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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed 26th August 2026 has been entered. Claims 23, 25-30, 32-34, 39-44, 47-60, 62-67, 69-71, 76-81, and 84-96 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10th April 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 39-40, 50, 77, 80-81, 87 and 92 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 39 line 6, “…the tilting propeller assemblies.” should read “…the plurality of tilting propeller assembles.” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 40 line 3, “…the tilting propeller assemblies...” should read “…the plurality of tilting propeller assembles…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 50 line 2, “…the tilting propeller assemblies…” should read “…the plurality of tilting propeller assembles…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 77 line 3, “…the proprotors…” should read “…the plurality of proprotors…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 80 lie 8, “…of the plurality of rotors…” should read “… of a plurality of rotors…” so that there is a proper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 81 line 2, “…at least two support structures…” should read “…at least three support structures…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 87 line 2, “…the proprotors…” should read “…the plurality of proprotors…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 92 line 2, “…the proprotors…” should read “…the plurality of proprotors…” for the purpose of clarity.
(Note: The above are only examples of such informalities. The Applicant is required to review the entire claim set, correct all such informalities. The examiner suggest using consistent term for the limitation throughout the claim sets for the purpose of clarity.)
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 23, 25-30, 32-34, 39-44, 47-60, 62-67, 69-71, 76-81, and 84-96 are 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.
Claim 23 Lines 17-19 recites “at least three adjacent lift propeller assemblies on adjacent support structures” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 23 line 5 recites “a plurality of lift propeller assemblies” and claim 23 line 14 recites “a plurality of support structures”, thus it is unclear if “at least three adjacent lift propeller assemblies” and “adjacent support structures” are a part/subset of “a plurality of lift propeller assemblies” and “a plurality of support structures” respectively or they are different components.
Claim 30 recites “at least three lift propeller assemblies” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 23, on which claim 30 depends on, recites “a plurality of lift propeller assemblies” and “at least three adjacent lift propeller assemblies”, thus it is unclear if “at least three lift propeller”, “a plurality of lift propeller assemblies” and “at least three adjacent lift propeller assemblies” are three different sets of lift propeller assemblies or they are subsets of each other.
Claim 32 recites “at least three tilting propeller assemblies” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 23, on which claim 30 depends on, recites “a plurality of tilting propeller assemblies”, thus it is unclear if “at least tilting propeller assemblies” is a part/subset of “a plurality of tilting propeller assemblies” or they are different components. Similar issues are present in claim 33.
Claim 43 Lines 12 recites “at least three adjacent lift propeller assemblies on adjacent support structures” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 43 line 9 recites “a plurality of lift propeller assemblies” and claim 43 line 8 recites “at least three support structures”, thus it is unclear if “at least three adjacent lift propeller assemblies” and “adjacent support structures” are a part/subset of “a plurality of lift propeller assemblies” and “at least three support structures” respectively or they are different components.
Claim 47 recites “at least three tilting propeller assemblies” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 43, on which claim 47 depends on, recites “a plurality of tilting propeller assemblies”, thus it is unclear if “at least tilting propeller assemblies” is a part/subset of “a plurality of tilting propeller assemblies” or they are different components.
Claim 53 Lines 15-16 recites “at least three adjacent lift propeller assemblies on adjacent support structures” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 53 line 6 recites “a plurality of lift propeller assemblies” and claim 53 line 5 recites “a plurality of support structures”, thus it is unclear if “at least three adjacent lift propeller assemblies” and “adjacent support structures” are a part/subset of “a plurality of lift propeller assemblies” and “a plurality of support structures” respectively or they are different components.
Claim 60 Lines 17-18 recites “at least three adjacent rotors on adjacent support structures” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 60 line 5 recites “a plurality of rotors” and claim 60 line 14 recites “a plurality of support structures”, thus it is unclear if “at least three adjacent rotors” and “adjacent support structures” are a part/subset of “a plurality of rotors” and “a plurality of support structures” respectively or they are different components.
Claim 67 recites “at least three rotors” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 60, on which claim 67 depends on, recites “a plurality of rotors”, thus it is unclear if “at least three rotors” is a part/subset of “a plurality of rotors” or they are different components. Similar issues are present in claims 69-70.
Claim 80 Lines 10-11 recites “at least three adjacent rotors on adjacent support structures” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 80 line 8 recites “a plurality of rotors” and claim 80 line 7 recites “at least three support structures”, thus it is unclear if “at least three adjacent rotors” and “adjacent support structures” are a part/subset of “a plurality of rotors” and “at least three support structures” respectively or they are different components.
Claim 84 recites “at least three proprotors” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 80, on which claim 84 depends on, recites “a plurality of proprotors”, thus it is unclear if “at least proprotors” is a part/subset of “a plurality of proprotors” or they are different components.
Claim 89 Lines 12-13 recites “at least three adjacent rotors on adjacent support structures” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 89 line 5 recites “a plurality of rotors” and claim 89 lines 4-5 recites “a plurality of support structures”, thus it is unclear if “at least three adjacent rotors” and “adjacent support structures” are a part/subset of “a plurality of rotors” and “a plurality of support structures” respectively or they are different components.
(Note: The above are only examples of such informalities. The Applicant is required to review the entire claim set, correct all such informalities.)
Claims not addressed above are rejected due to their dependency on rejected base claim.
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 ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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 J 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
