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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “adjustable stops to lock the at least one battery module into position along the low friction interface” of claim 25 and the “heating element on the leading edge” of claim 26 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“one or more longitudinal elements are configured to maintain longitudinal orientation during vertical and horizontal flight” in claim 1 which corresponds with ¶25-26 of applicant’s disclosure describing longitudinal elements of the chassis (NOTE: while ‘longitudinal’ would normally be considered sufficient modifying structure, given that the functional requirement specifically brings doubt that this structure is required to be longitudinal, this is being interpreted as a means for naming the structure rather than being an additional requirement; hence 112f is invoked); and
“quick connect system, for connecting the pod module assembly to the chassis module” in claim 17, which corresponds with ¶78-83 of applicant’s disclosure describing the quick connect system.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a weight is translatable longitudinally along the chassis module to adjust the center of gravity of the aircraft” does not have sufficient support in the specification. Applicant describes that the pod can be translated longitudinally, but not a weight/battery, which are only described as translating laterally.
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.
Claim 24 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 24, the limitation “wherein the at least one battery module is configured to move easily through a low friction interface within the at least one of the one or more wings” is indefinite because the term ‘easily’ is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear when movement would be easy as opposed to not easy. As such one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the scope of this claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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) 1-3, 12-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietrich (US 20190047342 A1) in view of McCullough (US 10214285 B2) and alternatively also in view of Thalheimer (US 20210300527 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dietrich discloses an aircraft including a plurality of structural elements, the structural elements comprising:
a chassis module (Dietrich, figures 1 and 2, items 102 and 202, flight vehicle form a chassis module) configured with one or more longitudinal elements, wherein the one or more longitudinal elements are configured to maintain longitudinal orientation during vertical and horizontal flight (Dietrich, figures 2-3, items 210 and 310);
one or more wings configured to attach to the chassis module (Dietrich, figure 3, item 316 and 314);
a pod module assembly configured to be selectively attached to and detached from the chassis module (Dietrich, figures 1 and 2, items 104 and 204, pod module attaches to chassis module);
wherein the pod module assembly is configured to transport at least one of a passenger and cargo (Dietrich, ¶19, pod is for passengers or cargo);
wherein the pod module assembly is configured for operation as a vehicle when detached from the chassis module (Dietrich, figure 8, items 804 and 802, pod module can operate as a vehicle when not attached to aircraft chassis), except:
a programmable controller including instructions for operating an adjustment system
said adjustment system executing recorded instructions for adjusting a center of gravity of the aircraft by moving said pod module along the one or more longitudinal elements of the chassis module.
McCullough (US 10214285 B2) teaches a pod module assembly a pod module assembly configured to be selectively attached to and detached from the chassis module (McCullough, figures 4a-l, item 170);
a programmable controller including instructions for operating an adjustment system (McCullough, col 20, lines 31- col 21 line 5, controller controls all aspects of flight);
said adjustment system executing recorded instructions for adjusting a center of gravity of the aircraft by moving said pod module along the one or more longitudinal elements of to the chassis module (McCullough, 4a-l, item 174, col 14, lines 35-42, pod is adjusted relative to frame via a track to adjust overall center of gravity; McCullough, col 20, lines 31-49, controller receives input from sensors and uses this to control all aspects of flight as disclosed);
Dietrich and McCullough are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft with detachable pods. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pod attachment of Dietrich with the adjustment mechanism of McCullough with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the aircraft center of gravity to be adjusted (McCullough, col 14, lines 35-42).
Alternatively, Thalheimer (US 20210300527 A1) teaches a programmable controller including instructions for operating an adjustment system (Thalheimer, figures 3a-b, ¶34, ballast translation assembly controlled by controller)
said adjustment system executing recorded instructions for adjusting a center of gravity of the aircraft by moving a ballast along the one or more longitudinal elements of the chassis module (Thalheimer, ¶34-35, adjustment system adjusts center of gravity based on input from flight mode or when transitioning between hovering and fixed wing flight)
Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft control and 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 adjustment system of Dietrich as modified by Thalheimer with the controller of McCullough with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the aircraft center of gravity to be dynamically adjusted based on flight phases (Thalheimer, ¶34-35).
Regarding claim 2, Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer teaches the aircraft, as set forth in claim 1, wherein operation as a vehicle includes attaching the pod module vehicle to at least one of a ground vehicle (Dietrich, figure 8, items 802 and 804, pod attaches to a ground vehicle to enable the pod to operate as a vehicle).
Regarding claim 12, Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the chassis module is configured with one or more tracks along the one or more longitudinal elements (McCullough, figure 4a, item 172, track along longitudinal element of the chassis as a part of the adjustment system).
Regarding claim 13, Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein a weight is translatable longitudinally along the chassis module to adjust the center of gravity of the aircraft (McCullough, figures 4a-q and 6b, item 226, battery translatable longitudinally with the pod).
Regarding claim 15, Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the pod module assembly is comprised of a roll cage (Dietrich, figure 6, item 602, shell of pod acts as a roll cage).
Regarding claim 16, Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the pod module assembly is translatable longitudinally along the chassis module to adjust center of gravity of the aircraft (McCullough, figures 4a-q, pod can translate along the chassis to adjust the center of gravity).
Regarding claim 17, Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer teaches the aircraft of claim 1, further comprised of a quick connect system, for connecting the pod module assembly to the chassis module (Dietrich, claim 1, mating attachment).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietrich (US 20190047342 A1) in view of McCullough (US 10214285 B2) and Thalheimer (US 20210300527 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon (US 10543905 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer teaches the aircraft, as set forth in claim 1, further comprising a controller in operative communication with the adjustment mechanism (Kwon, figure 7, items 706 and 708a-n, controller in communication with adjustment mechanism);
wherein the controller is configured to transmit a signal to the adjustment mechanism to vary the center of gravity of the aircraft (Kwon, figure 7 item 706 and 708a-n and ¶83, controller sends signals to control the actuators to change center of gravity).
Kwon teaches an adjustment mechanism configured to move to vary a center of gravity of the aircraft (Kwon, abstract, mechanism shifts batteries to shift the center of gravity);
a controller in operative communication with the adjustment mechanism (Kwon, figure 7, items 706 and 708a-n, controller in communication with adjustment mechanism);
wherein the controller is configured to transmit a signal to the adjustment mechanism to vary the center of gravity of the aircraft (Kwon, figure 7 item 706 and 708a-n and ¶83, controller sends signals to control the actuators to change center of gravity).
Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer and Kwon are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft 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 chassis of Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer with the battery shifting device for controlling the center of gravity of Kwon in order to change the vehicle center of gravity (Kwon, abstract).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietrich (US 20190047342 A1) in view of McCullough (US 10214285 B2) and Thalheimer (US 20210300527 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Velazquez (US 20210107652 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer teaches the aircraft of claim 17, except:
wherein connection system is comprised of an electromagnetic connection.
Velazquez (US 20210107652 A1) teaches a two piece aircraft with a connection system,
wherein the quick connect system is comprised of an electromagnetic connection (Velazquez, claim 3).
Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer and Velazquez are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of VTOL aircraft 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 connection system between the chassis and pod of Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer with the electromagnetic connection of Velazquez with a reasonable expectation of success in order to securely attach the pod and chassis together.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietrich (US 20190047342 A1) in view of McCullough (US 10214285 B2) and Thalheimer (US 20210300527 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Agajanian (US 20190168877 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer teaches the aircraft of claim 17, except:
wherein the quick connect system is comprised of a mechanical connection.
Agajanian (US 20190168877 A1) teaches an aircraft and a pod including a connection system comprised of a mechanical connection (figure 5a, item 46 and 44, ¶37, interlocking rails connect aircraft and module together).
Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer and Agajanian are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of VTOL aircraft 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 connection system between the chassis and pod of Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer with the mechanical connection of Agajanian with a reasonable expectation of success in order to securely attach the pod and chassis together.
Claim(s) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietrich (US 20190047342 A1) in view of McCullough (US 10214285 B2) and Thalheimer (US 20210300527 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu (CN 107042884 A).
Regarding claim 20, Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer teaches the aircraft of claim 1, except:
wherein at least one wing of the one or more wings attaches to the chassis module via a hinge assembly for transitioning between vertical and horizontal flight.
Hu (CN 107042884 A) teaches an aircraft wherein at least one wing one or more wings attaches to the fuselage via a hinge assembly for transitioning between vertical and horizontal flight (Hu, figures 1-2 and 5-6, item 7, hinge assembly attaches wings to fuselage allowing the wings to rotate).
Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer and Hu are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of VTOL aircraft 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 wings of Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer with the hinged wings of Hu with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce drag during vertical movement.
Regarding claim 21, Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer teaches the aircraft of claim 1, except:
wherein at least one wing of the one or more wings is rotatable.
Hu (CN 107042884 A) teaches an aircraft wherein at least one wing of the one or more wings is rotatable (Deichl, figures 1-2 and 5-6, items 7, hinge assembly attaches wings to fuselage allowing the wings to rotate).
Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer and Hu are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of VTOL aircraft 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 wings of Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer with the hinged wings of Hu with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce drag during vertical movement.
Regarding claim 22, Dietrich as modified by McCullough, Thalheimer, and Hu teaches the aircraft of claim 21, wherein at least one wing of the one or more wings rotates about a central transverse axis relative to the chassis module (Hu, figures, 1-2 and 5-6, wings rotate about a central transverse axis with respect to the chassis).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietrich (US 20190047342 A1) in view of McCullough (US 10214285 B2) and Thalheimer (US 20210300527 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McDonald (US 11465737 B1).
Regarding claim 23, Dietrich as modified by McCullough, Thalheimer teaches the aircraft of claim 1, except:
wherein at least one wing of the one or more wings is configured to carry at least one battery module.
McDonald (US 11465737 B1) teaches an aircraft with a wing wherein at least one wing of the one or more wings is configured to carry at least one battery module (McDonald, figure 12, items 1202 and 1204).
Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer and McDonald are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of VTOL aircraft 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 wings of Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer with the batteries of McDonald with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide additional power capacity to the aircraft.
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietrich (US 20190047342 A1) in view of McCullough (US 10214285 B2), Thalheimer (US 20210300527 A1), and McDonald (US 11465737 B1) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Clark (US 20200031478 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Dietrich as modified by McCullough, Thalheimer teaches the aircraft of claim 23, except:
wherein the at least one wing of the one or more wings is configured with a heating element on the leading edge.
Clark (US 20200031478 A1) teaches at least one wing of the one or more wings is configured with a heating element on the leading edge (Clark, ¶43, heating incorporated into leading edge of vehicle).
Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer and Clark are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft 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 wings of Dietrich as modified by McCullough and Thalheimer with the wing heating elements of Clark with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent or reduce ice buildup on the wing.
Regarding claim 27, Dietrich as modified by McCullough, Thalheimer, and Clark teaches the aircraft of claim 26, wherein the heating element is heated by heat from the at least one battery (Clark, ¶40, waste heat is gathered from vehicle components; ¶28 vehicle components include a battery).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 24-25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 14, Dietrich as modified by McCullough, Thalheimer teaches the aircraft of claim 1, except:
wherein the chassis module is comprised of one or more mechanical stops along the at least one longitudinal element of the one or more longitudinal elements to lock the pod module assembly in place.
Thus, the prior art fails to teach the claimed matter alone and it would not have been obvious to meet the claims either without undue hindsight based on the applicant' s disclosure.
Regarding claim 24, Dietrich as modified by McCullough, Thalheimer teaches the aircraft of claim 23, except:
wherein the at least one battery module is configured to move easily through a low friction interface within the at least one of the one or more wings.
Thus, the prior art fails to teach the claimed matter alone and it would not have been obvious to meet the claims either without undue hindsight based on the applicant' s disclosure.
Claim 25 is indicated for depending on claim 24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 14 of applicant’s reply , filed 10/23/2025, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. These objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Dietrich does not teach a chassis, but has a pod directly attached to the wings, does not teach a chassis with longitudinal elements, does not teach wings configured to attach to the chassis, and a pod which can be selectively attached or detached from the chassis.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Reading ¶33 of Dietrich, the Pod (item 204) couples to the flight vehicle (item 202, corresponding with the chassis). Hence Dietrich does teach a separate pod and chassis as claimed.
Based on applicant’s claim limitations towards the chassis having longitudinal elements which maintain a longitudinal orientation during horizontal and vertical flight (see the claim interpretation for claim 1 above), the boom (figure 3, item 320) of Dietrich meets the claim requirements.
Dietrich teaches wings attached to the chassis (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 1 of Dietrich describes that the pod is configured to selectively couple with the flight vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jung (KR 20150085751 A) teaches a glider using batteries which are moved to change the center of gravity.
Nilson (US 10099783 B1) teaches a UAV which moves a battery to adjust aircraft balance
Agajanian (US 20190168877 A1) teaches an aircraft with a detachable passenger compartment.
Tian (US 20210362867 A1) teaches a VTOL aircraft with a detachable pod that can also operate as a ground vehicle.
Thalheimer (US 20210300527 A1) teaches a VTOL aircraft including a ballast for adjusting the center of gravity which is moved by a translation assembly and controlled by a controller.
Tian (US 20220281597 A1) teaches a pod which can be attached to a chassis to form an aircraft or be operated as an amphibious vehicle.
Rimanelli (US 20220144421 A1) teaches an modular VTOL aircraft with wings that rotate and a mechanism to shift the aircraft center of gravity.
Deichl (DE 102016001771 A1) teaches an aircraft wherein at least one wing one or more wings attaches to the fuselage via a hinge assembly for transitioning between vertical and horizontal flight (Deichl, figures 1-3, items 2, 3, and 5, hinge assembly attaches wings to fuselage allowing the wings to rotate).
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 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
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642