DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 07/24/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, which was filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted 07/24/2024 in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 10, 13, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claims 1, 13, and 20, the first instance of the acronym “RUP” should be defined as “Resource Utilization Period (RUP).”
In each of claims 7, 10, and 19, the first instance of the acronym “LoLA” should be defined as “Launch or Land Area (LoLA).”
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“a resource mover” introduced in claims 1 and 13 for performing steps of the process
“a vertiport resource mover” introduced in claim 20 for performing steps of the process
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (¶ 77: “Vertiport resource mover 206 can be implemented in software, hardware, firmware or a combination thereof. When software is used, the operations performed by vertiport resource mover 206 can be implemented in program code configured to run on hardware, such as a processor unit. When firmware is used, the operations performed by vertiport resource mover 206 can be implemented in program code and data and stored in persistent memory to run on a processor unit. When hardware is employed, the hardware can include circuits that operate to perform the operations in vertiport resource mover 206.”) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites “wherein each RUP in the set of RUPs may have a 30 second duration.” The word “may” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the word are part of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). For examination purposes, claim 8 is interpreted as if it instead recited that “each RUP in the set of RUPs has a 30 second duration.” Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20:
Step 1: Claims 1 and 20 are each directed to a process. Claim 13 is directed to a machine that comprises a computer system. Claims 1, 13, and 20 are each directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claims 1, 13, and 20 each recite the abstract concept of moving resources. This abstract idea is described in claims 1 and 13 by the mental process steps of assigning a set of Resource Utilization Periods (RUPs) to each resource over the time period; determining, using a trigger, a mode of operation for the resource mover; deriving, accounting for factors affecting the resources, availability of RUPs within the set of RUPs, for each resource in the number of resources, over the time period; and establishing a maxrety, respectively, allocating utilization of available RUPs within the set of RUPs for each resource in the number of resources over the time period. These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas as they include a human using pen and paper to assist in mentally assigning the RUPs to each resource over the time period, determining a mode of operation for the resource mover in response to a trigger, deriving availability of RUPs within the set of RUPs for each resource in the time period based on factors affecting the resources, and establishing a maxrety for respectively allocating utilization of available RUPs within the set of RUPs for each resource in the number of resources over the time period. The limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover their performance in the mind if not for the recitation of generic computing components.
The abstract idea is described in claim 20 by the mental process steps of assigning a set of RUPs to each resource over the time period; determining, using a trigger based upon a premonition or an ultradynamic state of a source to the vertiport resource mover, a mode of operation for the vertiport resource mover; deriving, accounting for factors affecting the resources, availability of RUPs within the set of RUPs, for each resource in the number of resources, over the time period; and establishing a maxrety, respectively, allocating utilization of available RUPs within the set of RUPs for each resource in the number of resources over the time period and for: an arrival RUP, a departure RUP, and a service RUP. These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas as they include a human using pen and paper to assist in mentally assigning the RUPs to each resource over the time period, determining a mode of operation for the resource mover in response to a trigger based upon either a premonition or an ultradynamic state of a source to the vertiport resource mover, deriving availability of RUPs within the set of RUPs for each resource in the time period based on factors affecting the resources, and establishing a maxrety for respectively allocating utilization of available RUPs within the set of RUPs for each resource in the number of resources over the time period and for an arrival RUP, a departure RUP, and a service RUP. The limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover their performance in the mind if not for the recitation of generic computing components.
Note that the analysis above is conducted in light of ¶ 83 of the instant specification, which states in part that “Vertiport resource mover 206 can operate to determine maxrety 216 for handling air traffic 218 at vertiport 214. In this example, maxrety 216 is a novel word for the customized maximum resource availability value produced by a novel machine and process described herein for a vertiport 214 to handle air traffic 218. … Maxrety 216 may derive and present a format for maximum resource availability that specifies details for types or resources and specific durations for each resource use/movement within the designated time period. Without limitation, as opposed to a capacity of 30 departures per hour, maxrety 216 may be derived and presented as: 20 departures per hour for type A vehicle, 25 for type B vehicle, and 7 for type C vehicle.” This portion of the specification supports the interpretation that a maxrety is something that could be established in the human mind with the help of pen and paper.
With respect to claims 1, 13, and 20, other than reciting a “resource mover,” and a “computer system,” nothing in the claims precludes the idea from practically being performed in the human mind. If not for the “resource mover” and “computer system” language, the claims encompass a human operator performing the mental process steps in the mind with the help of pen and paper.
Step 2A, prong 2: The claims recite elements additional to the abstract concepts. However, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites a resource mover, which is a generic computer component (as supported by ¶ 77 of the instant specification) that is simply employed as a tool for performing the abstract idea. The use of generic computing components such as the resource mover for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 1 also recites that the resource mover is configured to receive petitions for utilizing, over a time period, by a vehicle, a number of resources. This step is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as it simply gathers data that is necessary for performing the abstract idea (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering). The recited step of controlling, according to the maxrety, utilizing the resources over the time period is also considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as its broadest reasonable interpretation includes a data output step that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. Note that this interpretation is based on ¶ 87 of the specification, which states that “When a resource includes a manned component, the terms move or control by the vertiport resource movement system indicate vertiport resource movement system 202 deriving and/or issuing authorization to move and/or utilize a resource in either a strategic plan or in real-time during execution of a mission. For a resource under automated control, move/control may include actually directing/initiating and/or providing the authorization that directs/initiates the physical movement and/or utilization of the resource.” Accordingly, the control step could be interpreted as merely providing authorization for resource utilization according to the maxrety. The recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 13 recites a computer system comprising a resource mover, which are generic computer components (as is supported by ¶¶ 77 and 79 of the instant specification) that are simply employed as tools for performing the abstract idea. The use of generic computing components such as the computer system and resource mover does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The remaining additional elements of claim 13 do not sufficiently integrate the abstract idea into a practical application using the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 20 recites a vertiport resource mover, which is a generic computer component (in light of ¶ 77 of the instant specification) that is simply employed as a tool for performing the abstract idea. The use of generic computing components such as the vertiport resource mover for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The remaining additional elements of claim 20 do not sufficiently integrate the abstract idea into a practical application using the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Step 2B: The additional elements are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the resource movers, computer system, and vertiport resource mover are anything other than conventional computer components that are employed to perform the abstract idea. The mere use of such generic and conventional computer components for executing the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, the steps of receiving petitions and controlling utilizing the resources are merely insignificant extra-solution activities that do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
For the above reasons, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, whether considered individually or in combination. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1, 13, and 20 are not patent-eligible.
Regarding claims 2-12 and 14-19:
Dependent claims 2-8, 14-17, and 19 recite limitations that further define the mental process of claims 1 and 13. The limitations do not preclude the mental process from being performed in the human mind with the help of pen and paper. Accordingly, these limitations are considered additional mental process steps.
Dependent claims 9-12 and 18 recite the additional mental process steps of forming arrival RUPs, departure RUPs, and service RUPs; deriving, using a RUP for a LoLA and a RUP for a gate: the arrival RUPs, the departure RUPs, and the service RUPs; responding to an unexpected event by reallocating at least one of: an arrival RUP, a departure RUP, or a service RUP; and reallocating at least one of: an arrival RUP, a departure RUP, or a service RUP, in execution mode. These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas because they encompass a human using pen and paper to assist in mentally forming and deriving (i.e., writing out) the various RUPs and reallocating (i.e., rewriting) at least one of the RUPs in response to an unexpected event or in an execution mode.
As explained above, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 only recite additional mental process steps and limitations further defining the mental process. The dependent claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As such, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-12 and 14-19 are not patent-eligible.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16, 18, and 20 are each rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goel et al. (US 2019/0325757 A1), hereinafter referred to as Goel.
Regarding claim 1:
Goel discloses the following limitations:
“A process for moving resources, the process comprising: receiving petitions in a resource mover for utilizing, over a time period, by a vehicle, a number of resources; assigning, by the resource mover, a set of RUPs to each resource over the time period.” (Goel ¶ 38: “The service data 202 is data indicating numbers of requests for transport services between pairs of origin zones and destination zones over time. In one embodiment, the service data 202 divides a day up into one hour blocks and includes a number of requests each hour between each possible origin-destination pair. … The service data 202 may also be divided into groups of different lengths, such as blocks of ten minutes, thirty minutes, two hours, four hours, etc.” Additionally, Goel ¶ 166: “These operations, while described functionally, computationally, or logically, are understood to be implemented by computer programs comprising instructions for execution by a processor or equivalent electrical circuits, microcode, or the like.”)
“determining, using a trigger, a mode of operation for the resource mover.” (Goel ¶ 38: “The service data 202 may be historical data regarding actual requests for transportation services (e.g., from an existing ridesharing service), an estimate based factors such as traffic data and demographics, or a mixture of both. In other embodiments, the service data 202 may include data for different or additional time periods. For example, the service data 202 may differ based on day of the week, month, proximity to holidays or events, etc.” Using different service data based on the day reads on determining a mode of operation using a trigger as claimed. Also, Goel ¶ 137: “The deadheading module 770 determines an overall cost in the network by combining the scores for nodes that are predicted to have unmet demand and the scores indicating likelihood that a VTOL aircraft 120 will remain on the ground. The deadheading module 770 may then apply a network flow analysis to try and minimize the combined score. The components of the score may be weighted depending on the objectives of the operator of the transport network.” In this example, the objectives of the operator serve as the trigger for changing the mode of operation.)
“deriving, accounting for factors affecting the resources, availability of RUPs within the set of RUPs, for each resource in the number of resources, over the time period.” (Goel ¶ 111: “The requests that are not selected for VTOL servicing may be eliminated, leaving a subset of requests each including an origin zone, destination zone, and time block (e.g., a particular hour). The flow modelling module 620 may generate an actual start time within the time block (e.g., a particular minute). The actual start time may be selected randomly within the time block or the time selected may be weighted based on data indicating the typical distribution of requests in the time block (e.g., from the service data 202) and/or resource allocation considerations (e.g., amount of energy required, expected duration of charging, availability of VTOL aircraft 120, etc.). The flow modelling module 620 may then use a stochastic approach to route the VTOL aircraft 120 through the transport network to service the identified subset of the requests.”)
“establishing a maxrety, respectively, allocating utilization of available RUPs within the set of RUPs for each resource in the number of resources over the time period.” (Goel ¶ 57: “the user may identify a number (or range) of nodes of different types that should be included (e.g., five large nodes with the capacity for sixteen VTOL aircraft 120, charging equipment, and maintenance services; ten medium nodes with the capacity for four VTOL aircraft, and charging equipment; and ten small nodes with the capacity for one VTOL aircraft).” This teaches the claim limitation in light of ¶ 83 of the instant specification, which states that “maxrety 216 is a novel word for the customized maximum resource availability value produced by a novel machine and process described herein for a vertiport 214 to handle air traffic 218. … Without limitation, as opposed to a capacity of 30 departures per hour, maxrety 216 may be derived and presented as: 20 departures per hour for type A vehicle, 25 for type B vehicle, and 7 for type C vehicle. Without limitation, maxrety 216 may be derived and presented as: 7 departures per hour from launch and land area D, 16 departures per hour from launch and land area E, and 14 departures per hour from launch and land area F.”)
“and controlling, according to the maxrety, utilizing the resources over the time period.” (Goel ¶ 30: “The node management system 130 may also control equipment at the node. For example, in one embodiment, a node includes one or more launch pads that may move from a take-off/landing position to embarking/disembarking position. The node management system 130 may control the movement of the launch pad (e.g., in response to instructions received from transport services coordination system 115 and/or a VTOL aircraft 120).”)
Regarding claim 2:
Goel discloses “The process of claim 1,” and Goel further discloses “wherein the mode of operation is either a pre-execution mode or an execution mode.” (Goel ¶ 46: “the initial model module 310 starts with a single estimate based on the historical travel data and uses a stochastic model (e.g., a two-phase stochastic model) to generate a more robust solution that accounts for multiple scenarios.” This teaches the mode of operation being a pre-execution mode in light of ¶ 92 of the instant specification, which clarifies that the pre-execution mode (i.e., planning mode) is used to consider historical data. Additionally, Goel ¶¶ 153-154 disclose reiterating the process in response to an unexpected event such as an accident, where the process includes the determination of routing data including information such as a destination and an amount of time to spend charging before departure or after arrival. This teaches the mode of operation being an execution mode in light of ¶ 94 of the instant specification, which clarifies that the “execution mode” is used to consider real-time or dynamic data.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 2, consistent with the specification, the mode of operation being “either a pre-execution mode or an execution mode” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. While both the “pre-execution mode” and the “execution mode” have been addressed here, only one of the two options is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 4:
Goel discloses “The process of claim 1,” and Goel also discloses “wherein the trigger is activated by a premonition.” (Goel ¶ 38: “the service data 202 may differ based on day of the week, month, proximity to holidays or events, etc.” Also, Goel ¶ 112: “The flow modelling module 620 may initially set a wait time for each request to small, nominal value (e.g., 30 seconds) and then route the VTOL aircraft 120 through the transportation network to service the requests using a policy designed to limit waiting times.” Using triggers such as a day of the week or a set period of time teaches the claim limitation in light of ¶ 95 of the instant specification, which states that “Premonition 274 is defined herein to be a designated amount of time. As a nonlimiting example, premonition 274 may be designated at 8 hours.”)
Regarding claim 6:
Goel discloses “The process of claim 1,” and Goel further discloses “wherein the factors affecting the resources comprise: a passenger load, an operator qualification, a flight attendant availability, a gate agent availability, or a ground servicing crew qualification.” (Goel ¶¶ 80, 96, and 99 disclose that the network flow model is based in part on “The number of passengers in group p that travels arc i” and “The passenger capacity of a VTOL aircraft.” Therefore, Goel at least teaches the factors comprising “a passenger load” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 6, consistent with the specification, the factors affecting the resources comprising “a passenger load, an operator qualification, a flight attendant availability, a gate agent availability, or a ground servicing crew qualification” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “passenger load” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 7:
Goel discloses “The process of claim 1,” and Goel further discloses “wherein the factors affecting the resources comprise: a taxi duration, a boarding duration, a deboarding time, a gate occupancy time, a number and/or location of LoLAs for departures, a number and/or location of LoLAs for arrivals, a potential conflict check time, a number of vehicles, or a number and location of non-gate parking spots.” (Goel ¶ 129: “request processing module 750 also sends instructions to the vehicle or vehicles that will service the itinerary. In one embodiment, for a VTOL leg, the request processing module 750 sends information about the rider (e.g., the rider's identity, a picture of the rider, etc.) as well as an expected boarding time for the rider and the destination node to a computer-system of the VTOL aircraft 120.” Further, Goel ¶ 134: “the time period is set such that, if the VTOL aircraft 120 departs at the end of that time period, the rider already on board would still save at least the threshold amount of time (e.g., 40%) over taking ground-based transportation alone. If another rider has already submitted a request that may be serviced by the VTOL aircraft 120, the departure determination module 760 estimates the arrival time at the node for that rider and, accounting for the time required for boarding, determines whether the VTOL aircraft 120 can wait and still save the rider who has already boarded at least the threshold amount of time.” Therefore, Goel at least teaches the factors comprising “a boarding duration” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 7, consistent with the specification, the factors comprising “a taxi duration, a boarding duration, a deboarding time, a gate occupancy time, a number and/or location of LoLAs for departures, a number and/or location of LoLAs for arrivals, a potential conflict check time, a number of vehicles, or a number and location of non-gate parking spots” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “boarding duration” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 9:
Goel discloses “The process of claim 1,” and Goel further discloses the process “further comprising the resource mover forming arrival RUPs, departure RUPs, and service RUPs.” (Goel ¶ 111: “The flow modelling module 620 may generate an actual start time within the time block (e.g., a particular minute). The actual start time may be selected randomly within the time block or the time selected may be weighted based on data indicating the typical distribution of requests in the time block (e.g., from the service data 202) and/or resource allocation considerations (e.g., amount of energy required, expected duration of charging, availability of VTOL aircraft 120, etc.).” Also, Goel ¶ 154: “The routing data is information about the routes assigned to each VTOL 120. A route may include information such as: a destination, way points to visit en route, a time to depart, a speed to fly at, an amount of time to spend charging before departure or after arrival, a number (and the identity) of riders to carry, and the like.” Planning an expected charging duration reads on forming service RUPs as claimed.)
Regarding claim 11:
Goel discloses “The process of claim 1,” and Goel further discloses the process “further comprising the resource mover responding to an unexpected event by reallocating at least one of: an arrival RUP, a departure RUP, or a service RUP.” (Goel ¶ 153: “the method 1000 is repeated periodically (e.g., every minute, every five minutes, etc.) to update the routing data for the fleet of VTOLs 120 based on the current conditions. This may enable efficient use of the fleet, even in scenarios where there is a sudden change in conditions. For example, an unexpected failure in another mode of transport (e.g., a subway system shutting down due to an accident) may result in a sudden surge in requests for transport services that may be serviced by VTOL 120, altering the optimal routing for the fleet.” Also, Goel ¶ 154: “The routing data is information about the routes assigned to each VTOL 120. A route may include information such as: a destination, way points to visit en route, a time to depart, a speed to fly at, an amount of time to spend charging before departure or after arrival, a number (and the identity) of riders to carry, and the like.” The “amount of time to spend charging before departure or after arrival” corresponds to the “service RUP.”)
Regarding claim 12:
Goel discloses “The process of claim 11,” and Goel further discloses the process “further comprising the resource mover reallocating at least one of: an arrival RUP, a departure RUP, or a service RUP, in execution mode.” (As explained regarding claim 11 above, Goel ¶¶ 153-154 disclose reiterating the process in response to an unexpected event such as an accident, where the process includes the determination of routing data including information such as a destination and an amount of time to spend charging before departure or after arrival. This teaches the claim limitation in light of ¶ 94 of the instant specification, which clarifies that the “execution mode” is used to consider real-time or dynamic data.)
Regarding claim 13:
Goel discloses “A resource movement machine that comprises: a computer system that comprises a resource mover configured to” perform a process. (Goel ¶ 166: “These operations, while described functionally, computationally, or logically, are understood to be implemented by computer programs comprising instructions for execution by a processor or equivalent electrical circuits, microcode, or the like.”)
The remaining limitations of claim 13 are disclosed by Goel using the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 14, 16 and 18:
Claims 14, 16 and 18 are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 2, 4 and 9 above, respectively.
Regarding claim 20:
Goel discloses the following limitations:
“A process for moving resources at a vertiport, the process comprising: receiving petitions in a vertiport resource mover for utilizing, over a time period by a vehicle, a number of resources; assigning by the vertiport resource mover a set of RUPs to each resource over the time period.” (Goel ¶ 38: “The service data 202 is data indicating numbers of requests for transport services between pairs of origin zones and destination zones over time. In one embodiment, the service data 202 divides a day up into one hour blocks and includes a number of requests each hour between each possible origin-destination pair. … The service data 202 may also be divided into groups of different lengths, such as blocks of ten minutes, thirty minutes, two hours, four hours, etc.” Also, Goel ¶ 166: “These operations, while described functionally, computationally, or logically, are understood to be implemented by computer programs comprising instructions for execution by a processor or equivalent electrical circuits, microcode, or the like.”)
“determining, using a trigger based upon a premonition or an ultradynamic state of a source to the vertiport resource mover, a mode of operation for the vertiport resource mover.” (Goel ¶ 38: “The service data 202 may be historical data regarding actual requests for transportation services (e.g., from an existing ridesharing service), an estimate based factors such as traffic data and demographics, or a mixture of both. In other embodiments, the service data 202 may include data for different or additional time periods. For example, the service data 202 may differ based on day of the week, month, proximity to holidays or events, etc.” Additionally, Goel ¶ 112: “The flow modelling module 620 may initially set a wait time for each request to small, nominal value (e.g., 30 seconds) and then route the VTOL aircraft 120 through the transportation network to service the requests using a policy designed to limit waiting times.” Goel discloses using different service data based on a trigger such as a day of the week, or switching from a waiting mode to a routing mode using a set period of time as a trigger. Either of these features is equivalent to using a trigger based upon a premonition to determine a mode of operation for the vertiport resource mover as claimed. Note that the “premonition” is interpreted in light of ¶ 95 of the instant specification, which states that “Premonition 274 is defined herein to be a designated amount of time. As a nonlimiting example, premonition 274 may be designated at 8 hours.”)
“deriving, accounting for factors affecting the resources, availability of RUPs within the set of RUPs, for each resource in the number of resources, over the time period.” (Goel ¶ 111: “The requests that are not selected for VTOL servicing may be eliminated, leaving a subset of requests each including an origin zone, destination zone, and time block (e.g., a particular hour). The flow modelling module 620 may generate an actual start time within the time block (e.g., a particular minute). The actual start time may be selected randomly within the time block or the time selected may be weighted based on data indicating the typical distribution of requests in the time block (e.g., from the service data 202) and/or resource allocation considerations (e.g., amount of energy required, expected duration of charging, availability of VTOL aircraft 120, etc.). The flow modelling module 620 may then use a stochastic approach to route the VTOL aircraft 120 through the transport network to service the identified subset of the requests.”)
“establishing a maxrety, respectively, allocating utilization of available RUPs within the set of RUPs for each resource in the number of resources over the time period.” (Goel ¶ 57: “the user may identify a number (or range) of nodes of different types that should be included (e.g., five large nodes with the capacity for sixteen VTOL aircraft 120, charging equipment, and maintenance services; ten medium nodes with the capacity for four VTOL aircraft, and charging equipment; and ten small nodes with the capacity for one VTOL aircraft).” This teaches the claim limitation in light of ¶ 83 of the instant specification, which states that “maxrety 216 is a novel word for the customized maximum resource availability value produced by a novel machine and process described herein for a vertiport 214 to handle air traffic 218. … Without limitation, as opposed to a capacity of 30 departures per hour, maxrety 216 may be derived and presented as: 20 departures per hour for type A vehicle, 25 for type B vehicle, and 7 for type C vehicle. Without limitation, maxrety 216 may be derived and presented as: 7 departures per hour from launch and land area D, 16 departures per hour from launch and land area E, and 14 departures per hour from launch and land area F.”)
“and for: an arrival RUP, a departure RUP, and a service RUP.” (Goel ¶ 111: “The flow modelling module 620 may generate an actual start time within the time block (e.g., a particular minute). The actual start time may be selected randomly within the time block or the time selected may be weighted based on data indicating the typical distribution of requests in the time block (e.g., from the service data 202) and/or resource allocation considerations (e.g., amount of energy required, expected duration of charging, availability of VTOL aircraft 120, etc.).” Also, Goel ¶ 154: “The routing data is information about the routes assigned to each VTOL 120. A route may include information such as: a destination, way points to visit en route, a time to depart, a speed to fly at, an amount of time to spend charging before departure or after arrival, a number (and the identity) of riders to carry, and the like.” Planning an expected charging duration reads on forming service RUPs as claimed.)
“and controlling, according to the maxrety, utilizing the resources at, arriving, and departing the vertiport over the time period.” (Goel ¶ 30: “The node management system 130 may also control equipment at the node. For example, in one embodiment, a node includes one or more launch pads that may move from a take-off/landing position to embarking/disembarking position. The node management system 130 may control the movement of the launch pad (e.g., in response to instructions received from transport services coordination system 115 and/or a VTOL aircraft 120).”)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 20, consistent with the specification, “using a trigger based upon a premonition or an ultradynamic state of a source to the vertiport resource mover” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the premonition has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
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.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Mueller et al. (US 2021/0374627 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mueller.
Regarding claim 5:
Goel discloses “The process of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein the factors affecting the resources comprise a noise regulation.” However, Mueller does teach this limitation. (Mueller ¶ 36: “the routing optimizer 208 optimizes combinations of trips for each time bucket. In example embodiments, the routing optimizer 208 iterates amongst the potential trips to determine what is the best combination of trips (including deadheads) that satisfies the users on the network, minimizes costs, maximizes profit within the boundaries of all constraints, satisfy constraints around ground staff/crew duty rest time regulations, and/or satisfy noise ordinances at the vertiport.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Goel by using noise ordinances as a factor affecting the resources as taught by Mueller with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Mueller ¶ 52 teaches that assigning resources could cause a community noise budget to be exceeded; a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that remaining underneath the community noise budget would help with avoiding any associated legal penalties.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 5 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lowry (the non-patent article “Towards High Density Urban Air Mobility”).
Regarding claim 8:
Goel discloses “The process of claim 1,” but Goel does not explicitly disclose “wherein each RUP in the set of RUPs may have a 30 second duration.” However, Lowry does teach this limitation. (Lowry p. 5 first paragraph discloses that “With the expected vertical takeoff/landing or ultra-short takeoff and landing of UAM vehicles such as the Velocopter, the timing for individual vertiport operations was assumed to be a minimum 30 seconds, for a throughput of 120 or less takeoff/landing operations per hour.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Goel by using a resource utilization period with a 30-second duration as taught by Lowry, because this is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the 30-second time period of Lowry) for another (i.e., the one-minute time segment as disclosed in Goel ¶ 79) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could have replaced the one-minute time segment of Goel with a 30-second time segment as taught by Lowry to achieve the predictable result of planning vehicle resource movement at a more granular level.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel as applied to claims 9 and 18 above, and further in view of Baiada et al. (US 2014/0343833 A1), hereinafter referred to as Baiada.
Regarding claim 10:
Goel discloses “The process of claim 9,” and Goel further discloses the process “further comprising deriving… the arrival RUPs, the departure RUPs, and the service RUPs.” (Goel ¶¶ 111 and 154 teach this limitation explained regarding claim 9 above.)
Goel does not specifically disclose “using a RUP for a LoLA and a RUP for a gate” when deriving the RUPs. However, Baiada does teach this limitation. (Baiada ¶¶ 58 and 123 disclose to “allocate aircraft arrival/departure Slot Times for x hours into the future (i.e., 1 to 24 hours), with respect to a plurality of aircraft at a specified system resource, comprised of arrival/departure fixes, runways, airports, airways, airspace, ATC sector or set of resources,” wherein the system resource is defined as “a resource like an airport, runway, gate, ramp area, or section of airspace, etc, that is used by all aircraft.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Goel by using a resource utilization period for a launch/land area and for a gate as taught by Baiada with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Baiada ¶ 215 teaches that “Given the increased predictability of the aircraft Assigned Slot Time, the process of the present invention helps the airlines, aircraft operators and pilots to more efficiently sequence the ground support assets such as gates, fueling, maintenance, flight crews, etc.”
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 10 above, mutatis mutandis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Goel et al. (US 2019/0325757 A1), hereinafter referred to as Goel.
Regarding claim 3:
Goel discloses “The process of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein the trigger is activated by an ultradynamic state of any source in a resource movement system.”
None of the prior art of record, whether considered individually or in combination with each other, discloses “wherein the trigger is activated by an ultradynamic state of any source in a resource movement system” as required by claim 3. Note that this claim limitation is interpreted in light of the definition that is provided in ¶ 96 of the instant specification: “Ultradynamic 276 is defined herein as a state occurring when any values for any uncertainty estimation 278 for any source data received as a part of vertiport resource movement system 202 determinations for maxrety 216 fall below averaged levels benchmarked in planning mode 254.”
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is analyzed with the same rationale applied to claim 3 above, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shannon (US 2019/0221127 A1) ¶¶ 27 and 40 state that a “vertiport management platform may enable vertiport owners/operators to create flights from their vertiports on an on-demand basis and may provide precision predictions of arrival and departure times augmented by historical data,” where “The vertiport management platform may assign departure and landing slots at those vertiports based on availability.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662