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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on 08/27/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN2024/11064710 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 07/16/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-20 are currently rejected.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marsden et. al. (US 2015/0206438), herein Marsden.
Regarding claim 8:
Marsden teaches:
A system for enhancing aircraft tugging safety (methods and systems for avoiding a collision between an aircraft and an obstacle when the aircraft is being moved on a ground surface via a ground vehicle [abstract]), the system comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to be mounted at a plurality of locations of an aircraft (The proximity sensors 110-1 . . . 110-12 are disposed at extremity locations on the aircraft 100 that can not easily be monitored by the operator [0020]) and configured to sense a proximity of one or more objects proximate to the plurality of locations (Each of the proximity sensors 110-1 . . . 110-12 are used to detect obstacles that may be present within their detection zone (e.g., within a particular region that is in the vicinity of the aircraft 100) [0022]);
a controller communicatively coupled to the plurality of sensors (A general-purpose processor may be a microprocessor, but in the alternative, the processor may be any conventional processor, controller, mic3rocontroller, or state machine [0081]), wherein the controller comprises one or more processors configured to execute a set of program instructions stored in a memory (A processor may also be implemented as a combination of computing devices, e.g., a combination of a DSP and a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in conjunction with a DSP core, or any other such configuration. [0081]), the set of program instructions configured to cause the one or more processors to:
receive sensor data from the plurality of sensors (At 420, the processor 320 transmits a signal (or signals) to enable proximity sensors to detect potential obstacles in the vicinity of the aircraft 100, and can also transmit a signal (or signals) to enable the video imagers so that they acquire video images of various regions around the aircraft 100 that correspond to each of the video imagers [0059]);
process the sensor data to generate proximity information (At 430, the processor 320 determines whether any potential obstacles have been detected in proximity to the aircraft 100 by any of the proximity sensors [0060]); and
transmit the proximity information (In response to determining that an obstacle 220 is located in proximity to the aircraft 100, at 440, the processor 320 generates one or more warning generator signal(s) and communicates it/them to one or more apparatus [0063]); and
a tug vehicle (figs. 3a-c, ground vehicle 210) comprising a display (figs. 3a-c, display 213), wherein the display is configured to:
receive the transmitted proximity information (The processor 320 can also generate signal(s) to cause one or more displays to display a visual indication or warning signal [0069]); and
display a visual representation of the proximity information, wherein the visual representation includes indicator graphics associated with the plurality of locations on the aircraft (an aircraft diagram (e.g., a symbolic representation of the aircraft) along with a symbolic representation of the detected obstacle relative to the aircraft is displayed to provide the operator with an indication of the position of the detected obstacle relative to the aircraft [0072]), each indicator graphic providing a visual cue about the proximity of objects to its associated location (the video imager and image display program module may be configured to process images (e.g., raw camera data) received from the video imagers so as to determine the range of an obstacle from the video imagers [0050]).
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.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsden et. al. (US 2015/0206438), herein Marsden in view of Taylor (US 2020/0096627), herein Taylor.
Regarding claim 1:
Marsden teaches:
A system for enhancing aircraft tugging safety (methods and systems for avoiding a collision between an aircraft and an obstacle when the aircraft is being moved on a ground surface via a ground vehicle [abstract]), the system comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to be mounted at a plurality of locations of an aircraft (The proximity sensors 110-1 . . . 110-12 are disposed at extremity locations on the aircraft 100 that can not easily be monitored by the operator [0020]) and configured to sense a proximity of one or more objects proximate to the plurality of locations (Each of the proximity sensors 110-1 . . . 110-12 are used to detect obstacles that may be present within their detection zone (e.g., within a particular region that is in the vicinity of the aircraft 100) [0022]);
a controller communicatively coupled to the plurality of sensors (A general-purpose processor may be a microprocessor, but in the alternative, the processor may be any conventional processor, controller, mic3rocontroller, or state machine [0081]), wherein the controller comprises one or more processors configured to execute a set of program instructions stored in a memory (A processor may also be implemented as a combination of computing devices, e.g., a combination of a DSP and a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in conjunction with a DSP core, or any other such configuration. [0081]), the set of program instructions configured to cause the one or more processors to:
receive sensor data from the plurality of sensors (At 420, the processor 320 transmits a signal (or signals) to enable proximity sensors to detect potential obstacles in the vicinity of the aircraft 100, and can also transmit a signal (or signals) to enable the video imagers so that they acquire video images of various regions around the aircraft 100 that correspond to each of the video imagers [0059]);
process the sensor data to generate proximity information (At 430, the processor 320 determines whether any potential obstacles have been detected in proximity to the aircraft 100 by any of the proximity sensors [0060]); and
transmit the proximity information (In response to determining that an obstacle 220 is located in proximity to the aircraft 100, at 440, the processor 320 generates one or more warning generator signal(s) and communicates it/them to one or more apparatus [0063]); and
a proximity alert indicator comprising [two or more] proximity indication lights (The external visual warning equipment 140 can include things such as external lights that are mounted on the aircraft 100 [0034]), wherein the proximity alert indicator is configured to receive the proximity information (examiner notes that in order to activate the warning lights they inherently must receive a signal to activate.) and to perform an activating of at least one of the [two or more] proximity indication lights based on the proximity information (when any of the proximity sensors 110-1 . . . 110-12 detect an obstacle (not illustrated), apparatus, including the external visual warning equipment 140 and/or external audio warning equipment 150 of the aircraft 100, can generate and communicate warning signals that are perceptible to an operator of the ground vehicle to warn the operator of the obstacle [0034]), wherein the proximity alert indicator comprises:
Marsden does not explicitly teach, however Taylor teaches:
a housing (one or more indicators mounted to an external portion of the industrial machine [0020]); and
the two or more proximity indication lights (a plurality of indicators 1110 [0034]) located within the housing (FIGS. 5-11 illustrate various implementations or arrangements of indicators that can be used in conjunction with the process 300 of FIG. 4 [0032]),
a proximity alert indicator comprising two or more proximity indication lights (A subset 1115 of the indicators 1110 are activated to provide an indication of, for example, the detection of a person in proximity to the industrial machine 10, 100 [0034]), wherein each of the two or more proximity indication lights is configured to be associated with a respective location of the plurality of locations corresponding to a respective sensor of the plurality of sensors (As the object detected by the PDS or the industrial machine 10, 100 moves, the subset 1115 of the indicators 1110 that are activated can change, as illustrated in FIG. 12B… As illustrated in FIG. 12C, the subset 1115 of indicators 1110 that are activated can continue to change as the object detected by the PDS of the industrial machine 10, 100 continues to move [0034]).
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 Marsden to include the teachings as taught by Taylor with a reasonable expectation of success. Taylor teaches “People working in proximity to such vehicles have limited knowledge of what the vehicle is sensing or doing with respect to the peoples' actions. Proximity detection systems (“PDS”) or obstacle detection systems (“ODS”) do not typically provide any form of feedback to off-board personnel. Indications of such systems detecting an object may be provided to a remote or local operator of the industrial machine, but no indication is provided externally. Some autonomous machines do utilize stack lights to provide basic operational feedback (i.e., operational state of the industrial machine), but that feedback is limited and ambient (e.g., not targeted). Embodiments described herein provide visual or optical feedback around the perimeter of an industrial machine. A PDS for the industrial machine is configured to monitor for objects in proximity to the industrial machine. The PDS is configured to control the operation of the industrial machine in a safe manner to avoid collisions or inhibited motion. [Taylor, 003-0004]”.
Regarding claim 2:
Marsden in view of Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Marsden further teaches:
wherein the proximity alert indicator is configured to be mounted on a nose gear of the aircraft (the aircraft 100 includes external visual warning equipment 140 that can be mounted anywhere on the aircraft 100, such as a light mounted on a nose gear of the aircraft 100 [0068]) and the two or more proximity indication lights are configured to face toward a front of the aircraft (warning signal that can be presented on a display that is viewable by the operator of the ground vehicle 210 [0069]).
Regarding claim 3:
Marsden in view of Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Taylor further teaches:
wherein the two or more proximity indication lights are arranged in vertical columns (see at least fig. 11 showing vertical columns of indicators 1015).
Regarding claim 4:
Marsden in view of Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 3, upon which this claim depends.
Taylor further teaches:
wherein the vertical columns comprise a first vertical column aligned horizontally relative to a second vertical column (see at least figs. 6, 10, and 11 showing adjacent vertical columns. Although Taylor discloses more than two columns, limiting the proximity lights to two columns would be an obvious design choice of size/proportion and shape. Taylor discloses using multiple indicator lights to be able to communicate the location of an obstacle to an outside observer. As long as the user knows the meaning of the information displayed, any modification to the number of rows and columns and the exact layout of those rows and columns would be obvious and not patentably distinct absent persuasive evidence the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A&B).);
Marsden further teaches:
wherein the first [vertical column] is associated with locations of a first half side of the aircraft (fig. 1, 140-9 &140-10) and wherein the second [vertical column] is associated with locations of a second half side of the aircraft (fig. 1, 140-8 &140-11).
Regarding claim 5:
Marsden in view of Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 4, upon which this claim depends.
Marsden further teaches:
wherein the first vertical column and the second vertical column each, respectively, comprise four proximity indication lights (fig. 11, columns of 4 indicators 1015).
Regarding claim 9:
Marsden in view of Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 8, upon which this claim depends.
Marsden further teaches:
a proximity alert indicator comprising [two or more] proximity indication lights (The external visual warning equipment 140 can include things such as external lights that are mounted on the aircraft 100 [0034]), wherein the proximity alert indicator is configured to receive the proximity information (examiner notes that in order to activate the warning lights they inherently must receive a signal to activate.) and to perform an activating of at least one of the [two or more] proximity indication lights based on the proximity information (when any of the proximity sensors 110-1 . . . 110-12 detect an obstacle (not illustrated), apparatus, including the external visual warning equipment 140 and/or external audio warning equipment 150 of the aircraft 100, can generate and communicate warning signals that are perceptible to an operator of the ground vehicle to warn the operator of the obstacle [0034]), wherein the proximity alert indicator comprises:
Marsden does not explicitly teach, however Taylor teaches:
a housing (one or more indicators mounted to an external portion of the industrial machine [0020]); and
the two or more proximity indication lights (a plurality of indicators 1110 [0034]) located within the housing (FIGS. 5-11 illustrate various implementations or arrangements of indicators that can be used in conjunction with the process 300 of FIG. 4 [0032]),
a proximity alert indicator comprising two or more proximity indication lights (A subset 1115 of the indicators 1110 are activated to provide an indication of, for example, the detection of a person in proximity to the industrial machine 10, 100 [0034]), wherein each of the two or more proximity indication lights is configured to be associated with a respective location of the plurality of locations corresponding to a respective sensor of the plurality of sensors (As the object detected by the PDS or the industrial machine 10, 100 moves, the subset 1115 of the indicators 1110 that are activated can change, as illustrated in FIG. 12B… As illustrated in FIG. 12C, the subset 1115 of indicators 1110 that are activated can continue to change as the object detected by the PDS of the industrial machine 10, 100 continues to move [0034]).
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 Marsden to include the teachings as taught by Taylor with a reasonable expectation of success. Taylor teaches “People working in proximity to such vehicles have limited knowledge of what the vehicle is sensing or doing with respect to the peoples' actions. Proximity detection systems (“PDS”) or obstacle detection systems (“ODS”) do not typically provide any form of feedback to off-board personnel. Indications of such systems detecting an object may be provided to a remote or local operator of the industrial machine, but no indication is provided externally. Some autonomous machines do utilize stack lights to provide basic operational feedback (i.e., operational state of the industrial machine), but that feedback is limited and ambient (e.g., not targeted). Embodiments described herein provide visual or optical feedback around the perimeter of an industrial machine. A PDS for the industrial machine is configured to monitor for objects in proximity to the industrial machine. The PDS is configured to control the operation of the industrial machine in a safe manner to avoid collisions or inhibited motion. [Taylor, 003-0004]”.
Regarding claim 10:
Marsden in view of Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 9, upon which this claim depends.
Marsden further teaches:
wherein the aircraft comprises the proximity alert indicator (the aircraft 100 includes external visual warning equipment 140 [0068]) and wherein the proximity alert indicator is configured to be mounted on a nose gear of the aircraft (the aircraft 100 includes external visual warning equipment 140 that can be mounted anywhere on the aircraft 100, such as a light mounted on a nose gear of the aircraft 100 [0068]) and the two or more proximity indication lights are configured to face toward a front of the aircraft (warning signal that can be presented on a display that is viewable by the operator of the ground vehicle 210 [0069]).
Regarding claim 11:
Marsden in view of Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 10, upon which this claim depends.
Taylor further teaches:
wherein the two or more proximity indication lights are arranged in vertical columns (see at least fig. 11 showing vertical columns of indicators 1015).
Regarding claim 12:
Marsden in view of Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 11, upon which this claim depends.
Taylor further teaches:
wherein the vertical columns comprise a first vertical column aligned horizontally relative to a second vertical column (see at least figs. 6, 10, and 11 showing adjacent vertical columns. Although Taylor discloses more than two columns, limiting the proximity lights to two columns would be an obvious design choice of size/proportion and shape. Taylor discloses using multiple indicator lights to be able to communicate the location of an obstacle to an outside observer. As long as the user knows the meaning of the information displayed, any modification to the number of rows and columns and the exact layout of those rows and columns would be obvious and not patentably distinct absent persuasive evidence the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A&B).);
Marsden further teaches:
wherein the first [vertical column] is associated with locations of a first half side of the aircraft (fig. 1, 140-9 &140-10) and wherein the second [vertical column] is associated with locations of a second half side of the aircraft (fig. 1, 140-8 &140-11).
Regarding claim 13:
Marsden in view of Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 12, upon which this claim depends.
Marsden further teaches:
wherein the first vertical column and the second vertical column each, respectively, comprise four proximity indication lights (fig. 11, columns of 4 indicators 1015).
Regarding claim 16:
Marsden teaches:
A method for enhancing aircraft tugging safety (methods and systems for avoiding a collision between an aircraft and an obstacle when the aircraft is being moved on a ground surface via a ground vehicle [abstract]), the method comprising:
receiving sensor data from a plurality of sensors (At 420, the processor 320 transmits a signal (or signals) to enable proximity sensors to detect potential obstacles in the vicinity of the aircraft 100, and can also transmit a signal (or signals) to enable the video imagers so that they acquire video images of various regions around the aircraft 100 that correspond to each of the video imagers [0059]), wherein the plurality of sensors are mounted at a plurality of locations of an aircraft (The proximity sensors 110-1 . . . 110-12 are disposed at extremity locations on the aircraft 100 that can not easily be monitored by the operator [0020]) and configured to sense a proximity of one or more objects proximate to the plurality of locations (Each of the proximity sensors 110-1 . . . 110-12 are used to detect obstacles that may be present within their detection zone (e.g., within a particular region that is in the vicinity of the aircraft 100) [0022]);
processing, via a controller communicatively coupled to the plurality of sensors (A general-purpose processor may be a microprocessor, but in the alternative, the processor may be any conventional processor, controller, mic3rocontroller, or state machine [0081]), the sensor data to generate proximity information (At 430, the processor 320 determines whether any potential obstacles have been detected in proximity to the aircraft 100 by any of the proximity sensors [0060]);
transmitting, via the controller, the proximity information (In response to determining that an obstacle 220 is located in proximity to the aircraft 100, at 440, the processor 320 generates one or more warning generator signal(s) and communicates it/them to one or more apparatus [0063]); and
receiving, via a proximity alert indicator (The external visual warning equipment 140 can include things such as external lights that are mounted on the aircraft 100 [0034]), the proximity information (examiner notes that in order to activate the warning lights they inherently must receive a signal to activate.), wherein the proximity alert indicator comprises two or more proximity indication lights, wherein the proximity alert indicator is configured to perform an activating of at least one of the two or more proximity indication lights based on the proximity information (when any of the proximity sensors 110-1 . . . 110-12 detect an obstacle (not illustrated), apparatus, including the external visual warning equipment 140 and/or external audio warning equipment 150 of the aircraft 100, can generate and communicate warning signals that are perceptible to an operator of the ground vehicle to warn the operator of the obstacle [0034]), wherein the proximity alert indicator comprises:
Marsden does not explicitly teach, however Taylor teaches:
a housing (one or more indicators mounted to an external portion of the industrial machine [0020]); and
the two or more proximity indication lights (a plurality of indicators 1110 [0034]) located within the housing (FIGS. 5-11 illustrate various implementations or arrangements of indicators that can be used in conjunction with the process 300 of FIG. 4 [0032]), wherein each of the two or more proximity indication lights (A subset 1115 of the indicators 1110 are activated to provide an indication of, for example, the detection of a person in proximity to the industrial machine 10, 100 [0034]) is configured to be associated with a respective location of the plurality of locations corresponding to a respective sensor of the plurality of sensors (As the object detected by the PDS or the industrial machine 10, 100 moves, the subset 1115 of the indicators 1110 that are activated can change, as illustrated in FIG. 12B… As illustrated in FIG. 12C, the subset 1115 of indicators 1110 that are activated can continue to change as the object detected by the PDS of the industrial machine 10, 100 continues to move [0034]).
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 Marsden to include the teachings as taught by Taylor with a reasonable expectation of success. Taylor teaches “People working in proximity to such vehicles have limited knowledge of what the vehicle is sensing or doing with respect to the peoples' actions. Proximity detection systems (“PDS”) or obstacle detection systems (“ODS”) do not typically provide any form of feedback to off-board personnel. Indications of such systems detecting an object may be provided to a remote or local operator of the industrial machine, but no indication is provided externally. Some autonomous machines do utilize stack lights to provide basic operational feedback (i.e., operational state of the industrial machine), but that feedback is limited and ambient (e.g., not targeted). Embodiments described herein provide visual or optical feedback around the perimeter of an industrial machine. A PDS for the industrial machine is configured to monitor for objects in proximity to the industrial machine. The PDS is configured to control the operation of the industrial machine in a safe manner to avoid collisions or inhibited motion. [Taylor, 003-0004]”.
Regarding claim 17:
Marsden in view of Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 16, upon which this claim depends.
Marsden further teaches:
wherein the proximity alert indicator is configured to be mounted on a nose gear of the aircraft (the aircraft 100 includes external visual warning equipment 140 that can be mounted anywhere on the aircraft 100, such as a light mounted on a nose gear of the aircraft 100 [0068]) and the two or more proximity indication lights are configured to face toward a front of the aircraft (warning signal that can be presented on a display that is viewable by the operator of the ground vehicle 210 [0069]).
Regarding claim 18:
Marsden in view of Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 17, upon which this claim depends.
Taylor further teaches:
wherein the two or more proximity indication lights are arranged in vertical columns (see at least fig. 11 showing vertical columns of indicators 1015).
Regarding claim 19:
Marsden in view of Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 18, upon which this claim depends.
Taylor further teaches:
wherein the vertical columns comprise a first vertical column aligned horizontally relative to a second vertical column (see at least figs. 6, 10, and 11 showing adjacent vertical columns. Although Taylor discloses more than two columns, limiting the proximity lights to two columns would be an obvious design choice of size/proportion and shape. Taylor discloses using multiple indicator lights to be able to communicate the location of an obstacle to an outside observer. As long as the user knows the meaning of the information displayed, any modification to the number of rows and columns and the exact layout of those rows and columns would be obvious and not patentably distinct absent persuasive evidence the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A&B).);
Marsden further teaches:
wherein the first [vertical column] is associated with locations of a first half side of the aircraft (fig. 1, 140-9 &140-10) and wherein the second [vertical column] is associated with locations of a second half side of the aircraft (fig. 1, 140-8 &140-11).
Claim(s) 6-7, 14-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsden et. al. (US 2015/0206438), herein Marsden in view of Taylor (US 2020/0096627), herein Taylor in further view of Lin (US 2023/0406534), herein Lin.
Regarding claim 6:
Marsden in view of Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 5, upon which this claim depends.
Marsden further teaches:
wherein the four proximity indication lights of the first vertical column are associated with, respectively, the plurality of locations comprising:
a first-half wingtip sensing location (the proximity sensor 110-4 has a rearward field of view 205 from the tip of the main wing 105-1, and can detect obstacles within this rearward field of view 205 [0039]);
a first-half rudder sensing location (fig. 1, proximity sensor 110-2);
a first-half elevator sensing location (fig. 1, proximity sensor 110-1); and
Marsden in view of Taylor does not explicitly teach, however Lin teaches:
a first-half gear sensing location (the sensing module 200 can include a terrestrial obstacle sensing unit 220 (for example, a terrestrial obstacle sensor or an image sensor configured at a position at the bottom of the nose or near landing gears of the aircraft) [0025]).
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 Marsden and Taylor to include the teachings as taught by Lin with a reasonable expectation of success. Lin teaches “To prevent these obstacles from affecting flight safety, the sensing module 200 can include a terrestrial obstacle sensing unit 220 (for example, a terrestrial obstacle sensor or an image sensor configured at a position at the bottom of the nose or near landing gears of the aircraft) [Lin, 0025]”. While Lin is primarily concerned with detecting potential obstacle of the landing gear while in flight, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Lin to Marsden in view of Taylor to arrive at the claimed invention because it is applying a known technique to a known device to achieve a predictable result. The same benefits of protecting the landing gear of the plane are achieved whether in flight or on the ground.
Regarding claim 7:
Marsden in view of Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 6, upon which this claim depends.
Marsden further teaches:
wherein the four proximity indication lights of the second vertical column are associated with, respectively, the plurality of locations comprising:
a second-half wingtip sensing location (fig. 1, proximity sensor 110-5);
a second-half rudder sensing location (fig. 1, proximity sensor 110-2);
a second-half elevator sensing location (fig. 1, proximity sensor 110-3); and
Lin further teaches:
a second-half gear sensing location (the sensing module 200 can include a terrestrial obstacle sensing unit 220 (for example, a terrestrial obstacle sensor or an image sensor configured at a position at the bottom of the nose or near landing gears of the aircraft) [0025]).
Regarding claim 14:
Marsden in view of Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 13, upon which this claim depends.
Marsden further teaches:
wherein the four proximity indication lights of the first vertical column are associated with, respectively, the plurality of locations comprising:
a first-half wingtip sensing location (the proximity sensor 110-4 has a rearward field of view 205 from the tip of the main wing 105-1, and can detect obstacles within this rearward field of view 205 [0039]);
a first-half rudder sensing location (fig. 1, proximity sensor 110-2);
a first-half elevator sensing location (fig. 1, proximity sensor 110-1); and
Marsden in view of Taylor does not explicitly teach, however Lin teaches:
a first-half gear sensing location (the sensing module 200 can include a terrestrial obstacle sensing unit 220 (for example, a terrestrial obstacle sensor or an image sensor configured at a position at the bottom of the nose or near landing gears of the aircraft) [0025]).
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 Marsden and Taylor to include the teachings as taught by Lin with a reasonable expectation of success. Lin teaches “To prevent these obstacles from affecting flight safety, the sensing module 200 can include a terrestrial obstacle sensing unit 220 (for example, a terrestrial obstacle sensor or an image sensor configured at a position at the bottom of the nose or near landing gears of the aircraft) [Lin, 0025]”. While Lin is primarily concerned with detecting potential obstacle of the landing gear while in flight, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Lin to Marsden in view of Taylor to arrive at the claimed invention because it is applying a known technique to a known device to achieve a predictable result. The same benefits of protecting the landing gear of the plane are achieved whether in flight or on the ground.
Regarding claim 15:
Marsden in view of Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 14, upon which this claim depends.
Marsden further teaches:
wherein the four proximity indication lights of the second vertical column are associated with, respectively, the plurality of locations comprising:
a second-half wingtip sensing location (fig. 1, proximity sensor 110-5);
a second-half rudder sensing location (fig. 1, proximity sensor 110-2);
a second-half elevator sensing location (fig. 1, proximity sensor 110-3); and
Lin further teaches:
a second-half gear sensing location (the sensing module 200 can include a terrestrial obstacle sensing unit 220 (for example, a terrestrial obstacle sensor or an image sensor configured at a position at the bottom of the nose or near landing gears of the aircraft) [0025]).
Regarding claim 20:
Marsden in view of Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 19, upon which this claim depends.
Marsden further teaches:
wherein the first vertical column and the second vertical column each, respectively, comprise four proximity indication lights (fig. 11, columns of 4 indicators 1015).
wherein the four proximity indication lights of the first vertical column are associated with, respectively, the plurality of locations comprising:
a first-half wingtip sensing location (the proximity sensor 110-4 has a rearward field of view 205 from the tip of the main wing 105-1, and can detect obstacles within this rearward field of view 205 [0039]);
a first-half rudder sensing location (fig. 1, proximity sensor 110-2);
a first-half elevator sensing location (fig. 1, proximity sensor 110-1); and
wherein the four proximity indication lights of the second vertical column are associated with, respectively, the plurality of locations comprising:
a second-half wingtip sensing location (fig. 1, proximity sensor 110-5);
a second-half rudder sensing location (fig. 1, proximity sensor 110-2);
a second-half elevator sensing location (fig. 1, proximity sensor 110-3); and
Marsden in view of Taylor does not explicitly teach, however Lin teaches:
a first-half gear sensing location (the sensing module 200 can include a terrestrial obstacle sensing unit 220 (for example, a terrestrial obstacle sensor or an image sensor configured at a position at the bottom of the nose or near landing gears of the aircraft) [0025]);
a second-half gear sensing location (the sensing module 200 can include a terrestrial obstacle sensing unit 220 (for example, a terrestrial obstacle sensor or an image sensor configured at a position at the bottom of the nose or near landing gears of the aircraft) [0025]).
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 Marsden and Taylor to include the teachings as taught by Lin with a reasonable expectation of success. Lin teaches “To prevent these obstacles from affecting flight safety, the sensing module 200 can include a terrestrial obstacle sensing unit 220 (for example, a terrestrial obstacle sensor or an image sensor configured at a position at the bottom of the nose or near landing gears of the aircraft) [Lin, 0025]”. While Lin is primarily concerned with detecting potential obstacle of the landing gear while in flight, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Lin to Marsden in view of Taylor to arrive at the claimed invention because it is applying a known technique to a known device to achieve a predictable result. The same benefits of protecting the landing gear of the plane are achieved whether in flight or on the ground.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McIntosh (US 10,891,869) discloses apparatuses, systems, and methods for preventing ground collisions or physical contact between a vehicle and nearby objects. In various embodiments the vehicle can comprise an aircraft and the nearby object can comprise a hangar. Embodiments of the invention can provide a proximity warning triggered by changes in certain electrical characteristics of the vehicle body relative to its surroundings, said changes responsive to the separation distance between the vehicle and nearby objects, persons or structures.
Griffith (US 2010/0219988) discloses An aircraft collision avoidance system comprising (a) at least one separation monitoring device connectable to at least a portion of an aircraft, the separation monitoring device comprising (1) at least one transmitter and (2) at least one receiver and (b) a master unit.
Cullett (US 6,686,849) discloses emergency vehicle proximity reporting system for alerting a driver of a vehicle that an emergency vehicle is approaching from a certain direction and at what approximate distance. The emergency vehicle proximity reporting system includes a housing that has a back wall, a front wall, and a perimeter wall for extending there between. The housing defines an interior space. A receiver assembly is positioned substantially within the housing. The receiver assembly is designed for receiving a signal from a transmitter coupled to an emergency vehicle. An indication means provides an alerting indication to the user of a presence of an emergency vehicle.
Vana (US 2021/0362878) discloses An integrated pushback guidance system and method is provided for guiding pushback travel of electric taxi system-driven aircraft. The pushback guidance system may be integrated with existing ramp monitoring systems to monitor reverse pushback travel of pilot-controlled electric taxi system-driven aircraft along an optimum pushback path from a stand to a pushback end location. Visual signals relating to pushback travel safety as the pilot drives the aircraft along the pushback path are generated in real time by the system and transmitted to a range of display devices viewable by the aircraft pilot and airport personnel responsible for guiding aircraft pushback. The pilot may be guided by visual signals on only display devices or with guidance from airport personnel also viewing the visual signals on display devices to drive the aircraft safely in reverse with the electric taxi system along the pushback path to the pushback end location.
Colmenares (US 2017/0294132) discloses embodiments describe collision warning devices, controllers, and computer readable media. A collision warning device for towing vehicles includes a housing, a scanning sensor, a display, and a controller. The housing is configured to be secured to at least one of a tow operator and a tug during aircraft towing operations. The a scanning sensor is secured to the housing and is configured to scan an aircraft and to scan an object in an environment surrounding the aircraft. The controller is mounted to the housing and is operably coupled with the scanning sensor and the display. The controller is configured to generate a three dimensional (3D) model of the aircraft and the environment based on a signal output from the scanning sensor, and to calculate potential collisions between the aircraft and the object based on the 3D model.
Landers (US 2017/0174358) discloses Collision warning systems, collision warning devices, and methods of operating collision warning systems are disclosed herein. A collision warning system includes, but is not limited to, a plurality of proximity sensors and a computer device. The plurality of proximity sensors are configured to mount on an aircraft and to generate a proximity signal. The computer device is communicatively coupled with the plurality of proximity sensors and is configured to determine a location in which the collision warning system is located, where the location includes at least one of a country and a region. The computer device is further configured to select an active linguistic profile based on the location, where the active linguistic profile includes at least one of a language and a dialect. The computer device is yet further configured to alert ground crew of potential collisions using the active linguistic profile and based on the proximity signal.
Barnes (US 2015/0262492) discloses A collision avoidance system for an airplane under tow may include a sensing device configured to capture image data of at least a portion of the airplane and an object while the airplane is being towed. The sensing device may be located remotely to both the airplane and the object. Positions of two or more features of the airplane may be determined based on the image data. A bounding box encompassing the airplane may be generated based, at least in part, on the positions of the two or more features. Additionally, based on a comparison of the position of an object relative to the bounding box, it may be determined whether the object is within a predetermined distance from the airplane.
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
