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.
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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Reference of prior art
Baity et al. (US 20190135424, VTOL AIRCRAFT HAVING FIXED-WING AND ROTORCRAFT CONFIGURATIONS).
Ferrier. (US 20100065677, HYBRID HELICOPTER THAT IS FAST AND HAS LONG RANGE).
Seeley. (US 11198519, Quiet Urban Air Delivery System).
Petscher et al . (US 20210221495, AIRPLANE WING).
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) 1, 4-11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baity in view of Ferrier and further in view of Seeley and further in view of Petscher.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Baity discloses:
A vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft comprising: a centre section defining a centreline of the aircraft (item 12), and a pair of wings, arranged on either side of the centre section, wherein the wings extend longitudinally from the centre section away from and mutually symmetrical with respect to a plane of symmetry extending through the centreline (items 14 and the unnumbered wing portion of the centre section where items 14 are attached to), wherein each wing comprises:
[[-]] a main wing section, extending longitudinally from the centre section, wherein the main wing section is configured for generating lift in an upward direction (the wings without items 14);
However Baity fails to teach as disclosed by Ferrier: a wingtip section, extending longitudinally from the main wing section in a downwards sloping direction with respect to the main wing section (Ferrier items 23, 24 and ¶ 0127, … a first angle A1 relative to the corresponding wing 21, 22, with a negative dihedral directed towards the ground S);
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 Ferrier teachings of a wingtip section, extending longitudinally from the main wing section in a downwards sloping direction with respect to the main wing section into the Baity to reduce wingtip vorticity shedding and drag.
[[-]] a control surface, provided in the wingtip section (Ferrier items 23`, 24`).
Wherein the aircraft is a fixed-wing aircraft (Baity item 10),
On the other hand Baity, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Seeley: wherein each wingtip section slopes downward from the respective main wing section at an anhedral angle of more than 0 degrees and up to 45 degrees (col. 82, L 38-40),
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 Seeley teachings of wherein each wingtip section slopes downward from the respective main wing section at an anhedral angle of more than 0 degrees and up to 45 degrees into the Baity, as modified above, that results in an increase in effective wing span when the wings are aeroelastically deflected upwardly such as under an approximate 1-g flight loading during cruise flight.
However Baity, as modified above fails to teach as disclosed by Petscher: wherein each wingtip section is provided with a wash-out twist relative to the respective main wing section, and wherein the wash-out twist has a twist angle in a range from 2 to 15 degrees (¶ 0202).
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 Seeley teachings of wherein each wingtip section is provided with a wash-out twist relative to the respective main wing section, and wherein the wash-out twist has a twist angle in a range from 2 to 15 degrees into the Baity, as modified above, to reduce the vortex of the wingtip.
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Baity, as modified above, discloses: The VTOL aircraft according to claim 1(Baity ¶0076).
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Baity, as modified above, discloses: The VTOL aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the aircraft comprises at least one propulsion device configured for providing thrust for lifting and/or propelling the aircraft (Baity items 16).
Re claim 6 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Baity, as modified above, discloses: The VTOL aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the main wing sections are arranged substantially in the same plane (Baity the wings without items 14).
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Baity, as modified above, discloses: The VTOL aircraft according to claim 1, each wingtip section slopes downward from the respective main wing section at an anhedral angle in a range from 5 to 20 degrees (Seely col. 82, L 38-40).
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Baity, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Livieratos: The VTOL aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the aircraft is an unmanned aerial vehicle (Seeley col. 8, l 14-24).
Re claim 9 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Baity, as modified above, discloses The VTOL aircraft according to claim 1, wherein each main wing section is arranged with respect to the centre section at an angle of incidence in a range from 0 to 10 degrees (Baity the wings without items 14 and Ferrier items 21, 22 depict the limitation).
Re claim 10 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Baity, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for each wingtip section comprises between 20 and 50 percent of the length of the respective wing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include each wingtip section comprises between 20 and 50 percent of the length of the respective wing to reduce wingtip vorticity shedding and drag without compromising the aerodynamic characteristics of the wing, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claim 11 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Baity, as modified above, discloses: The VTOL aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the control surface is at least one of an aileron and a spoiler (Ferrier items 23`, 24`, please note, Spoilers function the same as ailerons at low angles of attack and better than ailerons at high angle of attack).
Re claim 14 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Baity, as modified above, discloses: The VTOL aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the wash-out twist has a twist angle in a range from 3 to 12 degrees (Petscher ¶ 0202)..
Re claim 15 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Baity, as modified above, discloses: A vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft, comprising a centre section defining a centreline of the aircraft, and a pair of wings, arranged on either side of the centre section, wherein the wings extend longitudinally from the centre section away from and mutually symmetrical with respect to a plane of symmetry extending through the centreline, wherein each wing comprises: a main wing section, extending longitudinally from the centre section, wherein the main wing section is configured for generating lift in an upward direction; a wingtip section, extending longitudinally from the main wing section in a downwards sloping direction with respect to the main wing section; and a control surface, provided in the wingtip section, wherein the aircraft is a fixed-wing aircraft, wherein each wingtip section slopes downward from the respective main wing section at an anhedral angle of more than 0 degrees and up to 45 degrees, wherein each wingtip section is provided with a wash-out twist relative to an aerofoil of the respective main wing section, the aerofoil being furthest from the centreline and adjacent to the wingtip section, and wherein the wash-out twist has a twist angle in a range from 2 to 15 degrees relative to the adjacent aerofoil of the main wing section.
(Claim 15 above is similar in scope to Claim 1; therefore, Claim 15 above is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1).
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