DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 7 May 2026. Therein, Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 9, 12-17 and 20; Applicant did not add or cancel any claims. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and related arguments with respect to the objection to the title has been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The previously noted Claim Interpretation section is no longer applicable.
Applicant's amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 for the independent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103. The reasoning is outlined below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0209953).
Referring to claim 1, Zhou discloses a control device comprising a storage unit (see Fig. 2), a communication unit configured to communicate with a vertical take-off and landing aircraft (see Fig. 2), and a control unit (see Fig. 2), wherein the control unit is configured to: when a landing request is received from the vertical take-off and landing aircraft via the communication unit (see paras. 0054-0055), determine whether the vertical take-off and landing aircraft is adapted to a runway landing (see para. 0085); and when the vertical take-off and landing aircraft is adapted to the runway landing, acquire reference information indicating an environment for landing of the vertical take-off and landing aircraft (see paras. 0085, 0056), determine one landing mode out of a vertical landing and the runway landing based on the acquired reference information (see para. 0057), and transmit an instruction to the vertical take-off and landing aircraft to land in the determined landing mode (see paras. 0085, 0056).
Zhou does not explicitly disclose using priority levels to determine the landing type. However, Zhou teaches that a reservation is made for reserving a landing area at a scheduled period (see para. 0086). Further, Zhou teaches that a congestion degree is taken into account for determining the size of the landing partition (see para. 0088). Relatedly, Zhou teaches that the partition size is a determination for the type of landing available to the aircraft (see para. 0085). Thus, as the reservation and congestion degree determines the partition size, a landing type is based on the partition size (and also includes the priority level as the reservation is equivalent to the priority level).
It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing that the landing type would need to be dynamic based on the reservations, congestion degree and weather based on the motivation to improve a landing management device, a landing management method, and a landing management system capable of efficiently utilizing a landing area in a port used for landing of a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles (see para. 0005).
For claim 2, Zhou discloses wherein: the reference information includes congestion levels of a vertical landing field and a runway serving as landing locations for the vertical take-off and landing aircraft (see para. 0089); and the control unit is configured to transmit the instruction to the vertical take-off and landing aircraft to land in the landing location where the congestion level is lower between the vertical landing field and the runway (see para. 0089). Zhou does not explicitly disclose transmitting instruction to land in the landing mode associated with the location. However, Zhou clearly teaches that the congestion degree influences the landing size, and the landing size implicitly determines landing style (see para. 0089). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Zhou to include transmitting the landing mode based on the lower congestion based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a landing management device, a landing management method, and a landing management system capable of efficiently utilizing a landing area in a port used for landing of a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles (see para. 0005).
With regards to claim 4, Zhou further discloses wherein: the reference information includes weather conditions at a vertical landing field and a runway serving as landing locations for the vertical take-off and landing aircraft (see para. 0057); and the control unit is configured to transmit the instruction to the vertical take-off and landing aircraft to land in one of a vertical landing and the runway landing based on the weather condition (see para. 0057). Zhou does not explicitly disclose transmitting instruction to land in suitable landing mode. However, Zhou clearly teaches that the weather condition influences the landing size, and the landing size implicitly determines landing style (see paras. 0057-0058). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Zhou to include transmitting the suitable landing mode based on the weather condition based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a landing management device, a landing management method, and a landing management system capable of efficiently utilizing a landing area in a port used for landing of a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles (see para. 0005).
Referring to claim 5, Zhou further discloses wherein: the reference information includes information on wind as the weather condition (see paras. 0057-0058); and the control unit is configured to, when a wind speed of a tailwind or a crosswind relative to a direction in which the vertical take-off and landing aircraft approaches the runway is equal to or higher than a predetermined value, transmit the instruction to the vertical take-off and landing aircraft to land by the vertical landing (see para. 0058, Fig. 6, vertical landing implied).
Pertaining to claim 6, Zhou further teaches wherein: the reference information includes information on rain or snow as the weather condition (see paras. 0057-0058); and the control unit is configured to, when a weather data amount at the runway is equal to or larger than a predetermined amount, transmit the instruction to the vertical take-off and landing aircraft to land by the vertical landing (see para. 0058, Fig. 6, vertical landing implied). Zhou does not explicitly disclose the amount of rain or snow being measured. However, Zhou teaches rain, snow and wind as equivalent weather information (see para. 0057); in the next sentence Zhou teaches measuring wind over a period of time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Zhou to include measuring rain or snow via the same process wind is measured based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a landing management device, a landing management method, and a landing management system capable of efficiently utilizing a landing area in a port used for landing of a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles (see para. 0005).
With regards to claim 7, Zhou further teaches wherein: the reference information includes information on a weather condition (see paras. 0057-0058); and the control unit is configured to, when the measured weather data at the runway is equal to or larger than a predetermined value, transmit the instruction to the vertical take-off and landing aircraft to land by the vertical landing (see para. 0058, Fig. 6, vertical landing implied). Zhou does not explicitly disclose the density and range of fog being measured. However, Zhou teaches measuring weather information (see para. 0057). Fog and the measurables thereof are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art as a hazard to flying vehicles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Zhou to include measuring density and range of fog via the same process wind is measured based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a landing management device, a landing management method, and a landing management system capable of efficiently utilizing a landing area in a port used for landing of a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles (see para. 0005).
For claim 8, Zhou does not explicitly disclose a take-off determination process. However, the determinations are similar to the landing determination process. Additionally, Zhou teaches considerations made for the take-off process (see para. 0086). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Zhou to include the same considerations and determinations made for landing in the process of take-off determinations based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a landing management device, a landing management method, and a landing management system capable of efficiently utilizing a landing area in a port used for landing of a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles (see para. 0005).
Claims 9 and 17 define subject matter and elements that are substantially similar to what is defined in claim 1. Accordingly, claims 9 and 17 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning cited above for claim 1.
Claim 10 defines subject matter and elements that are substantially similar to what is defined in claim 2. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning cited above for claim 2.
Claim 12 defines subject matter and elements that are substantially similar to what is defined in claim 4. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning cited above for claim 4.
Claim 13 defines subject matter and elements that are substantially similar to what is defined in claim 5. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning cited above for claim 5.
Claim 14 defines subject matter and elements that are substantially similar to what is defined in claim 6. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning cited above for claim 6.
Claim 15 defines subject matter and elements that are substantially similar to what is defined in claim 7. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning cited above for claim 7.
Claim 16 defines subject matter and elements that are substantially similar to what is defined in claim 8. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning cited above for claim 8.
Claim 18 defines subject matter and elements that are substantially similar to what is defined in claim 2. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning cited above for claim 2.
Claim 20 defines subject matter and elements that are substantially similar to what is defined in claim 4. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning cited above for claim 4.
Claims 3, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0209953) as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 above, and further in view of Srivastav, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0217605).
Referring to claim 3, Zhou does not explicitly disclose using pilot experience to determine where to land. However, a teaching from Srivastav discloses experience amounts of the vertical landing and the runway landing for a pilot of the vertical take-off and landing aircraft (see paras. 0012, 0016); and to transmit the instruction to the vertical take-off and landing aircraft to land in the landing mode in which the experience amount is larger between the vertical landing and the runway landing (see para. 0016, knowledge equivalent to experience, landing selected based on larger knowledge). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Zhou to include the teachings of Srivastav based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve systems and methods for precision landings and takeoffs in adverse weather conditions (see para. 0002).
Claims 11 and 19 define subject matter and elements that are substantially similar to what is defined in claim 3. Accordingly, claims 11 and 19 are rejected based on the citations and reasoning cited above for claim 3.
Conclusion
Examiner previously stated at the end of the previous rejection that Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. The cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. The entire reference must be taken as a whole. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the new rejection of the currently amended claims.
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 ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights