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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant makes the following arguments:
Neither Baladhandapani et al. nor Deng et al. discloses or suggests anything related to detecting and identifying obstacles and determining visibility based thereupon.
Hu suggests identifying reflectivity in a point cloud to find a reflective object, rather than using reflectivity of terrain itself to determine a visibility level.
Regarding argument A: Deng et al. teaches a determination of an occlusion level which corresponds to determining that an object is creating reduced visibility in a field of view. Baladhandapani et al. teaches a search and rescue system which determines areas which have not already been covered by a searchlight. In combination, the two references teach a search and rescue system which additionally determines that an intervening object has reduced the field of view and repositions a searchlight to compensate for such a reduction.
Regarding argument B: Paragraph [0036] of Hu teaches that the reflectivity is an attribute of all points, rather than merely those of the search and rescue target, which is cited as showing the applicability of the teachings of Hu to the overall system of Baladhandapani et al. Therefore, in combination with Baladhandapani et al., this teaching results in a search and rescue system which takes reflectivity into account while determining areas which have been covered.
Claim Interpretation
The claim limitation of a “heatmap” is construed as referring to a visibility map which provides information as to a degree of visibility, rather than merely a binary choice between visible and not visible.
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) 1-5, 7, 9-11, 14-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baladhandapani et al. (US 20220260996) in view of Deng et al. (US 11496674) in view of Allik et al. (US 20250238953) .
Claim 1.
Baladhandapani et al. teaches:
illuminating terrain within at least some of the sections
(Baladhandapani – [0026]) “the lit ground area (e.g. LAT and LON coordinates and radius or some other representation of location and size of the beam on the ground) is recorded in memory 76 along with a timestamp. In some embodiments, the timestamp, the longitude and latitude of the beam on the ground, the search light angle, the beam intensity and/or width and duration of illumination is recorded in the memory 76.”
tagging, with the controller, operating parameter data to each of the observed sections in response to the terrain in each of the observed sections being illuminated with the beam of light, wherein the operating parameter data is indicative of, at a time when each of the observed sections was illuminated, a position of the aircraft, an altitude of the aircraft, an angle of the beam of light relative to the aircraft, and an intensity of the beam of light
(Baladhandapani – [0019]) “an effective coverage region of an SAR operation is computed based on inputs including position of the searchlight illumination spot on ground and global position of the aircraft.”
(Baladhandapani – [0026]) “the lit ground area (e.g. LAT and LON coordinates and radius or some other representation of location and size of the beam on the ground) is recorded in memory 76 along with a timestamp. In some embodiments, the timestamp, the longitude and latitude of the beam on the ground, the search light angle, the beam intensity and/or width and duration of illumination is recorded in the memory 76.”
generating image data indicative of images of the terrain in each of the observed sections obtained with an imaging system of the aircraft in response to the terrain in each of the observed sections being illuminated with the beam of light and at the time when each of the observed sections are illuminated with the beam of light
(Baladhandapani – [0035]) “The user input/output device 46 may additionally include a display device such as the display device 48 in order to display live video from the camera 70 and a depiction of covered and uncovered ground areas derived from data from the SAR processing unit 28”
While Baladhandapani et al. teaches display of the areas that have been covered by the searchlight (Baladhandapani – [0031]), Baladhandapani et al. does not explicitly teach generating of visibility data in heatmap form; however, Deng et al. teaches, with respect to Fig. 1 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
531
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: An occlusion map according to Deng et al. (originally Deng Fig. 1I)
generating, with the controller, obstacle data indicative of obstacles identified in each of the observed sections based on the image data, a viewing perspective of each of the observed sections from the aircraft at the time when each of the observed sections was illuminated based on the operating parameter data tagged to each of the observed sections, and orientations of each of the obstacles relative to the viewing perspective
(Deng – Col. 4, lines 41-46) “the human occlusion map 138 includes a visual indication of low likelihood of occlusion at 140, a visual indication of high likelihood of occlusion at 142, and a visual indication of intermediate likelihood of occlusion at 144 in the transition region between the high and low regions.”
generating, with the controller, visibility data indicative of a level of visibility of terrain of each of the observed sections from the aircraft based on the operating parameter data and the obstacle data, wherein the level of the visibility is determined, at least in part, based on whether the beam of light is obstructed by one or more of the obstacles at the time when each of the observed sections was illuminated
(Deng – Col. 4, lines 41-46) “the human occlusion map 138 includes a visual indication of low likelihood of occlusion at 140, a visual indication of high likelihood of occlusion at 142, and a visual indication of intermediate likelihood of occlusion at 144 in the transition region between the high and low regions.”
assigning, with the controller, display characteristics to each of the observed sections on the map to produce a heatmap, wherein each of the display characteristics is representative of the visibility data associated with each of the observed sections
(Deng – Col. 4, lines 41-46) “the human occlusion map 138 includes a visual indication of low likelihood of occlusion at 140, a visual indication of high likelihood of occlusion at 142, and a visual indication of intermediate likelihood of occlusion at 144 in the transition region between the high and low regions.”
displaying the heatmap on a display device of the aircraft in real-time
(Deng – Col. 7, lines 31-33) “Block 214 can turn the overlap scores into a map that visually reflects the overlap scores on the scene. For instance, the map can be various types of heatmaps.”
(Deng – Claim 8) “wherein the processor is configured to cause the score to be displayed in real-time with the image captured by the camera.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the search and rescue aircraft of Baladhandapani et al. with the occlusion map of Deng et al. One would have been motivated to do this to assist an operator in determining whether analytics performed on a particular region are likely to be accurate (Deng – Col. 4, lines 48-54).
While Baladhandapani et al. teaches covering a region sector by sector (Baladhandapani – [0028]), neither Baladhandapani et al. nor Deng et al. explicitly teaches a grid; however, Allik et al. teaches:
generating, with a controller having one or more processors, a map of a geographic region that is segmented into a grid of sections
(Allik – [0085]) “to generate query locations within the reference an exhaustive grid-search methodology is used”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the sectoral searching of Baladhandapani et al. with the grid-search methodology of Allik et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to better standardize the searching process.
Claim 2.
The combination of Baladhandapani et al., Deng et al., and Allik et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Baladhandapani et al. further teaches, with respect to Fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image2.png
213
571
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: A display device for a searchlight control system (originally Baladhandapani Fig. 3)
displaying, on the terrain map, an aircraft icon representing the position and flight direction of the aircraft, a flight path of the aircraft, and one or more points of interest along the flight path that are each selectable to display the operating parameter data assigned thereto
(Baladhandapani – [0048]) “The display generation module 36 graphically paints the map based on where the ground has been illuminated by the beam of the searchlight 12. In the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 3, the display device 48’’, which is a tablet device in this embodiment, depicts a traversed flight path 93 differently from an upcoming planned flight path 96.”
[Examiner’s Note: The tree displayed in Fig. 2 above (unlabeled) corresponds to a point of interest along the flight path.]
While Baladhandapani et al. teaches a map of illuminations, Baladhandapani et al. does not explicitly teach a heatmap. However, Deng et al. further teaches:
overlaying the heatmap on a terrain map of the geographic region on the display device, wherein the heatmap is partially transparent to provide for the terrain map to be viewable therebelow
(Deng – Col. 4, lines 41-46) “the human occlusion map 138 includes a visual indication of low likelihood of occlusion at 140, a visual indication of high likelihood of occlusion at 142, and a visual indication of intermediate likelihood of occlusion at 144 in the transition region between the high and low regions.”
[Examiner’s Note: As seen in Fig. 1 above, the human occlusion map allows for the corresponding area to be visible beneath the occlusion map.]
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 3.
The combination of Baladhandapani et al., Deng et al., and Allik et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Baladhandapani et al. further teaches:
determining, with the controller, recommended operating parameters based on the visibility data, wherein the recommended operating parameters are configured to promote visibility of the observed sections while observing each of the observed sections including recommended altitudes of the aircraft, distances of the aircraft from each of the observed sections, angles of the beam of light, a time of day, flight paths of the aircraft, and/or intensities of the beam of light, wherein the recommended operating parameters are configured to promote viewability of terrain that was previously not viewable due to the beam of light being obstructed by the one or more of the obstacles
(Baladhandapani – [0046]) “the searchlight control module 40 and the flight control module 38 operate in tandem so that the searchlight 12 is controlled and the flight plan 44 is approximately followed to ensure that the beam of the searchlight 12 is optimally directed at ground areas that have not yet been lit for as much of the SAR mission as possible. That is, the searchlight 12 will be re-directed and the position of the aerial vehicle 10 will be adjusted based on the historical beam coverage data 78 so as to illuminate new ground areas with the searchlight beam.”
displaying the recommended operating parameters on the display device
(Baladhandapani – [0030]) “The generated display may include a graphical indication of beam coverage on the map, a graphical indication of a flown path of the aerial vehicle 10 on the map and a graphical indication of a future planned path (which may be received from the FMS 42) on the map.”
While Baladhandapani et al. teaches re-directing a searchlight to illuminate previously un-illuminated ground areas, Baladhandapani et al. does not explicitly teach re-direction as a result of an obstructed view. However, Deng et al. teaches:
viewability of terrain that was previously not viewable due to the beam of light being obstructed by the one or more of the obstacles
(Deng – Col. 4, lines 41-56) “the human occlusion map 138 includes a visual indication of low likelihood of occlusion at 140, a visual indication of high likelihood of occlusion at 142, and a visual indication of intermediate likelihood of occlusion at 144 in the transition region between the high and low regions. … if the user is interested in the visual region of high likelihood of occlusion 142, the results may be less accurate and hence less satisfying. In this latter scenario, the user may consider repositioning the camera to get better results for this region.”
Claim 4.
The combination of Baladhandapani et al., Deng et al., and Allik et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. Baladhandapani et al. further teaches:
distributing the recommended operating parameters to one or more additional vehicles and/or remote systems
(Baladhandapani – [0043]) “the lit ground area calculation module 34 receives external ground area coverage data 72 through an external communications interface 74 such as a ground to air broadcast or broadcast between aerial vehicles included in an SAR mission.”
[Examiner’s Note: Receipt of coverage data by a first aircraft from a second aircraft is equivalent to transmission of coverage data by the second aircraft to the first aircraft.]
Claim 5.
The combination of Baladhandapani et al., Deng et al., and Allik et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Deng et al. further teaches:
processing, with the controller, the images with an image recognition software to detect and identify the obstacles in each of the observed sections
(Deng – Col. 3, lines 5-10) “In this example, the information area queries the user about what type of objects the user is interested in at 124. For user convenience this example automatically defaults to detecting people in the scene image 120, but the user can change this parameter as desired.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 7.
The combination of Baladhandapani et al., Deng et al., and Allik et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Baladhandapani et al. further teaches:
generating the visibility data includes consideration of environmental conditions within the geographic region including weather conditions
(Baladhandapani – [0030]) “If the SAR mission is maritime, the indication of beam coverage is further based on tidal movement.”
Claim 9.
The combination of Baladhandapani et al., Deng et al., and Allik et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Baladhandapani et al. further teaches:
the aircraft is participating in a search and rescue (SAR) mission intended to locate one or more people and/or objects within the geographic region
(Baladhandapani – [0018]) “Disclosed herein are systems and methods that assist SAR operations.”
Deng et al. further teaches:
the visibility data is indicative of a likelihood of observation of the one or more people and/or objects within the observed sections if the one or more people and/or objects were located in the observed sections based on the visibility of the observed sections from the aircraft
(Deng – Col. 4, lines 41-46) “the human occlusion map 138 includes a visual indication of low likelihood of occlusion at 140, a visual indication of high likelihood of occlusion at 142, and a visual indication of intermediate likelihood of occlusion at 144 in the transition region between the high and low regions.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 10.
Baladhandapani et al. teaches:
receiving, by a mission coordinator system remote from the at least two aircraft, the
(Baladhandapani – [0040]) “the computer system of the SAR processing unit 28 may be coupled to or may otherwise utilize one or more remote computer systems”
(Baladhandapani – [0043]) “the lit ground area calculation module 34 receives external ground area coverage data 72 through an external communications interface 74 such as a ground to air broadcast or broadcast between aerial vehicles included in an SAR mission.”
determining, based on the composite
(Baladhandapani – [0046]) “the searchlight control module 40 and the flight control module 38 operate in tandem so that the searchlight 12 is controlled and the flight plan 44 is approximately followed to ensure that the beam of the searchlight 12 is optimally directed at ground areas that have not yet been lit for as much of the SAR mission as possible. That is, the searchlight 12 will be re-directed and the position of the aerial vehicle 10 will be adjusted based on the historical beam coverage data 78 so as to illuminate new ground areas with the searchlight beam.”
displaying the composite
(Baladhandapani – [0030]) “The generated display may include a graphical indication of beam coverage on the map, a graphical indication of a flown path of the aerial vehicle 10 on the map and a graphical indication of a future planned path (which may be received from the FMS 42) on the map.”
While Baladhandapani et al. teaches a coverage map, Baladhandapani does not explicitly teach specifically a heatmap. However, Deng et al. teaches:
a heatmap
(Deng – Col. 4, lines 41-46) “the human occlusion map 138 includes a visual indication of low likelihood of occlusion at 140, a visual indication of high likelihood of occlusion at 142, and a visual indication of intermediate likelihood of occlusion at 144 in the transition region between the high and low regions.”
viewability of terrain that was previously not viewable due to the beam of light being obstructed by the one or more of the obstacles
(Deng – Col. 4, lines 41-56) “the human occlusion map 138 includes a visual indication of low likelihood of occlusion at 140, a visual indication of high likelihood of occlusion at 142, and a visual indication of intermediate likelihood of occlusion at 144 in the transition region between the high and low regions. … if the user is interested in the visual region of high likelihood of occlusion 142, the results may be less accurate and hence less satisfying. In this latter scenario, the user may consider repositioning the camera to get better results for this region.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
The rest of the claim is rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 11.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 14.
Baladhandapani et al. teaches:
a searchlight system comprising a searchlight mounted on the aircraft, the searchlight configured to emit a beam of light and the searchlight system configured to controllably articulate the searchlight to modify a direction of the beam of light
(Baladhandapani – Abstract) “the searchlight actuator is controlled to adjust the direction of the beam.”
one or more onboard data sources configured to determine a position of the aircraft, an altitude of the aircraft, an angle of the beam of light relative to the aircraft, and an intensity of the beam of light
(Baladhandapani – [0019]) “an effective coverage region of an SAR operation is computed based on inputs including position of the searchlight illumination spot on ground and global position of the aircraft.”
(Baladhandapani – [0025]) “The lit ground area calculation module 34 computes a ground area/region (LAT/LON) over which the beam of the searchlight 12 is illuminated based on the global position, the angular orientation of the beam and other searchlight parameters such as beam width, light intensity, etc.”
a display device configured to generate a visual display
(Baladhandapani – Abstract) “the display is controlled to depict the coverage of the beam on a map including historical coverage of the beam”
a controller operably coupled to the searchlight system, the one or more onboard data sources, and the display device
(Baladhandapani – [0026]) “the searchlight control module 40 and the memory 76 including the historical beam coverage data are included as part of a searchlight controller 56 associated with the searchlight 12.”
The rest is rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 15.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 16.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 17.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 19.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 7.
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Baladhandapani et al., Deng et al., and Allik et al. as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Huang (US 20200240602).
Claim 6.
The combination of Baladhandapani et al., Deng et al., and Allik et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. None of the aforementioned references explicitly teaches adjusting the searchlight intensity; however, Huang teaches:
automatically adjusting, with the controller, the intensity of the beam of light while the beam of light is illuminating a first section of the observed sections based on the visibility data for the first section
(Huang – Abstract) “an adjustment to current parameters of the searchlight for generating the optimized searchlight coverage area, wherein the set of adjusted parameters comprises at least one of an adjusted illumination area and an adjusted illumination density value”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the searchlight of Baladhandapani et al. with the automatic adjustment of illumination density of Huang. One would have been motivated to do this in order to avoid distracting a user from critical mission tasks (Huang – [0003]).
Claim 12.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 18.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim(s) 8, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Baladhandapani et al., Deng et al., and Allik et al. as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Hu (US 20230046971).
Claim 8.
The combination of Baladhandapani et al., Deng et al., and Allik et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. None of the aforementioned references explicitly teaches determining a reflection intensity; however, Hu teaches:
determining a reflection intensity of terrain in each of the observed sections, wherein generating the visibility data includes consideration of the reflection intensity of each of the observed sections
(Hu – [0139]) “F3 is a UAV search and rescue target with three attribute components: color, material, and reflectivity.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the search and rescue system of Baladhandapani et al. with the reflectivity measure of Hu. One would have been motivated to do this because an area of greater reflectivity would be more likely to correspond to a missing person, and thus it would be useful to determine where such an area exists.
Claim 13.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim 20.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seo et al. (US 20250143389) teaches the generation of a gridded heatmap of radio frequency signals (see Fig. 14)
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 SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669