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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, information disclosure statements (IDS) have been filed on 5/20/2024. 8/2/2024, 10/31/2024. 12/30/2024, 5/19/2025, 7/29/2025. 10/29/2025, and 12/24/2025 and have been reviewed by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1C, and 2C in the reply filed on 12/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 3, 4, 10,13, and 15 are withdrawn for being drawn to non-elected embodiments.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is 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 5 states “a second group of tilting fans”, and it is not clear if this second group is part of the “plurality of tilting fans” that was introduced in claim 1 or if these fans are separate from the previously introduced group, additionally claim 1 has been amended to remove the references to the first group of fans while this claim requires a second group and it is not clear if the claim also requires a first group.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith (PGPub #2012/004313).
Regarding claim 16, Smith teaches an aircraft comprising: a fuselage (100); at least one wing (123) coupled to the fuselage (100, and 123 as seen in figure 1); a plurality of front tilting fans (106L, and 106R) each coupled to a leading edge of the at least one wing (106L, 106R, and 123 as seen in figure 1) via a corresponding tilting mechanism among a plurality of tilting mechanisms (106L, 106R, 123, and 124 as seen in figure 2a, the tilt actuator also functions as the tilting mechanism); a first actuator (124) configured to simultaneously actuate a first group of the front tilting fans (106L, 106R, 124, 201, and 204 as seen in figure 2a, and Paragraph 83, this teaches that the front engines are mounted on a shared driveshaft and the tilt actuators act on the shared driveshaft to simultaneously tilt the front fans) to move between a vertical lift position and a forward flight position (The front fans as seen in figures 4a-4c); and a plurality of variable pitch mechanisms (107, and 210) each coupled to one of the plurality of front tilting fans (106L, 106R, 107, and 210 as seen in figure 2a), wherein each variable pitch mechanism comprises an actuator (107, and 210) that is configured to adjust a pitch of blades of corresponding front tilting fan based on a direction or a speed of the aircraft by twisting the blades about their blade axis (Paragraphs 42, 71, and 88, this teaches that the blade pitch can be adjusted based upon the current flight phase and direction, and the pitch of the blades is changed by an actuator that is located at the axis of rotation of the blades and connected to the blades at their roots, for this actuator to change the blade pitch it must inherently cause the blades to rotates about an axis of the blade which will inherently create a twisting movement).
Regarding claim 17, Smith teaches the aircraft of claim 16, wherein a tilting of a first front tilting fan is coupled to a pitch of the blades of the first front tilting fan (Paragraphs 42, 71, and 88, this teaches that the blade pitch can be adjusted based upon the tilt direction of the fan).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal et al. (PGPub #2021/0206487) in view of Baldwin (PGPub #2006/0032971).
Regarding claim 1, Iqbal teaches an aircraft comprising: a fuselage (50); at least one wing (50) coupled to the fuselage (10, and 50 as seen in figure 1); a plurality of support elements (11) coupled to an underside of the at least one wing (10, and 11 as seen in figure 1); and a plurality of tilting fans (20, and 30) each coupled to a support element among the plurality of support elements (11, and 20 as seen in figure 1) via a tilting mechanism (Paragraphs 31, and 86, this teaches that the rotors can tilt between a horizontal and vertical position which requires a tilt mechanism to allow it to tilt) and configured to move between a vertical lift position and a forward flight position (Paragraph 86), wherein there is a first tilting fan (20 as seen in figure 1). But Iqbal does not teach that the first tilting fan is configured to move to the vertical lift position upon a failure of a first tilting mechanism coupled to the first tilting fan.
However, Baldwin does teach that the first tilting fan is configured to move to the vertical lift position upon a failure of a first tilting mechanism coupled to the first tilting fan (Paragraph 73). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a fan move to a vertical position upon failure of the tilting mechanism of the fan because Iqbal and Baldwin are both tilt rotor aircraft systems. The motivation for having a fan move to a vertical position upon failure of the tilting mechanism of the fan is that it helps to ensure that the rotor is in the vertical position to help ensure that the aircraft will be able to vertically land following the failure.
Regarding claim 2, Iqbal as modified by Baldwin teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein a front tilting fan of the plurality of tilting fans and an aft tilting fan of the plurality of tilting fans are coupled to opposite ends of a first support element (11, 20, and 30 as seen in figure 1 of Iqbal), wherein the front tilting fan is provided at a leading edge of the at least one wing (10, and 20 as seen in figure 1 of Iqbal), the aft tilting fan is provided at a trailing edge of the at least one wing (10, and 30 as seen in figure 1 of Iqbal).
Regarding claim 6, Iqbal as modified by Baldwin teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the first tilting fan is among a first group of tilting fans consists of a plurality of front tilting fans provided on a leading edge of the at least one wing (10, and 20 as seen in figure 1 of Iqbal).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal et al. (PGPub #2021/0206487) as modified by Baldwin (PGPub #2006/0032971)as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith (PGPub #2012/0043413).
Regarding claim 5, Iqbal as modified by Baldwin teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not teach at least one actuator configured to simultaneously actuate a second group of tilting fans to move between the vertical lift position and the forward flight position. However, Smith does teach at least one actuator (The aft 124 as seen in figure 2a) configured to simultaneously actuate a second group of tilting fans to move between the vertical lift position and the forward flight position (124, 202, 219, 706L, and 706R as seen in figure 2a, the aft rotors as seen in figures 4a-4c, and Paragraph 85, this teaches that the two rotors are mounted on a shared driveshaft and the second actuator system acts on the shared drive shaft to simultaneously tilt the aft rotors). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second actuator to simultaneously tilt a second group of rotors because Iqbal and Smith are both tilt rotor aircraft with fore and aft rotors. The motivation for having a second actuator to simultaneously tilt a second group of rotors is that it allows there to be independent groups of rotors that can provide redundancy to the system and allow for synchronized transitions to help ensure stability.
Claims 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal et al. (PGPub #2021/0206487) in view of Platt (US #2,702,168), and Baldwin (PGPub #2006/0032971).
Regarding claim 9, Iqbal teaches an aircraft comprising: a fuselage (50); at least one wing (50) coupled to the fuselage (10, and 50 as seen in figure 1); a plurality of support elements (11) coupled to an underside of the at least one wing (10, and 11 as seen in figure 1); a plurality of tilting fans (20, and 30) each coupled to a support element among the plurality of support elements (11, and 20 as seen in figure 1) via a corresponding tilting mechanism (Paragraphs 31, and 86, this teaches that the rotors can tilt between a horizontal and vertical position which requires a tilt mechanism to allow it to tilt); a first actuator (Paragraph 31) configured to actuate a first group of tilting fans to move between a vertical lift position and a forward flight position (Paragraph 31), and that there is first tilting fan among the first group of tilting fans (20 as seen in figure 1). But Iqbal does not teach that the actuator simultaneously actuates the first group of tilting fans, and that the first tilting fan is configured to move to the vertical lift position upon a failure of a first tilting mechanism coupled to the first tilting fan.
However, Platt does teach that the actuator simultaneously actuates the first group of tilting fans (Column 9, line 78-Column 10, line 8, and Column 10, line 79-Column 11, line 15, this teaches that the actuator can simultaneously tilt the fans). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the actuator simultaneously tilt the fans because Iqbal and Platt are both tilt rotor aircraft that have the rotors tilted by actuators. The motivation for having the actuator simultaneously tilt the fans is that it allows the fans to transition at the same time to maintain stability in the aircraft. But Platt does not teach that the first tilting fan is configured to move to the vertical lift position upon a failure of a first tilting mechanism coupled to the first tilting fan.
However, Baldwin does teach that the first tilting fan is configured to move to the vertical lift position upon a failure of a first tilting mechanism coupled to the first tilting fan (Paragraph 73). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a fan move to a vertical position upon failure of the tilting mechanism of the fan because Iqbal and Baldwin are both tilt rotor aircraft systems. The motivation for having a fan move to a vertical position upon failure of the tilting mechanism of the fan is that it helps to ensure that the rotor is in the vertical position to help ensure that the aircraft will be able to vertically land following the failure.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal et al. (PGPub #2021/0206487) as modified by Platt (US #2,702,168), and Baldwin (PGPub #2006/0032971) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Groninga et al. (PGPub #2020/0385110).
Regarding claim 12, Iqbal as modified by Platt and Baldwin teaches the aircraft of claim 9, but does not explicitly teach that the first actuator is coupled to the one or more tilting mechanisms associated with the first group of tilting fans.
However, Groninga does teach that the first actuator is coupled to the one or more tilting mechanisms (206, and 210 as seen in figure 4A). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the actuator coupled to the tilting mechanisms because Iqbal and Groninga are both tilt rotor VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having the actuator coupled to the tilting mechanisms is that it allows the force from the actuator to be directly applied to the actuator to help maximize the load transfer and ease the rotor transition.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iqbal et al. (PGPub #2021/0206487) as modified by Platt (US #2,702,168), and Baldwin (PGPub #2006/0032971) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Vanni et al. (PGPub #2022/0024572).
Regarding claim 14, Iqbal as modified by Platt and Baldwin teaches the aircraft of claim 12, but does not teach that the first actuator comprises a compressor and wherein the one or more tilting mechanisms further comprises hydraulic lines that connect the one or more tilting mechanisms to the first actuator. However, Vanni does teach that the first actuator comprises a compressor (Paragraphs 34, and 35) and wherein the one or more tilting mechanisms further comprises hydraulic lines that connect the one or more tilting mechanisms to the first actuator (Paragraphs 34, and 35). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the actuator be a compressor that is connected to hydraulic lines to form the tilt mechanism because Iqbal and Vanni are both tilt rotor aircraft that can use hydraulic actuators. The motivation for having the actuator be a compressor that is connected to hydraulic lines to form the tilt mechanism is that hydraulic actuation systems allow the force to tilt the rotors to be efficiently transferred.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (PGPub #2012/004313) in view of Platt (US #2,702,168).
Regarding claim 18, Smith teaches the aircraft of claim 16, but does not teach that the first actuator drives the tilting mechanism and one or more of the plurality of variable pitch mechanisms associated with the first group of front tilting fans. However, Platt does teach that the first actuator drives the tilting mechanism and one or more of the plurality of variable pitch mechanisms associated with the first group of front tilting fans (Claim 3, this teaches that the tilt actuator is linked to the pitch changing mechanism and when the tilt actuator activates it also drives the change in blade pitch). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the actuator drive both the rotor tilting and variable blade pitch because Smith and Platt are both tilt rotor VTOL aircraft with variable blade pitch. The motivation for having the actuator drive both the rotor tilting and variable blade pitch is that it allows the blade pitch to automatically change with the tilting to provide the best aircraft performance.
Claims 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (PGPub #2012/004313) in view of Iqbal et al. (PGPub #2021/0206487).
Regarding claim 19, Smith teaches the aircraft of claim 16, but does not teach a plurality of aft tilting fans each coupled to a trailing edge of the at least one wing. However, Iqbal does teach a plurality of aft tilting fans (30) each coupled to a trailing edge of the at least one wing (10, and 30 as seen in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of fans coupled to the trailing edge of the wing because Smith and Iqbal are both tilt rotor aircraft. The motivation for having a plurality of fans coupled to the trailing edge of the wing is that it can increase the amount of thrust that can be generated while reducing the number of necessary wings to help lighten the system.
Regarding claim 20, Smith as modified by Iqbal teaches the aircraft of claim 19, but Smith does not teach that one of the first group of front tilting fans and one of the plurality of aft tilting fans is coupled to a first support element via a first tilting mechanism among the plurality of tilting mechanisms, wherein the first support element is coupled underneath the at least one wing and houses at least one of the first actuator and the first tilting mechanism. However, Iqbal does teach that one of the first group of front tilting fans and one of the plurality of aft tilting fans is coupled to a first support element (11, 20, and 30 as seen in figure 1) via a first tilting mechanism among the plurality of tilting mechanisms (Paragraphs 31, and 86, this teaches that the rotors can tilt between a horizontal and vertical position which requires a tilt mechanism to allow it to tilt), wherein the first support element is coupled underneath the at least one wing (10, and 11 as seen in figure 1)and houses at least one of the first actuator and the first tilting mechanism (11, 20, and 30 as seen in figure 1, and Paragraphs 31, and 86, for the rotors to be able to tilt about the ends of the support structure there must inherently be a tilt mechanism in the support structure). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fans coupled to the fore and aft ends of a wing mounted support structure by tilting mechanisms housed in the structure because Smith and Iqbal are both tilt rotor aircraft. The motivation for having fans coupled to the fore and aft ends of a wing mounted support structure by tilting mechanisms housed in the structure is that it allows the fans to be spaced from the wing for improved aerodynamic performance while also helping to shroud the tilting system to help lower drag.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, and 11 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
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s argument that Smith fails to teach that the front tilting fans are coupled to a leading edge of the at least one wing. While the examiner would agree that the fans of Smith are not mounted in front of the leading edge, like is taught in the application, however this is not required by the current claim language, and the examiner would agree that the fans are not directly coupled to the leading edge, however this is also not required by the current claim language and does not appear to be supported by the figures of this application. For both Smith and this application the fans are connected to the leading edge through intermediate structural members, in the case of Smith it is through the main body of the wing, and for the application it is through the support structure and the main body of the wing as the figures clearly show a gap between the leading edge and the support structure that the fans are mounted on.
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s argument that Smith does not teach that the variable pitch mechanism includes an actuator that twists the blades about an axis. As is discussed in the amended rejection of the claim, Smith does teach a pair of actuators on each fan, and for these actuators to function in the manner discussed by Smith, they must inherently create a twisting motion of the blades because the actuators are located at the root of the blades along the rotation axis of the fan.
The rejections of claims 1, and 9 have been amended with new art that the examiner believes teaches the amendments to the claim.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
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 WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights