Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 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 Objections
The claims as amended overcome the claim objections of record, and the claim objections are withdrawn.
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 US20230027342 by Kojima et al. (hereinafter “Kojima”), further in view of DE202017106907U1 by Optonaval (hereinafter referred to as “Optonaval”), and further in view of US20190187724 by Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Kojima teaches An autonomous landing system for landing a vertical landing aircraft on an offshore landing platform, comprising: see for example paragraph [0027], where the system is for automatic landing system of a vertical take-off and landing helicopter or drone, and paragraph [0030] describing the marine vessel to be landed on.
a vertical landing aircraft comprising a powertrain and an onboard camera; see again paragraph [0027] describing the aircraft, and paragraph [0032] describing the camera used to obtain landing pad images.
a visual cue coupled to the offshore landing platform and comprising a visual indicator see paragraphs [0028]-[0029] and Figures 2 and 3, where the landing point has a landing target for indicating where to land to the aircraft.
and an autonomous control system configured to: shift to an approach tracking paradigm of the autonomous control system
control by the approach tracking paradigm a position of the aircraft with respect to the visual indicator to maneuver the aircraft into a hovering, predefined landing position above the offshore landing platform; see for example paragraphs [0047]-[0048], where the aircraft enters hovering mode at a predefined location above the landing pad.
shift from the approach tracking paradigm to a separate descent tracking paradigm of the autonomous control system in response to the aircraft entering the landing position; see again paragraphs [0047]-[0048], as well as Figure 4, where the aircraft shifts from approach mode, to (high or low) hovering mode, to descending in landing mode.
and control by the descent tracking paradigm of the autonomous control system the position of the aircraft with respect to the visual indicator to cause the aircraft to descend from the landing position and land on the offshore landing platform based on the image data. In addition to paragraphs [0047]-[0048], see also paragraph [0043], where the landing process is based on the camera image processing.
Kojima does not explicitly teach a visual cue coupled to the offshore landing platform and comprising a visual indicator located on a horizontally extending surface of the visual cue whereby the visual indicator extends vertically across a horizon and is maintained parallel with the horizon.
However, Optonaval teaches a visual cue coupled to the offshore landing platform and comprising a visual indicator located on a horizontally extending surface of the visual cue whereby the visual indicator extends vertically across a horizon and is maintained parallel with the horizon. See for example paragraphs [0010]-[0013] describing the horizon reference display used for guiding an unmanned helicopter onto a ship. See also for example Figure 6, where the horizon reference bar is offset and in front of the actual landing pad.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the landing system of Kojima with the horizon reference bar of Optonaval with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows UAVs to utilize the same sorts of autonomous landing systems that pilots in the past have used on ships, facilitating use of existing landing aids on a ship.
Kojima also does not explicitly teach an autonomous control system configured to: shift to an approach tracking paradigm of the autonomous control system in response to detecting the visual indicator in image data captured by the onboard camera. Instead, Kojima teaches shifting to image-based tracking once the GPS position of the aircraft is approximately zero with respect to the landing pad (as in paragraph [0052]), and only then does Kojima switch to image-based landing ([0053]-[0054]). Thus, Kojima does not switch to a vision-guided approach tracking paradigm…in response to detecting the visual indicator.
However, Li teaches a system including an autonomous control system configured to: shift to an approach tracking paradigm of the autonomous control system in response to detecting the visual indicator in image data captured by the onboard camera. Li teaches a system for a UAV to visually detect a landing marker even in GPS-denied environments, as in [0042]-[0043]. Li detects a marker visually, using camera, in e.g. paragraphs [0069]-[0075]. Then, based on detecting the marker and determining the UAV’s position relative to the marker, the UAV approaches the landing marker horizontally in paragraphs [0073] and [0077]-[0081].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the landing system of Kojima, modified by the horizon reference bar of Optonaval, with the marker detection and approach system of Li with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the UAV to navigate towards the ship even in GPS-denied environments.
Claim 15 has similar limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Claim 8 also has similar limitations to claim 1 above, with slight differences:
The claim recites that the system is configured to: detect, based on image data captured by the onboard camera, the visual indicator within a field of view of the onboard camera; see again paragraphs [0047]-[0048] and [0043], where the landing process is based on the camera image processing.
shift from the far approach tracking paradigm to a separate near approach tracking paradigm of the autonomous control system in response to the detection by the autonomous control system the visual indicator within the field of view of the onboard camera; see again paragraphs [0047]-[0048], as well as Figure 4, where the aircraft shifts from approach mode, to (high or low) hovering mode, to descending in landing mode. See also paragraphs [0084]-[0085], where the aircraft changes mode based on detection of the visual landing marker.
shift from the near approach tracking paradigm to a separate descent tracking paradigm of the autonomous control system in response to the aircraft entering the landing position; see again paragraphs [0047]-[0048], as well as Figure 4, where the aircraft shifts from approach mode, to (high or low) hovering mode, to descending in landing mode. See also paragraphs [0087]-[0089] describing transitioning modes based on the position and orientation of the aircraft being within threshold values.
The remaining limitations of claim 8 are otherwise similar to claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Kojima teaches wherein, when in the descent tracking paradigm, the autonomous control system permits the aircraft to roll about a roll axis of the aircraft relative to the offshore landing platform. See for example paragraph [0087], where the control system allows the aircraft to roll within tolerance thresholds.
Claim 16 has similar limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 3, Kojima teaches wherein, when in the descent tracking paradigm, the autonomous control system permits the aircraft to pitch about a pitch axis of the aircraft relative to the offshore landing platform. See for example paragraph [0087], where the control system allows the aircraft to pitch within tolerance thresholds.
Claim 14 has similar limitations to claims 2 and 3 above combined, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Claim 17 has similar limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Kojima teaches wherein, when in the approach tracking paradigm, the autonomous control system is configured to dispose the aircraft in the landing position in a predefined orientation relative to the visual indicator. See for example paragraphs [0084]-[0087], where the system approaches the ship in approach mode before transitioning to high hovering mode at a predetermined location.
Claim 18 has similar limitations to claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 5, Kojima teaches wherein the autonomous control system is configured to shift from controlling the aircraft to minimize a distance between a camera center of the onboard camera and the offshore landing platform to controlling the aircraft to minimize a distance between the camera center and the visual cue in response to identifying the visual cue within a field of view of the onboard camera. See for example paragraph [0061], where the system shifts from low hovering mode to landing mode and proceeds to approach the landing pad. It does this as part of shifting from low hovering mode to landing.
Claims 11 and 19 have similar limitations to claim 5 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 6, Kojima teaches wherein, when in the approach tracking paradigm, the autonomous control system is configured to control the position of the aircraft with respect to the offshore landing platform so as to maintain the offshore landing platform within a field of view of the onboard camera. See for example paragraphs [0084]-[0087], where the system approaches the ship in approach mode before transitioning to high hovering mode.
Claims 9 and 20 have similar limitations to claim 6 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 7, Kojima teaches wherein relative movement is permitted between the landing position and the offshore landing platform. See for example paragraph [0087], where the control system allows the aircraft to pitch and roll and maintain relative velocity within tolerance thresholds.
Claim 13 has similar limitations to claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 10, Kojima teaches wherein, when in the approach tracking paradigm, the autonomous control system is configured to minimize a distance between a camera center of the onboard camera with the offshore landing platform captured within the field of view of the onboard camera. See for example paragraphs [0084]-[0087], where the system approaches the ship in approach mode (before transitioning to high hovering mode).
Regarding claim 12, Kojima teaches wherein the landing position is fixed in three-dimensional space relative to the visual indicator. See again paragraphs [0028]-[0029], where the target is on (or part of) the landing pad.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20170045894 by Canoy et al. teaching initiating visual navigation based on image detection without GPS. See, e.g., ¶¶ [0002], [0010], [0074].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights