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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed October 20, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10, and 12-16 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 21st, 2025.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 20, drawn to the flying car of figures 25c, 26c, and 29 in the reply filed on 04/07/2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 9 and 11 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/07/2023.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant includes a limitation directed towards a ‘power sources.’ Based on ¶67 of applicant’s disclosure it appears that the power sources include devices for providing propulsion to the vehicle.
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 1-8, 10, and 12-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “power sources are connected to the front and the rear portions of the platform for land and air mobility” appears to be a slightly broader version of the earlier limitation “a plurality of components connected to the platform for providing propulsion, including power sources directly connected to front and rear portions of the platform.” A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein the plurality of components include propulsion systems connected to the platform in different configurations, the propulsion systems being arranged in at least one of a four point configuration, a three point configuration, and a center of gravity configuration” is indefinite because requires ‘different’ configurations of propulsion systems without specifying what these different configurations are (note that the following limitation reading “the propulsion systems being arranged in at least one of a four point configuration, a three point configuration, and a center of gravity configuration” does not specifically clarify what these differences are and is hence insufficient to clarify this issue). Additionally, the limitation appears to claim different arrangements of propulsion systems simultaneously, which makes it unclear what is being claimed. It is suggested that applicant change the entire claim to be a functional limitation (i.e. requiring that the platform be capable of being rearranged into one or more of the configurations).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 includes the limitation “energy source including one of a fuel source, electric source, …” but this is confusing in light of the earlier limitation of claim 1 which recites the limitation “wherein the equipment includes … battery systems, fuel tank”. It is unclear if the energy source (and subsequently the fuel source and/or electric source) is/are the same as or different from the equipment (which includes the battery systems and fuel tank) and subsequently whether anything additional is being required by this limitation of claim 12. Hence, the scope of the claim unclear per MPEP § 2173.05 (o).
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein the plurality of parts include a geometry, dimensions and a cross-sectional shape to facilitate an assembly, disassembly and interconnection of the plurality of parts” is indefinite in that it is unclear what the relationship between the geometry, dimensions and cross-sectional shape and the assembly, disassembly and interconnection of the plurality of parts and thus what structural requirements are actually being imparted. Hence the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claims 2-8, 10, and 12-16 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-7, 10, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonfilio (US 4676545 A) in view of Zahlen (DE 102020106848 A1) and Boyes (US 10717524 B1).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Bonfilio discloses a scalable modular platform for developing a vehicle, comprising:
a platform provided for structural support including a plurality of parts (Bonfilio, figures 1-4);
wherein the plurality of parts include beams, joints and panels (Bonfilio, figures 1-4, items 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14) interconnected for forming the platform;
a plurality of components connected to the platform for providing propulsion, including power sources directly connected to front (Bonfilio, figures 4, items 20 and 21, rotor and engine attached to the front of the platform) and rear portions of the platform (Bonfilio, figures 5-10, items 25, 30, 34, and 36, interchangeable engines driving prop, wheels or treads can be outfitted onto the platform and act as power sources):
a plurality of equipment connected to the platform for generating mobility in air (Bonfilio, figures 4 and 5) and land (Bonfilio, figures 8-10) and navigating the vehicle (Bonfilio, figure 5, items 26, rotors allow the vehicle to be navigated);
wherein the equipment includes wings (Bonfilio, figures 4, item 19), wheels (Bonfilio, figure 5, items 24 and 25, landing gear has wheels), landing gears (Bonfilio, figure 5, items 24 and 25, landing gear); and
a vehicle body connected to the platform (Bonfilio, figures 4-5, item 16), wherein the vehicle body is configured for land mobility and the power sources are connected to the front and the rear portions of the platform for land and air mobility (Bonfilio, figures 4-5, items 16, 17, and 18, col 4 lines 38-49, vehicle body and platform connected; wheels allow land mobility and wings/rotors allow air mobility), except:
telemetry equipment, sensors, receivers, transmitters, battery systems, fuel tank, onboard computers, servos, actuators, avionics, and direction controls.
Zahlen teaches a modular platform with modular equipment including:
battery systems, fuel tank (Zahlen, see page 2 ¶8 of the translation, energy supply modules can include batteries and kerosene tanks).
Bonfilio and Zahlen are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of modular vehicle design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modular platform of Bonfilo with the energy supply modules of Zahlen in order to provide a power/fuel source for running the propulsion system.
Boyes teaches a modular UAV which includes:
telemetry equipment, sensors (Boyes, figure 3, item 328 and ¶35), receivers (Boyes, figure 3, item 15 and ¶35), transmitters (Boyes, figure 3, item 15 and ¶35), battery systems (Boyes, figure 3, item 332), onboard computers (Boyes, figure 3, item 300, 302, 308, 312, 304), servos (Boyes, ¶34, controller communicates with servos), actuators (Boyes, ¶34, controller communicates with actuators), avionics (Boyes, figure 3, item 300), and direction controls (Boyes, figure 1, item 118).
Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of modular vehicle design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modular platform of Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen with the modular equipment of Boyes in order to follow regulations that require redundancy in systems and the installation of certain telemetry equipment.
Regarding claim 2 (as best understood), Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes teaches the platform as claimed in claim 1, except:
wherein the plurality of components include propulsion systems connected to the platform in different configurations, the propulsion systems being arranged in at least one of a four point configuration, a three point configuration, and a center of gravity configuration.
Zahlen also teaches a plurality of components including propulsion systems connected to the platform in at least a four point configuration (Zahlen, figure 3, item 4a, propulsion system thrusters attached at four corners of vehicle).
Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen (as previously applied) and Boyes and Zahlen are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of convertible aircraft. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes with the thrusters at the four corners of the vehicle of Zahlen with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for thrust vectoring control and for vtol operations.
Regarding claim 3, Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes teaches the platform as claimed in claim 1, wherein the vehicle body is shaped, configured, and dimensioned to fit on the platform (Bonfilio, figure 2-4, items, 12, 16, 17, and 18, tray is enclosed by a vehicle shell).
Regarding claim 4, Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes teaches the platform as claimed in claim 1, wherein the vehicle body is a sports utility vehicle body (Bonfilo, figure 6, item 10, vehicle body capable of being used as a sports utility vehicle body).
Regarding claim 5, Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes teaches the platform as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wings are connected to a left side and a right side of the platform (Bonfilio, figure 4, items 19, col 4 lines 23-25, wings extending laterally from the platform; lateral symmetry).
Regarding claim 6, Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes teaches the platform as claimed in claim 1.
Bonfilio is silent with respect to the plurality of components including thrusters provided at the front portion and the rear portion of the platform. However, Bonfilio teaches that “the use of cradles depends on the nature of the vehicle” (Abstract) and shows examples of different vehicles in figures 4-9 having different cradles and adaptations.
Zahlen in turn teaches a VTOL vehicle with a different nature having a plurality of components including thrusters provided at the front portion and the rear portion of the platform (Zahlen, figure 3, item 4a, rotors attaches to front and rear portions of the platform)
Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen (as previously applied) and Boyes and Zahlen are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of modular vehicle design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modular platform of Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes with the thrusters attached to the front and rear of the platform of Zahlen in order to allow for thrust vectoring control and for vtol operations.
Regarding claim 7, Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes teaches the platform as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of components include one or a combination of thrusters and rotors for providing propulsion to the platform (Bonfilo, figures 4 and 5, items 21 and 26).
Regarding claim 10, Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes teaches the platform as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of components include a propulsion system integrated into the platform to propel the platform in land, air, or a combination thereof (Bonfilo, figure 4, items 20 and 21, engine and prop can propel the vehicle on land and in the air).
Regarding claim 12, Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes teaches the platform as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an energy source integrated with the platform for providing energy to the plurality of components for propulsion (Bonfilio, col 4 lines 25-26, engine provides energy to propulsion) and the plurality of equipment (Bonfilio, col 1, lines 19-24 engine provides power to driven wheels); and
the energy source including one of a fuel source, electric source (Zahlen, see page 2 ¶8 of the translation, energy supply modules can include batteries and kerosene tanks).
Regarding claim 13 (as best understood), Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of parts include a geometry, dimensions, and cross- sectional shape to facilitate an assembly, disassembly and interconnection of the plurality of parts (Bonfilio, figures 1-4, parts fit together to form the device).
Regarding claim 14, Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein a vehicle body is connected externally to the platform for developing the vehicle (Bonfilio, figures 1-4, item 16, body is attached externally to the platform).
Regarding claim 15, Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein a vehicle body is integrated with the platform for developing the vehicle (Bonfilio, figures 1-4, item 16, body is integrated with platform).
Regarding claim 16, Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the platform is mobile independent of a vehicle body (Bonfilio, figures 6, items 24 and 25, landing gear and wheels allow the vehicle capable of movement independent of the vehicle body).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonfilio (US 4676545 A) in view of Zahlen (DE 102020106848 A1) and Boyes (US 10717524 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and alternatively further in view of Zhou (WO 2018087614 A1).
Regarding claim 8 (as best understood), Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes teaches the platform as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of parts for the platform are constructed from at least one of
Alternatively, Zhou (WO 2018087614 A1) teaches a platform wherein the plurality of parts for the platform are constructed from at least one of carbon fiber and aluminum (Zhou, claim 30).
Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes and Zhou are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of flying vehicle design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Bonfilio as modified by Zahlen and Boyes with the carbon fiber or aluminum material choice of Zhou with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce vehicle weight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6 of applicant’s reply, filed 10/20/2025, with respect to the rejections to claims 3, 5, and 8 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These objections/rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6 of applicant’s reply, filed 10/20/2025, with respect to the rejection to claims 1 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. This rejection has been withdrawn, but applicant’s other amendments to claim 1 introduce another issue under 35 USC 112(b) and is subsequently rejected for that reason.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6 of applicant’s reply, filed 10/20/2025, with respect to the rejections to claims 12 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the “electric source
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/20/2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 2 and 13 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 2, the amendments do not resolve and appear to further confuse the clarity issues. See the rejection to claim 2 under 35 USC 112(b) above.
With respect to claim 13, the amendments to not clarify the ambiguities at issue. Broad limitations to geometry, dimensions, and a cross sectional shape of parts the vehicle body without sufficient functional language to ground these broad limitation (applicant merely claims facilitating connection, disconnection, and interconnection of parts with nothing more) make it difficult to ascertain what scope is actually being claimed. What are the shape and/or dimensions being required by the claim?
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that:
Bonfilio, Zahlen, and Boyes fail to teach the plurality of components connected to the platform for providing propulsion including power sources directly connected to the front and rear portions of the platform. In particular, applicant proposes that the engine and propeller of Bonfilio are not connected/directly connected to the front/rear of the platform and that the thruster of Zahlen are not connected/directly connected to the front/rear of the platform.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Bonfilio teaches the engine attached to a front part of the platform, meeting the requirement for a component attached to the front of the platform as required by the claim. Bonfilio also teaches treads attached to the rear of the platform meeting the other part of this requirement. Note that Bonfilio is a modular design with the ability to interchange the disclosed parts as one might desire. As such Bonfilio meets the scope of this claim language
Zahlen further teaches power sources (rotors) attached to the front and to the rear portions of the platforms (see Zahlen figure 3). It should be noted that the locations of the rotors of Zahlen is consistent with front/rear attachments of the power sources as disclosed in the figures of the present application and as such Zahlen when used to modify Bonfilio meets the claim language.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kalanzny (US 6003935 A) teaches a vehicle frame.
Scott (US 5823569 A) teaches a chassis system for attaching a vehicle body to.
Radu (US 20160272314 A1) teaches a flying car including wings and fans attached at different locations along the vehicle fuselage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 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, Joshua Michener can be reached on (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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642