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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7, 14, 15, 30 – 34, 39 and 40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species/invention.
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, 5, 12, 18, 19, 22, 29, 35, 36, 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 20080042267) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 5,373,119), and further in view of Phelps (US 10,823,023).
With respect to claims 1, 19 and 35, Park et al. teach an aerial vehicle (Fig.2) and method of operating it, comprising a housing (Figs.2 and 3, Item 1) comprising an outer wall at least partially defining an interior space; a mechanical power source (Figs.2 and 3, Item 40) at least partially located in the interior space of the housing; an exhaust header (Figs.2 and 3, Item 50) in communication with the mechanical power source for communicating exhaust fluid from the mechanical power source; an exhaust system (Figs.2 and 3, Item 20); and the exhaust system comprising an exhaust outlet (Figs.2 and 3, Item 30) for communicating the exhaust fluid from the exhaust system outside the aerial vehicle.
However, Park et al. fail to disclosed wherein the exhaust system comprises at least an exhaust chamber extending at least partially in the interior space of the housing, the exhaust chamber being in communication with the exhaust header, and wherein the exhaust system comprises at least a reactive exhaust chamber in communication with an exhaust header for communicating exhaust fluid from the exhaust header to the reactive exhaust chamber, the reactive exhaust chamber comprising at least a reactive element extending in the reactive exhaust chamber, the reactive element being configured for reducing energy in the exhaust fluids communicated from the mechanical power source to mitigate an overall noise profile of the aerial vehicle; further comprising a plurality of reactive plates extending from respective walls of the reactive exhaust chamber; wherein the reactive element is configured for redirecting portions of the exhaust fluid so that the portions interact with one another for facilitating destructive interactions between the portions of the exhaust fluid; and wherein the exhaust system comprises a diverter that is movable to select an exhaust configuration of a plurality of exhaust configurations, the plurality of exhaust configurations comprising an exhaust configuration, in which the exhaust fluid passes through the exhaust outlet, and a bypass configuration, in which the exhaust fluid passes through a bypass outlet.
On the other hand, Suzuki et al. teach a housing (Fig.3, Items 8 and 9) comprising an outer wall at least partially defining an interior space; a mechanical power source (Fig.3, Item A) at least partially located in the interior space of the housing; an exhaust header (Fig.3, Item 111) in communication with the mechanical power source for communicating exhaust fluid from the mechanical power source; and an exhaust system (Fig.3, Item B) comprising at least an exhaust chamber (Fig.3, Item 110) extending at least partially in the interior space of the housing, the exhaust chamber being in communication with the exhaust header, and the exhaust system comprising an exhaust outlet (Fig.3, Item 115) for communicating the exhaust fluid from the exhaust system outside the aerial vehicle.
Phelps teaches an exhaust system (Fig.2) comprising at least a reactive exhaust chamber (Fig.2, Item 22) in communication with an exhaust header (Fig.2, Item 30) for communicating exhaust fluid from the exhaust header to the reactive exhaust chamber, the reactive exhaust chamber comprising at least a reactive element (Fig.2, Items 50) extending in the reactive exhaust chamber, the reactive element being configured for reducing energy in the exhaust fluids communicated from the mechanical power source to mitigate an overall noise profile of the aerial vehicle; further comprising a plurality of reactive plates (Fig.2, Items 50) extending from respective walls of the reactive exhaust chamber; wherein the reactive element is configured for redirecting portions of the exhaust fluid so that the portions interact with one another for facilitating destructive interactions between the portions of the exhaust fluid (Col.3, Lines 42 – 46); and wherein the exhaust system comprises a diverter (Fig.4, Item 36) that is movable to select an exhaust configuration of a plurality of exhaust configurations, the plurality of exhaust configurations comprising an exhaust configuration (Fig.2, Item 22), in which the exhaust fluid passes through the exhaust outlet, and a bypass configuration (Fig.2, item 24), in which the exhaust fluid passes through a bypass outlet (Figs.2 and 4; Col.3, Lines 8 – 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Suzuki et al. exhaust system configuration as the Park et al. exhaust system because it would provide a simple configuration that would muffle and/or silence the noise produced by the mechanical power source without the need of sound absorbing members such as porous plates and/or sound absorbent materials, in this manner maintaining the gas flow through the exhaust system unobstructed and preventing unwanted backpressure that could negatively affect the performance of the mechanical power source. Additionally, Phelps exhaust system configuration would provide the versatility of selecting from different exhaust configurations that provide different acoustic and engine performances depending on the intended objective of the aerial vehicle.
With respect to claims 5, 12, 22, 29 and 36, Phelps teaches the limitations described in the claims as already discussed above (Figs.2 and 4; Col.3, Lines 8 – 19 and Lines 42 – 46).
With respect to claim 18, Park et al. and Suzuki et al. teach wherein the interior space is defined by the outer wall of the housing due to the housing being shaped for at least one of aerodynamic, control, and aesthetic purposes (Park et al.: Figs.2 and 3 and Suzuki et al.: Fig.3, Item B).
With respect to claims 41 and 42, Phelps teaches wherein the exhaust system comprises an exhaust inlet (Fig.2, Item 30) in fluid communication with the exhaust chamber and a bypass inlet in fluid communication with the bypass outlet (Fig.2, Item 32), and wherein the diverter (Fig.2, Item 36) is movable to close the exhaust inlet to direct the exhaust fluid into the bypass inlet and out the bypass outlet to outside the aerial vehicle when the exhaust system is in the bypass configuration (Figs.2 and 4; Col.3, Lines 8 – 19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner still considers that the obvious combination of the patents to Park et al., Suzuki et al. and Phelps teach the limitations described in the claims as discussed above.
The Examiner respectfully reminds the Applicant that it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Furthermore, the Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) references are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGARDO SAN MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2074. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 - 5:00 M - F.
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, Shawki S. Ismail can be reached on 571-272-39853985. 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.
/Edgardo San Martin/
Edgardo San Martín
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2837
January 16, 2026