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 US20110015816 by Dow et al. (hereinafter “Dow”), further in view of US20140249736 by Beda et al. (hereinafter “Beda”).
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.
controlling, 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.
Dow does not explicitly teach a robotic device comprising a processor that receiv[es] a notification associated with a state of landing of the aircraft and then control[s], based on receiving the notification, 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. That is, Dow describes a semi-autonomous UGV at best, and even then the robot appears to be remotely controlled by a remote control center (RCC). Thus, Dow does not describe the robot itself receiving the landing notification and deciding to navigate to the aircraft based on that.
However, Beda suggests a system where a robotic taxi vehicle receiv[es] a notification associated with a state of landing of the aircraft and then control[s], based on receiving the notification, 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 paragraph [0028], where the airport TCGS system determines aircraft locations, and once the aircraft are in an appropriate taxiing state, assigning a GMU to guide the aircraft, including a pick-up location and destination, and sends that information to the GMU, where any of these could read on a notification associated with a state of landing of the aircraft. Then see paragraph [0032], where the GMU determines its own route to the aircraft pick-up location, reading on controlling, based on receiving the notification, 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.
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 unmanned tug system of Dow with the autonomous tug system of Beda with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves the reliability and safety of the system, as autonomous vehicles can function more independently and more quickly handle exceptions than a central remote computing control system.
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:
US20180373246 by Laughlin et al. teaching autonomous towing vehicles that automatically move to intercept the aircraft.
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