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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
P = paragraph, e.g. p5 = paragraph 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servantie et al. USPAP 2015/0073696, and further in view of McDonnell USPAP 2002/0190162.
As per claims 1, 8 and 14, Servantie discloses a computer apparatus/method/ system comprising:
at least one processor in data communication with a memory storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to: continuously receive altitude data corresponding to a present altitude of an aircraft including the computer apparatus; receive sensor data from one or more onboard aircraft sensors; detect, based on the sensor data, a transition of the aircraft into a cloud and a transition of the aircraft out of the cloud; determine that the aircraft is proximal to a cloud top based on detection of the transition of the aircraft out of the cloud (p’s 35, 13, fig’s 1, 4); P35 of Servante shown below, discloses the aircraft being above, among or below the cloud and can maneuver into and out of the cloud:
[0035] In a second selection mode, the computer determines the thickness of the cloud layer on the basis of meteorological data. This cloud layer has a minimum altitude BN which can correspond to the surface of the terrain and a maximum altitude HN. The aircraft can be below the cloud layer. In this case, the selected terrain is situated above the minimum altitude BN. The aircraft can be in the cloud layer. In this case, the whole of the terrain is selected. The aircraft can be above the cloud layer. In the latter case, the selected terrain is below a maximum altitude HN.
record a first altitude and a first location corresponding to the cloud top and a current altitude and current location of the aircraft; determine that the aircraft is proximal to a cloud base based on detection of the transition of the aircraft into the cloud; and
record a second altitude and a second location corresponding to the cloud ceiling and a current altitude and current location of the aircraft (p’s 38, 35; ab; fig’s 3, 1). P13 of Servante discloses:
[0013] Advantageously, the assistance system comprises a meteorological database comprising at least the altitudes of the bottom and of the top of the cloud layer, if it exists, above the terrain perceptible through the display system, the conformal cartographic representation being calculated for the hidden part of the terrain situated between the bottom and the top of the cloud layer.
Figure 4 of Servantie discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
417
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Servantie discloses all the limitations of the invention, however, arguendo, if Servantie is or might be interpreted such that it might not explicitly disclose sensors on an aircraft, and/or the aircraft transitioning/maneuvering into and out of a cloud, then McDonnell discloses sensors on an aircraft, and/or the aircraft transitioning/ maneuvering into and out of a cloud (p’s 41, 42, 44, 47, 48, 28; ab; p’s 6-14; fig’s 1, 5, 6, 2). If this interpretation is taken, then it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Servantie to include sensors on an aircraft, and/or the aircraft transitioning/maneuvering into and out of a cloud such as that taught by McDonnell in order to use the forward looking sensor 49 on sensor pod 34 as shown in FIG. 2. If the image from this sensor 49 is obscured by the cloud then the UAV operator knows that the sensor pod 34 is in the clouds and the pod 34 needs to be lowered as described before such as by the aircraft descending, the winch cable reeling out further, the aircraft slowing down or flying zig-zag patterns such as shown in FIG. 5 and 6, or reducing the lift or creating greater negative lift on the sensor pod 34 wings, if any are used, in order to get the sensor pod 34 below the clouds. If the sensor pod is already below the clouds then the forward looking sensor 49 can detect the bottom of the clouds as they approach so that the altitude can be adjusted in anticipation to keep the sensor pod 34 below the clouds. Without a forward looking sensor and without the targeting sensors 42 pointed forward it is more difficult to anticipate changes in the height of the cloud layer however whenever the image from the targeting sensors 42 gets obscured by the clouds the operator knows that the sensor pod 34 needs to descent. It will be understood that there are other possible systems to detect the bottom of the cloud layer such as a dew point detector on the tow line 30, laser reflection off the clouds, etc. (McDonnel, p41).
McDonnel discloses via figure 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
717
625
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As per claims 2, 9 and 15, Servantie discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive a satellite image of a cloud corresponding to the cloud top and the cloud base; and correlate the first altitude, first location, second altitude, and second location to the satellite image (p’s 13, 35, 38, claim 4, fig’s 1, 3 and 4) as per the discussion above and the rejection of corresponding parts of the claims above incorporated herein and further, Servantie discloses via p13:
[0013] Advantageously, the assistance system comprises a meteorological database comprising at least the altitudes of the bottom and of the top of the cloud layer, if it exists, above the terrain perceptible through the display system, the conformal cartographic representation being calculated for the hidden part of the terrain situated between the bottom and the top of the cloud layer.
As per claims 3, 10 and 16, Servantie discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive a third altitude and a third location corresponding to the satellite image; and produce a cloud map based on the satellite image, first altitude, first location, second altitude, second location, third altitude, and third location (p’s 13, 38; fig’s 1 and 4; claim 4; p 35; fig’s 3 and 2) as per the discussion above and the rejection of corresponding parts of the claims above incorporated herein and further, Servantie discloses via figure 2:
PNG
media_image3.png
472
575
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As per claims 4, 11 and 17, Servantie discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine a cloud type based on the satellite image, first altitude, first location, second altitude, and second location (fig’s 1 and 4; claim 4; p 35; fig’s 3 and 2; p’s 13, 38) as per the discussion above and the rejection of corresponding parts of the claims above incorporated herein and further, Servantie discloses via p35:
[0035] In a second selection mode, the computer determines the thickness of the cloud layer on the basis of meteorological data. This cloud layer has a minimum altitude BN which can correspond to the surface of the terrain and a maximum altitude HN. The aircraft can be below the cloud layer. In this case, the selected terrain is situated above the minimum altitude BN. The aircraft can be in the cloud layer. In this case, the whole of the terrain is selected. The aircraft can be above the cloud layer. In the latter case, the selected terrain is below a maximum altitude HN.
As per claims 5, 11 and 18, Servantie discloses the at least one processor is further configured to receive one or more image streams from one or more onboard image sensors; and determining that the aircraft is proximal to the cloud top and proximal to the cloud ceiling is with respect to the one or more image streams (claim 4; p 35; fig’s 3 and 2; p’s 13, 38; fig’s 1 and 4) as per the discussion above and the rejection of corresponding parts of the claims above incorporated herein and further, Servantie discloses via figure 4:
PNG
media_image1.png
417
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 6, Servantie discloses wherein the one or more onboard image sensors comprise cameras in a taxi-aid video monitoring system (p 2, 35; fig’s 3 and 2; p’s 13, 38; fig’s 1 and 4; claim 4) as per the discussion above and the rejection of corresponding parts of the claims above incorporated herein and further, Servantie discloses via p2:
[0002] A cartographic representation system is shown in FIG. 1. This system comprises a database B.sub.D of data representing the terrain flown over, means S.sub.N making it possible to determine the position and the orientation of the optical system displaying the cartographic image, an image generator CE and the optical projection system D. The image generator CE provides three main functions which are: the calculation of the point of view, the selection of the area of terrain to be displayed and the calculation of the image to be displayed as a function of the point of view.
As per claims 7, 13 and 19, Servantie discloses the at least one processor is further configured to receive one or more image streams from one or more mobile cellular devices; and determining that the aircraft is proximal to the cloud top and proximal to the cloud ceiling is with respect to the one or more image streams (p 2; fig’s 3 and 2; p’s 13, 38; fig’s 1 and 4; claim 4; p 35) as per the discussion above and the rejection of corresponding parts of the claims above incorporated herein and further, Servantie discloses via p2:
[0002] A cartographic representation system is shown in FIG. 1. This system comprises a database B.sub.D of data representing the terrain flown over, means S.sub.N making it possible to determine the position and the orientation of the optical system displaying the cartographic image, an image generator CE and the optical projection system D. The image generator CE provides three main functions which are: the calculation of the point of view, the selection of the area of terrain to be displayed and the calculation of the image to be displayed as a function of the point of view.
As per claim 20, Servantie discloses the at least one processor is further configured to: establish a datalink with at least one ground station via the at least one data link element; and transmit the first altitude, first location, second altitude, and second location to the ground station; and the at least one ground station is configured to utilize the first altitude, first location, second altitude, and second location in weather aggregation (fig’s 3 and 2; p’s 13, 38; fig’s 1 and 4; claim 4; p 35) as per the discussion above and the rejection of corresponding parts of the claims above incorporated herein and further, Servantie discloses via figure 3:
PNG
media_image4.png
586
612
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spirkovska (U.S. patent 7,129,857) discloses automatically displaying, visually and/or audibly and/or by an audible alarm signal, relevant weather data for an identified aircraft pilot, when each of a selected subset of measured or estimated aviation situation parameters, corresponding to a given aviation situation, has a value lying in a selected range. Each range for a particular pilot may be a default range, may be entered by the pilot and/or may be automatically determined from experience and may be subsequently edited by the pilot to change a range and to add or delete parameters describing a situation for which a display should be provided. The pilot can also verbally activate an audible display or visual display of selected information by verbal entry of a first command or a second command, respectively, that specifies the information required.
Robinson (U.S. patent application publication 2010/0252648) discloses a
climate processor having virtual estuaries which enable large strips of land to act like real water estuaries thereby providing a means of climate control overhead. Said estuaries are also used to prevent polar isotherm migration, melting ice shelves, vortical storm formation and migration from lateral coastal airflow. Said estuaries are formed between two parallel-laid thermal belts formed from artificial surface whitening and jet contrails. The surface whitening can be laid down as a foam or gel and deployed overhead as a high level aviation propellant. The belts may be applied daily and dissipate as the day progresses and subsequently warms. Commercial aircraft flights may be readjusted based on the placement of the artificial estuaries. Also claimed are an aerial deployment system for the foam, a high-level aviation propellant system, a carbon trading system for commercial airlines, a "Russian Doll" gas mixing device and a range of suitable foams.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHRANG BADII whose telephone number is 571-272-6879. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop Amendment
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to (571)273-8300
Hand delivered responses should be brought to
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 3600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-3600.
/Behrang Badii/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights