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 .
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections, specification objections, claim objections, and 112 rejections have been addressed and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by X et al (US 20220340300 A1).
For claim 18, X discloses a moving mechanism Fig. 7A, 12, 13: robotic arm for a vertiport, comprising:
a plurality of extension joints upper and lower arm sections configured to be connected so as to be capable of relative rotation around joints; and
a takeoff and landing deck 240 provided on an outermost extension joint among the plurality of extension joints,
wherein the plurality of extension joints are provided to be mutually rotatable rotatable around joints, and
wherein the plurality of extension joints are configured to fold to form a combined shape corresponding to a shape of the takeoff and landing deck arms may be rotated to a folded position; the shape of each arm and the folded shape is rectangular, which corresponds to a rectangular shape of the deck (corresponds does not require that they have the same exact shape/size);
wherein the plurality of extension joints are arranged side by side when the plurality of extension joints are in folded states arms may be rotated to be side by side.
For claim 19, X discloses the moving mechanism of claim 18, wherein the plurality of extension joints are connected in series Fig. 12.
For claim 20, X discloses the moving mechanism of claim 19, wherein each connection between each pair of connected extension joints joint between lower and upper arm sections, of the plurality of extension joints that are connected in series, comprises a motor configured to be independently controlled Para 0033: “may further include actuators, sensors and communications circuitry to enable control and monitoring of drone handling system”.
Claim(s) 18-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 20210047055 A1).
For claim 18, Lee discloses a moving mechanism Fig. 8 for a vertiport, comprising:
a plurality of extension joints 1141/1112/1121 configured to be connected so as to be capable of relative rotation around joints h1-h4; and
a takeoff and landing deck 1130 provided on an outermost extension joint 1121 among the plurality of extension joints,
wherein the plurality of extension joints are provided to be mutually rotatable rotatable around joints, and
wherein the plurality of extension joints are configured to fold to form a combined shape corresponding to a shape of the takeoff and landing deck arms may be rotated to a folded position; the combined, folded shape provides the roller R1 on the flat underside of the frame 1131, therefore this shape corresponds to the shape of the frame;
wherein the plurality of extension joints are arranged side by side when the plurality of extension joints are in folded states Fig. 8.
For claim 19, Lee discloses the moving mechanism of claim 18, wherein the plurality of extension joints are connected in series Fig. 8: 1141 connected to 1112 which is connected to 1121.
For claim 21, Lee discloses the moving mechanism of claim 18, wherein the plurality of extension joints in the folded states comprise a first extension joint 1141, a second extension joint 1112 connected to the first extension joint, and a third extension joint 1121 connected to the second extension joint, and wherein the second extension joint in the folded state is disposed between the first extension joint and the third extension joint Fig. 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 5-17 are allowable.
The statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter was provided in the office action dated 12/18/25.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, JOSHUA J MICHENER can be reached at (571)272-1467. 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights