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 .
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) 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0140629 (Boomguard et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0197271 (Maloney et al.) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0117149 (Zhou et al.).
Regarding Claims 15-18, Boomguard et al. teaches: Claim 15 – a main aircraft body (336s – the aircraft can be in the form of an unmanned aerial vehicle as described in at least paragraph [0003]) of an aircraft (300s), wherein the main aircraft body (336s) comprises a load-bearing structure configured in form of an elongate fuselage (336s), wherein a pair of wings (309s) consisting of two wings (309s) is arranged laterally on the elongate fuselage (336s), wherein the wings (309s) are configured such that, during horizontal flying movement in a horizontal direction of flight parallel to a longitudinal axis of the elongate fuselage (336s), a lifting force is generated for the aircraft (300s), wherein a plurality of receiving devices (320s) for receiving drive means are formed on the wings (309s), wherein an empennage (312s) is arranged at a tail (312s) of the elongate fuselage (336s), wherein the empennage (312s) is formed by a pair of empennage surfaces (313s), wherein guide surfaces of the pair of empennage surfaces (313s) are oriented in a V-shaped manner in relation to one another in a horizontal direction of flight, wherein the guide surfaces (on (313s)) are arranged directly on the tail (312s) and merge into the tail (312s), (Figure 3S).
Boomguard et al. does not teach:
(A) The aircraft being made from a fiber-reinforced composite material (Claim 15); and the material is a fiber and plastic composite (Claim 17).
(B) Wherein the main aircraft body is formed from an upper shell and a lower shell, wherein the upper shell and the lower shell are connected to one another along a common connecting surface, wherein the upper shell and/or the lower shell is produced in one piece, the empennage being a component of/integrally formed with the upper shell or a component of the lower shell (Claim 15); the empennage being a component of the upper shell (Claim 16); and wherein the upper shell and the lower shell are configured to be brought into connection with each other along the common connecting surface in such a way that an inner volume is enclosed by the upper shell and by the lower shell such that the main aircraft body is configured as a hollow body (Claim 18).
In regards to (A), Maloney et al. teaches: Claims 15 and 17 - an aircraft (300) being made from multiple shell components (301 and 302) which are made from a fiber-reinforced composite material which is a fiber and plastic composite (paragraph [0044] describing a carbon and Kevlar composite structure for the shell components (301 and 302)), (Figures 15a and 15b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft body of Boomguard et al. to have the aircraft being made from a fiber-reinforced composite material (Claim 15); and the material is a fiber and plastic composite (Claim 17) as being taught by Maloney et al. for the purposes of making the aircraft from a material which is strong and easy to find and manufacture.
In regards to (B), Zhou et al. teaches: Claims 15, 16 and 18 - an aircraft body is formed from an upper shell (5) and a lower shell (6), wherein the upper shell (5) and the lower shell (6) are connected to one another along a common connecting surface, wherein the upper shell (5) and/or the lower shell (6) is produced in one piece, components (such as 510a) being a component of the upper shell (5) only, and wherein the upper shell (5) and the lower shell (6) are configured to be brought into connection with each other along the common connecting surface in such a way that an inner volume is enclosed by the upper shell (5) and by the lower shell (6) such that the main aircraft body is configured as a hollow body, (Figures 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft body of Boomguard et al. to have wherein the main aircraft body is formed from an upper shell and a lower shell, wherein the upper shell and the lower shell are connected to one another along a common connecting surface, wherein the upper shell and/or the lower shell is produced in one piece, the empennage being a component of the upper shell or a component of the lower shell (Claim 15); the empennage being a component of the upper shell (Claim 16); and wherein the upper shell and the lower shell are configured to be brought into connection with each other along the common connecting surface in such a way that an inner volume is enclosed by the upper shell and by the lower shell such that the main aircraft body is configured as a hollow body (Claim 18) as being taught by Zhou et al. for the purposes of making the aircraft from a structure which is easy to access the inside of the fuselage for maintenance and easy manufacture; and as it would have been obvious to try based upon the teachings of Zhou et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29 and 30 are 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 filed 08/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues:
“The Office Action refers to Zhou et al. for teaching that an empennage is a component of the upper shell or a component of the lower shell. The Applicant respectfully disagrees. Zhou discloses a multirotor quadcopter design where control and stability are achieved by differential thrust of the four propellers, rather than by aerodynamic surfaces like an empennage. None of the description, figures, or claims of Zhou disclose any tail assembly, stabilizer, fin, rudder, horizontal or vertical tail surface, or any structure that could reasonably be construed as an empennage, let alone one that is integrally formed as one piece with a fuselage. (See Pages 8 and 9 of the Applicant’s Arguments).”
However, the examiner disagrees. Zhou teaches the body of a drone having an aircraft body having both an upper shell (5) and a lower shell (6) along a common connecting surface; components of the ends of the aircraft body such as elements (510a) being part of the upper shell (5), and all upwardly facing components of Zhou being part of the upper shell (5). All of this would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that modifying the aircraft body of Boomguard et al. to have an upper and a lower shell in the main aircraft body would suggest that: 1. At least the entire tail of the aircraft body of Boomguard would be part of the upper shell after any such modifications; and/or 2. The pair of empennage surfaces (313s) of the aircraft body of Boomguard would be part of the upper shell as they are upwardly facing after any such modifications.
Conclusion
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 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) 271467. 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