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
Application 18/641,335 is a continuation-in-part of pending U.S. patent application Serial No. 18/461,843 filed on September 06, 2023, which claims benefit of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 16/866,484, filed May 04, 2020, which further claims benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 62/842,757 filed May 02, 2019. The application also claims priority to pending U.S. patent application Serial No. 18,641,334 filed on April 20, 2024.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 21-39 are currently pending. Claim 1 was amended in the reply filed March 25, 2026. Claims 2-20 were cancelled and claims 21-39 were added.
Response to Arguments
Drawings/Specification:
Applicant's amendments overcome the objections made to the drawings and specification and they are withdrawn.
Double Patenting:
Applicant has cancelled claims 2-20 rendering the double patenting rejection of those claims moot. Applicant's amendments overcome the double patenting rejection made to claim 1 and it is withdrawn.
Objections:
Applicant has cancelled claims 2-20 rendering the objections to those claims moot. Applicant's amendments overcome the objection made to claim 1 and it is withdrawn.
112(b):
Applicant has cancelled claims 2-5, 10, 14, 16, and 19 rendering the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) to those claims moot.
102/103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24-26, 31-33, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 24, 31, and 38 recite, "wherein the vertiport further comprises lights configured to indicate stop and go of the vertiport" (emphasis added). This limitation is not supported by the specification. Applicant states that "no new matter has been added" (see Remarks, p. 12). However, Applicant does not refer to any specific sections of the specification for support. Applicant's specification teaches: stop and go lights are used on the roof [0063]. However, it does not contain any description that would convey to a person skilled in the relevant art that the lights indicate stop and go “of the vertiport”. Examiner notes that the specification [0064] teaches that the vertiport pad can rotate 360 degrees. However, the vertiport itself appears to be a stationary structure. Furthermore, the specification does not explain how the stop and go lights are used. There are no other sections of Applicant's specification that teach the amended limitations. Therefore, claims 24, 31, and 38 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 25, 32, and 39 recite, " wherein the vertiport is incorporated into an underground portion of the building" (emphasis added). This limitation is not supported by the specification. Applicant states that "no new matter has been added" (see Remarks, p. 12). However, Applicant does not refer to any specific sections of the specification for support. Applicant's specification teaches: the vertiport system can be implemented at buildings, hotels, ground etc. [0008]; the vertiport system can be implemented as Vertiport Condominium complex, Vertiport Apartment Complex, Vertiport Subdivision, etc. [0019]; and the vertiport system can be implemented for a number of locations including condominiums, apartments, timeshares, etc. [0051-0056]. However, it does not contain any description that would convey to a person skilled in the relevant art that the vertiport is incorporated into an underground portion of a building. There are no other sections of Applicant's specification that teach the amended limitations. Therefore, claims 25, 32, and 39 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 26 and 33 recite, " wherein the vertiport is configured to rotate 360 degrees" (emphasis added). This limitation is not supported by the specification. Applicant states that "no new matter has been added" (see Remarks, p. 12). However, Applicant does not refer to any specific sections of the specification for support. Applicant's specification teaches: the vertiport pad should be able to rotate 360 degrees [0064]. However, it does not contain any description that would convey to a person skilled in the relevant art that vertiport itself is configured to rotate 360 degrees. Examiner notes that rotating the “vertiport pad” is not the same as rotating the vertiport, which appears to be a stationary structure. There are no other sections of Applicant's specification that teach the amended limitations. Therefore, claims 26 and 33 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claims 1, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0221127 to Shannon (Shannon) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0244187 to Byers et al. (Byers).
As to claim 1, Shannon teaches, (“A vertiport management platform according to the various embodiments may include interfaces for one or more aerial ODM participants and/or operations, including interfaces for air traffic control …” and “… In various embodiments, interfaces for air traffic control 304 may enable air traffic control 304 to provide the inbound flight picture to the vertiport management platform 106 …” [0028-0029 and 0049-0050]);
and a vertiport incorporated into the building and configured to land and takeoff of the unmanned vehicle (“As used herein, the term “vertiport” is used to refer to any location configured to provide landing and takeoff space to a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft …” and “… In various embodiments, interfaces for air traffic control may enable aircraft pilots (or autonomous aircraft) to utilize the vertiport management platform to file and/or update flight plans manually and/or automatically …” [0016 and 0029]),
the vertiport includes a charging station configured to charge the unmanned vehicle based on determining a depletion of charge level of the unmanned vehicle (“… Vertiports may provide various support and maintenance services to VTOL aircraft, such as refueling services to combustion engine VTOL aircraft, re-charging services to eVTOL aircraft, etc.” and “… Vertiports may include electric charging equipment, such as electric charging charge points for one or more different electric charging services and/or one or more different aircraft configurations … Further, data related to operations at the vertiport, such as maintenance (e.g., pre-flight check completion/passage/failure, etc.), electric charging (e.g., charge state, time to complete charging, etc.), passenger loading (e.g., loading complete, in process, passenger arrived, etc.), and any other vertiport operation, may be gathered by one or more sensors or input devices (e.g., vertiport staff user input terminal, etc.) and be provided to the vertiport management platform and used by the vertiport management platform …” [0016 and 0030-0032]).
While Shannon [0016, 0048] teaches a vertiport on a roof of a building, Shannon does not explicitly teach, a building including an air traffic station positioned on a roof of the building. However, Byers teaches, a building including an air traffic station positioned on a roof of the building (“In various embodiments, the controller of landing perch 106 may collaborate with any number of cloud-based resources reachable over a private or public network (e.g., hosted on a remote server). For example, such services may coordinate fleet operations, relay position or navigation data, provide air traffic control services …” and “Further implementations may entail the deployment of landing perches 106 at various locations throughout a geographic area, such as on the roof of a business …” [0038 and 0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, a building including an air traffic station positioned on a roof of the building, as taught by Byers with the vertiport system of Shannon. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the benefit of avoiding physical obstructions in communications (see also Byers [0124]).
Regarding claim 27, this claim is essentially coextensive with claim 1 other than it recites a residential building instead of a building. Because Shannon teaches a residential building as well as a building (see at least Beal [0048]), claim 27 can be rejected with the same rationale as claim 1, relying on the same combination of Shannon and Byers to render the claim obvious. Similar dependent claims below will be treated together for the sake of brevity.
Regarding claim 34, this claim is essentially coextensive with claim 1 other than it recites a commercial building instead of a building. Because Shannon teaches a commercial building as well as a building (see at least Beal [0016]), claim 34 can be rejected with the same rationale as claim 1, relying on the same combination of Shannon and Byers to render the claim obvious. Similar dependent claims below will be treated together for the sake of brevity.
As to claims 22, 29, and 36, Shannon in view of Byers teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Shannon does not teach, wherein the building further comprises a solar panel configured to provide power to the charging station. However, Byers teaches, wherein the building further comprises a solar panel configured to provide power to the charging station (“… In some embodiments, landing perch 106 may provide energy to UAV 102 to provide a rapid charge of its batteries …” and “Power supply system 460 may be configured to provide power to landing perch 106 and/or to UAV 102. In some embodiments, power supply system 460 may receive energy over a PoE network interface 410, from a solar panel (e.g., located at the top of smart postal box 102) …” [0023 and 0067]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the building further comprises a solar panel configured to provide power to the charging station, as taught by Byers with the vertiport system of Shannon. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the benefit of providing more environmentally friendly or cost-effective charging.
As to claims 23, 30, and 37, Shannon in view of Byers teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Shannon further teaches, wherein the system further includes a drone landing pad positioned adjacent to the vertiport (“The systems, methods, and devices of the various embodiments may provide a vertiport management platform that may autonomously manage capacity of take-off and landing spots across all vertiports in an area …” and “The aerial ODM network 100 may include various vertiports 110, 111, 112, 114, and 115 all including one or more take-off and landing spots …” and “… In various embodiments, interfaces for air traffic control 304 may enable aircraft pilots (or autonomous aircraft control systems) to utilize the vertiport management platform 106 to file and/or update flight plans manually and/or automatically …” [0023 and 0046 and 0050] Examiner notes that a drone is an autonomous aircraft).
As to claims 25, 33, and 39, Shannon in view of Byers teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Shannon further teaches, wherein the vertiport is incorporated into an underground portion of the building (“… For example, vertiports may be implemented in dual-use structures (e.g., parking lots or parking garages) or real estate (e.g., baseball, soccer or football fields) that are used part of the time for flight operations and part of the time for their normal or designated purpose …” [0016]).
Claims 21, 28, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0221127 to Shannon (Shannon) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0244187 to Byers et al. (Byers), as applied to claims 1, 27, and 34 above, in further view of U.S. Patent No. 8,122,656 to Poulsen (Poulsen)
As to claims 21, 28, and 35, Shannon in view of Byers teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Shannon in view of Byers does not teach, wherein the system further includes a fire chemical retardants and dispensing mechanism positioned adjacent to the vertiport and configured to stop fires, smoke, or any other thermal reactions. However, Poulsen teaches, wherein the system further includes a fire chemical retardants and dispensing mechanism positioned adjacent to the vertiport and configured to stop fires, smoke, or any other thermal reactions (“… The fire suppression surface system may be deployed or installed in a variety of environments wherein flammable fluids are in use. Examples of surfaces where the system may be deployed or installed may include but are not limited to: an aircraft carrier flight deck or hangar deck; other warships; an oil tanker or other fuel-carrying vessel; freighters; other ships or vessels; a helipad …” [col. 5, lines 1-54]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the system further includes a fire chemical retardants and dispensing mechanism positioned adjacent to the vertiport and configured to stop fires, smoke, or any other thermal reactions, as taught by Poulsen with the vertiport system of Shannon in view of Byers. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Poulsen that doing so would reduce the risk to firefighters, other rescue or emergency personnel, or bystanders as well as reduce structural damage [col. 1, lines 17-43].
Claims 24, 31, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0221127 to Shannon (Shannon) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0244187 to Byers et al. (Byers), as applied to claims 1, 27, and 34 above, in further view of U.S. Patent No. 11,231,706 to Curlander et al. (Curlander)
As to claims 24, 31, and 38, Shannon in view of Byers teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Shannon in view of Byers does not teach, wherein the vertiport further comprises lights configured to indicate stop and go of the vertiport. However, Curlander teaches, wherein the vertiport further comprises lights configured to indicate stop and go of the vertiport (“… In some examples, the lights 208 can be used to provide the UAV 104 with a go/no-go. If the lights 208 remain green during an approach, for example, the UAV 104 is cleared to land. If the lights 208 change to red, on the other hand, this can indicate a wave-off of the UAV 104 by the delivery robot 130” [col. 11, lines 39-50]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the vertiport further comprises lights configured to indicate stop and go of the vertiport, as taught by Curlander with the vertiport system of Shannon in view of Byers. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the benefit of providing better security when landing a UAV (see also Curlander [col. 1, lines 12-18]).
Claims 26 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0221127 to Shannon (Shannon) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0244187 to Byers et al. (Byers), as applied to claims 1, 27, and 34 above, in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0105289 to Walsh et al. (Walsh)
As to claims 26 and 33, Shannon in view of Byers teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Shannon in view of Byers does not teach, wherein the vertiport is configured to rotate 360 degrees. However, Walsh teaches, wherein the vertiport is configured to rotate 360 degrees (“… In some embodiments, hideaway landing pad 500 can rotate 360 degrees” [0206]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the vertiport is configured to rotate 360 degrees, as taught by Walsh with the vertiport system of Shannon in view of Byers. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Walsh that doing so would optimize, or at least improve, interactions between drones, parcels, and receptacles, such that issues, such as scheduling conflicts and capacity problems arising from the use of drones and parcel receiving mechanisms are minimized, if not eliminated [0018].
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 STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights