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
The applicant’s claim to priority of EP24183854.9 on 6/21/2024 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant filed an IDS on 6/20/25. It has been annotated and considered.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 13), it is unclear how a “fluid velocity” around and/or over the aircraft is obtained. Other “obtaining” steps for acceleration and angular velocity are clearly obtained using an accelerometer and gyroscope respectively. However, it is unclear how the fluid velocity is obtained.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Keyes et al. (US 20220282955 hereinafter Keyes).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 13), Keyes teaches a computer-implemented method for determining attitude of an aircraft for navigation (See at least: Fig. 1), the method comprising:
obtaining an indication of aircraft acceleration from an accelerometer;
obtaining an indication of aircraft angular velocity from a gyroscope (See at least: [0016] The output from the inertial sensors 122 is raw inertial sensor data, s, which in some embodiments includes three orthogonal specific force measurements resulting from linear acceleration forces applied to the projectile platform 110, and three orthogonal angular rate measurements resulting from rotational moments applied to the projectile platform 110. In some embodiments, the inertial sensors 122 may be implemented as an inertial measurement unit (IMU) comprising sets of gyroscopes and accelerometers that produce the three orthogonal specific force measurements and three orthogonal angular rate measurements.);
obtaining an indication of fluid velocity around and/or over the aircraft (See at least: [0022] via “ For example, engine thrust may be a measured input but wind velocity may be an estimated input that is one of the navigation filter states.”);
determining an upwards direction, relative to Earth, in body frame for the aircraft, based on the indication of aircraft acceleration, the indication of aircraft angular velocity, and the indication of fluid velocity (See at least: [0024] The process of estimating the roll angle in a spinning projectile is referred to as “Upfinding” and in FIG. 1, this function is performed by the upfinding navigation aid 140. As shown in FIG. 1, the upfinding navigation aid 140 comprises an upfinding sensing function 142 coupled to an upfinding algorithm 144. The upfinding navigation aid 140 functions as a second navigation aid for producing navigation corrections with the upfinding algorithm 144 computing an attitude measurement based on parameters sensed or estimated by the upfinding sensing function 142.”); and
determining an attitude of the aircraft for navigation, based on the determined upwards direction (See at least: [0024] via “ The embodiments presented herein estimate projectile velocities and the attitude using the combination of the output from the projectile physics model 130 and the upfinding navigation aid 140 to constrain uncertainty and provide continuous navigation corrections to the strapdown navigation processor 124 to produce a navigation solution that is bounded with respect to attitude error in addition to velocity.”).
Regarding claim 2, Keyes teaches obtaining an indication of heading angle of the aircraft; and determining the attitude of the aircraft for navigation, based on the determined upwards direction and the heading angle (See at least: [0020] As shown in FIG. 1, the guided projectile navigation system 120 further comprises platform input sensors 126, the spinning projectile physics model 130 which performs calculations utilizing dynamics equations for a rigid body corresponding to the projectile platform 110, an upfinding navigation aid 140, and a propagator-estimator filter 128. It should be understood that the guided projectile navigation system 120 may comprise one or more processors and memory programmed with code that when executed implement the functions of any of the spinning projectile physics model 130, upfinding navigation aid 140, propagator-estimator filter 128 or strapdown navigation processor 124.).
Regarding claim 3, Keyes teaches wherein determining the upwards direction in body frame for the aircraft is based on determining resultant acceleration of the aircraft in body frame based on the indication of aircraft angular velocity and the indication of fluid velocity (See at least: [0022] via “ For example, engine thrust may be a measured input but wind velocity may be an estimated input that is one of the navigation filter states.”; [0016] The output from the inertial sensors 122 is raw inertial sensor data, s, which in some embodiments includes three orthogonal specific force measurements resulting from linear acceleration forces applied to the projectile platform 110, and three orthogonal angular rate measurements resulting from rotational moments applied to the projectile platform 110.).
Regarding claim 6, Keyes teaches correcting gyroscope drift based on the determined upwards direction in body frame (See at least: [0024] The process of estimating the roll angle in a spinning projectile is referred to as “Upfinding” and in FIG. 1, this function is performed by the upfinding navigation aid 140. As shown in FIG. 1, the upfinding navigation aid 140 comprises an upfinding sensing function 142 coupled to an upfinding algorithm 144. The upfinding navigation aid 140 functions as a second navigation aid for producing navigation corrections with the upfinding algorithm 144 computing an attitude measurement based on parameters sensed or estimated by the upfinding sensing function 142. Accelerations caused by the Earth's gravity are always in the direction of the center of the Earth so that when an accurate estimate of the projectile's attitude is derived, a vector relating that acceleration to the body frame of the projectile can be determined. This gravitational acceleration vector can be summed with the vectors for measured accelerations sensed by the inertial sensors 122, integrated once to obtain projectile velocity and integrated again to obtain position. The embodiments presented herein estimate projectile velocities and the attitude using the combination of the output from the projectile physics model 130 and the upfinding navigation aid 140 to constrain uncertainty and provide continuous navigation corrections to the strapdown navigation processor 124 to produce a navigation solution that is bounded with respect to attitude error in addition to velocity.).
Regarding claim 8, Keyes teaches wherein obtaining the indication of fluid velocity further comprises determining a fluid velocity estimate based on a sensor measurement indicative of at least one acceleration of the aircraft (See at least: [0022] via “For example, engine thrust may be a measured input but wind velocity may be an estimated input that is one of the navigation filter states. The spinning projectile physics model 130 applies the measured and/or estimated platform inputs to calculate linear acceleration measurements, a.sub.m, that comprise a set of three orthogonal predicted translational acceleration measurements which are provided as aiding source inputs to the propagator-estimator filter 128. In some embodiments, the linear acceleration measurement, a.sub.m, may be expressed as:”).
Regarding claim 10, Keyes teaches wherein the indication of aircraft acceleration and the indication of aircraft angular velocity are obtained from an inertial measurement unit, IMU, on the aircraft (See at least: [0016] via “In some embodiments, the inertial sensors 122 may be implemented as an inertial measurement unit (IMU) comprising sets of gyroscopes and accelerometers that produce the three orthogonal specific force measurements and three orthogonal angular rate measurements.”).
Regarding claim 11, Keyes teaches controlling navigation of the aircraft based on the determined attitude (See at least: [0024] via “ The embodiments presented herein estimate projectile velocities and the attitude using the combination of the output from the projectile physics model 130 and the upfinding navigation aid 140 to constrain uncertainty and provide continuous navigation corrections to the strapdown navigation processor 124 to produce a navigation solution that is bounded with respect to attitude error in addition to velocity.”). .
Regarding claim 12, Keyes teaches sending the determined attitude of the aircraft to a navigation unit (See at least: [0022] via “The platform states, x.sub.p, include at least the projectile velocity states and may include additional projectile states for attitude, angular rate, and position for a model derived from rigid body equations of motion. The platform states x.sub.p, may be computed from the navigation solution, n, the navigation filter states, x.sub.n, and the inertial sensor data, s. The navigation filter states, x.sub.n, utilized by the spinning projectile physics model 130 correspond to navigation filter states, x.sub.n, computed by the propagator-estimator filter 128. The navigation filter states, x.sub.n, may include navigation and sensor errors and also may be augmented with platform inputs u.sub.n and/or other auxiliary states (e.g., x.sub.n⊃u.sub.n). In some embodiments, the navigation filter states, x.sub.n, may be obtained or derived by the spinning projectile physics model 130 from the output of the strapdown navigation processor 124.”).
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 (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 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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyes.
Regarding claim 4, Keyes fails to explicitly teach this limitation, but applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because Keyes discloses algorithms for upfinding (See at least: [0025] via “ Non-limiting examples of upfinding systems that may be used to implement the upfinding navigation aid 140 include U.S. Pat. No. 6,163,021 titled “NAVIGATION SYSTEM FOR SPINNING PROJECTILES”, and U.S. Pat. No. 7,395,987 “APPARATUS AND APPERTAINING METHOD FOR UPFINDING IN SPINNING PROJECTILES USING A PHASE-LOCK-LOOP OR CORRELATOR MECHANISM” which are each incorporated by reference herein in their entirety. In some embodiments, upfinding algorithm 144 may optionally use a blended or hybrid approach for producing the roll angle estimate. For example, the upfinding algorithm 144 may further input the attitude estimates from the navigation solution, n, and/or angular rotation rate information from the inertial sensor data, s, and compute a weighted average between those inputs and the measurements from the upfinding sensing function 142 to compute the roll angle included in the attitude measurement to the propagator-estimator filter 128.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Keyes to teach wherein determining the upwards direction in body frame for the aircraft comprises using the formula: (see original claims for exact formula) wherein up is the upwards direction in body frame, a_acc is the indication of aircraft acceleration, Fv is the indication of fluid velocity, (Fv) is the indication of fluid velocity differentiated with respect to time, and o is the indication of aircraft angular velocity as a matter of design choice since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula.
Regarding claim 5, Keyes fails to explicitly teach this limitation, but applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because Keyes discloses algorithms for upfinding (See at least: [0025] via “ Non-limiting examples of upfinding systems that may be used to implement the upfinding navigation aid 140 include U.S. Pat. No. 6,163,021 titled “NAVIGATION SYSTEM FOR SPINNING PROJECTILES”, and U.S. Pat. No. 7,395,987 “APPARATUS AND APPERTAINING METHOD FOR UPFINDING IN SPINNING PROJECTILES USING A PHASE-LOCK-LOOP OR CORRELATOR MECHANISM” which are each incorporated by reference herein in their entirety. In some embodiments, upfinding algorithm 144 may optionally use a blended or hybrid approach for producing the roll angle estimate. For example, the upfinding algorithm 144 may further input the attitude estimates from the navigation solution, n, and/or angular rotation rate information from the inertial sensor data, s, and compute a weighted average between those inputs and the measurements from the upfinding sensing function 142 to compute the roll angle included in the attitude measurement to the propagator-estimator filter 128.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Keyes to teach teaches wherein determining the upwards direction in body frame for the aircraft comprises using the formula: (see original claims for exact formula) wherein up is the upwards direction in body frame, a_acc is the indication of aircraft acceleration, Fv is the indication of fluid velocity, and o is the indication of aircraft angular velocity, n is a discrete time step, and dt is the difference between time steps as a matter of design choice since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyes in view of Kawaguchi et al. (US publication 20240054902 hereinafter Kawaguchi).
Regarding claim 7, Keyes fails to teach the following limitation, but Kawaguchi teaches wherein obtaining the indication of fluid velocity around and/or over the aircraft comprises obtaining a three-dimensional indication of fluid velocity (See at least: [0028] via “The estimated local wind-condition information D5 is a three-dimensional data group of wind-condition vectors V.sub.W based on the wind speed and the wind direction. As illustrated in FIG. 2, the estimated local wind-condition information D5 is information in which wind-condition vectors V.sub.W (wind-speed and wind-direction information) are stored in three-dimensional lattices L (in FIG. 2, four lattices are shown as representatives) obtained by dividing each local space region S where the small aircraft is assumed to fly, at any interval designated by a user. Although the three-dimensional grid lattice is a cube in FIG. 2, other polyhedron shapes may be used.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Keyes in view of Kawaguchi to teach wherein obtaining the indication of fluid velocity around and/or over the aircraft comprises obtaining a three-dimensional indication of fluid velocity to gain a more detailed understanding of the fluid velocity around the aircraft for control and navigation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyes in view of Kuriakose et al. (US 20200109965 hereinafter Kuriakose).
Regarding claim 9, Keyes fails to teach the following limitation, but Kuriakose teaches wherein the indication of heading angle of the aircraft is obtained from a magnetometer (See at least: [0001] The present invention generally relates to in-air magnetic calibration of a magnetometer of an aircraft, and more particularly relates to a system and method to construct specific magnetic calibration patterns to depict in a cockpit display progression towards achieving a sufficient level of magnetometer calibration enabling a correct calculating of a heading angle during a flight phase of an aircraft.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Keyes in view of Kuriakose to teach wherein the indication of heading angle of the aircraft is obtained from a magnetometer so that the aircraft can determine an accurate heading for control and navigation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights