DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This NON-FINAL communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-8, 10-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers (US 20200067866) in view of Surace (US 11079489).
Regarding Claims 1, 12, Landers teaches the following limitations:
A weather radar system comprising: (Landers – [Abstract] Avionics systems, aircraft, and methods are provided. An avionics system for a subject aircraft includes an intruder aircraft detection device and a processor. The processor is programmed to: identify an intruder aircraft using the intruder aircraft detection device; predict a future path of the intruder aircraft; estimate strength, size, and location characteristics of a wake vortex created by the intruder aircraft at future points in time along the future path; calculate a potential trajectory with potential positions of the subject aircraft at each of the future points in time; compare the potential positions with the strength, size, and location characteristics of the wake vortex at each of the future points in time to identify a wake conflict; and maneuver the subject aircraft based on the wake conflict. [0028] In some embodiments, aircraft detection system 112 includes LIDAR, RADAR, optical cameras, thermal cameras, ultrasonic sensors, and/or other sensors and other systems configured to detect intruder aircraft 210 even when intruder aircraft 210 is not generating an ADS-B or TCAS signal. Landers does not explicitly teach “weather radar”.)
(Claim 12) A method comprising: (Landers – [Abstract])
processing circuitry configured to: (Landers – [Abstract])
detect an aircraft based on the radar return signal; in response to detecting the aircraft, determine, based on a strength of the radar return signal, a size of the aircraft; and (Landers – [0028], [0025] Data structure 120a includes all of the information needed to determine a size and position of wake vortex 212 at various points in time. In the example provided, data structure 120a stores a time value 132, an aircraft type or weight and wingspan 119, a position of intruder aircraft 210, and a velocity of intruder aircraft 210.)
predict, based on the size of the aircraft, a wake vortex of the aircraft including a predicted position of the predicted wake vortex. (Landers – [Abstract], [0025])
Landers does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Surace, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
weather radar (Surace – [Abstract] a radar system is configured to mount on an ownship vehicle for interleaving a weather detection mode and an object detection mode. The radar system comprises a phased-array radar device configured to receive weather signals in the weather detection mode, receive sensing signals in the object detection mode, and interleave the weather detection mode and the object detection mode.)
one or more antennae configured to transmit a radar signal and receive a radar return signal; and (Surace – [col. 1 line 11-13] A phased-array radar device may include an antenna array, where each antenna is configured to transmit or receive electromagnetic signals.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the aircraft detection system of Landers with the antenna array of Surace in order to interleave the weather detection mode and the object detection mode (Surace – [Abstract]).
Regarding Claims 2, 13, Landers further teaches:
wherein the radar return signal is a first radar return signal, (Landers – [0028])
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: track, via the weather radar system, the aircraft; (Landers – [Abstract], [0025], [0028], [0035] The cooperative avoidance communication system may utilize Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), Aircraft Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), or other systems that provide intruder aircraft position. In some embodiments, the information obtained includes type, speed, and track of intruder aircraft 210. Landers does not explicitly teach “weather radar”.)
update, based on second radar return signal, the predicted position of the predicted wake vortex. (Landers – [Abstract], [0025])
Landers does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Surace, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
weather radar (Surace – [Abstract])
receive a second radar return signal; and (Surace – [Abstract])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the aircraft detection system of Landers with the interleaved weather and object detection mode of Surace in order to prevent collisions (Surace – [col. 3 line 11]).
Regarding Claim 3-4, 14, Landers further teaches:
wherein the aircraft is a first aircraft, wherein the weather radar system is located on a second aircraft, (Landers – [Abstract], [0025] Landers does not explicitly teach “weather radar”.)
wherein predicting the wake vortex of the first aircraft occurs while the second aircraft is in a flight phase. (Landers – [Abstract], [0025])
Landers does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Surace, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
weather radar (Surace – [Abstract])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the aircraft detection system of Landers with the interleaved weather and object detection mode of Surace in order to prevent collisions (Surace – [col. 3 line 11]).
Regarding Claims 5, 15, Landers does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Surace, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the one or more antennae is configured to transmit the radar signal and (Surace – [col. 1 line 11-13])
receive the radar return signal with at least a 160-degree field of regard relative to a forward direction of the second aircraft. (Surace – [col. 14 line 31-33] radar system 110 may allow a total azimuth scan area of between about 220° and about 228° in some examples.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the aircraft detection system of Landers with the azimuth scan area of Surace in order to prevent collisions (Surace – [col. 3 line 11]).
Regarding Claims 6, 16, Landers further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine, based on the radar return signal, a range and a speed of the aircraft, (Landers – [Abstract], [0025], [0028], [0035])
wherein predicting the wake vortex of the aircraft and the predicted position of the predicted wake vortex is further based on the range and the speed of the aircraft. (Landers – [Abstract], [0025], [0028], [0035])
Regarding Claims 7, 17, Landers further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive a wind signal indicative of wind speed and direction proximate the aircraft; and update, based on the wind signal, the predicted position of the predicted wake vortex. (Landers – [0042] processor 110 may move each of wake vortex portions 342, 344, and 346 by an amount corresponding to a measured wind vector. The wind vector may be obtained by sensors onboard subject aircraft 100, obtained by weather data retrieved from weather services, or obtained by other suitable methods.)
Regarding Claim 8, Landers further teaches:
wherein the radar signal comprises a weather detection radar signal, wherein the one or more antennae is configured to transmit a vortex detection radar signal, (Landers – [Abstract], [0028])
wherein the radar return signal comprises a reflected or a scattered vortex detection radar signal. (Landers – [Abstract], [0025], [0028], [0035])
Landers does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Surace, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the one or more antennae to change from transmitting the weather detection radar signal to transmitting a vortex detection radar signal, (Surace – [Abstract])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the aircraft detection system of Landers with the radar modes of Surace in order to operate in both modes simultaneously (Surace – [col. 3 line 36-43]).
Regarding Claim 10, Landers further teaches:
wherein the aircraft is a first aircraft, wherein the weather radar and processing circuitry are located on a second aircraft, (Landers – [Abstract], [0025])
Landers does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Surace, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
weather radar (Surace – [Abstract])
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the one or more antennae to change from transmitting the weather detection radar signal to transmitting the vortex detection radar signal while the second aircraft has an altitude of less than or equal to 2,000 feet. (Surace – [col. 11 line 47-52] Phased-array radar device 10 may include a wind shear mode for altitudes below two thousand feet in weather detection mode 12. At altitudes of more than two thousand feet above the ground surface, phased-array radar device 10 may be configured to detect reflectivity in weather detection mode 12.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the aircraft detection system of Landers with the windshear mode of Surace in order to detect windshear near the ground (Surace – [col. 8 line 1-2]).
Regarding Claim 11, Landers further teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to output the predicted wake vortex and the predicted position of the wake vortex to a weather radar display. (Landers – [Abstract], [0025], [0035])
Regarding Claim 18, Landers further teaches:
wherein the radar signal comprises a weather detection radar signal, the method further comprising: (Landers – [Abstract], [0025] Landers does not explicitly teach “weather radar”.)
causing, by the processing circuitry, the one or more antenna to change from transmitting the weather detection radar signal to transmitting a vortex detection radar signal, (Landers – [Abstract], [0025] Landers does not explicitly teach “one or more antenna to change transmitting detection radar signals”.)
wherein the radar return signal comprises a reflected or a scattered vortex detection radar signal; and (Landers – [Abstract], [0025])
outputting, by the processing circuitry, the predicted wake vortex and the predicted position of the wake vortex to a weather radar display. (Landers – [Abstract], [0025], [0035])
Landers does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Surace, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
weather radar (Surace – [Abstract])
one or more antenna to change transmitting detection radar signals (Surace – [Abstract], [col. 1 line 11-13]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the aircraft detection system of Landers with the interleaved weather and object detection mode of Surace in order to prevent collisions (Surace – [col. 3 line 11]).
Regarding Claim 20, Landers teaches the following limitations:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for causing one or more processors to: (Landers – [Abstract], [0025])
detect an aircraft based on a radar return signal received by a weather radar system; in response to detecting the aircraft, determine, based on a strength of the radar return signal, a size of the aircraft; (Landers – [0025], [0028] Landers does not explicitly teach “weather radar”.)
predict, based on the size of the aircraft, a wake vortex of the aircraft including a predicted position of the predicted wake vortex; and (Landers – [Abstract], [0025])
output the predicted wake vortex and the predicted position of the wake vortex to a weather radar display. (Landers – [Abstract], [0025], [0035])
Claims 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers (US 20200067866) in view of Surace (US 11079489), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Staggs (US 20020089432), and further in view of Woodell (US 7372394).
Regarding Claims 9, 19, Landers further teaches:
wherein the vortex detection radar signal comprises at least one of a predictive windshear system (PWS) waveform, (Landers – [Abstract], [0025] Landers does not explicitly teach “predictive windshear system (PWS) waveform”.)
Landers does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Staggs, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
predictive windshear system (PWS) waveform (Staggs - [0081] Detailed wake vortex information pertaining to aircraft nearby the host aircraft may be available using either radar or LIDAR, or another suitable information source. For example, current predictive windshear radar implementations successfully measure the location, i.e., angle and distance, of turbulence or other disturbances in the atmosphere relative to the host aircraft. Accordingly, location and/or intensity of wake vortices of nearby aircraft are measured directly and, based on the measurement information, visual simulations of the measured wake vortices are provided.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the aircraft detection system of Landers with the predictive windshear radar implementations of Staggs in order to provide wake vortices measurements (Staggs – [0081]).
Landers does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Woodell, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
a high range resolution waveform, a direct short pulse waveform, a pulse compression waveform or a stepped frequency waveform. (Woodell - [col. 2 line 8-14] The processor uses the high resolution data to perform high resolution radar analysis. The high resolution analysis may be sued to identify and separate out point or point-like non-weather target returns from weather returns. The edited high resolution data can then be integrated in range to produce weather data at any of several selected loop gain/resolution combinations.)(Woodell - [col. 10 line 50-62] (60) Compressed waveform generator 104 preferably provides transmitter pulses for weather radar operation. The transmitter pulses are preferably compressed pulses (e.g. short pulses or compressed long pulses). High resolution compressed waveforms can be generated by generator 104 using linear frequency modulation, non-linear frequency modulation, stepped frequency modulation, or phase encoding (binary, polyphase, etc.). In one embodiment, high resolution compressed pulses are utilized as opposed to using conventional long pulses where bandwidth and time are directly related. High resolution compressed pulses are used so that radar returns can be resolved into finer range increments.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the aircraft detection system of Landers with the compressed waveform generator of Woodell in order to produce weather data at any of several selected loop gain/resolution combinations (Woodell – [col. 2 line 8-14]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Cotton (US 20080030375) teaches receiving from a sensor real time wake vortex data in a path of the first aircraft; comparing the real time wake vortex data to the position prediction to validate the position prediction and to formulate a determination of whether the wake vortex is present in the critical safety volume.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON JAMES HENSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/BRANDON JAMES HENSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights