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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 21-35 and 38-40 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that McNair 412 in view of McNair 767 does not teach the features of the amended independent claims. Specifically, Applicant argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that McNair 767 suggests moving the landing area 170 rather than illuminating separate FATO and parking pads on the landing area 170. Moreover, independent claim 21 currently recites that "each of the plurality of lighting patterns illuminates at least one final approach and takeoff (FATO) pad and at least one parking pad that are spaced apart on the operating surface." Nothing in McNair 412 and McNair 767, alone or in combination, teaches or even suggests a plurality of lighting patterns that FATO pad(s) and parking pad(s) that are spaced apart on an operating surface.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Moving the landing area in McNair 767 is not directly related to the claimed subject matter. As explained in the office action, McNair 767 teaches different helipads in including FATO pads and parking pads in paragraphs [0003], [0016], [0022], the features of which are combined with the disclosure of McNair 412 (Fig. 1, [0024], [0027], [0041], [0028], Fig. 4B, [0055], abstract, [0022], [0023]). Examiner notes that since a FATO pad and a parking pad cannot be located at the same pad, they are spaced apart on the operating surface.
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 (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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 24, 31-35, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNair et al. (US 20200073412 A1, hereinafter McNair ‘412’), which was cited by Applicant, in view of McNair et al. (US 20200189767 A1, hereinafter McNair ‘767’).
Regarding claim 21, McNair ‘412’ discloses:
A vertiport, comprising: an operating surface for vertical takeoff and landing aircraft {Fig. 1, paragraph [0024]}; a plurality of lighting devices disposed relative to the operating surface such that the plurality of lighting devices are visible from above the operating surface when the plurality of lighting devices are illuminated {[0027]: the landing area includes an arrangement of emitters... the emitters are each operable to emit visible light}; and
a vertiport controller configured to selectively operate the plurality of lighting devices in a plurality of lighting patterns, wherein each of the plurality of lighting patterns is different {[0041]: the landing area controller can be communicably coupled to the emitters so as to individually control the emitters. [0028] discloses different lighting patterns: a set of emission states… a state in which no emission is produced, states in which, for example, light of a specific color, hue and/or brightness is produced, states in which light of a specific color, hue and/or brightness is configurably flashed (e.g., blinking states) and/or other states. Fig. 4B and [0055] disclose a specific lighting pattern for landing. Examiner notes that selectively operating different lighting patterns is implied since plurality of patterns are provided and the vertiport serves different functions including take-off or landing (abstract). [0022]: real-time operational conditions such as aircraft failure can trigger a need to radically reorganize how the landing area is used. [0023]: the ground control system can dynamically generate an instruction set conveyed to the VTOL aircraft by way of an arrangement of emitters disposed at the landing area... the instruction set can be dynamically changed or updated in response to new information such as operational conditions},
wherein the plurality of lighting patterns comprises a first lighting pattern and a second lighting pattern {[0028] A plurality of lighting patterns may include first and second lighting patterns}.
McNair ‘412’ does not disclose:
each of the plurality of lighting patterns illuminates at least one final approach and takeoff (FATO) pad and at least one parking pad that are spaced apart on the operating surface.
McNair ‘767’ teaches takeoff and parking in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0003]: The heliport docking system can include a plurality of helipads. [0016]: accommodate the takeoff and landing of aircraft… the aircraft is parked on the helipad system. [0022]: a surface on which a VTOL can land, park, be transported, and take-off. Examiner notes that since a VTOL can park and then takeoff from the surface of the helipad, an FATO pad is implied to be provided on the surface of the helipad. Examiner notes that since a FATO pad and a parking pad cannot be located at the same pad, they are spaced apart.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the FATO pad and parking pad feature of McNair ‘767’ with the described invention of McNair ‘412’ in order to provide visual guidance for different parts of the vertiport.
wherein a number or location of FATO pads illuminated in the first lighting pattern is different than a number or location of FATO pads illuminated in the second lighting pattern, or a number or location of parking pads illuminated in the first lighting pattern is different than a number or location of parking pads illuminated in the second lighting pattern.
McNair ‘767’teaches FATO pads and parking pads on the operating surface {Fig. 1, [0003], [0016], [0022]. In order to guide a VTOL to a specific FATO pad or a parking pad, the specific FATO pad or the specific parking pad must be distinguished from other FATO pads or other parking pads.
McNair ‘412’ discloses selectively operating a plurality of different lighting patterns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the FATO pads and parking pads feature of McNair ‘767’ with the described invention of McNair ‘412’ in order to provide visual guidance for a specific FATO pad or a specific parking pad.
Regarding claim 22, which depends from claim 21, McNair ‘412’ in view of McNair ‘767’ teaches: wherein: the number of FATO pads illuminated in the first lighting pattern is greater than the number of FATO pads illuminated in the second lighting pattern.{McNair ‘412’ discloses different lighting patterns, which may be first and second lighting patterns in [0028]. McNair ‘767’ teaches FATO pads in Fig. 1, [0016], [0022]}.
Examiner notes that a ratio of the number of pads in the first lighting pattern and the number of pads in the second lighting pattern may be controlled by the vertiport controller, for example, in order to allow a VTOL to use certain pads but not the other pads, and to provide more allowed pads for a VTOL.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the FATO pads feature of McNair ‘767’ with the described invention of modified McNair ‘412’ in order to facilitate use of helipads by a VTOL.
Regarding claim 24, which depends from claim 21, McNair ‘412’ in view of McNair ‘767’ teaches: wherein: the number of parking pads illuminated in the first lighting pattern is greater than the number of parking pads illuminated in the second lighting pattern {McNair ‘412’: [0028] / McNair ‘767’: Fig. 1, [0016], [0022]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the parking pads feature of McNair ‘767’ with the described invention of modified McNair ‘412’ in order to provide respective visual guidance for a plurality of parking pads.
Regarding claim 31, which depends from claim 21, McNair ‘767’ teaches: wherein one or more of the plurality of lighting patterns further illuminates a taxiway between one of the at least one FATO pad and one of the at least one parking pad {Fig. 1, [0016]: transport the aircraft between the different areas}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the taxiway feature of McNair ‘767’ with the described invention of modified McNair ‘412’ in order to provide visual guidance for the taxiway.
Regarding claim 32, which depends from claim 21, McNair ‘767’ teaches: further comprising a charging station for the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, wherein one or more of the at least one parking pad is positioned proximate the charging station in at least one of the plurality of lighting patterns {[0006]: supplying the aircraft with electricity. The position of the charging station proximate to the parking pad is implied since charging is usually performed during parking}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the charging feature of McNair ‘767’ with the described invention of modified McNair ‘412’ in order to facilitate providing energy to aircrafts.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 39.
Regarding claim 33, which depends from claim 21, McNair ‘412’ discloses: wherein the plurality of lighting devices are mounted on, in, or under the operating surface {abstract: the landing area includes an arrangement of a plurality of emitters}.
Regarding claim 34, which depends from claim 21, McNair ‘412’ discloses: wherein the operating surface is disposed on a building {[0002]: helipads are built on high-rise building}.
Regarding claim 35, McNair ‘412’ discloses: A vertiport, comprising: an operating surface for vertical takeoff and landing aircraft; a plurality of lighting devices disposed proximate the operating surface {Fig. 1, [0024], [0027]}; a vertiport controller configured to selectively operate the plurality of lighting devices in a plurality of lighting patterns, wherein the plurality of lighting patterns comprises a first lighting pattern and a second lighting pattern {[0041], [0028], Fig. 4B, [0055], abstract, [0022], [0023]}.
McNair ‘767’ teaches: wherein each of the plurality of lighting patterns illuminates a respective pattern for the plurality of lighting devices to provide at least one final approach and takeoff (FATO) pad and at least one parking pad on the operating surface, wherein a number or location of FATO pads illuminated in the first lighting pattern is different than a number or location of FATO pads illuminated in the second lighting pattern, or a number or location of parking pads illuminated in the first lighting pattern is different than a number or location of parking pads illuminated in the second lighting pattern {Fig. 1, [0003], [0016], [0022]}. Examiner notes that illuminating a respective pattern is implied since the FATO pad and the parking pad are different areas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the FATO pad and parking pad feature of McNair ‘767’ with the described invention of McNair ‘412’ in order to provide visual guidance for different parts of the vertiport.
Regarding claim 40, which depends from claim 35, McNair ‘412’ discloses: wherein the plurality of lighting devices are mounted on, in, or under the operating surface, and the operating surface is disposed on a building {abstract, [0002]}.
Claim(s) 26-30 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNair ‘412’ in view of ‘767’ and in further view of Fisher (US5945181A).
Regarding claim 26, which depends from claim 21, modified McNair ‘412’ does not teach: wherein the plurality of lighting devices comprise a tessellation of shapes provided on one or more portions of the operating surface.
Fisher teaches tessellation surface in airports {col. 8, line 65 – col. 9, line 1}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tessellation feature of Fisher with the described invention of modified McNair ‘412’ in order to facilitate modular construction of lighting devices.
Regarding claim 27, which depends from claim 26, Fisher teaches: wherein each shape in the tessellation of shapes comprises a plurality of light emitting devices respectively corresponding to a plurality of different colors {col. 2, lines 43, 44: maybe combined with regular tessellatable elements}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tessellation combination feature of Fisher with the described invention of modified McNair ‘412’ in order to facilitate easy identification of parts of the vertiport.
Regarding claim 28, which depends from claim 26, Fisher teaches: wherein each of the plurality of lighting patterns illuminates a respective set of shapes in the tessellation of shapes {col. 2, lines 43, 44}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tessellation combination feature of Fisher with the described invention of modified McNair ‘412’ in order to facilitate easy identification of parts of the vertiport.
Regarding claim 29, which depends from claim 26, Fisher teaches: wherein the tessellation of shapes comprises a tessellation of polygons {col. 3, lines 51-54: types of polygons}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the polygon tessellation feature of Fisher with the described invention of modified McNair ‘412’ in order to facilitate construction of the tessellated surface.
Regarding claim 30, which depends from claim 29, Fisher teaches: wherein the tessellation of polygons comprises a tessellation of triangles, rectangles, hexagons, or combinations thereof {col. 1, line 40: mosaic of rectangular elements}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the common polygon tessellation feature of Fisher with the described invention of modified McNair ‘412’ in order to facilitate construction of the tessellated surface.
Regarding claim 38, which depends from claim 35, modified McNair ‘412’ in view of Fisher teaches: wherein the plurality of lighting devices comprise a tessellation of shapes provided on one or more portions of the operating surface, and each of the plurality of lighting patterns illuminates a respective set of shapes in the tessellation of shapes {McNair ‘412’: [0028] / McNair ‘767’: Fig. 1, [0016], [0022] / Fisher: col. 2, lines 43, 44}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tessellation combination feature of Fisher with the described invention of modified McNair ‘412’ in order to facilitate easy identification of tessellated parts of the vertiport.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kopardekar (US20160275801A1) teaches helipads for parking and taking off of unmanned aerial systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights