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 .
Application Status
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 20-27, and 31-50 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the seventh action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, information disclosure statements (IDS) have been filed on 5/11/2021, 8/16/2021, 12/30/2021, 6/15/2022, 11/10/2022, 6/2/2023, 8/9/2023,8/28/2023, 10/10/2023, 10/24/2023, 12/19/2023, 12/26/2023, 1/19/2024, 2/13/2024, 3/19/2024, 10/8/2024, 1/8/2025, 3/31/2025, 5/14/2025, 6/11/2025, 9/11/2025, 3/9/2026, 3/27/2026, 4/24/2026 and have been reviewed by the Examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/9/2026 has been entered.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 47, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villa et al. (US #12,006,033) in view of Baity et al. (PGPub #2019/0329882), Moore et al. (PGPub #2019/0135425), and Iqbal et al. (PGPub #2021/0206487).
Regarding claim 1, Villa teaches an aircraft configured for vertical takeoff and landing, the aircraft comprising: a fuselage (202); a pair of wings (204, and 206) coupled to opposite sides of the fuselage (202, 204, and 206 as seen in figure 2); a plurality of lift fan assemblies (132, 134, 136, and 138) coupled to the pair of wings (132, 134, 136, 138, 204, and 206 as seen in figure 2), wherein the plurality of lift fan assemblies are configured to create a vertical lift (132, 134, 136, and 138 as seen in figure 2); a plurality of tilting fan assemblies (118, 124, 128, and 130) configured to move between a vertical lift position (118, 124, 128, and 130 as seen in figure 4) and a forward flight position (118, 124, 128, and 130 as seen in figure 3), wherein a number of tilting fan assemblies is equal to a number of lift fan assemblies (118, 124, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136, and 138); one or more battery units (104, and 108), wherein the one or more battery units include a plurality of battery cells (Column 4, lines 17-27, and Column 12, lines 6-12) configured to power the plurality of tilting fan assemblies and the plurality of lift fan assemblies (Column 4, lines 17-27); a plurality of support structures (208, 210, 212, and 214) coupled to the pair of wings (204, 206, 208, 210, 212, and 214), wherein each lift fan assembly among the plurality of lift fan assemblies is non-tiltably mounted to a top surface of a first end of each support structure (132, 134, 136, 138, 208, 210, 212, and 214 as seen in figure 2) to operate above the plurality of support structures extending substantially parallel to each other (132, 134, 136, 138, 208, 210, 212, and 214 as seen in figure 2, as can be seen the fixed fans are mounted to the support structure at a fixed angle and the support structure are parallel with each other), and each tilting fan assembly among the plurality of tilting fan assemblies is mounted to a second end of each support structure via a tilting mechanism (118, 124, 128, 130, 208, 210, 212, and 214 as seen in figures 3, and 4) forming a plurality of structures each including a support structure (208, 210, 212, and 214 as seen in figures 2, and 9) with a lift fan assembly at one end (132, 134, 136, and 138 as seen in figure 2) and a tilting fan assembly at opposite end (118, 124, 128, and 130 as seen in figure 2), wherein the plurality of lift fan assemblies are provided at a trailing edge of the pair of wings (132, 134, 136, 138, 204, and 206 as seen in figure 2) and the plurality of tilting fan assemblies are provided at a leading edge of the pair of wings (118, 124, 128, 130, 204, and 206 as seen in figure 2); and a control system (122) configurable to control the plurality of tilting fan assemblies between the vertical lift position and the forward flight position (Column 3, lines 8-15). But does not explicitly teach that the one or more battery units are provided in the fuselage; wherein the adjacent lift fan assemblies on adjacent support structures on each wing have opposite angles of attack; the support structures are identical, and that the plurality of identical structures are interchangeably mounted to the pair of wings.
However, Baity does teach that the support structures are identical (The booms as seen in figure 33, and 18 as seen in figure 37), and that the plurality of identical structures are interchangeably mounted to the pair of wings (12, 18, and 180 as seen in figure 37, and Paragraph 88, this teaches that the boom systems are modular, which inherently makes them interchangeable with the other modular booms of the system). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the support structures be identical structures because Villa and Baity are both tilt rotor aircraft with the rotors mounted at the ends of booms. The motivation for having the support structures be identical structures is that it helps to simplify the manufacturing process of the aircraft and reduces the cost of production. But does not teach that the one or more battery units are provided in the fuselage; and wherein the adjacent lift fan assemblies on adjacent support structures on each wing have opposite angles of attack.
However, Moore does teach that the one or more battery units are provided in the fuselage (Paragraph 38, this teaches that the batteries can be placed within the fuselage as an alternative to being placed in the wings). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the batteries located in the fuselage because Villa and Moore are both battery powered tilt rotor VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having the batteries located in the fuselage is that it helps to place more of the weight of the aircraft near the center of gravity which can help to improve the stability of the aircraft. But Moore does not teach that the adjacent lift fan assemblies on adjacent support structures on each wing have opposite angles of attack.
However, Iqbal does teach that the adjacent lift fan assemblies on adjacent support structures on each wing have opposite angles of attack (30 as seen in figure 3, this teaches that the rear fans at the aft end of the support structures behind the wing can counter rotate relative to the adjacent lift rotors on the same wing, and that the rotors counter rotating will result in the rotors having the opposite angle of attack with the air relative to the adjacent rotors. As was discussed in the previous interview conducted on 1/29/2026, the only explicit support from the application for how the opposite angels of attack is achieved is through the counter rotating of adjacent rotors, the examiner is not convinced that there is sufficient support for the opposite canting of the rotors.). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adjacent lift fans have opposite angles of attack because Villa and Iqbal are both tilt rotor aircraft with fans mounted to the aft end of support structures. The motivation for having the adjacent lift fans have opposite angles of attack is that it helps to provide additional stability to the aircraft to help prevent undesired roll.
Regarding claim 3, Villa as modified by Baity, Moore, and Iqbal teaches the aircraft of claim 1 further comprising: a tailplane in form of a V- tail (216 of Villa) coupled to a rear end of the fuselage (202, and 216 as seen in figure 2 of Villa).
Regarding claim 4, Villa as modified by Baity, Moore, and Iqbal teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the pair of wings are coupled to the fuselage in a high-wing configuration (202, 204, and 206 as seen in figure 2 of Villa).
Regarding claim 5, Villa as modified by Baity, Moore, and Iqbal teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the plurality of lift fan assemblies are mounted in a fixed position relative to the pair of wings to move the aircraft in a vertical direction (132, 134, 136, 138, 204, and 206 as seen in figures 3, and 4 of Villa).
Regarding claim 6, Villa as modified by Baity, Moore, and Iqbal teaches the aircraft of claim 5, wherein one or more of the plurality of lift fan assemblies are configurable to stop operating during a forward flight of the aircraft (Column 3, line 66-Column 4, line 16 of Villa).
Regarding claim 7, Villa as modified by Baity, Moore, and Iqbal teaches the aircraft of claim 5, wherein each of the plurality of lift fan assemblies comprise an electric motor-driven rotor (Column 2, line 56-Column 3, line 7, and Column 4, lines 17-27 of Villa).
Regarding claim 8, Villa as modified by Baity, Moore, and Iqbal teaches the aircraft of claim 5, wherein the lift fans are attached to the rear of the wing (132, 134, 136, 138, 204, and 206 as seen in figure 2 of Villa), but Villa does not teach that at least three aft fan assemblies are coupled to each of the pair of wings.
However, Iqbal does teach at least three aft fan assemblies are coupled to each of the pair of wings (30 as seen in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have three fan assemblies at the aft of each wing because Villa and Iqbal are both VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having three fan assemblies at the aft of each wing is that it provides the aircraft with additional lift and thrust and distributes it over the wing which can reduce the stress on the wing.
Regarding claim 10, Villa as modified by Baity, Moore, and Iqbal teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not teach that at least three tilting fan assemblies are coupled to each of the pair of wings. However, Iqbal does teach that at least three tilting fan assemblies are coupled to each of the pair of wings (20 as seen in figures 1, and 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have three tilting fan assemblies on each wing because Villa and Iqbal are both VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having three tilting fan assemblies on each wing is that it provides the aircraft with additional lift and thrust and distributes it over the wing which can reduce the stress on the wing.
Regarding claim 11, Villa as modified by Baity, Moore, and Iqbal teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not teach that a combined number of lift fan assemblies and tilting fan assemblies is at least 12. However, Iqbal does teach that a combined number of lift fan assemblies and tilting fan assemblies is at least 12 (20, and 30 as seen in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 12 fan assemblies because Villa and Iqbal are both VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having 12 fan assemblies is that it provides the aircraft with additional lift and thrust and distributes it over the wing which can reduce the stress on the wing.
Regarding claim 12, Villa as modified by Baity, Moore, and Iqbal teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the plurality of support structures are coupled to an underside of the pair of wings (204, 206, 208, 210, 212, and 214 as seen in figure 2 of Villa).
Regarding claim 47, Villa as modified by Baity, Moore, and Iqbal teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein each tilting fan assembly among the plurality of tilting fan assemblies includes a hub to which blades connect (118, 124, 128, and 130 as seen in figure 2 of Villa), but Villa does not teach that hubs of all of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies are aligned with each other along a line parallel to a lateral axis of the aircraft.
However, Iqbal does teach that hubs of all of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies are aligned with each other along a line parallel to a lateral axis of the aircraft (20 as seen in figure 4). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the front tilting hubs all aligned along a line in the lateral direction because Villa and Iqbal are both VTOL aircraft with tilting front rotors. The motivation for having the front tilting hubs all aligned along a line in the lateral direction is that it can help to simplify the manufacturing process of the aircraft by reducing the number of distinct components that need to be manufactured.
Regarding claim 48, Villa as modified by Baity, Moore, and Iqbal teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein each lift fan assembly among the plurality of lift fan assemblies includes a hub to which blades connect (118, 124, 128, and 130 as seen in figure 2 of Villa), wherein hubs of the plurality of lift fan assemblies are aligned above the pair of wings (As can be seen in figure 5 the hubs extend above the wing, and Column 4, lines 28-36 of Villa, this teaches that the rotation axes of the tilt rotors, which extend through the center of the hubs, can be vertically aligned in a hover mode).
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villa et al. (US #12,006,033) as modified by Baity et al. (PGPub #2019/0329882), Moore et al. (PGPub #2019/0135425), and Iqbal et al. (PGPub #2021/0206487) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tai (US #6,457,672).
Regarding claim 20, Villa as modified by Baity, Moore, and Iqbal teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the control system is configurable to: receive a flight instruction (Column 10, lines 20-49); but Villa does not teach that the control system is configurable to: determine a position of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies; control one or more of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies between the vertical lift position and the forward flight position based on the flight instruction; and continuously monitor the position of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies in view of the flight instruction to ensure that: the plurality of tilting fan assemblies are in the forward flight position during a forward flight of the aircraft, and the plurality of tilting fan assemblies that are in the vertical lift position during liftoff, hover or landing of the aircraft.
However, Tai does teach that the control system is configurable to: determine a position of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies (Column 1, lines 36-54, and Column 2, lines 41-59, this teaches that the system constantly monitors the angular position of the fan assemblies and can order the actuator to move the fan assemblies if there current position differs too much from the desired position); control one or more of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies between the vertical lift position and the forward flight position based on the flight instruction (Column 1, lines 36-54, and Column 2, lines 41-59); and continuously monitor the position of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies in view of the flight instruction (Column 1, lines 36-54, and Column 2, lines 41-59, this teaches that the system constantly monitors the angular position of the fan assemblies and can order the actuator to move the fan assemblies if there current position differs too much from the desired position) to ensure that: the plurality of tilting fan assemblies are in the forward flight position during a forward flight of the aircraft (Column 1, lines 36-54, and Column 2, lines 41-59), and the plurality of tilting fan assemblies that are in the vertical lift position during liftoff, hover or landing of the aircraft (Column 1, lines 36-54, and Column 2, lines 41-59). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller determine the current position of the aircraft, change the position of the aircraft based on the current command, and monitor the position of the aircraft to ensure that they are in the desired position because Villa and Tai are both tilt rotor VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having the controller determine the current position of the aircraft, change the position of the aircraft based on the current command, and monitor the position of the aircraft to ensure that they are in the desired position is that it allows the operator to set a desired mode for the aircraft and the system can transition to that mode and monitor and maintain the mode while accounting for outside forces such as wind gusts to maintain vehicle stability.
Regarding claim 21, Villa as modified by Baity, Moore, Iqbal, and Tai teaches the aircraft of claim 20, but Villa does not teach that the control system is configurable to: control the position of the tilting fan assemblies based on flight data received by sensors coupled to the aircraft. However, Tai does teach that the control system is configurable to: control the position of the tilting fan assemblies based on flight data received by sensors coupled to the aircraft (Column 1, lines 36-54, and Column 2, lines 41-59). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the position be controlled based on flight data from sensors because Villa and Tai are both tilt rotor VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having the position be controlled based on flight data from sensors is that it allows the system to adjust the position of the fans based on changes in the system to maintain an optimal position.
Regarding claim 22, Villa as modified by Baity, Moore, Iqbal, and Tai teaches the aircraft of claim 20, but Villa does not teach that the control system is configurable to: control the position of the tilting fan assemblies automatically. However, Tai does teach that the control system is configurable to: control the position of the tilting fan assemblies automatically (Column 2, lines 19-59). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller automatically control the position of the fan assemblies because Villa and Tai are both tilt rotor VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having the controller automatically control the position of the fan assemblies is that it allows the system to respond without human intervention which can allow it to respond quicker and more accurately to changes in the system.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villa et al. (US #12,006,033) as modified by Baity et al. (PGPub #2019/0329882), Moore et al. (PGPub #2019/0135425), Iqbal et al. (PGPub #2021/0206487), and Tai (US #6,457,672) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Raposo (PGPub #2010/0301168).
Regarding claim 23, Villa as modified by Baity, Moore, Iqbal, and Tai teaches the aircraft of claim 20, but Villa does not teach that the control system is configurable to: control the position of the tilting fan assemblies based on a signal received from a remote entity. However, Raposo does teach that the control system is configurable to: control the position of the tilting fan assemblies based on a signal received from a remote entity (Paragraph 4, lines 1-5, and Paragraph 68, lines 1-6, this teaches that the vehicle can be a remotely operated vehicle which must receive signals from a remote entity). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the position of the tilt rotors controlled by a remote entity because Villa and Raposo are both VTOL aircraft with fixed vertical fans and tiltable fans. The motivation for having the position of the tilt rotors controlled by a remote entity is that it allows the aircraft to function without a crew onboard which can reduce the weight of the aircraft and extend the flight parameters of a mission.
Regarding claim 24, Villa as modified by Baity, Moore, Iqbal, and Tai teaches the aircraft of claim 20, but Villa does not teach that the control system is configurable to: Page 6 of 11Appl. No. 17/162,313Attorney Docket No.: 105984-1233698Amdt. dated July 22, 2022Preliminary Amendmentcontrol a first tilting fan assembly and a second tilting fan assembly among the plurality of tilting fan assemblies independently from each other. However, Raposo does teach that the control system is configurable to: Page 6 of 11Appl. No. 17/162,313Attorney Docket No.: 105984-1233698Amdt. dated July 22, 2022Preliminary Amendmentcontrol a first tilting fan assembly and a second tilting fan assembly among the plurality of tilting fan assemblies independently from each other (Paragraph 72, lines 1-9). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller tilt the fan assemblies independently because Villa and Raposo are both VTOL aircraft with fixed vertical fans and tiltable fans. The motivation for having the controller tilt the fan assemblies independently is that it allows the system to more precisely respond to the forces acting on the aircraft to maintain stability.
Regarding claim 25, Villa as modified by Baity, Moore, Iqbal, and Tai teaches the aircraft of claim 20, but Villa does not teach that the control system is configurable to control: at least a subset of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies simultaneously. However, Raposo does teach that the control system is configurable to control: at least a subset of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies simultaneously (Paragraph 72, lines 1-9, this teaches that both of the fan assemblies can be tilted simultaneously). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller control the fan assemblies simultaneously because Villa and Raposo are both VTOL aircraft with fixed vertical fans and tiltable fans. The motivation for having the controller control the fan assemblies simultaneously is that it allows the fans to move in unison to more quickly get into the desired position and cuts down on the time that the aircraft is in a transitional position.
Claims 26, 27, 33, 34, 36, 49, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villa et al. (US #12,006,033) in view of Baity et al. (PGPub #2019/0329882), Iqbal et al. (PGPub #2021/0206487), and Moore et al. (PGPub #2019/0135425).
Regarding claim 26, Villa teaches an aircraft comprising: a fuselage (202); a pair of wings (204, and 206) coupled to opposite sides of the fuselage (202, 204, and 206 as seen in figure 2); a plurality of tilting fan assemblies (118, 124, 128, and 130) coupled to the pair of wings (118, 124, 128, 130, 204, and 206 as seen in figure 2), wherein the plurality of tilting fan assemblies are configured to move between a vertical lift position (118, 124, 128, and 130 as seen in figure 4) and a forward flight position (118, 124, 128, and 130 as seen in figure 3), wherein the plurality of tilting fan assemblies are configured to create a vertical lift when in the vertical lift position (118, 124, 128, and 130 as seen in figure 4); at least two support structures (208, 210, 212, and 214) coupled to each one of the pair of wings (204, 206, 208, 210, 212, and 214), wherein a lift fan assembly (132, 134, 136, and 138) is non-tiltably mounted to a top surface of a first end of each support structure (132, 134, 136, 138, 208, 210, 212, and 214 as seen in figure 2) to operate above the plurality of support structures extending substantially parallel to each other (132, 134, 136, 138, 208, 210, 212, and 214 as seen in figure 2, as can be seen the fixed fans are mounted to the support structure at a fixed angle and the support structure are parallel with each other), and each tilting fan assembly among the plurality of tilting fan assemblies is mounted to a second end of each support structure via a tilting mechanism (118, 124, 128, 130, 208, 210, 212, and 214 as seen in figures 3, and 4) forming at least two structures each including a support structure (208, 210, 212, and 214 as seen in figures 2, and 9) with a lift fan assembly at one end (132, 134, 136, and 138 as seen in figure 2) and a tilting fan assembly at opposite end (118, 124, 128, and 130 as seen in figure 2), wherein a number of tilting fan assemblies is equal to a number of lift fan assemblies (118, 124, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136, and 138), wherein the lift fan assemblies are provided at a trailing edge of the pair of wings (132, 134, 136, 138, 204, and 206 as seen in figure 2) and the plurality of tilting fan assemblies are provided at a leading edge of the pair of wings (118, 124, 128, 130, 204, and 206 as seen in figure 2); one or more battery units (104, and 108), wherein the one or more battery units include a plurality of battery cells (Column 4, lines 17-27, and Column 12, lines 6-12) configured to power the plurality of tilting fan assemblies (Column 4, lines 17-27); and a control system (122) configured to control the plurality of tilting fan assemblies between the vertical lift position and the forward flight position (Column 3, lines 8-15). But Villa does not explicitly teach that the one or more battery units are provided in the fuselage; wherein the adjacent lift fan assemblies on adjacent support structures on each wing have opposite angles of attack; that there are at least three support structures coupled to each wing; the support structures are identical, and that the identical structures are interchangeable between positions on each one of the pair of wings.
However, Baity does teach that the support structures are identical (The booms as seen in figure 33, and 18 as seen in figure 37), and that the identical structures are interchangeable between positions on each one of the pair of wings (12, 18, and 180 as seen in figure 37, and Paragraph 88, this teaches that the boom systems are modular, which inherently makes them interchangeable with the other modular booms of the system). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the support structures be identical structures because Villa and Baity are both tilt rotor aircraft with the rotors mounted at the ends of booms. The motivation for having the support structures be identical structures is that it helps to simplify the manufacturing process of the aircraft and reduces the cost of production. But Baity does not teach that there are at least three support structures coupled to each wing; wherein the adjacent lift fan assemblies on adjacent support structures on each wing have opposite angles of attack; and that the one or more battery units are provided in the fuselage.
However, Iqbal does teach that there are at least three support structures coupled to each wing (10, and 11 as seen in figure 1); wherein the adjacent lift fan assemblies on adjacent support structures on each wing have opposite angles of attack (30 as seen in figure 3, this teaches that the rear fans at the aft end of the support structures behind the wing can counter rotate relative to the adjacent lift rotors on the same wing, and that the rotors counter rotating will result in the rotors having the opposite angle of attack with the air relative to the adjacent rotors. As was discussed in the previous interview conducted on 1/29/2026, the only explicit support from the application for how the opposite angels of attack is achieved is through the counter rotating of adjacent rotors, the examiner is not convinced that there is sufficient support for the opposite canting of the rotors.). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least three support structures mounted to each wing, and to have the adjacent lift fans have opposite angles of attack because Villa and Iqbal are both VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having at least three support structures mounted to each wing is that it provides the aircraft with additional lift and thrust and distributes it over the wing which can reduce the stress on the wing, and the motivation for having the adjacent lift fans have opposite angles of attack is that it helps to provide additional stability to the aircraft to help prevent undesired roll. But Iqbal does not teach that the one or more battery units are provided in the fuselage.
However, Moore does teach that the one or more battery units are provided in the fuselage (Paragraph 38, this teaches that the batteries can be placed within the fuselage as an alternative to being placed in the wings). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the batteries located in the fuselage because Villa and Moore are both battery powered tilt rotor VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having the batteries located in the fuselage is that it helps to place more of the weight of the aircraft near the center of gravity which can help to improve the stability of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 27, Villa as modified by Baity, Iqbal, and Moore teaches the aircraft of claim 26, wherein each support structure is coupled to an underside of the pair of wings (204, 206, 208, 210, 212, and 214 as seen in figure 2 of Villa).
Regarding claim 33, Villa as modified by Baity, Iqbal, and Moore teaches the aircraft of claim 26, wherein the control system is configurable to control a position of the tilting fan assemblies based on flight data received by sensors coupled to the aircraft (Column 2, line 56-Column 3, line 15 of Villa, this teaches that the control system that can control the tilts of the rotors can be autonomous with its actions at least partially driven by data received from sensors).
Regarding claim 34, Villa as modified by Baity, Iqbal, and Moore teaches the aircraft of claim 26, wherein the control system is configurable to control a position of the tilting fan assemblies automatically (Column 2, line 56-Column 3, line 15 of Villa, this teaches that the control system that can control the tilts of the rotors can be autonomous which allows it to automatically perform actions).
Regarding claim 36, Villa as modified by Baity, Iqbal, and Moore teaches the aircraft of claim 26, further comprising: a tailplane in form of a V-tail (216 of Villa) coupled to a rear end of the fuselage (202, and 216 as seen in figure 2 of Villa).
Regarding claim 49, Villa as modified by Baity, Iqbal, and Moore teaches the aircraft of claim 26, wherein each tilting fan assembly among the plurality of tilting fan assemblies includes a hub to which blades connect (118, 124, 128, and 130 as seen in figure 2 of Villa), wherein hubs of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies are aligned (Column 3, line 66-Column 4, line 16 of Villa, this teaches that the rotor blades, and thus the hubs which the blades are mounted to are horizontally aligned in forward flight).
Regarding claim 50, Villa as modified by Baity, Iqbal, and Moore teaches the aircraft of claim 26, wherein each lift fan assembly includes a hub to which blades connect (118, 124, 128, and 130 as seen in figure 2 of Villa), wherein hubs of the lift fan assemblies are aligned above the pair of wings (As can be seen in figure 5 the hubs extend above the wing, and Column 4, lines 28-36 of Villa, this teaches that the rotation axes of the tilt rotors, which extend through the center of the hubs, can be vertically aligned in a hover mode).
Claims 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villa et al. (US #12,006,033) as modified by Baity et al. (PGPub #2019/0329882), Iqbal et al. (PGPub #2021/0206487), and Moore et al. (PGPub #2019/0135425) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Raposo (PGPub #2010/0301168).
Regarding claim 31, Villa as modified by Baity, Iqbal, and Moore teaches the aircraft of claim 26, but Villa does not teach that the control system is configurable to control a first tilting fan assembly and a second tilting fan assembly among the plurality of tilting fan assemblies independently from each other. However, Raposo does teach that the control system is configurable to control a first tilting fan assembly and a second tilting fan assembly among the plurality of tilting fan assemblies independently from each other (Paragraph 72, lines 1-9). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller tilt the fan assemblies independently because Villa and Raposo are both VTOL aircraft with fixed vertical fans and tiltable fans. The motivation for having the controller tilt the fan assemblies independently is that it allows the system to more precisely respond to the forces acting on the aircraft to maintain stability.
Regarding claim 32, Villa as modified by Baity, Iqbal, and Moore teaches the aircraft of claim 26, but Villa does not teach that the control system is configurable to control at least a subset of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies simultaneously. However, Raposo does teach that the control system is configurable to control at least a subset of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies simultaneously (Paragraph 72, lines 1-9, this teaches that both of the fan assemblies can be tilted simultaneously). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller control the fan assemblies simultaneously because Villa and Raposo are both VTOL aircraft with fixed vertical fans and tiltable fans. The motivation for having the controller control the fan assemblies simultaneously is that it allows the fans to move in unison to more quickly get into the desired position and cuts down on the time that the aircraft is in a transitional position.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villa et al. (US #12,006,033) as modified by Baity et al. (PGPub #2019/0329882), Iqbal et al. (PGPub #2021/0206487), and Moore et al. (PGPub #2019/0135425) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Campbell (PGPub #2020/0140079).
Regarding claim 35, Villa as modified by Baity, Iqbal, and Moore teaches the aircraft of claim 26, but Villa does not teach that the control system is configurable to control a position of the tilting fan to implement a flight instruction received from a remote entity, wherein the flight instruction includes at least one of a takeoff instruction, a hover instruction, a cruise instruction, or a landing instruction. However, Campbell does teach that the control system is configurable to control a position of the tilting fan assemblies to implement a flight instruction received from a remote entity (Paragraphs 31, 41, 42, and 44), wherein the flight instruction includes at least one of a takeoff instruction, a hover instruction, a cruise instruction, or a landing instruction (Paragraphs 31, 41, 42, and 44). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control system be able to receive commands from a remote entity and control the position of the fans during flight to perform the command because Villa and Campbell are both VTOL aircraft with tiltable fans. The motivation for having the control system be able to receive commands from a remote entity and control the position of the fans during flight to perform the command is that it allows the aircraft to function without a crew onboard which can reduce the weight of the aircraft and extend the flight parameters of a mission.
Claims 37-40, 43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raposo (PGPub #2010/0301168) in view of Villa et al. (US #12,006,033), Iqbal et al. (PGPub #2021/0206487), Moore et al. (PGPub #2019/0135425), and Leong (PGPub #2020/0301446).
Regarding claim 37, Raposo teaches a method for controlling one or more tilting fan assemblies of an aircraft, the method comprising: receiving, by a control system coupled to an aircraft (Abstract, lines 7-11, and Paragraph 68, lines 1-6), a flight instruction (Paragraph 68, lines 1-6), wherein the aircraft comprises a pair of wings (40 s seen in figure 16), and a plurality of support structures (13a, and 13b) coupled to fan assemblies (3, 4, 13a, and 13b as seen in figure 16); determining, by the control system, a position of a plurality of tilting fan assemblies coupled to the aircraft (1, and 2, and Paragraph 68, lines 1-6, and Claim 29, lines 1-17), wherein the aircraft is configured for vertical takeoff and landing (Abstract, lines 1-7); controlling, by the control system, one or more of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies between a vertical lift position and a forward flight position based on the flight instruction (Paragraph 68, lines 1-6, Paragraph 72, lines 1-9, and Claim 30, lines 1-13); and continuously monitoring, by the control system, the position of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies in view of the flight instruction (Paragraph 3, lines 1-10, and Claim 29, this teaches that the control system is constantly calculating the center of mass of the aircraft which requires a continuous monitoring of the position of the tilting fans as changes in their position changes the center of mass), additionally Raposo teaches a plurality of lift fans (12, and 12a as seen in figure 13) that are located aft of the wings (12, and 12a as seen in figure 13). But, Raposo does not teach that the aircraft comprises at least three support structures coupled to each of the pair of wings, wherein a lift fan assembly among a plurality of lift fan assemblies is non-tiltably mounted to a first end of each support structure, and a tilting fan assembly among a plurality of tilting fan assemblies is mounted to a second end of each support structure via a tilting mechanism forming a plurality of identical structures each including a support structure with a lift fan assembly at one end and a tilting fan assembly at opposite end, wherein the plurality of identical structures are interchangeable; wherein a number of tilting fan assemblies is equal to a number of lift fan assemblies; the plurality of lift fan assemblies are provided at a trailing edge of the pair of wings and the plurality of tilting fan assemblies are provided at a leading edge of the pair of wings; and one or more battery units provided in the fuselage are configured to power the plurality of tilting fan assemblies and the plurality of lift fan assemblies, and that the continuous monitoring by the control system is to ensure that: the plurality of tilting fan assemblies are in the forward flight position during the forward flight of the aircraft, and the plurality of tilting fan assemblies that are in the vertical lift position during liftoff, hover or landing of the aircraft.
However, Villa does teach that the aircraft comprises wherein each lift fan assembly among a plurality of lift fan assemblies (132, 134, 136, and 138) is non-tiltably mounted to a first end of each support structure (132, 134, 136, 138, 208, 210, 212, and 214 as seen in figure 2), and each tilting fan assembly among a plurality of tilting fan assemblies (132, 134, 136, and 138) is mounted to a second end of each support structure via a tilting mechanism (118, 124, 128, 130, 208, 210, 212, and 214 as seen in figures 3, and 4) forming a plurality of structures each including a support structure (208, 210, 212, and 214 as seen in figures 2, and 9) with a lift fan assembly at one end (132, 134, 136, and 138 as seen in figure 2) and a tilting fan assembly at opposite end (118, 124, 128, and 130 as seen in figure 2); wherein a number of tilting fan assemblies is equal to a number of lift fan assemblies (118, 124, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136, and 138); the plurality of lift fan assemblies are provided at a trailing edge of the pair of wings (132, 134, 136, 138, 204, and 206 as seen in figure 2) and the plurality of tilting fan assemblies are provided at a leading edge of the pair of wings (118, 124, 128, 130, 204, and 206 as seen in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of support structures attached to the wings with the tilting fans on a front end of the structure and the lift fans on the rear end because Raposo and Villa are both tilt rotor VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having a plurality of support structures attached to the wings with the tilting fans on a front end of the structure and the lift fans on the rear end is that it helps to improve the performance of the rotors by having them balanced in vertical flight while also reducing the interactions between the wings and the rotors which can help improve the performance of the rotors and reduce drag. But Villa does not teach at least three support structures coupled to each of the pair of wings; that the support structures are identical, and that the at least three identical structures are interchangeable between positions on each one of the pair of wings; and one or more battery units provided in the fuselage are configured to power the plurality of tilting fan assemblies and the plurality of lift fan assemblies, and that the continuous monitoring by the control system is to ensure that: the plurality of tilting fan assemblies are in the forward flight position during the forward flight of the aircraft, and the plurality of tilting fan assemblies that are in the vertical lift position during each one of liftoff, hover and landing of the aircraft.
However, Iqbal does teach at least three support structures coupled to each of the pair of wings (10, and 11 as seen in figure 1); that the support structures are identical (11 as seen in figure 1), and that the at least three identical structures are interchangeable between positions on each one of the pair of wings (11 as seen in figure 1, as can be seen each of the support structure have the same structure and could be interchanged). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have three support structures mounted on each wing and to have the support structures be identical structures because Villa and Iqbal are both tilt rotor aircraft with the rotors mounted at the ends of booms. The motivation for having three support structures mounted on each wing is that it provides the aircraft with additional lift and thrust and distributes it over the wing which can reduce the stress on the wing, and the motivation for having the support structures be identical structures is that it helps to simplify the manufacturing process of the aircraft and reduces the cost of production. But Iqbal does not teach one or more battery units provided in the fuselage are configured to power the plurality of tilting fan assemblies and the plurality of lift fan assemblies, and that the continuous monitoring by the control system is to ensure that: the plurality of tilting fan assemblies are in the forward flight position during the forward flight of the aircraft, and the plurality of tilting fan assemblies that are in the vertical lift position during each one of liftoff, hover and landing of the aircraft.
However, Moore does teach one or more battery units provided in the fuselage are configured to power the plurality of tilting fan assemblies and the plurality of lift fan assemblies (Paragraphs 38, and 61). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have one or more batteries located in the fuselage to power the fan assemblies because Raposo and Moore are both VTOL aircraft with fixed and tilting fans. The motivation for having one or more batteries located in the fuselage to power the fan assemblies is that using batteries can help to reduce the pollution generated by the aircraft and placing them in the fuselage helps to put the batteries close to the center of gravity which can improve the stability of the aircraft. But does not teach that the continuous monitoring by the control system is to ensure that: the plurality of tilting fan assemblies are in the forward flight position during the forward flight of the aircraft, and the plurality of tilting fan assemblies that are in the vertical lift position during each one of liftoff, hover and landing of the aircraft.
However, Leong does teach that the continuous monitoring by the control system is to ensure that: the plurality of tilting fan assemblies are in the forward flight position during the forward flight of the aircraft (Paragraphs 52, and 53, this teaches that the system monitors the position and adjusts the fan angles as needed until they reach the desired position, which is inherently a forward flight position for a forward flight phase), and the plurality of tilting fan assemblies that are in the vertical lift position during each one of liftoff, hover and landing of the aircraft (Paragraphs 52, and 53, this teaches that the system monitors the position and adjusts the fan angles as needed until they reach the desired position, which is inherently a vertical flight position for a vertical flight phase). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the continuous monitoring help to ensure that the tilting fans are in the correct position for the current flight phase because Raposo and Leong are both tilt rotor VTOL aircraft that monitor the position of the rotors. The motivation for having the continuous monitoring help to ensure that the tilting fans are in the correct position for the current flight phase is that it helps to ensure that the aircraft remains in the desired flight phase to ensure that it can perform the desired actions.
Regarding claim 38, Raposo as modified by Villa, Iqbal, Moore, and Leong teaches the method of claim 37, further comprising: controlling, by the control system, a first tilting fan assembly and a second tilting fan assembly among the plurality of tilting fan assemblies independently from each other (Paragraph 72, lines 1-9 of Raposo).
Regarding claim 39, Raposo as modified by Villa, Iqbal, Moore, and Leong teaches the method of claim 37, further comprising: controlling, by the control system, at least a subset of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies simultaneously (Paragraph 72, lines 1-9 of Raposo, this teaches that both of the fan assemblies can be tilted simultaneously).
Regarding claim 40, Raposo as modified by Villa, Iqbal, Moore, and Leong teaches the method of claim 37, further comprising: controlling, by the control system, the position of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies automatically (Paragraph 68, lines 1-6, Paragraph 214, lines 1-12, and Paragraph 215, lines 1-6 of Raposo).
Regarding claim 43, Raposo as modified by Villa, Iqbal, Moore, and Leong teaches the method of claim 37, wherein the flight instruction is a hover instruction or a landing instruction (Paragraph 68, lines 1-6, and Claim 31, lines 1-15 of Raposo), and wherein controlling the one or more of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies comprises: controlling the one or more of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies to the vertical lift position (Paragraph 68, lines 1-6, Claim 24, lines 37-42, and Claim 31, lines 1-15 of Raposo).
Regarding claim 44, Raposo as modified by Villa, Iqbal, Moore, and Leong teaches the method of claim 37, wherein the flight instruction is an instruction to switch to forward flight (Paragraph 68, lines 1-6, and Claim 31, lines 1-15 of Raposo), and wherein controlling the one or more of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies comprises: Page 9 of 11Appl. No. 17/162,313Attorney Docket No.: 105984-1233698 Amdt. dated July 22, 2022 Preliminary Amendment controlling the one or more of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies to the forward flight position (Paragraph 68, lines 1-6, Claim 24, lines 31-36 of Raposo).
Regarding claim 45, Raposo as modified by Villa, Iqbal, Moore, and Leong teaches the method of claim 44, wherein during forward flight all of the fan assemblies that are downstream of the wing are the lift fan assemblies (12, and 12a as seen in figure 13 of Raposo, as can be seen in figure 13 of Raposo when the main fans are tilted forward for forward flight the only fan assemblies that are downstream of the wings are the vertical fan assemblies), but Raposo does not teach controlling the plurality of lift fan assemblies to stop operating during the forward flight of the aircraft thereby stopping all fan assemblies downstream from the pair of wings.
However, Villa does teach controlling the plurality of lift fan assemblies to stop operating during the forward flight of the aircraft (Column 3, line 66-Column 4, line 16) thereby stopping all fan assemblies downstream from the pair of wings (132, 134, 136, 138, 204, and 206 as seen in figure 2, and Column 3, line 66-Column 4, line 16). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have lift fan assemblies turned off in forward flight because Raposo and Villa are both tilt rotor VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having lift fan assemblies turned off in forward flight is that it helps to save energy by not having fan assemblies running when they are not needed for flight.
Regarding claim 46, Raposo as modified by Villa, Iqbal, Moore, and Leong teaches the method of claim 37, further comprising: receiving, by the control system, flight data from one or more sensors coupled to the aircraft (Paragraph 3, lines 1-10, Paragraph 68, lines 1-6, and Paragraph 215, lines 1-6 of Raposo); and controlling the position of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies based on the flight data received from the one or more sensors coupled to the aircraft (Paragraph 3, lines 1-10, Paragraph 68, lines 1-6, and Paragraph 215, lines 1-6 of Raposo).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raposo (PGPub #2010/0301168) as modified by Villa et al. (US #12,006,033), Iqbal et al. (PGPub #2021/0206487), Moore et al. (PGPub #2019/0135425), and Leong (PGPub #2020/0301446) as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Hohenthal (PGPub #2021/0016877).
Regarding claim 41, Raposo as modified by Villa, Iqbal, Moore, and Leong teaches the method of claim 37, but does not teach controlling, by the control system, the position of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies to implement a flight instruction received from a remote entity, wherein the flight instruction includes at least one of a takeoff instruction, a hover instruction, a cruise instruction, or a landing instruction. However, Campbell does teach controlling, by the control system, the position of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies to implement a flight instruction received from a remote entity (Paragraphs 31, 41, 42, and 44), wherein the flight instruction includes at least one of a takeoff instruction, a hover instruction, a cruise instruction, or a landing instruction (Paragraphs 31, 41, 42, and 44). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control system be able to receive commands from a remote entity and control the position of the fans during flight to perform the command because Raposo and Campbell are both VTOL aircraft with tiltable fans. The motivation for having the control system be able to receive commands from a remote entity and control the position of the fans during flight to perform the command is that it allows the aircraft to function without a crew onboard which can reduce the weight of the aircraft and extend the flight parameters of a mission.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raposo (PGPub #2010/0301168) as modified by Villa et al. (US #12,006,033), Iqbal et al. (PGPub #2021/0206487), Moore et al. (PGPub #2019/0135425), and Leong (PGPub #2020/0301446) as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Hohenthal (PGPub #2021/0016877).
Regarding claim 42, Raposo as modified by Villa, Iqbal, Moore, and Leong teaches the method of claim 37, but does not teach that the flight instruction is a takeoff instruction, and wherein controlling the one or more of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies comprises: determining whether each of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies is in the vertical lift position; and controlling the one or more of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies to the vertical lift position. However, Hohenthal does teach that the flight instruction is a takeoff instruction (Paragraph 28, lines 1-25, and Claim 15, lines 1-7), and wherein controlling the one or more of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies comprises: determining whether each of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies is in the vertical lift position (Paragraph 28, lines 1-25, and Claim 15, lines 1-7); and controlling the one or more of the plurality of tilting fan assemblies to the vertical lift position (The aircraft as seen in figures 2, and 3, and Paragraph 28, lines 1-25, and Claim 15, lines 1-7). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller determine the current position of the aircraft and move the rotors to the vertical position when a takeoff instruction is received because Raposo and Hohenthal are both VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having the controller determine the current position of the aircraft and move the rotors to the vertical position when a takeoff instruction is received is that it allows the system to ensure that it can transition to the new flight pattern while only moving the components that are needed to move to help lengthen the lifespan of the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s argument that the high number of modifying references in claim 35 create a rejection that relies upon hindsight reconstruction. In the current rejection of the claim the number of references has been reduced by one, and additionally, the current modifying references are not used to modify the structure taught by other modifying references and are instead used to modify different aspects of the system whose base structure are all taught by Villa. As the modifying references are directed towards altering different elements of the primary reference rather than the other modifying references the examiner does not believe that the combinations require the use of hindsight reconstruction.
The rejections of the claims have been amended to address the arguments raised by the applicant. Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights