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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed 23rd February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11 and 13 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 21st October 2025.
Claim Amendments
The requirement under rule 1.121 (Manner of making amendments in application) has been waived for the most recent claim set but the rules should be followed in future. Accordingly current claim 12 is changed to Cancelled and subject matter of current claim 12 is added as a New claim 13.
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of "canceled" or "not entered" may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of "currently amended," and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of "currently amended," or "withdrawn" if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as "withdrawn— currently amended."
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of "original," "withdrawn" or "previously presented" will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of "withdrawn" or "previously presented." Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of "new" and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of "canceled" or "not entered."
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as "canceled" will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a "new" claim with a new claim number.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 13, “…propeller providing…” should read “…propeller provides…”.
In claim 1 line 17, “…thrust only while…” should read “…thrust to the aircraft while…”.
In claim 12 line 1, “…the one or more pods of…” should read “…the at least one or more of…” for the purpose of consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the battery in the at least one pod is electrically connected in parallel with the at least one main electric motor such that power from the battery in the at least one pod and power from the at least one main electric motor are capable of being simultaneously provided to a propulsion system of the aircraft…” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as how the power/electrical charge from the battery and the power/thrust from the at least one main electric motor are being compared.
Claims not addressed above are rejected due to their dependency on rejected base claim.
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(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates et al. (US 2014/0339371) in view of Vander Lind et al. (US 2018/0339781).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Yates et al. ‘371 teaches (figure 5) an aircraft/mothership (10 ) (Para 0050), comprising:
a frame (mothership is built in a frame);
at least one main electric motor mounted permanently to the frame, the at least one main electric motor powering a first propeller (clearly shown in the figure below), the at least one main electric motor providing motive power for levitation and translation of the aircraft (Para 0033, 0040; mothership is an electric aircraft with electric motor control system and comprises at least one permanent electrically-powered propulsion unit which rotates propeller for thrust);
at least one pod/UAV pack (50), the at least one pod/UAV pack (50) comprising a battery, a second electric motor, a fairing (clearly shown in the figure below) formed along a length of the at least one pod/UAV pack (50) and the second propeller, the second propeller oriented to provide thrust in a same direction as the first propeller, the at least one pod/UAV pack (50) mounted via the fairing directly to an undersurface of a wing of the aircraft/mothership (10), the fairing enabled to detach and jettison the at least one pod (Para 0055-0056); and
control circuitry/aircraft control software (ACS) (Para 0045);
wherein the battery in the at least one pod/UAV pack (50) provides power to the second electric motor, wherein when the second electric motor operates the second propeller provides motive power for levitation and translation of the aircraft, the at least one pod/UAV pack (50) being configured to provide supplemental thrust to the aircraft while attached to the frame (Para 0054, 0063);
and wherein the battery in the at least one pod/UAV pack (50) is electrically connected with the at least one main electric motor such that the power from the battery in the at least one pod/UAV pack(50) and power from the at least one main electric motor are capable of being simultaneously provided to a propulsion system of the aircraft (Para 0060, 0063; pod/UAV pack provide electricity directly to the propulsion system; pod/UAV pack provide thrust for the mothership using its propulsion system thus both the pod/UAV pack and at least one main electric motor are capable of powering the mothership simultaneously; pod/UAV pack and at least one main electric motor together form a propulsion system of the aircraft/mothership);
and the control circuitry/ACS is operable to manage the at least one main electric motor and the second electric motor and to jettison the at least one pod via manipulation of a physical/mechanical interface when it is detected by the control circuitry/ACS that the battery is depleted of a charge (Para 0045),
PNG
media_image1.png
186
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the battery is electrically connected in parallel with the at least one main electric motor.
Vander Lind et al. ‘781 teaches (figure 5) a hybrid battery system wherein batteries (500, 502) and motor (504) are in parallel (Para 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yates et al. ‘371 to incorporate the teachings of Vander Lind et al. ‘781 to configure the aircraft wherein the battery is electrically connected in parallel with the at least one main electric motor.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would power the at least one main electric motor.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yates et al. ‘371 teaches (figure 5) the aircraft wherein the aircraft is a fixed-wing aircraft (clearly seen in figure 5).
Claims 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates et al. (US 2014/0339371) and Vander Lind et al. (US 2018/0339781) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Higgins (US 3,185,408).
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Yates et al. ‘371 teaches (figure 5) the aircraft of claim 1 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the second propeller folds into a volume having an axis co-linear with an axis of the second electric motor when not in use and the second propeller folds behind and away from the at least on pod; and
wherein the second propeller is enabled to vary pitch.
However, Higgins ‘408 teaches (figure 2) an airplane (10) comprising rotors (22, 23) which retracts or folds behind and away from the auxiliary propulsion system (20) when the aerodynamic drag on the rotors exceeds the thrust provided by the rotors, wherein the axis of the folded volume is co-linear with an axis of the auxiliary propulsion system (20) (clearly seen in figure 2), and wherein pitch of the rotors (22, 23) can be uniformly and simultaneously adjusted (Col. 2 Lines 42-45; Col. 3 Lines 30-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Yates et al. ‘371 to incorporate the teachings of Higgins ‘408 to configure the aircraft wherein the second propeller folds into a volume having an axis co-linear with an axis of the second electric motor when not in use and the second propeller folds behind and away from the at least on pod; and
wherein the second propeller is enabled to vary pitch.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance aerodynamic properties during flight.
Claims 6-7, 9-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates et al. (US 2014/0339371) and Vander Lind et al. (US 2018/0339781) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Vondrell et al. (US 2018/0065741).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yates et al. ‘371 teaches (figure 5) the aircraft wherein the at least one of the at least one pod/UAV pack (50) mounted beneath the wings is manageable through the control circuitry/ACS, individually, to start and stop the second electric motor, and stop the at least one main electric motor, and to jettison the at least one of the at least one pod/UAV pack (50) (Para 0045; the at least on pod/UAV pack is connected to and is managed by the control circuitry/ACS; at least main electric motor and the second electric motor receives power from the pods, and thus the at least main electric motor and the second electric motor can be stopped and started via. control circuitry/ACS; pods can be used either separately or together by the mothership i.e., start and stop the second electric motors together or separately; pods provide thrust for mothership using its own propulsion system i.e., at least one main electric motor is stopped)),
but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the at least one of the at least one pod manageable through the control circuitry, individually, to feather the first propeller, and fold the second propellers.
However, Vondrell et al. ‘741 teaches (figures 1-10) an aircraft (10) with unducted electric fan (72) comprising foldable propeller/blade (76) configured to be feathered such that a pitch a pitch angle of blades is parallel to an airflow direction, and wherein motors and propellers of each PT fans (48, 50, 52, 54) are stopped and folded, as needed, based on flight operations (Para 0063; aircraft control feathers and folds propeller blades).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Yates et al. ‘371 to incorporate the teachings of Vondrell et al. ‘741 to configure the aircraft wherein the at least one of the at least one pod manageable through the control circuitry, individually, feather the first propeller, and fold the second propellers.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance aerodynamic properties during flight.
Regarding claim 7, modified Yates et al. ‘371 teaches (figure 5) the aircraft wherein the at least one of the at least one pod further comprises a parachute controllable to deploy following the jettisoning of the at least one of the at least one pod (Para 0044).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yates et al. ‘371 teaches (figure 5) the aircraft of claim 5 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the first propeller is enabled to be stopped and feathered with at least one of the at least one pod powering the second electric motor and the second propeller in operation.
However, Vondrell et al. ‘741 teaches (figures 1-10) an aircraft (10) with unducted electric fan (72) comprising foldable propeller/blade (76) configured to be feathered such that a pitch a pitch angle of blades is parallel to an airflow direction (Para 0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Yates ‘371 to incorporate the teachings of Vondrell et al. ‘741 to configure the aircraft wherein the first propeller is enabled to be stopped and feathered with at least one of the at least one pod powering the second electric motor and the second propeller in operation.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would reduce drag and enhance horizontal flights.
Regarding claim 10, modified Yates et al. ‘371 teaches (figure 5) the aircraft of claim 9 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the second propeller is folded prior to being jettisoned.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fold the second propeller prior to being jettisoned.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would reduce aerodynamic effects on the pod which enhances jettison process.
Regarding claim 11, modified Yates et al. ‘371 teaches (figure 5) the aircraft wherein the at least one pod is a plurality of pods, at least one or more of the plurality of pods mounted under each fixed wing (clearly seen in figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yates et al. ‘371 teaches (figure 5) the aircraft wherein the at least one or more of the plurality of pods mounted under each fixed wing is enabled to fly the aircraft alone, without aid of another pod or the at least one main electric motor (Para 0054).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 23rd February 2026, with respect to the amended claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection as explained in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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 J 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642