DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 12-13,19-20, 24-25, 28-30, and 33-53 are pending. Claims 41-53 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/10/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 41-53 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The Examiner asserts that the invention as originally filed was directed towards a stand. However, the Examiner asserts that the newly added claims 41-53 are directed towards a different invention and are no longer directed towards the stand, but rather directed towards a method for launching at least one aerial vehicle.
While disclosed in the specification as usable together, the inventions of independent claim 1 and independent claim 41 do not have the same or similar scope (the method for launching at least one aerial vehicle may contain and/or have limitations that would not be included in the stand configured for at least one of landing and launching at least one aerial vehicle and vice versa), and do not appear to be obvious variants. The invention of independent claim 41 is separately usable, and there is a serious search and/or examination burden because the inventions require a different field of search, such as employing different search strategies.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention – the stand, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 41-53 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/10/2025 with respect to claims have been considered but are mostly 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.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to prior art Lee (US-20160009413-A1) in p. 14 of remarks has been fully considered but they are not persuasive since the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Applicant’s specification. Lee at least FIG. 4 shows aerial vehicles stacked on a plurality of shafts via different platforms stacked on each other. The claims for example, claim 24, require that the aerial vehicles be stacked on shafts, but there is no limitation that requires each aerial vehicle to be stacked on the same shafts. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 12-13,19-20, 24-25, 28-30, and 33-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 is amended to recite “at least one aerial vehicle” in line 2 but later the last line states “the aerial vehicle”. In a case the is a plurality of aerial vehicles, it is not clear which “the aerial vehicle” is referring to. For examination purposes, “the aerial vehicle” is interpreted as “the at least one aerial vehicle”.
Claims 12-13,19-20, 24-25, 28-30, and 33-40 are similarly rejected because of their dependencies on rejected claim 1, and appropriate correction on the dependent claims for the same issue is also required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office Action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As discussed in the previous Office Action, regarding claim 12, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – specifically “rotationally and radially align the plurality of shafts with the collars in response to a signal from the sensor”.
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 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.
Claims 1, 20, 24-25, 28, 33-34, 36-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US-20160009413-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a stand configured for at least one of landing and launching at least one aerial vehicle ([0003] …enables automatic take-off and/or landing, charging, and housing of a plurality of unmanned VTOL aircrafts), the stand comprising:
a base; and (FIG. 4 landing platform 10)
a plurality of shafts configured to project upward from the base and to support at least one aerial vehicle, each shaft being configured to align or couple with a different one of a collar or fitting of the aerial vehicle (FIG. 6 data monitoring unit 25, power supply 26, and fixer 23 projected upward from the landing platform and configured to align and couple with grooves of an aircraft; supported by [0055] - [0056]; [0058] When the aircraft 50 is disposed at an appropriate position, the latches 24 are inserted into the aircraft 50 to function as a fixer. The second power supply 92 and the second monitoring unit 93 provided on a lower portion of a landing platform are extended from a bottom in a form of a sharp-edged latch to be inserted into a groove of the aircraft 50, and perform charging and monitoring on the aircraft 50).
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Lee also teaches wherein the base is at least one of translatable and rotatable to align the shafts with the collars or fittings of the aerial vehicle (FIGS. 3-4 landing platform translatable via wheels; FIG. 4 landing platform rotatable via hinge)
Regarding claim 24, Lee teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Lee also teaches further comprising processing circuitry configured to launch a plurality of aerial vehicles that are stacked on the shafts ([0035] According to FIGS. 1 through 9, a portable apparatus for charging and housing may refer to a portable station for charging and housing that enables automatic take-off and/or landing of a plurality of aircrafts by moving a container provided for charging and housing).
Regarding claim 25, Lee teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Lee also teaches wherein the shafts are configured to project upward to guide the aerial vehicle via the shafts receiving collars or fittings of the aerial vehicle (FIG. 6 data monitoring unit 25, power supply 26, and fixer 23 projected upward from the landing platform and configured to align and couple with grooves of an aircraft; supported by [0055] - [0056]; [0058] When the aircraft 50 is disposed at an appropriate position, the latches 24 are inserted into the aircraft 50 to function as a fixer. The second power supply 92 and the second monitoring unit 93 provided on a lower portion of a landing platform are extended from a bottom in a form of a sharp-edged latch to be inserted into a groove of the aircraft 50, and perform charging and monitoring on the aircraft 50).
Regarding claim 28, Lee teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Lee also teaches wherein the plurality of shafts are configured to enable stacking of a plurality of aerial vehicles on the plurality of shafts (FIG. 4 upper and lateral landing zones 10, 22 comprising the plurality of shafts are configured to enable stacking of a plurality of aerial vehicles on the plurality of shafts stacked).
Regarding claim 33, Lee teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Lee also teaches wherein a cross-section of the shafts is matched by at least a portion of a cross section of the collars or fittings FIG. 6 data monitoring unit 25, power supply 26, and fixer 23 projected upward from the landing platform and configured to align and couple with grooves of an aircraft; supported by [0055] - [0056]; [0058] When the aircraft 50 is disposed at an appropriate position, the latches 24 are inserted into the aircraft 50 to function as a fixer. The second power supply 92 and the second monitoring unit 93 provided on a lower portion of a landing platform are extended from a bottom in a form of a sharp-edged latch to be inserted into a groove of the aircraft 50, and perform charging and monitoring on the aircraft 50.).
Regarding claim 34, Lee teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Lee also teaches wherein the collars or fittings are non-cylindrical ([0058] When the aircraft 50 is disposed at an appropriate position, the latches 24 are inserted into the aircraft 50 to function as a fixer. The second power supply 92 and the second monitoring unit 93 provided on a lower portion of a landing platform are extended from a bottom in a form of a sharp-edged latch to be inserted into a groove of the aircraft 50, and perform charging and monitoring on the aircraft 50).
Regarding claim 36, Lee teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Lee also teaches wherein a shaft is configured to pass through at least a portion of a collar or fitting of an aerial vehicle (FIG. 6 data monitoring unit 25, power supply 26, and fixer 23 projected upward from the landing platform and configured to pass through at least a portion of the grooves of an aircraft; supported by [0055] - [0056]; [0058] When the aircraft 50 is disposed at an appropriate position, the latches 24 are inserted into the aircraft 50 to function as a fixer. The second power supply 92 and the second monitoring unit 93 provided on a lower portion of a landing platform are extended from a bottom in a form of a sharp-edged latch to be inserted into a groove of the aircraft 50, and perform charging and monitoring on the aircraft 50).
Regarding claim 37, Lee teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Lee also teaches wherein the plurality of shafts are parallel to one another (FIG. 6 data monitoring unit 25, power supply 26, and fixer 23 projected upward from the landing platform and configured to align and couple with grooves of an aircraft).
Regarding claim 38, Lee teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Lee also teaches wherein the shafts are configured to be at least one of adjusted and translated to accommodate aerial vehicles of different sizes (FIGS. 3-4 landing platform translatable via wheels; FIG. 4 landing platform rotatable via hinge – as the position of the landing platform is adjusted/translated, the position of the shafts is adjusted/translated as a result).
Regarding claim 40, Lee teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Lee also teaches wherein the shafts are configured to couple with collars or fittings of a same type (FIG. 6 data monitoring unit 25, power supply 26, and fixer 23 projected upward from the landing platform and configured to align and couple with grooves of an aircraft; supported by [0055] - [0056]; [0058] When the aircraft 50 is disposed at an appropriate position, the latches 24 are inserted into the aircraft 50 to function as a fixer. The second power supply 92 and the second monitoring unit 93 provided on a lower portion of a landing platform are extended from a bottom in a form of a sharp-edged latch to be inserted into a groove of the aircraft 50, and perform charging and monitoring on the aircraft 50).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of McGeer (US-20150239578-A1) and herein after will be referred to as McGeer.
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein at least one shaft of the plurality of shafts is configured to capture an aerial vehicle by a magnetic force generated by at least one magnet.
However, McGeer teaches wherein at least one shaft of the plurality of shafts is configured to capture an aerial vehicle by a magnetic force generated by at least one magnet ([0037] the fingers are magnetic or include electro-magnets that facilitate capture of the aircraft by attracting one or more magnetic components of the aircraft).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify at least one shaft of the plurality of shafts as taught in Lee to incorporate the teachings of McGeer to include wherein at least one shaft of the plurality of shafts is configured to capture an aerial vehicle by a magnetic force generated by at least one magnet, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of facilitating capture of the aircraft (McGeer [0037]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of McGeer, in view of Sugumaran (US-20160144982-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Sugumaran.
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Lee does not explicitly teach: wherein at least one shaft of the plurality of shafts includes electromagnets configured to be at least one of activated and deactivated during launch of the at least one aerial vehicle.
However, McGeer teaches wherein at least one shaft of the plurality of shafts includes electromagnets ([0037] the fingers are magnetic or include electro-magnets that facilitate capture of the aircraft by attracting one or more magnetic components of the aircraft).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify at least one shaft of the plurality of shafts as taught in Lee to incorporate the teachings of McGeer to include wherein at least one shaft of the plurality of shafts includes electromagnets, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of facilitating capture of the aircraft (McGeer [0037]).
Lee, in view of McGeer does not explicitly teach the electromagnets are configured to be at least one of activated and deactivated during launch of the at least one aerial vehicle
However, Sugumaran teaches electromagnets configured to be at least one of activated and deactivated during launch of the at least one aerial vehicle (FIG. 7A-7B electromagnets 600 of the UAV; [0042] The permanent magnet portion of magnet 602 may attract magnet 600, and the electromagnet portion, when energized, may repel magnet 600. Such a configuration may be desirable to provide a force tending to secure UAV 200 against landing pad 400 when UAV 200 is docked, but allowing such force to be reduced, eliminated, or reversed when the electromagnet portion of magnet 602 is energized, thereby aiding UAV 200 in launching from landing pad 400).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the electromagnets on the fingers as taught in McGeer to incorporate the teachings of Sugumaran to include configured to be at least one of activated and deactivated during launch of the at least one aerial vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success since “such a configuration may be desirable to provide a force tending to secure UAV 200 against landing pad 400 when UAV 200 is docked, but allowing such force to be reduced, eliminated, or reversed when the electromagnet portion of magnet 602 is energized, thereby aiding UAV 200 in launching from landing pad 400” (Sugumaran [0042]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Zhang et al. (US-20160011592-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Zhang.
Regarding claim 29, Lee teaches the stand of Claim 28.
Lee also teaches further comprising processing circuitry to cause launching of the stacked plurality of aerial vehicles ([0035] … enables automatic take-off and/or landing of a plurality of aircrafts).
Lee does not explicitly teach launching “in succession”.
However, Zhang teaches launching “in succession” (Fig. 18 deployment of the aerial vehicles from base station; [0010] The mission control system is configured for controlling and managing the one or more aerial vehicles and the one or more docking stations for persistent deployment of the one or more aerial vehicles).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to include launching “in succession”, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of avoiding collisions during launch of multiple aerial vehicles.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Sugumaran, in view of Konigorski et al. (US-20150251561-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Konigorski.
Regarding claim 30, Lee teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Lee does not explicitly teach further comprising processing circuitry configured to control a magnetic circuit of at least one of the stand and the aerial vehicle as the aerial vehicle is one of landing and launching from the stand.
However, Sugumaran teaches further comprising a magnetic circuit of at least one of the stand and the aerial vehicle as the aerial vehicle is one of landing and launching from the stand (FIG. 7A-7B electromagnets 600 of the UAV and electromagnets 602 of the stand; [0042] The permanent magnet portion of magnet 602 may attract magnet 600, and the electromagnet portion, when energized, may repel magnet 600. Such a configuration may be desirable to provide a force tending to secure UAV 200 against landing pad 400 when UAV 200 is docked, but allowing such force to be reduced, eliminated, or reversed when the electromagnet portion of magnet 602 is energized, thereby aiding UAV 200 in launching from landing pad 400).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the electromagnets as taught in McGeer to incorporate the teachings of Sugumaran to include further comprising a magnetic circuit of at least one of the stand and the aerial vehicle as the aerial vehicle is one of landing and launching from the stand, with a reasonable expectation of success since “such a configuration may be desirable to provide a force tending to secure UAV 200 against landing pad 400 when UAV 200 is docked, but allowing such force to be reduced, eliminated, or reversed when the electromagnet portion of magnet 602 is energized, thereby aiding UAV 200 in launching from landing pad 400” (Sugumaran [0042]).
Lee, in view of Sugumaran does not explicitly teach processing circuitry configured to control a magnetic circuit.
However, Konigorski teaches processing circuitry configured to control a magnetic circuit. ([0016] In one or more embodiments of the invention, the magnetic elements comprise electromagnets, and the system further comprises an electrical energy source and a controller to control the application of electrical energy to the electromagnets so as to adjust and control the strength, configuration and time varying development of the magnetic field; [0026] Preferably, the electromagnets are only energized when needed for landing, take-off and/or taxiing of the air vehicle, i.e. the electromagnets do not need to be energized when there is no air vehicle needing to be levitated).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the magnetic circuit as taught in Lee, in view of Sugumaran to incorporate the teachings of Konigorski to include: processing circuitry configured to control the magnetic circuit, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of saving power by selectively activating the magnetic circuit, i.e. the electromagnets do not need to be energized when there is no air vehicle needing to be levitated (Konigorski [0026]).
Claims 35 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claim 35, Lee teaches the stand of Claim 1.
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein at least one shaft is not circular in cross- section.
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art to include wherein at least one shaft is not circular in cross- section since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). Applicant has not disclosed that a specific shape solves any stated problem or presents unexpected results as opposed to a cylindrical shape, and in light of Applicant’s specification [0075] it appears the invention would perform equally well with shapes that are or are not cylindrical. A person of ordinary skill in the art is more than capable of selecting between shapes to perform the same function(s).
Regarding claim 39, Lee teaches the stand of Clam 1.
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein at least a portion of at least one shaft is tapered.
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art to include wherein at least a portion of at least one shaft is tapered since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant). Applicant has not disclosed that a taper on at least a portion of at least one shaft solves any stated problem or presents unexpected results as opposed to at least a portion of at least one shaft without a taper, and in light of Applicant’s drawings FIGS. 1 & 2-6 it appears the invention would perform equally well with shafts that have tapers and shaft that do not have tapers. A person of ordinary skill in the art is more than capable of selecting between shapes to perform the same function(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20160257424-A1: Stabler similarly discloses a landing pad with shafts for landing a UAV, but does not disclose collars on the UAV where each collar is configured to be captured by each respective shaft.
KR-20070045758-A: Jeong discloses 3 supporting rods 133 in FIG. 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662