Christopher Zonio et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 10, 2020

2018008480 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/337,943 10/28/2016 Christopher Zonio FS-10220US 6843
50818 7590 06/10/2020
Roberts Calderon Safran & Cole, P.C.
Intellectual Property Department
P.O. Box 10064
MCLEAN, VA 22102-8064
EXAMINER
SMITH-STEWART, DEMETRA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@rmsc2.com
lgallaugher@rmsc2.com
secretaries@rmsc2.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER ZONIO, JONATHAN C. MCMILLEN,
KEVIN C. SCHLOSSER, and THOMAS SPURA

Appeal 2018-008480
Application 15/337,943
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008480
Application 15/337,943

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter in this Appeal relates to “systems and
methods for applying fire retardant using aerial vehicles.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Because the two independent claims (claims 1 and 14) are analyzed
differently, herein, we reproduce both of these claims below:
1. A system, comprising:
a plurality of sensors provided on an aerial aircraft to
sense weather, terrain, and fire characteristics; and
a controller to determine optimal location of application
of fire retardant based on the weather, terrain and fire
characteristics,
wherein:
the weather sensed by the plurality of sensors
includes a prevailing wind and a wind speed, and
the controller is configured to use the prevailing
wind and the wind speed sensed by the plurality of
sensors to determine a distance and direction of travel of
the fire retardant, use the determined distance and
direction of travel of the fire retardant in the determining
of the optimal location of application of the fire retardant,
and drop the fire retardant at the determined optimal
location of application of the fire retardant.
14. A system, comprising:
a plurality of sensors encompassing multi-spectral
sensing capabilities of external environmental conditions,
provided on an aerial aircraft; and
a controller to determine optimal location of application
of fire retardant based on the external environmental conditions
as sensed by the plurality of sensors,
wherein the controller is configured to use information
sensed by the plurality of sensors to determine at least one of a
distance and direction of travel of the fire retardant or a
direction and growth rate of a fire, use the determined at least
Appeal 2018-008480
Application 15/337,943

3
one of the distance and direction of travel of the fire retardant or
the direction and growth rate of the fire in the determining of
the optimal location of application of the fire retardant, and
drop the fire retardant at the determined optimal location of
application of the fire retardant.
REJECTION
Claims 1–202 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hoffman (US 2009/0205845 A1, published August 20, 2009) and Akcasu
(US 8,165,731 B2, issued April 24, 2012).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2–13
Among the features of independent claim 1, the recited “controller” is
“configured to” do the following: “use the prevailing wind and the wind
speed . . . to determine a distance and direction of travel of the fire
retardant”; and “use the determined distance and direction of travel of the
fire retardant in the determining of the optimal location of application of the
fire retardant.”
The Examiner’s position (Final Action 4–5, 9–10; Answer 11, 16–17)
is that the following portion of Akcasu discloses “us[ing] the prevailing

2 “The Advisory Action indicates that, for purposes of appeal, the
Amendment after Final Rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 1.116 filed on
November 8, 2017, will be entered.” Appeal Br. 1. The referenced
Amendment incorporated limitations of claim 21 into independent claim 1,
incorporated limitations of claim 22 into independent claim 14, and canceled
claims 21 and 22. See id. at 5 n.2, 13 n.3.
Appeal 2018-008480
Application 15/337,943

4
wind and the wind speed” and “us[ing] the determined distance and direction
of travel of the fire retardant”:
Drop Zone Calculation
As shown in FIGS. 3, 5 and 6, the smart water bomb drop
coordinates for a given target coordinate set depend on the
altitude, drop speed, wing attack angle with respect to the air
flow and wind conditions. Since the “Flight” program is
basically an initial value problem solver, it cannot calculate the
range directly. However, using the “Flight” program, a
precalculated dataset as shown FIGS. 3, 5 and 6 is constructed
for rapid calculation of the required safe and controllable drop
coordinates of all of the smart water bombs with respect to the
target coordinates and for a given delivery speed and set wing
attack angles with respect to the air flow. After fire control at
the control center 12 selects or decides the target coordinates,
the altitude, speed and course of the delivery aircraft 14, 16 are
calculated based on this data. Using the stored data and
working backwards from the target coordinates, the drop
coordinates for each smart water bomb will be obtained. The
independent variable may for example be time separation
between releases. The example is given in FIG. 8 for 300 mph
drop velocity from 2,000, 4,000, 6,000 and 10,000 meters,
where a first release is made at point 90, a second release at
point 92, a third release at point 94 and each release point 90,
92, 94 follows its respective trajectory 96, 98, 100 to its
respective target 102, 104, 106, in a tight cluster 108. Various
release altitudes can achieve the same trajectory when released
at the appropriate times for those altitudes. Similar trajectories
can be determined for various drop velocities. Thus, the same
target coordinate can be hit from various altitudes and distances
from the target within a short time interval. In addition, smart
water bomb so launched can all hit the same target and any
other target coordinate in the range of Δx = +/- 500 meters of
the target by mere elevator control while always being in the
safe flight envelope.
Akcasu col. 6, ll. 6–38.
Appeal 2018-008480
Application 15/337,943

5
Although Akcasu refers, for example, to “calculation of . . . drop
coordinates . . . with respect to the target coordinates and for a given
delivery speed and set wing attack angles with respect to the air flow” (id. at
col. 6, ll. 14–17), we agree with the Appellant, to the extent that the
Examiner does not adequately explain how Akcasu would “use the
prevailing wind and the wind speed . . . to determine a distance and direction
of travel of the fire retardant” or “use the determined distance and direction
of travel of the fire retardant in the determining of the optimal location of
application of the fire retardant,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6–9.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
and dependent claims 2–13, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Independent Claim 14
and Dependent Claims 15 and 17–20
Although similar to claim 1, independent claim 14 has a different
scope, including with regard to its recited “determining of the optimal
location of application of the fire retardant,” which may be achieved through
the use of “at least one of the distance and direction of travel of the fire
retardant or the direction and growth rate of the fire”:
14. A system, comprising:
a plurality of sensors encompassing multi-spectral
sensing capabilities of external environmental conditions,
provided on an aerial aircraft; and
a controller to determine optimal location of application
of fire retardant based on the external environmental conditions
as sensed by the plurality of sensors,
wherein the controller is configured to use information
sensed by the plurality of sensors to determine at least one of a
distance and direction of travel of the fire retardant or a
direction and growth rate of a fire, use the determined at least
Appeal 2018-008480
Application 15/337,943

6
one of the distance and direction of travel of the fire retardant
or the direction and growth rate of the fire in the determining of
the optimal location of application of the fire retardant, and
drop the fire retardant at the determined optimal location of
application of the fire retardant.
(Emphasis added). Therefore, the argument that is persuasive of error, in the
rejection of independent claim 1 (i.e., pertaining to the limitation of
“distance and direction of travel of the fire retardant”), is not dispositive for
independent claim 14, in view of claim 14’s alternative use of the “direction
and growth rate of a fire,” in the recited determinations.
The Examiner (see Final Action 9–10) sufficiently shows that Akcasu
teaches the “direction and growth rate of a fire,” which is manifest in the
following excerpt from the reference:
[A] fire control operator at the control center 12 should be able
to designate a spray pattern around a fire by marking the region
on the map displayed on a display screen 38 of the computer
36. Using input data derived from the marking, the computer
36 of the control center 12 can calculate the number of bombs
needed and their target coordinates. In this calculation, wind
data are also taken into consideration. From the aircraft
availability data, usable air bases will be identified. Flight
plans and drop zone for each aircraft, along with the flight plans
of individual smart water bombs may be calculated. Since there
is time needed from the detection of a fire to deploying aircraft
with their payload to their drop zones, weather data will be
crucial in predicting the spreading of the fire during that
response time. Therefore the drop zones of the delivery
aircrafts and the flight trajectory data for every smart water
bomb might be updated as the delivery aircraft approaches the
vicinity of their initially calculated drop zones to then current
conditions.
Akcasu col. 3, l. 67–col. 4, l. 17 (emphasis added). Notably, the foregoing
passage discloses both the spatial and temporal aspects of the recited
Appeal 2018-008480
Application 15/337,943

7
“direction and growth rate of a fire,” because Akcasu refers to updating the
location of an upcoming delivery, in view of the response time.
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection, based upon the
combination of Hoffman and Akcasu, is erroneous, because “[t]he Hoffman
reference does not teach or suggest the claimed onboard sensing and
decision-making processes that are used to apply fire retardant in optimal
locations.” Appeal Br. 12. Yet, claim 14 does not require onboard decision
making processes, as the Appellant contends. The claim language requires
“sensors . . . provided on an aerial aircraft,” a feature found in paragraph 34
of Hoffman (see Answer 15), but does not specify the location of the recited
“controller.”
The Appellant also argues that the “drop coordinates” disclosed in
Akcasu are the location where smart water bombs are dropped and,
therefore, do not teach the claimed “optimal location,” where fire retardant is
deposited. Appeal Br. 14–15 (citing Akcasu col. 1, l. 62 – col. 2, l, 5; col. 6,
ll. 7–39).
Yet, the Examiner (Answer 16–18) addresses how Akcasu accounts
for this distinction and explains how water bombs reach the target
coordinates:
[U]sing the “Flight” program, a precalculated dataset as shown
FIGS. 3, 5 and 6 is constructed for rapid calculation of the
required safe and controllable drop coordinates of all of the
smart water bombs with respect to the target coordinates and for
a given delivery speed and set wing attack angles with respect
to the air flow. After fire control at the control center 12 selects
or decides the target coordinates, the altitude, speed and course
of the delivery aircraft 14, 16 are calculated based on this data.
Using the stored data and working backwards from the target
Appeal 2018-008480
Application 15/337,943

8
coordinates, the drop coordinates for each smart water bomb
will be obtained.
Akcasu col. 6, ll. 12–22. See also Answer 18 (citing Akcasu col. 4, ll. 3–6).
In view of the foregoing analysis, the Appellant does not persuade us
of error in the rejection of independent claim 14. The Appellant relies upon
the arguments presented for independent claim 14, with regard to dependent
claims 15 and 17–20, but presents an additional argument for dependent
claim 16 (discussed below). See Appeal Br. 16. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 14 and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dependent Claim 16
Claim 16 recites:
16. The system of claim 14, wherein the plurality of
sensors include fire hot spot sensors comprising at least one of
infrared (IR) cameras and Electro Optical Sensors (EO)
onboard the aerial vehicle.
According to the Examiner (Answer 19–20), the following excerpt
from Hoffman discloses the features added in claim 16:
The UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] may also include sensors
for monitoring and determining conditions, including weather
conditions and its flight conditions. . . . The UAV may also
include sensors for determining conditions relating to the fire,
such as heat sensors, infrared sensors and the like. Other
sensors may include angle-of-attack and side slip vanes,
barometric pressure measurement systems, pilot-static systems
for speed and altitude determination and the like. The sensors
or other processors to locate a target may include, but are not
limited to infrared detectors, light contrast detectors or pattern
recognition from video pictures, laser detectors, optical
equipment and cameras, embedded radio transmitters/trackers,
and the like.
Hoffman ¶ 34 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2018-008480
Application 15/337,943

9
In response, the Appellant argues:
While Hoffman does teach heat sensors and infrared sensors,
there is no teaching or suggestion in Hoffman that these sensors
are structured to sense fire hot spots. Instead of sensing fire hot
spots, the infrared sensors disclosed by Hoffman are guidance
sensors that guide the UAV. Accordingly, these sensors are not
the same as the claimed fire hot spot sensors that include at
least one of infrared (IR) cameras and Electro Optical Sensors
(EO) onboard the aerial vehicle.
Reply Br. 8.3
The Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
To begin with, Hoffman (¶ 34) refers to “sensors for determining
conditions relating to the fire” including “heat sensors.” Therefore,
Hoffman’s sensors identified above are not strictly guidance sensors, as the
Appellant contends.
Additionally, the Appellant does not provide any explanation for the
assertion that the disclosed sensors of Hoffman would not “sense fire hot
spots.” Reply Br. 8. Indeed, the Appellant’s assertion is contrary to the
preponderance of the record evidence, because Hoffman specifically refers
to “heat sensors.” Hoffman ¶ 34.
Finally, the Appellant ascribes no structural features to the particular
role of the “sensors” for detecting hot spots. Rather, the term “hot spot” in
the claim is an intended use for the “sensors” — which have a structure
described in subsequent claim language. Such an intended use, which bears

3 The quoted portion of the Reply Brief (page 8) does not refer to claim 16,
but only to dependent claim 3 (depending from claim 1), which contains
language substantially identical to that of claim 16. We understand the
Appellant’s argument (in the Reply Brief) to apply also to claim 16, because
the Appellant elsewhere addresses claims 3 and 16 in identical fashion.
Appeal Br. 9–10, 16.
Appeal 2018-008480
Application 15/337,943

10
no structural meaning, does not limit claim scope. See Arctic Cat Inc. v.
GEP Power Prods., Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2019); In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Hoffman, Akcasu 14–20 1–13

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART