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 Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The amendments added the limitation “said aerial comprises”. The limitation should read “said aerial vehicle comprises”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 16-17 are objected as above due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 5-6 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wolff et al. (US 20120091257 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wolff teaches an aerial vehicle (Fig. 13 element 900), said aerial vehicle comprising: a main body (Fig. 13 element 920) and inner wing assembly, said main body and inner wing assembly comprising: a central main body (Fig. 13 element 920); a right side inner wing (Fig. 13 wing portion between starboard boom and main body 920); and a left side inner wing (Fig. 13 wing portion between port boom and main body 920); a right side outer wing (Fig. 13 starboard element 930), said right side outer wing coupled to said right side inner wing (Shown in Fig. 13); a left side outer wing (Fig. 13 port element 930), said left side outer wing coupled to said left side inner wing (Shown in Fig. 13); a right side longitudinal boom (Fig. 15 starboard element 951), said right side longitudinal boom traversing through a right side of said main body and inner wing assembly (Shown in Fig. 15), said right side longitudinal boom extending forward of said main body and inner wing assembly on a front end; a left side longitudinal boom (Fig. 15 port element 951), said left side longitudinal boom traversing through a left side of said main body and inner wing assembly (Shown in Fig. 15), said left side longitudinal boom extending forward of said main body and inner wing assembly on a front end; an aft boom (Fig. 15 element 944), said aft boom coupled to a central area of said main body and inner wing assembly, said aft boom extending rearward of said main body and inner wing assembly (Shown in Fig. 15); a forward right side rotor assembly (Fig. 13 element 940b), said forward right side rotor assembly coupled to said front end of said right side longitudinal boom; a forward left side rotor assembly (Fig. 13 element 940a), said forward left side rotor assembly coupled to said front end of said left side longitudinal boom; and a rear rotor assembly, said rear rotor assembly coupled to a rearward end of said aft boom (Fig. 13 element 940c).
Regarding Claim 2, Wolff teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses said right side longitudinal boom extends rearward of said main body and inner wing assembly on a rearward end (Shown in Fig. 13), and wherein said left side longitudinal boom extending rearward of said main body and inner wing assembly on a rearward end (Shown in Fig. 13), and wherein said aerial vehicle further comprises a tail assembly (Fig. 13 element 950), said tail assembly coupled to said rearward end of said right side longitudinal boom and to said rearward end of said left side longitudinal boom (Shown to rearward boom ends shown in Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 5, Wolff teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 2 and further discloses said tail assembly comprises: a right side vertical element (Fig. 15 starboard element 954), a bottom of said right side vertical element coupled to said right side longitudinal boom; a left side vertical element (Fig. 15 port element 954), a bottom of said left side vertical element coupled to said left side longitudinal boom; and a horizontal element, said horizontal element coupled to a top of said right side vertical element, said horizontal element coupled to a top of said left side vertical element (Fig. 15 element 941).
Regarding Claim 6, Wolff teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses said right side outer wing is a rearward swept wing, and wherein said left side outer wing is a rearward swept wing (“the wings may also comprise other control surfaces such as for example leading edge slats, flaps, and so on, and/or may have positive or negative sweep, and/or anhedral or dihedral, and/or an aspect ratio different from 2.6” Par. [0145] lines 8-11).
Regarding Claim 8, Wolff teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 2 and further discloses said right side longitudinal boom is removably coupled to said main body and inner wing assembly, and wherein said left side longitudinal boom is removably coupled to said main body and inner wing assembly (Removability shown in Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 9, Wolff teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 8 and further discloses said right side forward rotor assembly is removably coupled to said right side longitudinal boom (Fig. 13 element 940b), and wherein said left side forward assembly is removably coupled to said left side longitudinal boom (Fig. 13 element 940a), and wherein said rear rotor assembly is removably coupled to said aft boom (Fig. 13 element 940c).
Regarding Claim 10, Wolff teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 2 and further discloses said tail assembly is removably coupled to said right side longitudinal boom and said left side longitudinal boom (Shown in Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 11, Wolff teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 6 and further discloses said right side longitudinal boom is removably coupled to said main body and inner wing assembly, and wherein said left side longitudinal boom is removably coupled to said main body and inner wing assembly (Shown in Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 12, Wolff teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 11 and further discloses said right side forward rotor assembly is removably coupled to said right side longitudinal boom (Fig. 13 element 940b), and wherein said left side forward assembly is removably coupled to said left side longitudinal boom (Fig. 13 element 940a), and wherein said rear rotor assembly is removably coupled to said aft boom (Fig. 13 element 940c).
Regarding Claim 13, Wolff teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 6 and further discloses said aerial vehicle has no tail assembly (Shown in Fig. 15 before tail attachment).
Regarding Claim 14, Wolff teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 12 and further discloses said aerial vehicle has no tail assembly (Shown in Fig. 15 before tail attachment).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wolff et al. (US 20120091257 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Wolff teaches a method for the configuring of an aerial vehicle based upon the mission profile needs, the method comprising the steps of: assessing the mission profile; selecting wing set types based upon assessment of mission needs (“the modularity of the wing arrangement 930 also allows the wing configuration to be changed as desired, for example to be optimized to fit a particular mission profile” Par. [0210] lines 2-4); selecting rotor assemblies based upon mission requirements; assembling the aerial vehicle in concert with the identified priorities and needs; and flying the mission (“the propulsion unit 940c may be removed altogether from the air vehicle 900, enabling the air vehicle 900 to operate as a STOL vehicle or as a conventional air vehicle, rendering the air vehicle 900 even more flexible and mission adaptive” Par. [0220] lines 1-4).
See rejection of claim 1 for added limitations on aerial vehicle.
Regarding Claim 16, Wolff teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 15 and further discloses the step of selecting wing set types comprises selecting a shorter or a longer outer wing (Fig. 16 shows the different outer wing options).
Regarding Claim 17, Wolff teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 15 and further discloses the step of assembling the aerial vehicle comprises removably coupling spars and booms of the aerial vehicle components (Shown in Fig. 15).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wolff et al. (US 20120091257 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Wolff teaches the a method for the reconfiguring of an aerial vehicle, said method comprising the steps of: removing the right side outer wing from a main body and inner wing assembly; removing the left side outer wing from said main body and inner wing assembly; installing a second right side outer wing of a different type; and installing a second left side outer wing of a different type (Fig. 15 shows the detachment of the outer wing assemblies and Fig. 16 shows the different outer wing options).
See rejection of claim 1 for added limitations on aerial vehicle.
Regarding Claim 19, Wolff teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 18 and further discloses said outer wings are removably coupled to said main body and inner wing assembly (Shown in Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 20, Wolff teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 19 and further discloses the steps of: removing the forward left side rotor assembly; removing the forward right side rotor assembly; removing the rear rotor assembly; replacing the forward left side rotor assembly with a rotor assembly of a different type; replacing the forward right side rotor assembly with a rotor assembly of a different type; and replacing the rear rotor assembly with a rotor assembly of a different type (“the propulsion system may comprise a plurality of propulsion units that are different from ducted fan units, mutatis mutandis, comprising, for example, turboprop units, turbofan units, turbojet units, propfan (unducted fan) units, propellers (shrouded or enshrouded), and so on, or any combination thereof and/or of ducted fan units. In each case, at least two of the propulsion systems are independently controllable one from another to provide a desired thrust vector and/or a desired thrust level” Par. [0222] lines 2-10).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolff et al. (US 20120091257 A1) in view of Grubb et al. (US 20190168872 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Wolff teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 2.
Wolff fails to explicitly teach said main body and inner wing assembly has a plurality of main body lateral spars extending from a right side of said main body and inner wing assembly to a left side of said main body and inner wing assembly, said main body lateral spars structurally coupled to right side longitudinal boom and said left side longitudinal boom.
However, Grubb teaches said main body and inner wing assembly has a plurality of main body lateral spars extending from a right side of said main body and inner wing assembly to a left side of said main body and inner wing assembly (Fig. 12 elements 334 and 336), said main body lateral spars structurally coupled to right side longitudinal boom and said left side longitudinal boom (Shown in Fig. 2).
Wolff and Grubb are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of modular aircraft design. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the central portion of Wolff to have the spars and boom connections as disclosed by Grubb. Doing so would provide structural support of the main body as well as to the longitudinal booms.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolff et al. (US 20120091257 A1) in view of Grubb et al. (US 20190168872 A1) and further in view of Russel (US 20190374868 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Wolff and Grubb teach the limitations set forth in Claim 3.
Wolff further discloses right and left lateral spare to couple the outer wings to the main body (Fig. 15 elements 912)
Wolff and Grubb fail to explicitly teach said right side outer wing comprises a plurality of right side wing lateral spars, said right side wing lateral spars coupled to said main body spars, and wherein said left side outer wing comprises a plurality of left side wing lateral spars, said left side outer wing lateral spars coupled to said main body spars.
However, Russel teaches said right side outer wing comprises a plurality of right side wing lateral spars, said right side wing lateral spars coupled to said main body spars, and wherein said left side outer wing comprises a plurality of left side wing lateral spars, said left side outer wing lateral spars coupled to said main body spars (Fig. 2 elements 104 and 105).
Wolff, Grubb and Russel are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of modular aircraft structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer wings of Wolff in view of Grubb to have the two spar connections as disclosed by Russel. Doing so would provide a more secure connection between the outer wing and the main body structures.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolff et al. (US 20120091257 A1) in view of Grubb et al. (US 20190168872 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Wolff teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 6.
Wolff fails to explicitly teach said right side outer wing comprises a vertical element at an outboard end, and wherein said left side outer wing comprises a vertical element at an outboard end.
However, Grubb teaches said right side outer wing comprises a vertical element at an outboard end, and wherein said left side outer wing comprises a vertical element at an outboard end (Fig. 1 elements 312).
Wolff and Grubb are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of modular aircraft design. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the outer wings of Wolff to have the vertical elements as disclosed by Grubb. Doing so would increase the efficiency of the aircraft by reducing aerodynamic drag and reducing the formation of wingtip vortices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 01/15/2026 overcome the previous 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection. The 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection from the previous rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the boom element of Wolff does not extend thorough the inner wing assembly and couple to the rotor. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the booms extend through the inner wing assembly via element 932 and couple to the rotors via elements 980. As the claim does not require direct connection between the boom and the rotor, the claim stands rejected.
Conclusion
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 ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644