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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in determining for each” and “in associating the pair” is recited in lines 3 and 5 respectively, should read “
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) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesik et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2023/0048696 A1, published 2021) in view of Nam et al (US Patent Pub. No. 2010/0328455 A1, published 2010) and further in view of Emanuel et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2011/0121068 A1, published 2011).
Regarding claim 1, Pesik teaches a method for determining, at a given moment in time, at least one characteristic of a movement of a mobile structure chosen from an aircraft landing gear and a door of an aircraft landing gear housing (Para. 119, “As described in more detail below, processor 36 can analyze the image data captured by camera 16c in a variety of ways by monitoring landing gear of aircraft 10. This monitoring can include, for example, monitoring field of view F.sub.c of camera 16c for objects such as chock blocks and/or detecting whether the landing gear is fully extended…”), wherein the method comprises: a step for acquiring, at the given moment in time, at least one image on which at least one reference feature forming part of the mobile structure appears (Para. 121, “A region within the captured image data that corresponds to a wheel of a main landing gear of the aircraft is identified (Step 108).”), a step for determining, based on the at least one image acquired, a pair of coordinates of the at least one reference feature, (Para. 178, “A further embodiment of any of the foregoing systems, wherein the processor is operatively coupled to the camera to access pixel coordinates of captured image data associated with the wheel of the main landing gear in a fully extended state”), a step for comparing the coordinates previously determined with reference coordinates (Para. 178, “…compare the pixel coordinates corresponding to the wheel of the main landing gear during operation with the pixel coordinates corresponding to the wheel of the main landing gear in the fully extended state.”), there being associated at least one characteristic of the movement of the mobile structure with each reference coordinate pair (Para. 178 above, the coordinates are associated with a fully extended state).
Pesik does not explicitly disclose determining a pair of coordinates in a reference plane corresponding to a projection of the at least one reference feature in the reference plane, that the comparison step comprises determining a point which has as coordinates those of one of the reference coordinate pairs nearest to a point which has as coordinates those of the pair of coordinates previously determined, and, a step for determining a characteristic of the movement of the mobile structure which is associated with a pair of reference coordinates corresponding to a pair of coordinates in the reference plane. However, they do disclose determining a state of the landing gear using coordinate data of a reference feature as well as disclosing an algorithm for motion vector identification (Para. 79).
Nam teaches determining a pair of coordinates in a reference plane corresponding to a projection of the at least one reference feature in the reference plane (Para. 36, “As shown in FIG. 2, an object P is placed on an object plane and projected to both a virtual viewable plane and an actual camera plane where the projected points are denoted as Pp(v) and Pp(c).”; Para. 37, “The real object position is easily obtained from upp and the distance dp between the virtual viewable plane and the object plane.”).
Nam does not explicitly disclose that the comparison step comprises determining a point which has as coordinates those of one of the reference coordinate pairs nearest to a point which has as coordinates those of the pair of coordinates previously determined, and, a step for determining a characteristic of the movement of the mobile structure which is associated with a pair of reference coordinates corresponding to a pair of coordinates in the reference plane.
Emanuel teaches a step for comparing the pair of coordinates previously determined with reference coordinate pairs, there being associated at least one characteristic of the movement of the mobile structure with each reference coordinate pair (Para. 26, “maintaining a look-up-table comprising actual X, Y, and Z coordinates and rotational orientation of all position markers within the coordinate space;”), the comparison step comprising determining a point which has as coordinates those of one of the reference coordinate pairs nearest to a point which has as coordinates those of the pair of coordinates previously determined (Para. 30-39, “determining an approximate position of the object by retrieving the actual X, Y, and Z coordinates and rotational orientation of the selected position marker from said look-up-table; and using the selected position marker, calculating the coordinate position of the object and the rotational orientation of the object in the coordinate space and storing the position and the rotational orientation information in a memory. In one embodiment, the step of calculating the position of the object and the rotational orientation of the object in the coordinate space further comprises: identifying two key points in the position marker; defining a line between the two key points; calculating the length of the line; determining the center of the line to define the center of the position marker; determining a vector from the center of the image to the center of the position marker; determining a length and angle of this vector relative to the field of view by plane geometry; and calculating an actual position of the object by correcting the approximate position of the object by using the length and angle of the vector to calculate a position offset,”, One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that substituting nearest-coordinate matching for the disclosed nearest-to-center-of-image matching is a predictable variation of point-selection), and, a step for determining a characteristic of the movement of the mobile structure which is associated with a pair of reference coordinates corresponding to a pair of coordinates in the reference plane (Para. 30, “determining an approximate position of the object by retrieving the actual X, Y, and Z coordinates and rotational orientation of the selected position marker from said look-up-table”).
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 Pesik to incorporate the teachings of Nam and Emanuel to include determining a pair of coordinates in a reference plane corresponding to a projection of the at least one reference feature in the reference plane, that the comparison step comprises determining a point which has as coordinates those of one of the reference coordinate pairs nearest to a point which has as coordinates those of the pair of coordinates previously determined, and, a step for determining a characteristic of the movement of the mobile structure which is associated with a pair of reference coordinates corresponding to a pair of coordinates in the reference plane. Pesik discloses a method for monitoring the condition of a landing gear, including determining coordinate information as well as an extension/angle state. However, the only disclosed method of pixel extraction is an edge detector algorithm, and they do not explicitly link specific reference coordinates to a movement characteristic. Nam teaches the well-known technique of using projection to localize an object in an image. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the projection-based object localization method of Nam provides improved performance over the disclosed edge detector in Pesik, leaving it a routine optimization. Emanuel teaches a method to determine the position and orientation of an object in an enclosed location using positional markers and a stored look-up table of coordinates, determining position by determining the nearest positional marker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using positional markers with previously determined coordinates and orientation information is analogous to a database storing previously determined coordinates and a movement characteristic. As Pesik already discloses a basic comparison between coordinates in captured image data to previously stored data to verify landing gear positioning, implementing the robust stored coordinate data for object localization of Emanuel would predictably improve the accuracy of landing gear monitoring.
Regarding claim 2, the recited elements correspond to claim 1 and is rejected under the same analysis.
Regarding claim 3, Pesik as modified teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as stated above, as well as determining, at the given moment in time for several reference features, at least one characteristic of a movement of the mobile structure for each reference feature, the at least one characteristic of the movement of the mobile structure corresponding to an average of the at least one characteristics determined for the several reference features (Para. 79, “Processor 36 can determine a motion vector associated with the identified region corresponding to the edge of the wing of the aircraft as an average (or other central tendency) of the direction and magnitude of motion vectors determined for the pixels included in the identified edge of the wing.”, although directed towards the edge of the wing, an averaging of the multiple detected movement characteristics of the pixels is disclosed. It would have been obvious to apply this same technique to multiple reference features of the landing gear for more precise monitoring).
Regarding claim 4, Pesik as modified teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as stated above, as well as a step for determining a reference path in the reference plane for each reference feature (Para. 122, “A similar method can be used to identify whether the landing gear, such as main landing gear 21, is fully extended, including whether the landing gear is extended at the correct angle.”, the angle is considered; Nam; Fig. 22(a), Shows trajectory estimation).
Regarding claim 5, Pesik as modified teaches all of the elements of claim 4, as stated above, as well as wherein the step for determining the reference path comprises, for each given angular position of the mobile structure, in determining for each reference feature a pair of reference coordinates in the reference plane corresponding to a projection of the reference feature in the said reference plane and in associating the pair of reference coordinates and the given angular position (Para. 122, “A similar method can be used to identify whether the landing gear, such as main landing gear 21, is fully extended, including whether the landing gear is extended at the correct angle.”, the angle is considered; Emanuel; Para. 30, “determining an approximate position of the object by retrieving the actual X, Y, and Z coordinates and rotational orientation of the selected position marker from said look-up-table”, given the motion vector disclosure of Pesik above, as well as the consideration of angles in the landing gear, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in to associate angular data with the reference coordinates in view of Emanuel, ensuring that the data fully encapsulates the movement of the landing gear to increase the precision of the monitoring).
Regarding claim 6, Pesik as modified teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as stated above, as well as wherein the mobile structure is a landing gear of an aircraft (Para. 122, “A similar method can be used to identify whether the landing gear, such as main landing gear 21, is fully extended, including whether the landing gear is extended at the correct angle.”).
Claim 7 corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected under the same analysis.
Regarding claim 8, Pesik as modified teaches all of the elements of claim 7, as stated above, as well as wherein the at least one acquisition system comprises a camera (Para. 120, “Image data captured by a camera”).
Regarding claim 9, Pesik as modified teaches all of the elements of claim 8, as stated above, as well as wherein the camera comprises a Lidar camera. (Para. 45, Cameras 16a, 16b, and 16c are configured to capture image data from a field of view external to the aircraft. Any one or more of cameras 16a, 16b, and 16c can be visible light spectrum cameras, infrared spectrum cameras, or other types of cameras capable of capturing image data within a field of view external to the aircraft.”, Lidar cameras are well-known).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesik as modified in view of Nam and Emanuel, further in view of Chen et al. (NPL, “Camera Placement Considering Occlusion for Robust Motion Capture”, published 2000, pdf attached).
Regarding claim 10, Pesik as modified teaches all of the elements of claim 7, as stated above, as well as wherein each reference feature forming part of the at least one mobile structure follows a three-dimensional path which extends between a first end point and a second end point (Para. 118, “Each of nose landing gear 19 and main landing gear 21 include a wheel and a tire.”, a landing gear follows a 3D path between two end points).
Pesik as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one acquisition system has a boresight direction, the at least one acquisition system positioned such that the boresight direction forms an angle of less than 30° with a plane equidistant from a first end point and a second end point of at least one three-dimensional path. However, they do disclose the ability to mount the camera anywhere on the outside of the aircraft (Para. 58).
Chen teaches that camera placement is a known problem in motion capture systems, with the main issues being that the target is moving and its geometry and motion is not known beforehand as well as performance degradation from low resolution and occlusion in typical motion capture systems (Pg. 1, Col. 2; Pg. 2, Col. 2).
Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one acquisition system has a boresight direction, the at least one acquisition system positioned such that the boresight direction forms an angle of less than 30° with a plane equidistant from a first end point and a second end point of at least one three-dimensional path.
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 Pesik, Nam, and Emanuel to incorporate the teachings of Chen to include wherein the at least one acquisition system has a boresight direction, the at least one acquisition system positioned such that the boresight direction forms an angle of less than 30° with a plane equidistant from a first end point and a second end point of at least one three-dimensional path. Pesik discloses a system for monitoring the landing gear by using cameras to capture images of the landing gear and determine its state. They further disclose that the camera can be mounted on the outside of the aircraft, however, they do not explicitly disclose placing it equidistant from the two endpoints of the path taken by the landing gear. Chen teaches that motion capture systems have two major sources of performance degradation, low resolution and occlusion. They further teach that a problem for camera placement in motion capture is that the target is moving with unknown geometry and motion. In view of Chen’s teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that placing a camera that is explicitly used for monitoring of the landing gear in a close location which is approximately at the midpoint of the landing gear’s known back-and-forth path predictably balances spatial resolution across both extremes of the path and ensures full visibility of the landing gear throughout its movement. Aligning the boresight direction so that it forms an angle of less than 30° with the plane equidistant from the path endpoints is a matter of routine design choice and structural optimization.
Regarding claim 11, Pesik as modified teaches all of the elements of claim 7, as stated above, and when further modified in view of Chen teaches wherein each reference feature forming part of the at least one mobile structure follows a three-dimensional path which extends between a first end point and a second end point (See analysis of claim 10 above), wherein the aircraft comprises a plurality of acquisition systems (Para. 45, “Cameras 16a, 16b, and 16c are configured to capture image data from a field of view external to the aircraft.”), a number of the acquisition systems being determined such that, for each three-dimensional path, at least one acquisition system has a boresight direction forming an angle of less than 30° with a plane equidistant from a first end point and a second end point of the three-dimensional path (See analysis of claim 10 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A WAMBST whose telephone number is (703)756-1750. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6:30 EST.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571)272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ALEXANDER WAMBST/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights