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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/2/2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is a non-final rejection in response to the “Amendments to the claims” and “Remarks” filed 3/2/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 fails to comply with the written description requirement because there is no discussion of mathematically relocating the 3D position of the boom receptacle, whether by applying a known spatial offset or by any other method. Page 10 of the applicant’s specification discloses “The processor 104 controls movement of the XYZ position of the boom receptacle 208 from the camera origin to a boom pivot origin 230, as shown in Figure 5. (xocam, yocam, zocam)pivot is a distance from the boom pivot origin 230 to the camera origin. (x,y,z)cam is the receptacle XYZ position with respect to the camera origin. (x,y,z)pivot is the receptacle XYZ position with respect to the boom pivot origin 230.” The origin location of the camera and the boom pivot origin are therefore different reference points, and the 3D position of the boom receptacle can be determined with respect to either the camera origin location ((x,y,z)cam), or to the boom pivot origin ((x,y,z)pivot), and there is no support for changing the reference point from one to the other. There is a measurement of the position from the camera origin to the boom pivot origin (xocam, yocam, zocam), but this is not a changing of the reference point from one to the other. Furthermore, even if there was support for changing the reference point, changing the reference point from the camera origin to a boom pivot origin does not relocate the 3D position of the boom receptacle, and it is unclear what “mathematically relocating” would even mean. The examiner is therefore interpreting this claim limitation to mean that the 3D position of the boom receptacle is produced relative to either the camera origin location or the boom pivot origin.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-17, 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Number 5,904,729 to Ruzicka in view of US Patent Number 10,706,583 to Lozano.
Regarding claim 1, Ruzicka discloses a method comprising:
Generating, using a camera of a tanker aircraft, an image of a receiver aircraft and a refueling boom of the tanker aircraft (column 5, 36-39 disclose “The 3-D image 140 includes the objects present in the camera’s field of view, specifically, an image of the refueling boom 142 and an image of the receiving aircraft 144”);
Determining, based at least in part on camera parameter matrices of the camera, a position of a boom receptacle on the receiver aircraft within the image (step 162 discloses “determine receiving aircraft receptacle position relative to optimum contact point”), wherein the origin location of the camera of the tanker aircraft comprises a reference point of the 3D position (any location can comprise a reference point for a 3D location, and since the 3D image is taken from the camera’s field of view, the camera’s location is inherently a reference point for the 3D position, and the camera’s location is also a camera parameter) and the camera parameter matrices represent extrinsic camera parameters and intrinsic camera parameters, the intrinsic camera parameters comprising at least one of: a focal length, a field of view, and a resolution of the camera (a camera inherently has extrinsic camera parameters such as the location of the camera and the direction that it’s pointing and intrinsic camera parameters such as focal length, field of view, and resolution, and all of the information form a matrix of parameters for the camera);
Determining a three-dimensional (3D) position of the boom receptacle with regard to an origin location of the camera of the tanker aircraft (column 6, lines 45-48 disclose “The tracking geometric model nozzle receiver point 150 indicates the refueling receptacle position as it corresponds to specific aircraft unique geometric features”);
Changing the reference point of the 3D position of the origin location of the camera to a boom pivot origin to produce a moved 3D position of the boom receptacle, wherein the boom pivot origin comprises an origin location of the refueling boom of the tanker aircraft (column 7, lines 14-63 discusses using the pivot point of the refueling boom as the initial reference point in order to determine the optimum receptacle position for refueling);
Determining, based on the moved 3D position of the boom receptacle and on the camera parameter matrices, a pitch value and a roll value of the boom receptacle with respect to a boom rotational axis (column 7, lines 49-54 disclose “First, the TAU system uses a least square technique for automatic matching of three or more points of a geometric model to a video image. Then, the geometric models position in 3-D space is determined according to its X, Y, and Z positions and its roll, pitch, and yaw attitudes”, since the TAU system uses the video image, the information is determined based on the matrix of camera parameters that determines the details of the image);
Comparing at least one of the pitch value and the roll value to an angular range (Figure 15 shows the system comparing optimum refueling point PON within the angular range of the pitch value, and Figure 19 shows the system comparing optimum refueling point PON within the angular range of the roll value) ; and
Controlling one or more pilot director lights based on the comparing, wherein the one or more pilot director lights are controlled based on continuously monitored changes in the moved 3D position of the boom receptacle (column 6, lines 1-2 discloses “the system tracks the 3-D aircraft image, at block 160”, which comprises continuously monitoring the aircraft position, and lines 3-8 disclose “Then, the system determines aircraft receptacle position relative to optimum boom contact point according to the tracking geometric model image and refueling zone information, at block 162. Finally, the system controls the director light array according to the determined receptacle position, at block 164”, which comprises controlling the director light array based on the tracked receptacle position).
Ruzicka does not disclose the image being 2D. However, this limitation is taught by Lozano. Lozano disclose a detection system for a boom and a receptacle for aerial refueling, and claim 12 discloses “using cross-correlation techniques and digital filtering, to obtain the pixels that are reflected in the elements of our scenario, the result is a set of 2D points with which, by means of simple triangulation techniques and trigonometry and considering the distance from the laser to the DOE-type camera, we can obtain distances from said camera to this set of points”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ruzicka using the teachings from Lozano to use different known types of ways of determining the positions of different points in an image.
Regarding claims 4 (dependent on claim 2), 12 (dependent on claim 10), Ruzicka discloses tracking the moved 3D position of the boom receptacle to produce a tracked 3D position; and controlling the one or more pilot director lights is further based on the tracked 3D position. Column 7, lines 14-17 disclose “Illumination of the director light system depends upon the processor’s determination of where the tracking geometric model nozzle receiver point 150 is relative to the predetermined elevation, range and azimuth zones and boundaries”.
Regarding claims 5 (dependent on claim 1), 13 (dependent on claim 9), 14 (dependent on claim 13), Ruzicka discloses the moved 3D position of the refueling boom includes a telescope value based on the boom rotational axis and controlling the one or more pilot director lights is further based on the telescope value. Column 1, lines 28-31 disclose “The present contact position is determined according to refueling boom elevation position and telescopic length sensing of the refueling boom”, column 7, lines 14-17 disclose “Illumination of the director light system depends upon the processor’s determination of where the tracking geometric model nozzle receiver point 150 is relative to the predetermined elevation, range and azimuth zones and boundaries”, and column 7, lines 52-54 disclose “the geometric models position in 3-D space is determined according to its X, Y, and Z positions and its roll, pitch and yaw attitudes”
Regarding claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Ruzicka, as best understood, discloses mathematically relocating the 3D position of the boom receptacle form the camera origin to a boom pivot origin by applying a known spatial offset between the camera and the boom pivot to produce the moved 3D position. Column 6, lines 45-48 disclose “The tracking geometric model nozzle receiver point 150 indicates the refueling receptacle position as it corresponds to specific aircraft unique geometric features”, which tracks the position relative to the camera origin, and column 7, lines 14-63 discusses using the pivot point of the refueling boom as the initial reference point in order to determine the optimum receptacle position for refueling.
Regarding claims 7 (dependent on claim 5), 15 (dependent on claim 14), Ruzicka discloses controlling the one or more pilot director lights is further based on a receiver contact envelope. Table 1 shows inner and outer zone boundaries that comprise a receiver contact envelope at different zones that form a refueling envelope 100 and a contact envelope 102.
Regarding claims 8 (dependent on claim 7), 16 (dependent on claim 15), Ruzicka discloses the receiver contact envelope comprises: an inner telescope length value; and an outer telescope length value. Figure 14 shows a side view of the range zones, where rCB comprises lower and upper telescope length values, the x and z points form the pitch angles, with Figure 15 showing the inner and outer telescope length values, the upper and lower pitch angles, and Figure 19 shows a top down view of the range zone boundaries with left and right roll angle values.
Regarding claim 9, Ruzicka discloses a tanker aircraft comprising:
a refueling boom (refueling boom 104);
a plurality of pilot director lights (director light array 88);
a camera (cameras 90 and 91) configured to generate an image of an in-flight refueling operation between a receiver aircraft and the tanker aircraft (see Figure 10);
a processor (processor 84); and
non-transitory computer readable storage media storing code (memory 76), the code being executable by the processor to perform operations comprising:
determining a position of a boom receptacle on the receiver aircraft within the image (step 162 discloses “determine receiving aircraft receptacle position relative to optimum contact point”);
determining, based at least in part on camera parameter matrices of the camera, a three-dimensional (3D) position of the boom receptacle with regard to origin location of the camera (column 6, lines 45-48 disclose “The tracking geometric model nozzle receiver point 150 indicates the refueling receptacle position as it corresponds to specific aircraft unique geometric features”), wherein the origin location of the camera of the tanker aircraft comprises a reference point of the 3D position (any location can comprise a reference point for a 3D location, and since the 3D image is taken from the camera’s field of view, the camera’s location is inherently a reference point for the 3D position, and the camera’s location is also a camera parameter) and the camera parameter matrices represent extrinsic camera parameters and intrinsic camera parameters, the intrinsic camera parameters comprising at least one of: a focal length, a field of view, and a resolution of the camera (a camera inherently has extrinsic camera parameters such as the location of the camera and the direction that it’s pointing and intrinsic camera parameters such as focal length, field of view, and resolution, and all of the information form a matrix of parameters for the camera);
changing the reference point of the 3D position of the origin location of the camera to an origin of the refueling boom to produce a moved 3D position of the boom receptacle (column 7, lines 14-63 discusses using the pivot point of the refueling boom as the initial reference point in order to determine the optimum receptacle position for refueling);
determining, based on the moved 3D position of the boom receptacle and on the camera parameter matrices, a pitch value and a roll value of the boom receptacle with respect to a boom rotational axis (column 7, lines 49-54 disclose “First, the TAU system uses a least square technique for automatic matching of three or more points of a geometric model to a video image. Then, the geometric models position in 3-D space is determined according to its X, Y, and Z positions and its roll, pitch, and yaw attitudes”, since the TAU system uses the video image, the information is determined based on the matrix of camera parameters that determines the details of the image);
comparing at least one of the pitch value and the roll value to an angular range (Figure 15 shows the system comparing optimum refueling point PON within the angular range of the pitch value, and Figure 19 shows the system comparing optimum refueling point PON within the angular range of the roll value); and
controlling one or more of the pilot director lights based on the comparing, wherein the one or more pilot director lights are controlled based on continuously monitored changes in the moved 3D position of the boom receptacle (column 6, lines 1-2 discloses “the system tracks the 3-D aircraft image, at block 160”, which comprises continuously monitoring the aircraft position, and lines 3-8 disclose “Then, the system determines aircraft receptacle position relative to optimum boom contact point according to the tracking geometric model image and refueling zone information, at block 162. Finally, the system controls the director light array according to the determined receptacle position, at block 164”, which comprises controlling the director light array based on the tracked receptacle position).
Ruzicka does not disclose the image being 2D. However, this limitation is taught by Lozano. Lozano disclose a detection system for a boom and a receptacle for aerial refueling, and claim 12 discloses “using cross-correlation techniques and digital filtering, to obtain the pixels that are reflected in the elements of our scenario, the result is a set of 2D points with which, by means of simple triangulation techniques and trigonometry and considering the distance from the laser to the DOE-type camera, we can obtain distances from said camera to this set of points”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ruzicka using the teachings from Lozano to use different known types of ways of determining the positions of different points in an image.
Regarding claim 17, Ruzicka discloses an automated refueling system comprising:
a plurality of pilot director lights (director light array 88);
a camera (cameras 90 and 91) configured to generate an image of a device associated with in-flight refueling operation between a receiver aircraft and the tanker aircraft (see Figure 10);
a processor (processor 84); and
non-transitory computer readable storage media storing code (memory 76), the code being executable by the processor to perform operations comprising:
determining a position of a boom receptacle on the receiver aircraft within the image (step 162 discloses “determine receiving aircraft receptacle position relative to optimum contact point”);
determining, based at least in part on camera parameter matrices of the camera, a three-dimensional (3D) position of the boom receptacle with regard to origin location of the camera (column 6, lines 45-48 disclose “The tracking geometric model nozzle receiver point 150 indicates the refueling receptacle position as it corresponds to specific aircraft unique geometric features”) wherein the origin location of the camera of the tanker aircraft comprises a reference point of the 3D position (any location can comprise a reference point for a 3D location, and since the 3D image is taken from the camera’s field of view, the camera’s location is inherently a reference point for the 3D position, and the camera’s location is also a camera parameter) and the camera parameter matrices represent extrinsic camera parameters and intrinsic camera parameters, the intrinsic camera parameters comprising at least one of: a focal length, a field of view, and a resolution of the camera (a camera inherently has extrinsic camera parameters such as the location of the camera and the direction that it’s pointing and intrinsic camera parameters such as focal length, field of view, and resolution, and all of the information form a matrix of parameters for the camera);
changing the reference point of the 3D position of the origin location of the camera to an origin of a refueling boom to produce a moved 3D position of the boom receptacle, wherein the origin of the refueling boom comprises an origin location of the refueling boom (column 7, lines 14-63 discusses using the pivot point of the refueling boom as the initial reference point in order to determine the optimum receptacle position for refueling);
determining, based on the moved 3D position of the boom receptacle and on the camera parameter matrices, a pitch value and a roll value of the boom receptacle with respect to a boom rotational axis (column 7, lines 49-54 disclose “First, the TAU system uses a least square technique for automatic matching of three or more points of a geometric model to a video image. Then, the geometric models position in 3-D space is determined according to its X, Y, and Z positions and its roll, pitch, and yaw attitudes”, since the TAU system uses the video image, the information is determined based on the matrix of camera parameters that determines the details of the image);
comparing at least one of the pitch value and the roll value to an angular range (Figure 15 shows the system comparing optimum refueling point PON within the angular range of the pitch value, and Figure 19 shows the system comparing optimum refueling point PON within the angular range of the roll value); and
controlling one or more of the pilot director lights based on the comparing, wherein the one or more pilot direction lights are controlled based on continuously monitored changes in the moved 3D position of the boom receptacle (column 6, lines 1-2 discloses “the system tracks the 3-D aircraft image, at block 160”, which comprises continuously monitoring the aircraft position, and lines 3-8 disclose “Then, the system determines aircraft receptacle position relative to optimum boom contact point according to the tracking geometric model image and refueling zone information, at block 162. Finally, the system controls the director light array according to the determined receptacle position, at block 164”, which comprises controlling the director light array based on the tracked receptacle position).
Ruzicka does not disclose the image being 2D. However, this limitation is taught by Lozano. Lozano disclose a detection system for a boom and a receptacle for aerial refueling, and claim 12 discloses “using cross-correlation techniques and digital filtering, to obtain the pixels that are reflected in the elements of our scenario, the result is a set of 2D points with which, by means of simple triangulation techniques and trigonometry and considering the distance from the laser to the DOE-type camera, we can obtain distances from said camera to this set of points”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ruzicka using the teachings from Lozano to use different known types of ways of determining the positions of different points in an image.
Regarding claim 20 (dependent on claim 17), Ruzicka discloses determining a telescope value based on the rotational boom axis and controlling the one or more pilot director lights is further based on the receiver contact envelope, the receiver contact envelope comprises: an inner telescope length value; and an outer telescope length value. Column 1, lines 28-31 disclose “The present contact position is determined according to refueling boom elevation position and telescopic length sensing of the refueling boom”, column 7, lines 14-17 disclose “Illumination of the director light system depends upon the processor’s determination of where the tracking geometric model nozzle receiver point 150 is relative to the predetermined elevation, range and azimuth zones and boundaries”, and column 7, lines 52-54 disclose “the geometric models position in 3-D space is determined according to its X, Y, and Z positions and its roll, pitch and yaw attitudes”. Figure 14 shows a side view of the range zones, where rCB comprises lower and upper telescope length values, the x and z points form the pitch angles, with Figure 15 showing the inner and outer telescope length values, the upper and lower pitch angles, and Figure 19 shows a top down view of the range zone boundaries with left and right roll angle values.
Claims 2-3, 10-11, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Number 5,904,729 to Ruzicka in view of US Patent Number 10,706,583 to Lozano, in further view of US Patent Number 10,699,125 to Mosher.
Regarding claims 2 (dependent on claim 1), 10 (dependent on claim 9), 18 (dependent on claim 17), Ruzicka and Lozano do not disclose determining the receiver aircraft within the 2D image to produce a determined receiver aircraft; generating a bounding box within and on the 2D image, the bounding box enclosing at least part of the determined receiver aircraft; and determining keypoints on the determined receiver aircraft within the bounding box. However, this limitation is taught by Mosher. Mosher discloses a system for tracking and classification of objects in a video, and column 4, lines 50-55 disclose “In some embodiments, the alert includes generating a bounding box or other visual indicia that is overlaid on a display of the original frame (e.g., displayed on a display device), the bounding box or other visual indicia demarcating that location of the object within the frame”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ruzicka and Lozano using the teachings from Mosher in order to better isolate and draw attention to the desired objects of interest in the image such as a part of the receiver aircraft.
Regarding claims 3 (dependent on claim 2), 11 (dependent on claim 10), 19 (dependent on claim 18), Ruzicka as modified by Lozano and Mosher further teaches determining the 2D position of the boom receptacle comprises determining the 2D position of the boom receptacle on the receiver aircraft within the bounding box of the 2D image and is further based on the keypoints. Column 7, lines 40-44 disclose “The processor 84 analyzes geometric model image 146 as it tracks the real-time 3D receiving aircraft image 144 and determines from this analysis the receiver receptacle contact point location PRR relative to pivot point OZS.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the newly amended claim limitations regarding the camera parameter matrices, applicant claims that these limitations are supported by paragraph 27 of the specification and Figure 5. Paragraph 27 discloses “The camera parameters are divided into two parts: extrinsic and intrinsic. The extrinsic camera parameters include the camera’s relative location and orientation with respect to the tanker origin (i.e., center of gravity). The intrinsic camera parameters include focal length, field of view, resolution, etc. These parameters are usually transformation matrices that convert points from one coordinate system to the other.” Figure 5 is merely a side elevation view of the refueling operation and, at best, shows that reference points can be taken relative to the boom pivot point or the camera. There is no further explanation of what “transformation matrices” comprise, but in mathematics, a matrix is merely an array of numbers or symbols. As best understood, and this is with a lot of leeway given to a single sentence of description, paragraph 27 means that the extrinsic and intrinsic camera parameters form an array of data points that can be used to determine the position of various points in space with regard to different reference points. However, regarding the argument that Ruzicka does not disclose these limitations, all of the disclosed extrinsic and intrinsic camera parameters are inherent parameters for any image or video taken by a camera. The extrinsic camera parameters such as the camera’s relative location and orientation determine the image or video that is taken, as a camera in a wrong location, or pointed the opposite way, clearly cannot capture the necessary image or video. The intrinsic camera parameters such as focal length, field of view, and resolution also determine the image or video that is taken, as an out of focus object cannot be accurate depicted, anything outside of the field of view cannot be captured, and resolution determines the detail that can be captured. All of these parameters are inherent to any camera, including that of Ruzicka, and the image or video captured by the camera, and any object being tracked by the camera, such as the refueling boom, is determined by these parameters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
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, Josh Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights