DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/13/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11-07-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant presented arguments, and in summary argues that regarding claim 1 “primary reference Taylor does not teach an airfoil fin that has an inlet and outlet where airflow enters via an air inlet, and outlet of the airfoil fin, furthermore, that Giannini fail to teach the claim 1, high pressure side … atmosphere, and Giannini does not teach airfoil fins, and that Giannini teaches away from Taylor “
Examiner respectfully disagreed with applicants arguments presented and pointed out that the Taylor reference and Giannini teach airfoil fins, see rejections, more specific P[0086 of Giannini indicating 304, 302 as airfoil, Furthermore, Secondary reference “Giannini” is used to explicitly teach the missing limitations of Taylor, as indicated in the rejection dating 08-07-2025, examiner indicated that Taylor fails to explicitly teach a high-pressure side comprising an air inlet that receives the propulsion air-flow; an inner conduit fluidly coupled to the air inlet, wherein the inner conduit directs the propulsion air-flow over the electronic device casing; and a low-pressure side comprising an air outlet fluidly coupled to the inner conduit, wherein the air outlet expels the propulsion air-flow into the atmosphere.
However, Giannini teaches structure of a high-pressure side comprising an air inlet (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) that receives the propulsion air-flow (airflow from fans, see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a); an inner conduit (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) fluidly coupled to the air inlet (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a), wherein the inner conduit directs (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) the propulsion air-flow (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a); and a low-pressure side (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) comprising an air outlet fluidly coupled to the inner conduit (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a), wherein the air outlet (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) expels the propulsion air-flow into the atmosphere (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a, air goes out to the outside, especially in Taylor, or see Fig.5a) to increase efficiency of overall VTOL aircraft (Giannini, P[00047]). Therefore, applicant is arguing In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, the terms "low-pressure, and high-pressure are relative terms and are not identified high or low pressure relative to what. Are they relative to the air around them, or air inside the channel, or outside the channel. Furthermore, the reference Taylor structure is a fan that blows air into "airfoil" which is same as current claim providing high pressure air and then when air goes thru channel it becomes low pressure air. Furthermore, Giannini P[0087] talks about how to change air pressure from high to low or the opposite, it is selective if doors close it decreases or slots are open it does not. So it teaches the limitations as claimed in the broadest interpretation. Furthermore, Giannini P[0087], teaches variable control of slot “402” to control air inlet and outlet, which would control air pressure in and out of conduit, flow control occurs at the 402, Examiner points out that applicant’s argument regarding P[0087] is only partial and is piecemeal analysis of part of the reference. and does not address the whole paragraph, P[0087] states “… The one or more airflow slots 402 guide airflow into the duct chamber 414 and toward the thrust assembly 500. Each airflow slot 402 may be selectively sealed/blocked using a slot door 410. FIGS. 3c and 3d illustrate the slot doors 410 in an open position (i.e., allowing airflow through the airflow slot 402), while FIGS. 3e and 3f illustrate the slot doors 410 in a closed position (i.e., blocking airflow through the airflow slot 402). The airflow slots 402 in the upper leading edge maintain flow attachment inside the duct chamber 414 in vertical flight mode and at high angle of attack (AoA). Constantly decreasing area through the airflow slot 402 (i.e., from the inlet to outlet) ensures smooth flow inside airflow slot 402. The slot doors 410 may be lightly sprung to ensure that they close properly for horizontal flight, whereby a pressure differential will pull the slot doors 410 open when needed for flow control. Finally, the windward leading edge 404 of the lower primary airfoil 302 is relatively thick, thus increasing hover and transition performance.” Therefore, the slots could be open the whole time, or could be closed based on need which makes the design more flexible and variable design.”
the secondary references Giannini shows the conduit and the inlet and outlet in fig.3c annotation and is therefore obvious to modify the airfoil having circular shape or tear shape to have inlet and outlet in both sides, therefore, is obvious and possible to teach such inlet and outlet, same as shown in fig.3c having inner conduit and outer conduit with inlet and outlet as in fig.3c from Giannini as annotated.
Therefore, references still teach all limitations as currently claimed.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 used acronym “eVTOL”, Please clarify what the acronym stands for. Appropriate correction is required.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US Patent 9974209 hereinafter “Taylor”) in view of Giannini et al. (US PG Pub 20170203839 hereinafter “Giannini”).
Re-claim 1, Taylor discloses an airfoil cooling system (annotate dFig.40) comprising: an electronic device casing (20 is source which could be ESC, Electronic Speed controls, Engines) configured to house one or more electronic devices (Electronic speed controls), wherein the electronic device casing is downstream (see annotated Fig.40) a propulsion air-flow; a plurality of fins (10, annotated Fig.40) extending form the electronic device casing (casing of 12, 20),wherein at least one of the plurality of fins (10) comprise an airfoil fin (10 is airfoil) comprising: a high-pressure side (annotated fig.40), a low-pressure side (annotated fig.40), air flow over electronic device casing (over 20, which houses the ESC devices), the air outlet (see annotated Fig.40) expels the propulsion air-flow into the atmosphere (annotated Fig.40).
Taylor fails to explicitly teach a high-pressure side comprising an air inlet that receives the propulsion air-flow; an inner conduit fluidly coupled to the air inlet, wherein the inner conduit directs the propulsion air-flow over the electronic device casing; and a low-pressure side comprising an air outlet fluidly coupled to the inner conduit, wherein the air outlet expels the propulsion air-flow into the atmosphere.
However, Giannini teaches structure of a high-pressure side comprising an air inlet (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) that receives the propulsion air-flow (airflow from fans, see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a); an inner conduit (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) fluidly coupled to the air inlet (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a), wherein the inner conduit directs (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) the propulsion air-flow (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a); and a low-pressure side (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) comprising an air outlet fluidly coupled to the inner conduit (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a), wherein the air outlet (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) expels the propulsion air-flow into the atmosphere (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a, air goes out to the outside, especially in Taylor, or see Fig.5a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the airfoil of Taylor wherein the airfoil fins have a high-pressure side comprising an air inlet that receives the propulsion air-flow; an inner conduit fluidly coupled to the air inlet, wherein the inner conduit directs the propulsion air-flow over the electronic device casing; and a low-pressure side comprising an air outlet fluidly coupled to the inner conduit, wherein the air outlet expels the propulsion air-flow into the atmosphere as shown by Giannini to increase efficiency of overall VTOL aircraft (Giannini, P[00047]).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
787
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
627
531
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
303
373
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
411
691
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
397
438
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 2, Taylor as modified discloses the airfoil cooling system of claim 1, wherein the airfoil fin is circular in shape (see Fig.3 showing circular airfoil fin 10).
Re-claim 3, Taylor as modified discloses the airfoil cooling system of claim 1, wherein the airfoil fin is tear-dropped in shape (see Fig.40 and Fig.35 showing 10 as tear-drop shape).
Re-claim 4, Taylor as modified discloses the airfoil cooling system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of fins (see Fig.35)) are casted as part of the electronic device casing (is part of the airplane and is connected to 20, 12, see Fig.35, therefore is casted, it is a product by process limitation).
Re-claim 5, Taylor as modified discloses the airfoil cooling system of claim 1, wherein the electronic device casing (DEVICE IS ELECTRONICS, 12 could be any of electronics, motor, etc. ,see Fig.35 device is part of the UAV system, see Col.8, L.30-40) is integrated into an eVTOL system (UAV system, is part of airplane).
Re-claim 7, Taylor as modified teaches the airfoil cooling system of claim 1, wherein the inner conduit (annotate dFig.35) directs the propulsion air-flow (any flow of air) longitudinally over the electronic device casing (over case 12).
8. The airfoil cooling system of claim 1, wherein the inner conduit directs the propulsion air-flow laterally over the electronic device casing.
Re-claim 8, Taylor as modified teaches the airfoil cooling system of claim 1, wherein the inner conduit (annotated Fig.35) directs the propulsion air-flow (any flow of air) laterally over the electronic device casing (over case 12, any of direction is considered longitudinal or laterally, air is being distributed over 12).
Re-claim 9, Taylor as modified disclose the airfoil cooling system of claim 1, wherein the high-pressure side (annotated Fig.40, or Fig.35) comprises a plurality of air inlets (annotated Fig.35, or Fig.40, show many air inlets of air between fins, specially closer to impeller, of high pressure air first).
Re-claim 10, Taylor as modified disclose the airfoil cooling system of claim 1, wherein the low-pressure side (annotated Fig.40, or Fig.35) comprises a plurality of air outlets (annotated Fig.35, or Fig.40, show many air outlets of air between fins, specially closer to impeller, of low pressure air first).
Re-claim 11, Taylor as modified disclose the airfoil cooling system of claim 1, wherein the propulsion air-flow (air flow from propeller in Fig.40) within the inner conduit is turbulent air-flow (annotated fig.40, air flows in and out of conduit between fins therefore is air-flow).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Giannini et al. (US PG Pub 20170203839 hereinafter “Giannini”) and Harada (US PG Pub 20200325910 hereinafter Harada).
Re-claim 6, Taylor as modified discloses the airfoil cooling system of claim 1,
Taylor fails to explicitly teach wherein the inner conduit has an inner diameter of less than 6 centimeters.
However, Harada teaches the inner conduit has an inner diameter (R in fig.1 for 14) of less than 6 centimeters (14 diameter is .01-6 mm, see Fig.22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify airfoil of Taylor as modified wherein the inner conduit has an inner diameter of less than 6 centimeters as suggested by Harada as an optimization of the operation of the device, cooling, to optimize the device as indicated in P[0085]) from Haraka, to optimize the design, and as also backed by eMPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions [R-01.2024, I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
PNG
media_image6.png
18
19
media_image6.png
Greyscale
A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation
In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art.
PNG
media_image7.png
251
548
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Giannini et al. (US PG Pub 20170203839 hereinafter “Giannini”) and Cottrell (US PG Pub 20210036580 hereinafter Cottrell).
Re-claim 12, Taylor discloses An electric motor assembly ( Electronic system, ESC,, or see Fig.40 motor under propeller), a propeller (fan in annotated Fig.40), wherein at propulsion component generates a propulsion air-flow downstream at propulsion component (see Fig.40,propeller in 40 propels and generate air down to the motor, fins 10, see fig.40) comprising: an electronic device casing (20 is source which could be ESC, Electronic Speed controls, Engines) configured to house one or more electronic devices (Electronic speed controls), wherein the electronic device casing is downstream (see annotated Fig.40) a propulsion air-flow; a plurality of fins (10, annotated Fig.40) extending form the electronic device casing (casing of 12, 20).
wherein at least one of the plurality of fins (10) comprise an airfoil fin (10 is airfoil) comprising: a high-pressure side (annotated fig.40), a low-pressure side (annotated fig.40), air flow over electronic device casing (over 20, which houses the ESC devices), the air outlet (see annotated Fig.40) expels the propulsion air-flow into the atmosphere (annotated Fig.40).
Taylor fails to explicitly teach a high-pressure side comprising an air inlet that receives the propulsion air-flow; an inner conduit fluidly coupled to the air inlet, wherein the inner conduit directs the propulsion air-flow over the electronic device casing; and a low-pressure side comprising an air outlet fluidly coupled to the inner conduit, wherein the air outlet expels the propulsion air-flow into the atmosphere.
However, Giannini teaches structure of a high-pressure side comprising an air inlet (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) that receives the propulsion air-flow (airflow from fans, see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a); an inner conduit (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) fluidly coupled to the air inlet (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a), wherein the inner conduit directs (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) the propulsion air-flow (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a); and a low-pressure side (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) comprising an air outlet fluidly coupled to the inner conduit (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a), wherein the air outlet (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) expels the propulsion air-flow into the atmosphere (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a, air goes out to the outside, especially in Taylor, or see Fig.5a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the airfoil of Taylor wherein the airfoil fins have a high-pressure side comprising an air inlet that receives the propulsion air-flow; an inner conduit fluidly coupled to the air inlet, wherein the inner conduit directs the propulsion air-flow over the electronic device casing; and a low-pressure side comprising an air outlet fluidly coupled to the inner conduit, wherein the air outlet expels the propulsion air-flow into the atmosphere as shown by Giannini to increase efficiency of overall VTOL aircraft (Giannini, P[00047]).
Taylor fails to explicitly teach that An electric motor assembly comprising: a motor housing having an end face; a motor within the motor housing; explicitly show that propulsion component coupled to the motor, wherein the propulsion component generates a propulsion air-flow downstream the propulsion component; and an electronics assembly disposed on the end face of the motor housing.
However, Cottrell teaches An electric motor assembly (Fig.2c) comprising: a motor housing (212) having an end face (any position in 212 ) ; a motor (110) within the motor housing; a propulsion component (208) coupled to the motor, wherein the propulsion component generates a propulsion air-flow downstream (air flow of 226) the propulsion component; and an electronics assembly (236) disposed on the end face of the motor housing (P[0025], 236 may be located in any position in the housing 212).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the motor system of Taylor wherein An electric motor assembly comprising: a motor housing having an end face; a motor within the motor housing; a propulsion component coupled to the motor, wherein the propulsion component generates a propulsion air-flow downstream the propulsion component; and an electronics assembly disposed on the end face of the motor housing as shown by Cottrell provide simple uncomplex cooling system with passive movement decreasing weight for aircraft and provide simple high performance device with less complexity (Cottrell, P[0022]).
PNG
media_image8.png
481
720
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Re-claim 13, Taylor as modified discloses the electric motor assembly of claim 12, wherein the propulsion component is a propeller (annotated fig.40, 230) .
Re-claim 14, Taylor as modified discloses the electric motor assembly of claim 12, wherein the one or more electronic devices (ESC) is a power module (hot component is Electronics, Generator, Col.8, L.35-37, ESC, etc.).
Re-claim 15, Taylor as modified discloses the electric motor assembly of claim 12, wherein the airfoil fin (10) has a curved surface (see Fig.35, or Fig.40).
Re-claim 16, Taylor discloses eVTOL SYSTEM ( Electronic system, ESC,, or see Fig.40 motor under propeller), a propeller (fan in annotated Fig.40) at least mechanically coupled to the motor (see Fig.40, motor connected to propeller), wherein at least one propeller generates a propulsion air-flow downstream at least one propeller (propeller in 40 propels and generate air down to the motor, fins 10, see fig.40) comprising: an electronic device casing (20 is source which could be ESC, Electronic Speed controls, Engines) configured to house one or more electronic devices (Electronic speed controls), wherein the electronic device casing is downstream (see annotated Fig.40) a propulsion air-flow; a plurality of fins (10, annotated Fig.40) extending form the electronic device casing (casing of 12, 20).
wherein at least one of the plurality of fins (10) comprise an airfoil fin (10 is airfoil) comprising: a high-pressure side (annotated fig.40), a low-pressure side (annotated fig.40), air flow over electronic device casing (over 20, which houses the ESC devices), the air outlet (see annotated Fig.40) expels the propulsion air-flow into the atmosphere (annotated Fig.40).
Taylor fails to explicitly teach a high-pressure side comprising an air inlet that receives the propulsion air-flow; an inner conduit fluidly coupled to the air inlet, wherein the inner conduit directs the propulsion air-flow over the electronic device casing; and a low-pressure side comprising an air outlet fluidly coupled to the inner conduit, wherein the air outlet expels the propulsion air-flow into the atmosphere.
However, Giannini teaches structure of a high-pressure side comprising an air inlet (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) that receives the propulsion air-flow (airflow from fans, see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a); an inner conduit (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) fluidly coupled to the air inlet (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a), wherein the inner conduit directs (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) the propulsion air-flow (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a); and a low-pressure side (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) comprising an air outlet fluidly coupled to the inner conduit (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a), wherein the air outlet (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a) expels the propulsion air-flow into the atmosphere (see annotated fig.3c, and fig.4a, air goes out to the outside, especially in Taylor, or see Fig.5a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the airfoil of Taylor wherein the airfoil fins have a high-pressure side comprising an air inlet that receives the propulsion air-flow; an inner conduit fluidly coupled to the air inlet, wherein the inner conduit directs the propulsion air-flow over the electronic device casing; and a low-pressure side comprising an air outlet fluidly coupled to the inner conduit, wherein the air outlet expels the propulsion air-flow into the atmosphere as shown by Giannini to increase efficiency of overall VTOL aircraft (Giannini, P[00047]).
Taylor fails to explicitly teach that a motor housing having an end face; a motor within the motor housing; a propulsion component coupled to the motor, explicitly show that wherein at least one propeller generates a propulsion air-flow downstream at least one propeller; and an electronics assembly disposed on the end face of the motor housing.
However, Cottrell teaches (Fig.2c) comprising: a motor housing (212) having an end face (any position in 212 ) ; a motor (110) within the motor housing; a at least one propeller mechanically (208) coupled to the motor (110), wherein the propulsion component generates a propulsion air-flow downstream (air flow of 226) the at least one propeller (208); and an electronics assembly (236) disposed on the end face of the motor housing (P[0025], 236 may be located in any position in the housing 212).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the motor system of Taylor that a motor housing having an end face; a motor within the motor housing; a propulsion component coupled to the motor, explicitly show that wherein at least one propeller generates a propulsion air-flow downstream at least one propeller; and an electronics assembly disposed on the end face of the motor housing as shown by Cottrell provide simple uncomplex cooling system with passive movement decreasing weight for aircraft and provide simple high performance device with less complexity (Cottrell, P[0022]).
Re-claim 17, Taylor as modified discloses the eVTOL system of claim 16, wherein the airfoil fin (10) is tear-dropped in shape (see Fig.40, showing 10 as tear-drop).
Re-claim 18, Taylor as modified disclosed the eVTOL system of claim 16.
Taylor fails to explicitly teach wherein the eVTOL system is capable of carrying a load of at least 25 pounds.
However, Giannini teaches the eVTOL system is capable of carrying a load of at least 25 pounds (P[0064],UAV can carry passengers which are typically more than 25 lbs.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the UAV of Taylor wherein the eVTOL system is capable of carrying a load of at least 25 pounds as taught by Giannini to move people or give access for human operator to use for ground crew for safety (Giannini, P[0062]).
Re-claim 19, Taylor as modified disclosed the eVTOL system of claim 16.
Taylor fails to explicitly teach wherein the eVTOL system is system is controlled through a user controller.
However, Giannini teaches the eVTOL system (100) is system is controlled through a user controller (P[0064],remove autopilot, remotely controlled 100)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the UAV of Taylor wherein the eVTOL system is system is controlled through a user controller as taught by Giannini to remotely operate the UAV for safety no need for crew (Giannini, P[0064]).
Re-claim 20, Taylor as modified disclosed the eVTOL system of claim 16.
Taylor fails to explicitly teach wherein the eVTOL system is system is autonomous.
However, Giannini teaches the eVTOL system (100) is system is autonomous (P[0064])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the UAV of Taylor wherein the eVTOL system is system is autonomous as taught by Giannini to remotely operate the UAV for safety no need for crew (Giannini, P[0064]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in PTO892.
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 action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGED M ALMAWRI whose telephone number is (313)446-6565. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher M. Koehler can be reached on 5712723560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAGED M ALMAWRI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834