DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final, first office action on the merits in response to applicant’s communication filed on 10/29/2024 (the PCT filed on 10/29/2022), wherein claims 1-11 and 13-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length; it currently has more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following minor informality: Claim 1 appears to erroneously leave out the word “aircraft” at the last line: “latching means adapted for gripping a structural part of the [aircraft] on landing.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 invokes 112(f) describing a “coupling mechanism” and “actuation mechanism.” It is understood in view of applicant’s specification and drawings that the aforementioned are, respectively, “coupling mechanism” (pneumatic cylinders 106/106c connecting chassis 102 to platform 104, with ball-and-socket joints 116/118, and the Stewart-platform variant), and “actuation mechanism” (108/108a-c, pressurization means acting through controlled valves 112/114 and hoses 111/113 to drive the cylinders); and equivalents.
Claim 5 invokes 112(f) describing a “pressurization means.” It is understood in view of applicant’s specification and drawings that the aforementioned is pressurization means of actuation mechanism 108 connected to each cylinder cavity via valves 112/114, hoses 111/113, and a pump; and equivalents.
Claim 13 invokes 112(f) describing “one or more control units.” It is understood in view of applicant’s specification and drawings that the aforementioned is central control unit(s) 1085 and computerized system 202 (CPU 230, memory 250) executing control software to drive actuation mechanism 108; and equivalents.
Claim 18 invokes 112(f) describing “central control unit.” It is understood in view of applicant’s specification and drawings that the aforementioned is central control unit 11 with antenna 12; and equivalents.
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 1-6 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oujamaa (US 2022/0055769) (submitted on IDS, 10/29/2024) in view of Leonard et al. (US 20200148521 A1), hereinafter “Leonard.”
Regarding Claim 1, Oujamaa discloses:
An aircraft carrier ground vehicle (See Fig. 1, carriage 12), comprising:
a chassis (See Fig. 1, chassis 18);
a landing platform designed to accommodate an aircraft (See Fig. 1, upper deck 24, i.e., the aircraft-supporting deck of the platform);
a coupling mechanism (connection means 26), which connects the landing platform to the chassis to form a kinematic pair, in which the landing platform is rotatably mounted on the chassis (See Par. [0079]: “connection means 26 comprise[s], between the chassis 18 and the upper deck 24, a lower deck 28, an actuator assembly 30, a bearing 32, articulated connecting rods 34 and a transmission shaft 36.”); (See Par. [0090]: “connecting rods 34 are mounted in ball joint couplings on both the upper deck 24”); The slewing bearing 32 providing the rotatable mounting/kinetic pair.
And, an actuation mechanism (per-actuator respective controls, Par. [0085]) adapted to rotate the landing platform relative to the chassis, to allow an aircraft to land on the landing platform as the vehicle moves along a landing direction of the aircraft and compensate for an inclination angle of the aircraft on landing, in operation (See Par. [0085] (emphasis added): “Each actuator 40 is individually actuatable with a respective control … makes it possible to modify the orientation of the plane of the bearing 32 relative to horizontal.”); (See Par. [0083]; an onboard supply system [pressurization] (not shown)); Oujamaa discloses the supply-and-control subsystem as distinct from the coupling mechanism (connection means 26) and, specifically, the referenced “respective control” actuates/drives the cylinders.
And, latching means adapted for gripping a structural part of the [aircraft] on landing (See Fig. 2, Pars. [0094-0095]): coupling means 50 configured “for connection with predefined points of the fuselage or another part … of the aeroplane”).
However, Oujamaa does not appear to disclose wherein the latching means includes a soft robotic suction cup latching mechanism.
In the field of robotic gripping end-effectors on aircrafts, Leonard teaches:
wherein the latching means includes a soft robotic suction cup latching mechanism (See Fig. 3, Par. [0034]: “In an exemplary embodiment, the coupling elements 38 are configured as suction cups 62. The suction cups 62 have a base portion 64 that is mounted on and coupled to the corresponding coupling element mounting surfaces 58 and 60 as discussed above. Further, the suction cups 62 have cups 66 that extend upwardly from the base portions 64 so as to face in directions opposite the corresponding coupling member portions 54 and 56. The cups 66 are relatively flexible, e.g., formed of an elastomeric, polymeric, a rubber material, and can be depressed against the outer skin of the aircraft 10 for removably coupling to the aircraft 10”).
Therefore, 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 alternatively provide the robotic, automated remote actuation (See Par. [0100]) fuselage-engaging latching means of Oujamaa as the soft suction-cup latching mechanism of Leonard, in order to grip the airplane fuselage directly – which Oujamaa expressly contemplates (See Par. [0035]) – while conforming to the curved fuselage surface and retaining the airplane, because doing so is the application of a known soft suction technique to a known robotic device ready for the improvement, yielding the predictable result of secure releasable gripping, with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(B),(C).
Regarding Claim 2, Oujamaa in view of Leonard discloses:
The aircraft carrier ground vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the coupling mechanism is designed to allow an average plane of the landing platform to pivot by at most a first angle around an axis that is parallel to an axle direction of the vehicle. (See Fig. 1, Pars. [0018] and [0085]: Oujamaa discloses rotation of the platform “along three perpendicular axes of rotation” including the transvers (pitch) axis parallel to the bogies 22, the actuators modifying “the orientation of the plane of the bearing 32 relative to horizontal”).
Regarding Claim 3, Oujamaa in view of Leonard discloses:
The aircraft carrier ground vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the coupling mechanism is further designed to allow the average plane of the landing platform to pivot by at most a second angle around a longitudinal direction of the vehicle. (See Fig. 1, Pars. [0018] and [0085]: Oujamaa discloses the rotation about “three perpendicular axes” necessarily including the longitudinal (roll) axis, each actuator 40 being “individually actuatable with a respective control” such that “simultaneous action of the actuators 40 along different travel routes and/or directions makes it possible to modify the orientation of the plane of the bearing 32”).
Regarding Claim 4, Oujamaa in view of Leonard discloses:
The aircraft carrier ground vehicle according to any one of claim 1, wherein the coupling mechanism includes a pneumatic suspension system having at least two pneumatic cylinders connecting the chassis to the landing platform, and the pneumatic cylinders are actuatable by the actuation mechanism to rotate the landing platform-relative to the chassis, in operation. (See Par. [0082]: “The lower deck 28 supports the actuator assembly 30. The actuator assembly 30 comprises a plurality of pneumatic or hydraulic actuators 40 mounted between the lower deck 28 and the bearing 32. Each actuator 40 is mounted fixedly on the lower deck 28 and connected for example by a ball joint coupling to the bearing 32.”); (See Par. [0084]: “The actuator assembly 30 here comprises four actuators 40 disposed regularly in a circle, preferably concentrically with the lower deck 28. The actuator assembly 30 may comprise a different number of actuators 40, with a minimum of three actuators”).
Regarding Claim 5, Oujamaa in view of Leonard discloses:
The aircraft carrier ground vehicle according to claim 4, wherein the actuation mechanism includes pressurization means connected to each of the pneumatic cylinders, so as to independently operate the pneumatic cylinders. (See Par. [0085]: “Each actuator 40 is individually actuatable with a respective control. Simultaneous action of the actuators 40 along different travel routes and/or directions makes it possible to modify the orientation of the plane of the bearing 32 relative to horizontal.”)
However, Oujamaa does not expressly recite that the cylinders are “double-acting.” Operating individually-controlled pneumatic actuators in a double-acting (bidirectional) mode is the conventional and predictable mode for achieving controlled extension and retraction.
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 operate Oujamaa’s individually-controlled actuators 40 as double-acting cylinders to obtain the predictable result of bidirectional platform orientation control, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 6, Oujamaa in view of Leonard discloses:
The aircraft carrier ground vehicle according to claim 4, wherein the coupling mechanism further comprises ball-and-socket joints linking piston rods of respective ones of the pneumatic cylinders-to the landing platform. (See Fig. 1, Pars. [0082] and [0090]: Oujamaa discloses each actuator 40 “connected for example by a ball joint coupling to the bearing 32,” and connecting rods 34 “mounted in ball joint couplings on both the upper deck 24 and the mobile plate 44”).
Regarding Claim 13, Oujamaa in view of Leonard discloses:
The aircraft carrier ground vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle further includes a vehicle control system, the latter comprising one or more control units coupled to the actuation mechanism to control a rotation of the landing platform relative to the chassis, and one or more receivers coupled to the one or more control units, the receivers configured to receive instruction signals for the vehicle control system to forward corresponding control signals to the one or more control units. (See Par. [0038]]: “a control module which can be controlled remotely to maneuver the carriage and/or orient the platform.”); (See Pars. [0100-0101]: “The ground assistance system 10 may further include various systems which are not shown, including: positioning and synchronization means for the platform relative to an aeroplane in the landing phase, and a control module which may be controlled remotely for maneuvering the carriage and/or orienting the platform. The system for example includes an onboard radar on the carriage; a computer, preferably onboard on the platform; means of communicating with the aeroplane; one or more positioning beacons, installed on the upper deck, and a detection system capable of locating the position and orientation of the components of the aeroplane capable of engaging the coupling means of the platform”).
Regarding Claim 14, Oujamaa in view of Leonard discloses:
The aircraft carrier ground vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a powered vehicle, and the vehicle is one of an autonomous vehicle, a semi-autonomous vehicle, and a remotely controlled vehicle. (See Par. [0026]: “The drive means preferably comprise an electric locomotive which pushes or hauls the carriage”); (See Par. [0038]]: “a control module which can be controlled remotely to maneuver the carriage and/or orient the platform.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Oujamaa in view of Leonard discloses:
The aircraft carrier ground vehicle according to any one of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a trailer equipped with a trailer coupler adapted to mechanically link to a coupling component of a powered tractor unit. (See Fig. 3, Pars. [0025] and [0073]: “Advantageously, the carriage is linked removably to the drive means. For example, the carriage may be hauled or pushed by a locomotive” and “The drive means here is a locomotive 16, coupled to the carriage 12. The locomotive 16 enables hauling of the carriage 12”).
Regarding Claim 16, Oujamaa in view of Leonard discloses:
The aircraft carrier ground vehicle according to any one of claim 1, wherein the vehicle further designed to allow taxiing and take-off of the aircraft. (See Figs. 6a-6b, Pars. [0048], [0115], and [0117]: “braking the aeroplane down to a taxiing speed on the runway” and a take-off sequence in which “The locomotive 16 then accelerates the carriage 12 on the take-off runway in a straight line up to a predetermined take-off speed, as shown in FIG. 6a” followed by release of the plane “When the predetermined take-off speed is reached, the coupling means 50 of the platform 20 are activated to release the aeroplane landing gear and the thrust of the jet engines may be freely exerted on the aeroplane 64 to cause take-off of the aeroplane 64, as shown in FIG. 6b.”
Regarding Claim 17, Oujamaa in view of Leonard discloses:
An aircraft carrier ground vehicle system comprising the structure set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference, comprising: a chassis; a landing platform designed to accommodate an aircraft; a coupling mechanism, which connects the landing platform to the chassis to form a kinematic pair, in which the landing platform is rotatably mounted on the chassis; an actuation mechanism adapted to rotate the landing platform relative to the chassis, to allow an aircraft to land on the landing platform as the vehicle moves along a landing direction of the aircraft and compensate for an inclination angle of the aircraft on landing, in operation; and latching means adapted for gripping a structural part of the aircraft on landing, wherein the latching means includes a soft robotic suction cup latching mechanism.
Oujamaa further discloses an aircraft carrier ground vehicle system including at least two aircraft carrier ground vehicles (See Pars. [0025] and [0099], respectively: “may be used to drive a plurality of carriages” and that the “locomotive 16 may serve as a drive system for a plurality of carriages”).
Regarding Claim 18, Oujamaa in view of Leonard discloses:
The aircraft carrier ground vehicle system according to claim 17, as set forth above.
Oujamma in view of Leonard further discloses:
Wherein each of the vehicles is a powered vehicle, which is remotely controlled (See Oujamma Par. [0026]: “The drive means preferably comprise an electric locomotive which pushes or hauls the carriage”); (See Oujamma Par. [0038]: “a control module which can be controlled remotely to maneuver the carriage and/or orient the platform”);
and the system further includes a central control unit that is configured to transmit control signals to each of the vehicles (See Oujamma, Par. [0038]: “a control centre common to a plurality of carriages”);
so as to rotate the landing platforms of the vehicles to compensate for an inclination angle of the aircraft on landing (See Oujamma Par. [0019] where actuators 40 are controlled to “orient the plane of the upper deck 24 … in the same plane as that formed by … the aeroplane”) here directed to each vehicle’s platform by the central control unit, and
coordinate movements of the vehicles to allow the aircraft to land on the landing platforms of the vehicles as they move along the landing direction of the aircraft, in operation. (See Oujamaa at Par. [0108] discloses the carriages moving along the runway in the landing direction at the aircraft’s matched speed).
Regarding Claim 19, Oujamaa in view of Leonard discloses:
A method of landing an aircraft, the method comprising:
providing an aircraft carrier ground vehicle comprising: a chassis; a landing platform designed to accommodate an aircraft, a coupling mechanism, which connects the landing platform to the chassis to form a kinematic pair, in which the landing platform is rotatably mounted on the chassis; an actuation mechanism adapted to rotate the landing platform relative to the chassis, to allow an aircraft to land on the landing platform as the vehicle moves along a landing direction of the aircraft and compensate for an inclination angle of the aircraft on landing, in operation; and latching means adapted for gripping a structural part of the aircraft on landing, wherein the latching means includes a soft robotic suction cup latching mechanism.
The “providing” step recites the aircraft carrier ground vehicle of Claim 1, the limitations of which are met by Oujamaa in view of Leonard as set forth above, and the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated here in full, including Leonard’s soft suction cup latching mechanism and the motivation to combine.
The remaining steps recite operating the vehicle through a landing sequence, each step of which Oujamaa expressly discloses:
accelerating the aircraft carrier ground vehicle to adjust the speed of the vehicle to a landing speed of the aircraft, to bring the aircraft carrier ground vehicle at a landing position of the aircraft (See Par. [0108]: “The locomotive 16 sets the carriage 12 in motion at a speed corresponding to the speed of the aeroplane, in such a way as to position the carriage as close as possible to the aeroplane 64, the locomotive 16 then matching the speed of the carriage 12 to that of the aeroplane 64.”);
rotating the landing platform of the aircraft carrier ground vehicle to match an inclination angle of the aircraft (See Par. [0109]: “depending on the position and orientation of the aeroplane, the transmission shaft is set in rotation so as to raise the upper deck 24 to the height of the aeroplane 64, and/or the actuators 40 are controlled so as to orient the plane of the upper deck 24 of the platform 20 in the same plane as that formed by the three wheels of the landing gear of the aeroplane 64”); (See Par. [0076]: “The role of the platform is to engage or release the aeroplane depending on whether it is landing or taking off. According to one important aspect of the disclosure, the platform 20 is mobile relative to the chassis 18 supporting it, so as to be able to arrange itself in a plane parallel the plane of the aeroplane in flight at the moment of landing, and so as to orient the aeroplane at the moment of take-off. The platform 20 may thus be maneuvered in a vertical direction and a transverse direction relative to the travel of the carriage, and the platform 20 may be set in rotation relative to the chassis according to three perpendicular axes of rotation”) and
landing the aircraft on the landing platform as the aircraft carrier ground vehicle moves along the landing direction of the aircraft and gripping a structural part of the aircraft thanks to said soft robotic suction cup latching mechanism. (See Par. [0067]: “FIG. 5a is a side view of a step of a preferred embodiment of the ground assistance method for landing according to the disclosure comprising accelerating the carriage in a straight line up to a speed corresponding to the landing speed of the aeroplane.); (See Fig. 2, Pars. [0094-0095]): coupling means 50 configured “for connection with predefined points of the fuselage or another part … of the aeroplane”); With soft suction-cup release supplied by Leonard. The claim is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, Oujamaa in view of Leonard discloses:
An aircraft take-off method comprising: providing an aircraft carrier ground vehicle comprising: a chassis; a landing platform designed to accommodate an aircraft; a coupling mechanism, which connects the landing platform to the chassis to form a kinematic pair, in which the landing platform is rotatably mounted on the chassis; an actuation mechanism adapted to rotate the landing platform relative to the chassis, to allow an aircraft to land on the landing platform as the vehicle moves along a landing direction of the aircraft and compensate for an inclination angle of the aircraft on landing, in operation; and latching means adapted for gripping a structural part of the aircraft on landing, wherein the latching means includes a soft robotic suction cup latching mechanism; loading and stowing an aircraft on the landing platform of the aircraft carrier ground vehicle; accelerating the aircraft carrier ground vehicle to a take-off speed of the aircraft; and releasing the aircraft for take-off with the landing platform rotated to a take-off configuration, after releasing said structural part of the aircraft from the soft robotic suction cup latching mechanism.
The “providing” step recites the aircraft carrier ground vehicle of Claim 1, the limitations of which are met by Oujamaa in view of Leonard as set forth above, and the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated here in full, including Leonard’s soft suction cup latching mechanism and the motivation to combine.
The remaining steps recite operating the vehicle through a take-off sequence, each step of which Oujamaa expressly discloses:
loading and stowing an aircraft on the landing platform of the aircraft carrier ground vehicle (See Par. [0114]: “The aeroplane 64 is held firmly on the platform 20”);
accelerating the aircraft carrier ground vehicle to a take-off speed of the aircraft (See Par. [0115]: “The locomotive 16 then accelerates the carriage 12 on the take-off runway in a straight line up to a predetermined take-off speed, as shown in FIG. 6a”); and
with the landing platform rotated to a take-off configuration (See Par. [0116]: “During the acceleration phase, the jet engines of the aeroplane may be activated so as to prepare to bring about take-off thrust. The actuators 40 of the connection means 26 may then be controlled to incline the aeroplane into a take-off position.”),
releasing the aircraft for take-off, after releasing said structural part of the aircraft from the soft robotic suction cup latching mechanism (See Par. [0117]: When the predetermined take-off speed is reached, the coupling means 50 of the platform 20 are activated to release the aeroplane landing gear and the thrust of the jet engines may be freely exerted on the aeroplane 64 to cause take-off of the aeroplane 64, as shown in FIG. 6b.”); With soft suction-cup release supplied by Leonard. The claim is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in Claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oujamaa (US 2022/0055769) in view of Leonard et al. (US 20200148521 A1), further in view of Ernst et al. (DE 3034014 A1), hereinafter “Ernst” (submitted on IDS, 10/29/2024).
Regarding Claim 7, Oujamaa in view of Leonard discloses:
The pneumatic cylinders (actuators 40) of claim 4, mounted “between the lower deck 28 and the bearing 32” and ball-jointed at the bearing end (Par. [0082]).
However, Oujamaa/Leonard does not appear to disclose wherein the coupling mechanism further comprises revolute joints linking respective ones of the pneumatic cylinders to the chassis.
In the same field of endeavor, Ernst teaches:
A coupling mechanism further comprises revolute joints linking respective ones of the pneumatic cylinders to the chassis (See Fig. 1 and Par. [0002]: “a coupling frame 5, which is extendable and connected to the chassis by means of trailing arms 6, 7. Hydraulically or hydropneumatically actuated telescopic lifting cylinders 9, 10 are provided for extension. The diagonal control arms 7 are equipped with extendable piston/cylinder units to allow the coupling frame 5 to be tilted relative to the horizontal”).
Therefore, 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 alternatively mount the base ends of Oujamaa’s actuators 40 to the chassis by revolute (pivoting) joints, as taught by Ernest, in order to accommodate the angular displacement of the actuators as the platform tilts, because doing so applied a known articulated-mounted technique to obtain the predictable result of permitting relative pivotal motion between cylinder and chassis, with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oujamaa (US 2022/0055769) in view of Leonard et al. (US 20200148521 A1), further in view of Brandstadter (US 4,156,536).
Regarding Claim 8, Oujamaa in view of Leonard discloses:
The aircraft carrier ground vehicle according to claim 4, including the pneumatic suspension system having pneumatic cylinders (See Par. [0082] pneumatic actuators 40 mounted between the lower deck 28 and bearing 32).
However, Oujamaa/Leonard does not appear to disclose wherein a cylinder tube of each of the pneumatic cylinders is in thermal communication with a heat sink, the latter forming part of the chassis.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem, Brandstadter teaches:
wherein a cylinder tube of each of the pneumatic cylinders is in thermal communication with a heat sink (See Col. 4, Line 40: “The desired damping at the expected duty cycles is obtained without overheating any portion of the units by maximizing the dissipation of heat generated in the damping valves to the vehicle hull, which acts as a final heat sink. This is accomplished by locating the valve manifold 40 in close proximity to the mounting flange 15 (see FIGS. 4 and 6), and also providing for the transfer of heat from the valves to the main casting 17 which provides a solid large metallic cross sectional area for storage and conduction of heat to the vehicle hull through the mounting flange.”
Therefore, 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 place the cylinder tube of each of Oujamaa’s pneumatic cylinders in thermal communication with a heat sink as taught by Brandstadter, and to provide that heat sink as part of the chassis, in order to dissipate the heat generated by rapid compression of the cylinders during landing impact and thereby prevent overheating and degradation of the cylinder seals and working fluid, the same problem that Brandstadter identifies, because doing so applies a known thermal-management technique (cylinder-tube-as-heat-sink) to a known device (Oujamaa’s pneumatic suspension cylinders) using the chassis as the available thermal mass, yielding the predictable result of cylinder heat dissipation, with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A),(C).
Claim 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oujamaa (US 2022/0055769) in view of Leonard et al. (US 20200148521 A1), further in view of Barnes (US 2017/0107001 A1) (submitted on IDS, 10/29/2024).
Regarding Claim 9, Oujamaa in view of Leonard discloses:
The aircraft carrier ground vehicle according to claim 1.
However, Oujamaa/Leonard does not appear to disclose wherein the landing platform further includes a deformable material layer, extending on an exposed surface of the landing platform.
In the same field of endeavor, Barnes teaches:
wherein the landing platform further includes a deformable material layer, extending on an exposed surface of the landing platform (See Par. [0053]: “the foam collapses and/or deforms to conform to the shape of the captured fuselage 21”). (See Figs. 3-4, foamed-lined jaws 15/16, fuselage 21).
Therefore, 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 alternatively provide a deformable foam layer on the fuselage-contacting exposed surface of Oujamaa’s platform, as taught by Barnes, in order to cushion landing impact and conform to the fuselage contour, because doing so applies a known conforming-cushion technique to a known device to obtain a predictable result, with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding Claim 11, Oujamaa in view of Leonard discloses:
The aircraft carrier ground vehicle according to claim 1, as well as generic “shock-absorbing means … installed either in the chassis 18 or in another part of the carriage 12,” Pars. [0034] and [0097].
However, Oujamaa/Leonard does not appear to disclose wherein the vehicle further includes one or more auxiliary dampers, each including a landing pad, so as to allow the aircraft to land on both the landing platform and the one or more auxiliary dampers as the vehicle moves along the landing direction of the aircraft, in operation.
In the same field of endeavor, Barnes teaches:
wherein the vehicle further includes one or more auxiliary dampers, each including a landing pad, so as to allow the aircraft to land on both the landing platform and the one or more auxiliary dampers as the vehicle moves along the landing direction of the aircraft, in operation (See Par. [0062]: “It will also be seen that the carriage frame 29 supports a cushioning block 40 at its rear end to provide support”).
Therefore, 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 provide Oujamaa’s shock-absorbing means as one or more auxiliary damping pads supporting the aircraft in addition to the landing platform, as taught by Barnes, in order to distribute landing loads across multiple support points, because doing so applies a known auxiliary-damping technique to obtain a predictable result, with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oujamaa (US 2022/0055769) in view of Leonard et al. (US 20200148521 A1), further in view of Barnes (US 2017/0107001 A1), and further in view of Dewez (US 4787662 A).
Regarding Claim 10, Oujamaa in view of Leonard and Barnes discloses:
The aircraft carrier ground vehicle according to claim 9, as well as the deformable material layer as set forth above in claim 9 (See Barnes Par. [0053]: “the foam collapses and/or deforms to conform to the shape of the captured fuselage 21”). (See Figs. 3-4, foamed-lined jaws 15/16, fuselage 21), and Leonard’s suction cups.
However, Oujamaa/Leonard/Barnes does not appear to disclose wherein the vehicle further includes a pressurization system, the soft robotic suction cup latching mechanism comprises an array of suction cups, which are at least partly embedded in the deformable material layer, the suction cups are open on an exposed surface of the deformable material layer, and the suction cups are connected to said pressurization system.
Specifically, Leonard discloses an array of suction cups mounted on rigid coupling member portions (Fig. 3, suction cups 62]) rather than an array of cups embedded in a deformable layer; and Barnes discloses a deformable foam layer that conforms to the fuselage but carries no suction openings. Neither Oujamma, Leonard, nor Barnes appear to disclose suction openings embedded in, and open on the exposed surface of the deformable layer, nor a pressurization system connected to such embedded opening.
Reasonably pertinent to the particular problem, Dewez teaches:
a pressurization system (vacuum manifold 52), and suction cups connected to said pressurization system wherein the soft robotic suction cup latching mechanism comprises an array of suction cups (suction cups 46), which are at least partly embedded in the deformable material layer with the suction cups open on an exposed surface of the deformable material layer (suction cups 46 rooted in the deformable rubber pad 42); (See Col. 6, line 13: “a plurality of suction cups 46 is provided on a front face 48 of the pad 42. The suction cups 46 are in the form of raised toroids extending above the front face 48 of the pad 42, and made of the same rubbery material as the pad 42 … One suction cup 46 is provided on each of the pad bores 44, so that the pad bore 44 communicates with the interior of the suction cup 46.”); (See Col. 6, Line 43: “The material of construction of the pad 42 … constructed of a rubbery material, such as a silicone rubber, that can be deformed to effect the sealing and conforming action”); (See Col. 6, Line 61: “On the other side of the support block 28, opposite to the pad 42, is a vacuum manifold 52 affixed to the support block back face 32. The vacuum manifold 52 is a hollow solid block that communicates with the vacuum line 24 through a vacuum port 54 in the vacuum manifold 52. The hollow interior 56 of the manifold 52 distributes the vacuum throughout the interior, and in particular permits communication with the throat bores 34. Application of a vacuum to the common source vacuum line 24 is thereby communicated to each and every one of the throat bores 34, the pad bores 44, and thence to the interior of the suction cups 46”).
Therefore, 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 alternatively provide the suction of the Oujamaa/Leonard/Barnes combination as an array of suction cups embedded in the deformable contact layer, open at its fuselage-contacting surface and connected to that pressurization system, as taught by Dewez, in order to distribute conformable suction across the fuselage-contact surface, with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR; MPEP § 2143(I)(A),(C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11198516 B2, System To Accelerate And Decelerate Aircraft For Take-off And Landing, discloses a system for controlling aircraft movement includes a frame extending across a width of a runway. The system includes an attachment mechanism coupled to the frame and configured to be releasably connected to a portion of an aircraft. The system includes a conveying system configured to, with the aircraft coupled to the frame during take-off of the aircraft, accelerate the aircraft. The conveying system is further configured to, during landing of the aircraft, decelerate the aircraft.
US 10040576 B1, Tram System And Methods For Autonomous Takeoff And Landing Of Aircraft, describes a new and useful tram system and methods for autonomous takeoff and landing of aircraft in the field of aerospace.
US 6394391 B1, Landing Truck For An Aircraft In A Forced Landing, relates to a landing truck, which is used to receive an aircraft in a forced landing so as to avert danger, particularly when an undercarriage landing gear of the aircraft fails to lower properly.
US 11059075 B2, Systems And Methods For Robotic Suction Grippers, provides methods and systems for robotic suction grippers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fathi Abdelsalam whose telephone number is (571) 270-0380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10 AM to 6 PM ET.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/FATHI K. ABDELSALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights