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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 December 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation – Conditional Language
As currently claimed, independent claim 9 recites the limitations “when a landing request is received…” and “when the vertical take-off and landing aircraft is adapted to the runway landing…”. The inclusion of the term "when" followed by a condition (with two or more implicit or explicit) possibilities, creates a conditional language limitation. Conditional language within a claim creates more than one situation/condition for substantive examination (e.g., condition A is claimed, condition B is not claimed, but still must exist due to logical extension and mutual exclusivity). As such, a second implicit situation/condition that is not defined via an explicit claim limitation becomes relevant due to the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation principle. Under BRI, the use of conditional language obligates the examiner to interpret both the claimed/defined and unclaimed/undefined conditions to determine the broadest interpretation of the claim.
In the independent claim, only one of the conditions is explicitly defined (determining if aircraft is adapted to a runway landing). As a result, the examiner is obligated to interpret that nothing extraordinary occurs during the undefined condition (e.g. if aircraft is not adapted to a runway landing, a step is not performed and the method is complete). Accordingly, the undefined/implicit limitation is broader than the explicitly claimed conditional language because the implicit limitation does not include an additional limiting action/step. The claimed invention is interpreted to end after the determination noted in the conditional statements because the proceeding limitations depend on the determination of the landing capabilities.
Examiner notes that this is the Official interpretation of the claim. However, to expedite prosecution, examiner will provide substantive rejections of the conditional limitations. Applicant must amend the claims to actively recite non-conditional elements of the claimed apparatus and method. If no amendment is filed, examiner reserves the right to reject (with Finality) based on the properly interpreted invention.
As a related issue, claims 10-16 base their dependence as arising solely out of a non-invoked conditional limitation (the non-BRI limitation of aircraft is not adapted to a runway landing). Thus, claims 10-16 are also non-invoked. Specifically, because the independent claim limitation from which the dependent claims arise from/are based upon non-invoked limitations, these dependent claims should also not be substantively examined. However, to expedite prosecution, they will be substantively examined. Examiner is also ignoring additional conditional statements defined in several of the dependent claims that further add complexity in determining what is and is not the intended invention (see claims 13-16, conditional “when” limitation). Again, to avoid a Final rejection based on the BRI invention, the claims must be amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 4-7, 12-15 and 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.
In the above noted claims, the term “more suitable” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite relationship between suitability and specific weather conditions, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It cannot be determined with certainty how each possible weather condition is or is not suitable for the different types of landing.
Claims 5-7 and 13-15 are rejected based on their dependency to the indefinite claim.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhou, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0209953).
For 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), and transmit an instruction to the vertical take-off and landing aircraft to land in one landing mode out of a vertical landing and the runway landing based on the acquired reference information (see paras. 0085, 0056).
Claim 9 defines subject matter and elements that are substantially similar to what is defined in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning cited above for claim 1.
Claim 17 defines subject matter and elements that are substantially similar to what is defined in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning cited above for claim 1.
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 2, 4-8, 10, 12-16, 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).
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 the landing zone that is more suitable, between a vertical landing and the runway landing, for landing under 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).
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 would like to point out that any reference/citation to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way. The entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are to be included in considerations of relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all cited teachings of the prior art of record.
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