DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, 12-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Strayer (US 2017/0057635).
Strayer clearly discloses a battery-powered unmanned VTOL vehicle having deployable rotors and a rocket propulsion engine in separable modules, each controlled independently and either remotely or autonomously (e.g. Figs 2 and 4-7; [0035]; [0042]-[0044]; [0047]; [0055]; [0057]; [0064]), with the rotors slotted between two layers of a tail fin (172) when stowed, the rotors shrouded from direct airflow during a launch stage (while in the canister).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strayer (‘635) in view of Zheng et al. (US 2019/0193844).
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Strayer discloses deployable rotors with electric motors, but does not disclose the motors being tucked into the fuselage while stowed.
Zheng teaches deployable rotors with motors which are tucked into the fuselage when stowed (as seen in e.g. Figs 1 and 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Strayer to use tucked motors as taught by Zheng for the predictable advantage of reducing the projection of components during storage and transport, to reduce damage to the components during such times.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strayer (‘635) in view of Jin (CN 106864744).
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Strayer discloses top rotors, but does not disclose bottom rotors.
Jin teaches top and bottom rotors (Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Strayer to use top and bottom rotors as taught by Jin for the predictable advantage of increasing the amount of thrust produced, permitting greater speed, farther flight, and/or larger payload capacity.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strayer (‘635) in view of Strauss et al. (US 2020/0031458).
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Strayer discloses rotors on struts, but does not disclose wings.
Strauss teaches an aircraft having rotors on wings (50) to provide lift in horizontal forward flight ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Strayer to use wings as taught by Strauss to produce lift in horizontal forward flight, enabling greater flight speeds.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strayer (‘635).
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Strayer disclose an engine, but does not disclose multiple engines.
The examiner takes Official Notice that multiple engine use is well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Strayer to use multiple engines as the examiner takes Official Notice that multiple engine use is well-known in the art, to increase the thrust, permitting greater speed, farther flight, and/or larger payload capacity, and/or as a redundant flight engine in the event of the failure of one.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Strayer does not disclose shrouding protection during a launch stage, Strayer discloses the UAV in a canister (102) during the launch stage from the mother ship (250). This canister would shroud the propellers from the airflow. Further, the claim does not require shrouding during the entire launch stage, only “during a launch stage.” Further, claim 2 only requires the wings, fins and fuselage configured to conceal “elements” of the rotor assemblies. As seen in Figs 2-4, “elements” of the rotor assemblies are shrouded from the direct airflow through the holding mechanisms (170) of the fuselage and from crossflow by the fins (126). Accordingly, Strayer provides for “shrouding” of the rotor assemblies.
In response to applicant's argument that Strayer does not reduce drag or instability, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, drag and stability are reduced by the folded rotor assemblies, as compared to deployed assemblies.
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 Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 ET.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached on 571-270-3614. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619