DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 and 22 remain pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 21 is canceled. Claim 23 remains canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 10-14, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giannini et al. (US 2017/0203839 A1) in view of Brody et al. (US 2016/0214710 A1), Karem (US 2014/0191088 A1), and Huyssen (WO 2018134756 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Giannini teaches vertical flight capable aircraft (Figs. 1a-1g, “aircraft” 100; “The present invention relates to the field of vertical takeoff and landing aircraft; more particularly, to a hybrid propulsion aircraft; even more particularly, to a hybrid propulsion aircraft having a tilt-wing configuration”, Para. [0003]) having a pivoting rotor (tilt-wing or tilt-rotor) (Figs. 1-3, “primary ducted fans” 108 and “canard ducted fans” 110, shown pivoting) mounted to a wing (Figs. 1-3, “wings”, 104 & 106, “primary ducted fans” 108 and “canard ducted fans” 110 shown mounted to a respective “wing” 104 and 106), the aircraft comprising: a fuselage (Fig. 1b, “fuselage”, 102) having a fuselage length (Fig. 1b, “length”), a fuel tank (Fig. 1f, “fuel tanks”, 120; specifically, “fuel tank” 120 below “exhaust nozzle” 114), and a payload bay (Fig. 1f, “payload bay”, 124); and a fuselage-mounted engine (Figs. 1f-1g, “engine”, 112, shown mounted in the rear of the fuselage; further discussed: “The engine 112 may be mounted to, for example, a first bulkhead 136”, Para. [0074]) configured to power the pivoting rotor (As described: “a distributed electric propulsion system, which generates the thrust necessary for flight using a plurality of ducted fans (e.g., primary ducted fans 108 and canard ducted fans 110)”, Para. [0066]; “The distributed electric propulsion system generally comprises an engine 112, a gearbox 132, one or more primary generators 116, and a plurality of ducted fans, each of said plurality of ducted fans being driven by an electric motor… As illustrated, the engine 112 may be configured to drive a gearbox 132. Suitable engines 112 include, for example, turbo shaft and turbine engines.”, Para. [0074]; “the engine 112 and the primary generators 116 may be directly coupled to the gearbox 132… The gearbox 132, in turn, can be coupled with a plurality of generators, including one or more primary generators 116… The primary generators 116 provide AC power to the plurality of fan motors. Each ducted fan employs a thrust assembly 500 having a fan motor 506, which may vary in size and power rating depending on its position on the hybrid propulsion aircraft 100 and/or required thrust.”, Paras. [0075]-[0077]; therefore, the engine 112 is configured to drive the ducted fan motors 506 through the gearbox 132 and generators 116); wherein the fuel tank is positioned aft of the payload bay (Fig. 1f shows one of the “fuel tanks” 120 aft “payload bay” 124, or closer to the stern of the aircraft than the “payload bay” 124; specifically, “fuel tank” 120 below “exhaust nozzle” 114); wherein during forward flight, the payload bay is (a) at least partially disposed vertically below a portion of the wing that supports the pivoting rotor, (See paras. [0081]-[0082], specifically: “The components of the hybrid propulsion aircraft 100 are preferably positioned such that the hybrid propulsion aircraft's 100 center of gravity remains substantially constant, whether the wings are level (horizontal flight position) or up (vertical flight position)”, para. [0081], note components including the “payload bay”; Fig. 1f shows “payload bay” 124 positioned below “wings” 104 & 106 supporting “primary ducted fans” 108 and “canard ducted fans” 110; see location where “124” arrow points, below “fuel tanks” 120; “Moreover, the payload bay 124 may be positioned near the hybrid propulsion aircraft's 100 center of gravity and split (by volume) into two bays along centerline keel. In certain aspects, the payload bay 124 may house the flight termination system and flight instrumentation.”, Para. [0082]; note, Fig. 1f further shows the centerline keel is at least partially disposed vertically below “wings” 104 & 106) and (b) within the fuselage length of the aircraft's center of gravity (See paras. [0081]-[0082], specifically: “The components of the hybrid propulsion aircraft 100 are preferably positioned such that the hybrid propulsion aircraft's 100 center of gravity remains substantially constant, whether the wings are level (horizontal flight position) or up (vertical flight position)”, para. [0081], note components including the “payload bay”; Fig. 1f shows “payload bay” 124 positioned near “COG” or center of gravity), and wherein during forward flight, the payload bay is dimensioned such that deployment of a payload from the payload bay results in a shift in position of the aircraft's center of gravity of less than 4% of the fuselage length (“The components of the hybrid propulsion aircraft 100 are preferably positioned such that the hybrid propulsion aircraft's 100 center of gravity remains substantially constant, whether the wings are level (horizontal flight position) or up (vertical flight position), and whether the payload bay 124 and/or fuel tanks 120 are empty or full”, para. [0081]; thus center of gravity changes remain substantially constant or less than 4%, during horizontal or forward flight, whether the payload is empty or full; additionally, “payload bay” 124 shown dimensioned as described in Fig. 1f).
Giannini does not expressly disclose the payload bay positioned within about 10% of the fuselage length of the aircraft's center of gravity.
However, 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 aircraft of Giannini to further include the payload bay positioned within about 10% of the fuselage length of the aircraft's center of gravity, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such as the payload shown near the center of gravity in Fig. 1f and discussed in para. [0082], discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, “the law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that positioning the payload near the center of gravity would reduce fluctuations in the center of gravity due to loading or deploying the payload.
Giannini does not expressly disclose an empennage, the fuselage-mounted engine positioned forward of the empennage; wherein the empennage includes at least one stabilizing surface attached to a tail.
However, in an analogous VTOL aircraft art, Brody teaches an empennage (Figs. 1-9, empennage shown at “rearward portion” 16), the fuselage-mounted engine (Figs. 15, “first engine” 50 and “second engine” 52 shown fuselage-mounted) positioned forward of the empennage (Fig. 15 shows both “first engine” 50 and “second engine” 52 positioned forward of empennage at “rearward portion” 16); wherein the empennage includes at least one stabilizing surface attached to a tail (Figs. 1-7 show the tail comprises both a vertical stabilizer and horizontal stabilizers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Giannini to further include an empennage, the fuselage-mounted engine positioned forward of the empennage; wherein the empennage includes at least one stabilizing surface attached to a tail, as taught by Brody, with a reasonable expectation for success to incorporate stabilizing surfaces which stabilize the flight dynamics of yaw and pitch for the aircraft, as well as the advantage of providing a tail with space for additional control surfaces for horizontal flight.
Giannini as modified by Brody does not expressly disclose wherein the pivoting rotor is open as opposed to a ducted fan.
However, in an analogous aircraft art, Karem teaches wherein the pivoting rotor is open as opposed to a ducted fan (See Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the the aircraft of Giannini as modified by Brody wherein the pivoting rotor is open as opposed to a ducted fan, as taught by Karem, with a reasonable expectation for success, to reduce the weight of the aircraft and reduce drag when the rotors are pivoted to a high angle of attack.
Giannini does not expressly disclose further comprising a wing having an inner portion with a dihedral angle from +1° to +15°, and an outer portion having a negative dihedral/anhedral angle from -1° to -15°.
However, in an analogous aircraft art, Huyssen teaches further comprising a wing having an inner portion with a dihedral angle from +1° to +15°, and an outer portion having a negative dihedral/anhedral angle from -1° to -15° (“in which the wing is arranged in a shoulder wing position and the inner wing dihedral of each side of the wing is approximately 3° and the outer wing anhedral of each side of the wing is approximately 5°. An aircraft as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, in which the fuselage is configured such that in steady flight at cruising speeds it contributes to the total lift of the aircraft”, Claim 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft of Giannini further comprising a wing having an inner portion with a dihedral angle from +1° to +15°, and an outer portion having a negative dihedral/anhedral angle from -1° to -15°, as taught by Huyssen, with a reasonable expectation for success, since such a wing design “allows for the additional wing design variables of inner wing sweep and dihedral such that wing tip clearance is an independent design variable by which such compromise, like the tendency to Dutch roll, can be avoided”, as discussed by Huyssen, p. 12, and to provide “a wing optimised for flight efficiency”, as discussed by Huyssen, p. 3.
Regarding claim 7, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Further, Giannini teaches further comprising an avionics assembly (Fig. 1f, “avionics bay”, 122) positioned forward of the payload bay (Fig. 1f shows “avionics bay” positioned forward of the “payload bay” 124).
Regarding claim 8, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 7. Further, Giannini teaches where the avionics assembly is modular or removable (“avionics bay 122 may house the various navigation and flight control systems, which control the various aircraft components and functions”, Para. [0085]; thus modular, and the various systems which thew avionics bay 122 can house is described in detail in Para. [0085]).
Regarding claim 10, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Further, Giannini teaches further comprising a single engine coupled to the fuselage (Fig. 1f. “engine” 112 shown positioned within the fuselage).
Regarding claim 11, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising two or more engines coupled to a wing of the aircraft.
Further, Karem teaches further comprising two or more engines (Fig. 4, “first and second rotor systems” 410 & 450) coupled to a wing (Fig. 4, “wings”, 402; “rotors” 410 & 450 shown fixed to the “wings” 402) of the aircraft (Fig. 4, “tiltrotor aircraft”, 400).
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 aircraft of Giannini to further comprise two or more engines coupled to a wing of the aircraft, as further taught by Karem, for the purpose of increasing the thrust.
Regarding claim 12, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Further, Giannini teaches wherein the vertical flight capable aircraft is unmanned (“The hybrid propulsion aircraft 100 is generally described as being unmanned and fully autonomous (i.e., requiring no remote control pilot)”, Para. [0064]).
Regarding claim 13, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Further, Giannini teaches wherein the vertical flight capable aircraft comprises one or more of an electro-thermally heated portion of aircraft skin, a lighting-strike protection feature, an engine air particle separator, an abrasion-resistant surface coating, and a sensor suite, and is capable of flight in all-weather conditions (A “sensor suite” is described in Para. [0085]: “The avionics bay 122 may also house, for example, an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (“ISR”) surveillance payload, which may be used to collect data and/or monitor an area. For example, the hybrid propulsion aircraft 100 may be equipped with one or more cameras, audio devices, and other sensors, especially those requiring large amounts of electric power. Any video, or other data, collected by the hybrid propulsion aircraft 100 may be communicated to a ground control station in real time wirelessly. The hybrid propulsion aircraft 100 may be further equipped to store said video and data to the onboard data storage device”).
Regarding claim 14, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Further, Giannini teaches wherein the aircraft comprises one or more of an all-electric architecture, a higher-harmonic blade pitch control system, a vibration mitigation system, a rigid rotor system, a plurality of modular mission systems, a low- maintenance engine air particle separator, and an abrasion-resistant surface coating, and is capable of long periods of maintenance free operation (A “pitch control mechanism” is described in Para. [0094]: “The flight control system can use the pitch control mechanism 520 to change a fan blade pitch for a given ducted fan, thereby individually controlling the thrust of the ducted fans (and changing the torque and the current needed). To compensate for an increase or decrease in current draw, the fan blades would change pitch accordingly thus loading or unloading the motor as needed to maintain synchronicity”).
Regarding claim 22, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1.
Further, Karem teaches wherein the aircraft has only two rotors (Fig. 4, “first and second rotor systems” 410 & 450).
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 aircraft of Giannini wherein the aircraft has only two rotors, as further taught by Karem, to reduce the weight and redundancy of the aircraft. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, such as the amount of rotors to provide the necessary lift and thrust for a given aircraft, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 2, 4-6, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giannini et al. (US 2017/0203839 A1) in view of Brody et al. (US 2016/0214710 A1), Karem (US 2014/0191088 A1), and Huyssen (WO 2018134756 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hardy et al. (US 4697764).
Regarding claim 2, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the payload bay is configured to store a plurality of weapon types.
However, in an analogous aircraft art, Hardy teaches wherein the payload bay (Fig. 6A-6H, “bay”, 20) is configured to store a plurality of weapon types (Fig. 3, “fold fin missiles” 22 and “fix fin missiles” 26).
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 aircraft of Giannini wherein the payload bay is configured to store a plurality of weapon types, as taught by Hardy, to provide flexibility for the payload bay for a wider variety of users, such as military personnel.
Regarding claim 4, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the payload bay comprises bay doors positioned beneath the aircraft, and further comprises a gravity drop mechanism for release of payload through the bay doors.
However, Hardy teaches wherein the payload bay (Fig. 6A-6H, “bay”, 20) comprises bay doors (Fig. 3, “doors”, 28) positioned beneath the aircraft (Fig. 1, doors of “bay” 20 shown beneath aircraft 10), and further comprises a gravity drop mechanism (Fig. 3, “launcher”, 24) for release of payload through the bay doors (“FIG. 4 shows an AIM-7 sparrow missile 34 released from an adapter 36 attached to the linkage launcher 24”, Col. 2, Lines 52-53).
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 aircraft of Giannini wherein the payload bay comprises bay doors positioned beneath the aircraft, and further comprises a gravity drop mechanism for release of payload through the bay doors, as taught by Hardy, to provide flexibility for the payload bay for a wider variety of users, such as military personnel.
Regarding claim 5, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising a weapon launcher coupled to a side of the fuselage.
However, Hardy teaches further comprising further comprising a weapon launcher coupled to a side of the fuselage (Figs. 1-3 show “launcher” 24 shown coupled to an underside or a bottom side of the fuselage of aircraft 10).
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 aircraft of Giannini further comprising a weapon launcher coupled to a side of the fuselage, as taught by Hardy, to provide flexibility for the payload bay for a wider variety of users, such as military personnel.
Regarding claim 6, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising a weapon launcher configured to launch a weapon from a door of the aircraft.
However, Hardy teaches further comprising a weapon launcher (Fig. 3, “launcher”, 24) configured to launch a weapon (Fig. 3, “fold fin missiles” 22 and “fix fin missiles” 26) from a door (Fig. 3, “doors”, 28) of the aircraft (Fig. 1, 10).
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 aircraft of Giannini further comprising a weapon launcher configured to launch a weapon from a door of the aircraft, as taught by Hardy, to provide flexibility for the payload bay for a wider variety of users, such as military personnel.
Regarding claim 15, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the payload bay comprises payload bay doors positioned beneath the aircraft, and further comprises a delivery mechanism configured to extend payload below and exterior to the aircraft for delivery fore or aft of the aircraft.
However, Hardy teaches wherein the payload bay (Fig. 6A-6H, “bay”, 20) comprises payload bay doors (Figs. 2-6H, “doors”, 28) positioned beneath the aircraft (Fig. 1, doors of “bay” 20 shown beneath aircraft 10), and further comprises a delivery mechanism (Figs. 2-3, “launcher”, 24) configured to extend payload below and exterior to the aircraft (Fig. 2 shows “launcher” 24 extended below and exterior) for delivery fore or aft of the aircraft (delivered fore by launching of the missiles forward from outside the payload bay; note this is an intended use recitation).
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 aircraft of Giannini wherein the payload bay comprises payload bay doors positioned beneath the aircraft, and further comprises a delivery mechanism configured to extend payload below and exterior to the aircraft for delivery fore or aft of the aircraft, as taught by Hardy, to provide flexibility for the payload bay for a wider variety of users, such as military personnel.
Regarding claim 16, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising a payload bay door positioned to provide access to the payload bay, and further comprising a removable reinforcing structure coupled to at least a portion of the payload bay door.
However, Hardy teaches further comprising a payload bay door (Figs. 2-6H, “doors”, 28) positioned to provide access to the payload bay (Fig. 6A-6H, “bay”, 20) to provide access to the payload bay (Fig. 1, doors of “bay” 20 shown beneath aircraft 10 and thus accessible from below), and further comprising a removable reinforcing structure (Figs. 4 and 7-8; “The launcher 24 is easily removable and adjustable laterally and longitudinally as may be required for weapons of different geometries”, Col. 2, Lines 25-27) coupled to at least a portion of the payload bay door (Figs. 2-3 and 8 show “launcher” 24 coupled to at least a portion of “doors” 28; “FIG. 8 illustrates the use of a flat weapons bay cover 48 with opening 49 for quick connect to the open doors 28 and the side of the housing 21 for receiving a launch rail 50 therethrough. The rail 50 is connected to an adapter 52 which is attached to the linkage launcher 24”, Col. 3, Lines 11-15).
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 aircraft of Giannini further comprising a payload bay door positioned to provide access to the payload bay, and further comprising a removable reinforcing structure coupled to at least a portion of the payload bay door, as taught by Hardy, to provide access to the payload for changing the type of weapons/missiles stored in the payload, as needed.
Regarding claim 17, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising a missile launch system at least partially positioned within the payload bay.
However, Hardy teaches further comprising a missile launch system at least partially positioned within the payload bay (Figs. 2-6J shows a missile launch system in the payload bay 20).
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 aircraft of Giannini further comprising a missile launch system at least partially positioned within the payload bay, as taught by Hardy, to provide flexibility for the payload bay for a wider variety of users, such as military personnel.
Regarding claim 18, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising a payload release system.
However, Hardy teaches further comprising a payload release system (Figs. 2-3 show the payload in the form of missiles being released from the bay 20).
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 aircraft of Giannini further comprising a payload release system, as taught by Hardy, to be able to launch or release the payload or missiles.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giannini et al. (US 2017/0203839 A1) in view of Brody et al. (US 2016/0214710 A1), Karem (US 2014/0191088 A1), and Huyssen (WO 2018134756 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Udstad (US 991,115).
Regarding claim 3, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Further, Giannini teaches wherein the landing gear is retractable into the fuselage (Fig. 1f shows “landing gear” 118 as retractable in the cross section; “The landing gear 118 may be retractable with a door, thereby reducing drag during horizontal flight”, para. [0069]).
Giannini does not expressly disclose further comprising a quad landing gear.
However, in an analogous aircraft art, Udstad teaches further comprising a quad landing gear (Fig. 4, “front wheels” 90 & “rear wheels” 91; four landing wheels in total shown).
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 aircraft of Giannini further comprising a quad landing gear, as taught by Udstad, for the purpose of increasing the stability of the aircraft on the ground, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device, such as the landing gears, involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giannini et al. (US 2017/0203839 A1) in view of Brody et al. (US 2016/0214710 A1), Karem (US 2014/0191088 A1), and Huyssen (WO 2018134756 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ouellette et al. (US 2005/0151004 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose further comprising an infrared suppressor positioned aft of the payload bay.
However, in an analogous aircraft art, Ouellette teaches further comprising an infrared suppressor positioned aft of the payload bay (“wherein the cruise propulsion system includes a high efficiency, high bypass turbofan adapted to cool an exhaust from the cruise propulsion system to reduce infrared detection”, Claim 16; “wherein the fuselage includes a lower aft deck adapted to reduce infrared detection”, Claim 17; and additionally discussed in detail in Para. [0073]).
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 aircraft of Giannini further comprising an infrared suppressor positioned aft of the payload bay, as taught by Ouellette, to avoid detection when flying over hostile territory by infrared and reduce the effectiveness of infrared heat seeking missiles directed at the aircraft.
Claims 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giannini et al. (US 2017/0203839 A1) in view of Brody et al. (US 2016/0214710 A1), Karem (US 2014/0191088 A1), and Huyssen (WO 2018134756 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Henderson (US 2002/0074454 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Giannini as modified teaches the aircraft of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose further comprising a UAV release system positioned within the payload bay.
However, in an analogous aircraft art, Henderson teaches further comprising a UAV release system positioned within the payload bay (Fig. 1 shows “unmanned aircraft” 10 with “payload cartridge bay” 12 positioned within “unloading bay” 32).
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 aircraft of Giannini further comprising a UAV release system positioned within the payload bay, as taught by Henderson, to provide a means of supplying fuel and cargo to an unmanned aircraft in-flight, as opposed to only on the ground, landed.
Regarding claim 20, Giannini as modified, further modified by Henderson teaches the aircraft of claim 19 but does not expressly disclose wherein the UAV release system comprises a common launch tube.
However, Henderson further teaches wherein the UAV release system (Figs. 5-6, “Launching Step” 120 and 150 respectively, comprises a common launch tube (Fig. 4a shows a weapon in the form of a launch-able tube, or a missile).
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 aircraft of Giannini wherein the UAV release system comprises a common launch tube, as further taught by Henderson, to provide a means of transferring weapons between two aircrafts in flight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/25/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because
the new ground of rejection for the added limitations of claim 1 relies upon Huyssen (WO 2018134756 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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, Tien Q Dinh can be reached on (571)272-6899. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights