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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/28/2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-19, 23, and 26 have been examined in this application. This communication is a non-final rejection in response to the “Amendments to the claims” and “Remarks” filed 7/28/2025.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-14, 16, 18-20, 23, 26 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Number 11,148,800 to Hong in view of US Patent Number 11,485,488 to Armer.
Regarding claim 1, Hong discloses a vertical take-off and landing aircraft, wherein the aircraft comprises:
An airframe having:
A fuselage having a leading end and a trailing end extending between a longitudinal axis of the aircraft (fuselage F);
at least one wing extending along a transverse axis of the aircraft (3), the at least one wing being operatively attached to the fuselage between the leading end and the trailing end of the fuselage (see Figure 1);
at least one boom coupled to the at least one wing (booms W1 and W2), the at least one boom spaced apart form the fuselage and extending in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft (see Figure 1); and
an empennage spaced apart from the at least one wing and located adjacent the trailing end of the fuselage (see horizontal and vertical stabilizers at the trailing end of booms W1 and W2), or a canard spaced apart from the at least one wing and located adjacent the leading end of the fuselage, wherein the empennage or the canard is coupled to the at least one boom (see Figure 1);
A front rotor positioned forward of the at least one wing (propeller 7), the front rotor pivotably mounted to or adjacent the leading end of the fuselage (via 11), wherein the front rotor is displaceable about an axis parallel to the transverse axis between a lift position in which the front rotor is oriented to provide vertical lift to the aircraft for vertical flight (see Figure 2), and a propulsion position in which the front rotor is oriented to provide forward thrust to the aircraft for horizontal flight (see Figure 1); and
A rear rotor positioned rearward of the at least one wing (propeller 9), the rear rotor pivotably mounted to or adjacent the trailing edge of the fuselage (via 33 and 35), and wherein the rear rotor is displaceable about an axis parallel to the transverse axis between a lift position in which the rear rotor is oriented to provide vertical lift to the aircraft for vertical flight (see Figure 2), and a propulsion position in which the rear rotor is oriented to provide forward thrust to the aircraft for horizontal flight (see Figure 1), and wherein the front and rear rotors provide a majority, or all of the vertical lift to the aircraft during vertical flight with the front and rear rotors in the lift position (Rotors 7 and 9 are the only lifting bodies and therefore provide all of the lift during vertical flight).
Hong does not disclose an array of electric rotors fixedly positioned on the airframe operative to provide stability and/or vertical lift to the aircraft, wherein the electric rotors are fixedly positioned on the airframe and are driven by one or more suitable motors, and wherein at least one of the electric rotors is attached to the at least one boom at a location apart from and forward of the at least one wing, wherein one or both of the front and rear rotors are driven by one or more suitable internal combustion engines. However, this limitation is taught by Armer. Armer discloses a VTOL aircraft with an array of electric rotors 110, 111, 112, 113 fixed positioned on the airframe, and Figures 1 and 2 shows rotors 110 and 112 being attached to booms 72 and 73 forward of wings 62 and 63. Furthermore, Armer teaches the use of internal combustion engine 121 to drive the rotors on the fuselage 61. Column 7, lines 31-38 disclose that this VTOL rotor system “provide downward thrust to provide vertical lift to aircraft 50 and yaw control authority”, and column 11, lines 16-19 disclose the VTOL thrust rotors 110-113 also providing roll, pitch, yaw, and vertical thrust control. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong using the teachings from Armer in order to better provide better control of the aircraft during flight and to use known types of engines for VTOL aircraft.
Regarding claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Hong discloses the rear rotor is spaced apart from the empennage and is pivotably mounted between the fuselage and the empennage (see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 3 (dependent on claim 1) and 20 (dependent on claim 19), Armer further teaches the aircraft comprising a suitable processor configured to:
Receive and/or intercept aircraft control signals comprising lift and/or stability commands to the array of electric rotors and/or the front and rear rotor to control lift and/or stability of the aircraft during vertical flight, respectively; and
Use the lift commands to control the front and rear rotors to provide the majority, or all, of the vertical lift to the aircraft during vertical flight, and
Use the stability commands to control the array of electric rotors to provide stability to the aircraft during vertical flight (column 12, lines 7-40 goes through a variety of scenarios for how a PID controller operates VTOL rotors 110-113 to provide thrust and different maneuvers as needed).
Regarding claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), Armer further teaches the electric rotors provide primary stability to the aircraft, at least during vertical flight. Column 7, lines 31-38 disclose that this VTOL rotor system “provide downward thrust to provide vertical lift to aircraft 50 and yaw control authority”, and column 11, lines 16-19 disclose the VTOL thrust rotors 110-113 also providing roll, pitch, yaw, and vertical thrust control
Regarding claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Armer further teaches the electric rotors are powered by an electrical power source (column 10, lines 31-32 disclose “The electric motors 120 receive electrical power from a battery pack onboard fuselage 61”) which is configured to power the electric rotors for a duration of time which is less than a duration of time which the front and rear rotors are capable of being powered by the one or more internal combustion engines (column 10, lines 45-48 disclose “Aircraft 50 can be configured with a generator for recharging the battery pack. Such an onboard generator for recharging the battery pack can be coupled to internal combustion engine 121”, which means that internal combustion engine can operation for a longer duration than the battery packs).
Regarding claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), Armer further teaches each of the front and rear rotors being driven by front and rear internal combustion engines. Figures 1-2 teach the use of a rear internal combustion motor 121 to drive rear rotor 85, and Figures 11-12 and column 24, lines 38-39 disclose “An internal combustion engine drives forward thrust rotor 205”.
Armer does not explicitly disclose each of the front and rear rotors being at least twice as powerful as one of the electric rotors. However, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide each rotor with whatever amount of power was required to fulfill their intended functions.
Regarding claim 9 (dependent on claim 1), Armer further teaches the array of electric rotors comprising three, four, six, or eight electric rotors attached to the airframe (Figures 1-8 show an embodiment with four rotors and Figures 11-27 show an embodiment with three rotors).
Regarding claim 10 (dependent on claim 9), Armer does not explicitly disclose the array of electric rotors comprising four electric rotors located adjacent corners of an imaginary quadrilateral symmetrically located relative to the airframe such that the electric rotors are equidistantly spaced from each other. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the rotors wherever desired to provide the required degree of stabilization control, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 12 (dependent on claim 1), Hong and Armer do not explicitly disclose a size or power of the electric motors being inversely proportional to the distance from a centre of gravity of the aircraft. However, having disclosed wing tip rotors 1602 being used to provide roll stability during hover mode, and since the moment provided by the wing tip rotors is to the applied force (i.e. the lift provided by the rotor) multiplied by the distance from the fixed position (the roll axis), it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that in order to maintain the same moment provided by the wing tip rotors, the power required from the electric motors would decrease as the distance from the center of gravity increases, and vice versa.
Regarding claim 13 (dependent on claim 1), Armer further teaches the array of electric rotors comprising substantially similar electric rotors (Figures 1-2 s ow VTOL thrust rotors 110-113 being substantially similar, and the specification often describes VTOL thrust rotors 110-113 together).
Regarding claims 14 (dependent on claim 1) and 23 (dependent on claim 19), Armer further teaches the array of electric rotors being mounted to the airframe in a spaced apart configuration, wherein the electric rotors are operatively coplanar and are located in a first plane (see Figures 3 and 4), wherein the front and rear rotors are located in second and third planes which are substantially co-planar with and/or are parallel to the first plane when the front and rear rotors are operated to the lift positions, in use (all three dimensional objects have planes, for example any horizontal plane, that are parallel to horizontal planes of other objects).
Regarding claim 16 (dependent on claim 1), Hong discloses the front and rear rotors are mounted to the fuselage via vectoring control mounts which facilitate vectoring control of the front and rear rotors. Column 8, lines 49-65 discuss detecting and controlling the tilt of the front and rear propellers, and tilt control is a form of vector control. Furthermore, column 3, lines 43-50 of Armer disclose “One of the VTOL thrust rotors is mounted atop the fuselage over the fin for movement form a first laterally tilted position relative to the fuselage toward the first side of the fuselage for angled yaw authority thrust vectoring against the first control surface to a second laterally tilted position relative to the fuselage toward the second side of the fuselage for angled yaw authority thrust vectoring against the second control surface”.
Regarding claim 18 (dependent on claim 1), Hong and Armer do not explicitly disclose the front and rear rotors are slightly inclined by a vertical axis by approximately 1.8 degrees in an anticlockwise direction about the longitudinal axis as viewed from the front of the aircraft. However, column 3, lines 43-50 of Armer disclose “One of the VTOL thrust rotors is mounted atop the fuselage over the fin for movement form a first laterally tilted position relative to the fuselage toward the first side of the fuselage for angled yaw authority thrust vectoring against the first control surface to a second laterally tilted position relative to the fuselage toward the second side of the fuselage for angled yaw authority thrust vectoring against the second control surface”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to position the rotors at whatever angle was required in order to maintain yaw control during flight.
Regarding claim 19, Hong discloses a method of controlling a vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising an airframe having a fuselage having a leading end and a trailing end extending between a longitudinal axis of the aircraft (fuselage F), at least one wing extending along a transverse axis of the aircraft (3), the at least one wing being operatively attached to the fuselage between the leading end and the trailing end of the fuselage (see Figure 1), at least one boom coupled to the at least one wing, the at least one boom spaced apart from the fuselage and extending in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft (booms W1 and W2), and a suitable empennage spaced apart from the at least one wing and located adjacent the trailing end of the fuselage (vertical and horizontal stabilizers at the trailing end of booms W1 and W2), wherein the empennage or the canard is coupled to the at least one boom (see Figure 1), a front rotor positioned forward of the at least one wing (propeller 7), the front rotor pivotably mounted to or adjacent the leading end of the fuselage (via 11), wherein the front rotor is displaceable about an axis parallel to the transverse axis between a lift position in which the front rotor is oriented to provide vertical lift to the aircraft for vertical flight (see Figure 2), and a propulsion position in which the front rotor is oriented to provide forward thrust to the aircraft for horizontal flight (see Figure 1); and a rear rotor positioned rearward of the at least one wing (propeller 9), the rear rotor pivotably mounted to or adjacent the trailing edge of the fuselage (via 33 and 35), wherein the rear rotor is displaceable about an axis parallel to the transverse axis between a lift position in which the rear rotor is oriented to provide vertical lift to the aircraft for vertical flight (see Figure 2), and a propulsion position in which the rear rotor is oriented to provide forward thrust to the aircraft for horizontal flight (see Figure 1), wherein the method comprises controlling the front and rear rotors to be displaceable between the propulsion positions for horizontal flight (shown in Figure 2) and lift positions for vertical flight (shown in Figure 1, see also column 6, lines 3-13); and controlling the front and rear rotors by using the lift commands to provide a majority, or all of the vertical lift to the aircraft during vertical flight with the front and rear rotors in the lift position (Rotors 7 and 9 are the only lifting bodies and therefore provide all of the lift during vertical flight).
Hong does not disclose an array of electric rotors mounted to the airframe operative to provide stability and/or vertical lift to the aircraft, wherein the electric rotors are fixedly positioned on the airframe and are driven by one or more suitable motors, and wherein at least one of the electric rotors is coupled to the at least one boom at a location apart from and forward of the at least one wing, and wherein one or both of the front and rear rotors are driven by one or more suitable internal combustion engines, receiving and/or intercepting aircraft control signals comprising lift and/or stability commands to control the lift and/or stability of the aircraft during vertical flight, processing the received/intercepted aircraft control signals to determine the lift and/or stability commands, separating the lift and/or stability commands, translating the lift commands to a format to control the one or more suitable internal combustion engines, controlling the array of electric rotors by using the stability commands to provide stability to the aircraft during vertical flight. However, this limitation is taught by Armer. Armer discloses a VTOL aircraft with an array of electric rotors 110, 111, 112, 113 fixed positioned on the airframe, and Figures 1 and 2 shows rotors 110 and 112 being attached to booms 72 and 73 forward of wings 62 and 63. Furthermore, Armer teaches the use of internal combustion engine 121 to drive the rotors on the fuselage 61. Column 7, lines 31-38 disclose that this VTOL rotor system “provide downward thrust to provide vertical lift to aircraft 50 and yaw control authority”, column 11, lines 16-19 disclose the VTOL thrust rotors 110-113 also providing roll, pitch, yaw, and vertical thrust control, and column 12, lines 7-40 goes through a variety of scenarios for how a PID controller operates VTOL rotors 110-113 to provide thrust and different maneuvers as needed. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong using the teachings from Armer in order to better provide better control of the aircraft during flight and to use known types of engines for VTOL aircraft.
Regarding claim 26, Hong discloses a control system for controlling a vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising an airframe having a fuselage having a leading end and a trailing end extending between a longitudinal axis of the aircraft (fuselage F), at least one wing extending along a transverse axis (3), the at least one wing being operatively attached to the fuselage between the leading end and the trailing end of the fuselage (see Figure 1), at least one boom coupled to the at least one wing, the at least one boom spaced apart from the fuselage and extending in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft (booms W1 and W2), and a suitable empennage spaced apart from the at least one wing and located adjacent the trailing end of the fuselage (vertical and horizontal stabilizers at the trailing end of booms W1 and W2), wherein the empennage is coupled to the at least one boom (see Figure 1); a front rotor positioned forward of the at least one wing (propeller 7), the front rotor pivotably mounted to or adjacent the leading end of the fuselage (via 11), wherein the front rotor is displaceable about an axis parallel to the transverse axis between a lift position in which the front rotor is oriented to provide vertical lift to the aircraft for vertical flight (see Figure 2), and a propulsion position in which the front rotor is oriented to provide forward thrust to the aircraft for horizontal flight (see Figure 1); and a rear rotor positioned rearward of the at least one wing (propeller 9), the rear rotor pivotably mounted to or adjacent the trailing edge of the fuselage (via 33 and 35), wherein the rear rotor is displaceable about an axis parallel to the transverse axis between a lift position in which the rear rotor is oriented to provide vertical lift to the aircraft for vertical flight (see Figure 2), and a propulsion position in which the rear rotor is oriented to provide forward thrust to the aircraft for horizontal flight (see Figure 1), wherein the system comprises a memory device, a processor coupled to the memory device (column 12, lines 62-63 discloses “The software code may be stored in a memory unit and driven by a processor”), the processor being configured to receive and/or intercept aircraft control signals comprising lift and/or stability commands to control the lift and/or stability of the aircraft during vertical flight (column 8, lines 3-7), control the front and rear rotors to be displaceable between the propulsion positions for horizontal flight and lift positions for vertical flight (column 8, lines 8-10), control the front and rear rotors by using lift commands to provide a majority, or all, of the vertical lift to the aircraft during vertical flight with the front and rear rotors in the lift position (Rotors 7 and 9 are the only lifting bodies and therefore provide all of the lift during vertical flight).
Hong does not disclose an array of electric rotors mounted to the airframe operative to provide stability and/or vertical lift to the aircraft, wherein the electric rotors are fixedly positioned on the airframe and are driven by one or more suitable motors, and wherein at least one of the electric rotors is coupled to the at least one boom at a location apart from and forward of the at least one wing, and wherein one or both of the front and rear rotors are driven by one or more suitable internal combustion engines, receiving and/or intercepting aircraft control signals comprising lift and/or stability commands to control the lift and/or stability of the aircraft during vertical flight, processing the received/intercepted aircraft control signals to determine the lift and/or stability commands, separating the lift and/or stability commands, translating the lift commands to a format to control the one or more suitable internal combustion engines, controlling the array of electric rotors by using the stability commands to provide stability to the aircraft during vertical flight. However, this limitation is taught by Armer. Armer discloses a VTOL aircraft with an array of electric rotors 110, 111, 112, 113 fixed positioned on the airframe, and Figures 1 and 2 shows rotors 110 and 112 being attached to booms 72 and 73 forward of wings 62 and 63. Furthermore, Armer teaches the use of internal combustion engine 121 to drive the rotors on the fuselage 61. Column 7, lines 31-38 disclose that this VTOL rotor system “provide downward thrust to provide vertical lift to aircraft 50 and yaw control authority”, column 11, lines 16-19 disclose the VTOL thrust rotors 110-113 also providing roll, pitch, yaw, and vertical thrust control, and column 12, lines 7-40 goes through a variety of scenarios for how a PID controller operates VTOL rotors 110-113 to provide thrust and different maneuvers as needed. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong using the teachings from Armer in order to better provide better control of the aircraft during flight and to use known types of engines for VTOL aircraft.
Claims 8, 11, 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Number 11,148,800 to Hong in view of US Patent Number 11,485,488 to Armer in view of US Patent Application Number 2018/0222580 by DeLorean.
Regarding claim 8 (dependent on claim 7), Hong and Armer do not disclose the front and rear rotors and/or the front being located equidistantly from a center of gravity of the aircraft. However, this limitation ins taught by DeLorean. Paragraph 92 discloses “Placement of the battery of batteries may include consideration of a distribution of a payload such that the center of mass is substantially near a midpoint between the rotor units”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong using the teachings of DeLorean in order to distribute the lift so that there is no unwanted pitching moment caused by the front and rear rotors.
Regarding claim 11 (dependent on claim 1), DeLorean further teaches at least another one of the electric rotors is attached to the empennage or the canard. Figures 28A-C show an embodiment with rotors 2801(1) and 2802(2) attached to a canard.
Regarding claim 17 (dependent on claim 1), DeLorean further teaches the front and rear rotors are slightly offset from a vertical axis in an anticlockwise direction about the longitudinal axis as viewed from the front of the aircraft. Paragraph 45 discloses “the rotors may provide directed lateral thrust to assist in yaw and roll control of the aircraft”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the current grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
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, Josh Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642