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 .
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1- rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, recites “an object” which is a broad term that includes people, animals, vehicles etc. Thus, the scope of the claim encompasses every object known now and would be known in the future while the disclosure only discloses aerial refueling (air-to-air refueling) for aircrafts and therefore, the metes, bounds and scope of protection are not defined and the claim is indefinite. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim.
As to claims 2-20 refer to claim 1 rejection.
Claim 1, recites “estimated path history” which is not defined in the specification and it is not clear how the system receives or derives it and how the “path history” determines “an initial position estimate for the object” and “a refined position estimate for the object”. Thus, the metes, bounds and scope of protection are not defined and the claim is indefinite.
As to claims 2-20 refer to claim 1 rejection.
Claim 1 recites a functional outcome "determining a position of a refueling boom" and, does not define any particular analysis steps of how the " position of a refueling boom " is determined. Thus, the scope of the claim encompasses every analysis step known now and would be known in the future for implementing the function of "determining a position of a refueling boom" and therefore, the metes, bounds and scope of protection are not defined and the claim is indefinite. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim and therefore, the claim is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05 (g)).
As to claims 2-7 refer to claim 1 rejection.
Claim 1 recites a functional outcome "tracking a distance between the refueling boom and the fuel receptacle" and, does not define any particular analysis steps of how the " distance between the refueling boom and the fuel receptacle " is tracked. Thus, the scope of the claim encompasses every tracking step known now and would be known in the future for implementing the function of " tracking a distance between the refueling boom and the fuel receptacle " and therefore, the metes, bounds and scope of protection are not defined and the claim is indefinite. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim and therefore, the claim is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05 (g)).
As to claims 2-7 refer to claim 1 rejection.
Claim 2 recites “safety parameters” which is not defined in the disclosure. It is not clear what safety parameters are? Thus, the metes, bounds and scope of protection are not defined and the claim is indefinite.
As to claims 9 and 16 refer to claim 2 rejection.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "refueling the aircraft”" in line3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claims 10 and 17 refer to claim 5 rejection.
Claim 8 recites a functional outcome " determine, based on at least the estimated path history for the object, refinement parameters" and, does not define any particular analysis steps of how the " refinement parameters" is determined “based on the estimated path history”. Thus, the scope of the claim encompasses every analysis step known now and would be known in the future for implementing the function of "determining a position of a refueling boom" and therefore, the metes, bounds and scope of protection are not defined and the claim is indefinite. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim and therefore, the claim is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05 (g)).
As to claims 9-14 refer to claim 8 rejection.
Claim 15 is a non-transitory computer readable medium analogous to claim 8 device, grounds of rejection analogous to those applied to claim 8 are applicable to claim 15.
As to claims 16-20 refer to claim 15 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 are rejected as best understood by the Examiner.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Marco Mammarella et al., “Machine Vision/GPS Integration Using EKF for the UAV Aerial Refueling Problem”, IEEE Transactions on systems, Man and Cybernetics: part C: Applications and Reviews , IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, NJ, USA, vol. 38, no. 6, 1 November 2008 (2008-11-01), pages 791-801, XP011753960, ISSN: 1094-6977.
As to claim 1, Mammarella discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a video stream showing an object to be refueled, wherein the video stream comprises a plurality of video frames [ From a control point of view, the objective is to guide the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) within a defined 3-D window (3DW, also called the “refueling box”) below the tanker where the boom operator can then manually proceed to the docking of the refueling boom followed by the refueling phase. An MV-based approach assumes the avail ability of a digital camera installed on the UAV providing the images of the target (i.e., the refueling tanker)—which are then processed to solve a pose estimation problem—leading to the real-time measurement of the relative position and orientation vectors (page 791, section I, Right Column par. 3). The simulation interacts with a virtual reality (VR) environment by moving visual 3-D models of the aircraft in a virtual world and by acquiring a stream of images (video) from the environment. These images are then processed by an MV (machine Vision) sensor block, which includes the algorithms for feature extraction (FE), point matching (PM), and pose estimation (PE)(page 792, section I, Left Column, par. 4. And Fig. 1)];
determining, for the plurality of video frames, an initial position estimate for the object, wherein the initial position estimate for the plurality of video frames comprises an estimated path history for the object [For PM purposes, X is assumed to be known. In fact, the camera–tanker distance—i.e., the first three elements of X—can be provided by the tanker and UAV GPS measurements, if GPS coverage is available. Alternatively, the MV-based estimation of the camera–tanker distance at previous time instants can be used as a good approximation of the current distance (path history) (assuming a fast sampling rate for the MV system). The relative orientation between the camera and tanker—i.e., the last three elements of X—can be obtained from the yaw, pitch, and roll angle measurements of both the UAV and tanker (page 794, Section IV, Right Column, first paragraph)];
determining, based on at least the estimated path history for the object, a refined position estimate for the object [The reliability of the AR (aerial refueling) docking maneuver is based on the accuracy of the measurement of the vector TRB, which is the distance between the UAV fuel receptacle and the center of the 3D refueling window, expressed in TRF (page 793, Section III.C, Left Column par.2 and Fig. 2). The MV-based estimation of the camera–tanker distance at previous time instants can be used as a good approximation of the current distance (path history) (assuming a fast sampling rate for the MV system). The relative orientation between the camera and tanker—i.e., the last three elements of X—can be obtained from the yaw, pitch, and roll angle measurements of both the UAV and tanker(page 794, Section IV, Right Column, par. 1];
determining, based on at least the refined position estimate for the object, a position of a fuel receptacle on the object [The reliability of the AR docking maneuver is based on the accuracy of the measurement of the vector TRB, which is the distance between the UAV fuel receptacle and the center of the 3D refueling window, expressed in TRF (body-fixed tanker reference frame. Since the fuel receptacle and the 3DW center are located at fixed and known positions with respect to the CG of the UAV and tanker, respectively, both UR and TB are known and constant. The matrix CTU expresses the position and altitude of CRF (body-fixed UAV reference frame) with respect to the URF, and therefore, is known and generally constant. The transformation matrix CTT can be evaluated either “directly”—i.e., using the relative position and orientation information provided by the MV system—or “indirectly”—i.e., by using the matrices ETU and CTT , which, in turn, can be evaluated using information from the position and altitude sensors of the tanker and UAV, respectively (page 793, section II.C, Left Column, 2nd paragraph).];
determining a position of a refueling boom [From a control point of view, the objective is to guide the UAV within a defined 3-D window (3DW, also called the “refueling box”)(boom position) below the tanker where the boom operator can then manually proceed to the docking of the refueling boom followed by the refueling phase. An MV-based approach assumes the avail ability of a digital camera installed on the UAV providing the images of the target (i.e., the refueling tanker)—which are then processed to solve a pose estimation problem—leading to the real-time measurement of the relative position and orientation vectors.];
tracking a distance between the refueling boom and the fuel receptacle; (page 791, section I, Right Column par. 3) and controlling, based on at least the position of the fuel receptacle and the position of the boom, the refueling boom to engage the fuel receptacle [The overall relative position estimate is then used by the docking control laws to guide the UAV from a “precontact” to a “contact” position (Page 791, Section I, Right Column, par.4). These control laws guide the aircraft during the docking maneuver and maintain the UAV within the specified 3-D window during the refueling phase (page 792, Section I, Left Column, par. 3). As previously stated, it is assumed that the boom operator can take control of the refueling operations once the UAV fuel receptacle reaches and remains within this 3DW.Itshouldbeemphasizedthatpoint B is fixed within the TRF ( page 793, Section II.B, L.C paragraph 1).
Claim 8 is a device analogous to method claim 1, grounds of rejection analogous to those applied to claim 1 are applicable to claim 8. Mammarella further discloses one or memories and one or more processors [the UAV is assumed to be equipped with a digital camera and an onboard computer hosting the MV algorithms acquiring the images of the tanker (page 793, section II.B, Left Column, 2nd paragraph), and determine, based on at least the estimated path history for the object, refinement parameters [Alternatively, the MV-based estimation of the camera–tanker distance at previous time instants can be used as a good approximation of the current distance (path history) (assuming a fast sampling rate for the MV system). The relative orientation between the camera and tanker—i.e., the last three elements of X—can be obtained from the yaw, pitch, and roll angle measurements of both the UAV and tanker (refinement parameters) (Page 794, Section IV, Right Column, paragraph 1)], wherein the refinement parameters comprise a translation refinement and a rotational refinement [The algorithm proceeds by iteratively improving an estimate of the rotation portion of the pose. Next, the algorithm estimates the associated translation only when a satisfactory estimate of the rotation is found (page 795, Left Column, par. 4)].
Claim 15 is a non-transitory computer readable medium analogous to device claim 8, grounds of rejection analogous to those applied to claim 8 are applicable to claim 15. Mammarella further discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium [the UAV is assumed to be equipped with a digital camera and an onboard computer hosting the MV algorithms (i.e., algorithms are stored in the memory of the computer) acquiring the images of the tanker (page 793, section II.B, Left Column, 2nd paragraph)].
As to claim 7 Mammarella further discloses, wherein the refueling boom comprises an extendable component [The boom was modeled as a system consisting of two rigid elements. The first element is connected to the tanker through two joints allowing vertical and lateral relative rotations. The second element is connected to the first by a prismatic joint (extension component) allowing telescopic extension (page 793, Right Column, last paragraph)].
As to claim 13 refer to claim 7 rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marco Mammarella et al., “Machine Vision/GPS Integration Using EKF for the UAV Aerial Refueling Problem”, IEEE Transactions on systems, Man and Cybernetics: part C: Applications and Reviews , IEEE Service Center, Piscataway, NJ, USA, vol. 38, no. 6, 1 November 2008 (2008-11-01), pages 791-801, XP011753960, ISSN: 1094-6977. as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of SPEER THOMAS E. (WO 2009152091 A2).
As to claim 2, Mammarella does not disclose, further comprising: generating an alert based on determining whether controlling the refueling boom to engage the fuel receptacle is within one or more safety parameters.
THOMAS discloses systems and methods for in-flight fuel delivery include an aerial refueling device adapted to provide fuel to a receiver aircraft (Abstract). A graphic display o provide an operator with information on position, status, and cautions/warnings of an aerial refueling device (page 4, line 33-page 5, line 2). The status indicators 220, in one embodiment, identify various information related to the "state of the fuel system" of the aerial refueling device 120 and include a fail status indicator 222, a ready status indicator 224, a contact status indicator 226, and a disconnect status indicator 228. (page 8, lines 24-27).When a new warning, caution or alert occurs, the warning indicator 216 (Fig. 2A) may be displayed superimposed on a portion of the boom 121. This warning indicator 216 is positioned to immediately alert the operator to view the status area for more information as to the cause of the warning indication. For example, positioning the warning indicator 216 at an end of the boom 121, does not interfere with the operator's ability to position the boom 121 in the receptacle 181 of the receiver aircraft 110b of Fig. ID or maintain a proper clearance from the receive aircraft 110b (safety parameter) (page 10, line 13-page 11, line 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the teachings of THOMAS to modify the method of Mammarella by generating an alert based on determining whether controlling the refueling boom to engage the fuel receptacle is within one or more safety parameters in order to immediately alert the operator to view the status area for more information as to the cause of the warning indication..
As to claims 9 and 10 refer to claim 2 rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No 12,148,184. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of the patent and claims 1 of the current application recite common subject matter; so are the following claims of the current application and their corresponding claims of the patent listed in an order pair notation:
(5, 18); (6, 4); (7,1)
Whereby claim 1, of the current application which recite the open ended transitional phrase "comprising", do not preclude the additional recited by claim 1 of Patent 12,148,184, and
Whereby the elements of claims 1 are fully anticipated by patent claim 1, and anticipation is "the ultimate or epitome of obviousness" (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 15 of U.S. Patent No 12,148,184. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 9 and 15 of the patent and claims 8 and 15 of the current application recite common subject matter;
Whereby claims 8 and 15, of the current application which recite the open ended transitional phrase "comprising", do not preclude the additional recited by claims 9 and 15 of Patent 12,148,184, and
Whereby the elements of claims 8 and 15 are fully anticipated by patent claims 9 and 15, and anticipation is "the ultimate or epitome of obviousness" (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
Claim 8 of the application is a device analogous to system claim 9 and is obvious in view of claim 9 of Patent 12,148,184 because a device is obvious in view of a system.
Claim 15 of the application is a non-transitory computer readable medium analogous to system claim 15 and is obvious in view of claim 15 of Patent 12,148,184 because a computer readable medium is obvious in view of a computer program product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR ANWAR AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7413. The examiner can normally be reached flex.
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, Edward Urban can be reached at (571)272-7899. 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.
/SAMIR A AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights