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
This action is in reply to the patent application filed on March 3, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is being handled by examiner Christine Huynh.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 3, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 3, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Upon further search and consideration, the amended claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20220315242 A1) in view of Carrico et al. (US 10793286 B1) and Gariel et al. (US 20230023069 A1). See detailed rejection below.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons as listed above due to dependency. See detailed rejection below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20220315242 A1) in view of Carrico et al. (US 10793286 B1) and Gariel et al. (US 20230023069 A1), which were provided in the IDS sent on January 3, 2025.
Regarding claims 1-14 and 16-20:
With respect to claims 1 and 20, Liu teaches:
at least one image sensor installed on an aircraft, the at least one image sensor comprising at least one forward-looking image sensor, wherein the at least one image sensor is configured to sense electromagnetic energy and output image sensor data associated with images containing runway features; (“The example aerial vehicle environment 100 includes onboard visual equipment 106 (e.g., camera, forward-looking infrared (FLIR), millimeter wave radar, etc.) and a processing component (e.g., a controller) of the visually-based landing aid system 102 that implements a runway recognition module 108 and a relative position determination module 110.” [0029]), where infrared is an electromagnetic wave. The aircrafts sensors include image sensors that include infrared cameras that are used to take images of the runway.
at least one processor, one or more of the at least one processor being communicatively coupled to the at least one image sensor, (“The processing component (e.g., a controller) includes at least one processor and a computer-readable storage device or media encoded with programming instructions for configuring the processing component.” [0030], “The example aerial vehicle environment 100 includes onboard visual equipment 106 (e.g., camera, forward-looking infrared (FLIR), millimeter wave radar, etc.) and a processing component (e.g., a controller) of the visually-based landing aid system 102 that implements a runway recognition module 108 and a relative position determination module 110.” [0029]), where the image sensors communicate with a processing component.
Liu does not teach, but Carrico teaches:
obtain data of an aircraft, the aircraft performing an approach procedure, the data including and/or associated with flight path information, the flight path information including at least one of a flight path vector (FPV) or a flight path predictor (FPP) wherein the FPV represents an instantaneous projection of a current trajectory of the aircraft, wherein the FPP represents a projected future trajectory state of the aircraft at a future time, wherein the FPP is based at least on the FPV and compensation terms added to the FPV; (“Referring to FIG. 2, an environmental view as presented to a pilot is shown. A HUD 200 useful in at least one embodiment allows flight data and aircraft state data to be visually represented, overlaid onto the real-world background 202 where a runway is visible 204. A flight path vector indicator 206 represents the attitude and projected vector of the aircraft based on the current aircraft energy state and certain environmental factors known to the relevant avionics systems, either from on-board instruments or from remote sources or both. A flight director indicator 208 is a simplified representation of a necessary change to the flight path vector indicator 206 to place the aircraft on a vector corresponding to a desired flight path. The flight path vector indicator 206 is designed to be viewed by a pilot, on the HUD 200, in the context of the real-world background 202. Likewise, the flight path vector indicator 206 and flight director indicator 208 are designed to be utilized together to provide a simplified indication to the pilot that the real aircraft vector is aligned to a desired aircraft vector, or the control inputs necessary to achieve such alignment.” (col 3, line 65 – col 4, line 17)), where, as the aircraft performs an approach procedure, the data including flight path information such as the current flight path trajectory of the aircraft is obtained and shown.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Liu’s runtime assurance landing system with Carrico’s current flight path vector because (“the sensed and computed visual cues are provided on the HUD, enabling the pilot to simultaneously see both the outside scene and the computed visual cues, correlated by virtue of the HUD being disposed in the eye-line of the pilot.” (col 1, lines 12-15)), where the current flight path vector can be used as an improved visual aid.
Liu further teaches:
obtain image sensor data output by at least one image sensor of the aircraft, the image sensor data including data associated with at least one image of a view from the aircraft, the view at least partially in front of the aircraft; (“Responsive to determining that the vehicle is on final approach to the landing runway, the example visually-based landing aid system 102 (e.g., via the runway recognition module 108) is configured to receive a plurality of successive ground images taken by the visual equipment 106, process the plurality of ground images of a ground path ahead of the vehicle received from the visual equipment 106, and perform digital processing to identify a lane in the processed ground images and determine whether the identified lane corresponds to an assigned runway for landing.” [0032]), where image sensor data of the front of the aircraft is obtained.
identify features associated with a runway, the features within one or more of the at least one image; (“The example runway recognition module 108 is further configured to apply a voting algorithm to determine whether the identified lane corresponds to an assigned runway for landing. An example voting algorithm weighs data regarding recognized landing zone markings of the identified lane if available, a relative position of the identified lane based on destination configuration data, and a relative geometry of the identified lane to determine whether the identified lane corresponds to an assigned runway for landing.” [0033]), which shows the features of the image that are associated with an aircraft runway are identified.
determine that the identified features are indicative of the runway; (“The example runway recognition module 108 is further configured to apply a voting algorithm to determine whether the identified lane corresponds to an assigned runway for landing. An example voting algorithm weighs data regarding recognized landing zone markings of the identified lane if available, a relative position of the identified lane based on destination configuration data, and a relative geometry of the identified lane to determine whether the identified lane corresponds to an assigned runway for landing.” [0033]), where features of the image are identified to be indicative of an aircraft runway.
determine a touch down zone on the runway, wherein the touch down zone is defined by toleranced boundary locations representing an acceptable touch down dispersion for the aircraft; (“The example visually-based landing aid system 102 is further configured to predict (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110), based on the processed image information and aerial vehicle status information, whether a glide path of the vehicle will result in vehicle wheel touch down inside an expected landing zone, and provide (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110) visual and/or audible guidance (e.g., alerting or/and correction cues) to the vehicle operator to take corrective action when the predicted touch down is outside of the expected landing zone (e.g., resulting in an under-shoot or an overshoot of the assigned runway).” [0035], “An example visually-based landing aid system is configured to define an expected landing box 820 in the runway 816. When an aimed point X1 is inside the box 820, the example visually-based landing aid system could determine that the vehicle 802 is on the right glide path, will touch down inside the expected landing zone, and will not cause a runway overrun, based on the vehicle's flare trajectory and its deceleration capability.” [0073], and FIG. 8B, which shows a Defined Landing Box as a boundary location that represents an acceptable touch down zone.
compare the FPV and/or the FPP with the touch down zone to determine whether the FPV and/or the FPP is in the touch down zone when the aircraft is at a decision altitude and/or is predicted to be in the touch down zone when the aircraft will be at the decision altitude; (“The example visually-based landing aid system 102 is further configured to predict (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110), based on the processed image information and aerial vehicle status information, whether a glide path of the vehicle will result in vehicle wheel touch down inside an expected landing zone, and provide (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110) visual and/or audible guidance (e.g., alerting or/and correction cues) to the vehicle operator to take corrective action when the predicted touch down is outside of the expected landing zone (e.g., resulting in an under-shoot or an overshoot of the assigned runway).” [0035], “An example visually-based landing aid system is configured to define an expected landing box 820 in the runway 816. When an aimed point X1 is inside the box 820, the example visually-based landing aid system could determine that the vehicle 802 is on the right glide path, will touch down inside the expected landing zone, and will not cause a runway overrun, based on the vehicle's flare trajectory and its deceleration capability. When the aimed point is not inside the box 820, it indicates that there is a risk that the vehicle will touch down outside of the landing zone, and an under-shoot (at point X2) or an overshoot (at point X3) of the landing zone will occur.” [0073]), which shows that the flight path is determined to be within the touch down zone or outside the touch down zone.
at least one of: (a) upon the determination that the FPV and/or the FPP is in and/or is predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude, perform an operation configured to cause the aircraft to proceed with the landing procedure; or (b) (ii) upon the determination that the FPV and/or the FPP is not in and/or is not predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude, perform an operation configured to cause the aircraft to perform the go- around procedure; (“The example visually-based landing aid system 102 is further configured to predict (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110), based on the processed image information and aerial vehicle status information, whether a glide path of the vehicle will result in vehicle wheel touch down inside an expected landing zone, and provide (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110) visual and/or audible guidance (e.g., alerting or/and correction cues) to the vehicle operator to take corrective action when the predicted touch down is outside of the expected landing zone (e.g., resulting in an under-shoot or an overshoot of the assigned runway).” [0035], “An example visually-based landing aid system is configured to define an expected landing box 820 in the runway 816. When an aimed point X1 is inside the box 820, the example visually-based landing aid system could determine that the vehicle 802 is on the right glide path, will touch down inside the expected landing zone, and will not cause a runway overrun, based on the vehicle's flare trajectory and its deceleration capability. When the aimed point is not inside the box 820, it indicates that there is a risk that the vehicle will touch down outside of the landing zone, and an under-shoot (at point X2) or an overshoot (at point X3) of the landing zone will occur.” [0073]), which shows that the flight path is determined to be within the touch down zone or outside the touch down zone, and a notification is output to a user based on the determined flight path and touch down zone. Liu shows that when the flight path is determined to not be within a touch down zone, a notification is output to the user to take a corrective procedure, and when the corrective procedure is taken and the aircraft is predicted to land within the touch down zone, then the aircraft can proceed with the landing procedure. However, Liu does not include outputting a notification regarding a go-around procedure or performing the go-around procedure.
The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e., “if”) requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. If the claimed invention may be practiced without the condition happening, then the contingent step is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (see MPEP 2111.04 Section II).
While Liu does not teach outputting a notification regarding a go-around procedure or performing the go-around procedure, Gariel teaches (“In block 210, a remote operator in the GCS 102 may view the landing validation data and decide whether to continue the landing or abort the landing. For example, the operator may decide to continue the landing when the predicted landing zone is located in a desired touch-down zone on the runway. The operator may decide to abort the landing when the predicted landing zone is located outside of the desired touch-down zone (e.g., displaced in an incorrect manner relative to the threshold/centerline).” [0046], “the GCS validation interface may include additional/alternative interface components other than a validation GUI. For example, the validation interface may include a validation audio interface, such as voice feedback and/or other sounds (e.g., landing confirmation or abort recommendation sounds). As another example, the validation system 110 may provide other visual feedback, such as flashing lights that indicate landing confirmation/abort recommendations.” [0047], “If the landing is aborted, the aircraft 100 may execute a missed approach. In some implementations, a missed approach may include a missed approach flight plan and/or procedure that may be loaded into the flight management system (e.g., prior to the final approach). A missed approach plan/procedure may define a climb to an altitude/waypoint, a flight pattern (e.g., a holding pattern), and a subsequent landing procedure. The missed approach plan/procedure may vary depending on the airport, specified rules, and other parameters.” [0051]), which shows outputting a notification regarding a go-around procedure or performing the go-around procedure in the case that the flight path is predicted to not be in the touch down zone.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Liu’s runtime assurance landing system with Gariel’s go-around operation because (“The operator may decide to abort the landing when the predicted landing zone is located outside of the desired touch-down zone (e.g., displaced in an incorrect manner relative to the threshold/centerline). A variety of renderings may cause the landing to be aborted. In some implementations, an invariant point located outside of the desired touch down zone may cause the landing to be aborted. For example, an invariant point to either side of the runway, below a desired touch-down zone (e.g., landing too short), and/or above a desired touch-down zone (e.g., landing too long) may cause an aborted landing” see Gariel [0046]), in order for the aircraft to land safely within the touch down zone if an aircraft’s first approach is not sufficient.
With respect to claim 2, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 1. Liu further teaches:
wherein the flight path information includes the FPV; (“The example process 200 includes monitoring vehicle status (operation 202) to determine if the vehicle is on final approach (decision 204) to the landing runway. The determination regarding whether the vehicle is on the final approach segment can be made based on aerial vehicle status information such as aerial vehicle position, altitude, speed, flight path angle, vehicle configuration status such as flap/landing gear status, runway information, and/or flight plan data from an onboard navigation system such as a Flight Management System (FMS).” [0038], “FIGS. 8A and 8B are diagrams illustrating a final approach/landing procedure for a fixed wing vehicle 802. In the example of FIG. 8A, the vehicle 802 is flying a constant glide path 804 (for example 3 degrees) to approach the runway 806, and then initiates a flare maneuver 808 at a certain foot (for example 20 feet) above the runway threshold to reduce the sink rate to touch down. A stable glide path is important for a successful landing, and when pilots manually fly the final approach, the glide path intercept ground point 810 can be used as a visual aimed point to judge if the aircraft is flying the right glide path.” [0070]), where the Examiner notes that the flight path information includes the aircraft position, altitude, speed, flight path angle, and glide path, which is comparable to the flight path vector.
With respect to claim 3, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 1. Liu further teaches:
wherein the flight path information includes the FPP; (“The example visually-based landing aid system 102 is further configured to predict (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110), based on the processed image information and aerial vehicle status information, whether a glide path of the vehicle will result in vehicle wheel touch down inside an expected landing zone, and provide (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110) visual and/or audible guidance (e.g., alerting or/and correction cues) to the vehicle operator to take corrective action when the predicted touch down is outside of the expected landing zone (e.g., resulting in an under-shoot or an overshoot of the assigned runway).” [0035]), where the flight path information includes a prediction of the flight path.
With respect to claim 4, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 1. Liu further teaches:
wherein the flight path information includes the FPV and the FPP; (“The example process 200 includes monitoring vehicle status (operation 202) to determine if the vehicle is on final approach (decision 204) to the landing runway. The determination regarding whether the vehicle is on the final approach segment can be made based on aerial vehicle status information such as aerial vehicle position, altitude, speed, flight path angle, vehicle configuration status such as flap/landing gear status, runway information, and/or flight plan data from an onboard navigation system such as a Flight Management System (FMS).” [0038], “FIGS. 8A and 8B are diagrams illustrating a final approach/landing procedure for a fixed wing vehicle 802. In the example of FIG. 8A, the vehicle 802 is flying a constant glide path 804 (for example 3 degrees) to approach the runway 806, and then initiates a flare maneuver 808 at a certain foot (for example 20 feet) above the runway threshold to reduce the sink rate to touch down. A stable glide path is important for a successful landing, and when pilots manually fly the final approach, the glide path intercept ground point 810 can be used as a visual aimed point to judge if the aircraft is flying the right glide path.” [0070], “The example visually-based landing aid system 102 is further configured to predict (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110), based on the processed image information and aerial vehicle status information, whether a glide path of the vehicle will result in vehicle wheel touch down inside an expected landing zone, and provide (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110) visual and/or audible guidance (e.g., alerting or/and correction cues) to the vehicle operator to take corrective action when the predicted touch down is outside of the expected landing zone (e.g., resulting in an under-shoot or an overshoot of the assigned runway).” [0035]), where the Examiner notes that the flight path information includes the aircraft position, altitude, speed, flight path angle, and glide path, which is comparable to the flight path vector, as well as a prediction of the flight path.
With respect to claim 5, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 1. Liu further teaches:
wherein the features associated with the runway include at least one of: at least one runway edge, at least one runway marking, or at least one runway and approach light; (“The example runway recognition module 108 is further configured to apply a voting algorithm to determine whether the identified lane corresponds to an assigned runway for landing. An example voting algorithm weighs data regarding recognized landing zone markings of the identified lane if available, a relative position of the identified lane based on destination configuration data, and a relative geometry of the identified lane to determine whether the identified lane corresponds to an assigned runway for landing.” [0033], “The example visually-based landing aid system 102 is further configured, via the processing component (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110), to perform further runway edge processing and perform geometric calculations to determine the relationship of the vehicle to a predetermine approach/landing path, and produce guidance cues. To accomplish this, the example visually-based landing aid system 102 (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110) is configured to track during landing operations based on the processed ground images a left and a right side edge, a front edge, and a runway center line of the assigned runway, determine relative to the runway center line whether a relative position of the vehicle during landing operations is left of, right of, or aligned with the runway center line” [0034]) which show the the features associated with the runway include the runway edge and runway marking.
With respect to claim 6, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 1. Liu further teaches:
compare the FPV and/or the FPP with the touch down zone to determine whether a center of the FPV and/or the FPP is in the touch down zone when the aircraft is at a decision altitude and/or is predicted to be in the touch down zone when the aircraft will be at the decision altitude; (“The example visually-based landing aid system 102 is further configured to predict (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110), based on the processed image information and aerial vehicle status information, whether a glide path of the vehicle will result in vehicle wheel touch down inside an expected landing zone, and provide (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110) visual and/or audible guidance (e.g., alerting or/and correction cues) to the vehicle operator to take corrective action when the predicted touch down is outside of the expected landing zone (e.g., resulting in an under-shoot or an overshoot of the assigned runway).” [0035], “An example visually-based landing aid system is configured to define an expected landing box 820 in the runway 816. When an aimed point X1 is inside the box 820, the example visually-based landing aid system could determine that the vehicle 802 is on the right glide path, will touch down inside the expected landing zone, and will not cause a runway overrun, based on the vehicle's flare trajectory and its deceleration capability. When the aimed point is not inside the box 820, it indicates that there is a risk that the vehicle will touch down outside of the landing zone, and an under-shoot (at point X2) or an overshoot (at point X3) of the landing zone will occur.” [0073]), which shows that the flight path is determined to be within the touch down zone center or outside the touch down zone.
at least one of: (a) at least one of: (i) upon a determination that the center of the FPV and/or the FPP is in and/or is predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude, output a notification for presentation to a user to proceed with a landing procedure, or (ii) upon the determination that the center of the FPV and/or the FPP is in and/or is predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude, perform an operation configured to cause the aircraft to proceed with the landing procedure; or (b) at least one of: (i) upon a determination that the center of the FPV and/or the FPP is not in and/or is not predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude, output a notification for presentation to the user to perform a go-around procedure, or (ii) upon the determination that the center of the FPV and/or the FPP is not in and/or is not predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude, perform an operation configured to cause the aircraft to perform the go- around procedure; (“The example visually-based landing aid system 102 is further configured to predict (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110), based on the processed image information and aerial vehicle status information, whether a glide path of the vehicle will result in vehicle wheel touch down inside an expected landing zone, and provide (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110) visual and/or audible guidance (e.g., alerting or/and correction cues) to the vehicle operator to take corrective action when the predicted touch down is outside of the expected landing zone (e.g., resulting in an under-shoot or an overshoot of the assigned runway).” [0035], “An example visually-based landing aid system is configured to define an expected landing box 820 in the runway 816. When an aimed point X1 is inside the box 820, the example visually-based landing aid system could determine that the vehicle 802 is on the right glide path, will touch down inside the expected landing zone, and will not cause a runway overrun, based on the vehicle's flare trajectory and its deceleration capability. When the aimed point is not inside the box 820, it indicates that there is a risk that the vehicle will touch down outside of the landing zone, and an under-shoot (at point X2) or an overshoot (at point X3) of the landing zone will occur.” [0073]), which shows that the flight path is determined to be within the touch down zone or outside the touch down zone, and a notification is output to a user based on the determined flight path and touch down zone. Liu shows that when the flight path is determined to not be within a touch down zone, a notification is output to the user to take a corrective procedure, and when the corrective procedure is taken and the aircraft is predicted to land within the touch down zone, then the aircraft can proceed with the landing procedure. However, Liu does not include outputting a notification regarding a go-around procedure or performing the go-around procedure.
The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e., “if”) requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. If the claimed invention may be practiced without the condition happening, then the contingent step is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (see MPEP 2111.04 Section II).
While Liu does not teach outputting a notification regarding a go-around procedure or performing the go-around procedure, Gariel teaches (“In block 210, a remote operator in the GCS 102 may view the landing validation data and decide whether to continue the landing or abort the landing. For example, the operator may decide to continue the landing when the predicted landing zone is located in a desired touch-down zone on the runway. The operator may decide to abort the landing when the predicted landing zone is located outside of the desired touch-down zone (e.g., displaced in an incorrect manner relative to the threshold/centerline).” [0046], “the GCS validation interface may include additional/alternative interface components other than a validation GUI. For example, the validation interface may include a validation audio interface, such as voice feedback and/or other sounds (e.g., landing confirmation or abort recommendation sounds). As another example, the validation system 110 may provide other visual feedback, such as flashing lights that indicate landing confirmation/abort recommendations.” [0047], “If the landing is aborted, the aircraft 100 may execute a missed approach. In some implementations, a missed approach may include a missed approach flight plan and/or procedure that may be loaded into the flight management system (e.g., prior to the final approach). A missed approach plan/procedure may define a climb to an altitude/waypoint, a flight pattern (e.g., a holding pattern), and a subsequent landing procedure. The missed approach plan/procedure may vary depending on the airport, specified rules, and other parameters.” [0051]), which shows outputting a notification regarding a go-around procedure or performing the go-around procedure in the case that the flight path is predicted to not be in the touch down zone.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Liu’s runtime assurance landing system with Gariel’s go-around operation because (“The operator may decide to abort the landing when the predicted landing zone is located outside of the desired touch-down zone (e.g., displaced in an incorrect manner relative to the threshold/centerline). A variety of renderings may cause the landing to be aborted. In some implementations, an invariant point located outside of the desired touch down zone may cause the landing to be aborted. For example, an invariant point to either side of the runway, below a desired touch-down zone (e.g., landing too short), and/or above a desired touch-down zone (e.g., landing too long) may cause an aborted landing” see Gariel [0046]), in order for the aircraft to land safely within the touch down zone if an aircraft’s first approach is not sufficient.
With respect to claim 7, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 1. Liu further teaches:
upon the determination that the FPV and/or the FPP is in and/or is predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude, output the notification for presentation to the user to proceed with the landing procedure; (“The example visually-based landing aid system 102 is further configured to predict (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110), based on the processed image information and aerial vehicle status information, whether a glide path of the vehicle will result in vehicle wheel touch down inside an expected landing zone, and provide (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110) visual and/or audible guidance (e.g., alerting or/and correction cues) to the vehicle operator to take corrective action when the predicted touch down is outside of the expected landing zone (e.g., resulting in an under-shoot or an overshoot of the assigned runway).” [0035], “An example visually-based landing aid system is configured to define an expected landing box 820 in the runway 816. When an aimed point X1 is inside the box 820, the example visually-based landing aid system could determine that the vehicle 802 is on the right glide path, will touch down inside the expected landing zone, and will not cause a runway overrun, based on the vehicle's flare trajectory and its deceleration capability. When the aimed point is not inside the box 820, it indicates that there is a risk that the vehicle will touch down outside of the landing zone, and an under-shoot (at point X2) or an overshoot (at point X3) of the landing zone will occur.” [0073]), which shows that the flight path is determined to be within the touch down zone or outside the touch down zone, and a notification is output to a user based on the determined flight path and touch down zone. Liu shows that when the flight path is determined to not be within a touch down zone, a notification is output to the user to take a corrective procedure, and when the corrective procedure is taken and the aircraft is predicted to land within the touch down zone, then the aircraft can proceed with the landing procedure.
With respect to claim 8, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 1. Liu further teaches:
upon the determination that the FPV and/or the FPP is in and/or is predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude, perform the operation configured to cause the aircraft to proceed with the landing procedure; (“The example visually-based landing aid system 102 is further configured to predict (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110), based on the processed image information and aerial vehicle status information, whether a glide path of the vehicle will result in vehicle wheel touch down inside an expected landing zone, and provide (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110) visual and/or audible guidance (e.g., alerting or/and correction cues) to the vehicle operator to take corrective action when the predicted touch down is outside of the expected landing zone (e.g., resulting in an under-shoot or an overshoot of the assigned runway).” [0035], “An example visually-based landing aid system is configured to define an expected landing box 820 in the runway 816. When an aimed point X1 is inside the box 820, the example visually-based landing aid system could determine that the vehicle 802 is on the right glide path, will touch down inside the expected landing zone, and will not cause a runway overrun, based on the vehicle's flare trajectory and its deceleration capability. When the aimed point is not inside the box 820, it indicates that there is a risk that the vehicle will touch down outside of the landing zone, and an under-shoot (at point X2) or an overshoot (at point X3) of the landing zone will occur.” [0073]), which shows that the flight path is determined to be within the touch down zone or outside the touch down zone, and a notification is output to a user based on the determined flight path and touch down zone. Liu shows that when the flight path is determined to not be within a touch down zone, a notification is output to the user to take a corrective procedure, and when the corrective procedure is taken and the aircraft is predicted to land within the touch down zone, then the aircraft can proceed with the landing procedure.
With respect to claim 9, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 1. Liu does not teach, but Gariel teaches:
upon the determination that the FPV and/or the FPP is not in and/or is not predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude, output the notification for presentation to the user to perform the go-around procedure; (“In block 210, a remote operator in the GCS 102 may view the landing validation data and decide whether to continue the landing or abort the landing. For example, the operator may decide to continue the landing when the predicted landing zone is located in a desired touch-down zone on the runway. The operator may decide to abort the landing when the predicted landing zone is located outside of the desired touch-down zone (e.g., displaced in an incorrect manner relative to the threshold/centerline).” [0046], “the GCS validation interface may include additional/alternative interface components other than a validation GUI. For example, the validation interface may include a validation audio interface, such as voice feedback and/or other sounds (e.g., landing confirmation or abort recommendation sounds). As another example, the validation system 110 may provide other visual feedback, such as flashing lights that indicate landing confirmation/abort recommendations.” [0047], “If the landing is aborted, the aircraft 100 may execute a missed approach. In some implementations, a missed approach may include a missed approach flight plan and/or procedure that may be loaded into the flight management system (e.g., prior to the final approach). A missed approach plan/procedure may define a climb to an altitude/waypoint, a flight pattern (e.g., a holding pattern), and a subsequent landing procedure. The missed approach plan/procedure may vary depending on the airport, specified rules, and other parameters.” [0051]), which shows outputting a notification regarding a go-around procedure in the case that the flight path is predicted to not be in the touch down zone.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Liu’s runtime assurance landing system with Gariel’s go-around operation because (“The operator may decide to abort the landing when the predicted landing zone is located outside of the desired touch-down zone (e.g., displaced in an incorrect manner relative to the threshold/centerline). A variety of renderings may cause the landing to be aborted. In some implementations, an invariant point located outside of the desired touch down zone may cause the landing to be aborted. For example, an invariant point to either side of the runway, below a desired touch-down zone (e.g., landing too short), and/or above a desired touch-down zone (e.g., landing too long) may cause an aborted landing” see Gariel [0046]), in order for the aircraft to land safely within the touch down zone if an aircraft’s first approach is not sufficient.
With respect to claim 10, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 1. Liu does not teach, but Gariel teaches:
upon the determination that the FPV and/or the FPP is not in and/or is not predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude, perform the operation configured to cause the aircraft to perform the go-around procedure; (“In block 210, a remote operator in the GCS 102 may view the landing validation data and decide whether to continue the landing or abort the landing. For example, the operator may decide to continue the landing when the predicted landing zone is located in a desired touch-down zone on the runway. The operator may decide to abort the landing when the predicted landing zone is located outside of the desired touch-down zone (e.g., displaced in an incorrect manner relative to the threshold/centerline).” [0046], “the GCS validation interface may include additional/alternative interface components other than a validation GUI. For example, the validation interface may include a validation audio interface, such as voice feedback and/or other sounds (e.g., landing confirmation or abort recommendation sounds). As another example, the validation system 110 may provide other visual feedback, such as flashing lights that indicate landing confirmation/abort recommendations.” [0047], “If the landing is aborted, the aircraft 100 may execute a missed approach. In some implementations, a missed approach may include a missed approach flight plan and/or procedure that may be loaded into the flight management system (e.g., prior to the final approach). A missed approach plan/procedure may define a climb to an altitude/waypoint, a flight pattern (e.g., a holding pattern), and a subsequent landing procedure. The missed approach plan/procedure may vary depending on the airport, specified rules, and other parameters.” [0051]), which shows performing the go-around procedure in the case that the flight path is predicted to not be in the touch down zone.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Liu’s runtime assurance landing system with Gariel’s go-around operation because (“The operator may decide to abort the landing when the predicted landing zone is located outside of the desired touch-down zone (e.g., displaced in an incorrect manner relative to the threshold/centerline). A variety of renderings may cause the landing to be aborted. In some implementations, an invariant point located outside of the desired touch down zone may cause the landing to be aborted. For example, an invariant point to either side of the runway, below a desired touch-down zone (e.g., landing too short), and/or above a desired touch-down zone (e.g., landing too long) may cause an aborted landing” see Gariel [0046]), in order for the aircraft to land safely within the touch down zone if an aircraft’s first approach is not sufficient.
With respect to claim 11, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 1. Liu further teaches:
generate at least one display image based at least on the image sensor data, the runway, the touch down zone, and the FPV and/or the FPP; and output the at least one display image to the at least one display for presentation to the user, each of the at least one display image including a given image of the at least one image of the view from the aircraft, the runway, a touch down zone indicator associated with the touch down zone, and an FPV and/or FPP indicator associated with the FPV and/or the FPP; (“The example visually-based landing aid system 102 is further configured to predict (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110), based on the processed image information and aerial vehicle status information, whether a glide path of the vehicle will result in vehicle wheel touch down inside an expected landing zone, and provide (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110) visual and/or audible guidance (e.g., alerting or/and correction cues) to the vehicle operator to take corrective action when the predicted touch down is outside of the expected landing zone (e.g., resulting in an under-shoot or an overshoot of the assigned runway).” [0035], “The example aerial vehicle environment 100 also includes the pilot interface 104, for use by the vehicle operator (e.g., onboard operator or remote operator) which may be onboard the aerial vehicle or in a control center (e.g., in the case of a UAV or RPA). The example pilot interface 104 includes display equipment 112 for displaying visual alerts…” [0036]), where the display is based on the sensor data including the aircraft view, the runway, the touch down zone, and the flight path of the aircraft.
wherein the at least one display is configured to: display the at least one display image to the user; (“The example aerial vehicle environment 100 also includes the pilot interface 104, for use by the vehicle operator (e.g., onboard operator or remote operator) which may be onboard the aerial vehicle or in a control center (e.g., in the case of a UAV or RPA). The example pilot interface 104 includes display equipment 112 for displaying visual alerts...” [0036]), where the display displays visuals to a user.
With respect to claim 12, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 11. Liu further teaches:
the at least one processor, at least one inertial system, the at least one image sensor, and the at least one display; wherein the user is the pilot; wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: upon the determination that the FPV and/or the FPP is in and/or is predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude, output the notification to the pilot to proceed with the landing procedure, or (b) upon the determination that the FPV and/or the FPP is not in and/or is not predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude, output the notification for presentation to the user to perform the go-around procedure; (“The processing component (e.g., a controller) includes at least one processor and a computer-readable storage device or media encoded with programming instructions for configuring the processing component.” [0030], “The example pilot interface 104 includes display equipment 112 for displaying visual alerts” [0036], “The example process 1100 includes processing, responsive to determining that the vehicle is on final approach to the landing runway, a plurality of ground images of a ground path ahead of the vehicle retrieved from an image sensor on the vehicle (operation 1104).” [0087]), which Liu includes a processor, image sensor, and display. (“provide indications/alerting to the pilots/operators of the vehicle to aid with landing operations of the vehicle (e.g., unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), general aviation (GA) aircraft, and others)” [0028]), shows that the user can be the pilot. (“The example visually-based landing aid system 102 is further configured to predict (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110), based on the processed image information and aerial vehicle status information, whether a glide path of the vehicle will result in vehicle wheel touch down inside an expected landing zone, and provide (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110) visual and/or audible guidance (e.g., alerting or/and correction cues) to the vehicle operator to take corrective action when the predicted touch down is outside of the expected landing zone (e.g., resulting in an under-shoot or an overshoot of the assigned runway).” [0035], “An example visually-based landing aid system is configured to define an expected landing box 820 in the runway 816. When an aimed point X1 is inside the box 820, the example visually-based landing aid system could determine that the vehicle 802 is on the right glide path, will touch down inside the expected landing zone, and will not cause a runway overrun, based on the vehicle's flare trajectory and its deceleration capability. When the aimed point is not inside the box 820, it indicates that there is a risk that the vehicle will touch down outside of the landing zone, and an under-shoot (at point X2) or an overshoot (at point X3) of the landing zone will occur.” [0073]), which shows that the flight path is determined to be within the touch down zone or outside the touch down zone, and a notification is output to a user based on the determined flight path and touch down zone. Liu shows that when the flight path is determined to not be within a touch down zone, a notification is output to the user to take a corrective procedure, and when the corrective procedure is taken and the aircraft is predicted to land within the touch down zone, then the aircraft can proceed with the landing procedure. However, Liu does not include outputting a notification regarding a go-around procedure.
The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e., “if”) requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. If the claimed invention may be practiced without the condition happening, then the contingent step is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (see MPEP 2111.04 Section II).
While Liu does not teach outputting a notification regarding a go-around procedure or performing the go-around procedure, Gariel teaches (“In block 210, a remote operator in the GCS 102 may view the landing validation data and decide whether to continue the landing or abort the landing. For example, the operator may decide to continue the landing when the predicted landing zone is located in a desired touch-down zone on the runway. The operator may decide to abort the landing when the predicted landing zone is located outside of the desired touch-down zone (e.g., displaced in an incorrect manner relative to the threshold/centerline).” [0046], “the GCS validation interface may include additional/alternative interface components other than a validation GUI. For example, the validation interface may include a validation audio interface, such as voice feedback and/or other sounds (e.g., landing confirmation or abort recommendation sounds). As another example, the validation system 110 may provide other visual feedback, such as flashing lights that indicate landing confirmation/abort recommendations.” [0047], “If the landing is aborted, the aircraft 100 may execute a missed approach. In some implementations, a missed approach may include a missed approach flight plan and/or procedure that may be loaded into the flight management system (e.g., prior to the final approach). A missed approach plan/procedure may define a climb to an altitude/waypoint, a flight pattern (e.g., a holding pattern), and a subsequent landing procedure. The missed approach plan/procedure may vary depending on the airport, specified rules, and other parameters.” [0051]), which shows outputting a notification regarding a go-around procedure or performing the go-around procedure in the case that the flight path is predicted to not be in the touch down zone.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Liu’s runtime assurance landing system with Gariel’s go-around operation because (“The operator may decide to abort the landing when the predicted landing zone is located outside of the desired touch-down zone (e.g., displaced in an incorrect manner relative to the threshold/centerline). A variety of renderings may cause the landing to be aborted. In some implementations, an invariant point located outside of the desired touch down zone may cause the landing to be aborted. For example, an invariant point to either side of the runway, below a desired touch-down zone (e.g., landing too short), and/or above a desired touch-down zone (e.g., landing too long) may cause an aborted landing” see Gariel [0046]), in order for the aircraft to land safely within the touch down zone if an aircraft’s first approach is not sufficient.
With respect to claim 13, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 1. Liu further teaches:
wherein the aircraft is an uncrewed aerial system (UAS); (“The subject matter described herein discloses apparatus, systems, techniques and articles for providing a unique and low cost visual aided approach and landing system for an aerial vehicle that is configured to analyze ground images, identify a target runway to track, monitor and determine the vehicle's relative position with regard to the target runway and a predetermined approach/landing path, and provide indications/alerting to the pilots/operators of the vehicle to aid with landing operations of the vehicle (e.g., unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), general aviation (GA) aircraft, and others).” [0028])
With respect to claim 14, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 1. Liu further teaches:
wherein the aircraft is a remote-piloted aircraft; (“The subject matter described herein discloses apparatus, systems, techniques and articles for providing a unique and low cost visual aided approach and landing system for an aerial vehicle that is configured to analyze ground images, identify a target runway to track, monitor and determine the vehicle's relative position with regard to the target runway and a predetermined approach/landing path, and provide indications/alerting to the pilots/operators of the vehicle to aid with landing operations of the vehicle (e.g., unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), general aviation (GA) aircraft, and others).” [0028])
With respect to claim 16, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 1. Liu does not teach, but Gariel teaches:
wherein the aircraft includes at least one global navigation satellite system (GNSS) device, wherein the at least one GNSS device is compromised or determined to be inaccurate during the performance of the approach procedure; (“The aircraft 100 includes a navigation system 404 that generates navigation data. The navigation data may indicate the location, altitude, velocity, heading, and attitude of the aircraft. The navigation system 404 may include a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver 404-1 that determines the latitude and longitude of the aircraft.” [0054], “In a specific example, the validation system 110 may be used to detect inaccuracies and/or errors in the other aircraft sensors/systems” [0029]), where the aircraft sensor systems can be determined to be inaccurate or have errors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Liu’s runtime assurance landing system with Gariel’s sensor inaccuracy because (“the validation system 110 may provide additional visual verification that the aircraft (e.g., on autopilot) is on a correct/incorrect approach (e.g., at a correct/incorrect approach angle). In a specific example, the validation system 110 may be used to detect inaccuracies and/or errors in the other aircraft sensors/systems. In these specific implementations, the validation system 110 may be used as a backup in the case other sensors/systems are providing unreliable information and/or the other sensors are malfunctioning.” See Gariel [0029]), in order detect errors in the system when landing.
With respect to claim 17, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 1. Liu further teaches:
wherein the aircraft includes at least one of at least one instrument landing system (ILS) or at least one global navigation satellite system (GNSS) device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to, independent of landing guidance provided by the at least one of the at least one ILS or the at least one GNSS device, at least one of: (a) at least one of: (i) upon the determination that the FPV and/or the FPP is in and/or is predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude, output the notification for presentation to the user to proceed with the landing procedure, or (ii) upon the determination that the FPV and/or the FPP is in and/or is predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude, perform the operation configured to cause the aircraft to proceed with the landing procedure; or (b) at least one of: (i) upon the determination that the FPV and/or the FPP is not in and/or is not predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude, output the notification for presentation to the user to perform the go-around procedure, or (ii) upon the determination that the FPV and/or the FPP is not in and/or is not predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude, perform the operation configured to cause the aircraft to perform the go-around procedure; (“The example visually-based landing aid system 102 is further configured to predict (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110), based on the processed image information and aerial vehicle status information, whether a glide path of the vehicle will result in vehicle wheel touch down inside an expected landing zone, and provide (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110) visual and/or audible guidance (e.g., alerting or/and correction cues) to the vehicle operator to take corrective action when the predicted touch down is outside of the expected landing zone (e.g., resulting in an under-shoot or an overshoot of the assigned runway).” [0035], “An example visually-based landing aid system is configured to define an expected landing box 820 in the runway 816. When an aimed point X1 is inside the box 820, the example visually-based landing aid system could determine that the vehicle 802 is on the right glide path, will touch down inside the expected landing zone, and will not cause a runway overrun, based on the vehicle's flare trajectory and its deceleration capability. When the aimed point is not inside the box 820, it indicates that there is a risk that the vehicle will touch down outside of the landing zone, and an under-shoot (at point X2) or an overshoot (at point X3) of the landing zone will occur.” [0073]), which shows that the flight path is determined to be within the touch down zone or outside the touch down zone, and a notification is output to a user based on the determined flight path and touch down zone. Liu shows that when the flight path is determined to not be within a touch down zone, a notification is output to the user to take a corrective procedure, and when the corrective procedure is taken and the aircraft is predicted to land within the touch down zone, then the aircraft can proceed with the landing procedure. However, Liu does not include outputting a notification regarding a go-around procedure or performing the go-around procedure.
The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e., “if”) requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. If the claimed invention may be practiced without the condition happening, then the contingent step is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (see MPEP 2111.04 Section II).
While Liu does not teach outputting a notification regarding a go-around procedure or performing the go-around procedure, Gariel teaches (“In block 210, a remote operator in the GCS 102 may view the landing validation data and decide whether to continue the landing or abort the landing. For example, the operator may decide to continue the landing when the predicted landing zone is located in a desired touch-down zone on the runway. The operator may decide to abort the landing when the predicted landing zone is located outside of the desired touch-down zone (e.g., displaced in an incorrect manner relative to the threshold/centerline).” [0046], “the GCS validation interface may include additional/alternative interface components other than a validation GUI. For example, the validation interface may include a validation audio interface, such as voice feedback and/or other sounds (e.g., landing confirmation or abort recommendation sounds). As another example, the validation system 110 may provide other visual feedback, such as flashing lights that indicate landing confirmation/abort recommendations.” [0047], “If the landing is aborted, the aircraft 100 may execute a missed approach. In some implementations, a missed approach may include a missed approach flight plan and/or procedure that may be loaded into the flight management system (e.g., prior to the final approach). A missed approach plan/procedure may define a climb to an altitude/waypoint, a flight pattern (e.g., a holding pattern), and a subsequent landing procedure. The missed approach plan/procedure may vary depending on the airport, specified rules, and other parameters.” [0051]), which shows outputting a notification regarding a go-around procedure or performing the go-around procedure in the case that the flight path is predicted to not be in the touch down zone.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Liu’s runtime assurance landing system with Gariel’s go-around operation because (“The operator may decide to abort the landing when the predicted landing zone is located outside of the desired touch-down zone (e.g., displaced in an incorrect manner relative to the threshold/centerline). A variety of renderings may cause the landing to be aborted. In some implementations, an invariant point located outside of the desired touch down zone may cause the landing to be aborted. For example, an invariant point to either side of the runway, below a desired touch-down zone (e.g., landing too short), and/or above a desired touch-down zone (e.g., landing too long) may cause an aborted landing” see Gariel [0046]), in order for the aircraft to land safely within the touch down zone if an aircraft’s first approach is not sufficient.
With respect to claim 18, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 1. Liu further teaches:
wherein the aircraft lacks a Category IIIB landing system; (“a precise ground landing-aided system, such as an ILS (Instrument Landing System) or a GBAS (Ground Based Augmentation System), may be installed at a busy airport to aid with final approach and landing operations or to support automatic landing operations.” [0002]), where the Instrument Landing System of Liu does not include a Category IIIB landing system.
With respect to claim 19, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 1. Liu further teaches:
monitor the FPV and/or the FPP relative to the touch down zone over a trailing time duration during the approach procedure to obtain a metric of stability; (“A stable glide path is important for a successful landing, and when pilots manually fly the final approach, the glide path intercept ground point 810 can be used as a visual aimed point to judge if the aircraft is flying the right glide path.” [0070]).
determine whether the metric of stability is acceptable as compared to a predetermined stability metric threshold; (“When the approach and landing is automatically controlled by an onboard Auto-Flight Control System (AFCS). The AFCS will try to control the vehicle's measured position (the measured position could be provided by navigation system/sensors like GPS) to stay on a defined glide path 804 (a glide path 804 is defined by a glide path angle 812 and the glide path intercept point 810) to the runway 806. As illustrated in FIG. 8B, there can be navigation error between a measured position and an actual position (e.g., “Actual Position 1” or “Actual Position 2”), and the error could result in the vehicle 802 landing outside an expected landing box 820.” [0071]), where the aircraft position is compared to the defined glide path.
and at least one of: (a) at least one of: (i) upon a determination that the FPV and/or the FPP is in and/or is predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude and upon a determination that the metric of stability is acceptable, output a notification for presentation to a user to proceed with a landing procedure, or (ii) upon the determination that the FPV and/or the FPP is in and/or is predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude and upon the determination that the metric of stability is acceptable, perform an operation configured to cause the aircraft to proceed with the landing procedure; or (b) at least one of: (i) upon a determination that the FPV and/or the FPP is not in and/or is not predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude or upon a determination that the metric of stability is unacceptable, output a notification for presentation to the user to perform a go-around procedure, or (ii) upon the determination that the FPV and/or the FPP is not in and/or is not predicted to be in the touch down zone at the decision altitude or upon the determination that the metric of stability is unacceptable, perform an operation configured to cause the aircraft to perform the go-around procedure; (“The example visually-based landing aid system 102 is further configured to predict (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110), based on the processed image information and aerial vehicle status information, whether a glide path of the vehicle will result in vehicle wheel touch down inside an expected landing zone, and provide (e.g., via the relative position determination module 110) visual and/or audible guidance (e.g., alerting or/and correction cues) to the vehicle operator to take corrective action when the predicted touch down is outside of the expected landing zone (e.g., resulting in an under-shoot or an overshoot of the assigned runway).” [0035], “An example visually-based landing aid system is configured to define an expected landing box 820 in the runway 816. When an aimed point X1 is inside the box 820, the example visually-based landing aid system could determine that the vehicle 802 is on the right glide path, will touch down inside the expected landing zone, and will not cause a runway overrun, based on the vehicle's flare trajectory and its deceleration capability. When the aimed point is not inside the box 820, it indicates that there is a risk that the vehicle will touch down outside of the landing zone, and an under-shoot (at point X2) or an overshoot (at point X3) of the landing zone will occur.” [0073]), which shows that the flight path is determined to be within the touch down zone or outside the touch down zone, and a notification is output to a user based on the determined flight path and touch down zone. Liu shows that when the flight path is determined to not be within a touch down zone, a notification is output to the user to take a corrective procedure, and when the corrective procedure is taken and the aircraft is predicted to land within the touch down zone, then the aircraft can proceed with the landing procedure. However, Liu does not include outputting a notification regarding a go-around procedure or performing the go-around procedure.
The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e., “if”) requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. If the claimed invention may be practiced without the condition happening, then the contingent step is not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (see MPEP 2111.04 Section II).
While Liu does not teach outputting a notification regarding a go-around procedure or performing the go-around procedure, Gariel teaches (“In block 210, a remote operator in the GCS 102 may view the landing validation data and decide whether to continue the landing or abort the landing. For example, the operator may decide to continue the landing when the predicted landing zone is located in a desired touch-down zone on the runway. The operator may decide to abort the landing when the predicted landing zone is located outside of the desired touch-down zone (e.g., displaced in an incorrect manner relative to the threshold/centerline).” [0046], “the GCS validation interface may include additional/alternative interface components other than a validation GUI. For example, the validation interface may include a validation audio interface, such as voice feedback and/or other sounds (e.g., landing confirmation or abort recommendation sounds). As another example, the validation system 110 may provide other visual feedback, such as flashing lights that indicate landing confirmation/abort recommendations.” [0047], “If the landing is aborted, the aircraft 100 may execute a missed approach. In some implementations, a missed approach may include a missed approach flight plan and/or procedure that may be loaded into the flight management system (e.g., prior to the final approach). A missed approach plan/procedure may define a climb to an altitude/waypoint, a flight pattern (e.g., a holding pattern), and a subsequent landing procedure. The missed approach plan/procedure may vary depending on the airport, specified rules, and other parameters.” [0051]), which shows outputting a notification regarding a go-around procedure or performing the go-around procedure in the case that the flight path is predicted to not be in the touch down zone.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Liu’s runtime assurance landing system with Gariel’s go-around operation because (“The operator may decide to abort the landing when the predicted landing zone is located outside of the desired touch-down zone (e.g., displaced in an incorrect manner relative to the threshold/centerline). A variety of renderings may cause the landing to be aborted. In some implementations, an invariant point located outside of the desired touch down zone may cause the landing to be aborted. For example, an invariant point to either side of the runway, below a desired touch-down zone (e.g., landing too short), and/or above a desired touch-down zone (e.g., landing too long) may cause an aborted landing” see Gariel [0046]), in order for the aircraft to land safely within the touch down zone if an aircraft’s first approach is not sufficient.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20220315242 A1) in view of Carrico et al. (US 10793286 B1), Gariel et al. (US 20230023069 A1), and Tiana et al. (US 11532237 B2), which was provided in the IDS sent on August 2, 2023.
Regarding claim 15:
With respect to claim 15, Liu in combination with Carrico and Gariel, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Liu, Carrico, and Gariel teaches a runtime assurance system for manual and automated landings of claim 1. Liu further teaches:
wherein the at least one image sensor is at least one electromagnetic (EM) image sensor; (“In one embodiment of the inventive concepts disclosed herein, the object ID and positioning system 150 may function to verify the position matches the desired path or the desired object via a verification of position based on one of an object attribute received via second sensor data, an object attribute descriptive of a position of the object, and an object attribute representative of an appearance of the object to a sensor in a specific electromagnetic frequency band.” (column 16, lines 9-16)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to have combined Liu’s runtime assurance landing system with Gariel’s go-around operation because (“In this manner, the object ID and positioning system 150 may receive the data associated with the position (e.g., runway ID) aid and verify the position of the autonomous aircraft 120 via the information inherent within the position aid.” See Tiana (column 16, lines 16-20)).
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 Christine N Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/CHRISTINE NGUYEN HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights