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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20110015816 by Dow et al. (hereinafter “Dow”).
Regarding claim 21, Dow 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 paragraph [0052] and Figure 2, where the UGV includes a sensor suite, actuators, and a processor for controlling the UGV.
the operations comprising: controlling the power source to cause the robotic device to travel along a pick-up route within a landing area of an aerial transport facility to a first position at a first perimeter of the landing area; see for example paragraphs [0132]-[0134], where the UGV travels along a planned mission path to approach a designated aircraft to tow it. The UGV approaches to within a specified range of the target [0134], and the locations for aircraft pickup can be anywhere in the airport, including the runway (landing area) [0134], [0142], reading on a first position at a first perimeter of the landing area.
based at least in part on arrival of the robotic device at the first perimeter: computing, based on sensor data from the one or more sensors, a landing gear location corresponding to a landing gear of the aircraft within an interior perimeter of the landing area; and controlling the power source to cause the robotic device to travel within the interior perimeter to the landing gear; and connecting to the landing gear. See in particular paragraph [0134], where the UGV approaches the aircraft, and once within a specified range, detects the target using stereo vision sensors, and docks with the aircraft.
Claims 28 and 35 have similar limitations to claim 21 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 22, Dow 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 again paragraph [0052] and Figure 2, where the sensors include a radar; see also paragraph [0134], where the sensors include stereo vision sensors.
Claims 29 and 36 have similar limitations to claim 22 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 23, Dow teaches wherein the operations comprise: detecting a connection point of the landing gear based on the sensor data. See again paragraph [0134], where the UGV detects the target aircraft and steers toward it for docking and locking into the transport position.
Claims 30 and 37 have similar limitations to claim 23 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 24, Dow teaches wherein the pick-up route is obtained from a computing system associated with the aerial transport facility. See for example paragraphs [0012] and [0024], describing generally the RCC (Remote Control Center) platform for controlling semi-autonomous ground vehicles. See also paragraphs [0031] and [0133], where the RCC can generate a mission plan and path for the UGV.
Claims 31 and 38 have similar limitations to claim 24 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 25, Dow teaches wherein the pick-up route is based on a current location of the device. See for example paragraph [0127], where the system monitors the UGV’s location.
Claims 32 and 39 have similar limitations to claim 25 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 26, Dow 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 [0132]-[0134], where the UGV receives commands from the RCC to travel to an aircraft, identify the target connection point, and dock to the aircraft landing gear.
Claims 33 and 40 have similar limitations to claim 26 above, and are therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 27, Dow teaches wherein the operations comprise: automatically connecting to the landing gear after reaching the landing gear location. See paragraph [0028] describing the three operation modes, including semi-autonomous mode, and in paragraph [0031] this mode involves executing a mission. Then see again paragraph [0134], where the UGV, upon confirming the target aircraft, semi-autonomously connects with the wheel before confirming with the RCC platform.
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:
US20230303267 by Vidal Rojas et al. teaching an autonomous electric vehicle for taxiing an aircraft.
US20210269175 by Tal et al. teaching a transportation vehicle for conveying VTOL aircraft.
US20200331630 by Ricaud teaching an autonomously docking ground support vehicle.
US11001398 by Salyer teaching a wireless tug for maneuvering a rotorcraft on the ground.
US6305484 by Leblanc teaching an automated towing tractor for aircraft ground operations.
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