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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrec (US2010025684) in view of Pinto (US-20050004748-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Garrec discloses a method of aligning an aircraft with a landing platform in motion ([0002]; [0016]; [0033]-[0034]), comprising: measuring an orientation with at least one GPS sensor positioned at a known location relative to the landing platform while the landing platform is in motion ([0039]); measuring an orientation of the aircraft with an orientation sensor fixed relative to the aircraft ([0016]); calculating an orientation offset between the measured orientation of the aircraft and the calculated orientation of the landing platform; and changing an orientation of the aircraft or the landing platform to reduce the orientation offset ([0034]).
However, Garrec does not explicitly state measuring a GPS heading of the landing platform with at least one GPS sensor positioned at a known location relative to the landing platform nor calculating an orientation of the landing platform from such GPS heading.
On the other hand, Pinto teaches measuring a GPS heading of the landing platform with at least one GPS sensor positioned at a known location relative to the landing platform nor calculating an orientation of the landing platform from such GPS heading (Abstract; [0003]; [0006]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Garrec reference and include features from the Pinto reference with a reasonable expectation of success. This provides a more accurate platform orientation estimate.
Regarding claim 2, Garrec does not explicitly state the at least one GPS sensor comprises at least two GPS sensors fixed relative to the landing platform.
On the other hand, Pinto teaches the at least one GPS sensor comprises at least two GPS sensors fixed relative to the landing platform (Abstract: “two closely spaced GPS antennas”; Fig. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Garrec reference and include features from the Pinto reference with a reasonable expectation of success. This provides a more accurate platform orientation estimate.
Regarding claim 3, Garrec discloses the orientation sensor comprises at least one of a GPS sensor, an inertial measurement unit (IMU), a compass, a gyroscope, or an accelerometer ([0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Garrec discloses changing an orientation of the aircraft via a yaw motion ([0034]: controlling aircraft orientation inherently includes yaw motion).
Regarding claim 5, Garrec discloses the at least one GPS sensor is fixedly attached to the landing platform ([0016]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrec and Pinto in further view of WANG (US-20180251234-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Garrec does not explicitly state maintaining the orientation of both the aircraft and the landing platform when the calculated orientation offset is below a threshold.
On the other hand, WANG teaches maintaining the orientation of both the aircraft and the landing platform when the calculated orientation offset is below a threshold ([0109]; [0233]: operating within a predetermined range inherently requires maintaining alignment once the relative offset falls within the acceptable range).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Garrec reference and include features from the WANG reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so ensures stable and controlled landing conditions.
Regarding claim 7, Garrec does not explicitly state the threshold is 5 degrees.
On the other hand, WANG teaches the threshold is 5 degrees ([0109]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Garrec reference and include features from the WANG reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so ensures stable and controlled landing conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/SHAHIRA BAAJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3666