DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a reply to the amendment filed on 6/3/2026. Currently, claims 1-2 and 4, 6-22 are pending. Claims 3 and 5 have been cancelled. Claims 16-20 have been withdrawn. New claims 21-22 have been added.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-11 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “the terminal” (as recited throughout the claim) is objected to because the claim previously recites a stationary terminal and it is unclear whether “the terminal” is referring to the “stationary terminal”. This objection can be overcome by reciting in each instance, “the stationary terminal”. See also claims 2, 4 and 11.
Claim 1, “the stations” (as recited throughout the claim) is objected to because the claim previously recites a plurality of stations and it is unclear whether “the stations” is referring to the “plurality of stations”. This objection can be overcome by reciting in each instance, “the plurality of stations”. See also claims 4, 6-11 and 22.
Claim 4, “each TLOF platform” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited plurality of TLOF platforms. This objection can be overcome by reciting in each instance, “each of the plurality of TLOF platforms”. See also claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4, 6-15 and 21-22 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 first TLOF platform” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to a first of the plurality of TLOF platforms or a different/additional platform?
Claim 2, “wherein the plurality of TLOF platforms in a horizontal plane around the terminal” is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim requires. For examination purposes, the limitation was treated as, “wherein each of the plurality of TLOF platforms is configured to move in a horizontal plane around the terminal”.
Claim 11, “wherein the plurality of TLOF platforms move in a horizontal plane around the central axis” is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim requires. The claim is a product claim and the action of moving appears to be a method step. The metes and bounds of the claim are not defined to clearly established what is required by such movement. Does applicant intend to recite, “wherein the plurality of TLOF platforms are configured to move in a horizontal plane around the central axis”?
Claim 11, “wherein the plurality of TLOF platforms move in a continuous or pulsed manner” is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim requires. The claim is a product claim and the action of moving appears to be a method step. The metes and bounds of the claim are not defined to clearly established what is required by such movement. Does applicant intend to recite, “wherein the plurality of TLOF platforms are configured to move in a continuous or pulsed manner”?
Claim 11, “wherein the VTOL aircraft is configured to take-off from the first TLOF platform when the first TLOF platform is configured to move back into the FATO area” (last two lines of the claim) is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim requires. It is unclear whether applicant intends for the limitation to require the VTOL aircraft being configured to take-off from the first TLOF platform after the TLOF platform has been moved back into the FATO area, of when the TLOF platform is suitable to be moved back into the FATO area. As currently claimed, the claim requires the VTOL to be configured for takeoff when the first TLOF platform is suitable to move back into the FATO area. The meets and bounds of being configured to move back into the FATO area are unclear. Does applicant intend for the limitation to require the TLOF platform to be in a specific position for takeoff?
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) 1-2, 4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2018198126 (‘WO ‘126’).
Claim 1, WO ‘126 provides a vertiport system, comprising:
a stationary terminal (see annotated Fig. 28 of WO ‘126 as shown below in Examiner’s Notes), wherein the terminal is divided into a plurality of stations, wherein the stations are circumferentially offset from one another around a central vertical axis through the terminal, and wherein the stations comprise a touchdown and lift-off (TLOF) station, an unloading station, a ground service station, and a loading station (annotated Fig. 26);
a plurality of touchdown and lift-off (TLOF) platforms (each labeled 2816 in Fig. 28) positioned adjacent to the terminal (annotated Fig. 28);
a final approach and take-off (FATO) area positioned adjacent to the terminal, wherein the FATO area is stationary (note that there are two potential FATO areas in annotated Fig. 28); and
a driver (“the docking process is done cooperatively through one interactive control system which may include elements such as sensors, actuators, and processors of both the AV and the SGV”; specification; “Traffic Control Center” specification) configured to move the plurality of TLOF platforms with respect to the FATO area (it is understood that a central driver is suitable to act as a control system to move the plurality of TLOF platforms with respect to the FATO area), wherein the first TLOF platform is configured to move from alignment with the TLOF station (“alignment with the TLOF station” was treated as positioned in some way as to be considered aligned with the TLOF station; annotated Fig. 28) into alignment with the unloading station (“alignment with the unloading station” was treated as positioned in some way as to be considered aligned with the unloading station; annotated Fig. 28) in response to a first rotational movement by the driver (note that the driver is suitable to rotate, either by wheel or tire rotation, or by general turning), wherein the first TLOF platform is configured to move from alignment with the unloading station of the terminal into alignment with the ground service station of the terminal in response to a second rotational movement by the driver (along curved directional arrow from the unloading station to the ground service station; annotated Fig. 28), wherein the first TLOF platform is configured to move from alignment with the ground service station of the terminal into alignment with the loading station of the terminal in response to a third rotational movement by the driver (along rotational arrow from the ground service station to the loading station; annotated Fig. 28), and wherein the first TLOF platform is configured to move from alignment with the loading station of the terminal back into alignment with the TLOF station of the terminal in response to a fourth rotational movement by the driver (after picking up departing passengers; annotated Fig. 28).
Claim 2, WO ‘126 further provides wherein each of the plurality of TLOF platforms is configured to move in a horizontal plane around the terminal (it is understood that each of the plurality of TLOF platforms is suitable to move in a horizontal plane on a surface of the structure around the terminal; annotated Fig. 28).
Claim 4, WO ‘126 further provides wherein the plurality of TLOF platforms are positioned radially-outward from the terminal and the stations with respect to the central vertical axis (it is understood that the plurality of TLOF platforms are positioned in a direction that is considered radially outward with respect to the stationary terminal and the stations with respect to the central vertical axis, since the TLOF platforms are shown to be farther away from the central vertical axis in at least the central front portion of the stationary terminal at reference number 2816 and at the back right portion of the stationary terminal at reference character 2808; Fig. 28), and wherein each TLOF platform is configured to be aligned with a different one of the stations (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is understood that different TLOF platforms are suitable to be aligned with different stations; annotated Fig. 28).
Claim 7, WO ‘126 further provides wherein the driver is configured to move a first of the plurality of TLOF platforms into alignment with the unloading station (annotated Fig. 28), which allows passengers, luggage, or cargo to be unloaded from a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft 2802, onto the first TLOF platform, and then into the unloading station (it is understood that passengers, luggage or cargo are permitted to be unloaded from a VTOL when in alignment with the unloading station; annotated Fig. 28).
Claim 8, WO ‘126 further provides wherein the driver is configured to move a first of the plurality of TLOF platforms into alignment with the ground service station (annotated Fig. 28), which allows a ground service to be performed on a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft that is positioned on the first TLOF platform (it is understood that when a VTOL aircraft is positioned on the first TLOF platform, a ground service is permitted to be performed; annotated Fig. 28).
Claim 9, WO ‘126 further provides wherein the driver is configured to move a first of the plurality of TLOF platforms into alignment with the loading station (annotated Fig. 28), 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 (it is understood that passengers, luggage or cargo is permitted to be loaded from the loading station into a VTOL aircraft positioned on the first TLOF platform; annotated Fig. 28).
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) 6 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018198126 (‘WO ‘126’).
Claim 6, WO ‘126 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Although WO ‘126 does not explicitly recite wherein the driver is configured to move a first of the plurality of TLOF platforms into alignment with the TLOF station and simultaneously into the FATO area, 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, WO ‘126 teaches a central control driver for the vertiport system, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to optimize the operation and schedule of the vertiport system such that the driver is configured to move a first of the plurality of TLOF platforms into alignment with the TLOF station and simultaneously into the FATO area, and wherein the first TLOF platform is configured to have a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft 2802 land thereon when the first TLOF platform is in the FATO area, with the reasonable expectation of success of streamlining the operation of the vertiport system to optimize the efficiency of arrivals and departures, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in sequence of adding components. A change in sequence is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Claim 10, WO ‘126 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Although WO ‘126 does not explicitly recite wherein the driver is configured to move a first of the plurality of TLOF platforms into alignment with the TLOF station and simultaneously into the FATO area, 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, WO ‘126 teaches a central control driver for the vertiport system, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to configure the driver to move a first of the plurality of TLOF platforms into alignment with the TLOF station and simultaneously into the FATO area, and to configure the first TLOF platform to have a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft take-off therefrom when the first TLOF platform is in the FATO area, with the reasonable expectation of success of streamlining the operation of the vertiport system to optimize the efficiency of arrivals and departures, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in sequence of adding components. A change in sequence is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Claim 11, WO ‘126 teaches a vertiport system, comprising:
a stationary terminal (annotated Fig. 28 of WO ‘126 shown below in Examiner’s Notes), wherein the terminal is divided into a plurality of stations (see stations shown in annotated Fig. 28), wherein the stations are circumferentially offset from one another around a central vertical axis through the terminal (central vertical axis; annotated Fig. 28), and wherein the stations comprise a touchdown and lift-off (TLOF) station (annotated Fig. 28), an unloading station (annotated Fig. 28), a ground service station (annotated Fig. 28), and a loading station (annotated Fig. 28), in order and proceeding around the central vertical axis (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in a counterclockwise direction, starting at the TLOF station between the loading station and the ground service station, the order is the TLOF station, the unloading station, the ground service station and the loading station, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 28);
a plurality of TLOF platforms positioned adjacent to the terminal (annotated Fig. 28), wherein the plurality of TLOF platforms are positioned radially-outward from the terminal and the stations with respect to the central vertical axis (it is understood that the plurality of TLOF platforms are positioned in a direction that is considered radially outward with respect to the stationary terminal and the stations with respect to the central vertical axis, since the TLOF platforms are shown to be farther away from the central vertical axis in at least the central front portion of the stationary terminal at reference number 2816 and at the back right portion of the stationary terminal at reference character 2808; Fig. 28), and wherein each TLOF platform is configured to be aligned with a different one of the stations (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is understood that different TLOF platforms are suitable to be aligned with different stations; annotated Fig. 28);
a final approach and take-off (FATO) area positioned adjacent to the terminal (note that there are two potential FATO areas in annotated Fig. 28), wherein the FATO area is stationary (annotated Fig. 28), wherein a first of the plurality of TLOF platforms is configured to initially be aligned with the TLOF station and in the FATO area (annotated Fig. 28), 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 (for example at reference character 2806 in annotated Fig. 28); and
a driver (“the docking process is done cooperatively through one interactive control system which may include elements such as sensors, actuators, and processors of both the AV and the SGV”; specification; “Traffic Control Center” specification) configured to cause the plurality of TLOF platforms to move with respect to the terminal and the FATO area (annotated Fig. 28), wherein the plurality of TLOF platforms move in a horizontal plane around the central vertical axis (on a surface of the structure; annotated Fig. 28), wherein the first TLOF platform is configured to move from alignment with the TLOF station into alignment with the unloading station in response to a first rotational movement by the driver (annotated Fig. 28), which allows first passengers, first luggage, or first cargo to be unloaded from the VTOL aircraft into the unloading station of the terminal (annotated Fig. 28), wherein the first TLOF platform is configured to move from alignment with the unloading station of the terminal into alignment with the ground service station of the terminal in response to a second rotational movement by the driver (annotated Fig. 28), which allows ground service to be performed on the VTOL aircraft (it is understood that ground service would be permitted to be performed on the VTOL aircraft at the ground service station; annotated Fig. 28), wherein the first TLOF platform is configured to move from alignment with the ground service station of the terminal into alignment with the loading station of the terminal in response to a third rotational movement by the driver (annotated Fig. 28), which allows second passengers, second luggage, or second cargo to be loaded from the loading station of the terminal into the VTOL aircraft (annotated Fig. 28), wherein the first TLOF platform is configured to move from alignment with the loading station of the terminal back into alignment with the TLOF station of the terminal in response to a fourth rotational movement by the driver (annotated Fig. 28), which brings the first TLOF platform back into the FATO area (annotated Fig. 28), and wherein the VTOL aircraft is configured to take-off from the first TLOF platform when the first TLOF platform is configured to move back into the FATO area (annotated Fig. 28). WO ‘126 does not teach wherein the plurality of TLOF platforms move in a continuous or pulsed manner. However, WO ‘126 teaches that the TLOF platforms are controlled by a central controller (as described throughout the specification) with robotic means in a slow manner (“may be slowly moved on a generally flat surface from one location to another nearby location by heaving robots” specification), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to synchronize movements of the TLOF platforms such that the TLOF platforms move in a continuous or pulsed manner, with the reasonable expectation of success of moving the TLOF platforms in a controlled manner to various points to perform various tasks, since it has been held that making something continuous is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963) (Claim directed to a method of producing a cementitious structure wherein a stable air foam is introduced into a slurry of cementitious material differed from the prior art only in requiring the addition of the foam to be continuous. The court held the claimed continuous operation would have been obvious in light of the batch process of the prior art.).
Claim 12, WO ‘126 further teaches wherein voids are defined between each adjacent pair of the plurality of TLOF platforms (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, there are open spaces between each adjacent pair of the plurality of TLOF platforms, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 28).
Claim 13, WO ‘126 further teaches wherein the plurality of TLOF platforms are part of a single disk with no voids therebetween (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, elements 11, 18 or 27 constitute a single disk with no voids therebetween, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 8A-10).
Claim 14, WO ‘126 further teaches wherein the plurality of TLOF platforms, or sub-components thereof, are also configured to move vertically to facilitate loading and unloading (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, sub-components thereof are configured to move vertically to facilitate loading and unloading, see element 60 in Figs. 6a-7d or 27 in Fig. 10).
Claim 15, WO ‘126 further teaches wherein the plurality of TLOF platforms comprise equipment to refuel or recharge the VTOL aircraft (“a power/fuel system, a charging/fueling system” located on each of the plurality of TLOF platforms; specification; Figs. 4a-4c).
Claim 21, WO ‘126 further teaches wherein the plurality of TLOF platforms are configured to move in a circular path (see circular arrow path shown in annotated Fig. 28) on wheels along a track or rail (each of the plurality of TLOF platforms are on wheels and are suitable to move on a track defined as a path, and can be controlled remotely to stay on a specified path, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 28).
Claim 22, WO ‘126 teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as above. WO ‘126 does not specifically recite wherein the plurality of TLOF platforms is configured to move in a pulsed manner in which the plurality of TLOF platforms remain in alignment with one of the stations for a predetermined amount of time and then move through the circular path to a next of the stations. However, WO ‘126 teaches that the TLOF platforms are controlled by a central controller (as described throughout the specification) with robotic means in a slow manner (“may be slowly moved on a generally flat surface from one location to another nearby location by heaving robots” specification), and further teaches an “interim” mode of operation, in which movement may be temporarily paused (specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the vertiport system such that the plurality of TLOF platforms is configured to move in a pulsed manner in which the plurality of TLOF platforms remain in alignment with one of the stations for a predetermined amount of time and then move through the circular path to a next of the stations, with the reasonable expectation of success of moving the TLOF platforms in a controlled, pulsed manner to various points to perform various tasks, since pulsing is simply a predictable variation of a known continuous process to save energy, reduce heat or achieve similar expected results.
Examiner’s Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
456
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 28 of WO 2018198126 (‘WO ‘126’)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-15 and 21-22 have been considered but are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 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