DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 04/23/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, which was filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 05/14/2024 are in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in FIG. 6B, it appears that reference character 480 should be changed to reference character 580 to correspond with ¶ 89 of the specification.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference character 900.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference character 950.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 52 of the specification, it appears that “second coverage area 192” should be changed to “second coverage area 194” to correspond with FIG. 2B.
In ¶ 80 of the specification, it appears that “fourth surface detection volume 430C” should be changed to “fourth surface detection volume 430D” to correspond with FIG. 5B.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, it appears that each instance of “the plurality of surveillance devices” should be changed to “the plurality of surveillance modules.”
In claim 10, line 2, there should be an article such as the word “a” before the word “receiver.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-14 are 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.
Regarding claim 10:
It is unclear what the antecedent basis is for “the receiver” in claim 10, which leads to indefiniteness. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as if “the receiver” refers to a receiver of the second surveillance module. Regardless of whether this interpretation is correct, clarification is required.
The examiner also suggests amending the claims to differentiate between the respective processors and receivers of each surveillance module and the runway status light modules. For example, the respective processor of the first surveillance module could be referred to as a “first respective processor,” the respective processor of the second surveillance module could be referred to as a “second respective processor,” and the respective processor of the plurality of runway status light modules could be referred to as a “third respective processor.”
Regarding claims 11-14:
Claims 11-14 are rejected because of their dependency upon rejected claim 10.
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.
Claims 1-2, 10, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wise (US 2012/0319871 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Wise discloses the following limitations:
“A system for aviation runway safety, the system comprising: a plurality of surveillance modules, each surveillance module including a respective processor and a respective transmitter.” (Wise ¶ 66: “System 100 includes a sensor 102 for detecting potential threats, an awareness engine 104 for evaluating detected potential threats, and an alerting system 106 to warn vehicles of obstacles. A communication interface 108 provides for information flow to and from system 100, and a control 110 controls the operation of the various elements of the system in a predetermined manner.” Also, Wise ¶ 78: “system 100 may be configured to be extensible so that, if more than type of alerting system 106 is desired the system can be upgraded to include multiple devices while maintaining the same sensor and potentially the same awareness engine 104. Similarly, system 100 may be configured to accommodate a plurality of sensors 102 and/or types of sensors to detect targets.”)
“the respective processor of each surveillance module being configured to: independently determine a respective prediction of an occupancy state of an aviation runway, the occupancy state indicating whether a defined region of the aviation runway at least one of (i) is currently occupied by an object and (ii) will be occupied by an object within a predetermined amount of time.” (Wise ¶ 67: “Sensor 102 provides the detection ability of collision avoidance system 100. Sensor 102 may include sensing apparatus within and/or proximate to system 100 to detect ‘targets,’ i.e., vehicles in the vicinity of a predetermined area, object or structure and then generate data relating to the targets.” Also, Wise ¶ 89: “the IRAS only changes state when there is a potentially conflicting aircraft in the runway environment; otherwise the light is a default color and intensity for normal taxiway lighting.” This at least teaches the determination of an occupancy state indicating whether a defined region of the runway is “currently occupied by an object” as claimed.)
“and operate the respective transmitter to broadcast the respective prediction of the occupancy state.” (Wise ¶ 65: “Finally, if the control system 52 detects a target vehicle within a predefined hazard envelope, which may be one or more predetermined areas and altitudes, the control system may broadcast over radio frequency, wired or wireless networks, the Internet, or any other suitable media (using, for example, communication link 64) a warning (such as, for example, an ADS-B compliant warning) to alert the target vehicle of a potential hazard.”)
“and a plurality of runway status light modules, each runway status light module including a respective processor, a respective receiver, and a respective runway status light.” (Wise ¶¶ 59-60: “With reference to FIG. 10, lighting system 10 may include a control system 52 that may be configured (or reconfigured) as desired to suit a particular installation. … A driver 56 of control system 52 controls the operation of LEDs 32, 50.” Also, Wise ¶ 62: “Control system 52 may also include a one-way or two-way communication link 64 to facilitate remote control and monitoring of the status and operation of lighting system 10.”)
“the respective processor of each runway status light module being configured to: operate the receiver to receive the respective prediction of the occupancy state from each of the plurality of surveillance devices.” (Wise ¶ 64: “ADS-B system 66 may include sensing apparatus within or proximate to lighting system 10 to detect ‘targets,’ i.e., vehicles in the vicinity of a predetermined area, or an object or structure and then generate data relating to the targets. Alternatively, ADS-B system 66 may receive target data from sources remote from lighting system 10, either directly or via communication link 64.”)
“and operate the respective runway status light depending on the respective prediction of the occupancy state from each of the plurality of surveillance devices.” (Wise ¶ 74: “an anti-collision light of the alerting system (and/or lighting system 10) may be regularly increased in brightness and/or flash rate as a target vehicle approaches an associated predetermined obstruction, then decreased as the target vehicle moves away from the obstruction.” Also, Wise ¶ 89: “the IRAS only changes state when there is a potentially conflicting aircraft in the runway environment; otherwise the light is a default color and intensity for normal taxiway lighting. … if there is an aircraft in the runway environment the IRAS may change color (i.e., to red, for example), and/or start blinking if the aircraft in the runway environment poses a collision threat to the taxiing aircraft.”)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 1, consistent with the specification, “the occupancy state indicating whether a defined region of the aviation runway at least one of (i) is currently occupied by an object and (ii) will be occupied by an object within a predetermined amount of time” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only option (i) has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 2:
Wise discloses “The system according to claim 1,” and Wise also discloses “the respective processor of each surveillance module in the plurality of surveillance modules being configured to: independently determine at least one respective prediction of at least one of a plurality of occupancy states of the aviation runway, each occupancy state in the plurality of occupancy states indicating whether a respective one of a plurality of defined regions of the aviation runway at least one of (i) is currently occupied by an object and (ii) will be occupied by an object within a predetermined amount of time.” (Wise ¶ 65: “if the control system 52 detects a target vehicle within a predefined hazard envelope, which may be one or more predetermined areas and altitudes, the control system may broadcast over radio frequency, wired or wireless networks, the Internet, or any other suitable media (using, for example, communication link 64) a warning (such as, for example, an ADS-B compliant warning) to alert the target vehicle of a potential hazard.” Also, Wise ¶ 67: “Sensor 102 may include sensing apparatus within and/or proximate to system 100 to detect ‘targets,’ i.e., vehicles in the vicinity of a predetermined area, object or structure and then generate data relating to the targets.” This at least teaches to “independently determine at least one respective prediction of at least one of a plurality of occupancy states of the aviation runway, each occupancy state in the plurality of occupancy states indicating whether a respective one of a plurality of defined regions of the aviation runway … is currently occupied by an object” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 2, consistent with the specification, “each occupancy state in the plurality of occupancy states indicating whether a respective one of a plurality of defined regions of the aviation runway at least one of (i) is currently occupied by an object and (ii) will be occupied by an object within a predetermined amount of time” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only option (i) has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 10:
Wise discloses “The system according to claim 2,” and Wise also discloses the following limitations:
“wherein a second surveillance module of the plurality of surveillance modules includes receiver.” (Wise ¶ 66 and FIG. 11: “A communication interface 108 provides for information flow to and from system 100.” Also, Wise ¶ 78: “system 100 may be configured to be extensible so that, if more than type of alerting system 106 is desired the system can be upgraded to include multiple devices while maintaining the same sensor and potentially the same awareness engine 104. Similarly, system 100 may be configured to accommodate a plurality of sensors 102 and/or types of sensors to detect targets.”)
“the respective processor of the second surveillance module being configured to: receive traffic information from the receiver, the traffic information including locations and altitudes of aircraft or vehicles.” (Wise ¶ 79: “sensor 102 may include an ADS-B surveillance system. ADS-B data relating to the location and velocity of a nearby vehicle is received by sensor 102, and is provided to awareness engine 104 by the sensor.” Also, Wise ¶ 95: “Using a sensor 102 equipped with ADS-B the awareness engine 104 of system 100 in the IDL is able to determine the azimuth, elevation, and range to a target aircraft.”)
“and determine the at least one respective prediction of the at least one of the plurality of occupancy states based on the traffic information.” (Wise ¶ 79: “As an example of the operation of system 100, sensor 102 may include an ADS-B surveillance system. ADS-B data relating to the location and velocity of a nearby vehicle is received by sensor 102, and is provided to awareness engine 104 by the sensor. Awareness engine 104 analyzes the data to determine if the vehicle poses a threat of collision with a predetermined obstruction or obstructions.”)
Regarding claim 15:
Wise discloses “The system according to claim 2,” and Wise also discloses the following limitations:
“the respective processor of each runway status light module being configured to: operate the receiver to receive the respective predictions of the plurality of occupancy states of the aviation runway from the plurality of surveillance modules.” (Wise ¶ 64: “ADS-B system 66 may include sensing apparatus within or proximate to lighting system 10 to detect ‘targets,’ i.e., vehicles in the vicinity of a predetermined area, or an object or structure and then generate data relating to the targets. Alternatively, ADS-B system 66 may receive target data from sources remote from lighting system 10, either directly or via communication link 64.” Further, Wise ¶ 78: “system 100 may be configured to be extensible so that, if more than type of alerting system 106 is desired the system can be upgraded to include multiple devices while maintaining the same sensor and potentially the same awareness engine 104. Similarly, system 100 may be configured to accommodate a plurality of sensors 102 and/or types of sensors to detect targets.”)
“the respective predictions including multiple predictions of a first occupancy state of a first defined region in the plurality of defined regions received from multiple surveillance modules of the plurality of surveillance modules.” (Wise ¶ 78 discloses that multiple surveillance modules can be used. Additionally, Wise ¶ 67: “Sensor 102 provides the detection ability of collision avoidance system 100. Sensor 102 may include sensing apparatus within and/or proximate to system 100 to detect ‘targets,’ i.e., vehicles in the vicinity of a predetermined area, object or structure and then generate data relating to the targets.”)
“and operate the respective runway status light in a predetermined manner in response to any one of the multiple predictions of the first occupancy state indicating that the first defined region of the aviation runway at least one of (i) is currently occupied by an object and (ii) will be occupied by an object within a predetermined amount of time.” (Wise ¶ 89: “the IRAS only changes state when there is a potentially conflicting aircraft in the runway environment; otherwise the light is a default color and intensity for normal taxiway lighting.” This disclosure at least teaches to operate the respective runway status light in a predetermined manner in response to any one of the multiple predictions of the first occupancy state indicating that the first defined region of the aviation runway is currently occupied by an object as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 15, consistent with the specification, “[operating] the respective runway status light in a predetermined manner in response to any one of the multiple predictions of the first occupancy state indicating that the first defined region of the aviation runway at least one of (i) is currently occupied by an object and (ii) will be occupied by an object within a predetermined amount of time” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only option (i) has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 16:
Wise discloses “The system according to claim 2,” and Wise also discloses the following limitations:
“the respective processor of each runway status light module being configured to: operate the receiver to receive the respective predictions of the plurality of occupancy states of the aviation runway from the plurality of surveillance modules.” (Wise ¶ 64: “ADS-B system 66 may include sensing apparatus within or proximate to lighting system 10 to detect ‘targets,’ i.e., vehicles in the vicinity of a predetermined area, or an object or structure and then generate data relating to the targets. Alternatively, ADS-B system 66 may receive target data from sources remote from lighting system 10, either directly or via communication link 64.” Further, Wise ¶ 78: “system 100 may be configured to be extensible so that, if more than type of alerting system 106 is desired the system can be upgraded to include multiple devices while maintaining the same sensor and potentially the same awareness engine 104. Similarly, system 100 may be configured to accommodate a plurality of sensors 102 and/or types of sensors to detect targets.”)
“and operate the respective runway status light in a predetermined manner in response to the respective predictions of the plurality of occupancy states indicating that any of the plurality of defined regions of the aviation runway at least one of (i) are currently occupied by an object and (ii) will be occupied by an object within a predetermined amount of time.” (Wise ¶ 89: “the IRAS only changes state when there is a potentially conflicting aircraft in the runway environment; otherwise the light is a default color and intensity for normal taxiway lighting.” This at least teaches to operate the respective runway status light in a predetermined manner in response to the respective predictions of the plurality of occupancy states indicating that any of the plurality of defined regions of the aviation runway are currently occupied by an object as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 16, consistent with the specification, “[operating] the respective runway status light in a predetermined manner in response to the respective predictions of the plurality of occupancy states indicating that any of the plurality of defined regions of the aviation runway at least one of (i) are currently occupied by an object and (ii) will be occupied by an object within a predetermined amount of time” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only option (i) has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 17:
Wise discloses “The system according to claim 2,” and Wise also discloses the following limitations:
“the respective processor of each surveillance module in the plurality of surveillance modules being configured to: determine a direction of travel of each object occupying one of the plurality of defined regions.” (Wise ¶¶ 63-64: “At the core of the ADS-B system is a ‘heartbeat’ that is transmitted by outfitted aircraft providing the aircraft's identification, location, velocity, and other relevant state data. Ground-based and airborne ADS-B receivers can receive this heartbeat and accurately determine an aircraft's position, direction, and velocity in a timely manner. ADS-B system 66 may include sensing apparatus within or proximate to lighting system 10 to detect ‘targets,’ i.e., vehicles in the vicinity of a predetermined area, or an object or structure and then generate data relating to the targets. Alternatively, ADS-B system 66 may receive target data from sources remote from lighting system 10, either directly or via communication link 64.”)
“and operate the respective transmitter to broadcast the direction of travel of each object occupying one of the plurality of defined regions.” (Wise ¶ 65: “Finally, if the control system 52 detects a target vehicle within a predefined hazard envelope, which may be one or more predetermined areas and altitudes, the control system may broadcast over radio frequency, wired or wireless networks, the Internet, or any other suitable media (using, for example, communication link 64) a warning (such as, for example, an ADS-B compliant warning) to alert the target vehicle of a potential hazard.”)
Regarding claim 18:
Wise discloses “The system according to claim 17,” and Wise also discloses the following limitations:
“the respective processor of each runway status light module being configured to: operate the receiver to receive the respective predictions of the plurality of occupancy states of the aviation runway from the plurality of surveillance modules.” (Wise ¶ 64: “ADS-B system 66 may include sensing apparatus within or proximate to lighting system 10 to detect ‘targets,’ i.e., vehicles in the vicinity of a predetermined area, or an object or structure and then generate data relating to the targets. Alternatively, ADS-B system 66 may receive target data from sources remote from lighting system 10, either directly or via communication link 64.” Further, Wise ¶ 78: “system 100 may be configured to be extensible so that, if more than type of alerting system 106 is desired the system can be upgraded to include multiple devices while maintaining the same sensor and potentially the same awareness engine 104. Similarly, system 100 may be configured to accommodate a plurality of sensors 102 and/or types of sensors to detect targets.”)
“operate the receiver to receive the direction of travel of each object occupying one of the plurality of defined regions.” (Wise ¶¶ 63-64: “At the core of the ADS-B system is a ‘heartbeat’ that is transmitted by outfitted aircraft providing the aircraft's identification, location, velocity, and other relevant state data. Ground-based and airborne ADS-B receivers can receive this heartbeat and accurately determine an aircraft's position, direction, and velocity in a timely manner. ADS-B system 66 may include sensing apparatus within or proximate to lighting system 10 to detect ‘targets,’ i.e., vehicles in the vicinity of a predetermined area, or an object or structure and then generate data relating to the targets. Alternatively, ADS-B system 66 may receive target data from sources remote from lighting system 10, either directly or via communication link 64.”)
“and operate the respective runway status light in a predetermined manner depending on the respective predictions of at least one of the plurality of occupancy states and depending on the direction of travel of at least one object occupying one of the plurality of defined regions.” (Wise ¶ 89: “the IRAS only changes state when there is a potentially conflicting aircraft in the runway environment; otherwise the light is a default color and intensity for normal taxiway lighting.” Also, Wise ¶¶ 63-64 discloses that the system considers the direction of aircraft when identifying targets for the lighting system.)
Regarding claim 19:
Wise discloses “The system according to claim 18,” and Wise additionally discloses “the respective processor of each runway status light module being configured to: operate the respective runway status light in a predetermined manner in response to (i) the respective predictions of the plurality of occupancy states indicating that a particular defined region of the plurality of defined regions of the aviation runway is currently occupied by an object and (ii) the direction of travel of the object is in a particular direction.” (Wise ¶ 89: “the IRAS only changes state when there is a potentially conflicting aircraft in the runway environment; otherwise the light is a default color and intensity for normal taxiway lighting.” Also, Wise ¶¶ 63-64 discloses that the system considers the direction of aircraft when identifying targets for the lighting system.)
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.
Claims 3-4, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wise as applied to claims 2 and 10 above, and further in view of Scarlatti et al. (US 2019/0147752 A1), hereinafter referred to as Scarlatti.
Regarding claim 3:
Wise discloses “The system according to claim 2,” but Wise does not explicitly disclose “wherein the plurality of defined regions of the aviation runway includes (i) a first approach of the aviation runway, (ii) a surface of the aviation runway, and (iii) a second approach of the aviation runway.” However, Scarlatti does teach this limitation. (Scarlatti ¶¶ 39-40 and FIG. 3 reproduced below: “As depicted in FIG. 3, the surveillance cells 302 may also be obtained by defining one main parallelepiped 304 centered over the runway 102 and discarding its central part, such that two upper parts and two lower parts are defined at each end of the main parallelepiped 304, obtaining four surveillance cells 302 in the form of four smaller parallelepipeds. … although the embodiment of FIG. 3 shows only two surveillance cells 302 at each side of the runway 102, there may be more than two surveillance cells 302 defined at each end of the runway 102. In an embodiment, there are at least two surveillance cells 302 at different heights defined at each end of the runway 102, so that aircraft taking off can be distinguished from aircraft landing on the runway 102.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
600
447
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wise by including surveillance cells at the runway surface and the approaches of the runway as taught by Scarlatti with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Scarlatti ¶¶ 9 and 40 teach that this allows for identifying whether flights are taking off or landing, which can contribute to a system that provides improved flight planning with better estimations of real flight time and fuel needed, which in turn helps to reduce fuel consumption.
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Wise and Scarlatti teaches “The system according to claim 3,” and Scarlatti also teaches “wherein the plurality of defined regions of the aviation runway includes a plurality of defined sections of the surface of the aviation runway.” (Scarlatti FIG. 3 and ¶ 39 disclose a section 304 that includes a surface of the runway. Further, Scarlatti ¶ 41 and FIG. 4A reproduced below disclose additional surveillance cells 302 that include the runway surface at each end of the runway 310a and 310b.)
PNG
media_image2.png
207
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wise by including a plurality of surveillance cells that include sections of the surface of the runway as is taught by Scarlatti with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Scarlatti ¶¶ 9 and 38 teach that this allows for identifying the direction of use for the runways, which can contribute to a system that provides improved flight planning with better estimations of real flight time and fuel needed, which in turn helps to reduce fuel consumption.
Regarding claim 11:
Wise discloses “The system according to claim 10,” and Wise also discloses the following limitations:
“the respective processor of the second surveillance module being configured to: determine whether any aircraft or vehicles are located in the first defined region based on the traffic information.” (Wise ¶ 18: “a collision avoidance system includes a sensor that is configured to detect at least one vehicle in the vicinity of a predetermined area and generate target data relating to the at least one vehicles.” Also, Wise ¶ 67: “Sensor 102 may include sensing apparatus within and/or proximate to system 100 to detect ‘targets,’ i.e., vehicles in the vicinity of a predetermined area, object or structure and then generate data relating to the targets. In one embodiment sensor 102 may include an Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) surveillance system to detect aircraft equipped with ADS-B capability.”)
“and determine a respective first prediction of a first occupancy state of the first defined region based on whether any aircraft or vehicles are located in the first defined region.” (Wise ¶ 67: “Sensor 102 is preferably configured to detect at least one target vehicle in a predetermined area and to generate target data relating to the target vehicle (or vehicles).”)
Wise does not explicitly disclose “wherein a first defined region of the plurality of defined regions of the aviation runway includes a surface of the aviation runway.” However, Scarlatti does teach this limitation. (Scarlatti FIG. 3 and ¶ 39 disclose a monitored section 304 that includes a surface of the runway.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wise by using a defined region that includes a surface of the runway as taught by Scarlatti with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Scarlatti ¶¶ 9 and 38 teach that this allows for identifying the direction of use for the runways, which can contribute to a system that provides improved flight planning with better estimations of real flight time and fuel needed, which in turn helps to reduce fuel consumption.
Regarding claim 13:
Wise discloses “The system according to claim 10,” and Wise also discloses the following limitations:
“the respective processor of the second surveillance module being configured to: determine whether any of aircraft are located in the second defined region based on the traffic information.” (Wise ¶ 18: “a collision avoidance system includes a sensor that is configured to detect at least one vehicle in the vicinity of a predetermined area and generate target data relating to the at least one vehicles.” Additionally, Wise ¶ 67: “Sensor 102 may include sensing apparatus within and/or proximate to system 100 to detect ‘targets,’ i.e., vehicles in the vicinity of a predetermined area, object or structure and then generate data relating to the targets. In one embodiment sensor 102 may include an Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) surveillance system to detect aircraft equipped with ADS-B capability.”)
“and determine a respective second prediction of a second occupancy state of the second defined region based on whether any of the aircraft or vehicles are located in the second defined region.” (Wise ¶ 67: “Sensor 102 is preferably configured to detect at least one target vehicle in a predetermined area and to generate target data relating to the target vehicle (or vehicles).”)
Wise does not specifically disclose “wherein a second defined region of the plurality of defined regions includes an approach of the aviation runway.” However, Scarlatti does teach this limitation. (Scarlatti ¶¶ 39-40 and FIG. 3 disclose defined surveillance cells 302 that each include an approach of the runway.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wise by including surveillance cells that include an approach of the runway as taught by Scarlatti with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Scarlatti ¶¶ 9 and 40 teach that this allows for identifying whether flights are taking off or landing, which can contribute to a system that provides improved flight planning with better estimations of real flight time and fuel needed, which in turn helps to reduce fuel consumption.
Claims 5-6, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wise as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Farhadmanesh et al. (the non-patent article “Automated Video-Based Air Traffic Surveillance System for Counting General Aviation Aircraft Operations at Non-Towered Airports”), hereinafter referred to as Farhadmanesh.
Regarding claim 5:
Wise discloses “The system according to claim 2,” but does not specifically disclose the limitations listed below. However, Farhadmanesh does teach these limitations:
“wherein a first surveillance module of the plurality of surveillance modules includes at least one camera.” (Farhadmanesh p. 255 second-to-last paragraph discloses “An air traffic surveillance system” with different potential layouts of cameras.)
“the respective processor of the first surveillance module being configured to: receive video of the aviation runway from the at least one camera.” (Farhadmanesh p. 251 second paragraph discloses “an automatic video-based air traffic surveillance system for GA aircraft, which account for the vast majority of air traffic at non-towered airports.”)
“and determine the at least one respective prediction of the at least one of the plurality of occupancy states based on the video.” (Farhadmanesh p. 257 second paragraph and FIG. 4 shown below disclose a “general computer vision framework designed for operations count and classification” in which the video feed is used for “object (aircraft) detection).)
PNG
media_image3.png
454
1156
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wise by using video cameras for object detection as taught by Farhadmanesh with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Farhadmanesh p. 251 first bullet point teaches that with this modification, “The proposed system is low-cost and achieves 95% accuracy, thereby outperforming the non-visual methods, such as acoustic-based and ADS-B-based.”
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Wise and Farhadmanesh teaches “The system according to claim 5,” and Wise also teaches to “determine whether the detected objects are located in the first defined region; and determine a respective first prediction of a first occupancy state of the first defined region based on whether any objects are located in the first defined region.” (Wise ¶ 67: “Sensor 102 is preferably configured to detect at least one target vehicle in a predetermined area and to generate target data relating to the target vehicle (or vehicles).”)
The following limitations are not specifically disclosed by Wise, but they are taught by Farhadmanesh:
“wherein the at least one camera includes a first camera arranged to capture first video of a surface of the aviation runway.” (Farhadmanesh p. 255 third paragraph discloses that a surface movement guidance system “fuses visual information, radar, and flight plan data in its central data server to fill radar blind spots, helping traffic controllers track aircraft movements on the airfield surface (20). The radar and camera sensors work interchangeably to fill the gaps of individual technologies.”)
“a first defined region of the plurality of defined regions including the surface of the aviation runway.” (Farhadmanesh p. 256 FIG. 3 reproduced below illustrates that the cameras can be positioned to view different portions of the surface of the runway.)
PNG
media_image4.png
413
964
media_image4.png
Greyscale
“the respective processor of the first surveillance module being configured to: detect objects in the first video using an object recognition model.” (Farhadmanesh p. 257 second paragraph discloses that based on the video feed input, “A Gaussian mixture model, which is an adaptive background extraction algorithm, detected any possible motions, including airport ground vehicles, personnel, nearby traffic, construction equipment, animals (e.g., birds), and aircraft (45). The developed aircraft detection module distinguished aircraft movements from other motions using object (aircraft) detection.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wise by using video cameras for object detection as taught by Farhadmanesh with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Farhadmanesh p. 251 first bullet point teaches that with this modification, “The proposed system is low-cost and achieves 95% accuracy, thereby outperforming the non-visual methods, such as acoustic-based and ADS-B-based.”
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Wise and Farhadmanesh teaches “The system according to claim 5,” and Farhadmanesh also teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the at least one camera includes a second camera arranged to capture second video of an approach of the aviation runway.” (Farhadmanesh p. 256 third paragraph: “For two adjacent runways the cameras should be oriented toward their associated individual runway. This camera can also assist an approach-to-runway clearance system at the runway ends.”)
“a second defined region of the plurality of defined regions including the approach of the aviation runway.” (Farhadmanesh p. 256 FIG. 3 illustrates that the cameras can be positioned to view an approach area of the runway to identify landings. Further, Farhadmanesh p. 261 fourth-fifth paragraphs teach that the system can distinguish departures, arrivals, and landing operations from one another.)
“the respective processor of the first surveillance module being configured to: detect objects in the second video using an object recognition model.” (Farhadmanesh p. 257 second paragraph discloses that based on the video feed input, “A Gaussian mixture model, which is an adaptive background extraction algorithm, detected any possible motions, including airport ground vehicles, personnel, nearby traffic, construction equipment, animals (e.g., birds), and aircraft (45). The developed aircraft detection module distinguished aircraft movements from other motions using object (aircraft) detection.”)
“determine whether the detected objects are located in the second defined region.” (Farhadmanesh p. 261 fourth-fifth paragraphs teach that the system can distinguish departures, arrivals, and landing operations from one another by identifying objects in the fields of view of the cameras.)
“determine directions of travel of the detected objects in the second defined region; and determine a respective second prediction of a second occupancy state of the second defined region based on the directions of travel of any objects that are located in the second defined region.” (Farhadmanesh p. 261 fourth paragraph: “In MET cameras, the horizontal trajectory direction,
PNG
media_image5.png
41
192
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, can distinguish departures from arrivals, since, at these operations, the aircraft is taxiing either to the runway or from the runway.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wise by using an array of video cameras to facilitate object detection in multiple areas of an airport as taught by Farhadmanesh with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Farhadmanesh p. 251 first-second bullet points teach that with this modification, a “trade-off between the accuracy and number of cameras” can be assessed, which can ultimately provide a system that has low cost, high accuracy, and outperforms alternative non-visual methods.
Regarding claim 20:
Wise discloses “The system according to claim 1,” but does not explicitly disclose that “at least one of the plurality of surveillance modules is further configured to at least one of: count a number of aircraft landing on the aviation runway; and count a number of aircraft taking off from the aviation runway.” However, Farhadmanesh does teach this limitation. (Farhadmanesh p. 251 first bullet point discloses “an automated vision-based system to count GA aircraft operations at non-towered airports.” Further, Farhadmanesh p. 250 first paragraph: “Concerning the airport operations counts, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) classifies them into departures and landings (landings include arrivals and touch-and-goes).” Additionally, Farhadmanesh p. 270 Table 15 and FIG. 14 demonstrate that the system can be used for a single runway or at an airport with multiple runways.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 20, consistent with the specification, “at least one of the plurality of surveillance modules [being] further configured to at least one of: count a number of aircraft landing on the aviation runway; and count a number of aircraft taking off from the aviation runway” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Even though both options have been shown to be taught by the prior art, only one of the two options is required by the claim.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wise by configuring the surveillance modules to count a number of aircraft landing on a runway and a number of aircraft departing from the runway as taught by Farhadmanesh with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Farhadmanesh p. 250 first paragraph discloses that “the operations counts facilitate quantitative analyses that are used to prepare airport master plans, develop aviation system plans, and inform different policies.”
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wise in view of Farhadmanesh as applied to claims 6 and 8 above, and further in view of Chenna et al. (US 2016/0260335 A1), hereinafter referred to as Chenna.
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Wise and Farhadmanesh teaches “The system according to claim 6,” but does not specifically teach “the respective processor of the first surveillance module being configured to: determine whether any of the detected objects located in the first defined region are traveling along the aviation runway; and determine a respective further prediction of a further occupancy state of a further defined region in the plurality of defined regions based on whether any of the detected objects located in the first defined region are traveling along the aviation runway.” However, Chenna does teach these limitations. (Chenna ¶ 23: “the runway status data can be relatively comprehensive information describing vector data for all air traffic operating on the runway surface, along with runway and taxiway occupancy. … controller 40 may utilize the data gathered at STEPS 62, 64, and 66 to project the A/C position at a predefined future point and determine whether the future A/C position will coincide with any runway incursion zones or areas in which a collision could potentially occur with another A/C or ground vehicle.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Wise and Farhadmanesh by predicting whether an aircraft will go into a runway incursion zone based on a current position data of the aircraft as taught by Chenna with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Chenna ¶¶ 4 and 23 teach that this can be used to predict and avoid potential collisions.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Wise and Farhadmanesh teaches “The system according to claim 8,” and Farhadmanesh also teaches “the respective processor of the first surveillance module being configured to: determine whether any of the detected objects located in the second defined region are descending toward the aviation runway.” (Farhadmanesh second-to-last paragraph on p. 261: “as illustrated in the System Layout section, the EET cameras capture three types of activity (i.e., departure, arrival, and landing operations).”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wise by identifying whether an aircraft is landing as taught by Farhadmanesh with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Farhadmanesh p. 251 third paragraph teaches that this contributes to a system that “can be used to signalize flight clearance for pilots approaching the airport aerodrome and thereby reduce runway incursion risk, which is a major safety concern.”
The combination of Wise and Farhadmanesh does not specifically teach to “determine a respective further prediction of a further occupancy state of a further defined region in the plurality of defined regions based on whether any of the detected objects located in the second defined region are descending toward the aviation runway.” However, Chenna does teach this limitation. (Chenna ¶ 32: “augmented autobrake system 20 (FIG. 2) may also generate in-flight alerts in instances wherein it is determined that a runway at which the ownship A/C is scheduled to land in the near future is subject to or at risk of a runway incursion. Consider, for example, a first scenario wherein the ownship A/C is scheduled to land at a first runway, which crosses a second runway at which another aircraft is scheduled to land at approximately the same time. In this case, data from RWSL system 22 (FIG. 2), such as data indicating that RILs 31 located at the juncture of the crossing runways are currently illuminated, can be utilized to determine the potential runway incursion.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of combination of Wise and Farhadmanesh by predicting that a descending aircraft will go into a runway incursion zone based on the current position data of the aircraft as taught by Chenna with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Chenna ¶¶ 4 and 33 teach that this can be used to predict and avoid potential collisions.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wise in view of Scarlatti as applied to claims 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Chenna et al. (US 2016/0260335 A1), hereinafter referred to as Chenna.
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Wise and Scarlatti teaches “The system according to claim 11,” but does not specifically teach “the respective processor of the second surveillance module being configured to: determine whether any of the aircraft or vehicles located in the first defined region are traveling along the aviation runway; and determine a respective further prediction of a further occupancy state of a further defined region in the plurality of defined regions based on whether any of the aircraft or vehicles located in the first defined region are traveling along the aviation runway.” However, Chenna does teach these limitations. (Chenna ¶ 23: “the runway status data can be relatively comprehensive information describing vector data for all air traffic operating on the runway surface, along with runway and taxiway occupancy. … controller 40 may utilize the data gathered at STEPS 62, 64, and 66 to project the A/C position at a predefined future point and determine whether the future A/C position will coincide with any runway incursion zones or areas in which a collision could potentially occur with another A/C or ground vehicle.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Wise and Scarlatti by predicting whether an aircraft will go into a runway incursion zone based on the current position data of the aircraft as taught by Chenna with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Chenna ¶¶ 4 and 23 teach that this can be used to predict and avoid potential collisions.
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Wise and Scarlatti teaches “The system according to claim 13,” and Scarlatti additionally teaches “the respective processor of the second surveillance module being configured to: determine whether any of the aircraft located in the second defined region are descending toward the aviation runway.” (Scarlatti ¶ 38 and FIG. 3: “This basic mesh may capture the different slopes of aircraft landing and take-off, making it possible to differentiate the direction in use of the runway.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wise by using surveillance cells that can help to identify when an aircraft is descending toward the runway as taught by Scarlatti with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Scarlatti ¶¶ 9 and 40 teach that this allows for identifying whether flights are taking off or landing, which can contribute to a system that provides improved flight planning with better estimations of real flight time and fuel needed, which in turn helps to reduce fuel consumption.
The combination of Wise and Scarlatti does not explicitly teach to “determine a respective further prediction of a further occupancy state of a further defined region in the plurality of defined regions based on whether any of the aircraft located in the second defined region are descending toward the aviation runway.” However, Chenna does teach this limitation. (Chenna ¶ 32: “augmented autobrake system 20 (FIG. 2) may also generate in-flight alerts in instances wherein it is determined that a runway at which the ownship A/C is scheduled to land in the near future is subject to or at risk of a runway incursion. Consider, for example, a first scenario wherein the ownship A/C is scheduled to land at a first runway, which crosses a second runway at which another aircraft is scheduled to land at approximately the same time. In this case, data from RWSL system 22 (FIG. 2), such as data indicating that RILs 31 located at the juncture of the crossing runways are currently illuminated, can be utilized to determine the potential runway incursion.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system disclosed by the combination of Wise and Scarlatti by predicting that a descending aircraft will go into a runway incursion zone based on the current position data of the aircraft as taught by Chenna with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Chenna ¶¶ 4 and 33 teach that this can be used to predict and avoid potential collisions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Myr (US 2018/0218615 A1) Abstract discloses a “Special Takeoffs Traffic Lights System” in which “Traffic Lights will be installed on the runway to increase the landing/takeoff safety, such traffic lights will have changing green/red colors on vacancy/occupancy of the specific runway.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662