DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits in response to communications on 12/4/2025. Claims 1-19 are elected, and addressed below.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-19 are elected. Claim 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/4/2025.
Application’s traversal is not persuasive. Applicant argued:
Applicant does not believe that there is a burden on the Office to search both Inventions I and II. By searching for the limitations in Invention I, the Office will be searching for many limitations in Invention II.
However, there are limitations that are exclusive to each invention, including
receive, via the communication device, one or more radio signals from the ILS; receive, via the communication device, one or more GNSS signals from the GNSS; receive, via the communication device, one or more vision sensor signals from the vision sensing system; evaluate, via the processor, the one or more radio signals, the one or more GNSS signals, and the one or more vision sensor signals to generate an aircraft landing profile, wherein the aircraft landing profile is indicative of a selected method of automatically landing the aircraft; and transmit, via the communication device, the aircraft landing profile to the aircraft landing controller for Invention I, and
receiving a location indicator for a landing site; receiving navigation parameters and airport parameters generated during airborne operations; and synthesizing a geometric path to the landing site based upon the navigation parameters and the airport parameters; and generating an emulated Instrument Landing System localizer signal based upon the geometric path in Invention II.
Restriction requirement is maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/26/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 9-12 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the one or more GNSS". It is not known what one or more GNSS this is referring to. In addition, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the one or more GNSS". It is not known what one or more GNSS this is referring to. In addition, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11-12 depend on this claim and suffer from the same issues.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 16, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gariel et al. (US 20230023069 a reference in IDS 3/26/2024) in view of Chippa (US 20230063241).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Gariel et al. teaches:
A system for determining an automatic landing path for an aircraft, the system comprising:
an aircraft landing controller;
a network of sensing systems comprising a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), an Instrument Landing System (ILS), and a vision sensing system;
a processor;
a communication device operably connected to the processor, the network of sensing systems, and the aircraft landing controller; and computer-readable memory operably connected to the processor, the computer-readable memory encoded with instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to:
(at least figs. 1-6 [0024]-[0083] aircraft 100/aircraft validation system 110-1, avigation system 404/Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver 404-1/ instrument landing system (ILS) 404-5, GPS, an automated landing system (e.g., a flight control system 408), sensors 400/ cameras 112; discussed validation system 110/ aircraft landing validation system 110-1/ GCS landing validation system 110-2 with images, GNSS information, ILS information to determine/validate landing location and proceed with automatic/autopilot landing; [0082]-[0083] discussed system being computerized)
receive, via the communication device, information from the ILS;
receive, via the communication device, one or more GNSS signals from the GNSS;
receive, via the communication device, one or more vision sensor signals from the vision sensing system;
evaluate, via the processor, the information, the one or more GNSS signals, and the one or more vision sensor signals to generate an aircraft landing profile, wherein the aircraft landing profile is indicative of a selected method of automatically landing the aircraft; and
transmit, via the communication device, the aircraft landing profile to the aircraft landing controller;
(at least figs. 1-6 [0024]-[0083] aircraft 100/aircraft validation system 110-1, avigation system 404/Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver 404-1/ instrument landing system (ILS) 404-5, GPS, an automated landing system (e.g., a flight control system 408), sensors 400/ cameras 112; discussed validation system 110/ aircraft landing validation system 110-1/ GCS landing validation system 110-2 with images, GNSS information, ILS information to determine/validate landing location and proceeding/not aborting with automatic/autopilot landing; in particular [0026]-[0029] [0033] discussed images, GPS, and ILS in determining landing location and validation);
Gariel et al. does not explicitly teach:
information from the ILS includes one or more radio signals;
However, Chippa teaches:
information from the ILS includes one or more radio signals (at least [0002]-[0003]) for approach ([0002]-[0003]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of Gariel et al. information from the ILS includes one or more radio signals as taught by Chippa for approach.
Regarding claim 2, Gariel et al. teaches:
wherein the aircraft landing profile comprises a primary source, wherein the primary source is selected from the ILS, the GNSS, and the vision sensor system, and wherein the primary source is used as the selected method of automatically landing the aircraft (at least figs. 1-6 [0024]-[0083] aircraft 100/aircraft validation system 110-1, avigation system 404/Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver 404-1/ instrument landing system (ILS) 404-5, GPS, an automated landing system (e.g., a flight control system 408), sensors 400/ cameras 112; discussed validation system 110/ aircraft landing validation system 110-1/ GCS landing validation system 110-2 with images, GNSS information, ILS information to determine/validate landing location and proceeding/not aborting with automatic/autopilot landing; in particular [0026]-[0029] discussed images, GPS, and ILS in determining landing location and validation, discussed “In some implementations, the validation system 110 may be used by a remote operator and/or autonomous aircraft as a backup system for determining/validating a landing location. In some implementations, the validation system 110 may be used along with other sensors and systems to validate a landing location. For example, the validation system 110 may be used along with a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, an instrument landing system (ILS), and/or other positioning systems. …. In these specific implementations, the validation system 110 may be used as a backup in the case other sensors/systems are providing unreliable information and/or the other sensors are malfunctioning”)
Regarding claim 4, Gariel et al. teaches:
wherein the primary source is determined based upon data availability of the ILS, the GNSS, and the vision sensing system (at least figs. 1-6 [0024]-[0083] aircraft 100/aircraft validation system 110-1, avigation system 404/Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver 404-1/ instrument landing system (ILS) 404-5, GPS, an automated landing system (e.g., a flight control system 408), sensors 400/ cameras 112; discussed validation system 110/ aircraft landing validation system 110-1/ GCS landing validation system 110-2 with images, GNSS information, ILS information to determine/validate landing location and proceeding/not aborting with automatic/autopilot landing; in particular [0026]-[0029] discussed images, GPS, and ILS in determining landing location and validation, discussed “In some implementations, the validation system 110 may be used by a remote operator and/or autonomous aircraft as a backup system for determining/validating a landing location. In some implementations, the validation system 110 may be used along with other sensors and systems to validate a landing location. For example, the validation system 110 may be used along with a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, an instrument landing system (ILS), and/or other positioning systems. …. In these specific implementations, the validation system 110 may be used as a backup in the case other sensors/systems are providing unreliable information and/or the other sensors are malfunctioning”);
Regarding claim 6, Gariel et al. teaches:
wherein the aircraft landing profile comprises a secondary source, wherein the secondary source is selected from the ILS, the GNSS, and the vision sensing system, and wherein the secondary source is used as a secondary method of automatically landing the aircraft (at least figs. 1-6 [0024]-[0083] aircraft 100/aircraft validation system 110-1, avigation system 404/Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver 404-1/ instrument landing system (ILS) 404-5, GPS, an automated landing system (e.g., a flight control system 408), sensors 400/ cameras 112; discussed validation system 110/ aircraft landing validation system 110-1/ GCS landing validation system 110-2 with images, GNSS information, ILS information to determine/validate landing location and proceeding/not aborting with automatic/autopilot landing; in particular [0026]-[0029] discussed images, GPS, and ILS in determining landing location and validation, discussed “In some implementations, the validation system 110 may be used by a remote operator and/or autonomous aircraft as a backup system for determining/validating a landing location. In some implementations, the validation system 110 may be used along with other sensors and systems to validate a landing location. For example, the validation system 110 may be used along with a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, an instrument landing system (ILS), and/or other positioning systems. …. In these specific implementations, the validation system 110 may be used as a backup in the case other sensors/systems are providing unreliable information and/or the other sensors are malfunctioning”)
Regarding claim 7, Gariel et al. teaches:
wherein the aircraft landing profile uses more than one of the ILS, the GNSS, and the vision sensing system within the selected method of automatically landing the aircraft (at least figs. 1-6 [0024]-[0083] aircraft 100/aircraft validation system 110-1, avigation system 404/Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver 404-1/ instrument landing system (ILS) 404-5, GPS, an automated landing system (e.g., a flight control system 408), sensors 400/ cameras 112; discussed validation system 110/ aircraft landing validation system 110-1/ GCS landing validation system 110-2 with images, GNSS information, ILS information to determine/validate landing location and proceeding/not aborting with automatic/autopilot landing; in particular [0026]-[0029] discussed images, GPS, and ILS in determining landing location and validation, discussed “In some implementations, the validation system 110 may be used by a remote operator and/or autonomous aircraft as a backup system for determining/validating a landing location. In some implementations, the validation system 110 may be used along with other sensors and systems to validate a landing location. For example, the validation system 110 may be used along with a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, an instrument landing system (ILS), and/or other positioning systems. …. In these specific implementations, the validation system 110 may be used as a backup in the case other sensors/systems are providing unreliable information and/or the other sensors are malfunctioning”)
Regarding claim 16, Gariel et al. teaches:
wherein the vision sensor system comprises an infrared sensor, a radio detection and ranging sensor, a laser-based sensor, and/or a vision sensor (at least figs. 1-6 [0024]-[0083] aircraft 100/aircraft validation system 110-1, avigation system 404/Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver 404-1/ instrument landing system (ILS) 404-5, GPS, an automated landing system (e.g., a flight control system 408), sensors 400/ cameras 112; discussed validation system 110/ aircraft landing validation system 110-1/ GCS landing validation system 110-2 with images, GNSS information, ILS information to determine/validate landing location and proceeding/not aborting with automatic/autopilot landing; in particular [0026]-[0029] discussed images, GPS, and ILS in determining landing location and validation)
Regarding claim 18, the cited portions and rationale in rejection to claim 2 read on this claim.
Regarding claim 19, Gariel et al. does not explicitly teach:
wherein the automatic landing path can be determined for ILS category I, II, IIIa, and IIIb approaches, RNAV (Area Navigation) Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) approaches, RNAV Vertical Navigation (VNAV) approaches, RNAV lateral navigation (LNAV) approaches, RNAV Required Navigation Performance (RNP) approaches, non-precision approaches, non-published approaches, and/or emergency landing approaches;
However, Chippa teaches:
wherein the automatic landing path can be determined for ILS category I, II, IIIa, and IIIb approaches, RNAV (Area Navigation) Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) approaches, RNAV Vertical Navigation (VNAV) approaches, RNAV lateral navigation (LNAV) approaches, RNAV Required Navigation Performance (RNP) approaches, non-precision approaches, non-published approaches, and/or emergency landing approaches (at least [0002]-[0023]) for approach ([0002]-[0023]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of Gariel et al. with wherein the automatic landing path can be determined for ILS category I, II, IIIa, and IIIb approaches, RNAV (Area Navigation) Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) approaches, RNAV Vertical Navigation (VNAV) approaches, RNAV lateral navigation (LNAV) approaches, RNAV Required Navigation Performance (RNP) approaches, non-precision approaches, non-published approaches, and/or emergency landing approaches as taught by Chippa for approach.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 8, 13-15 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
BAO LONG T. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656