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 communication is in response to applicant’s filing dated 07/06/2026. Claims 1, 3, 5 and 20 have been amended. Claims 2, 11 and 13 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-24 are currently pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, submitted on 09/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-10, 12, 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Brian J. Tillotson, US 20140043481 A1, in view of Flotte et al., US 20190122570A1 and in view of Stephan Kopischke, US 6359553B1.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: one or more imaging devices configured to, an object detection system operatively connected to, a moving object detection module configured to, a classification module configured to, a directionality module configured to, a threat detection module configured to, a maneuver module configured to, a selector module configured.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 17, 20-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brian J. Tillotson, US 20140043481 A1, in view of Flotte et al., US 20190122570A1 and in view of Stephan Kopischke, US 6359553B1 [hereinafter Tillotson, Flotte and Kopischke].
Regarding claim 1, Tillotson discloses an airborne object detection system, comprising:
one or more imaging devices configured to be disposed on an aircraft and to produce imaging data of one or more portions of an environment surrounding the aircraft (The image data processor is configured to process the video image data to identify images of an object in the video images and to identify a movement of the object with respect to the vehicle from the images of the object in the video images – See at least ¶10);
an object detection system operatively connected to the one or more imaging devices to receive the imaging data (The video image data receiver is configured to receive video image data for video images from a video camera on a vehicle – See at least ¶10),
wherein the object detection system is configured to determine whether there are one or more collision risk objects in the imaging data that will or are likely to collide with the aircraft based on the imaging data (The strike detector is configured to determine whether the movement of the object with respect to the vehicle indicates that the object will strike the vehicle. The strike report generator is configured to generate a strike report indicating that the object will strike the vehicle in response to a determination that the object will strike the vehicle – See at least ¶10),
wherein the object detection system is configured to determine a collision location on the aircraft that the one or more collision risk objects will or are likely to collide with (Location of strike may be a location on aircraft that is struck by object. For example, location of strike may be a location on the surface of aircraft that is struck by object – See at least ¶43).
Tillotson fails to disclose wherein the object detection system is configured to change a processing time based on one or more risk factors associated with the environment, wherein a lower risk among the one or more risk factors corresponds to an elongated processing time, wherein the object detection system is configured to determine an avoidance maneuver and/or route to avoid collision with the one or more collision risk objects; and wherein the avoidance maneuver and/or route is configured to be performed by at least one of an autopilot or a flight control system configured to put the aircraft in a condition to perform the avoidance maneuver or route to mitigate possible damage to the aircraft based on the imaging data received by the object detection system.
However, Flotte teaches wherein the object detection system is configured to change a processing time based on one or more risk factors associated with the environment, wherein a lower risk among the one or more risk factors corresponds to an elongated processing time, wherein the object detection system is configured to determine an avoidance maneuver and/or route to avoid collision with the one or more collision risk objects; and wherein the avoidance maneuver and/or route is configured to be performed by at least one of an autopilot or a flight control system configured to put the aircraft in a condition to perform the avoidance maneuver or route to mitigate possible damage to the aircraft based on the imaging data received by the object detection system (The conflict detection unit uses, to determine the decision endpoint and/or the avoidance endpoint relative to the location of a collision risk on the segment, a profile along the gradient of the provisional route in the considered collision risk location and determines the point of the provisional route as a decision endpoint and/or avoidance endpoint for the obstacle. This point is placed by rising from the position of the collision risk and along the provisional route, by an inclusive time value corresponding to the time needed for the pilot to make a decision. This time value may for example depend on, for example be equal to, the cumulative time of the first two segments – See at least ¶64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tillotson and include the feature of wherein the object detection system is configured to change a processing time based on one or more risk factors associated with the environment, wherein a lower risk among the one or more risk factors corresponds to an elongated processing time, wherein the object detection system is configured to determine an avoidance maneuver and/or route to avoid collision with the one or more collision risk objects; and wherein the avoidance maneuver and/or route is configured to be performed by at least one of an autopilot or a flight control system configured to put the aircraft in a condition to perform the avoidance maneuver or route to mitigate possible damage to the aircraft based on the imaging data received by the object detection system, as taught by Flotte, to identify a list of potential threats on a route, which must be reported to the crew and/or the onboard systems through alerts (See at least ¶3).
The combination of Tillotson and Flotte fail to disclose wherein if a collision is determined to be unavoidable, the object detection system references predefined hazard-zone data and determines a first hazard rating of the predicted collision location on the aircraft, and determines a risk-reduction maneuver to reposition the predicted collision location to a second area of the aircraft having a second hazard rating lower than the first hazard rating.
However, Kopischke teaches wherein if a collision is determined to be unavoidable, the object detection system references predefined hazard-zone data and determines a first hazard rating of the predicted collision location on the aircraft, and determines a risk-reduction maneuver to reposition the predicted collision location to a second area of the aircraft having a second hazard rating lower than the first hazard rating (When an accident can no longer be prevented by braking or an evasive maneuver, an evaluating unit references stored vehicle specific features (i.e. hazard zone data), predetermined limit values, preferred impact angles, and optimal impact positions; evaluates the anticipated impact position (i.e. first hazard rating); and controls automatic steering and/or selectively brakes individual wheels to reposition the vehicle into a preassigned optimal impact position that minimizes the consequences of the collision (i.e. a second area of the aircraft having a second hazard rating lower than the first hazard rating) , including by utilizing impact energy absorbing deformation areas – See at least col 3. Lines 5-40; col 4. Lines 9-45; an claims 1, 3-4 and 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tillotson and Flotte and include the feature of wherein if a collision is determined to be unavoidable, the object detection system references predefined hazard-zone data and determines a first hazard rating of the predicted collision location on the aircraft, and determines a risk-reduction maneuver to reposition the predicted collision location to a second area of the aircraft having a second hazard rating lower than the first hazard rating, as taught by Kopischke, to assist a vehicle operator in critical situations to prevent an impending accident in so far as possible by optimal braking or at least reducing the impact velocity at the point of collision to a minimum.
Regarding claim 3, Tillotson fails to disclose wherein the avoidance maneuver and/or the risk-reduction maneuver are constrained based at least on a size of the one or more collision risk objects.
However, Flotte teaches wherein the avoidance maneuver and/or the risk-reduction maneuver are constrained based at least on a size of the one or more collision risk objects (an obstacle is defined by a volume having a width and height; the obstacle width is used to define the limits of the obstacle; and a predefined avoidance trajectory is calculated such that a climb phase is tangential to the highest and closest end of the obstacle, thereby constraining the avoidance trajectory based on the width and height of the obstacle – See at least ¶32, 40, 44 and 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tillotson and include the feature of wherein the avoidance maneuver and/or the risk-reduction maneuver are constrained based at least on a size of the one or more collision risk objects, as taught by Flotte, to assist a vehicle operator in critical situations to prevent an impending accident in so far as possible by optimal braking or at least reducing the impact velocity at the point of collision to a minimum.
Regarding claim 5, Tillotson discloses wherein the object detection system is configured to reference hazard zone data including a plurality of defined hazard zones each having a respective hazard rating to determine the risk reduction maneuver to maneuver the aircraft to move the collision location to a hazard zone having a lower or lowest risk within a remaining time before collision (Illustrative embodiments provide a system and method for determining whether a bird strike on an aircraft has occurred or is likely to occur and for identifying various characteristics of a bird strike on an aircraft. Illustrative embodiments include a system and method for using video images from a camera system on an aircraft to identify a bird approaching the aircraft in flight. The movement of the bird with respect to the aircraft is identified using the video images to determine whether the bird is likely to strike or has struck the aircraft. The impact point of the bird on the aircraft, the size of the bird, or other characteristics of the bird strike may be identified. The characteristics of the bird strike on the aircraft may be reported to appropriate personnel so that appropriate action may be taken in response to the bird strike – See at least ¶30).
Regarding claim 6, Tillotson discloses wherein the object detection system includes a moving object detection module configured to determine whether there are one or more collision risk objects (Object may have movement, size, other characteristics or various combinations of such characteristics. Movement may refer to the movement of object with respect to aircraft. For example, without limitation, movement may be characterized by a direction of movement of object with respect to aircraft, a speed of movement of object with respect to aircraft, or both. Movement also may be referred to as the trajectory of object with respect to aircraft – See at least ¶41).
Regarding claim 7, Tillotson discloses wherein the object detection system includes a classification module configured to determine what the one or more collision risk objects are based on the image data and to output one or more object classifications associated with the one or more collision risk objects (For example, without limitation, strike detection system may be configured to use movement, or movement in combination with size, to determine whether object has struck or is likely to strike aircraft – See at least ¶42).
Regarding claim 8, Tillotson discloses wherein the object detection system includes a directionality module configured to determine a motion direction of the one or more collision risk objects based on the image data and to output motion data associated with the one or more collision risk objects (The movement of the bird with respect to the aircraft is identified using the video images to determine whether the bird is likely to strike or has struck the aircraft. The impact point of the bird on the aircraft, the size of the bird, or other characteristics of the bird strike may be identified. The characteristics of the bird strike on the aircraft may be reported to appropriate personnel so that appropriate action may be taken in response to the bird strike – See at least ¶30).
Regarding claim 9, Tillotson discloses wherein the object detection system includes a threat detection module operatively connected to the directionality module to receive the motion data and the classification module to receive the one or more object classifications, wherein the threat detection module is configured to determine whether a collision will occur and/or a time of collision and to output collision data (Illustrative embodiments provide a system and method for determining whether a bird strike on an aircraft has occurred or is likely to occur and for identifying various characteristics of a bird strike on an aircraft. Illustrative embodiments include a system and method for using video images from a camera system on an aircraft to identify a bird approaching the aircraft in flight. The movement of the bird with respect to the aircraft is identified using the video images to determine whether the bird is likely to strike or has struck the aircraft. The impact point of the bird on the aircraft, the size of the bird, or other characteristics of the bird strike may be identified. The characteristics of the bird strike on the aircraft may be reported to appropriate personnel so that appropriate action may be taken in response to the bird strike – See at least ¶30).
Regarding claim 10, Tillotson discloses wherein the system includes a maneuver module configured to output an avoidance maneuver based on the motion data and/or the collision data to avoid collision with or modify the collision location of the collision risk object (For example, without limitation, strike detection system may be configured to use movement, or movement in combination with size, to determine whether object has struck or is likely to strike aircraft – See at least ¶42).
Regarding claim 12, Tillotson discloses wherein the one or more risk factors include at least one of altitude, speed, weather, and environment type (If a strike is identified, characteristics of the strike, such as the size of the bird, the location of impact on the aircraft, the impact speed – See at least ¶110).
Regarding claim 17, Tillotson discloses wherein the system includes a selector module configured to select between the maneuver module and/or a navigation module to output a control signal to an autopilot and/or flight control system (Object may have movement, size, other characteristics or various combinations of such characteristics. Movement may refer to the movement of object with respect to aircraft. For example, without limitation, movement may be characterized by a direction of movement of object with respect to aircraft, a speed of movement of object with respect to aircraft, or both. Movement also may be referred to as the trajectory of object with respect to aircraft – See at least ¶41).
Regarding claim 20, Tillotson discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer executable instruction configured to cause a computer to perform a method, the method comprising:
determining whether there are one or more collision risk objects in the imaging data that will or are likely to collide with the aircraft based on the imaging data (The strike detector is configured to determine whether the movement of the object with respect to the vehicle indicates that the object will strike the vehicle. The strike report generator is configured to generate a strike report indicating that the object will strike the vehicle in response to a determination that the object will strike the vehicle – See at least ¶10); and
determining a collision location on the aircraft that the one or more collision risk objects will or are likely to collide with (Location of strike may be a location on aircraft that is struck by object. For example, location of strike may be a location on the surface of aircraft that is struck by object – See at least ¶43).
Tillotson fails to disclose changing a processing time based on one or more risk factors associated with the environment, wherein a lower risk among the one or more risk factors corresponds to an elongated processing time; and wherein an avoidance maneuver and/or route is configured to be performed by at least one of an autopilot or a flight control system configured to put the aircraft in a condition to perform the avoidance maneuver or route to mitigate possible damage to the aircraft based on the imaging data.
However, Flotte teaches changing a processing time based on one or more risk factors associated with the environment, wherein a lower risk among the one or more risk factors corresponds to an elongated processing time; and wherein an avoidance maneuver and/or route is configured to be performed by at least one of an autopilot or a flight control system configured to put the aircraft in a condition to perform the avoidance maneuver or route to mitigate possible damage to the aircraft based on the imaging data (The conflict detection unit uses, to determine the decision endpoint and/or the avoidance endpoint relative to the location of a collision risk on the segment, a profile along the gradient of the provisional route in the considered collision risk location and determines the point of the provisional route as a decision endpoint and/or avoidance endpoint for the obstacle. This point is placed by rising from the position of the collision risk and along the provisional route, by an inclusive time value corresponding to the time needed for the pilot to make a decision. This time value may for example depend on, for example be equal to, the cumulative time of the first two segments – See at least ¶64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tillotson and include the feature of changing a processing time based on one or more risk factors associated with the environment, wherein a lower risk among the one or more risk factors corresponds to an elongated processing time; and wherein an avoidance maneuver and/or route is configured to be performed by at least one of an autopilot or a flight control system configured to put the aircraft in a condition to perform the avoidance maneuver or route to mitigate possible damage to the aircraft based on the imaging data, as taught by Flotte, to identify a list of potential threats on a route, which must be reported to the crew and/or the onboard systems through alerts (See at least ¶3).
The combination of Tillotson and Flotte fail to disclose wherein if a collision is determined to be unavoidable, the object detection system references predefined hazard-zone data and determines a first hazard rating of the predicted collision location on the aircraft, and determines a risk-reduction maneuver to reposition the predicted collision location to a second area of the aircraft having a second hazard rating lower than the first hazard rating.
However, Kopischke teaches wherein if a collision is determined to be unavoidable, the object detection system references predefined hazard-zone data and determines a first hazard rating of the predicted collision location on the aircraft, and determines a risk-reduction maneuver to reposition the predicted collision location to a second area of the aircraft having a second hazard rating lower than the first hazard rating (When an accident can no longer be prevented by braking or an evasive maneuver, an evaluating unit references stored vehicle specific features (i.e. hazard zone data), predetermined limit values, preferred impact angles, and optimal impact positions; evaluates the anticipated impact position (i.e. first hazard rating); and controls automatic steering and/or selectively brakes individual wheels to reposition the vehicle into a preassigned optimal impact position that minimizes the consequences of the collision (i.e. a second area of the aircraft having a second hazard rating lower than the first hazard rating) , including by utilizing impact energy absorbing deformation areas – See at least col 3. Lines 5-40; col 4. Lines 9-45; an claims 1, 3-4 and 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tillotson and Flotte and include the feature of wherein if a collision is determined to be unavoidable, the object detection system references predefined hazard-zone data and determines a first hazard rating of the predicted collision location on the aircraft, and determines a risk-reduction maneuver to reposition the predicted collision location to a second area of the aircraft having a second hazard rating lower than the first hazard rating, as taught by Kopischke, to assist a vehicle operator in critical situations to prevent an impending accident in so far as possible by optimal braking or at least reducing the impact velocity at the point of collision to a minimum.
Regarding claim 21, Tillotson discloses wherein the object detection system is configured to: determine whether there are one or more collision risk objects in the imaging data by detecting motion within the imaging data indicative of one or more potential collision risks; and identify that the motion corresponds to an object in a category of interest before determining the collision location on the aircraft (For example, without limitation, strike detection system may be configured to use movement, or movement in combination with size, to determine whether object has struck or is likely to strike aircraft – See at least ¶42).
Regarding claim 23, Tillotson discloses determine whether there are one or more collision risk objects in the imaging data by detecting motion within the imaging data indicative of one or more potential collision risks; and identify that the motion corresponds to an object in a category of interest before determining the collision location on the aircraft (For example, without limitation, strike detection system may be configured to use movement, or movement in combination with size, to determine whether object has struck or is likely to strike aircraft – See at least ¶42).
Claim(s) 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillotson, US 20140043481 A1, in view of Flotte et al., US 20190122570A1, in view of Stephan Kopischke, US 6359553B1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Connor et al., US 20150170525 A1, hereinafter [Tillotson, Flotte, Kopischke and Connor].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Tillotson, Flotte and Kopischke fail to explicitly disclose wherein the object detection system is configured to deactivate above a threshold altitude.
However, Connor teaches wherein the object detection system is configured to deactivate above a threshold altitude (Aircraft may be in a designated ground area in which it may be desirable to deactivate the ground obstacle collision alerts for only a limited period of time, after which, a crew of aircraft may maneuver aircraft in ground areas in which the ground obstacle collision alerts may be useful to the crew. For example, if the designated ground area is a ramp area, aircraft may leave the ramp area after loading and unloading passengers or other payload and maneuver onto a taxiway or runway, or both. Thus, it may be desirable to reactivate the ground obstacle collision alerts at some point after processor deactivates the delivery of ground obstacle collision alerts – See at least ¶62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tillotson, Flotte and Kopischke and include the feature of wherein the object detection system is configured to deactivate above a threshold altitude, as taught by Connor, to generate an alert in response to determining an object on the ground is within a particular distance of the aircraft (See at least ¶2).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Tillotson, Flotte and Kopischke fail to explicitly disclose wherein the threshold altitude is above a normal maximum for birds and/or drones.
However, Connor teaches wherein the threshold altitude is above a normal maximum for birds and/or drones (In the technique shown in FIG. 2, sometime after processor deactivates the delivery of ground obstacle collision alerts, processor determines whether aircraft is outside of a designated ground area. As discussed above, in some examples, processor is configured to determine aircraft is outside of the one or more designated ground areas based on a geographic location of aircraft, based on a ground speed and heading of aircraft – See at least ¶63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tillotson, Flotte and Kopischke and include the feature of wherein the threshold altitude is above a normal maximum for birds and/or drones, as taught by Connor, to generate an alert in response to determining an object on the ground is within a particular distance of the aircraft (See at least ¶2).
Regarding claim 16, Tillotson discloses wherein the object detection system is configured to annunciate to a cockpit annunciator the existence of a collision risk object and/or the object classification and/or the collision location of the one or more collision risk objects (As another example, communication system may be used to transmit strike report to a remote operator controlling aircraft in cases where aircraft is an unmanned air vehicle – See at least ¶55).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brian J. Tillotson, US 20140043481 A1, in view of Flotte et al., US 20190122570A1, in view of Stephan Kopischke, US 6359553B1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Banga et al., WO2018237204 A1, [hereinafter Tillotson, Flotte, Kopischke and Banga]
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Tillotson, Flotte and Kopischke fail to explicitly disclose wherein the object detection system includes artificial intelligence and/or machine learning.
However, Banga teaches wherein the object detection system includes artificial intelligence and/or machine learning (For example, various Machine Learning and Computer Vision techniques may be used including for object detection – See at least page 4, lines 23-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tillotson, Flotte and Kopischke and include the feature of wherein the object detection system includes artificial intelligence and/or machine learning, as taught by Banga, to identity potential risk factors for flying an aircraft.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brian J. Tillotson, US 20140043481 A1, in view of Flotte et al., US 20190122570A1, in view of Stephan Kopischke, US 6359553B1, in view of Connor et al., US 20150170525 A1, as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Banga et al., WO2018237204 A1, [hereinafter Tillotson, Flotte, Kopischke and Banga]
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Tillotson, Flotte and Kopischke and Connor fail to explicitly disclose wherein the object detection system includes a neural network.
However, Banga teaches wherein the object detection system includes a neural network (For example, various Machine Learning and Computer Vision techniques may be used including and not limited to neural networks inference engines – See at least page 4, lines 23-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tillotson, Flotte and Kopischke and Connor and include the feature of wherein the object detection system includes a neural network, as taught by Banga, to identity potential risk factors for flying an aircraft.
Claim(s) 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brian J. Tillotson, US 20140043481 A1, in view of Flotte et al., US 20190122570A1, in view of Stephan Kopischke, US 6359553B1, as applied to claims 21 and 23 above, and further in view of Seeber et al., US 20200356783A1, hereinafter referred to as Tillotson, Flotte, Kopischke and Seeber, respectively.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Tillotson, Flotte and Kopischke fail to disclose wherein detecting the motion comprises analyzing changes in the imaging data over time to identify movement consistent with expected object sizes and velocities.
However, Seeber teaches wherein detecting the motion comprises analyzing changes in the imaging data over time to identify movement consistent with expected object sizes and velocities (a first video frame is captured earlier in time than a second video frame; the sizes of respective regions of interest containing the object are compared to determine a delta size parameter and whether the delta size parameter is within a predetermined size threshold; and the center positions of the regions of interest are compared to determine whether the spatial location change is within a predetermined position change threshold expected for particular object type – See at least ¶32-35 and 103-106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tillotson, Flotte and Kopischke and include the feature of wherein detecting the motion comprises analyzing changes in the imaging data over time to identify movement consistent with expected object sizes and velocities, as taught by Seeber, to identity potential risk factors for flying an aircraft.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Tillotson, Flotte and Kopischke fail to disclose herein detecting the motion comprises analyzing changes in the imaging data over time to identify movement consistent with expected object sizes and velocities.
However, Seeber teaches herein detecting the motion comprises analyzing changes in the imaging data over time to identify movement consistent with expected object sizes and velocities (a first video frame is captured earlier in time than a second video frame; the sizes of respective regions of interest containing the object are compared to determine a delta size parameter and whether the delta size parameter is within a predetermined size threshold; and the center positions of the regions of interest are compared to determine whether the spatial location change is within a predetermined position change threshold expected for particular object type – See at least ¶32-35 and 103-106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tillotson, Flotte and Kopischke and include the feature of herein detecting the motion comprises analyzing changes in the imaging data over time to identify movement consistent with expected object sizes and velocities, as taught by Seeber, to identity potential risk factors for flying an aircraft.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights