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 .
Claim status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 07/22/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taylor et al. (US 11,762,398).
Regarding claim 1: Taylor disclose Airport signalling system, comprising:
at least two signalling units (Fig. 2, items 202a-d and Fig. 5, item 401), each comprising at least one airport signalling device (Fig. 5, item 404, 502) and a first communication device (Fig. 5, item 410);
a control unit configured to control operation of the at least two signalling units (Fig. 5, item 403, Col. 4, Lines 13-15),
a central communication unit operably coupled to the control unit and configured for data communication with the at least two signalling units and the control unit (Fig. 5, item 510, Col. 6, Lines 20-24),
characterised in that the first communication device of each signalling unit is configured to receive and transmit ultra-wideband pulse radio signals and in that the at least two signalling units are configured to exchange with one another ultra-wideband pulse radio signals through their respective first communication device (Col. 6, Line 65-Col. 7, Line 12).
Regarding claim 2: Taylor disclose airport signalling system of claim 1, wherein the first communication device of one or each of the at least two airport signalling units is configured for data communication with at least one moving entity on an airfield, selected from a group consisting of an airplane, a ground vehicle, a ultra-wideband based tag worn by a pedestrian, and a mobile phone, said entity being provided with an ultra-wideband communication device configured to exchange data with at least one first communication device of the at least two signalling unit (Col. 6, Line 65-Col. 7, Line 12).
Regarding claim 4: Taylor disclose airport signalling system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the at least two airport signalling units are an aeronautic ground light, an airport sign, an airport guard light, a flood light, a taxiway light, an apron light or a visual docking guidance display (Fig. 2, item 202a-d, Col. 6, Lines 36-64, Col. 7, Lines 13-22).
Regarding claim 14: Taylor disclose airport signalling system of claim 1, wherein the at least two signalling units each comprise at least one sensor for capturing measurement data in relation to one or more of: a status condition of the respective airport signalling device, an environmental condition and a presence of a foreign object, and wherein the at least one sensor is configured to communicate the measurement data to the first communication device.(Col. 4, Lines 10-34)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 11,762,398) in view of Rappaport (US 8,331,85).
Regarding claim 3: Taylor disclose airport signalling system of claim 1, wherein the at least two signalling units comprise at least a first group of signalling units arranged in cluster like structure (Fig. 2, items 202a-d) covering a first zone of interest (Fig. 2, item 204), but does not explicitly disclose said signalling system further comprising a first relay communication unit, wherein a first signalling unit of the first group is positioned within a ultra-wideband coverage range of the first relay communication unit, said first relay communication unit being a signalling unit configured as a relay for the first group of the signalling units.
In analogous art regarding UWB communication systems, Rappaport disclose a signalling system further comprising a first relay communication unit (Fig. 1, Host devices 12), wherein a first signalling unit of the first group is positioned within a ultra-wideband coverage range of the first relay communication unit (Fig. 1, items d1-4), said first relay communication unit being a signalling unit configured as a relay for the first group of the signalling units (Col. 8, Lines 9-31).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of said signalling system further comprising a first relay communication unit, wherein a first signalling unit of the first group is positioned within a ultra-wideband coverage range of the first relay communication unit, said first relay communication unit being a signalling unit configured as a relay for the first group of the signalling units, as disclose by Rappaport, to the system of Taylor. The motivation is to centralized management while enhancing security.
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Taylor and Rappaport disclose airport signalling system of claim 3, wherein the first group of the signalling units are positioned along a first path, said first path being arranged - in a runway approach, or runway centre line, touch down zone, a taxiway or an apron or - along one or both opposite sides of the one of a runway, taxiway and an apron (Taylor: Fig. 2, item 204).
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Taylor and Rappaport disclose airport signalling system of claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least two signalling units comprise a second group of signalling units arranged in cluster like structure to cover a second zone of interest, and said signalling system further comprises a second relay communication unit, wherein a first signalling unit of the second group is positioned within an ultra-wideband coverage range of first relay communication unit, said second relay communication unit being a signalling unit configured as a relay for the second group of signalling units. However, claim 7 is essentially duplicating the structure of the invention into another group of signalling unit covering a second region.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to duplicate what the prior art is already teaching and cover a second area, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Taylor and Rappaport disclose airport signalling system of claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the signalling units of the first group and at least one of the signalling units of the second group are in data communication via their respective first communication device configured to exchange ultra-wideband pulse radio signals. However, on the same rationale of claim 7, this is merely a duplication of an already perform action which is signalling unit communication each other through UWB communications. Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to disclose wherein at least one of the signalling units of the first group and at least one of the signalling units of the second group are in data communication via their respective first communication device configured to exchange ultra-wideband pulse radio signals, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 11,762,398) in view of Kasinec et al. (US 2023/0154344)
Regarding claim 5: Taylor disclose airport signalling system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising at least one airport surveillance stationary device, and a multilateration ground station, said device being provided with an ultra-wideband communication device configured to exchange data with at least one first communication device of the at least two signalling unit.
In analogous art regarding UWB airport communication systems, Kasinec disclose at least one airport surveillance stationary device (Fig. 3, item 21, ¶0061), and a multilateration ground station (Fig. 3, item 26, ¶0061), said device being provided with an ultra-wideband communication device configured to exchange data with at least one first communication device of the at least two signalling unit (¶0021, ¶0023 and ¶0061).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of at least one airport surveillance stationary device, and a multilateration ground station, said device being provided with an ultra-wideband communication device configured to exchange data with at least one first communication device of the at least two signalling unit, as disclose by Kasinec, to the system of Taylor. The motivation is to make the communication more efficient.
Claim(s) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 11,762,398) in view of Thorne (US 2021/0250089).
Regarding claim 9: Taylor disclose airport signalling system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a power source and a power supply line connecting the power source with the at least two signalling units.
In analogous art regarding airport signalling units, Thorne disclose a power source (Fig. 3, item 36) and a power supply line (Fig. 3, item 38) connecting the power source with the at least two signalling units.(Fig. 3, LED fixture)(¶0136)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of a power source and a power supply line connecting the power source with the at least two signalling units, as disclose by Thorne, to the system of Taylor. The motivation is to ensure proper power is delivered to the signalling units.
Regarding claim 10: The combination of Taylor and Thorne disclose airport signalling system of claim 9, wherein one or more of the at least two signalling units comprise a second communication device coupled to the power supply line (Thorne: Fig. 3, item 42), and wherein the central communication unit is coupled to the power supply line and is configured for data communication with the second communication devices via the power supply line. (Thorne: Fig. 3, ¶0136)
Regarding claim 11: The combination of Taylor and Thorne disclose airport signalling system of claim 9, wherein one or more of the at least two signalling unit comprise a third communication device for wireless data communication being configured to receive and/or transmit according to a communication protocol to the central communication unit. (Thorne: Fig. 3, ¶0136: Notice the system disclose one LED light fixture and the communication line 38 continue to the next light fixture which would include the third communication device).
The combination of Taylor and Thorne does not disclose the communication protocol being a wireless cellular protocol. However, wireless cellular communication are super well know example a wireless communication protocol. Since The combination of Taylor and Thorne teaches wireless communications, Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include wireless cellular protocol as reh wireless protocol taught by the combination of Taylor and Thorne, since having a limited universe of potential options (wireless communication protocols), the selection of any particular option (celullar) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (provide wireless communication), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Taylor and Thorne disclose airport signalling system of claim 1, wherein in one or each of the at least two signalling units, at least one of the first, the second and third communication devices are configured to operate the at least one airport signalling device.(Taylor: Col. 6, Lines 4-35)
Regarding claim 13: The combination of Taylor and Thorne disclose airport signalling system of claim 11, wherein in one or more of the at least two signalling units, at least two of the first, the second, third communication device are configured to exchange data between one another. (Thorne: Fig. 3, ¶0136: Notice the system disclose one LED light fixture and the communication line 38 continue to the next light fixture exchanging data with each other).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights