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 22nd September 2025 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 June 20th 2025.
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.
Claims 23, 25-30, 32-34, 39-44, 47-51, 60, 62-67, 69-71, 76-81 and 84-88 are 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.
The following limitations do not have support in the disclosure and are subject to new matter:
“two adjacent lift propeller assemblies on adjacent support structures on each wing have opposite angles of attack “ of claims 23, 43 and 80.
two adjacent rotors on adjacent support structures on each wing have opposite angles of attack of claim 60.
Claims not addressed above are rejected due to their dependency on rejected base claims.
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)(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(s) 89 and 92-96 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McDonald (US 11,465,737).
Regarding claim 89, McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) a method for controlling one or more proprotors of an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000), the method comprising:
receiving, by a control system/ tilt control system (2306) of the aircraft, a pilot command/instruction (2212), wherein the aircraft is configured for vertical takeoff and landing and comprises a fuselage (1002), a plurality of support structures/booms (1008, 1010, 1012, 1016) coupled to a single pair of wings (1004, 1006), a plurality of rotors/fixed rotors (1026, 1028, 1030, 1032), and a plurality of proprotors/tilt rotors (1014, 1018, 1022, 1024), wherein a rotor of the plurality of rotors/fixed rotors is non-tiltably mounted to a first/rear end of each support structure/boom and a proprotor of the plurality of proprotors is mounted to a second/front end of each support structure via a tilting coupler forming a plurality of identical support structures of the plurality of support structures, each including a support structure/boom with a rotor at the first/rear end and a proprotor at an second/front end, wherein a number of proprotors of the plurality of proprotors is equal to a number of rotors of the plurality of rotors (clearly seen in figure 10), wherein one or more battery units provided in the fuselage (1002) are configured to power the plurality of proprotors and the plurality of rotors (Col. 6 Line 25, 33-38, 61-64, 58-59; Col. 7 Lines 2-17, 35-37, 65-67; Col. 18 Lines 16-26; instruction (2212) includes instruction for flight operations; instruction is commanded by pilot; proprotor is coupled to a boom via a coupler);
controlling, by the control system/ tilt control system (2306), one or more of the plurality of proprotors between a lift configuration (figure 13) and a propulsion configuration (figure 11) based on the pilot command, wherein the lift configuration (figure 13) corresponds to hover of the aircraft, wherein the plurality of rotors are provided towards a trailing edge of the pair of wings and the plurality of proprotors are provided towards a leading edge of the pair of wings (clearly seen in 10) (Col. 7 Lines 15-24, 65-67; Col. 8 Lines 1-3); and
actively controlling, by the control system, the one or more of the proprotors (Col. 7 Lines 15-24; tilt rotors are under control of the tilt control system i.e., tilt control system actively controls tilt rotors).
Regarding claim 92, McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) a method further comprising:
controlling, by the control system, a position of the proprotors automatically (Col. 13 Lines 46-53).
Regarding claim 93, McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) a method wherein controlling the one or more of the plurality of proprotors comprises:
controlling the one or more of the plurality of proprotors to the lift configuration during takeoff (figure 13) (Col. 7 Lines 15-24; aerial vehicle has lift/takeoff mode).
Regarding claim 94, McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) a method wherein controlling the one or more of the plurality of proprotors comprises:
controlling the one or more of the plurality of proprotors to the lift configuration during hover or landing/descend (figure 13) (Col. 7 Lines 15-24; aerial vehicle has hover and descend modes).
Regarding claim 95, McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) a method wherein controlling the one or more of the plurality of proprotors comprises:
controlling the one or more of the plurality of proprotors to the propulsion configuration when transitioning to forward flight (Col. 7 Lines 15-24).
Regarding claim 96, McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) a method further comprising controlling one or more of the plurality of rotors to lock during the forward flight of the aircraft (Col. 7 Lines 42-44).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 23, 25-29, 34 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McDonald (US 11,465,737) in view of Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155) and Sada-Salinas et al. (US 2016/0297520).
Regarding claim 23, McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) configured for vertical take-off and landing comprising:
a fuselage (1002) (Col. 6 Line 9));
a single pair of wings (1004, 1006) coupled to opposite sides of the fuselage (1002) (Col. 6 Line 58-59);
a plurality of lift propeller assemblies/fixed rotors (1026, 1028, 1030,, 1032) coupled to the single pair of wings (1004, 1006), wherein the plurality of lift propeller assemblies are configured to create a vertical lift (Col. 7 Lines 2-5);
a plurality of tilting propeller assemblies/tilt rotors (1014, 1018, 1022, 1024) configured to move between a vertical lift position (fig. 13) and a forward flight position (fig. 11), wherein in a number of tilting propeller assemblies of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies is equal to a number of lift propeller assemblies of the plurality of lift propeller assemblies (clearly seen in figure 10) (Col. 7 Lines 15-17, 35-37, 65-67);
one or more battery units provided in the fuselage (1002), wherein the one or more battery units include a plurality of battery cells/packs configured to power the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies and the plurality of lift propeller assemblies (Col. 6 Lines 33-38 Col. 6 Lines 61-64; Col. 19 Lines 11-12);
a plurality of support structures/booms (1008, 1010, 1012, 1016) coupled to the single pair of wings, wherein each lift propeller assembly of the plurality of lift propeller assemblies is non-tiltably mounted to a top surface of first/rear end of each support structure to operate above the plurality of support structures/booms extending substantially parallel to each other (clearly seen in figure 10) (Col. 7 Lines 6-14),
wherein each tilting propeller assembly of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies is mounted to a second/front end of each support structure/booms (1008, 1010, 1012, 1016) via a tilting mechanism forming a plurality of identical structures each including a support structure/boom with a lift propeller assembly at one/rear end and a tilting propeller assembly at an opposite/front end (clearly seen in figure 10) (Col. 7 Lines 6-14),
wherein the plurality of lift propeller assemblies are provided towards a trailing edge of the single pair of wings and the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies are provided towards a leading edge of the single pair of wings (clearly seen in figure 12); and
a control system/ tilt control system (2306) configurable to control the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies between the vertical lift position and the forward flight position (Col. 7 Lines 15-18),
but it is silent about the aircraft
wherein two adjacent lift propeller assemblies on adjacent support structures on each wing have opposite angles of attack.
Reichert et al. ‘155 teaches (figure 2A) a rotor orientation of a mulitcopter wherein rotors are mounted such that adjacent rotors on the same side of the fuselage (200) are alternately tilted forward and/or backward (Para 0022, 0026; rotors are tilted forward and/or backward with respect to each other and the vertical axis of the aircraft).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Reichert et al. ‘155 to configure the aircraft
wherein two adjacent lift propeller assemblies on adjacent support structures on each wing have opposite angles of attack.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics by generating a vectored thrust for lift propeller assemblies.
Modified McDonald ‘737 is silent about the aircraft wherein the plurality of identical structures are interchangeable mounted to the single pair of wings.
Sada-Salinas et al. ‘520 teaches (figures 1-6) modular nacelle systems suitable for installation on a fixed wing unmanned aerial vehicle wherein nacelles/identical structures (17, 18) carries electric motors (89s) attached to the front end (2) and rear end (3) which drives a propeller or rotor (4) and are attached beneath wings (15, 16) of the aircraft (20) (Para 0037-0040; nacelles can be mounted/installed and interchanged as needed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Sada-Salinas et al. ‘520 to configure the aircraft wherein the plurality of identical structures are interchangeable mounted to the single pair of wings.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide flexibility in mounting/attaching nacelles.
Regarding claim 25, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) further comprising a tailplane (1020) coupled to the fuselage, wherein the tailplane (1020) is in form of a V-tail (clearly seen in figure 10).
Regarding claim 26, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein the single pair of wings is coupled to the fuselage in a high-wing configuration (clearly seen in figure 13).
Regarding claim 27, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein the plurality of lift propeller assemblies/fixed rotors are mounted in a fixed position relative to the single pair of wings to move the aircraft in a vertical direction (Col. 7 Lines 2-5; fixed rotors are fixed in position);
Regarding claim 28, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein one or more of the plurality of lift propeller assemblies/fixed rotors are configurable to stop operating during a forward flight of the aircraft (Col. 7 Lines 42-44).
Regarding claim 29, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein each of the plurality of lift propeller assemblies comprise an electric motor-driven rotor (Col. 7 Lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 34, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein the plurality of support structures/booms are coupled to an underside of the pair of wings (clearly seen in figures 10, 13).
Regarding claim 39, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein the control system/tilt control system (2306) is configurable to:
receive a flight instruction (2212) (Col. 18 Lines 16-26; instruction (2212) includes instruction for flight operations);
control one or more of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies between the vertical lift position and the forward flight position based on the flight instruction (Col. 7 Lines 15-24); and
actively control the one or more of the tilting propeller assemblies (Col. 7 Lines 15-24; tilt rotors are under control of the tilt control system i.e., tilt control system actively controls tilt rotors).
Regarding claim 40, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein the control system is configurable to control the position of the tilting propeller assemblies automatically (Col. 13 Lines 46-53).
Claim(s) 30, 32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737), Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155) and Sada-Salinas et al. (US 2016/0297520) as applied to claims 23 and 27 above, and further in view of Tighe et al. (US 2018/0105267).
Regarding claims 30, 32 and 33, McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) of claims 23 and 27 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein at least three lift propeller assemblies are coupled to each one of the single pair of wings,
wherein at least three tilting propeller assemblies are coupled to each one of the single pair of wings, and
wherein a combined number of lift propeller assemblies and tilting propeller assemblies is at least 12.
Tighe et al. ‘267 teaches (figures 2A-2E) multicopter aircraft (200) comprising wings (204) and three booms (206s) wherein each boom comprises a pair of lift fans (208s) (clearly seen in figure 2A) (Para 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Tighe et al. ‘267 to configure the aircraft wherein at least three lift propeller assemblies are coupled to each one of the single pair of wings,
wherein at least three tilting propeller assemblies are coupled to each one of the single pair of wings, and
wherein a combined number of lift propeller assemblies and tilting propeller assemblies is at least 12.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide additional source of thrust and lift.
Claim(s) 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737), Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155) and Sada-Salinas et al. (US 2016/0297520) as applied to claims 39 above, and further in view of Tao et al. (US 2021/0253234).
Regarding claims 41-42, McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) of claim 39 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein in the control system is configurable to:
control a first tiling propeller assembly and a second tilting propeller assembly among the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies independently from each other; and
control at least a subset of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies simultaneously.
Tao et al. ‘234 teaches (figures 1-4) a vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising:
wing (20), one or more fixed-tilt rotors (16s) and one or more tilt-adjustable rotors (10s) wherein each of the one or more tilt-adjustable rotors is coupled to its own tilt mechanism and controller/control system (40) controls tilt mechanisms, coupled to one or more tilt-adjustable rotors (10s), independently as well as simultaneously (Para 0018, 0026, 0103).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Tao et al. ‘234 to configure the aircraft wherein in the control system is configurable to:
control a first tiling propeller assembly and a second tilting propeller assembly among the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies independently from each other; and
control at least a subset of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies simultaneously.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
Claim(s) 43-44, 47 and 50-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McDonald (US 11,465,737) in view of Tighe et al. (US 2018/0105267), Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155) and Sada-Salinas et al. (US 2016/0297520).
Regarding claim 43, McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) comprising:
a fuselage (1002) (Col. 6 Line 9);
a single pair of wings (1004, 1006) coupled to opposite sides of the fuselage (1002) (Col. 6 Line 58-59);
a plurality of tilting propeller assemblies/tilt rotors (1014, 1018, 1022, 1024) coupled to the single pair of wings, wherein the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies are configured to move between a vertical lift position (fig. 13) and a forward flight position (fig. 11), wherein the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies are configured to create a vertical lift when in the vertical lift position (fig. 13) (Col. 7 Lines 15-17, 35-37, 65-67);
support structures/booms (1008, 1010, 1012, 1016) coupled to each one of the single pair of wings,
wherein a lift propeller assembly of the plurality of a plurality of lift propeller assemblies is non-tiltably mounted to a top surface of a first end of each support structure to operate above the support structures/booms extending substantially parallel to each other, and a tilting propeller assembly of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies is mounted to a second end of each support structure via a tilting mechanism forming a plurality of identical structures each including a support structure/boom with a lift propeller assembly at one/rear end and a tilting propeller assembly at an opposite/front end such that a number of tilting propeller assemblies of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies is equal to a number of lift propeller assemblies of the plurality of lift propeller assemblies, wherein the plurality of lift propeller assemblies are provided towards a trailing edge of the single pair of wings and the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies are provided towards a leading edge of the single pair of wings (clearly seen in figure 10) (Col. 7 Lines 6-14),
one or more battery units provided in the fuselage (1002), wherein the one or more battery units include a plurality of battery cells/packs configured to power the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies (Col. 6 Lines 33-38 Col. 6 Lines 61-64; Col. 19 Lines 11-12); and
a control system/ tilt control system (2306) configurable to control the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies between the vertical lift position and the forward flight position (Col. 7 Lines 15-18),
but it is silent about the aircraft comprising:
at least three support structures coupled to each one of the single pair of wings.
Tighe et al. ‘267 teaches (figures 2A-2E) multicopter aircraft (200) comprising wings (204) and three booms/support structures (206s) wherein each boom comprises a pair of lift fans (208s) (clearly seen in figure 2A) (Para 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Tighe et al. ‘267 to configure the aircraft comprising:
at least three support structures coupled to each one of the single pair of wings
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide additional source of thrust and lift.
Modified McDonald ‘737 is silent about the aircraft wherein two adjacent lift propeller assemblies on adjacent support structures on each wing have opposite angles of attack.
Reichert et al. ‘155 teaches (figure 2A) a rotor orientation of a mulitcopter wherein rotors are mounted such that adjacent rotors on the same side of the fuselage (200) are alternately tilted forward and/or backward (Para 0022, 0026; rotors are tilted forward and/or backward with respect to each other and the vertical axis of the aircraft).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Reichert et al. ‘155 to configure the aircraft wherein two adjacent lift propeller assemblies on adjacent support structures on each wing have opposite angles of attack
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics by generating a vectored thrust for lift propeller assemblies.
Modified McDonald ‘737 is silent about the aircraft wherein the plurality of identical structures are interchangeable mounted to the single pair of wings.
Sada-Salinas et al. ‘520 teaches (figures 1-6) modular nacelle systems suitable for installation on a fixed wing unmanned aerial vehicle wherein nacelles/identical structures (17, 18) carries electric motors (89s) attached to the front end (2) and rear end (3) which drives a propeller or rotor (4) and are attached beneath wings (15, 16) of the aircraft (20) (Para 0037-0040; nacelles can be mounted/installed and interchanged as needed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Sada-Salinas et al. ‘520 to configure the aircraft wherein the plurality of identical structures are interchangeable mounted to the single pair of wings.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide flexibility in mounting/attaching nacelles.
Regarding claim 44, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein the each support structure/boom of the at least three support structures/booms is coupled to an underside of the single pair of wings (clearly seen in figures 10, 13).
Regarding claim 47, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein at least three lift propeller assemblies are coupled to each of the single pair of wings (as modified by Tighe et al. ‘267).
Regarding claim 50, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein the control system is configurable to control the position of the tilting propeller assemblies automatically (Col. 13 Lines 46-53).
Regarding claim 51, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) further comprising a tailplane (1020) coupled to the fuselage (1002) wherein the tailplane is in the form of a V-tail (clearly seen in figure 10).
Claim(s) 48-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737), Tighe et al. (US 2018/0105267), Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155) and Sada-Salinas et al. (US 2016/0297520) as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Tao et al. (US 2021/0253234).
Regarding claims 48-49, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) of claim 43 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the control system is configurable to control a first tilting propeller assembly and a second tilting propeller assembly among the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies independently from each other; and
wherein the control system is configurable to control at least a subset of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies simultaneously.
Tao et al. ‘234 teaches (figures 1-4) a vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising:
wing (20), one or more fixed-tilt rotors (16s) and one or more tilt-adjustable rotors (10s) wherein each of the one or more tilt-adjustable rotors is coupled to its own tilt mechanism and controller/control system (40) controls tilt mechanisms, coupled to one or more tilt-adjustable rotors (10s), independently as well as simultaneously (Para 0018, 0026, 0103).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Tao et al. ‘234 to configure the aircraft wherein the control system is configurable to control a first tilting propeller assembly and a second tilting propeller assembly among the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies independently from each other; and
wherein the control system is configurable to control at least a subset of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies simultaneously.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
Claim(s) 52 and 55-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McDonald (US 11,465,737) in view of Sada-Salinas et al. (US 2016/0297520).
Regarding claim 52, McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) a method for controlling one or more tilting propeller assemblies of an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000), the method comprising:
receiving, by a control system/ tilt control system (2306) coupled to the aircraft, a flight instruction (2212), wherein the aircraft is configured for vertical takeoff and landing and comprises a fuselage (1002), a single pair of wings (1004, 1006) coupled to opposite sides of the fuselage (1002), a plurality of support structures/booms (1008, 1010, 1012, 1016) coupled to the single pair of wings, a plurality of lift propeller assemblies/fixed rotors (1026, 1028, 1030, 1032), and a plurality of tilting propeller assemblies/tilt rotors (1014, 1018, 1022, 1024) , wherein a lift propeller assembly of the plurality of lift propeller assemblies/fixed rotors is non-tiltably mounted to a first end of each support structure and a tilting propeller assembly of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies is mounted to a second end of each support structure via a tilting mechanism forming a plurality of identical support structures of the plurality of support structures, each including a support structure/boom with a lift propeller assembly at one/rear end and a tilting propeller assembly at an opposite/front end, wherein a number of tilting propeller assemblies of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies is equal to a number of lift propeller assemblies of the plurality of lift propeller assemblies (clearly seen in figure 10), wherein one or more battery units provided in the fuselage (1002) are configured to power the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies and the plurality of lift propeller assemblies (Col. 6 Lines 25, 33-38, 58-59, 61-64; Col. 7 Lines 2-17, 35-37, 65-67; Col. 18 Lines 16-26; instruction (2212) includes instruction for flight operations);
controlling, by the control system/ tilt control system (2306), one or more of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies between a vertical lift position and a forward flight position based on the flight instruction, wherein the vertical lift position (figure 13) corresponds to hover of the aircraft, wherein the plurality of lift propeller assembles are provided towards a trailing edge of the single pair of wings and the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies are provided towards a leading edge of the single pair of wings (clearly seen in 10) (Col. 7 Lines 15-24, 65-67; Col. 8 Lines 1-3); and
actively controlling, by the control system, the one or more of the tilting propeller assemblies (Col. 7 Lines 15-24; tilt rotors are under control of the tilt control system i.e., tilt control system actively controls tilt rotors),
but it is silent about the method wherein the plurality of identical structures are interchangeable.
Sada-Salinas et al. ‘520 teaches (figures 1-6) modular nacelle systems suitable for installation on a fixed wing unmanned aerial vehicle wherein nacelles/identical structures (17, 18) carries electric motors (89s) attached to the front end (2) and rear end (3) which drives a propeller or rotor (4) and are attached beneath wings (15, 16) of the aircraft (20) (Para 0037-0040; nacelles can be mounted/installed and interchanged as needed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Sada-Salinas et al. ‘520 to configure the method wherein the plurality of identical structures are interchangeable.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide flexibility in mounting/attaching nacelles.
Regarding claim 55, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the method further comprising,
controlling, by the control system/ tilt control system (2306), the position of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies automatically (Col. 13 Lines 46-53).
Regarding claim 56, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the method wherein the flight instruction is a takeoff instruction (Col. 7 Lines 15-24; aerial vehicle has lift/takeoff mode and take off instruction initiates take off mode), wherein controlling the one or more of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies comprises:
controlling the one or more of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies to the vertical lift position (figure 13).
Regarding claim 57, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the method wherein the flight instruction is a hover instruction or a landing/descend instruction (Col. 7 Lines 15-24; aerial vehicle has hover and descend modes and, and hover and descend instructions initiate hover and descend mode respectively), and wherein controlling the one or more of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies comprises:
controlling the one or more of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies to the vertical lift position (figure 13).
Regarding claim 58, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the method wherein the flight instruction is an instruction to switch to forward flight (Col. 7 Lines 15-24; aircraft switches between vertical and forward flights after an instruction to do so), and wherein controlling the one or more of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies comprises:
controlling one or more of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies to the forward flight position (figure 10).
Regarding claim 59, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the method further comprising:
controlling one or more of a plurality of lift propeller assemblies to stop operating during the forward flight of the aircraft (Col. 7 Lines 42-44).
Claim(s) 53-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737) and Sada-Salinas et al. (US 2016/0297520) as applied to claim 52 above, and further in view of Tao et al. (US 2021/0253234).
Regarding claims 53-54, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the method of claim 52 but it is silent about the method further comprising:
controlling, by the control system, a first tilting propeller assembly and a second tilting propeller assembly among the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies independently from each other, and
controlling, by the control system, at least a subset of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies simultaneously.
Tao et al. ‘234 teaches (figures 1-4) a vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising:
wing (20), one or more fixed-tilt rotors (16s) and one or more tilt-adjustable rotors (10s) wherein each of the one or more tilt-adjustable rotors is coupled to its own tilt mechanism and controller/control system (40) controls tilt mechanisms, coupled to one or more tilt-adjustable rotors (10s), independently as well as simultaneously (Para 0018, 0026, 0103).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Tao et al. ‘234 to configure the method further comprising:
controlling, by the control system, a first tilting propeller assembly and a second tilting propeller assembly among the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies independently from each other, and
controlling, by the control system, at least a subset of the plurality of tilting propeller assemblies simultaneously.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
Claim(s) 60, 62-66, 71 and 76-77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McDonald (US 11,465,737) in view of Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155).
Regarding claim 60, McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) configured for vertical take-off and landing comprising:
a fuselage (1002) (Col. 6 Line 9));
a single pair of wings (1004, 1006) coupled to opposite sides of the fuselage (1002) (Col. 6 Line 58-59);
a plurality of rotors/fixed rotors (1026, 1028, 1030,, 1032) connected to the pair of wings (1004, 1006) for providing lift for vertical take-off and landing of the aircraft (Col. 7 Lines 2-5);
a plurality of proprotors/tilt rotors (1014, 1018, 1022, 1024) connected to the pair of wings and tiltable between lift configurations for providing lift for vertical take-off and landing of the aircraft (fig. 13) and propulsion configurations for providing forward thrust to the aircraft (fig. 11), wherein in a number of proprotors of the plurality of proprotors is equal to a number of rotors of the plurality of rotors (clearly seen in figure 10) (Col. 7 Lines 15-17, 35-37, 65-67); and
one or more batteries provided in the fuselage (1002), wherein the one or more batteries are configured to power the plurality of proprotors and the plurality of rotors (Col. 6 Lines 33-38 Col. 6 Lines 61-64; Col. 19 Lines 11-12);
a plurality of support structures/booms (1008, 1010, 1012, 1016) coupled to the pair of wings, wherein each rotor of the plurality of rotors is non-tiltably mounted to a top surface of a first end of each support structure to operate above the plurality of support structures/booms extending substantially parallel to each other, and each proprotor of the plurality of proprotors is mounted to a second end of each support structure via a tilting coupler (clearly seen in figure 10) (Col. 7 Lines 6-14; proprotor is coupled to a boom via a coupler),
wherein the plurality of rotors are provided towards a trailing edge of the single pair of wings and the plurality of proprotors are provided towards a leading edge of the pair of wings forming a plurality of identical structures each including a support structure/boom with a rotor at the first/rear end and a proprotor at an second/front end (clearly seen in figure 12); and
a control system/ tilt control system (2306) configurable to control tilts of the plurality of proprotors between the lift configurations and the propulsion configurations (Col. 7 Lines 15-18),
but it is silent about the aircraft
wherein two adjacent rotors on adjacent support structures on each wing have opposite angles of attack.
Reichert et al. ‘155 teaches (figure 2A) a rotor orientation of a mulitcopter wherein rotors are mounted such that adjacent rotors on the same side of the fuselage (200) are alternately tilted forward and/or backward (Para 0022, 0026; rotors are tilted forward and/or backward with respect to each other and the vertical axis of the aircraft).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Reichert et al. ‘155 to configure the aircraft
wherein two adjacent rotors on adjacent support structures on each wing have opposite angles of attack.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics by generating a vectored thrust for lift propeller assemblies.
Regarding claim 62, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) further comprising stabilizers (1020) mounted to the fuselage (1002), wherein the stabilizers are in the form of a V-tail (clearly seen in figure 10).
Regarding claim 63, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein the pair of wings are coupled to the fuselage in a high-wing configuration (clearly seen in figure 13).
Regarding claim 64, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein the plurality of rotors are mounted in a fixed position relative to the pair of wings to move the aircraft in a vertical direction (Col. 7 Lines 2-5; fixed rotors are fixed in position);
Regarding claim 65, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000), wherein one or more of the plurality of rotors are configured to be locked during a forward flight of the aircraft (Col. 7 Lines 42-44).
Regarding claim 66, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein each of the plurality of rotors is electrically driven (Col. 7 Lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 71, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein the plurality of support structures/booms are coupled to an underside of the pair of wings (clearly seen in figures 10 and 13).
Regarding claim 76, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein the control system/tilt control system (2306) is configurable to:
receive a pilot command/instruction (Col. 18 Lines 16-26; instruction (2212) includes instruction for flight operations; instruction is commanded by pilot);
control one or more of the plurality of proprotors between the vertical lift position and the forward flight position based on the pilot command/instruction (Col. 7 Lines 15-24; instruction is commanded by pilot); and
actively control the one or more of the proprotors (Col. 7 Lines 15-24; tilt rotors are under control of the tilt control system i.e., tilt control system actively controls tilt rotors).
Regarding claim 77, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein the control system is configurable to control the position of the tilting propeller assemblies automatically (Col. 13 Lines 46-53).
Claim(s) 67 and 69-70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737) and Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155) as applied to claims 60 and 64 above, and further in view of Tighe et al. (US 2018/0105267).
Regarding claims 67 and 69-70, McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) of claims 60 and 64 above but it is silent about the aircraft wherein at least three rotors are coupled to each of the pair of wings,
wherein at least three proprotors are coupled to each of the pair of wings, and
wherein a combined number of rotors and proprotors is at least 12.
Tighe et al. ‘267 teaches (figures 2A-2E) multicopter aircraft (200) comprising wings (204) and three booms (206s) wherein each boom comprises a pair of lift fans (208s) (clearly seen in figure 2A) (Para 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Tighe et al. ‘267 to configure the aircraft comprising three booms. This results in the aircraft wherein at least three rotors are coupled to each of the pair of wings,
wherein at least three proprotors are coupled to each of the pair of wings, and
wherein a combined number of rotors and proprotors is at least 12.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide additional source of thrust and lift.
Claim(s) 78-79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737) and Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155) as applied to claim 76 above, and further in view of Tao et al. (US 2021/0253234).
Regarding claims 78-79 McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) of claim 76 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein in the control system is configurable to:
control a first proprotor and a second proprotor among the plurality of proprotors independently from each other; and
control the plurality of proprotor simultaneously.
Tao et al. ‘234 teaches (figures 1-4) a vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising:
wing (20), one or more fixed-tilt rotors (16s) and one or more tilt-adjustable rotors (10s) wherein each of the one or more tilt-adjustable rotors is coupled to its own tilt mechanism and controller/control system (40) controls tilt mechanisms, coupled to one or more tilt-adjustable rotors (10s), independently as well as simultaneously (Para 0018, 0026, 0103).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Tao et al. ‘234 to configure the aircraft wherein in the control system is configurable to:
control a first proprotor and a second proprotor among the plurality of proprotors independently from each other; and
control the plurality of proprotor simultaneously.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
Claim(s) 80-81, 84 and 87-88 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McDonald (US 11,465,737) in view of Tighe et al. (US 2018/0105267), and Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155).
Regarding claim 80, McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) comprising:
a fuselage (1002) (Col. 6 Line 9));
a single pair of wings (1004, 1006) coupled to opposite sides of the fuselage (1002) (Col. 6 Line 58-59);
a plurality of proprotors/tilt rotors (1014, 1018, 1022, 1024) connected to the pair of wings and tiltable between lift configurations for providing lift for vertical take-off and landing of the aircraft (fig. 13) and propulsion configurations for providing forward thrust to the aircraft (fig. 11) (Col. 7 Lines 15-17, 35-37, 65-67);
support structures/booms (1008, 1010, 1012, 1016) coupled to each one of the single pair of wings, wherein a rotor of a plurality of rotors/fixed (1026, 1028, 1030, 1032) is non-tiltably mounted to a top surface of a first end of each support structure to operate above the plurality of support structures/booms extending substantially parallel to each other, and each proprotor of the plurality of proprotors is mounted to a second end of each support structure via a tilting coupler forming a plurality of identical structures including a support structure/boom with a rotor at first/rear end and a proprotor at an second/front end, wherein a number of proprotors of the plurality of proprotors is equal to a number of rotors of the plurality of rotors, wherein the plurality of rotors are provided towards a training edge of the pair of wings and the plurality of proprotor are provided towards a leading edge of the pair of wings (clearly seen in figure 10) (clearly seen in figure 10) (Col. 7 Lines 2-14; proprotor is coupled to a boom via a coupler),
at least one battery provided in the fuselage (1020) and configured to power the plurality of proprotors (Col. 6 Lines 33-38 Col. 6 Lines 61-64; Col. 19 Lines 11-12); and
a control system/ tilt control system (2306) configurable to control tilts of the plurality of proprotors between the lift configurations and the propulsion configurations (Col. 7 Lines 15-18).
but it is silent about the aircraft comprising:
at least three support structures coupled to each one of the single pair of wings.
Tighe et al. ‘267 teaches (figures 2A-2E) multicopter aircraft (200) comprising wings (204) and three booms/support structures (206s) wherein each boom comprises a pair of lift fans (208s) (clearly seen in figure 2A) (Para 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Tighe et al. ‘267 to configure the aircraft comprising:
at least three support structures coupled to each one of the single pair of wings
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide additional source of thrust and lift.
Modified McDonald ‘737 is silent about the aircraft wherein two adjacent lift propeller assemblies on adjacent support structures on each wing have opposite angles of attack.
Reichert et al. ‘155 teaches (figure 2A) a rotor orientation of a mulitcopter wherein rotors are mounted such that adjacent rotors on the same side of the fuselage (200) are alternately tilted forward and/or backward (Para 0022, 0026; rotors are tilted forward and/or backward with respect to each other and the vertical axis of the aircraft).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Reichert et al. ‘155 to configure the aircraft wherein two adjacent lift propeller assemblies on adjacent support structures on each wing have opposite angles of attack.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics by generating a vectored thrust for lift propeller assemblies.
Regarding claim 81, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14)the aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein each support structure of the at least two support structures/booms are coupled to an underside of the pair of wings (clearly seen in figure 13).
Regarding claims 84, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein at least three proprotors are coupled to each of the pair of wings (as modified by Tighe et al. ‘267).
Regarding claim 87, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) wherein the control system is configurable to control the position of the proprotors automatically (Col. 13 Lines 46-53).
Regarding claim 88, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) further comprising stabilizers (1020) mounted to the fuselage (1002), wherein the stabilizers are in the form of a V-tail (clearly seen in figure 10).
Claim(s) 85-86 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737), Tighe et al. (US 2018/0105267) and Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155) as applied to claim 80 above, and further in view of Tao et al. (US 2021/0253234).
Regarding claims 85-86, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) an aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) of claim 80 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein in the control system is configurable to:
control a first proprotor and a second proprotor among the plurality of proprotors independently from each other; and
control the plurality of proprotors simultaneously.
Tao et al. ‘234 teaches (figures 1-4) a vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising:
wing (20), one or more fixed-tilt rotors (16s) and one or more tilt-adjustable rotors (10s) wherein each of the one or more tilt-adjustable rotors is coupled to its own tilt mechanism and controller/control system (40) controls tilt mechanisms, coupled to one or more tilt-adjustable rotors (10s), independently as well as simultaneously (Para 0018, 0026, 0103).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Tao et al. ‘234 to configure the aircraft wherein in the control system is configurable to:
control a first proprotor and a second proprotor among the plurality of proprotors independently from each other; and
control the plurality of proprotors simultaneously.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
Claim(s) 90-91 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737) as applied to claim 89 above, and further in view of Tao et al. (US 2021/0253234).
Regarding claims 90-91, McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the method of claim 89 but it is silent about the method further comprising:
controlling, by the control system, a first proprotor and a second proprotor among the plurality of proprotors independently from each other, and
controlling, by the control system, the plurality of proprotors simultaneously.
Tao et al. ‘234 teaches (figures 1-4) a vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising:
wing (20), one or more fixed-tilt rotors (16s) and one or more tilt-adjustable rotors (10s) wherein each of the one or more tilt-adjustable rotors is coupled to its own tilt mechanism and controller/control system (40) controls tilt mechanisms, coupled to one or more tilt-adjustable rotors (10s), independently as well as simultaneously (Para 0018, 0026, 0103).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Tao et al. ‘234 to configure the method further comprising:
controlling, by the control system, a first proprotor and a second proprotor among the plurality of proprotors independently from each other, and
controlling, by the control system, the plurality of proprotors simultaneously.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 25th March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 23, 43, 60 and 80 under 35 U.S.C 112(a) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the support for limitation "two adjacent lift propeller assemblies on adjacent support structures have opposite angles of attack," are present in Para 0058 with arguments that “angle of attack” is an angle made by propeller blades themselves and in that respect two rotors that are designed to spin in opposite directions will have corresponding opposite angles of attack in view of their opposing blade angles. Firstly, Para 0058 discloses that the angle of attack of blades of the rotors can be collectively adjusted, providing an additional degree of freedom i.e., pitch angle of all blades are changed simultaneously. Secondly, adjusting the angle of attack of blades to 180 degrees is not same as using two lift propeller assembles having opposite angles of attack. When a blade rotate by 180 degrees the blade is pointed backward with the leading and trailing edges in their original spots whereas two lift propeller assemblies having opposite angles of attack is achieved by reversing the pitch of a lift propeller assembly where the trailing edge becomes the leading edge.
Applicant’s argument with respect to amended claim 89 has been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are explained in the rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 23, 43, 60, 80 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights