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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 9/18/2024. Claims 1-6 are pending and are examined below.
PRIORITY
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of foreign priority to JP2024-008290, filed on 1/23/2024.
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 limitations are: “a control unit … wherein … the control unit performs a flight control” in claim 1 (with dependent claims 2-6).
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes: a processor (See PGPUB ¶ 25.)
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.
Because these claim limitation(s) 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 as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have 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 U.S.C. § 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 6 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.
As to claim 6, the recitation “A Mobility as a Service provision method using the battery driven flight vehicle according to claim 1” is vague and indefinite. Namely, the claim is directed to a method, but the method has no steps. Thus, it is unclear what is being claimed in light of Applicant’s original disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee Joo Sung (KR20180043558A; “Lee”) in view of Kai-feng Gao et al. (CN116946427A; “Gao”)
As to claim 1, Lee discloses a battery driven flight vehicle comprising:
a battery (“The flying object 100 according to an embodiment of the present invention may include a battery 120.” ¶ 26.),
wherein a flight vehicle takes off while performing wireless charging (“When the take-off of the object 100 is sensed, it is possible to charge the take-off power supply unit 121 of the drones 100 for take-off wireless charging.” ¶ 40.)
Lee fails to explicitly disclose:
a control unit; and
wherein the control unit performs a flight control to extend a time period staying in a wirelessly chargeable area compared to when the flight vehicle takes off without performing wireless charging.
Nevertheless, Gao teaches:
a control unit (“UAV: An unmanned aircraft is referred to as ‘UAV’. It is an unmanned aircraft controlled by radio remote control equipment and its own program control device.” p. 2.); and
performing a flight control to extend a time period staying in a wirelessly chargeable area compared to when the flight vehicle does not perform wireless charging (“When the drone is inspecting and the remaining power is lower than the set value, the drone flies to the set or nearest wireless charging station[] platform, when it flies directly above the wireless charging platform, it gradually moves downward until it enters the non-contact charging area, then hovers so that the drone is suspended in the non-contact charging area, and the drone is charged through the non-contact charging device.” Page. 2. “(6) The charging control module monitors parameters during the charging process, such as current, voltage, and temperature, and adjusts and controls them as needed to ensure the stability and safety of the charging process. (7) When the charging reaches the set conditions, the charging process ends. (8) The drone leaves the charging platform and continues to perform the cruise mission.” Pages. 4-5. Note: When the flight vehicle requires charging, the flight vehicle performs a flight control (hovering) to wirelessly charge in a wirelessly chargeable area for an associated time period required to complete the charge. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that said associated time period would necessarily be larger than a time period of, say, zero associated with not performing any charging at all.).
Lee discloses: a battery driven flight vehicle configured to be wirelessly charged while taking off. Gao teaches: controlling a flight vehicle to remain a wirelessly chargeable area for an extended time period when the flight vehicle is wirelessly charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lee to include the features of: a control unit; and performing a flight control to extend a time period staying in a wirelessly chargeable area compared to when the flight vehicle does not perform wireless charging, as taught by Gao, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above modification would yield the predictable result of configuring a flight vehicle which is taking off and simultaneously wirelessly charging to complete its charging, as it is a well-known motivation in the art that flight vehicles should optimally achieve full charge before commencing flight operations. Such ensures safety and efficiency of operating a flight vehicle.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gao as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Eller (US20190084684A1; “Eller”)
As to claim 2, the combination of Lee and Gao fails to explicitly disclose: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off while performing wireless charging, a forward speed is slow compared to when the flight vehicle takes off without performing wireless charging.
Nevertheless, Eller teaches: wherein when the flight vehicle is performing charging, a forward speed is slow compared to when the flight vehicle takes off without performing charging (“After climb out, the battery may be depleted to a certain threshold. Until the battery is charge up, majority of engine power may be diverted to charging the battery until the upper charge threshold is reached. Until that happens, forward speed and climb rate can be limited.” ¶ 38.).
Lee discloses: a battery driven flight vehicle configured to be wirelessly charged while taking off. Gao teaches: controlling a flight vehicle to remain a wirelessly chargeable area for an extended time period when the flight vehicle is wirelessly charging. Eller teaches: when a flight vehicle is charging, limiting a forward speed to slow compared to when the flight vehicle takes off without performing charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lee and Gao to include the feature of: wherein when the flight vehicle is performing charging, a forward speed is slow compared to when the flight vehicle takes off without performing charging, as taught by Ellen, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above modification would yield the predictable result of configuring a flight vehicle which is taking off and simultaneously wirelessly charging to complete its charging via the limiting of its forward speed, as it is a well-known motivation in the art that flight vehicles should optimally achieve full charge before commencing flight operations. Such ensures safety and efficiency of operating a flight vehicle. Hence, it would have been obvious to implement Eller’s limiting of a forward speed while a flight vehicle which has taken off is charging in a wirelessly-chargeable area as disclosed by the combination of Lee and Gao to achieve the above predictable and desirable effects.
As to claim 3, the combination of Lee and Gao fails to explicitly disclose: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off while performing wireless charging, an ascending speed is slow compared to when the flight vehicle takes off without performing wireless charging.
Nevertheless, Eller teaches: wherein when the flight vehicle is performing charging, an ascending speed is slow compared to when the flight vehicle takes off without performing charging (“After climb out, the battery may be depleted to a certain threshold. Until the battery is charge up, majority of engine power may be diverted to charging the battery until the upper charge threshold is reached. Until that happens, forward speed and climb rate can be limited.” ¶ 38.).
Lee discloses: a battery driven flight vehicle configured to be wirelessly charged while taking off. Gao teaches: controlling a flight vehicle to remain a wirelessly chargeable area for an extended time period when the flight vehicle is wirelessly charging. Eller teaches: when a flight vehicle is charging, limiting an ascending speed to slow compared to when the flight vehicle takes off without performing charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lee and Gao to include the feature of: wherein when the flight vehicle is performing charging, an ascending speed is slow compared to when the flight vehicle takes off without performing charging, as taught by Ellen, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above modification would yield the predictable result of configuring a flight vehicle which is taking off and simultaneously wirelessly charging to complete its charging via the limiting of its ascending speed, as it is a well-known motivation in the art that flight vehicles should optimally achieve full charge before commencing flight operations. Such ensures safety and efficiency of operating a flight vehicle. Hence, it would have been obvious to implement Eller’s limiting of an ascending speed while a flight vehicle which has taken off is charging in a wirelessly-chargeable area as disclosed by the combination of Lee and Gao to achieve the above predictable and desirable effects.
Claim 4 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gao as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Park (US20240183316A1; “Park”)
As to claim 4, the combination of Lee and Gao fails to explicitly disclose: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off while performing wireless charging, a forward speed is less than a prescribed speed until reaching a prescribed altitude.
Nevertheless, Park teaches: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off, a forward speed is less than a prescribed speed until reaching a prescribed altitude (“As shown in FIG. 1 , the overall flight process of the vertical take-off and landing aerial vehicle includes (1) a take-off preparation step, (2) a vertical take-off step of vertically ascending to a predetermined height, (3) a hovering step of temporarily stopping for horizontal flight preparation, (4) a transition step of moving to an altitude for horizontal flight, (5) an acceleration step of accelerating to a speed for horizontal flight.” ¶ 5 and FIG. 1.).
Lee discloses: a battery driven flight vehicle configured to be wirelessly charged while taking off. Gao teaches: controlling a flight vehicle to remain a wirelessly chargeable area for an extended time period when the flight vehicle is wirelessly charging. Park teaches: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off, a forward speed is less than a prescribed speed until reaching a prescribed altitude
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lee and Gao to include the feature of: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off, a forward speed is less than a prescribed speed until reaching a prescribed altitude, as taught by Park, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aerial vehicle’s typically reach a certain altitude to transition into horizontal flight for safety (e.g., obstacle clearance), efficiency vis-à-vis aerodynamics and flight planning, and the like.
Claim 5 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gao as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Tarleton et al. (US20080300736; “Tarleton”)
As to claim 5, the combination of Lee and Gao fails to explicitly disclose: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off while performing wireless charging, an ascending speed is less than a prescribed speed until reaching a prescribed altitude.
Nevertheless, Tarleton teaches: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off, an ascending speed is less than a prescribed speed until reaching a prescribed altitude (“Speed increases during the climb segment …may be limited by certain constraint speeds …. Thus, during the climb segment, as illustrated in FIG. 5, the aircraft may accelerate to a speed of 250 knots during portion a, then maintain a constant speed of 250 knots during portion b, until the aircraft reaches 10,000 feet. At that point, the aircraft may begin to accelerate again during portion c of the climb segment.” ¶ 33 and FIG 5.).
Lee discloses: a battery driven flight vehicle configured to be wirelessly charged while taking off. Gao teaches: controlling a flight vehicle to remain a wirelessly chargeable area for an extended time period when the flight vehicle is wirelessly charging. Tarleton teaches: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off, an ascending speed is less than a prescribed speed until reaching a prescribed altitude.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lee and Gao to include the feature of: wherein when the flight vehicle takes off, an ascending speed is less than a prescribed speed until reaching a prescribed altitude, as taught by Tarleton, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that limiting an ascending speed is useful for following regulatory compliance and enhancing safety as suggested by Tarleton. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above modification would yield the predictable result of configuring a flight vehicle which is taking off and simultaneously wirelessly charging to complete its charging via the limiting of its ascending speed, as it is a well-known motivation in the art that flight vehicles should optimally achieve full charge before commencing flight operations. Such ensures safety and efficiency of operating a flight vehicle. Hence, it would have been further obvious to implement Tarleton’s limiting of an ascending speed while a flight vehicle which has taken off is charging in a wirelessly-chargeable area as disclosed by the combination of Lee and Gao to achieve the above predictable and desirable effects.
Claim 6 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gao as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Ota et al. (US20220130260A1; “Ota”)
As to claim 6, the combination of Lee and Gao fails to explicitly disclose: a Mobility as a Service provision method using the battery driven flight vehicle according to claim 1.
Nevertheless, Ota teaches: a Mobility as a Service provision method using a battery driven flight vehicle (“A mobility service system delivers a mobility service utilizing an eVTOL.” Abstract.).
Lee discloses: a battery driven flight vehicle configured to be wirelessly charged while taking off. Gao teaches: controlling a flight vehicle to remain a wirelessly chargeable area for an extended time period when the flight vehicle is wirelessly charging. Ota teaches: a Mobility as a Service provision method using a battery driven flight vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lee and Gao to include the feature of: a Mobility as a Service provision method using a battery driven flight vehicle, as taught by Ota, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for applying the combination of Lee and Gao into a useful business venture which is suitable for “an air taxi business where movement for a relatively short distance is repeated at a high frequency.” (Ota, ¶ 50.)
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668