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 Election/Restrictions Claims 16-24 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/20/26. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0061], Line 1 states “system, we have…” However, is this missing something? Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: The “a communication unit” in claims 4-6. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Objections Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, Line 11, replace “a the” with “the” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-15 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the left side" in Line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the right side" in Line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the remote -control device" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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 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. Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8, 10-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021093135 (Zhou) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,679,879 (Baharav et al.) . Regarding Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-12, 14 and 15 , Zhou teaches: Claim 1 - a vehicle ( 1 - Figure 2 ) for assisting a deployable aircraft (2) with vertical take-off and/or landing (VTOL), comprising: a left pylon (AA) containing a plurality of left side angled rotors (120 – Figure 2 ; tilt described on page 8, last full paragraph of EPO translation attached hereto ) embedded in the left pylon (AA) ; a right pylon (BB) containing a plurality of right side angled rotors (120) embedded in the right pylon (BB) ; a connecting truss ( CC/DD/EE ) connecting the left pylon (AA) to the right pylon (BB) , the connecting truss (CC/DD/EE) including: a lower planar bridge (CC) , a left side arm (DD) , and a right side arm (EE) ; wherein the left side of the lower planar bridge (CC) is connected to a left arm lower end of a the left side arm (DD) and the right side of the lower planar bridge (CC) is connected to a right arm lower end of the right-side arm (EE) ; wherein a left arm upper end is connected to the left pylon (AA) ; wherein a right arm upper end is connected to the right pylon (BB) ; wherein the connecting truss (CC/DD/EE) is located below a left side upper surface of the left pylon (AA) and a right-side upper surface of the right pylon (BB) to create an opening between the left pylon (AA) and right pylon (BB) ; and wherein the deployable aircraft (2) mates with the left side upper surface of the left pylon (AA) and the right-side upper surface of the right pylon (BB) and a fuselage of the deployable aircraft (2) fits within the opening between the left side pylon (AA) and right-side pylon (BB), (Figures 1-12 a nd Annotated Figure 1 Below ); Claim 2 – a connection device ( such as (151) as seen in Figure 4 ) for connecting the deployable aircraft (2) to the vehicle (1), ( Figures 1-12 And a nnotated Figure 1 Below ); Claim 3 – a processing system, wherein the processing system controls the plurality of left side angled rotors (120) and the plurality of right side angled rotors (120) to control flight of the vehicle (1), ( Figures 1-12 a nd Annotated Figure 1 Below ) ; Claim 4 – a communication unit for communicating with the deployable aircraft (2) as described in at least page 4, first full paragraph, of the EPO translation attached hereto , ( Figures 1-12 a nd Annotated Figure 1 Below ); Claim 7 - a left side planar mating surface on the left side upper surface of the left pylon (AA) and a right-side planar mating surface on the right-side upper surface of the right pylon (BB), ( Figures 1-12 a nd Annotated Figure 1 Below ); Claim 8 - wherein a left wing of the deployable aircraft (2) mates with the left side planar mating surface and a right wing of the deployable aircraft (2) mates with the right-side planar mating surface , ( Figures 1-12 a nd Annotated Figure 1 Below ); Claim 10 – a left side riser (111) connected to the left side upper end of the left arm (DD) and the left pylon (AA) and a right-side riser (111) is connected to the right-side upper end of the right arm (EE) and the right pylon (BB), ( Figures 1-12 a nd Annotated Figure 1 Below ); Claim 11 - wherein the vehicle (1) performs a vertical takeoff with the deployable aircraft (2) mated to the vehicle (1) as described in at least the “Summary of the invention” section of the EPO translation attached hereto, ( Figures 1-12 a nd Annotated Figure 1 Below ); Claim 12 - wherein the vehicle (1) drops away from the deployable aircraft (2) when the deployable aircraft (2) is released as described in at least the “Summary of the invention” section of the EPO translation attached hereto, ( Figures 1-12 a nd Annotated Figure 1 Below ); Claims 14 and 15 - wherein the vehicle (2 – the examiner notes that the vehicle is claimed as the “intended use” of the vehicle and thus the prior art does not to teach specifics of the aircraft itself; additionally, should the vehicle be claimed in the future, the examiner notes that US PG Pub 2019/0168866 (TOVKACH et al.) teaches a no wing craft located on pylons with ducted rotors ) is capable of not hav ing wings, and where the vehicle does not have control surfaces , ( Figures 1-12 And Annotated Figure 1 Below ) . Zhou does not teach: the plurality of left side angled rotors being multi-ducted , and the plurality of right side angled rotors being multi-ducted ( Claim 1 ) . However, Baharav et al. teaches: Claim 1 – a vehicle (200) for assisting with vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), comprising a plurality of left side rotors (790) and a plurality of right side angled rotors (790) being multi-ducted, (Figures 1-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vehicle of Zhou to have the plurality of left side angled rotors being multi-ducted , and the plurality of right side angled rotors being multi-ducted ( Claim 1 ) as taught by Baharav et al. for the purposes of using rotors which are well known, and easy to find and manufacture. Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021093135 (Zhou) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,679,879 (Baharav et al.), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,000,398 (Rashev). Regarding Claims 5 and 6 , Zhou as modified by Baharav et al. teaches the vehicle as described above, but does not teach: a communication unit for communicating with the remote-control device ( Claim 5 ); and a communication unit for communicating with a remote computer ( Claim 6 ) . However, Rashev teaches: Claims 5 and 6 – a vehicle (FMPAC) for assisting a deployable aircraft (CA) with vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), comprising: a communication unit for communicating with the remote-control device /remote computer ( at least Column 5, Lines 42-65 describe the FMPAC controlled by a remote control ), (Figures 1-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vehicle of Zhou as modified by Baharav et al. to have a communication unit for communicating with the remote-control device ( Claim 5 ); and a communication unit for communicating with a remote computer ( Claim 6 ) as taught by Rashev for the purposes of being able to more accurately control the vehicle from a distance /by remote . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258 . The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 27 2 - 1467 . 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. /JOSHUA E RODDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642