DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on 12/15/2025. Claims 1-20 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 01/15/2026 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view of Bray (US 9,150,310 B1) and Tang (US 2021/0314551 A1)
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 14-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Bray (US 9,150,310 B1) in view of Tang (US 2021/0314551 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Bray discloses a tanker aircraft (claim 1: method; claim 15: system) comprising:
a refueling boom; (abstract)
a camera configured to generate a two-dimensional (2D) image of an in-flight refueling operation between a receiver aircraft and the tanker aircraft; (col. 6, lines 39-52; Bray teaches an aerial refueling system that includes a camera 402 providing signals to a vision processing system 404 and display 408 provides a visualization of the refueling environment as sensed by camera 402. Bray further teaches that camera 402 tacks the receiving aircraft during refueling operations and that the system recognizes the refueling receptacle and displays overlays based on the received images.)
a processor; and (col. 6, lines 1-67: vision processing system 404)
non-transitory computer readable storage media storing code, the code being executable by the processor to perform operations comprising: (col. 6, lines 1-5)
determining 2D keypoints of a target object located within the 2D image based on a predefined model of the target object; (col. 6, lines 39 to 51; Bray teaches that vision processing system 404 may include a library 406 of receiving aircraft images, allowing the system to compare aircraft sensed by camera 402 to stored images within the library to identify aircraft type. Bray also teaches that receptacle recognition is accomplished utilizing pre-existing knowledge of the receiver aircraft type and receptacle location stored in library 406, or alternatively by model based pattern matching within vision processing system 404. Thus, Bray teaches determining image features of the target based on a predefined stored model of the target aircraft and receptacle.)
Bray further teaches outputting the result of the image based refueling guidance processing for operational use in the tanker aircraft refueling system. (figure 11; Bray teaches that display 408 provides the boom operator with overlays based on the processing of signals within vision processing system 404. Bray also teaches reticule overlay 1104 presented to the boom operator as calculated by vision processing system 404, as well as guidance cues and indicators generated from flight control algorithms that determine relative position and velocities of the boom relative to the receptacle.)
Bray does not disclose that the target pose is estimated using 2D keypoints and a 3D CAD model to obtain a 6DOF pose, nor does Bray disclose generating an uncertainty value of that 6DOF pose. Further, as explained above, Bray teaches outputting information but not outputting a 6D0F pose uncertainty value.
Tang discloses estimating a 6DOF pose based on the 2D keypoints and a 3D CAD model of the target object (paragraph 24: The neural network generates heatmaps and an image including feature points of the object. The image is then compared to a nominal or virtual 3D CAD model of the object to provide an estimated 3D pose of the object. One suitable algorithm is PnP and the pose includes 6DOF. paragraph 25: The CAD model is rotated and translated until aligned with the image feature points. paragraph 26: Solving for optimal rotation and translation provides the estimated 3D pose.)
Tang also teaches generating an uncertainty value of the 6DOF pose; (paragraph 27: Tang teaches that a small pixel error in the 2D projection can create object position uncertainty and reduce 3D pose estimation performance; paragraph 28: Tang teaches uncertainty regions depicting the limitation in accuracy of the pose estimate and teaches that by fusing multiple cameras the accuracy of estimating 3D pose is considerably improved thereby characterizing the uncertainty of the pose estimate)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Tang into the teachings of Bray to improve the spatial determination of the receptacle relative to the tanker and thereby effectively improve the safety and accuracy of the refueling guidance system.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Bray, as modified by Tang, discloses the claimed invention wherein determining the 2D keypoints is further based on a trained neural network configured to output keypoint heat maps, wherein pixel intensity values associated with each of the keypoint heat maps indicates a keypoint detection probability. (Tang: paragraphs 21-23 and 30)
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, Bray, as modified by Tang, discloses the claimed invention wherein the tanker aircraft further comprises: an automated refueling system; a boom operator system; or a pilot director light system; and outputting the uncertainty value and the 6DOF pose further comprises outputting the uncertainty value and the 6DOF pose to the automated refueling system, the boom operator system, or the pilot director light system. (Tang: paragraphs 27-28)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 10-13 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665