Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 Mar 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant presents Claims 1-15 for examination. The Office rejects Claims 1-15 as detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims contain extraneous dashes (“-“) that distract from the easy reading and parsing of the claims, particularly where only a single limitation is listed or where limitations are already delineated with semicolons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
+_+_+ Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDS entries Berkmo et al. + U.S. Pub. 20220066025 + in view of Armstrong-Crews et al. + U.S. Pub. 20220137227 +_+_+
As for Claim 1, Berkmo teaches a device for positioning an aircraft in a monitored zone of an apron of an airport having at least one optoelectronic sensor for transmitting transmitted light beams into the monitored zone, for scanning a plurality of measurement points, and for generating measurement data from transmitted light remitted or reflected by the measurement points (Fig. 1, apron-located laser-based monitoring system 110L, with monitoring zone 112L, ¶116|1: “FIG. 1 shows an airport stand arrangement 100 [i.e., apron (airplane parking/boarding/loading/refueling area)] according to an example embodiment. The airport stand arrangement comprises a radar-based system HOR, and one or more additional systems selected from laser-based systems and imaging systems. As can be seen in FIG. 1, the one or more additional systems are here selected from laser-based systems only. Specifically, the one or more additional systems is here a laser-based system 110L. ”), a control and evaluation unit for evaluating the measurement data, […1…] to associate the segments with an aircraft type of a plurality of aircraft types with reference to the extracted features, and to output positioning information for the aircraft on the basis of the associated aircraft type […2…] (¶126|14: “The controller 120 receives said output data and performs a data analysis of it so as to determine tracking data of the aircraft 10, said tracking data including the position of the aircraft 10, the velocity of the aircraft 10 etc. Moreover, the controller 120 may also perform a data analysis of the received output data to determine the dimensions of the aircraft 10. Said dimensions may be compared to dimensions of aircraft models stored locally in the airport stand arrangement, or in the AODB 122, to establish an aircraft type and model of the aircraft 10.”) Berkmo teaches using generally a ”continuous or pulsed laser” LiDAR system and identifying an aircraft type from the collected data, but not explicitly piecing together segmented data from a FMCW LiDAR.
But Armstrong-Crews teaches [1] with the control and evaluation unit being configured to segment the measurement points, to combine them at least partially into segments of the aircraft, to extract features of the segments (¶40|22: “Point cloud 181 can be input into a segmentation module 182 where various points of point cloud 181 can be grouped into clusters 183 corresponding to different objects. Segmentation can be performed using a variety of approaches. Clusters can be grouped based on proximity of points in space, proximity of radial velocities of various points, or both. In some implementations, segmentation can use various mapping algorithms (such as ICP) that are capable of mapping points of two different sensing frames. Segmentation can involve formation and verification of hypotheses; for example, a hypothesis that a certain cluster corresponds to a single object can be confirmed or disproved based on distribution of measured (radial) velocities of the points in the cluster, on evolution of the cluster between different sensing frames, and/or by other methods and techniques.”), and [2] wherein the at least one optoelectronic sensor is an FMCW LiDAR sensor (¶29|9: ”The lidar sensor(s) can include a coherent lidar sensor, such as a frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) lidar sensor. The lidar sensor(s) can use optical heterodyne detection for velocity determination.”), and the measurement data comprise radial speeds of the measurement points (¶40|32: “for example, a hypothesis that a certain cluster corresponds to a single object can be confirmed or disproved based on distribution of measured (radial) velocities of the points in the cluster, on evolution of the cluster between different sensing frames, and/or by other methods and techniques.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine Berkmo and Armstrong-Crews because using a FMCW LiDAR allows for gathering velocity information with each detected point, which provides more information for identifying segments of the detected object to determine plane type.
As for Claim 2, which depends on Claim 1, Armstrong-Crews teaches wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to segment the measurement points using the radial speeds of the measurement points (¶40|32: “for example, a hypothesis that a certain cluster corresponds to a single object can be confirmed or disproved based on distribution of measured (radial) velocities of the points in the cluster, on evolution of the cluster between different sensing frames, and/or by other methods and techniques.”)
As for Claim 3, which depends on Claim 1, Armstrong-Crews teaches wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to associate the measurement points at least partially with segments of the aircraft using the radial speeds of the measurement points (¶40|32: “for example, a hypothesis that a certain cluster corresponds to a single object can be confirmed or disproved based on distribution of measured (radial) velocities of the points in the cluster, on evolution of the cluster between different sensing frames, and/or by other methods and techniques.”)
As for Claim 4, which depends on Claim 1, Armstrong-Crews teaches wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to extract features of the segments using the radial speeds of the measurement points associated with the segments (¶40|32: “for example, a hypothesis that a certain cluster corresponds to a single object can be confirmed or disproved based on distribution of measured (radial) velocities of the points in the cluster, on evolution of the cluster between different sensing frames, and/or by other methods and techniques.”)
As for Claim 5, which depends on Claim 1, Berkmo teaches wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to determine a movement pattern of at least one of the segments using the radial speeds of the measurement points associated with the segments (¶80|1: “According to some embodiments, the airport stand arrangement is configured to, based on at least a speed and direction of each of said other objects and a speed and direction of the approaching aircraft, determine if said other objects are predicted to leave the stand area before the approaching aircraft is predicted to arrive, and, in response to determining that said other objects are not predicted to leave the stand area before the approaching aircraft is predicted to arrive: to provide further pilot maneuvering guidance information instructing the pilot to stop the aircraft.”)
As for Claim 6, which depends on Claim 1, Berkmo teaches wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to filter the measurement points using the radial speeds of the measurement points (¶135|7: “For example, the evaluation may be performed based on the use of a Kalman filter acting as a time filter to combine measurements (observations) and a model of the dynamics of the detected obstacles.”)
As for Claim 7, which depends on Claim 1, Berkmo teaches wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to determine a speed along a movement direction of the aircraft using the radial speeds of the measurement points (¶80|1: “According to some embodiments, the airport stand arrangement is configured to, based on at least a speed and direction of each of said other objects and a speed and direction of the approaching aircraft, determine if said other objects are predicted to leave the stand area before the approaching aircraft is predicted to arrive, and, in response to determining that said other objects are not predicted to leave the stand area before the approaching aircraft is predicted to arrive: to provide further pilot maneuvering guidance information instructing the pilot to stop the aircraft.”)
As for Claim 8, which depends on Claim 1, Armstrong-Crews teaches wherein the FMCW LiDAR sensor is configured to detect polarization dependent intensities of the transmitted light remitted or reflected by the measurement points and the measured data comprise the polarization dependent intensities (¶48|14: “The returns point can also include such data as the radial velocity V a timestamp t associated with the sensing signal 320 (e.g., the time of the signal emission or return), the intensity of the returned signal, and other information such as the polarization of the emitted and/or received signal, and the like.”)
As for Claim 9, which depends on Claim 8, Armstrong-Crews teaches wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to segment the measurement points using the polarization dependent intensities and to at least partially combine them into segments of the aircraft (¶48|14: “The returns point can also include such data as the radial velocity V a timestamp t associated with the sensing signal 320 (e.g., the time of the signal emission or return), the intensity of the returned signal, and other information such as the polarization of the emitted and/or received signal, and the like.”)
As for Claim 10, which depends on Claim 8, Armstrong-Crews teaches wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to filter the measurement points using the polarization dependent intensities (¶48|14: “The returns point can also include such data as the radial velocity V a timestamp t associated with the sensing signal 320 (e.g., the time of the signal emission or return), the intensity of the returned signal, and other information such as the polarization of the emitted and/or received signal, and the like.”)
As for Claim 11, which depends on Claim 1, Berkmo teaches wherein the device has at least one further FMCW LiDAR sensor having a further monitored zone and the monitored zone at least partly overlaps with the further monitored zone (¶119|1: “The radar-based system HOR and the one or more additional systems together form a combined system 110.”)
Claims 12-15 recite substantially the same subject matter as Claims 1, 3, and 5-6, respectively, and stand rejected on the same basis accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT THATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3588. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm ET and generally keeps a daily 2:30pm timeslot open for interviews.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner to set up a time or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) system at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao, can be reached at (571) 270-3603.
Though not relied on, the Office considers the additional prior art listed in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PTO-892) pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
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.
/Clint Thatcher/
Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights