DETAILED ACTION
Claims dated 05/19/2026 are considered in this office 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 .
Response to Arguments
The applicant main arguments are: A) As an aerial system, there would be no reason for the Yakimenko system to employ a navigation system that generates a route over the ground surface, as an aerial route can be determined for a flight altitude that ignores paved areas and most ground- level obstructions, and such aerial route will frequently be more direct and efficient than a route over the ground. Similar efficiency would be expected in the aerial scanning for FODs, and thus one skilled in the art would not seek to modify the Yakimenko system by substituting ground-based detection vehicles as presently claimed. The office respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertion however to promote excellent customer service , the pending claims are rejected on the new grounds of rejection: Boyle in view of Yakimenko. Boyle teaches the ground mobile unit that detects the FOD and collects the FOD. And Yakimenko is only supplied as evidence for coverage pattern to search for the FOD disclosed by Boyle as described in detail below.
The applicant further argues B) Claim 16 adds further distinction in reciting a navigation system that uses LiDAR data on current airfield conditions to develop an adaptive route when generating the route and/or the coverage plan, adding further flexibility to the operation of the apparatus in adapting to real-time conditions. In rejecting claim 5 (having a similar adaptive route limitation for the coverage plan), the Action cited Boyle col. 2 lines 49-65 as disclosing a coverage plan that includes an adaptive route. Applicant respectfully disagrees with this characterization, as the cited section of Boyle discusses the use of a computer vision application to detect anomalies, and does not describe the determination of a coverage plan. As described in detail below, Boyle LiDAR technology routes the mobile unit and avoid any collision with any objects during route and are interpreted as adaptive to real time conditions. And as mentioned above coverage plan is supported by Yakimenko. I know the applicant will say that its for UAV and it cannot be used for ground vehicles. However the office disagrees, it is a simple concept and is well know in the field to have certain search plan to search the area.
The examiner believes he has responded to all the arguments presented by the applicant at this time. However, if the applicant believes that the examiner has missed any arguments to respond, the applicant is invited to call the examiner directly to expedite the process
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 16, 18-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle (US12045059) in view of Yakimenko (US11281905) and herein after will be referred as Yakimenko and Boyle respectively.
Regarding Claim 2, Boyle in view of Yakimenko teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yakimenko also teaches a transmitter configured to transmit data indicative of a location where the foreign-object debris was found on the airfield for inclusion in a log entry of a ground maintenance database (Col.5 Line 48-51: “In the present example, candidate FOD information included in FOD field 316 for each candidate FOD includes: a FOD identifier (ID) generated by method 104; the location of the candidate FOD, as latitude and longitude; a size of the candidate FOD; a color of the candidate FOD; and a location of the candidate FOD relative to the start of the sweep.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Boyle in view of Yakimenko teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Boyle teaches the navigation system generates an adaptive route specific to the region of the airfield to be inspected for the foreign-object debris based, at least in part on real-time LiDAR data on an environment of the region of the airfield to be inspected (Col.2 Line 49-65).
Yakimenko discloses the coverage plan (Col.4 Line 56-Col.5 Line 7).
Regarding Claim 8, Boyle in view of Yakimenko teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Boyle teaches wherein the sensor circuitry comprises a camera that captures an optical image that is analyzed by the computing system to detect the foreign-object debris on the airfield (Col.2 Line 60-Col.3 Line 10).
Regarding Claim 16, Boyle teaches an apparatus for searching for foreign-object debris on an airfield of an airport, the airfield comprising a runway where an aircraft takes off and lands, and an apron where the aircraft parks between landing and taking off (Fig.3 Col.3 Line 62-65: “A system 100, as shown in FIG. 1, is configured to collect Foreign Object Debris (FOD) from hard surfaces on an airfield autonomously and without the need for operations personnel. The system 100 is comprised of a mobile robot 10, a payload 14, a management application 22, a server-based control system 35, and an end user application 25.”), the apparatus comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a command to conduct a search for foreign-object debris on a region of the airfield: Boyle discloses that the mobile robot includes a transceiver (2-way radio system #44 and an on-board display (48) configured to receive requests/commands identifying which hard surface to clear and when to begin Col.4 Line 6-23: “The robot 10 also includes a navigation system 41 capable of calculating a location within four inches, an anticollision system 47 capable of object detection and avoidance, a 2-way radio system 44 capable of reliable data transport, and an on-board computer system 43 capable of taking requests for navigation from a server based control system 35 and then locally managing the autonomous navigation to fulfill the request. The payload 14 attached to the robot 10 removes FOD. In another embodiment, the mobile robot 10 comprises a display 48 that can be attached to the robot 10, as shown in FIG. 4B. The display 48 is used as a controller screen, including selecting and assigning the robot 10. In this embodiment, the operator can physically go up to the robot 10 and select the area to clear out of a list of available options (e.g., [1—Ramp A; 2—Ramp B; 3—Terminal B23 Area; etc.]). The operator selects the target from the display 48 on the robot 10 and then touches the [GO] button to initiate the robot's 10 actions.”);
a navigation system that configured to generate, responsive to receiving the command:(i) generates a route over the ground surface to be traveled by the apparatus to reach the region of the airfield, and (ii) generates
Boyle discloses a server-based routing algorithm that generates (Col.4 Line 36-44: “The server-based control system 35 calculates the most efficient route from current robot location to the hard surface assigned along with the most efficient route to traverse the hard surface for FOD collection. The server-based control system 35 sends the calculated routing to the assigned robot at the assigned time. The mobile robot 10 executes the request to follow the route, detecting and avoiding unexpected obstacles along the way, and then returning to its assigned home position to dump the collected debris.”)
the navigation system generating at least one of the route and the coverage plan to include an adaptive route based, at least in part, on real-time LiDAR data on a current environment of the apparatus;
Boyle also discloses that a mobile robot which includes LiDAR sensors together with an edge processor executing machine learning model…Col. 3 L 24-52: “The mobile robot 10 preferably comprises an edge processor capable of executing a machine learning model, one or more gimballed camera sensors and one or more LIDAR sensors, and a data connection. Alternatively, the mobile robot 10 comprises one or more gimballed camera sensors or one or more LIDAR sensors. The system further comprises a data center consisting of cloud services 30, an end user application 25, and a remote server 20. An airfield operations personnel 18 uses the end-user application 25 to direct a fleet of robots 10 a-10 c, as shown in FIG. 3, to clear specific areas on an airfield 50, the end-user application 25 entering the request into the server based control system 35. The server based control system 35 calculates the most efficient route from current robot location to the hard surface assigned along with the most efficient route to traverse the hard surface for FOD collection. The server based control system 35 sends the calculated routing to the assigned robot at the assigned time. The mobile robot 10 executes the request to follow the route, detecting and avoiding unexpected obstacles along the way, and then returning to its assigned home position to dump the collected debris.” Here adaptive route is being interpreted as detecting and avoiding unexpected obstacles along the way.
a mobility system that is operable configured to transport the apparatus over the ground surface along the route to the region of the airfield, and to transport the apparatus along the travel path during a search for the foreign-object debris;
Boyle also discloses in Col. 4 Line 1-13: “The mobile robot 10, shown in FIG. 4A, operates on hard surfaces and in all weather conditions, is powered by internal batteries 42, and is equipped with electric motors 46 capable of towing 100 lbs or more going over 5 mph. The robot 10 also includes a navigation system 41 capable of calculating a location within four inches, an anticollision system 47 capable of object detection and avoidance, a 2-way radio system 44 capable of reliable data transport, and an on-board computer system 43 capable of taking requests for navigation from a server based control system 35 and then locally managing the autonomous navigation to fulfill the request. The payload 14 attached to the robot 10 removes FOD.”
sensor circuitry that detects: including at least one LiDAR device, the sensor circuitry being configured to detect:(i) an obstacle on the airfield encountered by the apparatus, and (ii) the foreign-object debris on the airfield;
Boyle also discloses in Col.4 Line 5-8: “The robot 10 also includes a navigation system 41 capable of calculating a location within four inches, an anticollision system 47 capable of object detection and avoidance” and also in Col.4 Line24-29: “The mobile robot 10 preferably comprises an edge processor capable of executing a machine learning model, one or more gimballed camera sensors and one or more LIDAR sensors, and a data connection. Alternatively, the mobile robot 10 comprises one or more gimballed camera sensors or one or more LIDAR sensors.”
and a computing system comprising one or a plurality of computer processors that executes computer-executable instructions to:(i) control operation of the mobility system to avoid a collision between the apparatus and the obstacle on the airfield detected by the sensor circuitry and (ii) identify and/or classify the foreign-object debris.
Boyle also discloses in Col.4 Line 9- “an on-board computer system 43 capable of taking requests for navigation from a server based control system 35 and then locally managing the autonomous navigation to fulfill the request. The payload 14 attached to the robot 10 removes FOD.” Col.2 Line 63-Col.3 “The computer vision application is configured to compare a plurality of baseline images with the plurality of collected images to detect a plurality of anomalies. The computer vision application is configured to tag each of the plurality of anomalies with metadata. The computer vision application is configured to transfer the plurality of tagged anomalies to a convolutional neural network of the server for evaluation and classification.”
Boyle may not specifically teach the coverage pattern, however inspecting any surface constitute a pattern and it is a well known and expected techniques in this field. But to avoid any arguments from the applicant towards the well-known subject matter, the office is presenting Yakimenko as evidence.
Yakimenko teaches coverage plan (Col.4 Line 56-Col.5 Line 7: “Third panel 306, labeled as “3. Sweep Settings,” allows a user to select a UAV sweep pattern. A sweep pattern is the path UAVs 114 will aerially traverse over the runway to inspect the runway for FOD. For example, a user can select between a full sweep, a partial sweep, and a curved sweep by clicking on a “Full sweep” button, a “Partial sweep” button, or a “Curved sweep” button. A full sweep corresponds to an inspection of the entire runway end-to-end. A partial sweep corresponds to an inspection of only a specific portion of the selected runway. A curved sweep corresponds to a simultaneous inspection of multiple areas of the selected runway and allows a user to specify UAV turn points between the areas to set a sweep route. In both the partial sweep and curved sweep, crosshairs will be displayed on an airport diagram displayed in sixth panel 312 allowing the user to select the start points and end points of the sweep pattern for FOD inspection. When a curved sweep is selected, additional UAV turning points can be displayed selected by the user.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle to incorporate the teachings of Yakimenko to include coverage pattern. Doing so would optimize the searching process for the FOD.
Similarly Claims 1 and 19 are rejected.
Regarding Claim 18, Boyle in view of Yakimenko teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Boyle also discloses wherein at least one of the sensor circuitry and the computing system is configured to detect deviations from a substantially- planar surface (Col. 2 L49-Col.3 Line 3).
Similarly Claims 21 and 23 are rejected.
Regarding Claim 20, Boyle in view of Yakimenko teaches the apparatus of claim 19, wherein Boyle teaches the navigation system generates at least one of the route and the coverage plan to include an adaptive route based, at least in part, on real-time LiDAR data on a current environment of the apparatus. Col. 3 L 24-52: “The mobile robot 10 preferably comprises an edge processor capable of executing a machine learning model, one or more gimballed camera sensors and one or more LIDAR sensors, and a data connection. Alternatively, the mobile robot 10 comprises one or more gimballed camera sensors or one or more LIDAR sensors. The system further comprises a data center consisting of cloud services 30, an end user application 25, and a remote server 20. An airfield operations personnel 18 uses the end-user application 25 to direct a fleet of robots 10 a-10 c, as shown in FIG. 3, to clear specific areas on an airfield 50, the end-user application 25 entering the request into the server based control system 35. The server based control system 35 calculates the most efficient route from current robot location to the hard surface assigned along with the most efficient route to traverse the hard surface for FOD collection. The server based control system 35 sends the calculated routing to the assigned robot at the assigned time. The mobile robot 10 executes the request to follow the route, detecting and avoiding unexpected obstacles along the way, and then returning to its assigned home position to dump the collected debris.” Here adaptive route is being interpreted as detecting and avoiding unexpected obstacles along the way.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle in view of Yakimenko and in further view of Shields (US5413225) and herein after will be referred as Shields respectively.
Regarding Claim 3, Boyle in view of Yakimenko teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Boyle does not expressly teaches further comprising a debris collector comprising at least one debris collector selected from the group of: a magnet that magnetically attracts ferromagnetic debris on the region of the airfield, a vacuum and a sweeper.
Shields teaches comprising a debris collector comprising at least one debris collector selected from the group of: a magnet that magnetically attracts ferromagnetic debris on the region of the airfield, a vacuum and a sweeper (Col1 Line9-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle and Yakimenko to incorporate the teachings of Shields to include comprising a debris collector comprising a magnet that magnetically attracts ferromagnetic debris on the region of the airfield. Doing so would optimize the process of detection of FOD and collecting it on the runway.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle in view of Yakimenko and in further view of Tan et al. (US2009/0323046) and herein after will be referred as Tan respectively.
Regarding Claim 6, Boyle in view of Yakimenko teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Boyle does not expressly teaches further comprising a display device configured to be controlled by the computing system to emit a visible signal in response to detection of the foreign-object debris by the sensor circuitry.
Tan teaches further comprising a display device configured to be controlled by the computing system to emit a visible signal in response to detection of the foreign-object debris by the sensor circuitry ( Para [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle and Yakimenko to incorporate the teachings of Tan to include a display device that is controlled by the computing system to emit a visible signal in response to detection of the foreign-object debris by the sensor circuitry. Doing so would optimize the process of detection of FOD and collecting it on the runway.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle in view of Yakimenko and in further view of Safai et al. (US2018/0085792) and herein after will be referred as Safai respectively.
Regarding Claim 7, Boyle in view of Yakimenko teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yakimenko does not expressly teaches wherein the sensor circuitry comprises a light source that emits light and a sensor that detects a reflected portion of the light emitted by the light source to detect the foreign-object debris on the airfield.
Safai teaches the sensor circuitry comprises a light source that emits light and a sensor that detects a reflected portion of the light emitted by the light source to detect the foreign-object debris on the airfield (Para [0006] and [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle and Yakimenko to incorporate the teachings of Safai to include the sensor circuitry comprises a light source that emits light and a sensor that detects a reflected portion of the light emitted by the light source to detect the foreign-object debris on the airfield. Doing so would optimize the process of detection of FOD and collecting it on the runway.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle in view of Yakimenko and in further view of Kapadia et al. (US20020093433A1) and herein after will be referred as Kapadia.
Regarding Claim 9, Boyle in view of Yakimenko teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Yakimenko does not expressly teaches wherein the computing system establishes a scheduled time to conduct the search for the foreign-object debris based in part on a flight schedule at the airport.
Kapadia teaches wherein the computing system establishes a scheduled time to conduct the search for the foreign-object debris based in part on a flight schedule at the airport (Para [0018]: “The image data resulting from the monitoring devices may be compared to baseline image data stored in the database. This baseline image data may be indicative of active runway surfaces that have been predetermined to be sufficient, acceptable, or of a specific sufficiency level, e.g., ideal, near ideal, sufficient, marginal, unacceptable, etc. Based on this comparison, discrepancies such as the presence of FOD may be reported to, for example, a ground/tower controller or a pilot (depending on system specifications) and airport maintenance personnel may be alerted to, for example, remove FOD from the runway surface at a specified location. These operations may be performed on a customized schedule to ensure that departing and landing aircraft have a FOD free runway surface. Alternatively, or in addition, scanning may be initiated at the request of, for example, ground/tower controllers, pilots or airport maintenance personnel.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyle and Yakimenko to incorporate the teachings of Kapadia to include the computing system establishes a scheduled time to conduct the search for the foreign-object debris based in part on a flight schedule at the airport. Doing so would optimize the process of detection of FOD and collecting it on the runway.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakimenko in view of Boyle and in further view of Tan.
Regarding Claim 11, Boyle in view of Yakimenko teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Yakimenko teaches a transmitter configured to transmit data indicative of a location where the foreign-object debris was found on the airfield for inclusion in a log entry of a ground maintenance database (Col.5 Line 48-51).
Regarding Claim 14, Boyle in view of Yakimenko teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Boyle teaches wherein the sensor circuitry comprises a camera that captures an optical image that is analyzed by the computing system to detect the foreign-object debris on the airfield (Col.2 Line 60-Col.3 Line 10).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle in view of Yakimenko and in further view of Kapadia et al. (US20020093433A1) and herein after will be referred as Kapadia.
Regarding Claim 15, Boyle in view of Yakimenko teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Yakimenko does not expressly teaches wherein the computing system establishes a scheduled time to conduct the search for the foreign-object debris based in part on a flight schedule at the airport.
Kapadia teaches wherein the computing system establishes a scheduled time to conduct the search for the foreign-object debris based in part on a flight schedule at the airport (Para [0018]: “The image data resulting from the monitoring devices may be compared to baseline image data stored in the database. This baseline image data may be indicative of active runway surfaces that have been predetermined to be sufficient, acceptable, or of a specific sufficiency level, e.g., ideal, near ideal, sufficient, marginal, unacceptable, etc. Based on this comparison, discrepancies such as the presence of FOD may be reported to, for example, a ground/tower controller or a pilot (depending on system specifications) and airport maintenance personnel may be alerted to, for example, remove FOD from the runway surface at a specified location. These operations may be performed on a customized schedule to ensure that departing and landing aircraft have a FOD free runway surface. Alternatively, or in addition, scanning may be initiated at the request of, for example, ground/tower controllers, pilots or airport maintenance personnel.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yakimenko and Boyle to incorporate the teachings of Kapadia to include the computing system establishes a scheduled time to conduct the search for the foreign-object debris based in part on a flight schedule at the airport. Doing so would optimize the process of detection of FOD and collecting it on the runway.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDHESH K JHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:0800-1700.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights