DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filled 04/30/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search required for the non-elected Group/Species would not place an undue or serious burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the MPEP has stated:
there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
As shown in the restriction requirement at least reasons a, b, and c are present in the current application and provide support for the current restriction.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4, 6, and 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species A, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/27/2025.
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.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson(US20170212528A1) in view of Bliss(US11719807B2).
Regarding claim 1, Henderson discloses
An airway setting device comprising: front antennas disposed in a direction along an airway and each including at least two antennas spaced apart from each other to transmit radio frequency (RF) signals (“The course adjustment data 116 may be transmitted by a separate transmitting antenna, or by at least one of set of receiving antennae 118” [0044]); and a front wireless transmission circuit provided for each of the front antennas (FIG.2, Part.204), and configured to encode transmission direction information (“Landing unit 108 transmits course adjustment data 116 to aerial vehicle 102” [0044]), based on a transmission axis of a corresponding front antenna (“landing unit 108 calculates course adjustment data 116 for the aerial vehicle 102 using the differences of localization signal 114 as received by each antennae of set of receiving antennae 118.” [0044]), generate an RF signal separate from an RF signal from an adjacent front antenna, and supply the generated RF signal to the corresponding front antenna (“The course adjustment data 116 may be transmitted by a separate transmitting antenna, or by at least one of set of receiving antennae 118” [0044]), and a flight control unit configured to establish a session with a receiver (“the method begins by establishing a communications session with an aerial vehicle 102” [0069]) whose measured transmission direction information and decoded transmission direction information match, and control an aerial vehicle equipped with the receiver through the session (“ an authentication step that confirms an identity of the aerial vehicle 102. The authentication step may also associate the aerial vehicle 102 with a particular target landing area 106 to which the aerial vehicle 102 should be directed.” [0069]) […] and determines a direction based on the transmission axis of the front antenna […] (“ The landing pad further comprises a localization calculation processor that determine a precise position of the aerial vehicle based upon a comparison of the localization signal received by each of the receiving antennae” [0014]).
Henderson does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the transmission direction information is phase difference information. discloses wherein, the transmission direction information is phase difference information encoded in the RF signals transmitted from the front antennas, corresponding to an expected phase difference to be measured by the receiver (“Chosen modulation
schemes 116 include Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (QPSK) “ [Col.13, ll.14-15]), wherein the phase difference information is used for comparison with a phase difference measured between the two RF signals received from the at least two spaced antennas by the receiver (“the positioning device 26 can accurately resolve the phase of the carrier signal 58, and therefore have a considerably higher accuracy in estimating ToF of the signal 12” [Col.9, ll.9-12]), and wherein the receiver selectively responds to the RF signal when the measured phase difference matches the phase difference information (“the RX signal 12 and/or the TX signal 12 can be encrypted to improve security of the radio protocol 78” [Col.12, ll.40-42]).
Bliss teaches in the same field of endeavor aerial vehicle signaling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henderson with the teachings of Bliss to incorporate the features of using phase difference information as transmission direction information so as to gain the advantage of improving estimation quality [Col.7, Par.5, bliss]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson(US20170212528A1) as modified by Bliss(US11719807B2), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Chandler(US10965039B1).
Regarding claim 2, Henderson as modified by Bliss discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Henderson as modified by Bliss does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the two antennas comprise omni-directional transmission antennas or wherein the front wireless transmission circuits sequentially supply an RF signal encoded with N pieces of transmission direction information. Chandler discloses, the at least two antennas of each of the front antennas comprise omni-directional transmission antennas (“ the antenna may be configured to provide a broad sectored or omni” [Col.11, ll.23-24]), and the front wireless transmission circuits sequentially supply an RF signal encoded with N pieces of transmission direction information to the front antennas in a set range based on the transmission axis (“time division multiplex (TDM) may be used when transmitting signals” [Col.11, ll.45-46]).
Chandler teaches in the same field of endeavor aerial vehicle signaling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henderson as modified by Bliss with the teachings of Chandler to incorporate the features of omni-directional transmission antennas and wherein the front wireless transmission circuits sequentially supply an RF signal encoded with N pieces of transmission direction information so as to gain the advantage of improving communication ability [Col.15, Par.2, Chandler]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson(US20170212528A1) as modified by Bliss(US11719807B2), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Ziemke(US4152703A).
Regarding claim 7, Henderson as modified by Bliss discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Henderson as modified by Bliss does not explicitly disclose nor limit an antenna driver configured to rotate about a rotational axis. Ziemke discloses, an antenna driver equipped with a front antenna and configured to rotate about a rotational axis (“The signals are passed to a stepper motor which both rotates the antenna towards the sending station, and steers the driving motor for bringing the vehicle to the transmitting station” [Abstract]); and an airway controller configured to control the antenna driver to change a transmission direction of the front antenna (FIG.1, Part.94]).
Ziemke teaches in the same field of endeavor vehicle signaling systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Henderson as modified by Bliss with the teachings of Ziemke to incorporate the features of an antenna driver configured to rotate about a rotational axis so as to gain the advantage of improving system directionality [Col.1, Par.3, Chandler]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Mindell (US10591592B2) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [Col.29, ll.29-30] “ If/when GPS fails, aircraft can “follow” the flight paths established by these beacons”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646