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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed 5/5/2026, the following has occurred: claims 4, 11, 17, and 22 have been amended; claims 25-27 have been added; claims 1 and 4-27 are currently pending.
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.
Claim 26 is 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 26 recites “wherein the first light sources have a shorter wavelength than the second light sources”, which is indefinite because claim 1, from which claim 26 depends, recites “the second light sources having a greater intensity than that of the first light sources” and appears to be in direct contradiction to the limitations of claim 1. As best understood by Examiner, and further supported by Applicant’s Remarks dated 5/5/2026 (pp. 9), a longer wavelength corresponds to a lower intensity. If the second light sources are to have a greater intensity than the first light sources as recited in claim 1, then the first light sources must have a longer wavelength than the second light sources.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5, 7, 21-23, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Lewis et al. (US 20190248511 A1 (PGPub of US 11053646 B2 cited on Applicant’s IDS)), hereinafter Lewis, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lewis et al. (US 20190248511 A1), hereinafter Lewis, in view of Petersen et al. (US 20190339720 A1), hereinafter Petersen.
Regarding Claim 1
Lewis teaches a landing pad for vision-based guidance of a vehicle (helipad shown in Fig. 1), the landing pad comprising: a first perimeter of a landing area defined by the landing pad (inner perimeter of helipad (TLOF area), Fig. 1), the first perimeter having a first array of first light sources (Fig. 1); and a second perimeter having a second array of second light sources (outer perimeter of helipad (FATO area), Fig. 1), the second perimeter around the first perimeter (Fig. 1), the second light sources having a greater intensity than that of the first light sources to define a pattern for detection by an image sensor of the vehicle for guiding the vehicle toward or away from the landing area (Para. [0032] “the intensity or brightness, as well as the color, of the LEDs 15 can be controlled by the control system 25. The PIC controller 50 and DX controller 26 described above are capable of establishing the color and brightness/intensity of the selected LEDs. These attributes of the selected LEDs can be pre-programmed, such as the required green for the LEDs defining the FATO perimeter (see FIG. 1)”, Examiner notes the light intensity of the first light source can be higher than that of the second light source).
Examiner believes it is clearly understood that the second light sources can have a greater intensity than that of the first light sources to define a pattern as claimed. However, Examiner recognizes that although Lewis discloses that the smart LEDs can be controlled to generate a plurality of different colors (Para. [0025]), an example is not explicitly provided showing that at least two of the LEDs from different perimeters are different colors. In order to promote compact prosecution, an additional reference is being brought in to explicitly teach this feature.
Therefore, in the alternative Lewis teaches the limitations of claim 1, except:
the second light sources having a greater intensity than that of the first light sources to define a pattern for detection by an image sensor of the vehicle for guiding the vehicle toward or away from the landing area.
Petersen teaches:
the second light sources having a different intensity than that of the first light sources to define a pattern for detection by an image sensor of the vehicle for guiding the vehicle toward or away from the landing area (Para. [0026] “A light array can be configured to illuminate or otherwise change an appearance (e.g., brightness, color, etc.) of select portions (e.g., location markers) of the lower landing area or the upper landing area to communicate the landing pad location. For example, the computing system can illuminate at least a portion of a border or a center of a landing pad at the landing pad location using the light array to communicate the landing pad location”, Examiner notes that this example teaches the border and center having different light intensities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the second light sources having a greater intensity than that of the first light sources to define a pattern as taught by Petersen with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing different lights and patterns for an aircraft to detect when landing. For example, having a perimeter closer to the center of the landing pad lit in such a way that is different than an outer perimeter allows the pilot and/or aircraft to detect where the center of the landing pad is.
Regarding Claim 4
Lewis, or in the alternative, Lewis, in view of Petersen teaches the landing pad as defined in claim 1, including at least one programmable circuitry to be programmed by instructions to operate at least one of the first light sources with a first repeating pattern that is different from a second repeating pattern of at least one of the second light sources (Examiner notes that the perimeters of Lewis are capable of having repeating patterns as claimed, Para. [0008] “The RGB color change LEDs within the LED matrix can also be controlled to output selected colors, or to flash or fade patterns”).
Regarding Claim 5
Lewis, or in the alternative, Lewis, in view of Petersen, teaches the landing pad as defined in claim 1, wherein the first and second perimeters each have a quadrilateral shape (Lewis: Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 7
Lewis, or in the alternative, Lewis, in view of Petersen, teaches the landing pad as defined in claim 1, wherein the pattern is defined based on locations and relative positions of the first and second light sources (Lewis: Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 21
Lewis, or in the alternative, Lewis, in view of Petersen, teaches the landing pad as defined in claim 1, wherein at least one of the first light sources has a different light intensity relative from another of the first light sources (Lewis: Para. [0008] “LEDs within the matrix can be illuminated in controlled patterns to create visible alphanumeric characters and can also be configured to illuminate as abstract animations. The RGB color change LEDs within the LED matrix can also be controlled to output selected colors, or to flash or fade patterns to alert trained ground and aircraft based personnel of pre-determined events”).
Regarding Claim 22
Lewis, or in the alternative, Lewis, in view of Petersen, teaches the landing pad as defined in claim 21, wherein at least one of the second light sources has a different light intensity relative from another of the second light sources (Lewis: Para. [0008] “LEDs within the matrix can be illuminated in controlled patterns to create visible alphanumeric characters and can also be configured to illuminate as abstract animations. The RGB color change LEDs within the LED matrix can also be controlled to output selected colors, or to flash or fade patterns to alert trained ground and aircraft based personnel of pre-determined events”).
Regarding Claim 23
Lewis, in view of Petersen, teaches the landing pad as defined in claim 1, including a third perimeter around the second perimeter (Petersen: Fig. 8, for example, shows three perimeters), the third perimeter having third light sources with a greater intensity than that of the second light sources area (Lewis: Para. [0032] “the intensity or brightness, as well as the color, of the LEDs 15 can be controlled by the control system 25. The PIC controller 50 and DX controller 26 described above are capable of establishing the color and brightness/intensity of the selected LEDs. These attributes of the selected LEDs can be pre-programmed, such as the required green for the LEDs defining the FATO perimeter (see FIG. 1)”, Examiner notes the light intensity of the third light sources can be higher than that of the second light sources and further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the outermost perimeter having the highest intensity light would aid the pilot in ensuring the vehicle is landed at least within those bounds).
Regarding Claim 25
Lewis, in view of Petersen, teaches the landing pad as defined in claim 1, wherein the first and second light sources are in the same light spectrum band (Examiner notes that all light disclosed in Lewis and Petersen are visible light).
Regarding Claim 27
Lewis, in view of Petersen, teaches the landing pad as defined in claim 1, including a third perimeter around the second perimeter (Petersen: Fig. 8, for example, shows three perimeters), the third perimeter having third light sources with a shorter wavelength than the second light sources (Lewis: Para. [0032] “the intensity or brightness, as well as the color, of the LEDs 15 can be controlled by the control system 25. The PIC controller 50 and DX controller 26 described above are capable of establishing the color and brightness/intensity of the selected LEDs. These attributes of the selected LEDs can be pre-programmed, such as the required green for the LEDs defining the FATO perimeter (see FIG. 1)”, Examiner notes the light intensity of the third light sources can be higher than, and therefore have a wavelength shorter than, that of the second light sources and further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the outermost perimeter having the highest intensity light would aid the pilot in ensuring the vehicle is landed at least within those bounds).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 20190248511 A1), hereinafter Lewis, in view of Petersen et al. (US 20190339720 A1), hereinafter Petersen as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 21-23, 25, and 27 above, and further in view of Phillips et al. (US 20180265196 A1), hereinafter Phillips.
Regarding Claim 6
Lewis, in view of Petersen, teaches the landing pad as defined in claim 1, but is silent on:
wherein the landing pad is foldable.
Phillips teaches:
wherein the landing pad is foldable (Para. [0011] “The preferred flexible basal platform 1 is composed of non-permeable fabric such that the present invention may be positioned into a collapsed configuration for storage and transportation purposes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the landing pad of Lewis, in view of Petersen, foldable as taught by Phillips with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a simple means to store and move the landing pad to different locations as needed (Phillips: Para. [0011]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US 20190248511 A1), hereinafter Lewis, in view of Petersen et al. (US 20190339720 A1), hereinafter Petersen as applied to claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 21-23, 25, and 27 above, and further in view of Bazan et al. (“Non supervised perceptual model for target recognition in UAVs”), hereinafter Bazan.
Regarding Claim 24
Lewis, in view of Petersen, teaches the landing pad as defined in claim 23, but is silent on:
wherein a first distance between the second and third perimeters is greater than a second distance between the first and second perimeters.
Bazan teaches:
wherein a first distance between the second and third perimeters is greater than a second distance between the first and second perimeters (Fig. 1(a) on page 2).
Examiner notes that Para. [0073] of Petersen states that the pad markers, i.e., perimeters, can be dynamically sized based on minimum safety requirements. However, since the distance between the second and third perimeters, as well as the distance between the first and second perimeters, is not explicitly disclosed, Bazan is brought in as a secondary reference to explicitly teach this feature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the distance between the second and third perimeters greater than the distance between the first and second perimeters with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing markers with whatever relative positions that were desired or expedient, for example, based on safety requirements as disclosed by Petersen.
Claims 8-13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over González et al. (Machine Translation of WO 2022180276 A1 (English Abstract provided by Applicant and cited on Applicant’s IDS)), hereinafter González, in view of Petersen et al. (US 20190339720 A1), hereinafter Petersen.
Regarding Claim 8
González teaches an apparatus to guide a vehicle toward or away from a landing pad (Abstract), the apparatus comprising: interface circuitry (landing pad detection unit (920), Fig. 9) communicatively coupled to an image sensor supported by the vehicle (camera (910), Fig. 9); machine readable instructions (claim 31 “comprising program instruction means”); and at least one programmable circuitry (control unit (940)) to be programmed by the machine readable instructions to: identify, based on output from the image sensor, first and second perimeters of a landing area of the landing pad (claim 1 “configured to detect, in an image (502) captured by the camera (910), a landing template (400) formed by a plurality of concentric circular annuluses (402) of decreasing thickness by detecting a predetermined number N of concentric circles in the image (502)”), wherein the first and second perimeters have a different light characteristic to define a pattern (Fig. 2, for example), the light characteristic corresponding to at least one of a light intensity, a spectrum, a color or a brightness (Fig. 2 shows perimeters with different colors), calculate a position of the vehicle relative to the landing pad based on the pattern (Page 13 Para. 14 “Calculate the physical distance between the drone 1010 and the center (Xc.Yc) of the landing template 400”), and guide movement of the vehicle based on the position of the vehicle relative to the landing pad (claim 1 “configured to perform an autonomous landing of the drone (1010) on the landing template (400) using as reference the positions (508) of the landing template (400 ) detected in images (502) captured by the camera (910) during landing”), but does not teach:
the first perimeter having a first array of first light sources and the second perimeter having a second array of second light sources, the second light sources having a greater intensity than that of the first light sources to define a pattern
Petersen teaches:
the first perimeter having a first array of first light sources (border (404), for example, Fig. 8) and the second perimeter having a second array of second light sources (pad marker (408), for example, Fig. 8), the second light sources having a greater intensity than that of the first light sources to define a pattern (Para. [0026] “A light array can be configured to illuminate or otherwise change an appearance (e.g., brightness, color, etc.) of select portions (e.g., location markers) of the lower landing area or the upper landing area to communicate the landing pad location. For example, the computing system can illuminate at least a portion of a border or a center of a landing pad at the landing pad location using the light array to communicate the landing pad location”, Examiner notes that this example teaches the border and center having different light intensities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of González with the features of Petersen with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means to improve landing operations after sunset and in low light intensity situations. Examiner notes that the landing pad itself, including the perimeters and lights, is not part of the apparatus as currently claimed, but is instead recited to describe what the apparatus is detecting.
Regarding Claim 9
González, in view of Petersen, teaches the apparatus as defined in claim 8, wherein the programmable circuitry is to identify the second perimeter at a first position of the vehicle and identify the first perimeter at a second position of the vehicle (González: Page 13 Para. 2 “During the vertical approach state 1316 the drone descends vertically, repeatedly checking during the descent if the template is still detected 1318 and if the drone is still centered 1320”, Examiner notes that both perimeters are identified at each position), the second position being closer to the landing pad than the first position (González: Examiner notes that the above quote from Page 13 Para. 2 indicates the drone is descending, meaning the second position is closer to the landing pad than the first position as claimed).
Regarding Claim 10
González, in view of Petersen, teaches the apparatus as defined in claim 8, wherein the programmable circuitry is to identify the first and second perimeters based on comparing first light intensities of the first light sources and second light intensities of the second light sources to identify the pattern (González: Page 6 Para. 9 “The concentric circular crowns 402 have a dark tone, preferably black, and are separated by spaces 404 in a light tone (white or another color with little intensity) and of decreasing thickness, in order to ensure that there is no overlapping optical effect”, claim 1 “configured to detect, in an image (502) captured by the camera (910), a landing template (400) formed by a plurality of concentric circular annuluses (402) of decreasing thickness by detecting a predetermined number N of concentric circles in the image (502)”).
Regarding Claim 11
González, in view of Petersen, teaches the apparatus as defined in claim 8, wherein the programmable circuitry is to identify the first and second perimeters based on identifying a repeating pattern of at least one of the first and second light sources (González: claim 1 “configured to detect, in an image (502) captured by the camera (910), a landing template (400) formed by a plurality of concentric circular annuluses (402) of decreasing thickness by detecting a predetermined number N of concentric circles in the image (502)”).
Regarding Claim 12
González, in view of Petersen, teaches the apparatus as defined in claim 8, wherein the programmable circuitry is to calculate at least one of an attitude of the vehicle or alignment of the image sensor with respect to the landing pad (González: Page 12 Para. 7 – Page 13 Para. 1 “In the event that the landing template is detected, it proceeds to check 1314 if the drone is centered on it. If it is not centered, it returns to the horizontal approach state 1310 to give the appropriate speed commands that allow the drone 1010 to center on the landing template 400 detected”).
Regarding Claim 13
González, in view of Petersen, teaches the apparatus as defined in claim 8, wherein the position of the vehicle relative to the landing pad is calculated based on a known spatial relationship between the first and second perimeters in combination with angular data associated with the image sensor (González: Page 13 Para. 14 – Page 14 Para. 1 “Calculate the physical distance between the drone 1010 and the center (Xc.Yc) of the landing template 400 on each horizontal axis from the offset .sub.x and the offset .sub.y . This distance will be what is called Physical Error. This is done by calculating the Ground Sampling Distance (GSD). This calculation manages to establish, from a height value H .sub.D and the properties of the camera (resolution, field of view -FOV- and focal length of the lens), how much physical distance is equivalent to each pixel of the image, so knowing the difference in pixels ( offset .sub.x , offset .sub.y ) between the center of the image 502 and the center (Xc.Yc) of the landing template 400, it is possible to calculate the physical distance in the horizontal plane (axes X and Y) . The accuracy of the calculation largely depends on the quality of the height measurement as well as the perpendicularity between the camera 910 (the main lens axis) and the landing template 400. The distance measured by the height sensor 912 is corrects when the drone 1010 is not perpendicular to the plane of the landing template 400. In real landing situations, the pitch angles of the drone 1010 when moving to apply the corrections or due to the need to overcome the wind are reduced, so they do not pose a problem for the calculation of the Physical Error with the camera”, Examiner notes that this calculation involves x and y coordinates in the landing pad plane and height, which together can be considered angular data as claimed).
Regarding Claim 16
González teaches a non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising instructions (claim 32 “A program support medium, which stores the program product”) to cause programmable circuitry to at least: identify, based on output from an image sensor supported by a vehicle, first and second perimeters of a landing area of a landing pad (claim 1 “configured to detect, in an image (502) captured by the camera (910), a landing template (400) formed by a plurality of concentric circular annuluses (402) of decreasing thickness by detecting a predetermined number N of concentric circles in the image (502)”), the second perimeter around the first perimeter (Examiner notes that the first and second perimeters can be defined as claimed, Fig. 2, for example), the first and second perimeters having a different light characteristic to define a pattern (Fig. 2, for example); calculate a relative position of the vehicle to the landing pad based on the pattern and at least one distance associated with the identified first and second perimeters (Page 13 Para. 14 “Calculate the physical distance between the drone 1010 and the center (Xc.Yc) of the landing template 400”); and guide movement of the vehicle based on the relative position (claim 1 “configured to perform an autonomous landing of the drone (1010) on the landing template (400) using as reference the positions (508) of the landing template (400 ) detected in images (502) captured by the camera (910) during landing”), but does not teach:
the first perimeter having a first array of first light sources and the second perimeter having a second array of second light sources, the second light sources having a greater intensity than that of the first light sources to define a pattern
Petersen teaches:
the first perimeter having a first array of first light sources (border (404), for example, Fig. 8) and the second perimeter having a second array of second light sources (pad marker (408), for example, Fig. 8), the second light sources having a greater intensity than that of the first light sources to define a pattern (Para. [0026] “A light array can be configured to illuminate or otherwise change an appearance (e.g., brightness, color, etc.) of select portions (e.g., location markers) of the lower landing area or the upper landing area to communicate the landing pad location. For example, the computing system can illuminate at least a portion of a border or a center of a landing pad at the landing pad location using the light array to communicate the landing pad location”, Examiner notes that this example teaches the border and center having different light intensities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of González with the features of Petersen with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means to improve landing operations after sunset and in low light intensity situations. Examiner notes that the landing pad itself, including the perimeters and lights, is not part of the apparatus as currently claimed, but is instead recited to describe what the apparatus is detecting.
Regarding Claim 17
González, in view of Petersen, teaches the non-transitory machine readable storage medium as defined in claim 16, wherein the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to identify a pattern of the first and second lighting sources (González: claim 1 “configured to detect, in an image (502) captured by the camera (910), a landing template (400) formed by a plurality of concentric circular annuluses (402) of decreasing thickness by detecting a predetermined number N of concentric circles in the image (502)”), wherein the pattern is defined by at least one of the first lighting sources having a first intensity and at least one of the first lighting sources having a second intensity different from the first intensity (Examiner notes that the pattern is based on the landing pad light sources and not on the instructions claimed), and wherein the relative position is further calculated based on the pattern (González: Page 13 Para. 14 “Calculate the physical distance between the drone 1010 and the center (Xc.Yc) of the landing template 400”).
Regarding Claim 19
González, in view of Petersen, teaches the non-transitory machine readable storage medium as defined in claim 16, wherein the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to identify the second perimeter at a first position of the vehicle and identify the first perimeter at a second position of the vehicle (González: Page 13 Para. 2 “During the vertical approach state 1316 the drone descends vertically, repeatedly checking during the descent if the template is still detected 1318 and if the drone is still centered 1320”, Examiner notes that both perimeters are identified at each position), the second position closer to the landing pad than the first position (González: Examiner notes that the above quote from Page 13 Para. 2 indicates the drone is descending, meaning the second position is closer to the landing pad than the first position as claimed).
Regarding Claim 20
González, in view of Petersen, teaches the non-transitory machine readable storage medium as defined in claim 16, wherein the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to determine at least one known distance corresponding to a two-dimensional pattern of the landing pad based on the identified first and second perimeters (González: Page 12 Para. 7 – Page 13 Para. 1 “In the event that the landing template is detected, it proceeds to check 1314 if the drone is centered on it. If it is not centered, it returns to the horizontal approach state 1310 to give the appropriate speed commands that allow the drone 1010 to center on the landing template 400 detected”, Examiner notes the horizontal difference can be considered the known distance corresponding to the landing pattern).
Claims 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over González et al. (Machine Translation of WO 2022180276 A1), hereinafter González, in view of Petersen et al. (US 20190339720 A1), hereinafter Petersen, as applied to claims 8-13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Williams et al. (US 20160093225 A1), hereinafter Williams.
Regarding Claim 14
González, in view of Petersen, teaches the apparatus as defined in claim 8, but is silent on:
wherein the programmable circuitry is to generate a vector representation of the first and second perimeters based on the pattern.
Williams teaches:
wherein the programmable circuitry is to generate a vector representation of the first and second perimeters based on the pattern (Para. [0167] “The constraints that are implemented are that the vectors between corners 1501 to 1504 and 1501 to 1502 are orthogonal, 1501 to 1502 and 1502 to 1502 are orthogonal, 1503 to 1504 and 1502 to 1503 are orthogonal, and 1503 to 1504 and 1501 to 1504 are orthogonal. The runway length vectors 1501 to 1502 and 1503 to 1504, as well as the width vectors 1502 to 1503 and 1501 to 1504, should have equal lengths. The vectors are computed in the NED frame and omit the down component. Similar known geometry constraints can be employed for flight decks and helipads”, Fig. 15).
Examiner notes that González teaches detecting different circumferences of the landing pad but vector generation is not explicitly disclosed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of González, in view of Petersen, with the vector generation of Williams with a reasonable expectation of success. Examiner notes that defining boundaries via vectors is a common approach and one of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification with the motivation of explicitly and spatially defining the bounds of the landing pad.
Regarding Claim 15
González, in view of Petersen, teaches the apparatus as defined in claim 14, wherein the vector representation is generated based on different light intensities of at least two of the first and second light sources (Examiner notes that in González, the boundaries are defined by a color difference in the perimeters as shown in Fig. 2, for example).
Regarding Claim 18
González, in view of Petersen, teaches the non-transitory machine readable storage medium as defined in claim 16, but is silent on:
wherein the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to combine the output from the image sensor with at least one of inertial data or attitude data via a Kalman filter.
Williams teaches:
wherein the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to combine the output from the image sensor with at least one of inertial data or attitude data via a Kalman filter (Para. [0141] “Accordingly for each image update, two points are obtained. The errors in these two measurements are correlated by virtue of the fact that the navigation/timing errors are identical. This fact is exploited in the representation of the state of the runway. Each corner point is initialized using an unscented Kalman filter using an inverse depth representation of the state”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the instructions of González, in view of Petersen, to include the features of Williams with a reasonable expectation of success. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as Kalman filters are optimal estimation algorithms that can estimate the state, including attitude and distance, of the aircraft relative to the landing pad.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks pp. 8-9), filed 5/5/2026, with respect to claims 1, 6, and 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Since the outer ring of Phillips has a lower intensity than the inner ring, the rejection of claims 1, 6, and 7 as being anticipated by Phillips has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks pp. 9-11) that Lewis does not teach all of the limitations of amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues that Lewis makes no mention of a relationship of different intensities between perimeters, let alone a second perimeter having a second array of second light sources, the second perimeter around a first perimeter, the second light sources having a greater intensity than that of the first light sources of the first perimeter to define a pattern for detection by an image sensor of a vehicle. Examiner notes that while it is true Lewis does not provide an explicit example of a second perimeter of lights having a larger intensity than that of a first perimeter of lights, the disclosure clearly indicates that it is known to control the color and brightness/intensity of the selected LEDs (Para. [0032]) and that the LEDs are RGB color-change LEDs that can be controlled to output selected colors and can be activated with variable intensity (Abstract) by either the pilot or ground crew. Applicant points to Fig. 1 only showing the flush inset lights forming the perimeters as green, but this example is not limiting. The brightness intensity of each light is omitted, for example, and since the LEDs are controllable, there are many possible light configurations, all of which cannot be shown in the figures. Examiner maintains that it is clearly understood that the second light sources can have a greater intensity than that of the first light sources to define a pattern as claimed.
Applicant argues (Remarks pp. 11) that Petersen does not cure the deficiencies of Lewis. Specifically, Applicant argues that while Petersen generally mentions adjusting appearance or brightness of portions of a border, the ability to illuminate portions does not equate to perimeters having different light intensities as recited in claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that given Petersen’s disclosure of “the computing system can illuminate at least a portion of a border or a center of a landing pad at the landing pad location using the light array to communicate the landing pad location” (Para. [0026]), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the perimeters can be programmed to be different colors and/or intensities. Furthermore, Para. [0077] states “the computing system can illuminate or otherwise change an appearance (e.g., brightness, color, etc.). of a location marker to communicate a selected storage location 422 for the VTOL aircraft. The computing system can mark a guidance line 420 (illustrated by a heavy weighted line) and/or some or all of a border or marker associated with the selected storage location 422” (emphasis added), indicating it was known to change the appearance of an entire perimeter. Examiner maintains that given the teachings of Petersen, it would have been obvious to have made the second light sources have a greater intensity than that of the first light sources to define a pattern as with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing different lights and patterns for an aircraft to detect when landing. For example, having a perimeter closer to the center of the landing pad lit in such a way that is different than an outer perimeter allows the pilot and/or aircraft to detect where the center of the landing pad is.
In response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Examiner respectfully notes that both Lewis and Petersen teach using different colors and/or brightness to guide a vehicle to a landing pad and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the controllers of the prior art could be used to make an outer perimeter have a higher intensity than an inner perimeter as claimed.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 8-20 (Remarks pp. 12-13) fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine June Walter whose telephone number is (571)272-6150. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights