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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “equip” in claim 6 is used by the claim to mean “to monitor or surveil,” while the accepted meaning is “to supply with the necessary items for a particular purpose.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dow et al. (US 20110015816 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dow teaches an aircraft towing system for an airport having at least one towing zone in which an aircraft is likely to be towed, the towing system comprising:
at least one tow-tractor configured to be operated remotely by means of a wireless connection and suitable for towing the aircraft ([0024], [0026], and [0050], where a UGV, i.e. tow-tractor, is controlled by a remote control center (RCC)),
at least one control device intended to be connected to the tow-tractor using the wireless connection and able to control said tow-tractor ([0024], [0041], and Fig. 1, where the RCC communicates wirelessly with the UGV),
and at least one first sensor intended to be positioned in the towing zone, this or these first sensors being independent of the tow-tractor and being able to supply information about elements likely to be encountered by the aircraft and/or the tow-tractor during the operation of towing the aircraft using the tow-tractor ([0043], where the first sensor is a radar field sensor that allows “a UGV path to be monitored for obstacles beyond its onboard vision sensor ranges”),
the control device being further configured to collect the information supplied by the at least one first sensor and exploit it in controlling the tow-tractor to tow the aircraft ([0043-0044], where the data provided by the asset tracking radar subsystem (ATRS) is used to update the GUI the RCC uses to control a UGV).
Regarding claim 4, Dow teaches wherein the control device has a human/machine interface so as to allow said tow-tractor to be controlled by an operator from said control device ([0038], where the RCC has a GUI that allows an operator to “operate a UGV via remote control”).
Regarding claim 7, Dow teaches wherein the at least one first sensor is intended to be installed fixedly in the towing zone ([0045], where the radar field sensor is fixedly installed to monitor a mounting plane).
Regarding claim 10, Dow teaches wherein the at least one tow-tractor comprises at least one second sensor able to detect an obstacle lying in its path ([0046] and [0050]) and wherein the control device is further configured to collect the information supplied by the at least one second sensor and exploit it in controlling a tow-tractor to tow the aircraft ([0134] and see Figs. 4B-4D, where the UGV sends sensor data, and short range vehicle guidance, and other sensor data to the RCC and/or a remote RCC operator).
Regarding claim 11, Dow teaches wherein the control device is able to control the tow-tractor autonomously on the basis of at least the information supplied by the first sensor or sensors ([0031], where the UGV autonomously performs a mission and can update its course based on detections made by the ATRS sensor).
Regarding claim 12, Dow teaches an airport equipped with an aircraft towing system according to Claim 1 ([0047] and see Figs. 4A-4D).
Regarding claim 13, Dow teaches the system of claim 1. While Dow does not explicitly teach the positive manipulative steps of supplying, installing, and arranging, it teaches:
at least one tow-tractor configured to be operated remotely by means of a wireless connection and suitable for towing the aircraft ([0024], [0026], and [0050], where a UGV, i.e. tow-tractor, is controlled by a remote control center (RCC)), which is inherently supplied;
at least one control device connected to the tow-tractor using the wireless connection and able to control said tow-tractor ([0024], [0041], and Fig. 1, where the RCC communicates wirelessly with the UGV), which is inherently installed;
and at least one first sensor arranged in the towing zone able to supply information about elements likely to be encountered by the aircraft and/or the tow-tractor during the operation of towing the aircraft using the tow-tractor, the each first sensor being independent of the tow-tractor ([0043] and Figs. 4A-4D, where the first sensor is a radar field sensor that allows “a UGV path to be monitored for obstacles beyond its onboard vision sensor ranges”),
wherein the control device is further configured to collect the information supplied by the at least one first sensor and exploit it in controlling the tow-tractor to tow the aircraft ([0043-0044], where the data provided by the asset tracking radar subsystem (ATRS) is used to update the GUI the RCC uses to control a UGV).
Regarding claim 15, Dow teaches a method for towing aircraft comprising the following steps:
identifying the aircraft that is to be towed in a towing zone equipped with at least one first sensor able to supply information about elements likely to be encountered by the aircraft and/or a tow-tractor during an operation of towing the aircraft ([0044] and [0134], where the ATRS uses its radar sensor to collect positional data on objects; [0025-0026], where data on aircraft is obtained so as to direct a UGV to perform docking with the identified aircraft),
identifying a tow-tractor configured to be operated remotely by means of a wireless connection and suitable for towing the aircraft ([0135] and [0140], where the RCC identifies a UGV and its position so as to remotely control it),
remotely controlling the tow-tractor identified for towing the aircraft from a control device connected to the tow-tractor using the wireless connection, the control device collecting the information supplied by the at least one first sensor and exploiting it or them in controlling the tow-tractor ([0131] and [0134], where the RCC sends the UGV waypoints so as to navigate to and control a specific aircraft),
the first sensor being arranged in the towing zone and being suitable for supplying information about elements likely to be encountered by the aircraft and/or the tow-tractor during the operation of towing the aircraft using the tow-tractor, the or each first sensor being independent of the tow-tractor ([0043]).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Lehnertz et al. (DE 102018251774 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Dow does not teach wherein the at least one first sensor is a sensor able to supply an image of at least part of the towing zone.
In the same field of endeavor, Lehnertz teaches an airport sensor system wherein the at least one first sensor is a sensor able to supply an image of at least part of the towing zone ([0022], where the environmental sensor is a sensor able to supply an image, such as a video sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the first sensors to comprise an image sensor able to supply an image of at least part of the towing zone based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow live images of the airport to be given to the RCC operator, thereby enhancing their remote control and mission planning for the UGV. Live images of the scenes of the airport provide a more clear depiction of what is occurring as opposed to solely relying on generated GUIs.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 2. Lehnertz teaches wherein said at least one first sensor is selected from: an optical camera working in the visible or in the infrared and an imager of the LIDAR type ([0022]).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art remains as applied in claim 2. Dow teaches
wherein the control device has a human/machine interface so as to allow said tow-tractor to be controlled by an operator from said control device ([0038])
and wherein the control device comprises a display system able to supply a display including, at least in part, the image or images supplied by the at least one first sensor ([0038] and [0135], where the ATRS data is used to display a target image).
Note that the image is produced by the first sensor given the prior combination used in claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art remains as applied in claim 5. Dow teaches wherein the control device is configured to combine the images supplied by the first sensor in order to supply a display of the elements likely to be encountered by the aircraft and/or the tow-tractor on the towing zone during the towing operation ([0061-0062] and see Figs. 4B-4D, where the first sensor data is combined with data from the UGV to generate the RCC GUI).
The fusion taught by Dow is between the data supplied by the ATRS and the data supplied by the UGV. As Dow only discloses one radar sensor for the ATRS, it does not teach that the system is comprising a plurality of first sensors intended to equip the towing zone.
Lehnertz teaches that the airport sensor system comprises a plurality of first sensors intended to equip the towing zone ([0021]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to include multiple first sensors in the airport towing system of Dow. As the data from one of these sensors is fused in order to produce the RCC GUI, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that any additionally included first sensors are also fused in order to produce the RCC GUI as this will enhance the UGV and object localization that the system currently performs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to include a plurality of first sensors based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure the system remains functional if one of the first sensors is damaged or otherwise rendered inoperable, and so that the effective detection range of the ATRS system is increased for airports that present unique detection challenges.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Dow does not teach wherein the, or at least one, first sensor is fitted to a mobile vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Lehnertz teaches an airport sensor system wherein the, or at least one, first sensor is fitted to a mobile vehicle ([0025-0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to fit the first sensor to a mobile vehicle based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow the detection range of the first sensor to dynamically adjust for different desired circumstances. This allows the sensor to move to busy or otherwise important locations that may not otherwise be in its detection range if it were stationary, thereby increasing the efficiency and accuracy of the system.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art remains as applied in claim 8. Lehnertz teaches wherein said mobile vehicle is selected from an airport vehicle and a dedicated, advantageously autonomous, mobile vehicle ([0025-0026]).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art remains as applied in claim 13. Dow does not teach wherein equipping the towing zone with at least one first sensor is achieved by deploying at least one mobile vehicle having said at least one first sensor, the mobile vehicle being selected from an airport vehicle and a dedicated autonomous mobile vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Lehnertz teaches an airport sensor system that comprises at least one mobile vehicle having said at least one first sensor ([0025-0026], the mobile vehicle being selected from an airport vehicle and a dedicated autonomous mobile vehicle ([0025-0026]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to modify the system of Dow by having the first sensor be comprised in a mobile vehicle. Although Lehnertz does not explicitly teach the method of deploying at least one mobile vehicle, such a method is implicit to the disclosure of Lehnertz as there is no other way for the environmental sensor, when it is arranged on a mobile vehicle, to be able to perform its disclosed functionality unless the vehicle is deployed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to fit the first sensor to a mobile vehicle based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow the detection range of the first sensor to dynamically adjust for different desired circumstances. This allows the sensor to move to busy or otherwise important locations that may not otherwise be in its detection range if it were stationary, thereby increasing the efficiency and accuracy of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK ROBERT BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK ROBERT BREWERExaminer, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights