DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 20, 2026 has been entered.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claim 13 is new.
Claims 1-13 are pending this application.
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, 4-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattano et al (WO 2020/012430 A2) in view of Cipipompa (US 2022/0219815 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Cattano teaches an unmanned aircraft comprising three parallel beams extending in at least one longitudinal direction X from a rear side to a front side of the aircraft [figure 1 for two parallel supports (beams) elements 13, 14 and two sides of aircraft element and page 3, lines 20-30 for using an aircraft figure 1 element 1 and third central beam element 41],
the central beam forming a main fuselage containing a powertrain, with a propeller of diameter D configured to be driven by said powertrain being attached to a front end of the central beam [figure 1 element 51 for having a propeller element with a diameter attached to front end of supports (beams) 13, 14 with page 5 lines 25-35 for using electric machines with motors (powertrain)],
each side beam being at a distance L/2 from said central beam and each side beam supporting a radar at a front end of the beam [figure 1 for each side support element 13 and 14 being half the length central element 50c with element 40 for having sensors for navigation and telemetry (radar) at half point of beams (it would be obvious to have the sensors anywhere including the front end of beam)].
Cattano fails to explicitly teach three parallel beams comprising a central beam, and two side beams.
Ciripompa has a UAV preferably has 6 rotors mounted on an H-Frame setup with two parallel longitudinally extending support beams with a cross beam (abstract) and teaches three parallel beams comprising a central beam, and two side beams [figure 1 elements 41, 42, and 43 with 0027-0028].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the UAV construction techniques, as disclosed by Cattano, further including the design structure as taught by Ciripompa for the purpose that all lifting forces are translated against the beams/frames rather than relying on the strength of any fasteners (Ciripompa, 0011).
Regarding Claim 4, Cattano teaches a wing unit A crossing said beams in a substantially perpendicular manner, with the distal ends WR of the wing unit A being at a distance b/2 relative to the central beam, and at a distance PW relative to the front end of the central beam in said longitudinal direction X [figure1 for having wing unites element 11 and 12 that are perpendicular to the supports (beams) elements 13 and 14].
Regarding Claim 5, Cattano teaches the front ends of the side beams are located behind the front end of the central beam in a rear-front direction of the aircraft, at a distance OP from the front end of the central beam in said longitudinal direction X [figure 1 for having two supports (beams) 13 and 14 that are shorter than central beam element 41].
Regarding Claim 6, Cattano teaches said distance OP between the front end of the central beam and the front ends of the side beams in said longitudinal direction X is configured so that said propeller is outside the horizontal field of view of the radars [figure 1 element 51 for propeller being above the aircraft (out of field of view) with page 33 lines 30-35 for having radar sensors on the device].
Regarding Claim 7, Cattano teaches said distance OP between the front end of the central beam and the front ends of the side beams in said longitudinal direction X is configured so that said wing unit A is outside the horizontal field of view of the radars [figure 1 element 11 and 12 for wings on side of the aircraft (out of field of view) with page 33 lines 30-35 for having radar sensors on the device for measuring collision (out of view)].
Regarding Claim 11, Cattano teaches said side beams form secondary fuselages of the aircraft, and preferably respectively comprise an electronic control unit for their respective radar [page 33, lines 29-35].
Regarding Claim 12, Cattano teaches a control unit configured to combine the data originating from the radars supported by said side beams, or to combine the data originating from the radars and the data originating from at least one other sensor [page 33, lines 29-35].
Regarding Claim 13, Cattano fails to explicitly teach said side beams form secondary fuselages of the aircraft.
Ciripompa has a UAV preferably has 6 rotors mounted on an H-Frame setup with two parallel longitudinally extending support beams with a cross beam (abstract) and teaches said side beams form secondary fuselages of the aircraft [figure 1 elements 41, 42, and 43 with 0027-0028].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the UAV construction techniques, as disclosed by Cattano, further including the design structure as taught by Ciripompa for the purpose that all lifting forces are translated against the beams/frames rather than relying on the strength of any fasteners (Ciripompa, 0011).
Claims 2-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattano et al (WO 2020/012430 A2), in view of Cipipompa (US 2022/0219815), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view Marshall (US 2019/0257919 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Cattano fails to explicitly teach the horizontal fields of view of the radars have a maximum semi-aperture angle a, and the radars are oriented so that their respective horizontal field of view is outwardly oriented at an angle m relative to the longitudinal direction X.
Marshall has aircraft radar assembly comprising: a radome, a radar antenna housed within the radome, the radar antenna having a surface for transmitting and/or receiving radar waves (abstract) and teaches the horizontal fields of view of the radars have a maximum semi-aperture angle a, and the radars are oriented so that their respective horizontal field of view is outwardly oriented at an angle m relative to the longitudinal direction X [0052].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the UAV construction techniques, as disclosed by Cattano, further including the structure calculations as taught by Marshall for the purpose for allowing radar waves transmitted from the frontal aspect of the radar antenna (Marshall, 0052-0053).
Regarding Claim 3, Cattano fails to explicitly teach the horizontal fields of view of the radars respectively have a peripheral angular zone having an angle in which zone the sensitivity of the radar is attenuated relative to the sensitivity of the radar in a central zone of the horizontal field of view, with the angle m relative to the longitudinal direction X being equal to the difference between the maximum semi-aperture angle a and the angle 6a of said peripheral angular zone.
Marshall has aircraft radar assembly comprising: a radome a radar antenna housed within the radome, the radar antenna having a surface for transmitting and/or receiving radar waves (abstract) and teaches the horizontal fields of view of the radars respectively have a peripheral angular zone having an angle in which zone the sensitivity of the radar is attenuated relative to the sensitivity of the radar in a central zone of the horizontal field of view [0058-0059 for changing radar energy],
with the angle m relative to the longitudinal direction X being equal to the difference between the maximum semi-aperture angle a and the angle 6a of said peripheral angular zone [0052].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the UAV construction techniques, as disclosed by Cattano, further including the structure calculations as taught by Marshall for the purpose for allowing radar waves transmitted from the frontal aspect of the radar antenna (Marshall, 0052-0053).
Regarding Claim 8, Cattano teaches a wing unit A crossing said beams in a substantially perpendicular manner, with the distal ends WR of the wing unit A being at a distance b/2 relative to the central beam, and at a distance PW relative to the front end of the central beam in said longitudinal direction X, and wherein the angle m relative to said longitudinal direction X is configured so that said wing unit A is outside the horizontal field of view of the radars [figure 1 element 11 and 12 for wings on side of the aircraft (out of field of view) being ½ the distance from the center of the UAV element 50c with page 33 lines 30-35 for having radar sensors on the device for measuring collision (out of view)].
Regarding Claim 9, Cattano teaches the front ends of the side beams are located behind the front end of the central beam in a rear-front direction of the aircraft, at a distance OP from the front end of the central beam in said longitudinal direction X, and wherein the angle m relative to said longitudinal direction X is configured so that said propeller 18 is outside the horizontal field of view of the radars [figure 1 element 51 for propeller being above the aircraft (out of field of view) with page 33 lines 30-35 for having radar sensors on the device].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In applicant’s arguments page 6, third paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Cattano does not each three parallel beams. The examiner respectfully disagrees: new reference Ciripompa teaches three parallel beams [0027-0028 went a first lateral beam and a second lateral beam with a center beam].
In applicant’s arguments page 6, third paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Cattano does not each the sensors at the ends of the fuselage. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Cattano teaches integrating sensors in the aerodynamic container [page 7, lines 20-25] and also putting the aerodynamic container in the vicinity of the first or second wing, thereby offering multiple sensor location [Cattano, page 30, lines 25-32].
The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s.
However, examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01
subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 actions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on 571-272-7753 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648