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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 6/18/2025.
Claim 4 has been amended.
No claims have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 8/28/2025 has been received and considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 recites “A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft” and introduces a new embodiment; therefore, it is an independent claim. However, language such as “according to claim 1” is indicative of dependent-type claims in the new “vertical takeoff and landing aircraft” embodiment. Since claim 1 explicitly recites “A position control system” embodiment, emphasis added, it is considered a separate and distinct embodiment from the “vertical takeoff and landing aircraft.”
Specification
The terms “relative speed acquisition unit”, “relative altitude acquisition unit”, “contact determination unit”, “swaying amount estimation processing unit”, “target information generating unit”, and “correction unit” have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear within the specification whether the indicated “units” are intended to be software elements, hardware elements, or some combination of the two. The boundaries of these elements are ambiguous; therefore, the specification is unclear as to how these elements operate. Appropriate clarification is required.
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:
Relative speed acquisition unit in claim 1.
(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, here the term being “unit”;
(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,” here the functional language being “relative speed acquisition;” 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, and here the unit is only described in function, with no indication as to the mechanism to accomplish that function.
Therefore, “relative speed acquisition unit” will be interpreted according to the specification. Fig. 7 and the item number list associate the “relative speed acquisition unit” with a Kalman filter, and ¶ 0035 includes the Kalman filter within the guidance calculation unit. The guidance calculation unit is described in ¶ 0029 as performing processing, suggesting that the unit is a physical computer or other sort of electronic processing device, but this is not explicitly defined.
Relative altitude acquisition unit in claims 1 and 7.
(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, here the term being “unit”;
(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,” here the functional language being “relative altitude acquisition;” 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, and here the unit is only described in function, with no indication as to the mechanism to accomplish that function.
Therefore, “relative altitude acquisition unit” will be interpreted according to the specification. Fig. 7 and the item number list associate the “relative altitude acquisition unit” with a Kalman filter, and ¶ 0035 includes the Kalman filter within the guidance calculation unit. The guidance calculation unit is described in ¶ 0029 as performing processing, suggesting that the unit is a physical computer or other sort of electronic processing device, but this is not explicitly defined.
Contact determination unit in claims 1-5 and 7.
(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, here the term being “unit”;
(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,” here the functional language being “contact determination;” 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, and here the unit is only described in function, with no indication as to the mechanism to accomplish that function.
Therefore, “contact determination unit” will be interpreted according to the specification. The “contact determination unit” is only described in ¶ 0049 and ¶ 0070, and both paragraphs describe only the function of the unit without describing a mechanism, but further liken the “contact determination unit” with a “target vertical speed calculation unit,” which is described as outputting a signal in ¶ 0074 and 0075 suggesting a physical unit, and setting limit values in ¶ 0073 and making determinations in ¶ 0072, suggesting software functions. In combination, it is unclear whether the “contact determination unit” is a software block, a computer, or some other form of device, but this is not explicitly defined.
Swaying amount estimation processing unit in claims 6 and 7.
(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, here the term being “unit”;
(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,” here the functional language being “swaying amount estimation processing;” 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, and here the unit is only described in function, with no indication as to the mechanism to accomplish that function.
Therefore, the “swaying amount estimation processing unit” will be interpreted according to the specification. ¶ 0035 includes the “Swaying amount estimation processing unit” in the guidance calculation unit, and ¶ 0040 describes the unit performing “processing” and “amplifies a signal,” suggesting that the unit is a physical computer or electronic device of some sort, but this is not explicitly defined.
Target information generating unit in claims 6 and 7.
(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, here the term being “unit”;
(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,” here the functional language being “target information generating;” 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, and here the unit is only described in function, with no indication as to the mechanism to accomplish that function.
Therefore, “Target information generating unit” will be interpreted according to the specification. ¶ 0035 includes a “target information generation processing unit,” emphasis added, within the guidance calculation unit. Describing this as a processing unit, as well as the guidance calculation unit being described in ¶ 0029 as performing processing, suggests that the unit is a physical computer or other sort of electronic processing device, but this is not explicitly defined.
Correction unit in claim 6.
(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, here the term being “unit”;
(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,” here the functional language being “correction;” 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, and here the unit is only described in function, with no indication as to the mechanism to accomplish that function.
Therefore, the “correction unit” will be interpreted according to the specification. ¶ 0035 includes the “Swaying amount estimation processing unit” in the guidance calculation unit. ¶ 0076 likens the correction unit to a “subtraction circuit unit 73,” and the item list likens the correction unit to “addition circuit unit 75,” both being separately described units but both described as circuits, suggesting that the unit is a physical computer or electronic device of some sort, but this is not explicitly defined.
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.
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 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.
Claim limitations “relative speed acquisition unit” in claim 1, “relative altitude acquisition unit” in claims 1 and 7, “contact determination unit” in claims 1-5 and 7, “swaying amount estimation processing unit” in claims 6 and 7, “target information generating unit” in claims 6 and 7, and “correction unit” in claim 6 have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is unclear whether the indicated “units” are intended to be software elements, hardware elements, or some combination of the two. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, Claims 1-7 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claim 8 is similarly rejected on the same grounds for being dependent upon the rejected Claim 1.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: “a vertical acceleration” is claimed as a value to be used to estimate swaying, but there is no element claimed to indicate where this value comes from or how it is determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework considers whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention – method/process, machine/apparatus, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 8 is directed to a device (a machine). Claims 1 and 7 are directed to a system (an apparatus). Claim 9 is directed to a method. Accordingly, claims 1 and 7-9 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework considers whether claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea (Prong 1) and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Prong 2).
Step 2A Prong 1
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract idea emphasized. (Additional elements (Prong 2, to be discussed in the subsequent section) are italicized):
A position control system for a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, the system comprising: a relative speed acquisition unit that acquires a relative speed based on a relative position between a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and a landing target point;
a relative altitude acquisition unit that acquires a relative altitude based on the relative position between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point;
and a contact determination unit that determines whether contact occurs between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point based on the relative speed and the relative altitude.
The above limitations constitute “a mental process” because they comprise observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could determine whether contact occurs between a VTOL aircraft and a landing target point based on relative speed and relative altitude mentally. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claims 7-9 are independent claims that follow substantially the same mental processes in separate embodiments.
Claim 7 further recites, with similar formatting to the above:
a swaying amount estimation processing unit that estimates a swaying amount of the landing target point based on the relative altitude and a vertical acceleration of the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft;
and a target information generation unit that calculates a target relative altitude as a target between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point based on the swaying amount.
The above additional limitations constitute “a mental process” because they comprise observation/evaluation/judgment/analysis that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). For instance, a person could calculate by hand (estimate) a swaying amount based on relative altitude and vertical acceleration, and calculate by hand a target relative altitude based on the swaying amount. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, which are indicated in italics when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the following additional elements, these additional elements are all recited at a high level of generality:
a relative speed acquisition unit
a relative altitude acquisition unit
a contact determination unit
a swaying amount estimation processing unit
and a target information generation unit
The following additional limitations amount to merely extra solution activity (i.e. sending and receiving data): acquires a relative speed based on a relative position between a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and a landing target point;
acquires a relative altitude based on the relative position between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point;
MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. The claim elements relative speed acquisition unit, relative altitude acquisition unit, contact determination unit, swaying amount estimation processing unit, and target information generation unit are all presented with no details as to how the solution is accomplished within either the claims or the specification under 112(f), and therefore are equivalent to “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claims 1 and 7-9 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1 and 7-9 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims, individually or in combination, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim of acquires a relative speed based on a relative position between a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and a landing target point; and acquires a relative altitude based on the relative position between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point; are all recited at a high level of generality amounting to sending and receiving data, which are well understood routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)). The claim elements relative speed acquisition unit, relative altitude acquisition unit, contact determination unit, swaying amount estimation processing unit, and target information generation unit are all presented with no details as to how the solution is accomplished within either the claims or the specification under 112(f), and therefore are equivalent to “apply it.” Thus, claims 1 and 7-9 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The limitations of claims 8 and 9 are analogous to the limitations of claim 1 and thus the analysis of claim 1 is applied to claims 8 and 9.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims 2-6 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
[Claim 2] The position control system for a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the contact determination unit determines whether or not an ascent for avoiding contact with the landing target point is required for the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft.
Claim 2 adds a further generally described “unit” amounting to “apply it,” and further clarifies the determination that is practicably completed in the human mind.
[Claim 3] The position control system for a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the contact determination unit sets a limit value for the relative altitude with respect to the relative speed, the limit value being set as a limit value that increases as the relative speed increases,
and determines that an ascent for avoiding contact between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point is required when the relative altitude with respect to the relative speed falls below the limit value.
Claim 3 further clarifies the determination that is practicably completed in the human mind.
[Claim 4] The position control system for a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the contact determination unit outputs a signal to cause the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft to ascend at a specific speed when it is determined that an ascent for avoiding contact between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point is required.
Claim 4 adds additional sending and receiving of data.
[Claim 5] The position control system for a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 4, wherein the contact determination unit outputs a signal to lower the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft to an altitude prior to the ascent when a swaying of the landing target point subsides after it is determined that the ascent for avoiding the contact between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point is required.
Claim 5 adds additional sending and receiving of data and further determination of whether to send the signal, the determination being practicably completed within the human mind.
[Claim 6] The position control system for a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 1, further comprising: a swaying amount estimation processing unit that estimates a swaying amount of a landing target point based on the relative altitude and a vertical acceleration of the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft;
a target information generation unit that calculates a target relative altitude as a target between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point based on the swaying amount;
and a correction unit that corrects a preset target relative altitude using a calculated value of the target information generation unit.
Claim 6 adds two further generally described “units” amounting to “apply it,” and further determination and calculation which can be practicably completed within the human mind or by hand.
These additional claim limitations recite mental processes and further narrow the abstract idea. They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The user terminal inputs, sending and receiving of data, and robot control are all recited at a high level of generality. Thus, the claims generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims, individually or in combination, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Builta et al (EP 1728176, hereinafter “Builta”)
Regarding Claim 1, Builta teaches:
A position control system for a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, (Builta Pg 2 ¶ 4 lines 1-2 “Referring now to FIGS. 1 and 2, an aircraft 11 is depicted as flying near a ship 13. While shown in FIG. 1 as an unmanned tiltrotor-type aircraft,” shown in Fig. 1 in a common vertical take-off and landing configuration)
PNG
media_image1.png
155
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the system comprising: a relative speed acquisition unit that acquires a relative speed based on a relative position between a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and a landing target point; (Builta Pg 3 ¶ 6 – Pg 4 ¶ 2 line 6 “The present invention provides a system for controlling a controlled vehicle in relation to a reference vehicle using relative velocities, which are determined by comparing the position and movement of the controlled vehicle with the position and movement of a known point. For purposes of illustrating the system of the invention, the system will be described in reference to its use as a control system for an aircraft operating in conjunction with a ship at sea. The known point on the ship may be a touchdown point (TDP) for landing the aircraft. The relative velocity is zero if the aircraft is moving at the same velocity, i.e., same speed and direction, as the TDP. This invention allows precise aircraft velocity control relative to the TDP regardless of the speed of the TDP or the velocity and direction of the relative wind,” teaching use of relative speed (equivalent to velocity) based on relative position from a touchdown point (equivalent to a landing target point), and Pg 5 ¶ 3 lines 1-5 “Data receiver 45 of aircraft 11 receives transmissions 51 and 55, and the transmitted data is routed to a digital control system 57 carried on aircraft 11. Additionally, the sensed data from GPS module 37 and sensors 43 are routed to control system 57, and control system 57 calculates the position and velocity of aircraft 11 in relation to the earth, as well as the position and velocity of aircraft 11 relative to the reference vehicle,” describing receiving the relative position and velocity data)
a relative altitude acquisition unit that acquires a relative altitude based on the relative position between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point; (Builta Pg 7 ¶ 4 lines 2-7 “In this mode, the operator maneuvers aircraft 11 into an acquisition window, then commands the auto-recovery system to land aircraft 11 on the TDP. An X,Y,Z coordinate system is defined with the positive X axis out the stern of the ship, with the option of rotation to a specified approach angle. Y is positive out the starboard side, and Z is positive in the up direction. Once acquired, the sensors on ship 13 track aircraft 11, and three-dimensional position data are sent to GCS 19, which in turn transmits these positions to aircraft 11,” tracking in the Z-direction representing acquisition of a relative altitude from the TDP)
and a contact determination unit that determines whether contact occurs between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point based on the relative speed and the relative altitude. (Builta Pg 7 ¶ 4 line 16 - ¶ 5 line 5 “If the operator of the GCS 19 or FCB 27 chooses, aircraft 11 can be commanded to waveoff, and it will execute a predetermined maneuver to move away from ship 13. Aircraft 11 moves in the positive X direction (to the rear of ship 13) and enters a gentle vertical climb for a predetermined period of time after which the relative velocity vector is commanded to zero and the aircraft altitude is held at its then present value. An abort is automatically entered if failure management logic of the control system determines that the auto-recovery cannot be completed. The reasons for abort may include excessive position or velocity errors, […] The control of aircraft 11 during an abort is preferably the same as for a waveoff, the only difference being that an abort is initiated automatically and a waveoff is initiated by the GCS or FCB operator,” emphasis added, describing a controller which determines whether or not a landing abort is to occur, i.e. whether or not contact will occur, based on the errors in position or velocity, i.e. based on relative speed and relative position, which includes relative altitude)
Regarding Claim 2, Builta teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above and further teaches:
wherein the contact determination unit determines whether or not an ascent for avoiding contact with the landing target point is required for the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. (Builta Pg 7 ¶ 4 line 16 - ¶ 5 line 5 “If the operator of the GCS 19 or FCB 27 chooses, aircraft 11 can be commanded to waveoff, and it will execute a predetermined maneuver to move away from ship 13. Aircraft 11 moves in the positive X direction (to the rear of ship 13) and enters a gentle vertical climb for a predetermined period of time after which the relative velocity vector is commanded to zero and the aircraft altitude is held at its then present value. An abort is automatically entered if failure management logic of the control system determines that the auto-recovery cannot be completed. […] The control of aircraft 11 during an abort is preferably the same as for a waveoff, the only difference being that an abort is initiated automatically and a waveoff is initiated by the GCS or FCB operator,” describing a vertical climb (ascent) to avoid contact with the TDP, if required)
Regarding Claim 4, Builta teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above and further teaches:
wherein the contact determination unit outputs a signal to cause the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft to ascend at a specific speed when it is determined that an ascent for avoiding contact between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point is required. (Builta Pg 7 ¶ 4 line 16 - ¶ 5 line 5 “If the operator of the GCS 19 or FCB 27 chooses, aircraft 11 can be commanded to waveoff, and it will execute a predetermined maneuver to move away from ship 13. Aircraft 11 moves in the positive X direction (to the rear of ship 13) and enters a gentle vertical climb for a predetermined period of time after which the relative velocity vector is commanded to zero and the aircraft altitude is held at its then present value. An abort is automatically entered if failure management logic of the control system determines that the auto-recovery cannot be completed. […] The control of aircraft 11 during an abort is preferably the same as for a waveoff, the only difference being that an abort is initiated automatically and a waveoff is initiated by the GCS or FCB operator,” emphasis added, describing a vertical climb (ascent) at a gentle speed, describing a specific speed control operation)
Regarding Claim 8, Builta teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above and further teaches:
A vertical takeoff and landing aircraft comprising: the position control system for a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (Builta Pg 2 ¶ 4 lines 1-2 “Referring now to FIGS. 1 and 2, an aircraft 11 is depicted as flying near a ship 13. While shown in FIG. 1 as an unmanned tiltrotor-type aircraft,” shown in Fig. 1 in a common vertical take-off and landing configuration, and PG 4 ¶ 5 “In order to control aircraft 11 during flight or launch/recovery, a remote piloting system is used in conjunction with a semi-autonomous controller carried on aircraft 11. […] Another example of the interface is a flight control box (FCB) 27, as shown in FIG. 4, having a set of joysticks 29 or similar tactile input devices and graphical displays 31. Aircraft 11 may be operated by one or more operators, with each operator using one of the operator interface devices. To illustrate the operation of the system of the invention, the system is described herein as comprising GCS 19 and FCB 27 for controlling aircraft 11.”)
Regarding Claim 9, Builta teaches:
A position control method for a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, (Builta Pg 2 ¶ 4 lines 1-2 “Referring now to FIGS. 1 and 2, an aircraft 11 is depicted as flying near a ship 13. While shown in FIG. 1 as an unmanned tiltrotor-type aircraft,” shown in Fig. 1 in a common vertical take-off and landing configuration)
the method comprising: a step of acquiring a relative speed based on a relative position between a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and a landing target point; (Builta Pg 3 ¶ 6 – Pg 4 ¶ 2 line 6 “The present invention provides a system for controlling a controlled vehicle in relation to a reference vehicle using relative velocities, which are determined by comparing the position and movement of the controlled vehicle with the position and movement of a known point. For purposes of illustrating the system of the invention, the system will be described in reference to its use as a control system for an aircraft operating in conjunction with a ship at sea. The known point on the ship may be a touchdown point (TDP) for landing the aircraft. The relative velocity is zero if the aircraft is moving at the same velocity, i.e., same speed and direction, as the TDP. This invention allows precise aircraft velocity control relative to the TDP regardless of the speed of the TDP or the velocity and direction of the relative wind,” teaching use of relative speed (equivalent to velocity) based on relative position from a touchdown point (equivalent to a landing target point), and Pg 5 ¶ 3 lines 1-5 “Data receiver 45 of aircraft 11 receives transmissions 51 and 55, and the transmitted data is routed to a digital control system 57 carried on aircraft 11. Additionally, the sensed data from GPS module 37 and sensors 43 are routed to control system 57, and control system 57 calculates the position and velocity of aircraft 11 in relation to the earth, as well as the position and velocity of aircraft 11 relative to the reference vehicle,” describing receiving the relative position and velocity data)
a step of acquiring a relative altitude based on the relative position between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point; (Builta Pg 7 ¶ 4 lines 2-7 “In this mode, the operator maneuvers aircraft 11 into an acquisition window, then commands the auto-recovery system to land aircraft 11 on the TDP. An X,Y,Z coordinate system is defined with the positive X axis out the stern of the ship, with the option of rotation to a specified approach angle. Y is positive out the starboard side, and Z is positive in the up direction. Once acquired, the sensors on ship 13 track aircraft 11, and three-dimensional position data are sent to GCS 19, which in turn transmits these positions to aircraft 11,” tracking in the Z-direction representing acquisition of a relative altitude from the TDP)
and a step of determining whether contact occurs between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point based on the relative speed and the relative altitude. (Builta Pg 7 ¶ 4 line 16 - ¶ 5 line 5 “If the operator of the GCS 19 or FCB 27 chooses, aircraft 11 can be commanded to waveoff, and it will execute a predetermined maneuver to move away from ship 13. Aircraft 11 moves in the positive X direction (to the rear of ship 13) and enters a gentle vertical climb for a predetermined period of time after which the relative velocity vector is commanded to zero and the aircraft altitude is held at its then present value. An abort is automatically entered if failure management logic of the control system determines that the auto-recovery cannot be completed. The reasons for abort may include excessive position or velocity errors, […] The control of aircraft 11 during an abort is preferably the same as for a waveoff, the only difference being that an abort is initiated automatically and a waveoff is initiated by the GCS or FCB operator,” emphasis added, describing a controller which determines whether or not a landing abort is to occur, i.e. whether or not contact will occur, based on the errors in position or velocity, i.e. based on relative speed and relative position, which includes relative altitude)
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Builta in view of Moon et al (KR 101970601, hereinafter “Moon,” all citations and excerpts taken from the attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 3, Builta teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Builta further teaches:
wherein the contact determination unit […] determines that an ascent for avoiding contact between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point is required when the relative altitude with respect to the relative speed […] (Builta Pg 7 ¶ 4 line 16 - ¶ 5 line 5 “If the operator of the GCS 19 or FCB 27 chooses, aircraft 11 can be commanded to waveoff, and it will execute a predetermined maneuver to move away from ship 13. Aircraft 11 moves in the positive X direction (to the rear of ship 13) and enters a gentle vertical climb for a predetermined period of time after which the relative velocity vector is commanded to zero and the aircraft altitude is held at its then present value. An abort is automatically entered if failure management logic of the control system determines that the auto-recovery cannot be completed. […] The control of aircraft 11 during an abort is preferably the same as for a waveoff, the only difference being that an abort is initiated automatically and a waveoff is initiated by the GCS or FCB operator,” describing a vertical climb (ascent) to avoid contact with the TDP, if required)
Builta does not teach:
[…] sets a limit value for the relative altitude with respect to the relative speed, the limit value being set as a limit value that increases as the relative speed increases, and […]
[…] falls below the limit value.
Within the same field of endeavor as Builta, Moon teaches:
[…] sets a limit value for the relative altitude with respect to the relative speed, the limit value being set as a limit value that increases as the relative speed increases, […] when the relative altitude with respect to the relative speed falls below the limit value. (Moon Pg 7 ¶ 7-12 “Referring to FIG. 2, an automatic flight for a safe landing when an emergency landing of a helicopter is described. Fig. 2 shows the altitude and the speed at which landings can be made according to the correlation diagram (kn) between the height H of the flight vehicle and the flight speed V. Fig. […] In Figure 2, D is the area where the speed of the flight is too fast to land,” showing a relationship between height (altitude) and velocity under which it is unsafe to land a helicopter, an example of a vertical take-off and landing aircraft.)
PNG
media_image2.png
339
346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Builta and Moon are considered analogous because they both relate to landing control of vertical take-off and landing aircraft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the VTOL aircraft landing abort conditions related to relative position and velocity of Builta with the simple addition of Moon’s “too fast to land” condition as an abort condition, shown in a correlation diagram to be under an increasing altitude over velocity curve. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by an increased ability to perform a stable landing and avoid the extreme situation in which the occupant reaches death (Moon Pg 10 ¶ 7) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Builta in view of Fleischmann (US 6064924, hereinafter “Fleischmann,”).
Regarding Claim 6, Builta teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Builta further teaches:
further comprising: […] a swaying amount of a landing target point based on the relative altitude and a vertical acceleration of the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft; a target information generation unit that calculates a target relative altitude as a target between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point based on the swaying amount; […] (Builta Pg 7 ¶ 4 lines 7-13 “Auto-approach: The approach phase commands the aircraft to follow a preset approach profile from its present location to a point over the TDP. […] When the aircraft has arrived near the TDP, a position-hold function will be engaged to hold aircraft 11 in a hover over the TDP. Deck Following: After the position hold is engaged, aircraft 11 can be commanded to start following the deck surge heave and sway motions, keeping aircraft 11 in a selected position relative to the TDP,” teaching moving the aircraft to a selected position at a point over the TDP following sway motions, which describes a target altitude, in combination with the previously described relative position and motion calculations of Builta Pg 5 ¶ 3 lines 1-5 as well as Pg 4 ¶ 8 lines 3-5 “Also, inertial movement sensors 43, which may be accelerometers, measure the movement of aircraft 11 in three orthogonal axes, and a data receiver 45 receives data transmitted to aircraft 11 from components 35 on ship 13 and from GCS 19 and/or FCB 27,” describing accelerometer measurement (acceleration data) of aircraft motion in 3 orthogonal axes, which can produce a vertical acceleration, and Pg 5 ¶ 3 lines 1-5 “Data receiver 45 of aircraft 11 receives transmissions 51 and 55, and the transmitted data is routed to a digital control system 57 carried on aircraft 11. Additionally, the sensed data from GPS module 37 and sensors 43 are routed to control system 57, and control system 57 calculates the position and velocity of aircraft 11 in relation to the earth, as well as the position and velocity of aircraft 11 relative to the reference vehicle, which is ship 13,” teaching that the relative position and speed data is based on the accelerometer measurements of the aircraft and ship measurements)
[…] and a correction unit that corrects a preset target relative altitude using a calculated value of the target information generation unit. (Builta Pg 5 ¶ 3 lines 5-9 “This calculated relative position and relative velocity is compared with the selected position and/or selected velocity communicated in transmission 55, and an amount of error is determined. Control system 57 then commands various flight-control devices on aircraft 11, such as throttle 59 and rudder 61, to maneuver aircraft so as to minimize, and preferably eliminate, the error between the calculated and selected values,” teaching elimination of errors (correction) between the selected position and calculated position)
Builta does not teach:
[…] a swaying amount estimation processing unit that estimates […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Builta, Fleischmann teaches:
[…] a swaying amount estimation processing unit that estimates a swaying amount of a landing target point based on […] vertical acceleration […] (Fleischmann Col 4 lines 20-28 “Ship motion is sensed by three sensor elements. […] The heave displacement of the ship is measured by utilizing a commercially-available accelerometer likewise providing an electrical signal output to the central processing element,” teaching vertical motion measurement (heave) using an accelerometer (acceleration data) similar to the measurements of Builta, and Col 10 lines 17-31 “Several methods have been developed for theoretically predicting these gains based on the geometry and mass properties for any arbitrary ship form. These methods, and the theory they embodied, are widely accepted within the Naval Architecture profession. It is commonly understood that gains computed according to theoretical calculations can be systematically arranged in a computer-based look-up table or matrix with the following three indices: wavelength, wave angle and ship speed. Thus, a constructed matrix would contain six gains in each cell address corresponding to every combination of wavelengths, wave angles and ship speeds--each gain corresponding to one of the six degrees of rigid body freedom--pitch, roll, yaw, heave, surge, and sway, namely rotation about and translation along the three principal axes,” teaching prediction (estimation) of ship sway, among other values, based on measured information.)
Builta and Fleischmann are considered analogous because they both relate to landing control of vertical take-off and landing aircraft on moving ships. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deck-following position hold of an aircraft to follow deck sway of a ship based on measured motion and relative position with the simple addition of Fleischmann’s ship motion prediction based on similar motion measurements. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by an advantageous ability to predict a quiescent landing period to be able to increase the safe operation envelope and reduce risk of helicopter landings (Fleischmann Col 1 lines 25-30 and Col 2 lines 35-40) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding Claim 7, Builta teaches:
A position control system for a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, (Builta Pg 2 ¶ 4 lines 1-2 “Referring now to FIGS. 1 and 2, an aircraft 11 is depicted as flying near a ship 13. While shown in FIG. 1 as an unmanned tiltrotor-type aircraft,” shown in Fig. 1 in a common vertical take-off and landing configuration)
the system comprising: a relative speed acquisition unit that acquires a relative speed based on a relative position between a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and a landing target point; (Builta Pg 3 ¶ 6 – Pg 4 ¶ 2 line 6 “The present invention provides a system for controlling a controlled vehicle in relation to a reference vehicle using relative velocities, which are determined by comparing the position and movement of the controlled vehicle with the position and movement of a known point. For purposes of illustrating the system of the invention, the system will be described in reference to its use as a control system for an aircraft operating in conjunction with a ship at sea. The known point on the ship may be a touchdown point (TDP) for landing the aircraft. The relative velocity is zero if the aircraft is moving at the same velocity, i.e., same speed and direction, as the TDP. This invention allows precise aircraft velocity control relative to the TDP regardless of the speed of the TDP or the velocity and direction of the relative wind,” teaching use of relative speed (equivalent to velocity) based on relative position from a touchdown point (equivalent to a landing target point), and Pg 5 ¶ 3 lines 1-5 “Data receiver 45 of aircraft 11 receives transmissions 51 and 55, and the transmitted data is routed to a digital control system 57 carried on aircraft 11. Additionally, the sensed data from GPS module 37 and sensors 43 are routed to control system 57, and control system 57 calculates the position and velocity of aircraft 11 in relation to the earth, as well as the position and velocity of aircraft 11 relative to the reference vehicle,” describing receiving the relative position and velocity data)
a relative altitude acquisition unit that acquires a relative altitude based on the relative position between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point; […] (Builta Pg 7 ¶ 4 lines 2-7 “In this mode, the operator maneuvers aircraft 11 into an acquisition window, then commands the auto-recovery system to land aircraft 11 on the TDP. An X,Y,Z coordinate system is defined with the positive X axis out the stern of the ship, with the option of rotation to a specified approach angle. Y is positive out the starboard side, and Z is positive in the up direction. Once acquired, the sensors on ship 13 track aircraft 11, and three-dimensional position data are sent to GCS 19, which in turn transmits these positions to aircraft 11,” tracking in the Z-direction representing acquisition of a relative altitude from the TDP)
[…]swaying amount of the landing target point based on the relative altitude and a vertical acceleration of the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft; and a target information generation unit that calculates a target relative altitude as a target between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point based on the swaying amount. (Builta Pg 7 ¶ 4 lines 7-13 “Auto-approach: The approach phase commands the aircraft to follow a preset approach profile from its present location to a point over the TDP. […] When the aircraft has arrived near the TDP, a position-hold function will be engaged to hold aircraft 11 in a hover over the TDP. Deck Following: After the position hold is engaged, aircraft 11 can be commanded to start following the deck surge heave and sway motions, keeping aircraft 11 in a selected position relative to the TDP,” teaching moving the aircraft to a selected position at a point over the TDP following sway motions, which describes a target altitude, in combination with the previously described relative position and motion calculations of Builta Pg 5 ¶ 3 lines 1-5 as well as Pg 4 ¶ 8 lines 3-5 “Also, inertial movement sensors 43, which may be accelerometers, measure the movement of aircraft 11 in three orthogonal axes, and a data receiver 45 receives data transmitted to aircraft 11 from components 35 on ship 13 and from GCS 19 and/or FCB 27,” describing accelerometer measurement (acceleration data) of aircraft motion in 3 orthogonal axes, which can produce a vertical acceleration, and Pg 5 ¶ 3 lines 1-5 “Data receiver 45 of aircraft 11 receives transmissions 51 and 55, and the transmitted data is routed to a digital control system 57 carried on aircraft 11. Additionally, the sensed data from GPS module 37 and sensors 43 are routed to control system 57, and control system 57 calculates the position and velocity of aircraft 11 in relation to the earth, as well as the position and velocity of aircraft 11 relative to the reference vehicle, which is ship 13,” teaching that the relative position and speed data is based on the accelerometer measurements of the aircraft and ship measurements)
Builta does not teach:
[…] a swaying amount estimation processing unit that estimates a […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Builta, Fleischmann teaches:
[…] a swaying amount estimation processing unit that estimates a swaying amount of a landing target point based on […] vertical acceleration […] (Fleischmann Col 4 lines 20-28 “Ship motion is sensed by three sensor elements. […] The heave displacement of the ship is measured by utilizing a commercially-available accelerometer likewise providing an electrical signal output to the central processing element,” teaching vertical motion measurement (heave) using an accelerometer (acceleration data) similar to the measurements of Builta, and Col 10 lines 17-31 “Several methods have been developed for theoretically predicting these gains based on the geometry and mass properties for any arbitrary ship form. These methods, and the theory they embodied, are widely accepted within the Naval Architecture profession. It is commonly understood that gains computed according to theoretical calculations can be systematically arranged in a computer-based look-up table or matrix with the following three indices: wavelength, wave angle and ship speed. Thus, a constructed matrix would contain six gains in each cell address corresponding to every combination of wavelengths, wave angles and ship speeds--each gain corresponding to one of the six degrees of rigid body freedom--pitch, roll, yaw, heave, surge, and sway, namely rotation about and translation along the three principal axes,” teaching prediction (estimation) of ship sway, among other values, based on measured information.)
Builta and Fleischmann are considered analogous because they both relate to landing control of vertical take-off and landing aircraft on moving ships. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deck-following position hold of an aircraft to follow deck sway of a ship based on measured motion and relative position with the simple addition of Fleischmann’s ship motion prediction based on similar motion measurements. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by an advantageous ability to predict a quiescent landing period to be able to increase the safe operation envelope and reduce risk of helicopter landings (Fleischmann Col 1 lines 25-30 and Col 2 lines 35-40) according to MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The arts of record, especially Builta and Fleischmann, do not singularly or in combination disclose outputting a signal to lower the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft to an altitude prior to the ascent when a swaying of the landing target point subsides after it is determined that the ascent for avoiding the contact between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point is required, as recited in dependent claim 5. While Builta discloses a wave-off maneuver to a specific altitude and Fleischmann describes sending a signal to descend when a quiescent period analogous to “when a swaying of the landing target point subsides,” the specific order of lowering after a wave-off has been determined but before ascent occurs is not taught within either piece of prior art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, and 14 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12391402 (hereinafter “US1402”), co-owned by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons:
Regarding Claim 1 of the present application, US1402 recites in Claim 1:
A position control system for a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, the system comprising: a relative speed acquisition unit that acquires a relative speed based on a relative position between a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and a landing target point; a relative altitude acquisition unit that acquires a relative altitude based on the relative position between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point; (US1402 Claim 1 “An aircraft position control system to make a position of an aircraft follow movement of a target landing point due to motion, the aircraft position control system comprising: a processor, wherein the processor is configured to estimate a motion quantity of the target landing point, […] based on a relative position between the aircraft and the target landing point;” describing estimating a motion quantity (relative speed) based on a relative position, and relative position interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to include relative height position i.e. relative altitude)
and a contact determination unit that determines whether contact occurs between the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and the landing target point based on the relative speed and the relative altitude. (US1402 Claim 1 “output a target relative position between the aircraft and the target landing point to be achieved and target relative velocity between the aircraft and the target landing point to be achieved, based on the estimated motion quantity;” where a “target relative position […] and target relative velocity” under the broadest reasonable interpretation can include 0, 0, 0 and 0, respectively, equivalent to contact between the elements)
Regarding Claim 8 of the present application, US1402 recites in Claim 9 a similar aircraft embodiment dependent upon its respective Claim 1, using a similar analysis as presented above for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9 of the present application, US1402 recites in Claim 14 a similar method embodiment, using a similar analysis as presented above for Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY E GLADE whose telephone number is (703)756-1502. The examiner can normally be reached 4-5-9 7:30-16:30.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/ZACHARY E. F. GLADE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights