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 .
A Preliminary Amendment filed on March 1, 2024 has amended portions of the Specification, and all 15 claims, has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
During patent examination, pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” MPEP 2111; See also, MPEP 2173.02. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow”). The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed. An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to consider fully the entirety of the reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, and 3-7, and 10, and 11-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Currently claim 2, recites, inter alia, to determine that a pilot of the one or more pilots is falling or has fallen. It is not clear whether the claim is meant to convey “falling or fallen” out of their seated position or whether they are falling or fallen out of a state of alertness, and are now either about to or already have fallen asleep.
For the sake of a Full Examination on the Merits, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read on, a state of falling or fallen asleep.
Similarly, claims 3-7 depend directly, or indirectly from claim 2, and also stand rejected under the same basis as set forth above.
Similarly claim 10, is identical to claim 2, and also stands rejected under the same basis as set forth above.
Similarly claims 11-14 depend directly, or indirectly from claim 10, and also stand rejected under the same basis as set forth above.
Similarly claim 4, currently recites, inter alia, one or more of the pilots “has fallen”, and also stands rejected individually, and for the same basis as set forth above.
Similarly claim 7, currently recites, inter alia, one or more of the pilots “has fallen”, and also stands rejected individually, and for the same basis as set forth above.
Amendment and or correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0230522 A1 to Meyers.
With regards to claim 1, Meyers discloses:
1. A system comprising:
one or more imaging devices configured to collect image data of a cockpit area of an aircraft (see, Fig. 9, and detailed description, including, at step 801, camera 106 is controlled by device controller 120 to capture a plurality of digital images of the cockpit of aircraft 104, para. 0131);
a pilot detection module configured to determine a presence of one or more pilots in the cockpit area based on the image data (see, detailed description, including, the step of performing facial recognition on at least a subset of the digital images to detect a presence of known cabin crew members in the cockpit, para. 0063); and
a pilot posture module configured to determine three-dimensional posture of one or more pilots based on the image data (see, detailed description, including, body motion may be characterized at least in part by change in body posture, shape or position across a plurality of captured images, para. 0067).
With regards to claim 2, Meyers discloses:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the pilot posture module is capable of determining configured to determine that a pilot of the one or more pilots is falling or has fallen (see, detailed description, including, Controlled rest is the process whereby pilots may take a nap, while temporarily relieved of operational duties in accordance with carefully prescribed ‘controlled rest’ procedures, typically when part of an augmented—but sometimes two-man—operating crew during live flight. Controlled rest is an effective mitigation strategy to be used as needed in response to fatigue experienced during flight operations. However, controlled rest events have associated risks, including: [0015] The second pilot becoming drowsy, impaired, or falling asleep at the same time, para. 0013-0015).
With regards to claim 3, Meyers discloses:
3. The system of claim 2, comprising an object detection module configured to determine a presence and three-dimensional position of one or more objects in the cockpit area based on the image data (see, Fig. 8, and detailed description, including, at step 801, camera 106 is controlled by device controller 120 to capture a plurality of digital images of the cockpit of aircraft 104 including one or both of the pilot 102 and a co-pilot 103, para. 0131).
With regards to claim 4, Meyers discloses:
4. The system of claim 3, comprising a pilot-object module configured to, if the pilot posture module detects that the pilot of the one or more pilots has fallen, determine that a pilot-object interaction event has occurred based on the three-dimensional posture of the one or more pilots and the three-dimensional positions of the one or more objects (see, detailed description, including, Controlled rest is the process whereby pilots may take a nap, while temporarily relieved of operational duties in accordance with carefully prescribed ‘controlled rest’ procedures, typically when part of an augmented—but sometimes two-man—operating crew during live flight. Controlled rest is an effective mitigation strategy to be used as needed in response to fatigue experienced during flight operations. However, controlled rest events have associated risks, including: [0015] The second pilot becoming drowsy, impaired, or falling asleep at the same time, para. 0013-0015).
With regards to claim 5, Meyers discloses:
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the system is configured to pass at least one of the determined three-dimensional posture or the determined pilot-object interaction event to an alert system (see, Fig. 6, and detailed description, including, alertness states include a distracted state, low vigilance drowsy state, asleep state or incapacitated attention state. In some embodiments, the alert is issued via a flight crew alerting system from the instrument panel of the aircraft. In some embodiments, the alert is issued via a cabin crew alert system, para. 0088-0089).
With regards to claim 6, Meyers discloses:
6. The system of claim 5, wherein the alert system is configured to:
verify that an action has been input into a flight system log of the aircraft as a result of the determined pilot-object interaction event (see, detailed description, including, the aircraft interfacing device may include an Intelisight™ Aircraft Interface Device (AID) developed by Collins Aerospace, which is capable of storing and accessing aircraft data and communications, navigation logging, flight tracking, obtaining weather information and monitoring aircraft health among other things, para. 0126); and
alert a control system of the aircraft that the action input was a result of the determined pilot-object interaction event (see, detailed description, including, as above, and he aircraft interfacing device may include an Intelisight™ Aircraft Interface Device (AID) developed by Collins Aerospace, which is capable of storing and accessing aircraft data and communications, navigation logging, flight tracking, obtaining weather information and monitoring aircraft health among other things, para. 0126).
With regards to claim 7, Meyers discloses:
7. The system of claim 5, wherein the alert system is configured to:
verify from the determined pilot activity that one or more pilots have fallen (see, detailed description, including, Controlled rest is the process whereby pilots may take a nap, while temporarily relieved of operational duties in accordance with carefully prescribed ‘controlled rest’ procedures, typically when part of an augmented—but sometimes two-man—operating crew during live flight. Controlled rest is an effective mitigation strategy to be used as needed in response to fatigue experienced during flight operations. However, controlled rest events have associated risks, including: [0015] The second pilot becoming drowsy, impaired, or falling asleep at the same time, para. 0013-0015); and
alert aircraft crew and/or ground control and/or Air Traffic Control that one or more pilots have fallen (see, detailed description, including, the system includes a communications module for communicating one or more of the alertness level or one or more pilot briefings to a ground crew, para. 0043)(The ground crew is interpreted to include Air Traffic Control).
With regards to claim 8, Meyers discloses:
8. The system of claim 1,wherein the pilot posture module comprises:
a depth information module configured to extract depth information from the image data (see, detailed description, including, to determine an alertness state of the pilot and/or the co-pilot during operation of the aircraft based on detected facial and/or body features of the pilot and/or co-pilot in the images, para. 0024); and
a pilot pose module configured to identify a plurality of two-dimensional keypoints corresponding to features of the one or more pilots in the image data (see, detailed description, including as above, to determine an alertness state of the pilot and/or the co-pilot during operation of the aircraft based on detected facial and/or body features of the pilot and/or co-pilot in the images, para. 0024),
wherein the pilot posture module is configured to combine the depth information and the two-dimensional keypoints to determine three-dimensional posture of the one or more pilots in the cockpit (see, detailed description, including, rendering a visualization of the alertness state of the pilot and/or co-pilot on a graphical user interface to display an alertness state for a current phase of flight and/or a recent phase of flight, wherein the keypoints are the facial and body features, para. 0026)
With regard to claim 9, claim 9 (a method claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 (a system claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 10, claim 10 (a method claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 2 (a system claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 11, claim 11 (a method claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 3 (a system claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 12, claim 12 (a method claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 4 (a system claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 13, claim 13 (a method claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 5 (a system claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 14, claim 14 (a method claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 6 (a system claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 15, claim 15 (a method claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 8 (a system claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
A sampling of the prior art made of record and not relied upon and considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure includes: US Patent Application Publication No. US 20160210497 A1 to Rougeaux that discuses, A method of determining the position of eyeballs within an image, the method including the steps of: (a) capturing a time series of image frames illuminated in a predetermined temporal manner by at least two spaced apart light sources, by at least one imaging sensor; (b) processing the image frames to determine specular reflection locations in the image frames; and (c) utilizing the time series evolution of the location of the specular reflections to isolate corneal reflections from the determined specular reflection locations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D. TITCOMB whose telephone number is (571)270-5190. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (M-F).
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, Stephen C. Hong can be reached at 571-272-4124. 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.
WILLIAM D. TITCOMB
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2178
/WILLIAM D TITCOMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178 2-5-2026