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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/13/2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
Claims 57-76 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-56 have been canceled. This communication is a non-final rejection in response to the “Amendments to the claims” and “Remarks” filed 2/13/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 57-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 57, the limitation “decoupling the transport module from the flight module being possible only when the conveying pod is in contact with ground” fails to comply with the enablement requirement because there is no discussion of how the transport module makes the decoupling only possible when the conveying pod is in contact with ground (for example, is there a physical coupling that needs a user on the ground to access, is there a lock that needs to be unlocked on the ground, is there a mechanism that prevents the coupling from being damaged while in the air, does the system block decoupling signals, etc.).
Claims 58-65 are dependent on claim 57 and do not correct the enablement issues of claim 57.
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.
Claims 59-60, 63-65, 72-73, 75-76 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Number 6,598,827 to Kusic in view of US Patent Number 9,045,226 to Piasecki.
Regarding claim 57, Kusic discloses a transport module for a vertical take-off and landing aircraft (vertical take-off aircraft 1) for transporting persons and/or loads (column 4, lines 50-62 disclose the system being used to load cargo or evacuating people), wherein the transport module comprises a conveying pod (main body 6) and a connection device (telescopic tube assembly 29) for connecting the conveying pod to a flight module (rotor assembly 2), the connection device comprising an elongate shaft, one end of which comprises a coupling device for coupling the transport module to the flight module and the other end of which is attached to the conveying pod (see Figure 6).
Kusic does not disclose the connection device releasably connecting the conveying pod to the flight module, the coupling device allows decoupling the transport module from the flight module, and decoupling the transport module from the flight module being possible only when the conveying pod is in contact with ground. However, these limitations are taught by Piasecki. Piasecki discloses a vertical take-off and landing air vehicle with a conveying pod (ground module 6) connected to a flight module (air module 2), column 19, lines 65-67 disclose “the air module 2 and ground module 6 are modular and may be detached and each may operate independently of the other”, and claim 8 discloses “said command that said control system is configured to receive and to implement is for said air module to detach from said ground module when said ground module is located on said ground”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kusic using the teachings from Piasecki in order to allow independent control of the air and ground modules.
Regarding claims 58 (dependent on claim 57), 73 (dependent on claim 72), Kusic discloses the transport module is configured for being lifted off the ground and being transported by the flight module. Column 3, lines 3-17 talks about the flight of vertical take-off aircraft 1 and lift being achieved by rotation of main rotor assembly 2.
Regarding claims 59 (dependent on claim 57), 75 (dependent on claim 72), Kusic discloses the transport module comprises one or more movable air guide devices (see variable pitch fins 34 and 35 in Figure 8 and column 4, lines 27-36).
Regarding claim 60 (dependent on claim 59), Kusic discloses one or more of the movable air guide devices are disposed in a lower region of the conveying pod (see Figure 8).
Kusic does not disclose the movable air guide devices being capable of being folded in close to the conveying pod or folded out far from the conveying pod. However, the examiner takes official notice that folding fins and vanes against a body is well-known in the art, and that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kusic to fold the fins against the body when not needed for storage. Since the applicant has not traversed the examiner’s official notice, the notice is taken to be admitted prior art (see MPEP 2144.03(C), second paragraph).
Regarding claims 63 (dependent on claim 57), 76 (dependent on claim 72), Kusic discloses the coupling device is implemented as a coupling counterpart of a hinged coupling between the flight module and the transport module. Column 4, lines 10-12 disclose “the universal joint 8 as being formed by means of transversely connected hinges 27 and 28”.
Regarding claim 64 (dependent on claim 57), Piasecki further teaches the coupling device comprises a damping device which is capable of absorbing shock of a landing impact. Column 15, lines 28-29 disclose “Damping may be provided to a passive dynamic CG control system to prevent unwanted oscillations”, and Figure 21 shows the CG control system being in the coupling between air module 2 and ground module 6. Damping the prevents unwanted oscillations would also dampen oscillations and movements from landing impact.
Regarding claim 65 (dependent on claim 57), Piasecki further teaches the conveying pod comprises a stand device. Wheels 72 comprises a stand device that supports the ground module on the ground.
Regarding claim 72, Kusic discloses a transport module for a vertical take-off and landing aircraft (vertical take-off aircraft 1) for transporting persons and/or loads (column 4, lines 50-62 disclose the system being used to load cargo or evacuating people), wherein the transport module comprises a conveying pod (main body 6) and a connection device (telescopic tube assembly 29) for connecting the conveying pod to a flight module (rotor assembly 2), the connection device comprising an elongate shaft, one end of which comprises a coupling device for coupling the transport module to the flight module and the other end of which is attached to the conveying pod (see Figure 6).
Kusic does not disclose the connection device releasably connecting the conveying pod to the flight module, the coupling device allows decoupling the transport module from the flight module, the conveying pod comprising a stand device. However, these limitations are taught by Piasecki. Piasecki discloses a vertical take-off and landing air vehicle with a conveying pod (ground module 6) connected to a flight module (air module 2), column 19, lines 65-67 disclose “the air module 2 and ground module 6 are modular and may be detached and each may operate independently of the other”, and wheels 72 comprises a stand device that supports the ground module on the ground. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kusic using the teachings from Piasecki in order to allow independent control of the air and ground modules.
Claims 61-62, 66-71 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kusic in view of Piasecki, in further view of US Patent Number 3,135,481 to Sudrow.
Regarding claims 61 (dependent on claim 57), 62 (dependent on claim 61), 68 (dependent on claim 66), Kusic does not disclose the conveying pod is shaped like a droplet, wherein the conveying pod comprises a lower, rounded region tapering into an upper, narrow region in a direction of the elongate shaft. However, these limitations are taught by Sudrow. Sudrow discloses a vertical take-off and landing aircraft with a flight module 10 and an attached passenger cabin 18, and Figures 1, 3, and 5 show passenger cabin 18 having a droplet shape with a lower rounded region tapering into an upper narrow region adjacent rotor unit 10. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kusic and Piasecki using the teachings from Sudrow as a substitution of known cabin shapes for VTOL aircraft.
Regarding claim 66 , Kusic discloses transport module for a vertical take-off and landing aircraft (vertical take-off aircraft 1) for transporting persons and/or loads (column 4, lines 50-62 disclose the system being used to load cargo or evacuating people), wherein the transport module comprises a conveying pod (main body 6) and a connection device (telescopic tube assembly 29) for connecting the conveying pod to a flight module (rotor assembly 2), the connection device comprising an elongate shaft, one end of which comprises a coupling device for coupling and decoupling the transport module to and from the flight module and the other end of which is attached to the conveying pod (see Figure 6).
Kusic does not disclose the connection device releasably connecting the conveying pod to the flight module, the coupling device allows decoupling the transport module from the flight module. However, these limitations are taught by Piasecki. Piasecki discloses a vertical take-off and landing air vehicle with a conveying pod (ground module 6) connected to a flight module (air module 2), column 19, lines 65-67 disclose “the air module 2 and ground module 6 are modular and may be detached and each may operate independently of the other”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kusic using the teachings from Piasecki in order to allow independent control of the air and ground modules
Kusic does not disclose the conveying pod is shaped like a droplet. However, these limitations are taught by Sudrow. Sudrow discloses a vertical take-off and landing aircraft with a flight module 10 and an attached passenger cabin 18, and Figures 1, 3, and 5 show passenger cabin 18 having a droplet shape with a lower rounded region tapering into an upper narrow region adjacent rotor unit 10. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kusic and Piasecki using the teachings from Sudrow as a substitution of known cabin shapes for VTOL aircraft.
Regarding claim 67 (dependent on claim 66), Kusic discloses the transport module is configured for being lifted off the ground and being transported by the flight module. Column 3, lines 3-17 talks about the flight of vertical take-off aircraft 1 and lift being achieved by rotation of main rotor assembly 2.
Regarding claim 69 (dependent on claim 66), Kusic discloses the transport module comprises one or more movable air guide devices (see variable pitch fins 34 and 35 in Figure 8 and column 4, lines 27-36).
Regarding claim 70 (dependent on claim 66), Kusic discloses the coupling device is implemented as a coupling counterpart of a hinged coupling between the flight module and the transport module. Column 4, lines 10-12 disclose “the universal joint 8 as being formed by means of transversely connected hinges 27 and 28”.
Regarding claim 71 (dependent on claim 66), Piasecki further teaches the conveying pod comprises a stand device. Wheels 72 comprises a stand device that supports the ground module on the ground.
Claim 74 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kusic in view of Piasecki, in further view of US Patent Application Number 2018/0002013 by McCullough
Regarding claim 74 (dependent on claim 72), Piasecki does not disclose the stand device is configured for being folded against the conveying pod when taking off. However, this limitation is taught by McCullough. McCullough discloses a VTOL aircraft with a lift module 112 and a conveying pod 170, and paragraph 65 discloses “pod assembly 170 includes retractable wheel assemblies 176 that enable ground transportation of pod assembly 170”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kusic and Piasecki using the teachings from McCullough in order to make the landing gear retractable to improve aerodynamics during flight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the current grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
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, Josh Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights