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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in regards to application # 19/149,744 that was filed on 08/12/2025. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and are under examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (US 5,497,962) view of Terry et al. (US 2020/0104175) in further view of Van Beest et al (US 2017/0320593).
Regarding Claim 1, Wood discloses a platform with an arrangement of circular configuration for receiving an airship (10, Fig. 1), comprising: a mooring mast (24, Fig. 1) centered on a platform (Fig. 1).
Wood is silent, but Terry teaches a mast with a light source (18, Fig. 1, para. [0080]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mooring mast disclosed in Wood with the light source/warning light taught in Terry with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides a warning to flying aircraft/airships not to strike the elevated structure of the mast.
Modified Wood is silent, but Van Beest teaches a platform with light beacon arrangement of circular configuration defining a secured zone, the zone comprising a first take-off zone of circular configuration (1b, Fig. 1, para. [0037]) delimited by a first plurality of guide lights (illumination elements 3 on the circle of 1b Fig. 1), arranged on a first circle centered on the platform, the first circle having a predetermined radius (Fig. 1); a second safety zone of annular configuration (1d, Fig. 1, para. [0037]-[0039]) and delimited by the guide lights (illumination elements 3 on the circle of 1b Fig. 1) and a second plurality of perimeter lights arranged on a second circle, the second circle having a predetermined radial distance(Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the platform disclosed in the modified Wood with the platform with first take-off zone, the second safety zone, and the plurality of lights as taught in Van Beest with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides a visibility through the lighting; and provides safety and landing through the first take-off zone and a second safety zone.
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Wood is silent, but Van Beest teaches a platform with light beacon arrangement of circular configuration wherein the guide lights are regularly angularly spaced around the mooring mast, each of the guide lights being capable of emitting two distinct colors (Van Beest, the guide lights 3s, in Fig. 1 are angularly and regularly spaced around mooring mast 24, Fig. 1 of Wood).
Regarding Claim 3, the method claim 3 is rejected under the same rational as the rejection of the apparatus claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Wood is silent, but Van Beest teaches a platform with light beacon arrangement of circular configuration wherein the guide lights are regularly angularly spaced around the mooring mast(Van Beest, the guide lights 3s, in Fig. 1 are angularly and regularly spaced around mooring mast 24, Fig. 1 of Wood), each of the guide lights being capable of emitting two distinct colors (para. [0030], “…the system 2 may comprise one illumination element, e.g. comprising a light source of which the color and/or intensity of emitted thereby can be changed…”) the method further comprising switching on at least one guide lightpara. [0064], “…said local condition may relate to a wind direction and/or a wind speed or force. Preferably, the system 2 may be arranged to control one or multiple of the illumination elements 3 at least partly based on input provided by said one or multiple sensors…”, i.e., wind direction information is obviously used to safely guiding the airship, by visibly communicating to the pilot, para. [0032]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to switch the guide lights disclosed in the modified Wood based on wind direction data and guide the wind direction data to guide the airship as taught in Van Beest with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides a safe and aerodynamically advantageous landing of the airship.
Regarding Claim 5, broadly interpreted, Modified Wood is silent, but Van Beest teaches a platform with light beacon arrangement of circular configuration further comprising switching on two additional guide lights and using the at least one guide light and the two additional guide lights to guide the airship toward the mooring mast along a direction relative to the wind (para. [0064], “…said local condition may relate to a wind direction and/or a wind speed or force. Preferably, the system 2 may be arranged to control one or multiple of the illumination elements 3 at least partly based on input provided by said one or multiple sensors…”, i.e., wind direction information is obviously used to safely guiding the airship by visibly communicating to the pilot, para. [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Wood is silent, but Van Beest teaches a platform with light beacon arrangement of circular configuration wherein the two additional guide lights selected from among the plurality of guide lights using wind strength data (para. [0032], “…within an illumination state, at least a part of the respective illumination element(s) 3 at least partly illuminating the floor surface 1a or supporting deck 1a of the helipad 1 and radiating a respective visual appearance 41, 42 may alternatively display a substantially and/or partly dynamic image, e.g. an image of which at least a part flashes, flickers, blinks or changes color, preferably relatively rapidly, for instance to communicate a warning signal and/or to draw attention to a certain part of the illumination system, especially a part displaying relatively important information, such as for instance information regarding a recently changed condition of, at and/or near the helipad 1. For example, when a wind direction or wind force changed relatively much and/or when the overall conditions rapidly changed from relatively safe to harsh conditions, an image or image portion displaying said new conditions….”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the additional guide lights in the modified Wood based on wind strength data to use more lighting elements or using flashes, flickers, blinks or changes color, preferably relatively rapidly to communicate a warning signal and/or to draw attention to a certain part of the illumination system as taught in Van Beest with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides signal strength and visually communicates a changing hazardous conditions with brighter lighting around the platform to the airship.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Thaden (US 1,748,500) discloses a mooring station for airships having a central mast interiorly rigidly braced and without external guy wires, masthead landing wire and coupling apparatus adapted to 15swn = around the axis of the mast, a vertical restraining guide held a fixed distance from the axis of the mast and cooperating with the masthead gear and adapted to swing around the outside of the tower with horizontal strain-resisting connections there-with, and a carriage to hold said coupling apparatus against the guide in all positions of elevation. Thaden discloses a claimed structures except explicitly disclosing the mooring mast that has a light source as well as the claimed first take-off zone and the second safety zone as recited in claims 1 and 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights