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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 29, Line 4: There is no opening parenthesis to match the closing one in this line.
Paragraph 65, Line 14: The correct article before “airport” should be –an--.
Paragraph 76, Line 6: A verb –are—is needed before “being carried out”.
Paragraph 84, Line 21: A word –of—is needed before “detecting”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-8, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al [CN 214271786] (supplied by applicant) in view of Agrawal [US 2016/0039534] (supplied by applicant).
For claim 1, the system taught by Zhang comprises the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed camera unit is met by the traffic cone (No. 23) having a functional module (No. 18), each unit comprising 2) the claimed base met by said cone body (No. 23) to support the camera unit (Fig. 1) on a ground surface, 3) the claimed camera is met by the camera (No. 21) configured to be held in an elevated position above the ground, 4) the claimed wireless communication device is met by the communication module that transmits the situation to a cloud server (see Paragraph 24), 5) the claimed computing device is met by the control chip located in the functional module (Paragraph 24), and 6) the integrated source of electrical power is met by the thin-film solar cells (No. 24) that supplies power to the control chip, camera, and sensor (Paragraph 23). The road cone of Zhang is to be used in road traffic settings, therefore a plurality of cones would be needed in most traffic situations, including and exceeding three portable units. However, the Zhang reference does not mention capturing and processing the video footage of under-the-wing turnaround activities of an aircraft that is stationary to the ground and transmit the data to a computer system located remotely from each of the camera units.
Road traffic is not the only setting in which a plurality of portable camera units may be applied. The system for airside activity management taught by Agrawal teaches a plurality of video cameras (Nos. 202A-202N) that sends video data to a computing system (No. 204) and its associated analytics tool (No. 212) stored in memory (No. 210). Looking at some of the images (Figs. 3D and 3E), the cameras and the video are receiving data from ground level. This video data is obtained in real time and time stamps are determined associated with the airside activities of the aircraft.
One key piece of information not found in the Agrawal reference is how exactly the cameras are arranged or placed near the aircraft. Paragraph 16 states that the video cameras are “mounted in a survey area (e.g., airside)” of the airport. Paragraphs 61 and 62 mention that the cameras are “arranged in the apron area” of the airport. The Zhang reference presents one possible way of mounting these cameras in the area. Not only are the cones portable, they have cameras built in to record and transmit data to a remote location. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the traffic cones of Zhang as one possible easy and portable method of mounting the cameras to be used to record needed video information in Agrawal.
For claim 2, the Agrawal reference determines time stamps associated with the airside activities of the aircraft (Fig. 1, No. 104).
For claim 3, both references use cameras (Agrawal, Nos. 202A-202N) to record video footage and images (Figs. 3A-3F).
For claim 5, Figures 1, 6, and 7 of Zhang depicts a structure extending upwardly from the base of the cone that supports the camera (No. 21) in an elevated position. A counterweight seat (No. 25) is installed in the bottom third (Fig. 1) of Zhang.
For claim 6, one neat aspect of the Zhang reference is that the camera unit can be detached from the base unit (Figs. 1-4). The base units can then be stacked on one another.
For claim 7, Figures 4A-4C of Agrawal depicts a graph (No. 404) showing time durations of several different aspects of aircraft turnaround such as cargo van and fuel truck. Furthermore, a time log (No. 406) depicts the start and end times of each task.
For claim 8, Figure 3A of Agrawal depicts images that captures over-the-wing images.
For claim 14, the safety cone taught by Zhang includes the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed height is seen in Figures 1 and 2 and the cone also includes a counterweight seat (No. 25) in the bottom of the cone, 2) the claimed reflective striping is met by the reflective taps (Paragraph 6) provided on the four corners of the road cone for enhanced visibility, 3) the claimed integrated video camera is met by the camera, 4) the claimed integrated wireless communication device is met by the communication module that transmits the situation to a cloud server (see Paragraph 24), and 5) the claimed integrated computing device is met by the control chip located in the functional module (Paragraph 24). However, there is no mention of a processor and memory storing computer software for controlling what data is transmitted via the communication device.
Electronic devices have had processors and memories for many years and the inclusion of said elements is not considered a patentable innovation as these have been used in these devices to accomplish their programmed tasks. The system for airside activity management using video analytics taught by Agrawal teaches a system that uses cameras in order to detect the times and durations of airside activities. Figure 5 depicts an example computing device (No. 500) for managing airside activities. The device may include a processor (No. 502) that executes machine-readable instructions stored in a storage medium (No. 504). This computing device is to be analogous to the computing system (No. 204) of Figure 2. However, this is one type of example and processors and memories have been used in camera systems for some time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a processor and memory in the control chip of Zhang for the purpose of including well-known and common electronic elements.
For claim 15, one neat aspect of the Zhang reference is that the camera unit can be detached from the base unit (Figs. 1-4). The base units can then be stacked on one another.
For claim 16, the road cone of Zhang is to be used in road traffic settings, therefore a plurality of cones would be needed in most traffic situations, including and exceeding three portable units. The Agrawal reference is to be used in aircraft settings.
For claim 17, the road cones of Zhang comprise a portable camera unit (No. 18).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al in view of Zhang et al.
For claim 9, the method of monitoring under-the-wing turnaround activities (see angles in Figures 3D and 3E) of an aircraft taught by Agrawal includes the following claimed steps, as noted, 1) the claimed at least three camera units is met using the plurality of cameras (No. 202A-202N) in the vicinity of an aircraft (see Fig. 3A) to capture video footage of under-the-wing turnaround activities (notice angles in Figures 3D and 3E), the under-the-wing activities including cargo van connection and fuel truck connection (Paragraph 61), 2) the claimed determining the time the turnaround activity starts and a time it is completed is seen in the activity time log (No. 406) with connections and disconnections and 3) the claimed recording the time the activity starts and the time the activity is completed is achieved using the storage medium (No. 504) that obtains the video data of the survey area in real time (Paragraph 63). The camera units of Agrawal are not above ground of less than 2.5 meters. Also, each camera unit does not explicitly disclose a computing device and wireless communication device.
The Zhang reference discloses a road cone that is ostensibly the height of a traffic cone, thereby its height would be well below 2.5 meters. And this cone would provide a portable device that can be easily placed in the vicinity of the aircraft apron of Agrawal. One key piece of information not found in the Agrawal reference is how exactly the cameras are arranged or placed near the aircraft. Paragraph 16 states that the video cameras are “mounted in a survey area (e.g., airside)” of the airport. Paragraphs 61 and 62 mention that the cameras are “arranged in the apron area” of the airport. The Zhang reference presents one possible way of mounting these cameras in the area. The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above.
The computing device is met by the control chip of the functional module (No. 18) found in Zhang. The wireless communication device is met by the communication module of Zhang that transmits the situation to a cloud server (see Paragraph 24).
For claim 18, the non-transitory computer readable medium is met by the storage medium (No. 504) of Agrawal that may store instructions (Nos. 506 and 508) that causes the computer (No. 500) to perform its process.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al in view of Agrawal et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krauter et al [U.S. 5,840,012].
For claim 4, neither the Zhang nor the Agrawal reference includes a cooling fan for cooling the video camera.
Cooling fans have been used for many years. The diagnostic instrument taught by Krauter includes a video camera (No. 24) with a cooling fan (No. 30) behind it to dissipate heat (Col. 3, Lns. 38-39). The Krauter reference shows that cooling fans have been used for some time. And the cameras in both the Zhang and Agrawal reference are to be used in outdoor settings where the temperature could get very hot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a cooling fan in the system of Zhang and Agrawal for the purpose of preventing heat damage to a camera used outdoors.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal et al in view of Zhang et al as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Patel et al [U.S. 11,006,078].
For claim 10, neither the Agrawal nor the Zhang references mention issuing an alert when ground equipment is used, or not used, in a manner deemed to be out of scope of acceptable turnaround activities.
The system taught by Patel also uses data gathered from cameras (Nos. 25a-25c) that is then sent to a computer (No. 20) to monitor and alert airline gate activities. An alert can then be displayed indicating that a first activity does not comply with a predetermined schedule (Abstract). Figure 4A depicts a chart portion (No. 110) with a spreadsheet-like view of the turnarounds associated with a specific airport showing equipment type, arrival information, and alert and notifications (No. 160). Also, an additional detail portion (No. 115) includes flight information for a specific turnaround and event details regarding a specific turnaround, including action items that must be completed.
Most importantly, in some embodiments (Col. 15, Lns. 5-11), the system logs and monitors gate activities by monitoring real-time airport video and detecting trained scenarios, e.g., catering has not arrived. Once these scenarios are detected, the machine learning models send alerts to employees and other downline systems. The Patel reference presents one useful application with which to use the information gleaned from the Agrawal reference. Like Agrawal, the Patel reference uses the information to more efficiently turn around the aircraft. Alerts like those found in Patel would put a fire underneath certain employees to get the job done. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to issue an alert using the information found in Agrawal for the purpose of providing improved service at an airport gate.
For claim 11, one example of an alert condition found in Patel (Col. 15, Lns. 5-11) is that catering has not arrived or the fueling has started or ended.
For claim 12, the Agrawal reference includes an event trigger module (No. 220) that can trigger an alert in response to detecting the risk of collision with an aircraft (Paragraph 64).
For claim 13, the Agrawal reference includes a central computer system (No. 204) for monitoring ground operations of the aircraft wherein data and video from the cameras (Nos. 202A-202N) are transmitted to the computing system. The Patel reference depicts cameras (Nos. 25d and 25f) mounted in the vicinity of the aircraft to produce images (Figs. 14-22) of aircraft activities. These are interpreted as cameras that are independent of the portable camera units found in Zhang that can be used in addition to the building-mounted cameras.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Joyson et al [U.S. 9,934,693] generates an aircraft turnaround status analysis.
Gonzalez Parra et al [U.S. 11,479,370] monitors aircraft turnaround at an airport.
Patel et al [U.S. 12,081,912] monitors and reports aircraft turnaround activities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A. TWEEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-2969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
JAT4/9/2026
/JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights