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
Claims 1-8, 10-12, & 16-17 of U.S. Application No. 18/579122 filed on 03/27/2026 have been examined.
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed03/27/2026. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, & 12 are presently amended. Claims 9, & 13-15 are presently cancelled and Claims 16-17 are newly added. Claims 1-8, 10-12, & 16-17 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the previous claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f): the amendments to the claims overcome the previous claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Therefore, the previous claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is/are withdrawn.
In regards to the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: the amendments to the claims overcome the previous 35 USC § 101 rejection. Applicant argues on page. 8-9 of the Remarks, “These steps recited in claim 1 are not performed by the human mind, nor should they be performed by the human mind. Specifically, the above sensing steps in claim 1 are performed by the sensing module comprising a laser radar and an inertial navigation system, and the above determining steps in claim 1 are performed by a processor. That is, the above sensing steps and determining steps are not performed by the human mind. Moreover, it is understood that the human mind would find it difficult to synchronize point cloud data from the laser radar and its processing result with data from the inertial navigation system and its processing result with high precision and real-time performance, nor could it execute the corresponding calculation and determination steps with high precision and real-time performance. Therefore, if the human mind were to perform the above steps, it would be impossible to solve the technical problem addressed by the present application.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Per the MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception, the courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Examiner interprets that the processors, and sensors are applying instructions in order to reach the end result of detecting objects in an environment. Using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other task (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) after the abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see at least MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, Per the MPEP 2106.05(g) based on the examples given by the courts as insignificant extra-solution activity, such as: “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions”, “Consulting and updating an activity log” and other examples. These examples are court decisions that were considered mere data gathering and further outputting the signal based on the data which is similar to what the claim set describes. The claim set describes a data gathering and the outputting a signal of a warning when detecting an object. The application appears to have a generic computers for mere data gathering with insignificant extra solution activity with the end result being detecting an object. In conclusion, the 101 rejection is maintained provided the arguments above.
In regards to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Applicants amendments overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Therefore, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is withdrawn.
In regards to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new grounds of rejection is made in view of US 2015/0194059A1 (“Starr”), in view of US 2019/0265714A1 (“Ball”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-8, 10-12, & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1 & 13 recite an sense an object in a surrounding environment of the aircraft, determine whether the object is secure, a relative distance and a relative velocity between the object and the aircraft, and determining, whether the object is secure based on the relative distance and the relative velocity between the object and the aircraft and a preset security collision time, wherein the relative distance is determined according to a relative position relation between the object and the aircraft and the contour feature of the aircraft, and the relative velocity between the object and the aircraft, implementing a collision avoidance measure in response to determining that the object is insecure, as drafted, is a device & process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer elements. The claim is practically able to be performed in the mind. For example, but for the “A method for ground travel collision avoidance of an aircraft, sensing, by a sensing module mounted on a towing vehicle for the aircraft, determining whether the object is secure based on a contour feature of the aircraft, a laser radar, a processor, is acquired by performing data synchronization on point cloud data from the laser radar and its processing result with data from the inertial navigation system and its processing result, pre-established database, displaying a screen associated with the aircraft and the object on a display screen, a display screen of a control center, A device for ground travel collision avoidance of an aircraft, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories configured to store a series of computer-executable instructions, wherein the series of computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium has thereon stored a series of computer-executable instructions which, when executed by one or more computing apparatuses, cause the one or more computing apparatuses to perform the method” language, “recite an sense an object in a surrounding environment of the aircraft, determine whether the object is secure, a relative distance and a relative velocity between the object and the aircraft, and determining, whether the object is secure based on the relative distance and the relative velocity between the object and the aircraft and a preset security collision time, wherein the relative distance is determined according to a relative position relation between the object and the aircraft and the contour feature of the aircraft, and the relative velocity between the object and the aircraft, implementing a collision avoidance measure in response to determining that the object is insecure,” in the context of this claim encompasses the user discerning and calculating objects in the environment and how close they are to the object they are towing and sending an alert. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using “A method for ground travel collision avoidance of an aircraft, sensing, by a sensing module mounted on a towing vehicle for the aircraft, determining whether the object is secure based on a contour feature of the aircraft, a laser radar, a processor, is acquired by performing data synchronization on point cloud data from the laser radar and its processing result with data from the inertial navigation system and its processing result, pre-established database, displaying a screen associated with the aircraft and the object on a display screen, a display screen of a control center, A device for ground travel collision avoidance of an aircraft, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories configured to store a series of computer-executable instructions, wherein the series of computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium has thereon stored a series of computer-executable instructions which, when executed by one or more computing apparatuses, cause the one or more computing apparatuses to perform the method”. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect objects in the environment) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “A method for ground travel collision avoidance of an aircraft, sensing, by a sensing module mounted on a towing vehicle for the aircraft, determining whether the object is secure based on a contour feature of the aircraft, a laser radar, a processor, is acquired by performing data synchronization on point cloud data from the laser radar and its processing result with data from the inertial navigation system and its processing result, pre-established database, displaying a screen associated with the aircraft and the object on a display screen, a display screen of a control center, A device for ground travel collision avoidance of an aircraft, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories configured to store a series of computer-executable instructions, wherein the series of computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium has thereon stored a series of computer-executable instructions which, when executed by one or more computing apparatuses, cause the one or more computing apparatuses to perform the method,”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly for claims 2-8, & 10-12, is a device that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this claim encompasses the user detecting objects in the environment and performing certain actions in view of the information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., device configured to detect objects in the environment) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10-12, & 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0262492A1 (“Barnes”), in view of US 2015/0194059A1 (“Starr”), in view of US 2019/0265714A1 (“Ball”).
As per claim 1 Barnes discloses
A method for ground travel collision avoidance of an aircraft (see at least Barnes, para. [0170]: Having described and illustrated examples of systems and methods relating to airplane collision avoidance…), comprising:
sensing, by a sensing module mounted on a towing vehicle for the aircraft, contour features, positioning features of both the aircraft and an object in a surrounding environment of the aircraft, wherein the sensing module comprises a laser radar and an inertial measurement unit (see at least Barnes, para. [0052]: The sensing device assemblies 204A, 204B and 204C may be mounted on a mounting structure 205, which maintains the relative distance between the sensing device assemblies 204A, 204B and 204C. The mounting structure 205 may be located on a vehicle located remotely to the airplane, such as on a tug vehicle. & para. [0055]: The first sensing device 102B may capture a portion of the reflected rays 218 to generate an image with pixels indicating a distance to an object captured by each respective pixel. & para. [0165]: While this disclosure refers to sensing devices throughout, it is to be understood that the sensing devices disclosed herein may be any sensor device that may perform any of the features disclosed, including…radar, ultra wide band radar, or any combination thereof.);
determining, by a processor, a relative distance between the object and the aircraft (see at least Barnes, para. [0052]: The sensing device assemblies 204A, 204B and 204C may be mounted on a mounting structure 205, which maintains the relative distance between the sensing device assemblies 204A, 204B and 204C. The mounting structure 205 may be located on a vehicle located remotely to the airplane, such as on a tug vehicle.), and
determining, by the processor, whether the object is secure based on the relative distance between the object and the aircraft and a preset security collision time, wherein the relative distance is determined according to a relative position relation between the object and the aircraft and the contour feature of the aircraft, (see at least Barnes, para. [0081-0083]: Based on the positions of one or more of the features, the processing device may determine the make of the airplane 402 and retrieve the dimensional information from the aircraft database…The processing device may further orient, position, or both, the bounding box 404 based on positions of the one or more features of the airplane 402…The processing device may further determine a distance 415 between the bounding box 404 and an object 414 proximate to the bounding box 404. The distance 415 may be determined by the described process of determining the distance between the airplane 202 and the object 230 of FIG. 2. & para. [0085]: The processing device may additionally determine an amount of time until intersection between the bounding box 404 and the object 414 based on the speed of the airplane 404 and the location of the object 414. The amount of time may be used to determine the amount of time for the collision between the airplane 202 and the object 230 described in FIG. 2. In some examples, the aircraft database may include additional information such as a turning radius of the airplane 402, which may be used in determining if the intersection will occur and the amount of time until the intersection occurs. & para. [0097-0098]: A protected area 704 may be displayed on the image and may include one or both of a portion of an airplane and a portion of a bounding box….The image displayed may include an object 712 located proximate to the protected area 704. The object 712 may be grouped into one of three areas depending on the object's 712 distance from the protected area 704: a normal area 706, a cautionary area 708, and a critical area 710.); and
implementing a collision avoidance measure in response to determining that the object is insecure (see at least Barnes, para. [0100-0101]: In some examples, in response to the object 712 being within the critical area 710, the display 702 may initiate a warning sound to draw attention to the object 712…Further, in response to the object 712 being within the critical area 710, the ACAS may stop or prevent movement of the airplane indicated by the protected area 704. To resume normal movement, the object 710 may be removed from the critical area 710, or the movement of the airplane may be limited to reversing direction to return the airplane to a position prior to when the object 710 was located within the critical area 710.).
However Barnes does not explicitly disclose
sensing, by a sensing module mounted on a towing vehicle for the aircraft, contour features, positioning features and travel features of both the aircraft and an object in a surrounding environment of the aircraft, wherein the sensing module comprises a laser radar and an inertial navigation system;
determining, by a processor, a relative distance and a relative velocity between the object and the aircraft, and
determining, by the processor, whether the object is secure based on the relative distance and the relative velocity between the object and the aircraft and a preset security collision time, wherein the relative distance is determined according to a relative position relation between the object and the aircraft and the contour feature of the aircraft, and the relative velocity between the object and the aircraft is acquired by performing data synchronization on point cloud data from the laser radar and its processing result with data from the inertial navigation system and its processing result.
Starr teaches
sensing, by a sensing module mounted on a towing vehicle for the aircraft, contour features, positioning features and travel features of both the aircraft and an object in a surrounding environment of the aircraft, wherein the sensing module comprises a laser radar and an inertial navigation system (see at least Starr, para. [0021]: In some examples described herein, an detection system is configured to generate and display a GUI that includes an overhead image (e.g., a satellite image) of the area in which a vehicle (e.g., an aircraft or marine vehicle) is positioned, a graphical representation of the vehicle, and graphical representations of one or more . The graphical representations of the vehicle and one or more are presented with the overhead image to indicate the current position (e.g., geographical location and orientation) of the vehicle and , respectively, relative to other features shown in the overhead, In some examples, the GUI also includes a graphical representation of a user, which may provide further context awareness for the user. para. [0027]: In some examples, the detection system described herein may be used in conjunction with a ground collision alert system, which is configured to generate and deliver, via a user interface, a ground collision alert indicative of a ground. collision condition, which can include, for example, a condition in which there is a potential for a collision between the aircraft and an while the aircraft is on the ground, e.g., due to the distance between the aircraft and the , due to the and direction of the aircraft to the , or any combination thereof. The ground collision alert may be audible, visual, somatosensory, or any combination thereof. & para. [0031-0032]: One or more of sensors 14 are configured to generate data indicative of a position of a portion of aircraft 12 may be any suitable sensor type. For example, sensors 14 may include Global Positioning System (GPS) sensors, inertial navigation system (INS), or another positioning system configured to indicate the location of aircraft 12… Sensors of data sources 18 configured to generate information about near aircraft 12 can include one or more active sensors (e.g., one or more radar sensors), one or more passive sensors e.g., one or more cameras), or any combination thereof. The sensors may be located at any suitable place on aircraft 12.);
determining, by a processor, a relative distance and a relative velocity between the object and the aircraft (see at least Starr, para. [0027]: n some examples, the detection system described herein may be used in conjunction with a ground collision alert system, which is configured to generate and deliver, via a user interface, a ground collision alert indicative of a ground. collision condition, which can include, for example, a condition in which there is a potential for a collision between the aircraft and an while the aircraft is on the ground, e.g., due to the distance between the aircraft and the , due to the and direction of the aircraft to the , or any combination thereof. The ground collision alert may be audible, visual, somatosensory, or any combination thereof.), and
determining, by the processor, whether the object is secure based on the relative distance and the relative velocity between the object and the aircraft and a preset security collision time, wherein the relative distance is determined according to a relative position relation between the object and the aircraft and the contour feature of the aircraft (see at least Starr, para. [0025-0027]: The graphical representations of the vehicle and one or more may be provided to convey additional information to the user, such as the threat level of the . The graphical representations of the may, for example, include one or more characteristics (e.g., visual indicia) that indicate the threat level of the , which may be a function of the proximity of the to the vehicle, a function of the possibility the aircraft will collide with the detected ,or both. The ground detection system can determine the threat level based on the proximity of the detected to the aircraft, based on the location of the detected to the aircraft, based on the heading of the aircraft, based on the of the aircraft, or any combination thereof… In some examples, the detection system described herein may be used in conjunction with a ground collision alert system, which is configured to generate and deliver, via a user interface, a ground collision alert indicative of a ground. collision condition, which can include, for example, a condition in which there is a potential for a collision between the aircraft and an while the aircraft is on the ground, e.g., due to the distance between the aircraft and the , due to the and direction of the aircraft to the , or any combination thereof. The ground collision alert may be audible, visual, somatosensory, or any combination thereof.. & para. [0034]: In some examples, the one or more sensors 14 used to detect include one or more radar sensors, which are each configured to generate and emit a radar pulse and detect a radar return pulse. The radar return pulse is generated by reflected energy from an upon which the emitted radar pulse is incident on, where the can be (e.g., ground ) in an area of interest about aircraft 12. The radar sensor can include an antenna (e.g., a stationary antenna or an antenna that may be moved to sweep an area of interest) configured to receive the radar return pulses. A processor of the detection system (e.g., processor 24 of device 20, shown in FIG.2) can be configured to detect and determine the location (e.g., global coordinates or location relative to aircraft 12) of based on the radar return pulses.).
Ball teaches
the relative velocity between the object and the aircraft is acquired by performing data synchronization on point cloud data from the laser radar and its processing result with data from the inertial navigation system and its processing result (see at least Ball, para. [0070-0072]: In general, an exemplary mobile industrial vehicle 115 that may be deployed as part of an exemplary enhanced collision avoidance system and method of operating the same may be implemented with a cargo tractor type of vehicle capable of pulling one or more dollies or trailers 120 loaded with items being shipped (e.g., being transported between places, being loaded onto a logistics transport, or being offloaded from a logistics transport). Such an exemplary cargo tractor 115 may be enhanced to use a variety of on-board sensing devices (e.g., LiDAR, stereo cameras, mono cameras, ultrasound sensors, range finders, , and the like.. & para. [0085]: The LiDAR returns representing coordinates and intensity values for when the LiDAR beam intersects objects in the environment. The camera generates imagery. Objects are detected in the imagery via a deep learning system, and the object is delineated by a bounding box. In the example shown in FIG. 6, the bounding box has coordinates that delineate the region: x and y coordinates for the upper left hand corner (x.sub.top, y.sub.top) and x and y coordinates for the bottom righthand corner (x.sub.bottom, y.sub.bottom). In operation, the LiDAR determines the center of each detected object and reports a distance and angle to the objects. Thus, the neural network learns the mapping between LiDAR distance and angle and the bounding box data from the camera detection bounding boxes. & para. [0158]: Generally, the below described embodiment of an exemplary dynamic-path following or kinematical model (including FIGS. 11-19) that may be deployed as part of applied and enhanced system, apparatus, and method embodiments predicts the continuous motion of systems and follows their trajectory. Off-tracking effects occurring when the system is making a turn is addressed by the exemplary model. The framework of this exemplary model includes (1) a state space model that describes the relationships between the elements of motion (linear and angular position, velocity, and acceleration) of the and its towed (e.g., dollies and/or trailers); (2) a geometric model that locates instantaneous positions for those vehicles, including those of the hitch points; (3) an Ackerman steering model that outlines the shape of an entire system at any time by taking the off-tracking effect into consideration; and (4) a hitch back model that calculates the history of directional angles of the towed based on the input of the and, therefore, capturing the continuous motion of the system.).
As per claim 3 Barnes discloses
wherein the collision avoidance measure comprises: giving an early-warning signal; and/or reducing a travel velocity of the aircraft (see at least Barnes, para. [0100-0101]: In some examples, in response to the object 712 being within the critical area 710, the display 702 may initiate a warning sound to draw attention to the object 712…Further, in response to the object 712 being within the critical area 710, the ACAS may stop or prevent movement of the airplane indicated by the protected area 704. To resume normal movement, the object 710 may be removed from the critical area 710, or the movement of the airplane may be limited to reversing direction to return the airplane to a position prior to when the object 710 was located within the critical area 710.).
As per claim 4 Barnes discloses
wherein the early warning signal comprises a first-level early-warning signal and a second-level early-warning signal (see at least Barnes, para. [0103]: The warning sound initiated when the object 712 is within the cautionary area 708 may be different than the warning sound initiated when the object 712 is within the critical area 710.), the method further comprising:
in response to determining that the object is insecure and an insecurity level is a first level, giving the first-level early-warning signal (see at least Barnes, para. [0103]: In other examples, the warning sound initiated when the object 712 is within the cautionary area 708 may be the same warning sound as initiated when the object 712 is within the critical area 710, but may be a different intensity. For example, the warning sound for the critical area 710 and the cautionary area 708 may be a beeping sound, although the beeping is at a slower rate when the object 712 is within the cautionary area 708 than when it is in within the critical area 710.); and
in response to determining that the object is insecure and the insecurity level is a second level, giving the second level early-warning signal (see at least Barnes, para. [0103]: In other examples, the warning sound initiated when the object 712 is within the cautionary area 708 may be the same warning sound as initiated when the object 712 is within the critical area 710, but may be a different intensity. For example, the warning sound for the critical area 710 and the cautionary area 708 may be a beeping sound, although the beeping is at a slower rate when the object 712 is within the cautionary area 708 than when it is in within the critical area 710.).
As per claim 6 Barnes discloses
further comprising: extracting the wingspan length of the aircraft from a preestablished database according to a model of the aircraft (see at least Barnes, para. [0083]: The processing device may access an aircraft database containing dimensional information for a plurality of makes of airplanes. The aircraft database may include a library of airplanes, airplane shapes, airplane fuselages, or any combination thereof. Based on the positions of one or more of the features, the processing device may determine the make of the airplane 402 and retrieve the dimensional information from the aircraft database… Based on the positions of one or more of the features, the processing device may determine the make of the airplane 402 and retrieve the dimensional information from the aircraft database. In some examples, the processing device may determine particular measurements of the airplane 402, such as length, width, height, or a combination thereof, based on the positions of the one or more features and may use the particular measurements to retrieve the dimensional information from the aircraft database.).
As per claim 7 Barnes discloses
wherein the model of the aircraft is determined according to an external feature of the aircraft sensed by the sensing module (see at least Barnes, para. [0074]: A processing device, such as processing device 116 (FIG. 1 ), used for combining images captured by one or more of the sensing device assemblies 304A, 304B and 304C may use one or more of the distances 352, 358, 356, and 306 when producing a combined image.); and/or
the model of the aircraft is determined according to manual input (see at least Barnes, para. [0083]: In some examples, the processing device may determine a make of the airplane 402 based on the positions of one or more of the features of the airplane 402. The processing device may access an aircraft database containing dimensional information for a plurality of makes of airplanes. The aircraft database may include a library of airplanes, airplane shapes, airplane fuselages, or any combination thereof. Based on the positions of one or more of the features, the processing device may determine the make of the airplane 402 and retrieve the dimensional information from the aircraft database.).
As per claim 10 Barnes discloses
further comprising: displaying a screen associated with the aircraft and the object on a display screen of the towing vehicle and/or a display screen of a control center, wherein the screen comprises the relative position relation between the object and the aircraft (see at least Barnes, para. [0097-0098]: FIG. 7 illustrates an example display device 702 of an ACAS. The display device 702 may be configured to display a portion of one or more of a raw captured image, a fused image, a combined image, or a combination thereof, as described throughout this specification. A protected area 704 may be displayed on the image and may include one or both of a portion of an airplane and a portion of a bounding box…The image displayed may include an object 712 located proximate to the protected area 704. The object 712 may be grouped into one of three areas depending on the object's 712 distance from the protected area 704: a normal area 706, a cautionary area 708, and a critical area 710. & para. [0141-0142]: The ACAS may include a display 1114, which may include one or more of the features of display device 118 (FIG. 1) and display 702 (FIG. 7). The display device 1114 may be located in a control panel located in front of an operator. The display device 1114 may display any of the information produced by the processing unit 1112….FIG. 12 illustrates an example ACAS 1204 mounted on a tug 1208 with an airplane 1202 located directly behind the tug 1208.).
As per claim 11 Barnes discloses
wherein the screen further comprises at least one of:
a category of the object;
an insecurity level of the object (see at least Barnes, para. [0161]: The user display 1910 may include three portions 1912, 1914 and 1916 associated with sensing device assemblies 1906A, 1906B and 1906C, respectively. Each portion 1912, 1914, and 1916 may include three lights 1918, each light being a different color. In response to the ACAS identifying an object proximate to an airplane 1902, one of the three lights may be lit depending on a distance between the object and the airplane 1902.);
a relative position relation between the towing vehicle and the aircraft (see at least Barnes, para. [0097-0098]: FIG. 7 illustrates an example display device 702 of an ACAS. The display device 702 may be configured to display a portion of one or more of a raw captured image, a fused image, a combined image, or a combination thereof, as described throughout this specification. A protected area 704 may be displayed on the image and may include one or both of a portion of an airplane and a portion of a bounding box…The image displayed may include an object 712 located proximate to the protected area 704. The object 712 may be grouped into one of three areas depending on the object's 712 distance from the protected area 704: a normal area 706, a cautionary area 708, and a critical area 710. & para. [0141-0142]: The ACAS may include a display 1114, which may include one or more of the features of display device 118 (FIG. 1) and display 702 (FIG. 7). The display device 1114 may be located in a control panel located in front of an operator. The display device 1114 may display any of the information produced by the processing unit 1112….FIG. 12 illustrates an example ACAS 1204 mounted on a tug 1208 with an airplane 1202 located directly behind the tug 1208.);
the contour feature(s) and/or the travel feature(s) of the aircraft and/or the object (see at least Barnes, para. [0097-0098]: FIG. 7 illustrates an example display device 702 of an ACAS. The display device 702 may be configured to display a portion of one or more of a raw captured image, a fused image, a combined image, or a combination thereof, as described throughout this specification. A protected area 704 may be displayed on the image and may include one or both of a portion of an airplane and a portion of a bounding box);
an area in which the aircraft travels, and a positioning feature of the aircraft within the area; or
security level(s) of one or more portions of the area.
As per claim 12 Barnes discloses
wherein the screen is constructed by the sensing data of the sensing module, and the sensing module comprises a camera (see at least Barnes, para. [0097-0098]: FIG. 7 illustrates an example display device 702 of an ACAS. The display device 702 may be configured to display a portion of one or more of a raw captured image, a fused image, a combined image, or a combination thereof, as described throughout this specification. A protected area 704 may be displayed on the image and may include one or both of a portion of an airplane and a portion of a bounding box…The image displayed may include an object 712 located proximate to the protected area 704. The object 712 may be grouped into one of three areas depending on the object's 712 distance from the protected area 704: a normal area 706, a cautionary area 708, and a critical area 710. & para. [0165]: it is to be understood that the sensing devices disclosed herein may be any sensor device that may perform any of the features disclosed, including…stereo cameras, micro cameras, 3D flash LID AR cameras, 3D vision systems…radar…or any combination thereof.).
As per claim 16 Barnes discloses
A device for ground travel collision avoidance of an aircraft, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories configured to store a series of computer-executable instructions, wherein the series of computer-executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method according to claim 1 (see at least Barnes, para. [0139-0140]: A processing unit 1112 of the ACAS assembly may be located inside of or on the tug 1102. The processing unit 1112 may include one or more of the GPS 112 (FIG. 1), the IMU 114 (FIG. 1), the processing device 116 (FIG. 1), the database 120 (FIG. 1), or any combination thereof, or may include one or more of the features of these components. The processing unit 1112 may be communicatively coupled to the sensing device assemblies 1110A and 1110B and perform one or more of the features described throughout this disclosure using raw images, fused images, combined images, or any combination thereof received from the sensing device assemblies 1110A and 1110B.).
As per claim 17 Barnes discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium has thereon stored a series of computer-executable instructions which, when executed by one or more computing apparatuses, cause the one or more computing apparatuses to perform the method according to claim 1 (see at least Barnes, para. [0139-0140]: A processing unit 1112 of the ACAS assembly may be located inside of or on the tug 1102. The processing unit 1112 may include one or more of the GPS 112 (FIG. 1), the IMU 114 (FIG. 1), the processing device 116 (FIG. 1), the database 120 (FIG. 1), or any combination thereof, or may include one or more of the features of these components. The processing unit 1112 may be communicatively coupled to the sensing device assemblies 1110A and 1110B and perform one or more of the features described throughout this disclosure using raw images, fused images, combined images, or any combination thereof received from the sensing device assemblies 1110A and 1110B.).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes, in view of Starr, in view of Ball, in view of US 2023/0010630A1 (“Huang”).
As per claim 2 Barnes discloses
wherein the method comprises sensing the object in the surrounding environment of the aircraft (see at least Barnes, para. [0165]: it is to be understood that the sensing devices disclosed herein may be any sensor device that may perform any of the features disclosed, including…radar....).
However Barnes does not explicitly disclose
sensing the object in the surrounding environment of the aircraft based on point cloud data sensed by the laser radar.
Huang teaches
wherein the method comprises sensing the object in the surrounding environment of the aircraft based on the point cloud data sensed by the laser radar (see at least Huang, para. [0054]: As shown in FIG. 2, the sensors are installed on the tow tug 30. The vision sensors 106 may include cameras 1, 2 and 3 as shown in FIG. 2, and the range sensor 108 may be a LiDAR 4 shown in FIG. 2. para. [0070]: After the 3D safeguarding box is updated, the risk assessment unit 104 calculates a relative distance between the aircraft 20 and an object, among the detected objects, based on 3D point cloud data output from the LiDAR 4 and the 3D panoramic image provided by the image stitching unit 101, determine whether the relative distance is less than a range for the updated 3D safeguarding box, and output the alarm if the relative distance is less than the range for the updated 3D safeguarding box.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barnes to incorporate the teaching of wherein the method comprises sensing the object in the surrounding environment of the aircraft based on the point cloud data sensed by the laser radar of Huang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order for adaptive perception for the environment, enhanced safety and improved visibility (see at least Huang, para. [0036]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes, in view of Starr, in view of Ball, in view of US 2021/0150922A1 (“Kanagarajan”).
As per claim 8 Barnes does not explicitly disclose
sensing a wingspan length of the object by the sensing module.
Kanagarajan teaches
sensing a wingspan length of the object by the sensing module (see at least Kanagarajan, para. [0073]: Processing circuitry 110 may be configured to also determine the velocities, headings, destinations, routes, lengths, wingspans, and/or other characteristics and parameters for vehicle 140 and object 150.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barnes to incorporate the teaching of sensing a wingspan length of the object by the sensing module of Kanagarajan, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to notify an occupant of the object (if occupied) of the potential collision, as well as provide the operator of the vehicle (e.g., a pilot of an aircraft) with a notification of the potential collision and a potentially more clear view of the potential collision location (see at least Kanagarajan, para. [0006]).
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 MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/MOHAMED ABDO ALGEHAIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights