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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4 March 2026 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) 2-7, 9-15, 17-20, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamada et al. (US 2021/0261268) in view of Haga (US 2023/0202664) and Kuster (US 2018/0009542).
Regarding independent claims 2, 10, and 17, and claims 3, 11, 18, and 22:
Tamada discloses an aircraft comprising:
a fuselage (e.g. 1101), wings (e.g. 1106) and wing booms (e.g. 1103);
a plurality of flight components comprising a lift propulsor (e.g. 1001) and a thrust propulsor (e.g. 1109);
a power system comprising a battery (e.g. 1004, 2002) and a fuel system (e.g. 1020, et al.) to power the flight components; and
a flight controller (e.g. 1105) “configured to” command the thrust propulsor into a plurality of flight modes (e.g. Fig 6) based on at least in part on a flight stage and an environmental datum detected by sensors (e.g. Fig. 5).
Tamada discloses sensors (Fig 5) configured to detect a flight mode of the aircraft ([0090]-[0098] indicates the sensors detecting the flight modes via various types of flight, such as “takeoff, landing, climb, ascent, descent,” etc., which the sensors of Tamada are capable of detecting), but does not disclose the controller configured to select between the battery, fuel system/generator, and a combination thereof based on a state of charge of the battery and a flight mode of the aircraft, with the SOC and flight mode detected by respective sensors.
Haga teaches an aircraft having a controller configured to select between the battery and generator ([0040]-[0044]) based on a flight mode and SOC which are determined by respective sensors, including speed sensors (Fig 3; [0046]; [0048]; [0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Tamada to use a power selection system as taught by Haga for the predictable advantage of ensuring the appropriate amount of power is available and supplied to the propulsors for the desired flight performance, while reducing excessive consumption when not needed (e.g. more power for hover, less for forward flight) in order to save fuel and energy, which can then be used to extend flight.
Tamada discloses a series arrangement (e.g. Fig 2), but does not disclose parallel or series parallel arrangements.
Kuster teaches series, parallel, and series-parallel arrangements to permit use by each engine and/or motor in the event of failure and/or to supply added power as required ([0039]; [0045])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Tamada to use parallel and series-parallel arrangements as taught by Kuster for the predictable advantage of permit use by each engine and/or motor in the event of failure and/or to supply added power as required.
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 19:
The discussion above regarding claims 2, 10, and 17 is relied upon.
Tamada discloses the datum comprising temperature (1041, 1042, 1043), pressure (1044, 1045), velocity (indirectly via GPS, 1048), and altitude (1046).
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 20:
The discussion above regarding claims 2, 10, and 17 is relied upon.
As best understood, Tamada discloses a machine-learning model configured to determine an optimum profile (this is a product-by process limitation that results from the design process, as such the result of the system operation meets the claim).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 14, and 15:
The discussion above regarding claims 2 and 10 is relied upon.
Tamada as modified renders the SOC detected by one sensor (via Haga) and the flight mode detected by another ([0090]-[0098]).
Regarding claims 8, 16, and 21:
The discussion above regarding claims 2, 10, and 17 is relied upon.
Tamada discloses a series, parallel, and series-parallel configuration of the battery and fuel systems (e.g. Fig 10).
Regarding claim 9:
The discussion above regarding claim 2 is relied upon.
Tamada discloses a generator (e.g. 1030, 2020).
Regarding claims 23 and 24:
The discussion above regarding claim 2 is relied upon.
Kuster discloses the controller “configured” for use during climb or descent modes (e.g. take-off or landing) based at least in part on pressure or velocity (e.g. altitude for climbing, cruise flight, velocity for landing/take-off, etc.).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-7, 9-15, 17-20, 23, and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11 993368. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims generally recite the same structure of the hybrid system having wings and booms, thrust/lift propulsors, and battery/fuel systems, with control via SOC detection. Further, specific sensors, flight modes, etc., are well-known in the art (e.g. as disclosed above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Although the amendments overcome the 102 rejection in view of Kuster, the remaining rejections rely on a combination of Tamada, Haga, and Kuster. There are no remarks regarding how the amendments overcome this combination of references.
Conclusion
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, Anna Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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
Prosecution Insights