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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 December 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the uninterrupted arrangement must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the motor output shaft, the second output of the gearbox, and the drive shaft of the tail rotor are aligned and uninterrupted along an axis corresponding to the drive shaft. The disclosure does not provide any indication as to what “uninterrupted” refers, and is completely silent regarding this arrangement. Figure 3 provides for an arrangement that could be considered “uninterrupted,” however still provides for the gearbox between the motor drive shaft and the gearbox output. In view of applicant’s arguments regarding Gao, where the features within the gearbox itself are considered an “interruption,” the gearbox depicted in Fig 3 would also likely provide such an “interruption.” Even if the applicant’s invention were “uninterrupted”, there is no disclosure or depiction of the interior of the gearbox to enable one of ordinary skill to determine that it is indeed “uninterrupted.” Accordingly, the limitation is new matter.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In light of the discussion above regarding the “uninterrupted” arrangement, one of ordinary skill would require undue experimentation to create an “uninterrupted” arrangement. The disclosure does not describe how the system is “uninterrupted,” leaving one of ordinary skill to interpret the arrangement as best they can in view of their ordinary skill.
First, as depicted in Fig 3, the gearbox itself “interrupts” the arrangement. Since the output cannot be present without the gearbox, one of ordinary skill would have no way of rendering an “uninterrupted” arrangement because the gearbox itself would always be in the way.
Further, in view of applicant’s arguments regarding the internal operations of the gearbox of Gao, the internal operations of the applicant’s gearbox, i.e. the arrangement of the gears within and how they cooperate to transfer the forces, are not disclosed. Without an understanding of the arrangement of the gears themselves, one of ordinary skill would not understand how to align the gears to provide an arrangement “without interruption.”
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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 1 recites an “uninterrupted” arrangement. It is unclear as to how the arrangement is “uninterrupted.” The disclosure appears to refer to the transmission of forces, however the applicant’s arguments imply the arrangement has no intervening structure.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara (WO 2014208682; previously provided English translation used) in view of Navickas (US 6 126 113) and Gao (CN 109 606 701; previously provided translation used).
Regarding independent claim 1:
As best understood, Yoshihara discloses a rotary wing aircraft comprising:
a drive motor (36) with an output shaft (inherent to driving the components);
a transfer gearbox (38) having a motor shaft input and two outputs (to drive the main rotor and tail rotor);
a rotary wing (16) with rotor and blades;
a tail (18) and tail rotor (20) with a drive shaft (42); and
a skids unit (26, 28, 30);
characterized in that the motor, transfer gearbox, and tail drive shaft are generally aligned and uninterrupted (as seen in Fig 1).
Yoshihara discloses an unmanned aircraft, but does not disclose an aircraft having a cockpit with cockpit electronics.
Navickas teaches a manned aircraft having a cockpit for a pilot (20) with control electronics (avionics compartment 37, which would be indicative of cockpit electronics, e.g. controls, communications, etc.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Yoshihara to use a cockpit as taught by Navickas for the predictable advantage of permitting direct human flight.
Yoshihara discloses the motor, gearbox and drive shaft generally aligned, but does not disclose the motor drive shaft, gearbox second output, and the tail rotor drive shaft aligned.
Gao teaches a rotorcraft drive system having a motor drive shaft (15), gearbox second output (at 10) , and a tail drive shaft (7) aligned (Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Yoshihara to use an aligned system as taught by Gao for the predictable advantage of reducing the stress or torsion on the gearbox by symmetrically providing the input and outputs on each side, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Yoshihara discloses a structural core (generally seen in Fig 2) that is monolithic (separate module from the rest).
Regarding claim 3:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Yoshihara discloses frames made from carbon fiber composites (page 3).
Regarding claim 4:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Yoshihara discloses lateral housings in the core (openings in the sides of the core) which are capable of holding fuel tanks.
Regarding claim 5:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Yoshihara discloses skids, but does not disclose releasable skids with quick-release fasteners.
Navickas teaches releasable skids to permit different systems to be used (col 2, lines 53-56)
Further, the examiner takes Official Notice that quick-release fasteners are 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 Yoshihara to use releasable skids as taught by Navickas for the predictable advantage of providing modular undercarriages which may be swapped for other undercarriages for mission purposes or maintenance, and as the examiner takes Official Notice that quick-release fasteners are known in the art, for the predictable advantage of permitting removal of the skids on-site quickly and without tools.
The applicant’s failure to adequately traverse the Official Notice renders such notice Admitted Prior Art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Regarding claim 6:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Yoshihara discloses a tail connecting flange suited to cooperate with a core attachment flange (as seen in Figs 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 7:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Yoshihara discloses the core comprising a cradle for receiving the motor (the front portion is capable of receiving the motor; alternatively, the front portion aids with the motor connections).
Regarding claim 8:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Yoshihara discloses the motor shaft, and gearbox outputs as in the same plane (as seen in Figs 1 and 2).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara (‘682) in view of Navickas (‘113) and Gao (‘’701) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baran et al. (US 2017/02533320).
Yoshihara as modified renders a rotary wing aircraft with a cockpit, but does not disclose a drone mode with electric controls and a passenger-carrying mode with manual controls.
Baran teaches a rotary wing vehicle that can be operated in piloted or autonomous (“drone”) flight modes ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Navickas to use a drone mode as taught by Baran for the predictable advantage of permitting use in environments that are hazardous to persons (e.g. war zones, natural disasters, etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 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). Yoshihara discloses the “uninterrupted” arrangement (as best understood), whereas Gao is provided to teach the alignment of the components.
Further, the disclosure does not define how the system is “uninterrupted.” The system is at least “uninterrupted” in that the components transfer the forces from the motor to the rotors.
Further still, the applicant generally relies on the internal features of the gearbox of Gao to argue the arrangement is not “uninterrupted”. However, the applicant’s gearbox would also contain gears within to split the forces from the motor to provide to the respective rotors. If the provision of gears in Gao would render the system not “uninterrupted,” then presumably the claimed invention would also be not “uninterrupted.”
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 on 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