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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 12/23/2024.
Claims 1-35 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 15-22, 24-27, and 29-35 are withdrawn due to restriction election.
Claims 3, 12-14, 23, and 28 are currently rejected.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2024, 10/22/2025, and 01/05/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 3, 12-14, 23, and 28 in the reply filed on 08/24/2026 is acknowledged.
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 12 and 13 are 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.
Claims 12 and 13 recites the limitation “an operation state”. Claim 3 also recites “an operation state”. Claims 12 and 13 depend upon claim 3 so it is unclear if the inventor is referring to the same “operation state” or two different “operation states”. To overcome this rejection the examiner suggest changing the second recitation of “an operation state” to “the operation state”. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the recitations to be referring to the same “operation state”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3, 23, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cherepinsky et. al. (US 2018/0053427), herein Cherepinsky.
Regarding Claim 3:
Cherepinsky teaches:
A take-off and landing site monitoring device (a proximity detector 202 of the vehicle computer system 118 [0023]) comprising:
an image data acquirer (A perception sensing system of the vehicle can include a number of perception sensors, such as cameras, RADAR, ultrasonic sensors, LIDAR, and the like [0016]) to acquire, from an imaging device to image a take-off and landing site (The perception sensing system 120 can capture one or more of an image or range to the at least one obstacle 101 as obstacle data. An estimated position of the at least one obstacle 101 can be identified relative to an orientation of the autonomous vehicle 100 based on which of the one or sensors 122, 124 detect the at least one obstacle 101. [0029]), image data indicating a captured image of the take-off and landing site (a preflight proximity scan is performed for any obstacles 101 within a predetermined distance from the autonomous vehicle 100 based on the flight initiation request [0029]);
an obstruction detector (fig. 2, proximity detector 202) to determine a type of obstruction that hinders take-off and landing of a vertical take-off and landing aircraft using the take-off and landing site (a proximity detector 202 of the vehicle computer system 118 performs a preflight proximity scan for any obstacles 101 within a predetermined distance from the autonomous vehicle 100 [0023]) on a basis of the image data acquired by the image data acquirer (The perception sensing system 120 can capture one or more of an image or range to the at least one obstacle 101 as obstacle data. An estimated position of the at least one obstacle 101 can be identified relative to an orientation of the autonomous vehicle 100 based on which of the one or sensors 122, 124 detect the at least one obstacle 101. [0029]); and
an operation state determiner to determine an operation state of the take-off and landing site on a basis of a determination result of the obstruction type determined by the obstruction detector (The proximity detector 202 can also send an alert to the control station 130 based on detecting at least one obstacle 101 within the predetermined distance and can inhibit flight initiation of the autonomous vehicle 100 until an acknowledgement of the alert is received from the control station 130. [0023]).
Regarding Claim 23:
Cherepinsky teaches:
A take-off and landing site monitoring method (a proximity detector 202 of the vehicle computer system 118 [0023]) comprising:
acquiring from an imaging device (A perception sensing system of the vehicle can include a number of perception sensors, such as cameras, RADAR, ultrasonic sensors, LIDAR, and the like [0016]) to image a take-off and landing site (The perception sensing system 120 can capture one or more of an image or range to the at least one obstacle 101 as obstacle data. An estimated position of the at least one obstacle 101 can be identified relative to an orientation of the autonomous vehicle 100 based on which of the one or sensors 122, 124 detect the at least one obstacle 101. [0029]), image data indicating a captured image of the take-off and landing site (a preflight proximity scan is performed for any obstacles 101 within a predetermined distance from the autonomous vehicle 100 based on the flight initiation request [0029]);
determining a type of obstruction that hinders take-off and landing of a vertical take-off and landing aircraft (a proximity detector 202 of the vehicle computer system 118 performs a preflight proximity scan for any obstacles 101 within a predetermined distance from the autonomous vehicle 100 [0023]) using the take-off and landing site on a basis of the image data acquired (The perception sensing system 120 can capture one or more of an image or range to the at least one obstacle 101 as obstacle data. An estimated position of the at least one obstacle 101 can be identified relative to an orientation of the autonomous vehicle 100 based on which of the one or sensors 122, 124 detect the at least one obstacle 101. [0029]); and
determining an operation state of the take-off and landing site on a basis of a determined result of a type of the obstruction (The proximity detector 202 can also send an alert to the control station 130 based on detecting at least one obstacle 101 within the predetermined distance and can inhibit flight initiation of the autonomous vehicle 100 until an acknowledgement of the alert is received from the control station 130. [0023]).
Regarding Claim 28:
Cherepinsky teaches:
A take-off and landing site monitoring system (a proximity detector 202 of the vehicle computer system 118 [0023]) comprising:
an imaging device (A perception sensing system of the vehicle can include a number of perception sensors, such as cameras, RADAR, ultrasonic sensors, LIDAR, and the like [0016]) to image a take-off and landing site (The perception sensing system 120 can capture one or more of an image or range to the at least one obstacle 101 as obstacle data. An estimated position of the at least one obstacle 101 can be identified relative to an orientation of the autonomous vehicle 100 based on which of the one or sensors 122, 124 detect the at least one obstacle 101. [0029]);
an image data acquirer to acquire, from the imaging device, image data indicating a captured image of the take-off and landing site (a preflight proximity scan is performed for any obstacles 101 within a predetermined distance from the autonomous vehicle 100 based on the flight initiation request [0029]);
an obstruction detector (fig. 2, proximity detector 202) to determine a type of obstruction that hinders take-off and landing of a vertical take-off and landing aircraft using the take-off and landing site (a proximity detector 202 of the vehicle computer system 118 performs a preflight proximity scan for any obstacles 101 within a predetermined distance from the autonomous vehicle 100 [0023]) on a basis of the image data acquired by the image data acquirer (The perception sensing system 120 can capture one or more of an image or range to the at least one obstacle 101 as obstacle data. An estimated position of the at least one obstacle 101 can be identified relative to an orientation of the autonomous vehicle 100 based on which of the one or sensors 122, 124 detect the at least one obstacle 101. [0029]); and
an operation state determiner to determine an operation state of the take-off and landing site on a basis of a determination result of the obstruction type determined by the obstruction detector (The proximity detector 202 can also send an alert to the control station 130 based on detecting at least one obstacle 101 within the predetermined distance and can inhibit flight initiation of the autonomous vehicle 100 until an acknowledgement of the alert is received from the control station 130. [0023]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherepinsky et. al. (US 2018/0053427), herein Cherepinsky in view of Davis (US 2023/0343232), herein Davis.
Regarding Claim 12:
Cherepinsky teaches all the limitations of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Cherepinsky does not explicitly teach, however Davis teaches:
comprising a management information acquirer to acquire management information indicating maintenance of the take-off and landing site (the data may comprise details of operations to be undertaken at the landing site (such as inspections, maintenance, cleaning, or the like), availability and condition of runways, helipads, or the like at the landing site (such as presence of parked aircraft, obstructions, inoperative lighting, damaged surfaces, or the like), [0037]), wherein the operation state determiner determines an operation state of the take-off and landing site the processor may analyze one or more pieces of data corresponding to the landing site to determine if an operation (such as inspections, maintenance, cleaning, or the like) is presently underway or planned that may result in ground personnel potentially being present in the vicinity of a landing aircraft or may result in the unavailability or reduced capability of a runway, a helipad, or the like (such as undeployed firefighting systems, landing site occupied, reduced load bearing capability of the landing site, weather conditions, or the like) towards which the landing aircraft is heading [0055] on a basis of a determination result of the obstruction type determined by the obstruction detector (unavailability or reduced capability of a runway, a helipad, or the like (such as undeployed firefighting systems, landing site occupied, reduced load bearing capability of the landing site, weather conditions, or the like) towards which the landing aircraft is heading [0055]) and the management information acquired by the management information acquirer (an operation (such as inspections, maintenance, cleaning, or the like) is presently underway [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cherepinsky to include the teachings as taught by Davis with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of monitoring the state of a take-off and landing site. Davis teaches the benefit of “a receiver configured to receive position data from an aircraft, the receiver associated with a database comprising one or more pieces of data corresponding to a landing site; an alert system configured to alert the landing site of the aircraft approaching the landing site and/or alert the aircraft of the potential for conflict between the aircraft and the landing site; a processor coupled to the receiver and coupled to a controller in communication with the alert system; a memory, coupled to the processor, the memory including instruction code executable by the processor for: calculating one or more potential vectors of the aircraft based on the position data and the one or more pieces of data corresponding to the landing site; determining a probability the aircraft is approaching the landing site based on the one or more potential vectors; identifying a potential for conflict between the aircraft and the landing site based on the probability the aircraft is approaching the landing site and the one or more portions of data corresponding to the landing site; and sending one or more commands to the controller to activate the alert system. [Davis, 0014-0021]”.
Regarding Claim 13:
Cherepinsky teaches all the limitations of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Cherepinsky does not explicitly teach, however Davis teaches:
comprising an operation planner to create or update an operation plan of the take-off and landing site on a basis of an operation state of the take-off and landing site determined by the operation state determiner (For instance, the processor may identify a potential for conflict between an aircraft and a landing site due to a helicopter attempting to land on the wrong platform and the processor may transmit a command to the controller to activate warning or wave-off beacons on the platform and to transmit automated messages to the helicopter. [0061]; see also [0056-0064] disclosing multiple ways the system updates the operation plan depending on the detected situation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cherepinsky to include the teachings as taught by Davis with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of monitoring the state of a take-off and landing site. Davis teaches the benefit of “a receiver configured to receive position data from an aircraft, the receiver associated with a database comprising one or more pieces of data corresponding to a landing site; an alert system configured to alert the landing site of the aircraft approaching the landing site and/or alert the aircraft of the potential for conflict between the aircraft and the landing site; a processor coupled to the receiver and coupled to a controller in communication with the alert system; a memory, coupled to the processor, the memory including instruction code executable by the processor for: calculating one or more potential vectors of the aircraft based on the position data and the one or more pieces of data corresponding to the landing site; determining a probability the aircraft is approaching the landing site based on the one or more potential vectors; identifying a potential for conflict between the aircraft and the landing site based on the probability the aircraft is approaching the landing site and the one or more portions of data corresponding to the landing site; and sending one or more commands to the controller to activate the alert system. [Davis, 0014-0021]”.
Regarding Claim 14:
Cherepinsky in view of Davis teaches all the limitations of claim 13, upon which this claim depends.
Davis further teaches:
an operation information acquirer to acquire operation information of the vertical take-off and landing aircraft (The receiver may be configured to receive position data from an aircraft in real-time [0033]); and
an identification information acquirer to acquire, from a receiver to receive identification information of the vertical take-off and landing aircraft, the identification information (Any suitable position data may be received from the aircraft. For instance, the position data may include aircraft identity information (such as aircraft address and flight identification information) [0035]), wherein
the operation planner updates the operation plan on a basis of the operation information acquired by the operation information acquirer and the identification information acquired by the identification information acquirer (The probability the aircraft may be approaching the landing site may be updated in light of updated potential vectors of the aircraft and/or by using updated position data from the aircraft to validate/invalidate one or more potential vectors of the aircraft. The probability the aircraft may be approaching the landing site may be updated at regular or irregular intervals of time, at pre-determined time intervals, in response to detecting a signal, continuously, on an ad hoc basis, or any suitable combination thereof. [0053]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stoschek (US 2023/0023670) discloses systems and methods for detecting surface conditions using multiple images of different polarizations. A system in accordance with the present disclosure captures images having different polarizations and compares the images to evaluate surface conditions of an area, such as a runway, landing pad, roadway, or taxiway on which a vehicle is expected to land or otherwise travel. In some cases, a surface hazard, such as water, ice, or snow covering a surface of the area, may be detected and identified. Information indicative of the surface conditions may be used to make control decisions for operation of the vehicle.
Kabrt (US 2017/0025024) discloses A camera-based obstacle detection system includes a first camera, a second camera, and one or more processors configured to acquire a first image from the first camera, acquire a second image from the second camera, determine a depth of an object based on a location of the object in the first image relative to a location of the object in the second image, and in response to the depth exceeding a threshold depth value, generate an alert.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights