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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/3/25 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant has cited an excessive number of references within the Information Disclosure Statement dated 11/14/25. Applicant is kindly reminded of their duty of disclosure, and that burying a material reference can be considered inequitable conduct. In order to avoid the appearance of burying a material reference, the Applicant is asked to comply with MPEP 2004, item 13 which states "It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).”
Furthermore, many of the references cited in the above noted IDS pertain to robotic systems for agriculture/farming. It is unclear to the Examiner how these references are relevant to the present claims/invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 10, and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1&2) as being anticipated by Harris US 9,731,816.
Regarding claim 1, Harris discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (column 2 lines 60-61) comprising:
a wing having- a front portion; a rear portion opposite the front portion; a first lateral portion extending from the front portion to the rear portion; a second lateral portion opposite the first lateral portion and extending from the front portion to the rear portion; an upper surface extending from the front portion to the rear portion and from the first lateral portion to the second lateral portion; and a lower surface opposite the upper surface and extending from the front portion to the rear portion and from the first lateral portion to the second lateral portion (200 as best shown in figure 2 where the term “wing” may include 204/206/214/etc. and the limitations do not preclude inclusion of a “fuselage”);
a first propeller extending from the front portion away from the rear portion, the first propeller having a first axis of rotation and positioned to provide thrust to the UAV in a direction parallel to the first axis of rotation; a second propeller extending from the front portion away from the rear portion and positioned between the first propeller and the second lateral portion of the wing, the second propeller having a second axis of rotation and positioned to provide thrust to the UAV in a direction parallel to the second axis of rotation (first and second 208’s);
a first actuator carried by the wing (118 figure 5);
a first leg operably coupled to the first actuator (102/122) and configured to rotate in a first plane parallel to a plane bisecting the wing through the front portion and the upper surface (figures 3 and 8A-9C), wherein the first leg comprises a first hook feature on an end of the first leg opposite the first actuator (near 126 in figure 5);
a second actuator carried by the wing (the other 118 shown in figure 5 closer to the rear portion); and
a second leg operably coupled to the second actuator and configured to rotate in a second plane parallel to the first plane, wherein the second leg comprises a second hook feature on an end of the second leg opposite the second actuator (shown in the same figures as described above for the first leg).
Regarding claim 4, Harris discloses the UAV of claim 1 wherein the first actuator is configured to rotate the first leg between a stowed position and a deployed position (shown between figures 3-4), wherein the first leg is positioned entirely within the wing in the stowed position (shown in figure 4 and described in column 6 lines 1-5), and wherein the first leg extends from the wing in a direction opposite the rear portion and opposite the upper surface in the deployed position (shown in figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Harris discloses the UAV of claim 1 wherein the first actuator is positioned within the wing (figure 3 shows the first actuator at least partially positioned within the “fuselage” which is an element of the “wing”).
Regarding claim 6, Harris discloses the UAV of claim 4 wherein:
the first actuator is positioned between the second actuator and the front portion of the wing (figure 3);
the second actuator is configured to rotate the second leg between a stowed position and a deployed position (108 of figure 3);
the second leg is positioned entirely within the wing in the stowed position (figure 4 and column 6 lines 9-13); and
the second leg extends from the wing in a direction opposite the front portion and opposite the upper surface in the deployed position (figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, Harris discloses the UAV of claim 1 wherein the first leg is configured to grasp the ground when the UAV is landed (where the hook previously described inherently provides some degree of traction/“grasping”).
Regarding claim 49, Harris discloses the UAV of claim 1, wherein the first leg rotates about a first axis, the second leg rotates about a second axis, and the first axis is positioned between the second axis and the front portion of the wing (shown in figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 19, 48, and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris.
Regarding claim 19, Harris teaches the UAV of claim 1 but does not specify wherein the first leg is telescoping.
However, telescoping legs are well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a telescoping legs, in order to meet various design preferences, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 48, Harris teaches the UAV of claim 1, but does not specify wherein the first plane is coplanar with the second plane.
Harris; however, does teach an arrangement that is very close to coplanar (figure 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the coplanar arrangement, in order to meet design preferences for particular performance preferences; since shifting the position of the planes would not have modified the operation of the device in an unknown manner.
Regarding claim 50, Harris teaches the UAV of claim 1, but does not specify wherein a center of gravity of the UAV is between the first actuator and the second actuator along a direction parallel to the first plane.
However, Harris shows various orientations when a center of gravity may be provided (figures 8A-9C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide an orientation somewhere along the orientations shown by Harris to meet the recited orientation, in order to provide the UAV in a desirable position for a particular function at a certain time; since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, because if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Burnelli US 1,987,050.
Regarding claim 7, Harris teaches the UAV of claim 1, but does not specify further comprising: a first stabilizer connected to the first lateral portion of the wing, the first stabilizer extending above the upper surface and below the lower surface at the rear portion of the wing; and a second stabilizer connected to the second lateral portion of the wing, the second stabilizer extending above the upper surface and below the lower surface at the rear portion of the wing.
Burnelli; however, does teach such types of stabilizers (figures 6 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such stabilizers, in order to meet various performance preferences; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the references teach the UAV of claim 7 wherein Burnelli further teaches the first stabilizer extends from the front portion to the rear portion of the wing, and wherein the second stabilizer extends from the front portion to the rear portion of the wing (figure 6).
Regarding claim 9, the references teach the UAV of claim 7 but do not specify wherein the first stabilizer has a shape that matches a profile of the wing from the front portion to a position 20% toward the rear portion when observed in a direction normal to a plane that bisects the wing between the first lateral portion and the second lateral portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such a shape, in order to achieve various preferred aerodynamic profiles; since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 15, Harris teaches the UAV of claim 1 but does not specify wherein the wing comprises a first elevon and a second elevon at the rear portion of the wing.
Burnelli; however, does teach such elevons (15 figure 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such elevons, in order to meet various performance preferences; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 16, the references teach the UAV of claim 15 but do not specify wherein the first and second elevons span the entire rear portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such an arrangement, in order to achieve various preferred aerodynamic profiles; since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, the references teach the UAV of claim 15 wherein the first elevon spans a first half of the rear portion and the second elevon spans a remaining half of the rear portion (see claim 16 rejection).
Regarding claim 18, the references teach the UAV of claim 15, but do not specify further comprising a solar panel carried by the first elevon.
However, solar panels are well known in the art (see claim 11 rejection). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a solar panel on the elevon, in order to meet various design preferences, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Parks US 2010/02133309.
Regarding claim 11, Harris teaches the UAV of claim 1, but does not teach further comprising one or more battery cells within the wing and one or more solar panels on the upper surface of the wing configured to charge the one or more battery cells.
Parks; however, does teach at least one battery configured to store electrical energy generated by photovoltaic cells (paragraph 0020), and the photovoltaic cells on the upper surface of the wing (solar arrays shown on an upper surface in figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such an energy system, in order to provide a more energy efficient system capable of longer missions, etc.
Regarding claim 12, the references teach the UAV of claim 11 wherein Parks further teaches the one or more solar panels cover at least 75% of the upper surface of the wing (as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, the references teach the UAV of claim 11 but do not specify wherein the one or more solar panels cover at least 90% of the upper surface of the wing.
Parks; however, shows an embodiment where most of the upper surface is covered by solar panels (figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such percentage of coverage, in order to meet energy mission requirements; since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, the references teach the UAV of claim 11 wherein Harris further teaches the first leg is configured to tilt the wing to change an angle between the sun and the one or more solar panels when the UAV is landed (figures 8A-9C, where a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, because if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to the arguments can be found in the updated rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644