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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1 in the reply filed on 12/16/2024 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The schematic drawings for the control system in figure 1 related to claim 13 is insufficient to show the right rod for use for controlling the maneuvering. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: applicant’s replacement drawings removed figures 5-15 and replace figure 4 with figure 16. The specification still references drawings that are no longer present in the application.
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant can amend the specification to remove such references or return the specification and drawings to the form submitted earlier to resolve this issue.
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 13-15 and 17-19 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.
Claims 13-15 and 17-19 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
(A) Breadth of the claims [MPEP § 2164.08]
The scope of the claims is rather broad, with limited to guidance towards how the claimed features function, namely the control system including a left and right rod function to control vertical/yaw and pitch/roll.
The claims cover a VTOL system comprised of:
A rotor, transmission device, motor, housing, an energy source (engine, battery or the like), where the housing has a slot to contain the rotor; and a control system (claims 1, 13, and 20) a right rod; the right rod controlling pitch and roll maneuvers of the VTOL system assembly (claim 13);
(B) Nature of the invention [§ 2164.05(a)]
The invention is an attachable module for an aircraft to enable the aircraft to takeoff and land vertically using several rotors built into the module
(C) State of the prior art [§ 2164.05(a)]
In the prior art, aircraft pitch roll, and yaw are controlled using control surfaces on wings that can be actuated in a number of ways, including hydraulicly, pneumatically, by electric actuators, or by mechanical cables and linkages. Helicopters are controlled by using linkages to modify rotor blade pitch as rotor blades spin. Folding rotors are known in the art, particularly with regards to aircraft (e.g. helicopter) storage.
(D) Level of one of ordinary skill [§ 2164.05(b)]
One of ordinary skill could be an aircraft designer or maintenance technician, and engineers with a BS degree, i.e. (ME, AE)
(E) Level of predictability in the art [§ 2164.03]
Unknown
(F) Amount of direction provided by the inventor [§ 2164.03]
Applicant provides a schematic drawing of the control system including the left rod and right rod in figure 1 and describes the control system in page 8, lines 1-13 of the specification.
However, the inventor provides little direction with regards to guiding one of ordinary skill in the art for reducing the particulars of the control system more than a general statement of what controls what, and nothing about how the left and right rods are used to control flight.
The only direction with regards to folding the rotors is that the rotors may fold into the housing, but nothing with regards to how this performed and no figure showing how such a mechanism would operate was provided either.
(G) Existence of working examples [§ 2164.02]
There are no known working examples
(H) Quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of
the disclosure [§ 2164.06]
There would be extensive experimentation required to make a control system including a right rod to control pitch/roll as required by claim 13.
In applicant’s invention, based on all of the considerations above, and the lack how to make and
use this device, there would be undue experimentation needed to figure out how to make and use a vtol system using the control system as claimed.
Because of insufficient direction, a lack of working examples, and the quantity of experimentation needed, this invention is not enabled and there is insufficient written description.
Claims 14-19 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “the left rod” but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the limitations “the fuselage” “the upper cover” and “the lower cover” but there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 14-15 and 17-19 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Milani (US 20180029704 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Milani (US 20180029704 A1) discloses a Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) system a comprising:
a VTOL system assembly comprising a rotor (Milani, figures 1, item 4), a transmission device (Milani, figures 1, ¶9, power from engine is used to drive rotors/propellers), a motor device (Milani, figures 1, item 2), and a housing (Milani, figures 1, items 3 and 5);
the rotor comprising a plurality of rotor blades (Milani, figures 1, item 4);
an energy source (Milani, figures 1, item 2);
a control system (Milani, abstract, rotor/propeller pitch, angle, or tilt, or engine power to control flight);
the transmission device being operatively connected to the motor device and the rotor, such that the transmission device transmits energy from the motor device to the rotor (Milani, figures 1, ¶9, power from engine is used to drive rotors/propellers);
the housing further comprising a slot on an upper surface of the housing within a central region of the housing (Milani, figures 1, item 4, slot for rotors/propellers to sit in; slot is open on an upper surface of the housing and is located in a central region of housing);
the rotor is positioned within the slot (Milani, figures 1, item 4, rotors/propellers);
the slot comprising an upper aperture and a lower aperture (Milani, figures 1, item 4, slot for rotors/propellers has an upper and lower aperture);
the control system being operatively connected to the VTOL system assembly (Milani, abstract, rotor/propeller pitch, angle, or tilt, or engine power to control flight).
