DETAILED ACTION
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 Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/23/2026.
It is noted that claim 9 was included by the Examiner in the claims for consideration under Group I in the Requirement for Restriction mailed on 12/31/2025 and acknowledged as being part of the elected invention by the Applicant in the reply filed on 02/23/2026; however, the claims submitted in the 02/23/2026 have designated claim 9 as ‘withdrawn.’ This claim is considered by the Examiner below as the ‘withdrawn’ designation appears to be a typographical error.
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.
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:
The “wireless communication system” of claim 2 as disclosed in Par. [010, 051, 067].
The “charging system” of claim 3 as disclosed in Par. [010, 051, 071].
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 § 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 1, 2, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0174925 to Ying in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0127366 to Becker.
Regarding claim 1, Ying discloses a ground maneuvering system comprising:
at least one maneuvering vehicle (At least helipad 100 outfitted with wheels, 121 – See Par. [0050]) comprising:
at least one processor configured to:
determine a location within an area (At least the auto-rotation capability to rotate a platform in response to signals from a helicopter received by the electronic controller – See at least Par. [0074])
a propulsor configured to move the maneuvering vehicle (At least the electronic/motor controllers that actuate movable members to rotate the platform – See at least Par. [0062]) and
a platform configured for an aircraft (At least helipad/platform, 100 – See at least Par. [0005, 0010]).
However, Ying does not disclose the specifics of the processor, area sensor, path determination, and propulsor in combination with the maneuvering vehicle.
Becker, in the same field of ground equipment for maneuvering aircraft while grounded, discloses a tow vehicle which holds the undercarriage of an aircraft with specific improvements to the ground equipment including a driverless system capable of utilizing a navigation system within an airport to move an aircraft.
Becker specifically teaches a ground maneuvering system comprising:
at least one maneuvering vehicle (At least driverless towing vehicle, 1 – See Fig. 2) comprising:
at least one processor in communication with at least one sensor, the one or more processors configured to:
sense, using the one or more sensors, an area associated with a plurality of areas (At least path computer, 51/ navigation sensor, 15/ airfield map, 56/ guidance and management system, 49 – See Par. [0023]);
determine a location (At least transfer position, 11) within the area;
determine a path for the maneuvering vehicle to move to the location; and maneuver the maneuvering vehicle to the location (At least path computer, 51/ navigation sensor, 15 along with transfer position, 11, transfer areas, 4, and navigation system for towing – See Par. [0006, 0017, 0023]; used to define towing tasks and guide the towing vehicle from an initial location to a transfer position via management of the towing vehicle by the guidance and management system);
a propulsor configured to move the maneuvering vehicle in or around the plurality of areas (At least diesel-electric or diesel-hydraulic engines which move the vehicle – See Par. [0017, 0032]); and
a platform configured for an aircraft (At least receiving device, 7 – See Fig. 2).
It has been held that, “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more that yield predictable results.” (See KSR Int’l v Teleflex Inc.). Further, according to MPEP 2143, rationales of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
In this case, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the familiar mobile landing pad of Ying with the automated vehicle movement components of Becker because it does no more than yield predictable results of automating a previously manually powered process. Additionally, Becker applies a known technique to the known ground maneuvering platform of Ying ready for improvement to yield predictable results. It also would have been obvious to try to have applied the teaching of the automated system of Becker to the manually operated platform of Ying with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, at least in Par. [0062], Ying also contemplates the use of an automated positioning system within the disclosed mobile helicopter platform. Thus, a PHOSITA would have readily recognized the established function of the automated movement system disclosed within Becker as a means for automatically moving an aircraft and predictably would have applied it to add further automation to the disclosed system of Ying.
Regarding claim 2, the previous combination of Ying and Becker discloses the claimed invention except for a navigational landing feature.
Nevertheless, the primary reference, Ying, discloses a navigation feature, the navigation feature including at least one of: a marker, a reflector, a reflective paint, a beacon, or a wireless communication system, wherein the navigation feature is configured to aid the aircraft in landing (At least the electronic guidance system disclosed in Par. [0011]; illuminated signals).
Regarding claim 4, the primary reference, Ying, discloses an aircraft landing on a platform, but does not discuss the specific regarding movement to a second location.
Nevertheless, Becker discloses that the location is a first location within the area, the area is a first area (At least the starting position for the transfer in one area), and the one or more processors further configured to: responsive to the aircraft landing on the platform, sense a second area; determine a second location within the second area; and maneuver the maneuvering vehicle to the second location (At least the use of the positioning sensors of Becker’s positioning system to determine that the landing gear is within the receiving space of the receiving device, is lifted by the maneuvering vehicle, and the final orientation to begin the transfer process is completed – see at least Par. [0017-0019]; subsequently the guidance and management system, 49 sets a route to move the aircraft, performs a tow operation, and sets the aircraft down in a different location after the tow is completed – see at least Par. [0017-0019]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the aircraft engagement means of Ying to have a system for determining final orientation of an aircraft ready for transfer and subsequently transferring said aircraft to another location, as taught by Becker, in order to automatically move the aircraft in a coordinated manner with other aircraft/tow vehicles on the tarmac for improved airport safety.
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination of Ying/Becker disclose the claimed invention except for the flight trajectory.
Nevertheless, the primary reference, Ying, discloses positioning of the platform wherein the determination of the location is based on a flight trajectory of the aircraft (At least Par. [0074]; platform rotation based on aircraft trajectory).
Regarding claim 6, the previous combination of Ying and Becker discloses the claimed invention except for the attachment arm.
Nevertheless, Becker clearly shows an attachment arm configured to attach to a landing gear of the aircraft (See at least Fig. 5a-5c where the arms pivot to capture the landing gear once the landing gear is in place as verified by the graticule); and wherein the one or more sensors are configured to determine whether the attachment arm has attached to the landing gear (At least in Par. [0017-0019]; via the orienting of the vehicle in the transfer position so that the receiving device can automatically pull in the landing gear).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the aircraft engagement means of Ying/Becker to have a system for determining final orientation of an aircraft ready for transfer and subsequently transferring said aircraft to another location with an attachment arm, as taught by Becker, in order to automatically move the aircraft into a safe moving position for security during a tow operation.
Regarding claim 7, the primary reference, Ying, discloses the claimed invention except for the telemetry data communication.
Nevertheless, the primary reference, Ying, discloses that the maneuvering vehicle is in communication with the aircraft and configured to send or receive telemetry data with the aircraft (At least the communication between the aircraft and ground vehicle disclosed in at least Par. [0074]).
Regarding claim 8, the primary reference, Ying, discloses the claimed invention except for the ground command center.
Nevertheless, Becker discloses that the maneuvering vehicle is in communication with a ground maneuvering command center and configured to send or receive data with the ground maneuvering command center (At least the guidance and management system, 49 – at least at Par. [0017-0019]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Ying/Becker to have a ground management system, as taught by Becker, in order to provide coordination between multiple vehicle to improve traffic flow within the airport.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0174925 to Ying in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0127366 to Becker and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2017/0267377 to Hamilton.
Regarding claim 3, the previous combination of Ying and Becker discloses the claimed invention except for a charging system.
Nevertheless, Hamilton discloses a maneuvering vehicle further comprising a charging system, wherein the charging system is configured to charge the aircraft (At least the power being provided to the aircraft as disclose in at least Par. [0015]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the ground maneuvering system of Ying/Becker to have a charging system to charge the aircraft, as taught by, Hamilton, in order to provide charging capabilities on the platform instead of having to wait for the platform to move the vehicle to a designated charging location.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0174925 to Ying in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0127366 to Becker and in further view of WO 2019/141850 to Mallaghan.
Regarding claim 9, the previous combination of Ying and Becker discloses the claimed invention except for a ramp, step, or conveyor.
Nevertheless, Mallaghan teaches a maneuvering vehicle which includes one or more of: a ramp, a step, conveyor (At least ground support equipment equipped with stairs).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the ground support equipment of Ying/Becker to have stairs, as taught by Mallaghan, in order to provide a means from entering and exiting from the aircraft for improved operator safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571)270-7429. 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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights