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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of WO 2014/021798 to Bulent (Bulent hereinafter, copy provided by applicant on 17 March 2025) over US Pre-Grant Publication 2003/0085319 to Wagner et al. (Wagner hereinafter) and U.S. Patent 10,450,063 to Randall (Randall).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Bulent teaches a hubless aeropropulsive electrical vertical thrust generating propulsor or aeropropulsor (1) comprising: a rotatable shroud (1.2) having a rim that defines an inner space therein, the shroud carrying magnetic elements (1.5) and blades (1.3), the blades projecting from the rotatable shroud into the inner space, no hub or axle being disposed within the inner space (see Fig. 1); and a further structure (1.1, 1.6) configured to be fixed to a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft (aerial vehicle, see e.g. page 7, ln. 25) and to support the rim of the rotatable shroud so that the rotatable shroud is rotatable relative to the further structure with the use of magnetic bearings (1.6), the further structure generating, in response to electrical current, a magnetic field that interacts with the magnetic elements carried by the rotatable shroud to cause the rotatable shroud to rotate relative to the further structure and generate an upward thrust causing the VTOL aircraft to rise. Bulent does not teach operation without magnetic bearings. Randall teaches another VTOL aircraft generally, and particularly teaches rotation with or without the use of magnetic bearings (e.g. with air bearings 30, see also claim 22). That is, Randall teaches that air bearings are a known alternative to magnetic bearings in the field of VTOL propulsion, and that their design and construction is according to principles well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use air bearings as taught by Randall instead of the magnetic bearings of Bulent as the mere substitution of one known bearing type for another within the same application and according to known methods of construction and operation. Bulent also does not teach a permanently open fairing. Wagner teaches a propulsor (24) for a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (10) having a permanently open fairing structure (at 24) enclosing the propulsor. Wagner further teaches further structure (e.g. 28) configured to be attached to a fuselage (12). Wagner further teaches variable speed fans (paragraph 233) for stability. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide a permanently open fairing as taught by Wagner as a less expensive and/or complicated alternative to the closable fairing taught by Bulent when fixed wing performance is less critical.
Regarding claim 2, Bulent teaches electromagnetic coil windings (1.1, see page 6, ln. 31).
Regarding claim 3, Bulent teaches a motor controller (3) that supplies controlled current to the electromagnetic windings (page 7, ln. 9-32).
Regarding claim 4, Bulent teaches an aerodynamically designed rotating shape (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Bulent as modified by Randall teaches a hydrodynamic suspension (see e.g. claim 22 of Randall).
Regarding claim 7, Bulent teaches a cylinder (1.2) with upper and lower lips and blades on the inner circumferential surface (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, as shown in Fig. 2, Bulent teaches blades which are curved away from the upper inlet.
Regarding claim 10, Bulent as modified by Randall teaches that the propulsor provides an interface between the rotatable shroud and the further structure that exchanges power, forces and moments by a non-magnetic suspension system (air bearing from Randall).
Regarding claim 11, Bulent teaches secondary structure (i.e. the hull of the aircraft).
Regarding claim 12, Bulent teaches a single rotor disk (1.2). As such the propulsor has no tandem disks.
Regarding claim 15, Bulent teaches electric coils (1.1) that controllably generate the magnetic field.
Regarding claim 16, Bulent teaches blades (1.3).
Regarding claim 17, Bulent teaches a brushless motor (page 4, ln. 4), and the examiner has taken Official Notice that examples of such motors utilizing direct current are well known in the art and are usable with batteries which produce direct current.
Regarding claim 18, Bulent teaches electric coils (1.1) that controllably generate the magnetic field (page 7, ln. 9-32), thereby controlling rotation speed variably.
Regarding claim 19, Bulent teaches thrust generation by forced air flow from an upper inlet to a lower exhaust.
Regarding claim 20, Bulent teaches an aerodynamic fairing (not labeled, see Fig. 1)) with the prime movers within a void therein.
Regarding claim 21, Bulent teaches a single rotor (1.2). Thus, there is no additional level of blades or rotatable shroud.
Regarding claim 22, Bulent teaches pushing air downward (see e.g. Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, at a minimum, a donut shaped structure is taught by Randall or Wagner as being advantageously aerodynamic (see e.g. Randall col. 16, ln. 4-17) and having a concave inner surface leading toward the blades. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to provide a donut shaped structure with a concave inner surface as taught by Randall in order to provide aerodynamic flow to the fan and produce lift.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the argument that Bulent teaches a hub, the examiner notes that element 4.3 is a “main motor”, which is illustrated as a jet engine. This is distinct from the electric vertical thrusters 1, 2, and 3. As such, the nose cone of the main motor is not present in the rotors of the other thrusters and does not affect the applicability of the claim language thereto. Furthermore, with respect to Fig. 3, this merely illustrates the tips of the blades, that is, the center of applicant’s enlarged portion is open, as disclosed by Bulent. See e.g. Fig. 2, at elements 1.3.
With respect to electronic computer control, the examiner notes that the motors are velocity controlled by microprocessors (Bulent, page 4, ln. 5-20).
Regarding the permanently open fairing structure, this feature is known, as illustrated by Wagner.
The examiner therefore maintains that the claimed invention is obvious over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP E STIMPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a-4p.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached on 571-270-1744. 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.
/PHILIP E STIMPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 7 October 2026
Prosecution Insights