges that Mohideen does not clearly teach or suggest the claimed limitations regarding calculating a matching degree based on a visual comparison between the generated landing guide object and the detected landing area. To address the Applicant’s Response, the examiner has introduced the reference by Soler which teaches:
an aircraft landing aid, including generating symbology extracted from video images and superimposed on a cockpit display (see at least Soler: paragraphs 0020 and 0079), wherein the superimposed symbology of Soler corresponds to the claimed landing guide object;
a validation component for verifying and validating the consistency of data relating to a runway by comparing a symbol defining the runway with data from a geographical database to determine an integrity condition for the data (see at least Soler: paragraphs 0044-0048 and 0075), wherein the integrity condition of Soler corresponds to the claimed matching degree;
the comparison performed by the validation component includes a comparison of the similarity and position of the two symbols in one and the same reference from (see at least Soler: paragraphs 0067-0070), which corresponds to the claimed deviation between a position of the detected landing area in the image and a position of the generated landing guide object;
selectively controlling the display of the generated symbols according to the determined integrity of the data related to the runway, to enhance a pilot’s ability to safely operate the aircraft (see at least Soler: paragraphs 0044-0048 and 0090-0091), which corresponds to controlling the landing guide object to be differently displayed according to the calculated matching degree to visually indicate a reliability of a correspondence between the generated landing guide object and the detected landing area as claimed.
Soler further teaches in at least paragraph 0113 that an advantage of this system is to allow certainty of the consistency of displayed information regarding a position of a runway, even in cases of poor visibility, which is a substantially similar benefit as the benefit pointed out in the Applicant’s Remarks, with regard to modifying a display upon detecting uncertainty in visual information, such as due to poor visibility from strong backlighting or dust. Therefore, Soler is considered to cure the aforementioned deficiencies of Mohideen and Mori, and the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 DOMINICK ANTHONY MULDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, RAMYA P BURGESS can be reached on (571)272-6011. 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.
/D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights