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 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230303267 by Vidal Rojas et al. (hereinafter “Vidal Rojas”), further in view of US20200189767 by McNair et al. (hereinafter “McNair”).
Regarding claim 21, Vidal Rojas teaches A robotic device for transporting an aircraft, the robotic device comprising: one or more sensors; a power source that powers movement of the robotic device; one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the robotic device to perform operations, see for example paragraphs [0059]-[0071] and Fig. 1 describing an autonomous vehicle for transporting aircraft.
the operations comprising: receiving, while outside a first perimeter of a landing area of an aerial transport facility, a notification indicating that the aircraft has landed within an interior perimeter within the first perimeter; see for example paragraphs [0096] and [0104], where the system determines that an aircraft has landed at the Final Approach & Take-Off pads (“FATO”, see paragraph [0006]), and sends a notification to dispatch the autonomous vehicle to tow the aircraft, where the boundary of the helipad or “FATO” reads on perimeter here. See also Figs. 25-26 showing a vertiport with various landing pads and autonomous vehicles stationed outside the landing pads.
controlling the robotic device to travel along a pick-up see for example paragraphs [0105]-[0111] and [0159], where the robot is routed along a planned path to the aircraft in order to tow it to the parking zone.
based at least in part on arrival of the robotic device at the first perimeter and in response to receiving the notification: computing, based on sensor data from the one or more sensors, a landing gear location corresponding to a landing gear of the aircraft within the interior perimeter of the landing area; and controlling the robotic device to travel within the interior perimeter to the landing gear; and connecting to the landing gear. See paragraphs [0097]-[0098], [0106]-[0107], and [0111], where the robot moves towards the aircraft in order to dock with it, connecting with the aircraft’s GCS (ground contacting structure, i.e. landing gear) within the FATO based on sensor data.
Vidal Rojas does not explicitly teach a route. Although the system dispatches the autonomous vehicles to pick up specific aircraft, the vehicle determines its position and destination, and reference trajectories are generated (see, e.g., paragraphs [0104]-[0107]), Vidal Rojas does not explicitly state that the autonomous vehicle will travel along a route.
However, McNair teaches a heliport system wherein autonomous vehicles will travel along a route to the aircraft’s landing destination. See for example paragraphs [0061]-[0062] and [0029], where the autonomous vehicle (heliport system 100 and/or transport mechanism 104) navigates a route to the landing area to pick up the aircraft.
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 autonomous ground robot or Vidal Rojas with the autonomous ground robot of McNair with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the robot to travel along a defined route between different areas of the vertiport to retrieve its assigned aircraft.
Claims 28 and 35 have similar limitations to claim 21 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 22, Vidal Rojas teaches wherein the sensor data is from at least one or more sensors selected from: a camera, a LIDAR sensors, a RADAR sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, or a microphone. See paragraphs [0097]-[0098], where the system uses camera data to navigate.
Claims 29 and 36 have similar limitations to claim 22 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 23, Vidal Rojas teaches wherein the operations comprise: detecting a connection point of the landing gear based on the sensor data. See for example paragraphs [0114]-[0115], as well as [0097]-[0098], where the vehicle uses camera data to attach to the GCS, e.g. connecting to the wheel. See also paragraph [0143], describing various aircraft GCS structures and coupling mechanisms. Alternatively, see paragraph [0159], where the autonomous vehicle electrically connects to the aircraft.
Claims 30 and 37 have similar limitations to claim 23 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 24, Vidal Rojas teaches wherein the pick-up . See for example paragraphs [0104] and [0159], where the aircraft facility control system commands the vehicle to move to the aircraft.
Vidal Rojas does not explicitly teach a route. Although the system dispatches the autonomous vehicles to pick up specific aircraft, the vehicle determines its position and destination, and reference trajectories are generated (see, e.g., paragraphs [0104]-[0107]), Vidal Rojas does not explicitly state that the autonomous vehicle will travel along a route.
However, McNair teaches a heliport system wherein autonomous vehicles will travel along a route to the aircraft’s landing destination. See for example paragraphs [0061]-[0062] and [0029], where the autonomous vehicle (heliport system 100 and/or transport mechanism 104) navigates a route to the landing area to pick up the aircraft, and the route can be determined either by the autonomous vehicle or the heliport management system 102.
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 autonomous ground robot or Vidal Rojas with the autonomous ground robot of McNair with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the robot to travel along a defined route between different areas of the vertiport to retrieve its assigned aircraft.
Claims 31 and 38 have similar limitations to claim 24 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 25, Vidal Rojas teaches wherein the pick-up . See again paragraphs [0105]-[0111] and [0159], where the robot is routed along a planned path to the aircraft from its current position.
Vidal Rojas does not explicitly teach a route. Although the system dispatches the autonomous vehicles to pick up specific aircraft, the vehicle determines its position and destination, and reference trajectories are generated (see, e.g., paragraphs [0104]-[0107]), Vidal Rojas does not explicitly state that the autonomous vehicle will travel along a route.
However, McNair teaches a heliport system wherein autonomous vehicles will travel along a route to the aircraft’s landing destination. See for example paragraphs [0061]-[0062] and [0029], where the autonomous vehicle (heliport system 100 and/or transport mechanism 104) navigates a route to the landing area to pick up the aircraft, and the route can be determined either by the autonomous vehicle or the heliport management system 102.
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 autonomous ground robot or Vidal Rojas with the autonomous ground robot of McNair with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the robot to travel along a defined route between different areas of the vertiport to retrieve its assigned aircraft.
Claims 32 and 39 have similar limitations to claim 25 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 26, Vidal Rojas teaches wherein the operations comprise: receiving, from a computing system associated with the aerial transport facility, a command to connect to the landing gear; and connecting to the landing gear responsive to the command. See again paragraphs [0097]-[0098], [0106]-[0107], and [0111], where the robot moves towards the aircraft in order to dock with it, connecting with the aircraft’s GCS (ground contacting structure, i.e. landing gear) within the FATO based on sensor data.
Claims 33 and 40 have similar limitations to claim 26 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 27, Vidal Rojas teaches wherein the operations comprise: automatically connecting to the landing gear after reaching the landing gear location. See again paragraphs [0097]-[0098], [0106]-[0107], and [0111], where the robot autonomously connects with the aircraft’s landing gear.
Claim 34 has similar limitations to claim 27 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20210208603 by Tazume et al. teaching sending UAV landing notifications to a UGV.
US20200055594 by Tal et al. teaching a dolly that retrieves vertiport aircraft from pads.
US20200225685 by Li et al. teaching an alert notification to a ground device upon UAV landing.
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
