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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/17/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 15, 17-19, and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sushentsev (RU #2703244) in view of Lendriet (US Patent #5098034) and Lake (US Patent #189059).
For Claims 1-3, 6-8, 19, and 21, the figures of Sushentsev ‘244 disclose an aircraft comprising: a fuselage (1); a propulsion mounting spar (15); a propulsion unit (9) mounted to the fuselage by the propulsion mounting spar; and a wing (2, 3) spaced apart from the propulsion spar; a further propulsion mounting spar (15) aft of the propulsion mounting spar; a further propulsion unit (9) mounted to the fuselage by the further propulsion mounting spar; and a further wing (2, 3) spaced apart from the further propulsion mounting spar.
While Sushentsev ‘244 discloses that the wings are disposed in the wake from the propulsion units having an active flow control actuators to independently control the extendable control surfaces of the wings (4 and 5) so as to have trailing edge of the control surface of the wing redirecting a portion of the wake near the bottom of the wake, it is silent about the wing itself being tiltable. However, the figures of Lendriet ‘034 teach that it is known to have a tiltable wing (16) of at least 20 degrees with control surfaces (24) that are movable within the wake of propulsion units so as to create a downward vertical thrust. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sushentsev ‘244 with the tiltable wing (16) of Lendriet ‘034. The motivation to do so would be to create an even greater range of wake control.
While Sushentsev ‘244 discloses that the engines can create thrust reversal and the control surface can be tilted down to provide a downward thrust force, it is silent about a portion of a control surface being tilted past 90 degrees to direct thrust towards the front of the aircraft to provide reverse thrust. However, figures 13-18 of Lake ‘059 teaches control surfaces that can be positioned to deflect thrust at various angle from a propeller including to provide reverse thrust. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sushentsev ‘244 with the ability to deflect to control surfaces so as to provide reverse thrust as taught by Lake ‘059. The motivation to do so would be to provide additional reverse thrust so as to slow the aircraft down.
For Claim 15, the figures of Sushentsev ‘244 disclose a component (12, 16, and 17) arranged on top of the fuselage.
For Claim 17, the figures of Sushentsev ‘244 disclose a component (12, 16, and 17) arranged on top of the fuselage and an active flow control system comprising an active control actuator, wherein the component arranged on top of the fuselage comprises a component (16) of the active flow control system.
For Claim 18, the figures of Sushentsev ‘244 disclose a fairing (outer skin of the vertical stabilizer (12) housing a component arranged on top of the fuselage.
For Claim 20, the figures of Sushentsev ‘244 disclose that the further tiltable wing is disposed out of the wake from the propulsion unit.
For Claim 22, the figures of Sushentsev ‘244 disclose that the propulsion unit and the further propulsion unit are independently controllable to independently vary an amount of thrust generated by the propulsion unit and an amount of thrust generated by the further propulsion unit.
For Claim 23, the figures of Sushentsev ‘244 in view of Lendriet ‘034 disclose that the tiltable wing is arranged forward of the center of gravity of the aircraft and the further tiltable wing is arranged aft of the center of gravity of the aircraft.
For Claim 24, the figures of Sushentsev ‘244 in view of Lendriet ‘034 disclose that one tiltable wing is arranged above the center of gravity and the other is arranged below the center of gravity of the aircraft.
For Claim 25, the figures of Sushentsev ‘244 in view of Lendriet ‘034 disclose that the tiltable wing is arranged below the center of gravity of the aircraft and the further tiltable wing is arranged above the center of gravity of the aircraft.
Claim(s) 12-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sushentsev (RU #2703244) in view of Lendriet (US Patent #5098034) and Lake (US Patent #189059) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
For Claims 12-14 and 16, while Sushentsev ‘244 and Lendriet ‘034 discloses an engine at the top of the fuselage, it is silent about the propulsion system being a turboelectric hybrid system propulsion system. However, the AAPA teaches that it is well known in the art before the effective filing date to have an aircraft with a turboelectric hybrid propulsion system as they are more efficient and reduce pollution. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sushentsev ‘244 and Lendriet ‘034 with a known turboelectric hybrid propulsion system. The motivation to do so would be to have a more efficient system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11, filed 10/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lake ‘059 which teaches providing control surfaces that can be tilted past 90 degrees to provide reverse thrust.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the argument on pages 8-9 that “a person of ordinary skill in the art, faced with a need for reverse thrust, would be motivated by Sushentsev ‘244 to provide additional propulsion units capable of reverse thrust rather than configure wing elements to redirect airflow towards the front of the aircraft” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The advantage of providing control surfaces that can provide reverse thrust versus the engine itself providing thrust reversal is that the control surface provide an greater range in thrust angles so as to provide a more specific thrust control. Having the propulsion unit provide thrust reversal would not allow the range that deflecting the thrust with control surfaces would provide, it would simply be either backwards thrust or reverse thrust. Having a constant backwards thrust that can be deflected in real time would provide a greater range of real time thrust control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 at 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 10/30/2025