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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 6-9, and 11-15 remain pending in the application. Claims 2, 4-5, and 10 have been canceled.
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.
Claims 6-7 are 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. The phrase "intended to be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Applicant is recommended to amend the claims to specify whether the sensors are installed or not installed.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 depends on canceled claim 5. For examination purposes, claim 6 will be read as depending from claim 1.
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 1, 3, 6-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dow et al. (US 20110015816 A1) in view of Lehnertz et al. (DE 102018251774 A1) and Ziv Av et al. (US2023053453A1),
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);
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”);
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);
and wherein the control device comprises a display system able to supply a display ([0038]).
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 increase the detection accuracy of the at least one first sensor as is advantageous to image sensors. Additionally, the use of image sensors allow the 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.
Although Dow teaches that the display system supplies a display including images ([0038] and [0127], where the GUI that is displayed is images), the prior combination does not teach that the display includes the image or images supplied by the at least one first sensor, and the information supplied by the at least one second sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, Ziv Av teaches an apparatus comprising various sensors, including image sensors ([0069] and [0071]). The apparatus can be positioned in the towing zone– where its sensors would be recognized as the at least one first sensor ([0103])– and can alternatively be the towing tractor itself– wherein its sensors would be recognized as the at least one second sensor ([0081], where the apparatus “may also perform the functions of a GSE; that is, it may replace a conventional GSE”; [0037], where GSEs which are recognized as towing vehicles). This apparatus is configured to send images and information to a control center for displaying to an operator ([0024] and [0103], where alert information, including image and video feeds, are sent and displayed for an operator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination so that the images and information from the sensors are displayed to the operator based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Ziv Av, of allowing for multiple different angles and sensors so as to predict all potential collisions ([0005]). Additionally, displaying the images and information to an operator would allow for better control when the tow-tractor is remotely controlled as is done in Dow, such as enabling the operator to directly see what may have caused an alert to be generated.
Regarding claim 3, 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 6, 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).
Lehnertz further teaches that the airport sensor system comprises a plurality of first sensors intended to be installed on the towing zone ([0021]).
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 8, 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, Lehnertz teaches wherein said mobile vehicle is selected from an airport vehicle and a dedicated, advantageously autonomous, mobile vehicle ([0025-0026]).
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);
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”);
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);
and wherein the control device comprises a display system able to supply a display ([0038]).
Lehnertz further teaches 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).
Ziv Av further teaches an apparatus comprising various sensors, including image sensors ([0069] and [0071]). The apparatus can be positioned in the towing zone– where its sensors would be recognized as the at least one first sensor ([0103])– and can alternatively be the towing tractor itself– wherein its sensors would be recognized as the at least one second sensor ([0081], where the apparatus “may also perform the functions of a GSE; that is, it may replace a conventional GSE”; [0037], where GSEs which are recognized as towing vehicles). This apparatus is configured to send images to a control center for displaying to an operator ([0024] and [0103], where alert information, including image and video feeds, are sent and displayed for an operator).
Regarding claim 14, 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.
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]);
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”);
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);
and wherein the control device comprises a display system able to supply a display ([0038]).
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 increase the detection accuracy of the at least one first sensor as is advantageous to image sensors. Additionally, the use of image sensors allow the 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.
Although Dow teaches that the display system supplies a display including images ([0038] and [0127], where the GUI that is displayed is images), the prior combination does not teach that the display includes the image or images supplied by the at least one first sensor, and the information supplied by the at least one second sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, Ziv Av teaches an apparatus comprising various sensors, including image sensors ([0069] and [0071]). The apparatus can be positioned in the towing zone– where its sensors would be recognized as the at least one first sensor ([0103])– and can alternatively be the towing tractor itself– wherein its sensors would be recognized as the at least one second sensor ([0081], where the apparatus “may also perform the functions of a GSE; that is, it may replace a conventional GSE”; [0037], where GSEs which are recognized as towing vehicles). This apparatus is configured to send images and information to a control center for displaying to an operator ([0024] and [0103], where alert information, including image and video feeds, are sent and displayed for an operator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination so that the images and information from the sensors are displayed to the operator based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Ziv Av, of allowing for multiple different angles and sensors so as to predict all potential collisions ([0005]). Additionally, displaying the images and information to an operator would allow for better control when the tow-tractor is remotely controlled as is done in Dow, such as enabling the operator to directly see what may have caused an alert to be generated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the amended limitations added to claim 1 are not taught by the previous combination of Dow in view of Lehnertz. As stated in the above rejection, Dow teaches a display system capable of supplying a display including images ([0038]). Lehnertz teaches that the first sensor is an image sensor that supplies images ([0022]). The combination of Dow and Lehnertz does not teach that information from the second sensor is displayed by the display system as newly amended to the claims. Therefore, reference Ziv Av is added to the prior combination to teach that the display system displays images from the first and second sensor ([0024] and [0103]).
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 JACK R BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-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 R BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights