DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-11, 14, 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 11862031 (hereinafter ‘031) in view of Choi (US 20190019423, hereinafter Choi).
Regarding Claim 1, ‘031s claims:
a method for performing the functions of the present applications processing system with additional limitations that make the claims narrower than those of the present application.
‘031 doesn’t claim a system with the physical components to perform the method, but Choi does teach:
a system for an aircraft (see at least "The aircrew automation system 100" in par. 0081) , comprising:
a radio receiver (see at least "In addition to deriving physical state information, such as airspeed and altitude, the perception system 106 may also monitor instruments that are specific to aircraft systems such as fuel gauges and radios" in par. 0134) ;
a camera system onboard to the aircraft (see at least "In one aspect, the obstacle sensor payload 162 may employ both a radar sensor 412 and a camera (e.g., an infrared camera 414—a camera with an infrared sensor, a visible-near infrared EO sensor 416, or other optical sensors 418) to monitor the airspace adjacent the aircraft to detect cooperative and non-cooperative obstacles within its field of view, along its trajectory, etc." in par. 0163) ;
a flight management system of the aircraft (see at least "flight control system 116" in par. 0082) ; and
a processing system communicatively coupled to the radio receiver, the camera system, and the flight management system, wherein the processing system (see at least "As illustrated in FIG. 1a, a processor-controlled central subsystem functions as the core platform 102 to connect one or more other subsystems via one or more interfaces. " in par. 0078) comprises a pretrained classifier (see at least "The anomaly detection application 218 employs machine-learning techniques to monitor aircraft state, cluster, and classify sensor inputs in order to detect the presence of non-normal situations, and to identify whether a contingency has occurred." in par. 0107)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method claimed by ‘031 to incorporate the teachings of Choi wherein a system is provided with the physical components to perform the method. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Choi would be to improve redundancy and system robustness (see par. 0103).
Regarding Claim 5, ‘031 as modified by Choi claims:
The system of claim 1,
‘031 doesn’t claim a system with the physical components to perform the method, but Choi does teach:
further comprising a memory, wherein the set of camera images are historical camera images retrieved from the memory. (see “The core platform 102 can host various software processes stored to a memory device that tracks the aircraft, cooperative obstacles, non-cooperative obstacles, and procedure states, as well as any modules for trend analytics (predictive warnings) and machine-learning routines” in par. 0088 and “For example, the core platform 102 may determine (based at least in part on data from the obstacle sensor payload 162) that an obstacle 344, which should be a non-threat obstacle 344c based on current location, could become an imminent threat obstacle 344a (or an intermediate threat obstacle 344b) based on speed and/or heading of the non-threat obstacle 344c within a predetermined period of time (e.g., a short period of time, e.g., 1 to 10 minutes, or about 1 minute).” par. 0125 and “Further, the obstacle sensor payload 162 may communicate collected obstacle information to the aircraft state monitoring system 112 to alert an operator (e.g., via human-machine interface 126) of a possible collision, obstacle position, or other parameters thereof. In one aspect, the obstacle sensor payload 162 may employ both a radar sensor 412 and a camera (e.g., an infrared camera 414—a camera with an infrared sensor, a visible-near infrared EO sensor 416, or other optical sensors 418) to monitor the airspace adjacent the aircraft to detect cooperative and non-cooperative obstacles within its field of view, along its trajectory, etc.” in par. 0163).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method claimed by ‘031 to incorporate the teachings of Choi wherein a system is provided with the physical components to perform the method. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Choi would be to improve redundancy and system robustness (see par. 0103).
Regarding Claim 11, ‘031 claims:
a method for performing the functions of the present applications processing system with additional limitations that make the claims narrower than those of the present application.
‘031 doesn’t claim a system with the physical components to perform the method, but Choi does teach:
A system for an aircraft (see at least "The aircrew automation system 100" in par. 0081), comprising:
an imaging system (see at least "In one aspect, the obstacle sensor payload 162 may employ both a radar sensor 412 and a camera (e.g., an infrared camera 414—a camera with an infrared sensor, a visible-near infrared EO sensor 416, or other optical sensors 418) to monitor the airspace adjacent the aircraft to detect cooperative and non-cooperative obstacles within its field of view, along its trajectory, etc." in par. 0163); and
a processing system onboard the aircraft and communicatively coupled to the imaging system (see at least " As illustrated in FIG. 1a, a processor-controlled central subsystem functions as the core platform 102 to connect one or more other subsystems via one or more interfaces. " in par. 0078), the processing system comprising an object detection model (see at least "The anomaly detection application 218 employs machine-learning techniques to monitor aircraft state, cluster, and classify sensor inputs in order to detect the presence of non-normal situations, and to identify whether a contingency has occurred." in par. 0107)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method claimed by ‘031 to incorporate the teachings of Choi wherein a system is provided with the physical components to perform the method. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Choi would be to improve redundancy and system robustness (see par. 0103).
Regarding Claim 19, ‘031 as modified by Choi claims:
The system of claim 11,
‘031 doesn’t claim a system with the physical components to perform the method, but Choi does teach:
wherein the imaging system comprises radar (see par. 0163).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method claimed by ‘031 to incorporate the teachings of Choi wherein a system is provided with the physical components to perform the method. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Choi would be to improve redundancy and system robustness (see par. 0103).
Due to the similarity in claim language, a detailed mapping for the other claims is omitted and the following table is provided to map the claims:
18960307 Claims
US 11862031 Claims
1
1
2
3
3
1
4
5
5
1
6
7
7
1
8
1
9
8
10
9
11
1,10, 17, 18
12
1,10, 17, 18
13
9
14
4, 14, 17
15
7, 11
16
1,10, 17, 18
17
5, 10
18
2
19
1,10, 17, 18
20
16
Claims 1-6, 11, 14-17, 19-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 8, 12-17, 19 of U.S. Patent No. US 12183214 (hereinafter ‘214) in view of Choi (US 20190019423, hereinafter Choi).
Regarding Claim 1, ‘214 claims:
a method for performing the functions of the present applications processing system with additional limitations that make the claims narrower than those of the present application.
‘214 doesn’t claim a system with the physical components to perform the method, but Choi does teach:
a system for an aircraft (see at least "The aircrew automation system 100" in par. 0081) , comprising:
a radio receiver (see at least "In addition to deriving physical state information, such as airspeed and altitude, the perception system 106 may also monitor instruments that are specific to aircraft systems such as fuel gauges and radios" in par. 0134) ;
a camera system onboard to the aircraft (see at least "In one aspect, the obstacle sensor payload 162 may employ both a radar sensor 412 and a camera (e.g., an infrared camera 414—a camera with an infrared sensor, a visible-near infrared EO sensor 416, or other optical sensors 418) to monitor the airspace adjacent the aircraft to detect cooperative and non-cooperative obstacles within its field of view, along its trajectory, etc." in par. 0163) ;
a flight management system of the aircraft (see at least "flight control system 116" in par. 0082) ; and
a processing system communicatively coupled to the radio receiver, the camera system, and the flight management system, wherein the processing system (see at least " As illustrated in FIG. 1a, a processor-controlled central subsystem functions as the core platform 102 to connect one or more other subsystems via one or more interfaces. " in par. 0078) comprises a pretrained classifier (see at least "The anomaly detection application 218 employs machine-learning techniques to monitor aircraft state, cluster, and classify sensor inputs in order to detect the presence of non-normal situations, and to identify whether a contingency has occurred." in par. 0107)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method claimed by ‘214 to incorporate the teachings of Choi wherein a system is provided with the physical components to perform the method. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Choi would be to improve redundancy and system robustness (see par. 0103).
Regarding Claim 5, ‘214 as modified by Choi claims:
The system of claim 1,
‘214 doesn’t claim a system with the physical components to perform the method, but Choi does teach:
further comprising a memory, wherein the set of camera images are historical camera images retrieved from the memory. (see “The core platform 102 can host various software processes stored to a memory device that tracks the aircraft, cooperative obstacles, non-cooperative obstacles, and procedure states, as well as any modules for trend analytics (predictive warnings) and machine-learning routines” in par. 0088 and “For example, the core platform 102 may determine (based at least in part on data from the obstacle sensor payload 162) that an obstacle 344, which should be a non-threat obstacle 344c based on current location, could become an imminent threat obstacle 344a (or an intermediate threat obstacle 344b) based on speed and/or heading of the non-threat obstacle 344c within a predetermined period of time (e.g., a short period of time, e.g., 1 to 10 minutes, or about 1 minute).” par. 0125 and “Further, the obstacle sensor payload 162 may communicate collected obstacle information to the aircraft state monitoring system 112 to alert an operator (e.g., via human-machine interface 126) of a possible collision, obstacle position, or other parameters thereof. In one aspect, the obstacle sensor payload 162 may employ both a radar sensor 412 and a camera (e.g., an infrared camera 414—a camera with an infrared sensor, a visible-near infrared EO sensor 416, or other optical sensors 418) to monitor the airspace adjacent the aircraft to detect cooperative and non-cooperative obstacles within its field of view, along its trajectory, etc.” in par. 0163).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method claimed by ‘214 to incorporate the teachings of Choi wherein a system is provided with the physical components to perform the method. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Choi would be to improve redundancy and system robustness (see par. 0103).
Regarding Claim 11, ‘214 claims:
a method for performing the functions of the present applications processing system with additional limitations that make the claims narrower than those of the present application.
‘214 doesn’t claim a system with the physical components to perform the method, but Choi does teach:
A system for an aircraft (see at least "The aircrew automation system 100" in par. 0081), comprising:
an imaging system (see at least "In one aspect, the obstacle sensor payload 162 may employ both a radar sensor 412 and a camera (e.g., an infrared camera 414—a camera with an infrared sensor, a visible-near infrared EO sensor 416, or other optical sensors 418) to monitor the airspace adjacent the aircraft to detect cooperative and non-cooperative obstacles within its field of view, along its trajectory, etc." in par. 0163); and
a processing system onboard the aircraft and communicatively coupled to the imaging system (see at least " As illustrated in FIG. 1a, a processor-controlled central subsystem functions as the core platform 102 to connect one or more other subsystems via one or more interfaces. " in par. 0078), the processing system comprising an object detection model (see at least "The anomaly detection application 218 employs machine-learning techniques to monitor aircraft state, cluster, and classify sensor inputs in order to detect the presence of non-normal situations, and to identify whether a contingency has occurred." in par. 0107)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method claimed by ‘214 to incorporate the teachings of Choi wherein a system is provided with the physical components to perform the method. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Choi would be to improve redundancy and system robustness (see par. 0103).
Regarding Claim 19, ‘214 as modified by Choi claims:
The system of claim 11,
‘214 doesn’t claim a system with the physical components to perform the method, but Choi does teach:
wherein the imaging system comprises radar (see par. 0163).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method claimed by ‘214 to incorporate the teachings of Choi wherein a system is provided with the physical components to perform the method. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Choi would be to improve redundancy and system robustness (see par. 0103).
Due to the similarity in claim language, a detailed mapping for the other claims is omitted and the following table is provided to map the claims:
18960307 Claims
US 12183214 Claims
1
1
2
12
3
14
4
15
5
8
6
6
11
1, 16
14
16
15
6
16
1, 17
17
15, 19
19
1, 16
20
13
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.
Claim(s) 11-13, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 20190019423, hereinafter Choi) in view of Kar et al (US 20160284220, hereinafter Kar).
Regarding Claim 11, Choi teaches:
a system for an aircraft (see at least "the aircrew automation system 100" in par. 0078) , comprising:
an imaging system (see at least "In one aspect, the obstacle sensor payload 162 may employ both a radar sensor 412 and a camera (e.g., an infrared camera 414—a camera with an infrared sensor, a visible-near infrared EO sensor 416, or other optical sensors 418) to monitor the airspace adjacent the aircraft to detect cooperative and non-cooperative obstacles within its field of view, along its trajectory, etc." in par. 0163) ; and
a processing system onboard the aircraft and communicatively coupled to the imaging system (see at least "The core platform 102 serves as the primary autonomous agent and decision-maker, which synthesizes inputs from the perception system 106, aircraft state monitoring system 112, obstacle sensor payload 162, and HMI system 104 with its acquired knowledge base to determine the overall aircraft system state." in par. 0086) ,
the processing system comprising an object detection model (see at least "As noted above, the obstacle sensor payload 162 further employs one or more optical sensors (e.g., cameras) configured to pan and tilt, such as an infrared camera 414 to scan the airspace for thermal signatures and a visible-near infrared electro-optic (EO) sensor 416 to scan the airspace to identify and aid in classifying objects" in par. 0172 and "A processor, whether integrated with the obstacle sensor payload 162 or as part of the core platform 102, may combine the information from the radar sensor 412 with the camera to identify the non-cooperative obstacle." in par. 0177) and configured to:
determine a restricted region within a set of measurements captured by the imaging system (see at least " The infrared camera 414 may pan continuously or in steps (e.g., incremental lock steps), each step being a radial sector. In certain aspects, the infrared camera 414 may continuously pan left/right and tilt up/down to cover uncertain voxels of the radar sensor 412 (e.g., 25°×2°). Indeed, the infrared camera 414 may provide a measureable field of view that is equal to or greater than the field of view dictated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Therefore, while the infrared camera 414 suffers from poor range and a narrower vertical field of view (e.g., making it difficult to provide 360-degree coverage), an advantage of the infrared camera 414 is its high resolution." in par. 0175)
detect the object within the restricted space using an object detection model, wherein detecting the object comprises estimating a position of the detected object (see at least " By way of illustration, an aircraft equipped with an obstacle sensor payload 162, may (1) detect a non-cooperative obstacle at a known distance and velocity at a first resolution via the radar sensor 412 and (2) image the non-cooperative obstacle at a second resolution (i.e., higher resolution) via a camera (e.g., the infrared camera 414, a visible-near infrared EO sensor 416, or other optical sensors 418). A processor, whether integrated with the obstacle sensor payload 162 or as part of the core platform 102, may combine the information from the radar sensor 412 with the camera to identify the non-cooperative obstacle." in par. 0177); and
perform an action based on the position of the detected object (see at least " For example, the core platform 102 may communicate information reflecting a detected non-cooperative obstacle on a collision path with the aircraft, which may be detected by the obstacle sensor payload 162, to the flight control system (e.g., the flight control system 116, which may be an existing flight control system of the aircraft) to initiate an obstacle-avoidance navigational route generated by the core platform 102. " in par. 0086) .
Choi does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Kar does teach:
determine a restricted region within a set of measurements captured by the imaging system based on a traffic alert (see at least “In operation, the voice enabled traffic prioritization module 102, in response to a valid traffic alert providing traffic data associated with a specific aircraft, generates a probability zone with a center point. The probability zone is a volume in which the pilot may find the specific aircraft. The traffic alert provides aircraft (air traffic) traffic location data such as, traffic orientation, traffic range, traffic altitude, and traffic bearing for the specific aircraft.” in par. 0030);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Choi to incorporate the teachings of Kar wherein a probability zone for an obstacle is determined from a traffic alert from air traffic control, in order to arrive at panning/titling the camera of Choi to search within a probability zone from an air traffic alert for an obstacle. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Kar would be to reduce the visual and manual cognitive workload associated with responding to traffic alerts. (see par. 0003).
Regarding Claim 12, Choi as modified by Kar teaches:
12. The system of claim 11,
Choi does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Kar does teach:
wherein the traffic alert is determined from a human-interpretable audio signal received by the aircraft. (see at least "Process 500 begins upon receiving speech data at STEP 502. Command analyzer 124 is configured to continuously receive speech data from audio input device 106. At STEP 502, command analyzer 124 parses the received speech data into text and identifies the speech data according to stored rules and traffic command models. Command analyzer 124 arranges the parsed text, syntactically, to identify ATC commands, and then further identifies ATC commands that are traffic alerts." in par. 0043)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Choi to incorporate the teachings of Kar wherein the traffic alert is identified by automatic speech recognition. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Kar would be to reduce the visual and manual cognitive workload associated with responding to traffic alerts. (see par. 0003).
Regarding Claim 13, Choi as modified by Kar teaches:
13. The system of claim 12,
Choi does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Kar does teach:
wherein the traffic alert is determined by querying the human-interpretable audio signal with a set of queries. (see at least "At STEP 502, command analyzer 124 parses the received speech data into text and identifies the speech data according to stored rules and traffic command models. Command analyzer 124 arranges the parsed text, syntactically, to identify ATC commands, and then further identifies ATC commands that are traffic alerts. In order to perform these functions, command analyzer 124 employs stored speech and command models supplied by any suitable commercially available speech recognition system and/or voice command analyzer. As is readily appreciated, a user may customize the speech and command models prior to, or during, operation." in par. 0043)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Choi to incorporate the teachings of Kar wherein the traffic alert is identified by automatic speech recognition by converting speech to text and querying the text with speech and command models that look for ATC commands. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Kar would be to reduce the visual and manual cognitive workload associated with responding to traffic alerts. (see par. 0003).
Regarding Claim 15, Choi as modified by Kar teaches:
15. The system of claim 11,
Choi does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Kar does teach:
wherein the traffic alert comprises a traffic advisory associated with a second aircraft. (see at least "When command analyzer 124 identifies a valid traffic alert in the speech data (STEP 504), command analyzer 124 extracts and stores the associated traffic data from the traffic alert at STEP 506. As mentioned above, valid traffic alerts comprise components of speech data in a standard format, the components being traffic location information such as traffic bearing, altitude, distance, type, and the like. Referring back to the example ATC traffic alert from FIG. 2, a typical traffic alert provides traffic location information in the following standard format, “TRAFFIC ONE O'CLOCK FIVE MILES FLIGHT LEVEL TWO SEVEN ZERO.”" in par. 0044 and “Process 500 advantageously prioritizes and visually distinguishes, on the display, the associated neighboring aircraft for the pilot (see, FIG. 3 and FIG. 4).” In par. 0045)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Choi to incorporate the teachings of Kar wherein the traffic alert is identified by automatic speech recognition to indicate the relative location of a neighboring aircraft. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Kar would be to reduce the visual and manual cognitive workload associated with responding to traffic alerts. (see par. 0003).
Regarding Claim 16, Choi as modified by Kar teaches:
16. The system of claim 11,
Choi does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Kar does teach:
wherein the traffic alert comprises a location estimate for the object. (see at least " When command analyzer 124 identifies a valid traffic alert in the speech data (STEP 504), command analyzer 124 extracts and stores the associated traffic data from the traffic alert at STEP 506. As mentioned above, valid traffic alerts comprise components of speech data in a standard format, the components being traffic location information such as traffic bearing, altitude, distance, type, and the like. Referring back to the example ATC traffic alert from FIG. 2, a typical traffic alert provides traffic location information in the following standard format, “TRAFFIC ONE O'CLOCK FIVE MILES FLIGHT LEVEL TWO SEVEN ZERO.”" in par. 0044 and “Process 500 advantageously prioritizes and visually distinguishes, on the display, the associated neighboring aircraft for the pilot (see, FIG. 3 and FIG. 4).” In par. 0045)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Choi to incorporate the teachings of Kar wherein the traffic alert is identified by automatic speech recognition to indicate the relative location of a neighboring aircraft. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Kar would be to reduce the visual and manual cognitive workload associated with responding to traffic alerts. (see par. 0003).
Regarding Claim 17, Choi as modified by Kar teaches:
17. The system of claim 16, further comprising
Choi further teaches: an Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) system onboard the aircraft, wherein the location estimate is from the ADS-B system). (see at least " As can be appreciated, a cooperative aircraft refers to an aircraft able to cooperate with a cooperative sensor. For example, a cooperative aircraft may be equipped with a TCAS (TCAS II or earlier generation), such as a Mode S or a Mode C transponder, ADS-B, or, alternatively, using other emissions and squitter messages such as ADS-B… In other words, cooperative targets send out its location and heading (e.g., GPS location and velocity vector) to other aircraft via radio (e.g., using ADS-B or other methods)" in par. 0003)
Regarding Claim 18, Choi as modified by Kar teaches:
18. The system of claim 11,
Choi further teaches: wherein performing the action comprising transmitting the action to a flight control system for automatic implementation of the action. (see at least " s illustrated in FIG. 1b, for example, the HMI system 104 may receive status information from a subsystem of the aircrew automation system 100 via the core platform 102, while sending to the core platform 102 one or more mode commands generated by the HMI system 104 or input by the pilot. The pilot may be remote (e.g., on the ground or in another aircraft) or on-board (i.e., in the aircraft). Thus, in certain aspects, the HMI system 104 may be remotely facilitated over a network via communication system 122." in par. 0114)
Regarding Claim 19, Choi as modified by Kar teaches:
19. The system of claim 11,
Choi further teaches: wherein the imaging system comprises radar (see at least " The radar sensor 412 may be configured to monitor the airspace adjacent the aircraft (e.g., a circular airspace about the aircraft 700) for both cooperative and non-cooperative obstacles. " in par. 0168) .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN M KATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs. 8:00-6:00.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/DYLAN M KATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657