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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2024, 03/19/2025, 07/01/2025, and 04/05/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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:
“angle measuring unit (220) that measures” in claims 1 and 3 and therefore their dependents 2 and 4-5.
“landing pad movement calculating unit (230) that calculates” in claims 1 and 3 and therefore their dependents 2 and 4-5.
“landing control unit (240) that guides and controls” in claims 1 and 3 and therefore their dependents 2 and 4-5.
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.
Regarding the limitations “angle measuring unit (220) that measures”, “landing pad movement calculating unit (230) that calculates” and “landing control unit (240) that guides and controls” see the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
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 § 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 and 3 and therefore their dependents 2, and 4-5 are 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. The specification fails to disclose structure corresponding to the claim limitation “angle measuring unit (220) that measures”, “landing pad movement calculating unit (230) that calculates” and “landing control unit (240) that guides and controls” in claims 1 and 3, and therefore, does not comply with the written description requirement.
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 and 3 and therefore their dependents 2, and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “angle measuring unit (220) that measures”, “landing pad movement calculating unit (230) that calculates” and “landing control unit (240) that guides and controls” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, these claims are being interpreted as instructions carried out by a processor.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEBDEEP et al. (WO 2018071106 A1) in view of Holcomb (US 20250231570 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
DEBDEEP teaches:
An aircraft landing guidance system (1000) for landing an aircraft at a point of interest on a two-dimensionally moving landing pad, comprising:
(DEBDEEP – Paragraph [0001] states “The present disclosure relates generally to electronic devices. More specifically, the present disclosure relates to systems and methods for landing a drone on a moving base.”)
an aircraft (200) that receives the radio frequency signal,
(DEBDEEP – Paragraph [0176] states “The apparatus 1002 may also include a transmitter 1031 and/or a receiver 1033 to allow transmission and reception of signals to and from the apparatus 1002.” Paragraph [0043] further states “In some configurations, the communication interface 126 may be coupled to one or more antennas 128 for transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency (RF) signals.”)
the aircraft (200) includes:
a receiving unit (210) that includes a first receiver (210-1) receiving the first radio frequency signal and a second receiver (210-2) receiving the second radio frequency signal;
(DEBDEEP – Paragraph [0176] states “The apparatus 1002 may also include a transmitter 1031 and/or a receiver 1033 to allow transmission and reception of signals to and from the apparatus 1002.” Paragraph [0043] further states “In some configurations, the communication interface 126 may be coupled to one or more antennas 128 for transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency (RF) signals.”)
a landing pad movement calculating unit (230) that calculates a relative angular position change and relative speed of the landing pad
(DEBDEEP – Paragraph [0116] states “The moving base (e.g., vehicle) may provide extra information such as speed, acceleration and/or the position of drone from the perspective of the moving base.”)
a landing control unit (240) that guides and controls the aircraft to land at the point of interest based on the relative angular position change and relative speed of the landing pad.
(DEBDEEP – Paragraph [0116] states “The moving base (e.g., vehicle) may provide extra information such as speed, acceleration and/or the position of drone from the perspective of the moving base. This may assist the drone in landing (e.g., improving landing)... Accordingly, controlling drone movements based on drone tracking data from the moving base may improve performance.”)
DEBDEEP teaches a landing guidance system for an aircraft landing on a moving landing pad. However, DEBDEEP does not teach wherein the transmitting unit (100) includes: a first transmitter (100-1) that continuously transmits a first radio frequency signal; and a second transmitter (100-2) that is disposed to be spaced apart from the first transmitter (100-1) and continuously transmits a second radio frequency signal, and an angle measuring unit (220).
Holcomb teaches:
a transmitting unit (100) that is disposed on a landing pad (2000) and continuously transmits a radio frequency signal; and
(Holcomb – Fig. 4, see below. Paragraph [0028] states “Referring now to FIG. 4, illustrated therein is a guided autonomous landing system 400 that may be implemented using active emitters to create a geometric signal pattern that can be utilized by aircraft, such as an aircraft 402, to triangulate the position of a helipad or other landing site, represented in FIG. 4A by a helipad 404. Similar to systems 200 and 300, system 400 includes transmitter/receiver devices, represented by a device 406, installed on or otherwise incorporated into or onto aircraft 402 and sensors, or emitters, 408 embedded in or otherwise associated with helipad 404.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
586
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the transmitting unit (100) includes:
a first transmitter (100-1) that continuously transmits a first radio frequency signal; and
a second transmitter (100-2) that is disposed to be spaced apart from the first transmitter (100-1) and continuously transmits a second radio frequency signal, and
(Holcomb – Fig. 2, see below, elements 208 are spaced out and are radio frequency signal transmitters.)
PNG
media_image2.png
584
551
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an angle measuring unit (220) that measures a first angle that changes continuously over time between a transmission direction of the first radio frequency signal and a landing surface, and a second angle that changes continuously over time between a transmission direction of the second radio frequency signal and the landing surface, based on the transmission directions of the first radio frequency signal and the second radio frequency signal;
(Holcomb – Fig. 4, see above, shows the calculation of multiple angles based on the radio frequency signals.)
a landing pad movement calculating unit (230) that calculates a relative angular position change of the landing pad based on the first angle and the second angle; and
(Holcomb – Paragraph [0030] states “Referring now to FIG. 5, illustrated therein is an example guided autonomous landing system 500 that may be implemented using emitters to create a geometric signal pattern that can be utilized by aircraft, such as an aircraft 502, to triangulate the position of a helipad or other landing site, represented in FIG. 5 by a helipad 504. Similar to systems 200, 300, and 400, system 500 includes one or more transmitter/receiver devices, represented in FIG. 5 by device 506, installed on or otherwise incorporated into or onto aircraft 502 and sensors 508 embedded in or otherwise associated with helipad 504. Sensors 508 may be positioned with respect to helipad 504 in a particular known arrangement or configuration.” Paragraph [0033] further states “In operation 604, the received response signals are processed to determine a location, distance, orientation, configuration, and/or geometry of the landing site relative to the aircraft.”)
DEBDEEP and Holcomb are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of landing guidance systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DEBDEEP with Holcomb. It would have been obvious to combine a landing guidance system for an aircraft landing on a moving landing pad with using transmitters to determine the angle of the aircraft relative to the landing pad because only the aircraft must do the calculations of the landing guidance rather than both. This allows for a more efficient system.
Regarding claim 2,
DEBDEEP and Holcomb teach the limitations of claim 1.
Holcomb further teaches:
wherein the first transmitter (100-1), the second transmitter (100-2), and the point of interest (P) are disposed on the same line (L).
(Holcomb – Fig. 4, see above, element L shows the line where the multiple transmitters are on)
DEBDEEP and Holcomb are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of landing guidance systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DEBDEEP with Holcomb. It would have been obvious to combine a landing guidance system for an aircraft landing on a moving landing pad with using transmitters disposed on the same line to determine the angle of the aircraft relative to the landing pad because having the transmitters aligned gives another constant to the calculation of the angles. This allows for a more efficient system.
Regarding claim 3, it recites a system with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis. DEBDEEP teaches the difference in limitation “a three-dimensionally moving landing pad” (Paragraph [0087] states “The one or more 3D models may be compared with models of a graphic information system (GIS) and/or maps (from satellite data, for example) to determine (e.g., pinpoint) location. In this way, the apparatus 102 (e.g., processor 112, distance determiner 116, computer vision tracker 110, etc.) may estimate the difference in the actual location of the moving base (e.g., landing pad, etc.)”)
Regarding claim 4, it recites a system with limitations substantially the same as claim 2 above, therefore it is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 5,
DEBDEEP and Holcomb teach the limitations of claim 3.
Holcomb further teaches:
wherein the first transmitter (100-1), the second transmitter (100-2), and the third transmitter (100-3) are disposed to form a triangular configuration so as to surround the point of interest (P).
(Holcomb – Fig. 4, see above, shows an example of a plurality of transmitters used and can be used in various combinations. Given this figure we can see a triangle of transmitters can be seen within this example.)
DEBDEEP and Holcomb are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of landing guidance systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DEBDEEP with Holcomb. It would have been obvious to combine a landing guidance system for an aircraft landing on a moving landing pad with using three transmitters in a triangle shape to determine the angle of the aircraft relative to the landing pad because having the transmitters at predetermined locations gives another constant to the calculation of the angles. This allows for a more efficient system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH GALYN MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1537. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS 9-2.
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, James Lee can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/E.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights