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 .
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 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.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection.
This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Specification objections
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Reference of prior art
Wolkovitch. (US 3942747, Joined Wing Aircraft).
Rieken et al. (US 20070215746, Aircraft Having A Ring-Shaped Wing Structure).
McGinnis. (US 20150048215, EFFICIENT CONTROL AND STALL PREVENTION IN ADVANCED CONFIGURATION AIRCRAFT).
Hosseini. (US 20200407060 , NOVEL AIRCRAFT DESIGN USING TANDEM WINGS AND A DISTRIBUTED PROPULSION SYSTEM).
Moore et al. (US 20220161927, Vertical Take-off And Landing (VTOL) Aircraft).
Moy et al. (US 20220411089, ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT FOR GENERATING A YAW FORCE).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 15, 16 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolkovitch and further in view of Rieken.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wolkovitch discloses: An aerial vehicle (AV) comprising a closed polygonal wing member having a predetermined number of facets (items 10, 14, 16, 18 and 20).
However Wolkovitch fails to teach as disclosed by Rieken: wherein the facets cooperatively define a closed loop forming a full contour of the wing member fig (¶ 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the McGinnis teachings of the facets cooperatively define a closed loop forming a full contour of the wing member into the Wolkovitch, to generate lift more efficiently than traditional because it does not generate wingtip vortices which is a significant source of drag .
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wolkovitch, as modified above, discloses: The AV of claim 1, wherein the number of facets of the closed polygonal wing member is between 3 and 6 (Wolkovitch items 14, 16, 18 and 20 when modified similar to Rieken wing that defines a closed loop forming a full contour of the wing member).
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wolkovitch, as modified above, discloses: The AV of claim 2, wherein the closed polygonal wing member further comprises at least one vertical stabilizer (Wolkovitch col. 7, l 1-4).
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wolkovitch, as modified above, discloses: The AV of claim 4, wherein the polygon of the closed polygonal wing member is a triangle (Wolkovitch fig. 1) comprising: a. a base (Wolkovitch items 14, 16), the base operable as a rear wing having a pair of lateral ends (Wolkovitch fig. 1, items 14, 16); and b. a pair of legs, each leg having an upper surface (Wolkovitch items 18, 20), lower surface, apical end, basal end, and defining a leading edge and a trailing edge (Wolkovitch fig. 1, items 18, 20).
Re claim15 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wolkovitch, as modified above, discloses: The AV of claim 5, further comprising a propulsion system operable to propel the AV (Wolkovitch item 120).
Re claim 16 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wolkovitch, as modified above, discloses: The AV of claim 15, wherein the propulsion system is a rotor propeller (Riken ¶ 0057), a turbojet engine, a turboprop engine, a turbofan engine, a turboshaft engine, a liquid-chemical propulsion rocket engine, solid-chemical rocket engine, or an air-breathing rocket propulsion engine (Riken ¶ 0080, … turbojet engines).
Re claim 23 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wolkovitch, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the aircraft is operable as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the aircraft is operable as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for enhanced safety and to avoid risk in hostile areas or dangerous missions, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolkovitch and further in view of Riken and further in view of McGinnis.
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wolkovitch, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by McGinnis: The AV system of claim 2, wherein the polygon defined by the closed polygonal wing member is an irregular, non-equilateral polygon (items, 4, 7, 10 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the McGinnis teachings of the polygon defined by the closed polygonal wing member is an irregular, non-equilateral polygon into the Wolkovitch, as modified above, the separate wingtip arrangement of independent aileron or elevon control surfaces away from the downward-deflected airflow over a wing provide efficient, responsive control of aircraft .
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolkovitch and further in view of Riken and further in view of Hosseini.
Re claim 10 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wolkovitch, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Hosseini: The AV of claim 2, further comprising a blended wing body (BWB), having a nose section, a tailless stern section, and a central fuselage section defining a longitudinal axis (figs. 11-14, and ¶ 0249+), wherein the closed polygonal wing member is slanted at a predetermined angle across the BWB from below the nose section to above the tailless stern section (figs. 11-14, and ¶ 0249+).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Hosseini teachings of a blended wing body (BWB), having a nose section, a tailless stern section, and a central fuselage section defining a longitudinal axis, wherein the closed polygonal wing member is slanted at a predetermined angle across the BWB from below the nose section to above the tailless stern section into the Wolkovitch, as modified above, to reduce drag, improve fuel efficiency and minimize noise level.
Re claim 11 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wolkovitch, as modified above, discloses: The AV of claim 10, wherein the rear wing is above the tailless stern section and is in parallel with a plane defined by the BWB (Hosseini figs. 11-14, and ¶ 0249+).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolkovitch and further in view of Riken and further in view of Moore.
Re claim 17 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wolkovitch, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Moore: The AV of claim 15, comprising a plurality of propulsion means configured in an array, operable for vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) (¶ 0153, figs. 17, 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Moore teachings of a plurality of propulsion means configured in an array, operable for vertical take-off and landing into the Wolkovitch, as modified above, to enable VTOL and increase thrust of the AV.
Re claim 18 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wolkovitch, as modified above, discloses: The AV of claim 17, wherein the plurality of propulsion means are configured in an array of four propulsion means (figs. 17, 18 items 30, 31 and motors 200), with two lower propulsion means disposed one each on the corresponding leg (figs. 17, 18 items 2 lower motors disposed on each of the corresponding leg), and two propulsion means disposed one each at a lateral end of the rear wing (figs. 17, 18 items 2 upper motors disposed on each upper wings ends).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolkovitch and further in view of Riken and further in view of Moore and further in view of Moy.
Re claim 22 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Wolkovitch, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Moy: The AV of claim 18, wherein each rotor in the array is tilted to form a pyramid comprised of rays extending apically and axially from each rotor axis of rotation (¶ 0051-0054 tiltable lift components are capable of performing the limitation), with the pyramid apex positioned vertically above the aircraft's center of gravity following take-off (¶ 0051-0054 and figs. 3-5 are capable of performing the limitation of the claim when modifying the rotors of Wolkovitch, as modified above teachings).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Moy teachings of each rotor in the array is tilted to form a pyramid comprised of rays extending apically and axially from each rotor axis of rotation, with the pyramid apex configured to be vertically above the aircraft's center of gravity following take-off into the Wolkovitch, as modified above, to generate respective torques that combine to form a moment opposing a yaw torque to produce yaw contribution along the roll axis in a negative or a positive directions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 12-14 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, and overcome all the rejections above.
The prior art of record including the disclosures above neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above recited combination.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP ~ 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during office hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights