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 .
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.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ang (CN 102166930) in view of US 9613536 to Wolford et al. (“Wolford”).
Regarding claim 21, Ang discloses a land-and-air mobile device comprising:
an environment information acquirer configured to acquire environment information (see pg 6; for example, “camera monitors…”);
a ground travel executor configured to execute ground travel (see pg 5, power device for driving on the ground);
an air travel executor configured to execute air travel (see pg 5, power device for flying in the air); and
a controller, wherein the controller comprises: one or more processors; and one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors, the one or more processors are configured to execute a process comprising (e.g. see Fig. 6):
selecting, based on the environment information, a ground travel state in which the ground travel is executed or an air travel state in which the air travel is executed (e.g. see pg 9, “principle of automatic obstacle-crossing control of the flying car”);
the one or more processors are configured to: maintain, when the environment information indicates that a predetermined landing condition (i.e. see pg. 9; road condition is clean) is not satisfied in the air travel state, the land-and-air mobile device in the air travel state;
and execute, when the environment information indicates that the predetermined landing condition is satisfied (i.e. see pg. 9; road condition is clean),
the predetermined landing condition comprises at least a condition that the land-and-air mobile device does not collide with an obstacle in surroundings in a horizontal direction of the land-and-air mobile device or an obstacle in surroundings vertically below the land-and-air mobile device during a landing operation and that a landing point at which an area for the land- and-air mobile device to land is securable is present (i.e. see pg. 9; road condition is clean).
Ang does not disclose changing priority orders of transmission to specifically include: changing a priority order for information transmission related to the ground travel executor and the air travel executor in accordance with whether the ground travel state or the air travel state is selected or a process of changing the priority order for the information transmission related to the ground travel executor and the air travel executor from a priority order based on the air travel state to a priority order based on the ground travel state and shift the land-and-air mobile device from the air travel state to the ground travel state. Nevertheless in a related field of invention, Wolford discloses data transmission having changing priorities based on the mission and other parameters (e.g. see col. 25, ln 31-52).
Regarding claim 22, Ang in view of Wolford discloses the land-and-air mobile device according to claim 21, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute a process comprising: deriving the landing point, and a relative distance and a relative speed between the [obstacle] landing point and the land-and-air mobile device in the air travel state (e.g. see pg 3, first full paragraph and see last paragraph of pg 4 continuing into pg 5); and landing the land-and-air mobile device at the landing point based on a result of the deriving (see page 4 before “Brief Description”).
Regarding claim 23, Ang in view of Wolford discloses such as expressed above due to claim 23 being similar in scope to claims 21, 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. There are no arguments directed to the claims rejected herein because each of the claims rejected herein are new. Applicant merely alleges general conclusions of patentability regarding these claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, and 6-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art does not disclose the mobile device with communication arrangements as disclosed particularly with the switching frame having an ID fixed to the highest priority regardless of whether ground or air travel is used.
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 SCOTT A BROWNE whose telephone number is (571)270-0151. The examiner can normally be reached on Variable Workweek/IFP.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s colleague, SPE Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights