DETAILED ACTION
This Office action follows the Restriction Requirement set forth on 1/16/2026 and is responsive to applicant’s reply filed on 3/13/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, including claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 3/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/13/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 3/6/2025 and 11/17/2025 are being considered.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 7/5/2024 are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“FLOF platform 120A” is recited (specification as published [0029]). This objection can be overcome by reciting, “TLOF platform 120A”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, “ground service” is objected to because the limitation lacks an introductory article and thus lacks antecedent basis. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “a ground service”. See also claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “driver” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1, “the TLOF platforms” (last line) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the previously recited plurality of TLOF platforms? This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the plurality of TLOF platforms”. See also claims 2, 4 and 8-15.
Claim 3, “the stations” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the previously recited plurality stations? This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the plurality of stations”. See also claims 3-11.
Claim 4, “each TLOF platform” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the previously recited plurality of TLOF platforms? This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “each of the plurality of TLOF platforms”. See also claim 11.
Claim 7, “allows passengers, luggage, or cargo to be unloaded from a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft, onto the first TLOF platform, and then into the unloading station” is indefinite because the term “allows” is ambiguous and thus unclear as to what is required or not required by the claim, since the claim fails to clarify whether a permission is exclusive, non-exclusive, mandatory or permissive. It is unclear whether the term means that the language that follows “allows” is required by the claim or simply permitted. This rejection can be overcome by deleting “allows” and replacing it with “permits” or equivalent. See also claims 8-9 and 11.
Claim 12, “each adjacent pair of the TLOF platforms” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the plurality of TLOF platforms that are positioned adjacent to the terminal, or adjacent pairs of the plurality of TLOF platforms, or something else? Applicant is requested to clarify.
Claim 14, “also configured to move vertically” is indefinite because it is unclear what the limitation requires. The term “also” is ambiguous in that it is unclear whether the claim requires the TLOF sub-components in addition to the TLOF platforms to be configured to move vertically, or the TLOF sub-components to move vertically in addition to another type of movement, such as rotational movement, or something else. Applicant is requested to clarify.
The remainder of claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 20230312133) (‘Smith’).
Claim 1, Smith provides a vertiport system, comprising:
a plurality of touchdown and lift-off (TLOF) platforms (1002a, 1002b, 1002c, 1002d);
a final approach and take-off (FATO) area 1007; and
a driver (“motor” [0035]) configured to move the TLOF platforms with respect to the FATO area (Fig. 2).
Claim 2, Smith further provides a terminal (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terminal is located at the center of the system, as exceedingly broadly claimed, and the system can include a ground-based control center [0048]), wherein the TLOF platforms move in a horizontal plane around the terminal (1002a-1002d move horizontally around the terminal; Fig. 2).
Claim 3, Smith further provides wherein the terminal is divided into a plurality of stations (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terminal can be considered to be divided into four stations, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 2), and wherein the stations are circumferentially offset from one another around a central vertical axis through the terminal (the stations are offset circumferentially around a central vertical axis through the center; Fig. 2).
Claim 10, Smith further provides wherein the stations comprise a touchdown and lift-off (TLOF) station (station aligned with 1002b; Fig. 2), wherein the driver is configured to move a first of the TLOF platforms 1002b into alignment with the TLOF station (Fig. 2) and simultaneously into the FATO area (Fig. 2), and wherein the first TLOF platform is configured to have a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft take-off therefrom when the first TLOF platform is in the FATO area (“takeoff position” [0021]; Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1-3, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2613145 (‘GB ‘145’).
Claim 1, GB ‘145 provides a vertiport system, comprising:
a plurality of touchdown and lift-off (TLOF) platforms (110a, 110b, 110c, 110d; page 8, lines 26-28; Figs. 8-9);
a final approach and take-off (FATO) area (note that upper level shown in Fig. 2 of any portion of 110a-110d is suitable for final approach and take-off, as exceedingly broadly claimed); and
a driver configured to move the TLOF platforms with respect to the FATO area (it is understood that GB ‘145’s vertiport system comprises a driver, such as “lift mechanism 120” comprising “an appropriate lifting apparatus” that is suitable to move the TLOF platforms with respect to the FATO area; “platform 110 may be rotatable relative to the peripheral portion 20 such that any of the four portions of the platform may be aligned with any of the segments of the peripheral portion 200”; specification; Figs. 8-9).
Claim 2, GB ‘145 further provides a terminal (terminal defined by “peripheral portion segments” 200; specification; Figs. 8-9), wherein the TLOF platforms move in a horizontal plane around the terminal (the TLOF platforms rotate in a horizontal plane around the terminal; Figs. 8-9).
Claim 3, GB ‘145 further provides wherein the terminal is divided into a plurality of stations (“peripheral portion segments”; specification; Figs. 8-9), and wherein the stations are circumferentially offset from one another around a central vertical axis through the terminal (the stations are circumferentially offset around a center vertical axis that extends through the terminal at the center; Figs. 8-9).
Claim 10, GB ‘145 further provides wherein the stations comprise a touchdown and lift-off (TLOF) station (note that any of the stations can be considered to comprise a TLOF station, as a vertical take-off and landing aircraft 500 can touchdown and lift-off any of the stations, as exceedingly broadly claimed), wherein the driver is configured to move a first of the TLOF platforms into alignment with the TLOF station and simultaneously into the FATO area (“platform 110 may be rotatable relative to the peripheral portion 20 such that any of the four portions of the platform may be aligned with any of the segments of the peripheral portion 200”; specification; Figs. 8-9), and wherein the first TLOF platform is configured to have a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft take-off therefrom when the first TLOF platform is in the FATO area (the first TLOF platform is suitable to have a VTOL aircraft 500 take-off therefrom when the first TLOF platform is in the FATO area; Figs. 8-9).
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2613341 (‘GB ‘341’).
Claim 1, GB ‘341 provides a vertiport system, comprising:
a plurality of touchdown and lift-off (TLOF) platforms (370, 380; Fig. 6);
a final approach and take-off (FATO) area (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an area of upper level 170 constitutes a FATO area, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 6) ; and
a driver configured to move the TLOF platforms with respect to the FATO area (it is understood that “turntables” 370, 380 are suitable to be rotated by a driver; “turntables […] may be configured to rotate in one direction or in either direction”; specification; see rotational arrows in Fig. 6).
Claim 2, GB ‘341 further provides a terminal 110, wherein the TLOF platforms move in a horizontal plane around the terminal (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the TLOF platforms 370, 380 are located circumferentially around the terminal 110 and each move rotationally in a horizontal plane, as exceedingly broadly claimed; see generic illustrations in plan view in Figs. 4 and 8-9).
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.
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) 3 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2613341 (‘GB ‘341’).
Claim 3, GB ‘341 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above, but is silent as to the embodiment of Fig. 6 having the terminal divided into a plurality of stations. However, the embodiment of Fig. 8 has the terminal divided into a plurality of stations (110a, 110b; “platform 110 is divided into multiple parts 110a, 110b”; specification; Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the embodiment of Fig. 6 to have the terminal being divided into a plurality of stations, with the reasonable expectation of permitting the stations to have different functions (GB ‘341 specification), and since the embodiments of Figs. 6 and 8 were treated as obvious variants of one another.
Claim 4, as modified above, GB ‘341 teaches all the limitations of claim 3, and further teaches wherein the TLOF platforms are positioned radially-outward from the terminal and the stations with respect to the central vertical axis (370 and 380 are positioned radially-outward from terminal 110, which would include the terminal comprising stations 110a and 110b as modified above; Fig. 8; see generic plan views in Figs. 8-9), and wherein each TLOF platform is configured to be aligned with a different one of the stations (see generic plan views in Figs. 8-9, in which each of the TLOF platforms 370, 380 is suitable to be aligned with a different one of the stations 110a, 110b).
Claim 6, GB ‘341 further teaches wherein the stations comprise a touchdown and lift-off (TLOF) station (note that either of 110a or 110b could be considered a TLOF station, as the stations are each capable of permitting touchdown and lift-off, as exceedingly broadly claimed; specification; Fig. 6), wherein the driver is configured to move a first of the TLOF platforms into alignment with the TLOF station and simultaneously into the FATO area (it is understood that a first of the TLOF platforms 370, 380 is suitable to be moved into alignment with the TLOF station 110a, 110b), and wherein the first TLOF platform is configured to have a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft land thereon when the first TLOF platform is in the FATO area (the first TLOF platform 370 or 380 is suitable to have a VTOL aircraft 500 land thereon when the first TLOF platform 370 or 380 is in the FATO area 170; Fig. 6).
Claim 7, GB ‘341 further teaches wherein the stations comprise an unloading station (note that 110a or 110b are suitable for use as an unloading station, as extremely broadly claimed; “cargo transit apparatus is configured to transfer cargo between the platform and one or more of the plurality of peripheral segments” claim 17), wherein the driver is configured to move a first of the TLOF platforms into alignment with the unloading station (370 or 380 are each suitable to be rotated to be in alignment with 110a or 110b; Fig. 6), which allows passengers, luggage, or cargo to be unloaded from a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft, onto the first TLOF platform, and then into the unloading station (it is understood that passengers, luggage, or cargo is permitted to be unloaded from a VTOL aircraft 500 onto the first TLOF platform 370 or 380 and then into the unloading station 110a or 110b; claim 16; Fig. 6).
Claim 8, GB ‘341 further teaches wherein the stations comprise a ground service station (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, 110a or 110b could be considered a ground service station, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 6), wherein the driver is configured to move a first of the TLOF platforms (a first of 370, 380) into alignment with the ground service station (110a or 110b), which allows ground service to be performed on a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft that is positioned on the first TLOF platform (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, 370 or 380 being in alignment with 110a or 110b permits ground service to be performed on a VTOL aircraft 500 that is positioned on the first TLOF platform, as exceedingly broadly claimed; note that a VTOL aircraft is shown on TLOF platform 380 in Fig. 6).
Claim 9, GB ‘341 further teaches wherein the stations comprise a loading station (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, 110a or 110b could be considered a loading station, as various elements or passengers could be loaded or unloaded, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 6), wherein the driver is configured to move a first of the TLOF platforms into alignment with the loading station, which allows passengers, luggage, or cargo to be loaded from the loading station into a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft that is positioned on the first TLOF platform (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a first of the TLOF platforms 110a, 110b is suitable to be rotated into alignment with the loading station 110a or 110b, which permits passengers, luggage, or cargo to be loaded from the loading station into a VTOL aircraft 500 that is positioned on the first TLOF platform 370 or 380, as exceedingly broadly claimed; note that VTOL aircraft 500 is shown positioned on TLOF platform 380 in Fig. 6).
Claim 10, GB ‘341 further teaches wherein the stations comprise a touchdown and lift-off (TLOF) station (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, 110a or 110b each constitute a TLOF station, as a VTOL aircraft 500 is permitted to touchdown or lift off therefrom, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 6), wherein the driver is configured to move a first of the TLOF platforms into alignment with the TLOF station and simultaneously into the FATO area (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a first of the TLOF platforms 370, 380 is suitable to rotate into alignment with the TLOF station 110a or 110b and simultaneously into the FATO area 170, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 6), and wherein the first TLOF platform is configured to have a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft take-off therefrom when the first TLOF platform is in the FATO area (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first TLOF platform 370, 380 is suitable to have a VTOL aircraft take off therefrom when the first TLOF platform 370, 380 is in the FATO area 170, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2613341 (‘GB ‘341’) in view of GB 2613145 (‘GB ‘145’).
Claim 5, GB ‘341 teaches two stations, but is silent as to further subdividing into four stations. GB ‘145 teaches a vertiport system, comprising four stations including a touchdown and lift-off (TLOF) station 110a, an unloading station 110b, a ground service station 110c, and a loading station 110d (note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, GB ‘145’s elements 110a-110d may be rotated to be in alignment with various platforms to perform various functions and thus constitute stations, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to divide GB ‘341’s terminal into four stations comprising a touchdown and lift-off (TLOF) station, an unloading station, a ground service station, and a loading station, with the reasonable expectation of success of permitting additional functions to take place, separately and/or simultaneously, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, specifically Smith et al. (US 20230312133) (‘Smith’), GB 2613341 (‘GB ‘341’) and GB 2613145 (‘GB ‘145’) do not teach or disclose, alone or in combination, all the elements and features of the vertiport system in combination as claimed in claim 11, including the position, orientation and arrangement of the stationary terminal divided into a plurality of stations, a plurality of TLOF platforms, a stationary final approach and take-off (FATO) area, a driver, and first, second, third and fourth rotational movements. It would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill to modify or combine the cited prior art references of record to arrive at the claimed invention. Claims 12-15 depend from claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights