DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on July 17, 2024. Claims 1-15 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al., CN 104590573-A (see English translation) in view of Perry et al., US 2013/0238214 A1.
As to claim 1, Shen teaches an aircraft ground anti-collision system, comprising (abstract and ¶ 80):
a plurality of sensors, comprising an on-board sensor located on an aircraft (¶ 43 and Fig. 1; e.g. infrared sensor, radar); and
an obstacle detection processing unit, configured to: process data received from the plurality of sensors to detect an object around the aircraft, and fuse sensing ranges of the plurality of sensors and unify information about the object detected by the plurality of sensors in a same coordinate system, to generate a view-angle fused view indicating the object (¶ 86, 100).
Shen does not specifically teach that some of the plurality of the sensors are off-board sensor located outside the aircraft. Furthermore, Shen does not specifically teach processing data received from the plurality of the sensors to detect an object around a trailer for towing the aircraft. However, Perry teaches these aspects (¶ 59, 68, 98 and Fig. 1A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Shen’s teachings to include the features taught by Perry in order to better detect and avoid the obstacles around the aircraft.
As to claim 2, Shen teaches wherein the view-angle fused view comprises an aerial view and/or a three-dimensional rendering view (¶ 4, 12, 68, 80, 100).
As to claim 3, Shen in view of Perry further teaches wherein the on-board sensor comprises a distance sensor and/or a vision sensor mounted on the aircraft, and the off- board sensor comprises a distance sensor and/or a vision sensor mounted on the trailer (Shen: ¶ 43 86, 100; Perry: ¶ 98; see claim 1 above for obviousness to combined the two references).
As to claim 4, Shen in view of Perry further teaches wherein at least one sensor mounted on the trailer is configured to be lifted and lowered relative to the trailer (Perry: ¶ 98 and Fig. 1A; e.g. sensor 124 can be tilted; see claim 1 above for obviousness to combined the two references).
As to claim 6, Shen teaches wherein the obstacle detection processing unit is configured to perform a risk assessment based on the data received from the plurality of sensors and output alarm information in response to detection of an unsafe event, wherein the alarm information comprises at least one of a visual alarm, an auditory alarm, or a tactile alarm (¶ 45, 88-89).
As to claim 7, Shen teaches wherein the obstacle detection processing unit is configured to output the alarm information in response to detection of overspeed and/or presence of a person or an obstacle in a predetermined danger area (¶ 45, 88-89; e.g. output the alarm information when the distance between the obstacle and the aircraft reaches the preset threshold value).
As to claim 8, Shen in view of Perry teaches further comprising: a plurality of user interfaces, configured to communicate with the obstacle detection processing unit and communicate with each other to synchronously share information among a plurality of operators (Perry: ¶ 124, 131, 144-145 and Figs. 4A-4E; e.g. tug driver, pilot and airport command work together for safely maneuvering the aircraft; see claim 1 above for obviousness to combined the two references).
As to claim 9, Shen teaches wherein the plurality of user interfaces are configured to receive and display the view-angle fused view generated by the obstacle detection processing unit (¶ 86, 100).
As to claim 10, Shen teaches wherein the plurality of user interfaces are configured to transmit the alarm information outputted by the obstacle detection processing unit to an operator (¶ 88-89).
As to claim 11, Shen teaches wherein each of the plurality of user interfaces is configured to send an encoded instruction to the obstacle detection processing unit and/or the remaining of the plurality of user interfaces (¶ 42-43 and Figs. 1, 6).
As to claim 12, Shen teaches wherein the plurality of user interfaces comprise a head-up display and/or a head-mounted display device (¶ 11 and Figs. 1, 6).
Claims 13-15 are rejected based on the same rationale as used for claims 1-2 and 6 above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al., CN 104590573-A (see English translation) in view of Perry et al., US 2013/0238214 A1, and in further view of Official Notice.
As to claim 5, Shen in view of Perry teaches an aircraft ground anti-collision system comprising on-board sensor and off-board sensor as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Shen in view of Perry does not specifically teach the off-board sensor comprises a wearable sensor configured to be worn or held by an operator, wherein the operator comprises a wing protector located behind a wing of the aircraft during ground movement of the aircraft. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to have an operator to wear or hold a sensor, and for the operate to stand behind a wing of the aircraft during ground movement to better direct the aircraft’s maneuvering and avoid collision.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Cheung whose telephone number is (571) 272-6705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Christian Chace, can be reached on (571) 272-4190.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceedings is assigned are as follows:
(571) 273-8300 (Official Communications; including After Final Communications labeled “BOX AF”)
(571) 273-6705 (Draft Communications)
/MARY CHEUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 January 23, 2026