Regarding claim 11, Milani discloses the VTOL system of claim 1, further comprising:
a plane (Milani, figure 1, item 1);
the housing is attached to the plane (Milani, figure 1, item 3); and
the housing is positioned directly above a fuselage of the plane (Milani, figure 1, items 1 and 3, wing with embedded rotors positions above fuselage).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Layton (US 20070246601 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Layton (US 20070246601 A1) discloses a Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) system a comprising:
a VTOL system assembly comprising a rotor (Layton, figures 1-2, items 3a-b), a transmission device (Layton, claim 7, abstract, fans driven by at least one power plant), a motor device (Layton, abstract, power plant), and a housing (Layton, figures 1-2, item 7);
the rotor comprising a plurality of rotor blades (Layton, figures 1-2, items 3a-b);
an energy source (Layton, abstract, power plant);
a control system (Layton, abstract, aircraft is controlled using fans);
the transmission device being operatively connected to the motor device and the rotor, such that the transmission device transmits energy from the motor device to the rotor (Layton, claim 7);
the housing further comprising a slot on an upper surface of the housing within a central region of the housing (Layton, figures 1-2, item 3a-b, slot for rotor; slot is open on an upper surface of the housing and is located in a central region of housing);
the rotor is positioned within the slot (Layton, figures 1-2, item 3a-b, rotor within slot);
the slot comprising an upper aperture and a lower aperture (Layton, figures 1-2, item 3a-b, slots for rotor have an upper and lower end);
the control system being operatively connected to the VTOL system assembly (Layton, claim 6).
Regarding claim 2, Layton discloses the VTOL system of claim 1, further comprising:
a cover (Layton, figure 1, item 2); and
the cover being actuated using the control system (Layton, ¶7, fans shut down and covers close).
Regarding claim 3, Layton as modified by Ragland teaches the VTOL system of claim 2, further comprising:
the cover is attached to the upper aperture using a hinged mechanism (Layton, figures 1-2, item 2, hinged covers).
Regarding claim 6, Layton discloses the VTOL system of claim 1, further comprising:
the rotor comprising a ducted rotor (Layton, figure 4, item 9).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layton (US 20070246601 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Robinson (US 11001377 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Layton as modified by Robinson teaches the VTOL system of claim 2, further comprising:
the cover is attached to the upper aperture using a sliding mechanism (Robinson, figures 1a-2a, upper cover attached using a sliding mechanism); except:
the cover is attached to the upper aperture using a sliding mechanism.
Robinson (US 11001377 B1) teaches a cover is attached to an upper aperture using a sliding mechanism (Robinson, figures 1a-2a, upper cover attached using a sliding mechanism); and
Layton and Robinson are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vtol aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the covers of Layton with the sliding upper covers of Robinson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce drag during forward flight and to prevent debris from being lodged in the rotor when not in use.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layton (US 20070246601 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shapery (US 5507453 A).
Regarding claim 7, Layton discloses the VTOL system of claim 1, further comprising:
the rotor comprising at least one upper rotor (Layton, figure 5, item 16);
the upper rotor is positioned in the upper half of the slot (Layton figure 5, item 16, rotor located in the upper half of the duct), except:
the rotor further comprising at least one at least one lower rotor;
the lower rotor is positioned in the lower half of the slot;
a stator blade;
the upper rotor and lower rotor are contrarotating; and
the stator blade is positioned between the upper rotor and the lower rotor.
Shapery (US 5507453 A) teaches a rotor comprising at least one upper rotor and at least one lower rotor;
the upper rotor is positioned in the upper half of the slot (Shapery, figure 10, item 36);
the lower rotor is positioned in the lower half of the slot (Shapery, figure 10, item 38);
a stator blade (Shapery, figure 10, item 34b);
the upper rotor and lower rotor are contrarotating (Shapery, col 10, lines 16-17, fans are counter rotating); and
the stator blade is positioned between the upper rotor and the lower rotor (Shapery, figure 10, item 34b, stator blade between upper and lower rotors)
Layton and Shapery are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of [3]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Layton with the upper and lower rotors separated by a stator of Shapery with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce adverse yaw and increase lifting power for the rotor.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layton (US 20070246601 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bender (US 20200009974 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Layton discloses the VTOL system of claim 1, further comprising:
the rotor further comprising at least one main rotor (Layton, figures 1-2, item 3a) and at least one auxiliary rotor (Layton, figures 1-2, item 3b), except:
the auxiliary rotor is rotatable to provide pitch and roll.
Bender (US 20200009974 A1) teaches a rotor further comprising at least one main rotor and at least one auxiliary rotor (Bender, figures 2-3, items 104 and 106);
the main rotor is static to provide lift (Bender, figure 2, item 106); and
the auxiliary rotor is rotatable to provide pitch and roll (Bender, figure 2, item 104).
Layton and Bender are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vtol aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Layton with the static main rotor and rotatable auxiliary rotors of Bender with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase controllability of the aircraft.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layton (US 20070246601 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saiz (US 20070018035 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Layton discloses the VTOL system of claim 1, except:
further comprising:
the energy source comprising a rechargeable battery; and
the energy source being adapted to power the motor device.
Saiz (US 20070018035 A1) teaches an energy source comprising a rechargeable battery (Saiz, ¶11, power source can be a battery); and
the energy source being adapted to power the motor device (Saiz, ¶11, electric motor powered by battery)
Layton and Saiz are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vtol aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the energy source providing power to the motors of Layton with the batteries powering the motors of Bender with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce fuel consumption.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layton (US 20070246601 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, or alternatively further in view of Chiappetta (US 5505407 A).
Regarding claim 10, Layton discloses the VTOL system of claim 1, further comprising:
the housing further comprising a front edge and a rear edge (Layton, figures 3-4, item 7);
wherein the front edge is tapered (Layton, figures 3-4, item 7, tapered front); and
wherein the rear edge is tapered (Layton, figures 3-4, item 7, tapered rear).
Alternatively, Chiappetta (US 5505407 A) teaches a housing further comprising a front edge and a rear edge (Chiappetta, figures 1 and 2b, item 22, housing with front and rear edges);
wherein the front edge is tapered (Chiappetta, figures 1 and 2b, item 22, front edge of housing is tapered); and
wherein the rear edge is tapered (Chiappetta, figures 1 and 2b, item 22, rear edge of housing is tapered).
Layton and Chiappetta are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of VTOL aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Layton with the housing with a tapered front and rear edge of Chiappetta with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduced drag produced by the housing.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamble (US 10933996 B2) in view of Ragland (US 20170158322 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gamble (US 10933996 B2) discloses a Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) system a comprising:
A VTOL system assembly comprising a rotor (Gamble, figure 3a, item 312), , and a housing (Gamble, figure 3a-b, items 120 and 310a-d);
the rotor comprising a plurality of rotor blades (Gamble, figure 3a, item 312);
an energy source (Gamble, col 7, lines 14-19, rechargeable battery);
a control system (Gamble, claim 4, col 5 line 62-col 6 line 5 and col 6, lines 28-36);
the control system being operatively connected to the VTOL system assembly (Gamble, claim 4, col 5 line 62-col 6 line 5 and col 6, lines 28-36, control system attaches to vtol system); except:
a transmission device, a motor device
the transmission device being operatively connected to the motor device and the rotor, such that the transmission device transmits energy from the motor device to the rotor;
the housing further comprising a slot;
the rotor being positioned within the slot;
the slot comprising an upper aperture and a lower aperture;
Ragland (US 20170158322 A1) teaches a rotor comprising a plurality of rotor blades (Ragland, figure 6, item 16), a transmission device (Ragland, figure 6, items 15, 21, and 16, rotor connected to motor), and a motor device (Ragland, figure 6, item 15);
a housing (Ragland, figure 4, item 4); the housing further comprising a slot (Ragland, figure 4, item 9);
the rotor being positioned within the slot on an upper surface of the housing within a central region of the housing (Ragland, figure 4, item 16, slot located on an upper surface of housing within a central part of housing);
the slot comprising an upper aperture and a lower aperture (Ragland, figures 3-4, item 9, slot with an upper and lower parts);
Gamble and Ragland are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vtol aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vtol assembly of Gamble with the housing including slots and covers of Ragland with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the effectiveness of the rotors and reduce drag in forward flight.
Regarding claim 2, Gamble as modified by Ragland teaches the VTOL system of claim 1, further comprising: a cover;
a cover (Ragland, figures 3-4, item 17); and
the cover being actuated using the control system (Ragland ¶27, covers are hinged and actuated by servos or other motors).
Regarding claim 3, Gamble as modified by Ragland teaches the VTOL system of claim 2, further comprising: the cover is attached to the upper aperture using a hinged mechanism (Ragland ¶27, covers are hinged) and
Regarding claim 6, Gamble as modified by Ragland teaches the VTOL system of claim 1, further comprising:
the rotor comprising a ducted rotor (Ragland, figure 4, item 9).
Regarding claim 9, Gamble as modified by Ragland teaches the VTOL system of claim 1, further comprising:
the energy source comprising a rechargeable battery (Gamble, col 7, lines 14-19, rechargeable battery); and
the energy source being adapted to power the motor device (Gamble, col 7, lines 14-19, rechargeable battery powers rotors).
Regarding claim 10, Gamble as modified by Ragland teaches the VTOL system of claim 1, further comprising:
the housing further comprising a front edge and a rear edge (Ragland, figure 6, item 5);
wherein the front edge is tapered (Ragland, figure 6, item 5, front edge of wing is tapered);
wherein the rear edge is tapered (Ragland, figure 6, item 5, aft edge of wing is tapered).
Regarding claim 11, Gamble as modified by Ragland teaches the VTOL system of claim 1, further comprising:
a plane (Gamble, figure 2, item 130);
the housing is attached to the plane (Gamble, figure 3c, items 120 and 130);
the housing is positioned directly above a fuselage of the plane (Gamble, figure 3c, items 120 and 130, housing above fuselage);
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamble (US 10933996 B2) in view of Ragland (US 20170158322 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shapery (US 5507453 A).
Regarding claim 7, Gamble as modified by Ragland teaches the VTOL system of claim 1, except:
further comprising:
the rotor comprising at least one upper rotor and at least one lower rotor;
the upper rotor is positioned in the upper half of the slot;
the lower rotor is positioned in the lower half of the slot;
a stator blade;
the upper rotor and lower rotor are contrarotating; and
the stator blade is positioned between the upper rotor and the lower rotor.
Shapery (US 5507453 A) teaches a rotor comprising at least one upper rotor and at least one lower rotor (Shapery, figure 10, items 36 and 38);
the upper rotor is positioned in the upper half of the slot (Shapery, figure 10, item 36);
the lower rotor is positioned in the lower half of the slot (Shapery, figure 10, item 38);
a stator blade (Shapery, figure 10, item 34b);
the upper rotor and lower rotor are contrarotating (Shapery, col 10, lines 16-17, fans are counter rotating); and
the stator blade is positioned between the upper rotor and the lower rotor (Shapery, figure 10, item 34b, stator blade between upper and lower rotors)
Gamble as modified by Ragland and Shapery are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vtol aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Gamble as modified by Ragland with the upper and lower rotors separated by a stator of Shapery with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce adverse yaw and increase lifting power for the rotor.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamble (US 10933996 B2) in view of Ragland (US 20170158322 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bender (US 20200009974 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Gamble as modified by Ragland teaches the VTOL system of claim 1, further comprising:
the rotor further comprising at least one main rotor and at least one auxiliary rotor (Gamble figure 3a, rotors which can be main or auxiliary rotors); except:
the auxiliary rotors are adapted to be rotatable to provide pitch and roll.
Bender (US 20200009974 A1) teaches a rotor further comprising at least one main rotor and at least one auxiliary rotor (Bender, figures 2-3, items 104 and 106); and
wherein the auxiliary rotor is rotatable to provide pitch and roll (Bender, figure 2, item 104).
Gamble as modified by Ragland and Shapery and Bender are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vtol aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Gamble as modified by Gamble as modified by Ragland and Shapery with the static main rotor and rotatable auxiliary rotors of Bender with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase controllability of the aircraft.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiappetta (US 5505407 A) in view of Ragland (US 20170158322 A1), Shapery (US 5507453 A), Bender (US 20200009974 A1), and Saiz (US 20070018035 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Chiappetta (US 5505407 A) discloses a Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) system a comprising:
A VTOL system assembly comprising a rotor (Chiappetta, figure 1, item 26), a transmission device (Chiappetta, figures 2b and 9, items 50, 928, 926, 916, and 910), a motor device (Chiappetta, figure 2b and 9, item 52), and a housing (Chiappetta, figure 1, item 22);
the rotor comprising a plurality of rotor blades (Chiappetta, figure 1, item 26, multibladed rotor);
an energy source (Chiappetta, col 9 lines 61-67 engine which burns fuel);
a control system (Chiappetta, figure 10, item 1010, abstract, vanes and other devices are used to control the vehicle);
a plane (Chiappetta, figure 1, item 12);
the transmission device being operatively connected to the motor device and the rotor, such that the transmission device transmits energy from the motor device to the rotor (Chiappetta, col 10 lines 3-21, transmission transmits torque to the rotor in the housing);
the housing further comprising a slot on an upper surface of the housing within a central region of the housing (Chiappetta, figure 2a, item B);
the rotor being positioned within the slot (Chiappetta, figure 2a, item 26);
the slot comprising an upper aperture and a lower aperture (Chiappetta, figures 1-2d, slot has upper and lower sides);
the housing is positioned directly above the fuselage (Chiappetta, figure 1, item 12) of the plane (Chiappetta, figure 2a, item 22, housing directly above the fuselage);
the housing further comprising a supporting member (Chiappetta, figure 2b, item 24), a front edge and a rear edge (Chiappetta, figure 2a, item 22, shroud has a front and rear edge);
the supporting member is attached to the plane (Chiappetta, figure 2b, item 24, support is attached to the plane);
wherein the front edge is tapered (Chiappetta, figure 2a, front edge tapers);
wherein the rear edge is tapered (Chiappetta, figure 2a, rear edge tapers);
the control system being operatively connected to the VTOL system assembly (Chiappetta, figure 10, item 1010, vanes and other devices that are used to control the vehicle are connected to the overall system);
the rotor further comprising at least one main rotor (Chiappetta, figure 1, item 26);
the main rotor being adapted to provide lift (Chiappetta, main rotor capable of providing lift);
the energy source being adapted to power the motor device (Chiappetta, col 9 lines 61-67 engine which burns fuel), except:
a cover;
the upper aperture further comprising the upper cover;
the lower aperture further comprising the lower cover;
the cover being actuated using the control system;
the rotor comprising at least one upper rotor and at least one lower rotor;
the upper rotor is positioned in the upper half of the slot;
the lower rotor is positioned in the lower half of the slot;
a stator blade;
the upper rotor and lower rotor and contrarotating;
the stator blade is positioned between the upper rotor and the lower rotor the housing is attached to the plane;
the cover is attached to the upper aperture using a hinged mechanism;
the rotor further comprising at least one main rotor and at least one auxiliary rotor;
the energy source comprising a rechargeable battery;
the energy source being adapted to power the motor device; and
the auxiliary rotors are adapted to be rotatable to provide pitch and roll.
Ragland (US 20170158322 A1) teaches a cover (Ragland, figure 3a, item 17);
the upper aperture further comprising the upper cover (Ragland, figure 3a, item 17, upper cover on upperside);
the lower aperture further comprising the lower cover (Ragland, figure 3a, item 17, lower cover on underside);
the cover being actuated using the control system (Ragland, ¶27, cover is hinged to the duct and actuated by flight control system or servos/motors);
the cover is attached to the upper aperture using a hinged mechanism (Ragland, ¶27, cover is hinged to the duct).
Chiappetta and Ragland are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vtol aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vtol assembly of Chiappetta with the housing including slots and covers of Ragland with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the effectiveness of the rotors and reduce drag in forward flight.
Shapery (US 5507453 A) teaches a rotor comprising at least one upper rotor and at least one lower rotor (Shapery, figure 10, items 36 and 38);
the upper rotor is positioned in the upper half of the slot (Shapery, figure 10, item 36);
the lower rotor is positioned in the lower half of the slot (Shapery, figure 10, item 38);
a stator blade (Shapery, figure 10, item 34b);
the upper rotor and lower rotor are contrarotating (Shapery, col 10, lines 16-17, fans are counter rotating); and
the stator blade is positioned between the upper rotor and the lower rotor (Shapery, figure 10, item 34b, stator blade between upper and lower rotors)
Chiappetta as modified by Ragland and Shapery are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vtol aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Chiappetta as modified by Ragland with the upper and lower rotors separated by a stator of Shapery with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce adverse yaw and increase lifting power for the rotor.
Bender (US 20200009974 A1) teaches a rotor further comprising at least one main rotor and at least one auxiliary rotor (Bender, figures 2-3, items 104 and 106); and
wherein the auxiliary rotor is rotatable to provide pitch and roll (Bender, figure 2, item 104).
Chiappetta as modified by Ragland and Shapery and Bender are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vtol aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Gamble as modified by Chiappetta as modified by Ragland and Shapery with the static main rotor and rotatable auxiliary rotors of Bender with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase controllability of the aircraft.
Saiz (US 20070018035 A1) teaches an energy source comprising a rechargeable battery (Saiz, ¶11, power source can be a battery); and
the energy source being adapted to power the motor device (Saiz, ¶11, electric motor powered by battery)
Chiappetta as modified by Ragland and Shapery and Bender and Saiz are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vtol aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the energy source providing power to the motors of Chiappetta as modified by Ragland and Shapery and Bender with the batteries powering the motors of Bender with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce fuel consumption.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1 of applicant’s remarks, filed 09/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/19/2025 towards the drawings have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
Amendments to claims and the drawings have been made to overcome the drawing rejection towards the control system (including the second control rod).
Claim 13 still claims a right control rod. It appears that applicant may have intended to delete claim language towards the control system and the left/right rods, but language towards the right rod still remains.
Amendments to the specification overcome the objection for referencing drawings which have been removed
Applicant still references these removed drawings, for example in page 3 lines 20- page 4 line 12 of the specification. Applicant is required to correct this issue throughout the specification.
Amendments to the claims resolve the issues under 35 USC 112(a)
Some limitations in claim 13 still require “the right control rod for controlling pitch and roll maneuvers of the VTOL system assembly”, which still has issues under 35 USC 112(a). See the rejected to claim 13 and its dependents above. Note these amendments have also introduced issues under 35 USC 112(b) as well. It appears that applicant may have intended to delete this limitation.
The prior art fails to teach the amended limitation “the housing further comprising a slot on an upper surface of the housing within a central region of the housing” and more specifically:
With regards to Milani, the propellers are mounted externally and surrounded by fairings and Milani does not teach of a slot with upper and lower apertures with a rotor thus this structure does not read on the amended claim language. Also that because Milani teaches a tilting rotor there is a functional mismatch with the present application
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The housing of Miliani is made of fairings with slots located in a central region of the fairings (see Miliani figures 1 and 7). These slots have upper and lower apertures. Hence Miliani meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
With regards to Layton that the ducted fans do not meet the amended claim language requiring an upper surface and central slot.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Layton meets all limitations of the claim as mapped above (see the rejection of claim 1 above). The noted claim language merely requires a housing with slots or holes in a ‘central region’ of the housing.
With Regards to Gamble in view of Ragland, that modifying Gamble with Ragland would change Gamble’s principal of operation and is thus improper, that the motivation of increasing rotor efficiency and reducing forward drag does not apply to the fixed wing aircraft of Gamble, and that Gamble in view of Ragland fails to teach the amended limitation requiring a housing with a slot on an upper surface within a central region because the rotors are located in wing ducts. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is unclear how modifying Gamble with the housing surrounding the rotors of Ragland changes Gamble’s principal of operation. It should be noted that attorney’s arguments do not take the place of evidence on the record.
Gamble is relied upon for teaching a vtol system (see the rejection of claim 1 above) and this is shown in figure 3a. While Gamble discloses a fixed wing aircraft, this is not the part of Gamble being modified by Ragland. Hence the motivation still applies.
The rotor ducts in Ragland meets the claim language requiring a slot in a housing. Merely because applicant sees a distinction between the wing of Ragland and their disclosure does not make the claim patentable. It should be noted that attorney’s arguments do not take the place of evidence on the record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parks (US 20070057113 A1) teaches a vtol aircraft with three lift fans
Yee (KR 20200009782 A) teaches exact layout of primary and auxilary fans
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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 Michener can be reached on (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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642