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 .
Status of Amendment
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 18/095,875 received December 23, 2025. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 13-18 and 20 amended, and claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12 and 19 are left as original.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAL et al. U.S. PGPub 2020/0055594 A1 (hereinafter Tal) in view of Jefferies et al. U.S. PGPub 2016/0121747 A1 (hereinafter Jefferies).
Regarding Claim 1, Tal teaches a recharging station (Tal, Fig. 9, Element 900; Paras. [0120], “rooftop terminal” and [0177], “recharging process”) for an electric aircraft (Tal, Fig. 9, Element 902; Para. [0120], “AV” or “Aerial Vehicle”), the system comprising: an elevated landing pad disposed on top of a building (Tal, Figs. 9-11; Para. [0108], Lines 8-10, and Paras. [0120] – [0161], “rooftop” … “landing site”), wherein the elevated landing pad is at least 10 feet above a base level of the recharging station (Tal, Fig. 10b, Element 1010, See annotated Figs. 10a-10b below; Para. [0125], “lower-floor parking facility”. Although Tal doesn’t provide the distance in feet between the base level of the charging station and the upper, elevated landing pad on the top level of the building, one would expect the distance to be at least 10 feet to provide clearance for the 2 meter high vehicle as stated in paragraph [0064], while considering the height of the dolly with wheels, framework, suspension, electrical connections and battery as illustrated in Fig. 12e which sit below the vehicle.), and wherein at least one of cargo and persons remain on the base level until the electric aircraft is ready to receive the at least one of cargo and persons (Tal, Para. [0125], Lines 6-7 “Disembarkation/parking/embarkation are conducted at the lower-floor level.”); a recharging component coupled to the elevated landing
PNG
media_image1.png
564
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
pad (Tal, Figs. 9 and 12, Element 1200; Para. [0120], “heaving robot” or “dolly”),
wherein the recharging component comprises a cable module (Tal, Para. [0150], “contacting an electricity conductor such as … a cable …”. Although Tal states that using a cable connection adds additional infrastructure, it does offer a cable connection as one of “other energy provisioning methods” as stated in Para. [0149]); and a power delivery unit (Tal, Fig. 12, Element 1212; Para. [0172], “battery pack”) configured to deliver stored power from a power supply unit to the recharging component (Tal, Para. [0179]), but does not explicitly teach the details of a cable module.
Jefferies, however, teaches wherein the recharging component comprises a cable module (Jefferies, Fig. 2, Element 200; Para. [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Tal is not explicit as to the details of how the electrical connection is managed by the recharging component, Tal would inherently incorporate some type of conventional charging connection management commonly understood in the art. The charging cable management taught by Jefferies, for managing the extension and retraction of a charging cable, teaches one of the many conventional charging connection methods utilized in the art for connecting the power source to the battery to be charged. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Jefferies, to manage the electrical connection within the charging system of Tal.
Regarding Claim 2, The combined teaching of the Tal and Jefferies references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tal teaches further comprising a support component coupled to the bottom of the elevated landing pad (Tal, Fig. 10b, Element 1010; Para. [0125], “lower-floor parking facility”).
Regarding Claim 3, The combined teaching of the Tal and Jefferies references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 2/1. Furthermore, Tal teaches wherein the support component is configured to be fixed into a roof on the top of the building (Tal, Fig. 10b; Para. [0125], “lowered through one of elevators to a lower-floor parking”, Para. [0127], “recharging”, and Para. [0108], Lines 1-4, “other necessary supportive systems”, “roof-tops of standard urban buildings”),wherein the support component includes a column extending from the base level to the elevated landing pad (Tal, Figs. 10a-10b; See annotated figures above. Not explicitly described but understood by the disclosure.).
Regarding Claim 4, The combined teaching of the Tal and Jefferies references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 2/1. Furthermore, Tal teaches wherein the support component comprises a hydraulic lift system configured to move one or more persons and cargo to the elevated landing pad from the base level (Tal, Fig. 10b; Para. [0125], “elevators” and “disembarkation/embarkation”. See annotated Figs. 10a-10b above.).
Absent of showing criticality of the raising/lowering mechanism to be operated by hydraulic lift, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a hydraulic lift system for the elevator of Tal, since applicant has not disclosed that this raising/lowering method solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other raising/lowering methods.
Regarding Claim 7, The combined teaching of the Tal and Jefferies references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tal teaches wherein the base level is at zero elevation with respect to a roof of the building (Tal, Figs. 10a-10b; See annotated figures above. Where the roof of the building is considered to be the weatherproofed part of the building which would be the lower level as illustrated in Fig. 10b, due to the openings for the ascent/descent of the vehicles between levels where rain/snow etc. would be able to penetrate the openings in the upper landing level; thus the lower level would be considered the roof of the building.).
Regarding Claim 8, The combined teaching of the Tal and Jefferies references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tal teaches wherein the power supply unit is stored between the elevated landing pad and the base level (Tal, Fig. 10b; Para. [0125], “lowered through one of elevators to a lower-floor parking”, Para. [0127], “recharging”, and Para. [0108], Lines 1-4, “other necessary supportive systems”).
Regarding Claim 9, The combined teaching of the Tal and Jefferies references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tal teaches wherein the power supply unit is stored within the building (Tal, Fig. 10b; Para. [0125], “lowered through one of elevators to a lower-floor parking”, Para. [0127], “recharging”, and Para. [0108], Lines 1-4, “other necessary supportive systems”).
Regarding Claim 10, The combined teaching of the Tal and Jefferies references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tal teaches wherein the system comprises at least a second elevated landing pad (Tal, Fig. 10a, Elements 1004; Para. [0125], “landing spots”).
Regarding Claim 11, Tal teaches a method of charging (Tal, Fig. 9, Element 900; Paras. [0120], “rooftop terminal” and [0177], “recharging process”) an electric aircraft (Tal, Fig. 9, Element 902; Para. [0120], “AV” or “Aerial Vehicle”) using an elevated landing pad (Tal, Fig. 9, Element 906; Para. [0120], “rooftop” … “landing site”), the method comprising: providing an elevated landing pad coupled to a rechargeable component disposed on a top of a building (Tal, Figs. 9-11; Para. [0108], Lines 8-10, and Paras. [0120] – [0161], “rooftop” … “landing site”), the rechargeable component connected to a power delivery unit (Tal, Fig. 12, Element 1212; Para. [0172], “battery pack”) by a cable module (Tal, Para. [0150], “contacting an electricity conductor such as … a cable …”. Although Tal states that using a cable connection adds additional infrastructure, it does offer a cable connection as one of “other energy provisioning methods” as stated in Para. [0149]) the providing an elevated landing pad including separating the elevated landing pad at least 10 feet above a base level (Tal, Fig. 10b, Element 1010, See annotated Figs. 10a-10b above; Para. [0125], “lower-floor parking facility”. Although Tal doesn’t provide the distance in feet between the base level of the charging station and the upper, elevated landing pad on the top level of the building, one would expect the distance to be at least 10 feet to provide clearance for the 2 meter high vehicle as stated in paragraph [0064], while considering the height of the dolly with wheels, framework, suspension, electrical connections and battery as illustrated in Fig. 12e which sit below the vehicle.), wherein at least one of cargo and persons remain on the base level until the electric aircraft is ready to receive the at least one of cargo and persons (Tal, Para. [0125], Lines 6-7 “Disembarkation/parking/embarkation are conducted at the lower-floor level.”); connecting an electric aircraft placed on the elevatable landing pad to the rechargeable component (Tal, Fig. 12e; Para. [0175]); and charging the electric aircraft with power delivered by the rechargeable component (Tal, Para. [0179]), but does not explicitly teach the details of a cable module.
Jefferies, however, teaches wherein the recharging component comprises a cable module (Jefferies, Fig. 2, Element 200; Para. [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Tal is not explicit as to the details of how the electrical connection is managed by the recharging component, Tal would inherently incorporate some type of conventional charging connection management commonly understood in the art. The charging cable management taught by Jefferies, for managing the extension and retraction of a charging cable, teaches one of the many conventional charging connection methods utilized in the art for connecting the power source to the battery to be charged. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Jefferies, to manage the electrical connection within the charging system of Tal.
Regarding Claim 12, The combined teaching of the Tal and Jefferies references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 11. Furthermore, Tal teaches further comprising coupling a support component to the bottom of the elevated landing pad (Tal, Fig. 10b, Element 1010; Para. [0125], “lower-floor parking facility”).
Regarding Claim 13, The combined teaching of the Tal and Jefferies references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 12/11. Furthermore, Tal teaches wherein coupling the support component further comprises configuring a column to be fixed into a roof on the top of the building and to extend to the elevated landing pad (Tal, Figs. 10a-10b; See annotated figures above. Not explicitly described but understood by the disclosure.).
Regarding Claim 14, The combined teaching of the Tal and Jefferies references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 12/11. Furthermore, Tal teaches wherein coupling the support component further comprises configuring a hydraulic lift system to move one or more persons and cargo to the elevated landing pad from the base level (Tal, Fig. 10b, Element 1002; Para. [0125], “elevators” and “disembarkation/embarkation”. See annotated Figs. 10a-10b above.).
Regarding Claim 18, The combined teaching of the Tal and Jefferies references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 11. Furthermore, Tal teaches further comprising storing the power supply unit between the elevated landing pad and the base level (Tal, Fig. 10b; Para. [0125], “lowered through one of elevators to a lower-floor parking”, Para. [0127], “recharging”, and Para. [0108], Lines 1-4, “other necessary supportive systems”).
Regarding Claim 19, The combined teaching of the Tal and Jefferies references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 11. Furthermore, Tal teaches further comprising storing the power supply unit within the building (Tal, Fig. 10b; Para. [0125], “lowered through one of elevators to a lower-floor parking”, Para. [0127], “recharging”, and Para. [0108], Lines 1-4, “other necessary supportive systems”).
Regarding Claim 20, The combined teaching of the Tal and Jefferies references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 11. Furthermore, Tal teaches further comprising providing at least a second elevated landing pad (Tal, Fig. 10a, Elements 1004; Para. [0125], “landing spots”).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAL et al. U.S. PGPub 2020/0055594 A1 (hereinafter Tal) in view of Jefferies et al. U.S. PGPub 2016/0121747 A1 (hereinafter Jefferies) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tengman U.S. PGPub 2016/0001895 A1 (hereinafter Tengman).
Regarding Claim 5, The combined teaching of the Tal and Jefferies references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Jefferies teaches wherein the cable module comprises a slip ring to transfer electricity and cooling from the power delivery unit to the electric aircraft (Jefferies, Fig. 3, Element 262; Para. [0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Tal is not explicit as to the details of how the electrical connection is managed by the recharging component, Tal would inherently incorporate some type of conventional charging connection management commonly understood in the art. The charging cable management taught by Jefferies, for managing the extension and retraction of a charging cable, teaches one of the many conventional charging connection methods utilized in the art for connecting the power source to the battery to be charged. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Jefferies, to manage the electrical connection within the charging system of Tal.
The combined teaching of the Tal and Jefferies references discloses the claimed invention as stated above, but does not explicitly teach cooling being wound on a reel module.
Tengman, however, teaches wherein the cable module comprises a slip ring to transfer cooling from the power delivery unit to the electric aircraft (Tengman, Fig. 4A, Element 4; Para. [0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Tal as modified by Jefferies is not explicit as to the details of how the cooling cable routs the cooling fluid through the reel mechanism, Tal would inherently incorporate some type of conventional slip-ring type transfer commonly understood in the art. The slip-ring concept taught by Tengman, for routing the cooling air from the source though the hose, teaches one of the many conventional slip-ring types of connections utilized in the art for transferring fluid from a source through a reeled hose. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Tengman, to manage the cooling connection within the charging system of Tal.
Regarding Claim 6, The combined teaching of the Tal, Jefferies and Tengman references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 5/1. Furthermore, Jefferies teaches wherein the slip ring further comprises the ability to facilitate the transfer of low-power communications signals (Jefferies, Fig. 3, Elements 292-296; Paras. [0006] and [0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Tal is not explicit as to the details of how the electrical and communication connections are managed by the recharging component, Tal would inherently incorporate some type of conventional charging connection management commonly understood in the art. The charging cable management taught by Jefferies, for managing the extension and retraction of a charging cable, teaches one of the many conventional charging connection methods utilized in the art for connecting the power source to the battery to be charged. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Jefferies, to manage the electrical connection within the charging system of Tal.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAL et al. U.S. PGPub 2020/0055594 A1 (hereinafter Tal) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Jefferies et al. U.S. PGPub 2016/0121747 A1 (hereinafter Jefferies) and Tengman U.S. PGPub 2016/0001895 A1 (hereinafter Tengman).
Regarding Claim 15, The combined teaching of the Tal and Jefferies references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 11. Furthermore, Tal teaches the electric aircraft placed on the elevated landing pad (Tal, Figs. 9-11; Para. [0108], Lines 8-10, and Paras. [0120] – [0161], “rooftop” … “landing site”), but does not teach a slip ring to transfer electricity and cooling from the power delivery unit to the electric aircraft.
Jefferies, however, teaches wherein connecting to the rechargeable component further comprises coupling the elevated landing pad to the rechargeable component by a slip ring to transfer electricity and cooling from the power delivery unit to the electric aircraft (Jefferies, Fig. 3, Element 262; Para. [0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Tal is not explicit as to the details of how the electrical connection is managed by the recharging component, Tal would inherently incorporate some type of conventional charging connection management commonly understood in the art. The charging cable management taught by Jefferies, for managing the extension and retraction of a charging cable, teaches one of the many conventional charging connection methods utilized in the art for connecting the power source to the battery to be charged. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Jefferies, to manage the electrical connection within the charging system of Tal.
The combined teaching of the Tal and Jefferies references discloses the claimed invention as stated above, but does not explicitly teach cooling being wound on a reel module.
Tengman, however, teaches wherein the cable module comprises a slip ring to transfer cooling from the power delivery unit to the electric aircraft (Tengman, Fig. 4A, Element 4; Para. [0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Tal as modified by Jefferies is not explicit as to the details of how the cooling cable routs the cooling fluid through the reel mechanism, Tal would inherently incorporate some type of conventional slip-ring type transfer commonly understood in the art. The slip-ring concept taught by Tengman, for routing the cooling air from the source though the hose, teaches one of the many conventional slip-ring types of connections utilized in the art for transferring fluid from a source through a reeled hose. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Tengman, to manage the cooling connection within the charging system of Tal.
Regarding Claim 16, The combined teaching of the Tal, Jefferies and Tengman references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 15/11. Furthermore, Tal teaches the electric aircraft placed on the elevated landing pad (Tal, Figs. 9-11; Para. [0108], Lines 8-10, and Paras. [0120] – [0161], “rooftop” … “landing site”). Furthermore, Jefferies teaches wherein connecting the rechargeable component further comprises coupling the rechargeable component by a slip ring further comprises facilitating a transfer of low-power communication signals (Jefferies, Fig. 3, Elements 292-296; Paras. [0006] and [0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Tal is not explicit as to the details of how the electrical and communication connections are managed by the recharging component, Tal would inherently incorporate some type of conventional charging connection management commonly understood in the art. The charging cable management taught by Jefferies, for managing the extension and retraction of a charging cable, teaches one of the many conventional charging connection methods utilized in the art for connecting the power source to the battery to be charged. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Jefferies, to manage the electrical connection within the charging system of Tal.
Regarding Claim 17, The combined teaching of the Tal, Jefferies and Tengman references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 15/11. Furthermore, Tal teaches wherein connecting the electric aircraft placed on the elevated landing pad (Tal, Figs. 9-11; Para. [0108], Lines 8-10, and Paras. [0120] – [0161], “rooftop” … “landing site”) to the rechargeable component coupling the elevated landing pad to the rechargeable component further comprises moving the rechargeable component from a first position below the elevated landing pad to a second position in which the rechargeable component is accessible from the elevated landing pad (Tal, Fig. 10b, Element 1010, See annotated Figs. 10a-10b below; Para. [0125], “lower-floor parking facility”. Although Tal doesn’t provide the distance in feet between the base level of the charging station and the upper, elevated landing pad on the top level of the building, one would expect the distance to be at least 10 feet to provide clearance for the 2 meter high vehicle as stated in paragraph [0064], while considering the height of the dolly with wheels, framework, suspension, electrical connections and battery as illustrated in Fig. 12e which sit below the vehicle.).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3 and 6, filed December 23, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3 and 6, filed December 23, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-10, filed December 23, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 8-14 and 18-20 under nonstatutory double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-4, 8-14 and 18-20 under nonstatutory double patenting has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4 and 8, filed December 23, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11-14 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2 and 8-9, filed December 23, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zosel WO-2019/020158 teaches a rooftop charging station for electric aircraft with multi-floors/levels and disembarkation/embarkation facilities on a lower floor for the protection and convenience of passengers and cargo.
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 JERRY D ROBBINS whose telephone number is (571)272-7585. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 6:00PM Tuesday-Saturday.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/JERRY D ROBBINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859