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 with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 2/10/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that both groups of claims in Invention I and II are technically interrelated. This is not found persuasive because as stated in the original restriction, these inventions are directed toward different species, even if they can be considered technically interrelated.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority of PCT/CN2022/082027 on 3/21/2022 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant filed an IDS on 9/20/2024. It has been annotated and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 and 20 arae rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 20), the limitations disclosing how a landing strategy is determined based on a comparison between the current horizontal deviation and the preset horizontal deviation threshold lacks written description. The claim teaches determining a preset horizontal deviation threshold, which according to [0029] is a value which changes according to the altitude of the plane. It is not clear how comparing the current horizontal deviation to this preset horizontal deviation is used to determine a landing strategy because the current horizontal deviation is seemingly set based on the preset horizontal deviation. In other words, the current horizontal deviation is determined by measuring the current altitude of the aircraft and then selecting the current horizontal deviation from the preset horizontal deviations of the aircraft. Regarding claims 2-15, the dependent claims similarly lack written description to effectively disclose how comparing the current horizontal deviation with the preset horizontal deviation is used to determine a landing strategy.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly 20), it is not clear how a landing strategy is determined based on a comparison between the current horizontal deviation and the preset horizontal deviation threshold. The claim teaches determining a preset horizontal deviation threshold, which according to [0029] is a value which changes according to the altitude of the plane. It is not clear how comparing the current horizontal deviation to this preset horizontal deviation is used to determine a landing strategy because the current horizontal deviation is seemingly set based on the preset horizontal deviation. In other words, the current horizontal deviation is determined by measuring the current altitude of the aircraft and then selecting the current horizontal deviation from the preset horizontal deviations of the aircraft. Regarding claim 2, the limitation “determining a plurality of horizontal deviations between the landing position and the current position of the aircraft based at least in part on a plurality of positioning sources” is not clear. According to at least [0029] of the Specification, the horizontal deviation is a value that is allowed for the aircraft based on the altitude of the aircraft. Thus, it is not clear how or why these plurality of horizontal deviations are being determined multiple times to be fused when the horizontal deviations are already set. Regarding claims 3-15, it is again unclear how comparing the current and preset horizontal deviations is used to determine a landing strategy and/or how a current horizontal deviation is used instead of altitude to determine the landing strategy since the preset horizontal deviation is based on the current altitude (refer to 112 rejection for claim 1. Note: The claims in general have this clarity issue in describing the invention, so the Applicant is kindly requested to review the claims and amend how the invention is claimed and/or provide further clarification to the Examiner regarding the invention.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657