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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/31/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 10 use the phrase “in an axial direction”. While this phrase does not result in clarity or indefinite issue, it is overly broad since a shape of the aircraft hasn’t been defined. The examiner suggests tying the axial direction to an element of the aircraft, such as the fuselage. Alternatively, maybe preferably, use the phrase “longitudinal direction”, since one of ordinary skill recognizes that phrase for describing an aircraft. Finally, applicant could use one of the rotation axis definitions like “roll axis”, since that is also well known in the art. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mullins’497 (US 3347497 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Mullins’497 discloses:
1. An aircraft (10) comprising:
a fuselage (12);
a wing coupled (14) to the fuselage, the wing including a first wing (top wing in Fig. 2) and a second wing (bottom wing in Fig. 2), the first wing including a first inboard wing (inboard portion where 18 is attached) and a first outboard wing (portion outboard of 14); connected by (see Fig. 3 where 20 bisects wing 14) a first pod (20), and the second wing including a second inboard wing and a second outboard wing connected by a second pod (pod on opposite side);
a first engine (18) coupled to the fuselage and configured to provide thrust to the aircraft in an axial direction (“forward propulsion”; Col 2 Line 29); and
a plurality of second engines, (22) each second engine of the plurality of second engines being coupled (“houses six direct lift gas turbine engines”; Col 2 Line 37) to the first pod or the second pod such that each second engine of the plurality of second engines is configured to provide thrust in a direction perpendicular (“disposed substantially vertical”; Col 2 Line 46) to the axial direction and to rotate toward (via 36+28) the axial direction (“parallel to the longitudinal axis”; Col 2 Line 49), each second engine of the plurality of second engines being coupled to one of the first pod or the second pod,
wherein each second engine of the plurality of second engines includes an inlet (28) and an exhaust nozzle (30), and wherein the entirety of the exhaust nozzle is configured to rotate within an external profile (See Fig. 3, and location of 28 and 30; engine stays in pod 20) of one of the first pod or the second pod.
Regarding Claims 4, 6, 8, and 9, Mullins’497 discloses
4. The aircraft of claim 1, wherein each second engine of the plurality of second engines is configured to, as each second engine of the plurality of second engines is rotated toward the axial direction, provide thrust to accelerate the aircraft in the axial direction (“when directed rearwardly, the jet exhaust gases will produce a forward reaction”; Col 3 Line 24).
6. The aircraft of claim 1, wherein each second engine of the plurality of second engines is configured to power down (“inoperative position”; Col 2 Line 47) while rotating toward the axial direction.
8. The aircraft of claim 1, wherein the plurality of second engines is configured to provide thrust to the aircraft when the wing is in a stall condition (“assist transition”; Col. 3 Line 24).
9. The aircraft of claim 8, wherein the aircraft is configured to take off vertically (“vertical (or near vertical”; Col 3 Line 25) or conventionally.
Regarding Claims 10-12, the same elements and reasoning applied to Claim 1 above in view of Mullins’497.
Regarding Claim 15, Mullins’497 further discloses a turbojet engine “direct lift gas turbine engines 22”; Col 2 Line 37.
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 1-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baity (US 11919630 B2) in view of Mullins (US 3385066 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Baity discloses:
1. An aircraft comprising:
a fuselage (42);
a wing coupled (46) to the fuselage, the wing including a first wing and a second wing, the first wing including a first inboard wing (inboard portion of 46) and a first outboard wing (outboard portion of 46) connected by a first pod (50), and the second wing including a second inboard wing and a second outboard wing connected by a second pod (pod on opposite side);
a first engine (44) coupled to the fuselage and configured to provide thrust to the aircraft in an axial direction (“longitudinal thrust”; See Fig. 4B); and
a plurality of second engines, (48-1 through 48-4) each second engine of the plurality of second engines being coupled to the first pod (50) or the second pod (opposite 50) such that each second engine of the plurality of second engines is configured to provide thrust in a direction perpendicular (vertically) to the axial direction and to rotate toward (See Fig. 6) the axial direction, each second engine of the plurality of second engines being coupled to one of the first pod or the second pod,
wherein each second engine of the plurality of second engines includes
Baity is silent on an exhaust nozzle for the second engines. Mullins teaches a similar pod (14) which is bisecting a wing (12), and further teaches:
a plurality of second engines, (15) each second engine of the plurality of second engines being coupled to the first pod (14) or the second pod (“each of the wings”; Col 2 Line 10) such that each second engine of the plurality of second engines is configured to provide thrust in a direction perpendicular (“longitudinal axes are at an angle (e.g. 90)” Col 2 Line 43) to the axial direction and to rotate toward (See Fig. 2) the axial direction, each second engine of the plurality of second engines being coupled to (via 27) one of the first pod or the second pod
a plurality of second engines (15) includes an inlet (20) and an exhaust nozzle (24), and wherein the entirety of the exhaust nozzle is configured to rotate (via 27) within an external profile (“in the inoperative positions of the engines 15 air will not enter the pods 14”; Col 2 Line 70) of one of the first pod or the second pod (see Fig. 2).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the rotating engines of Mullins in the pods of Baity. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce drag as taught by Mullins in Col 2 Line 72.
Regarding Claims 2-9, Baity discloses:
2. The aircraft of claim 1, wherein each second engine of the plurality of second engines is spaced such that a combined thrust from the plurality of second engines is located at a center of mass (See C.G. in Fig. 2A) of the aircraft.
3. The aircraft of claim 2, wherein a first vertical stabilizer (left side 150) is positioned on the first pod between two second engines (inwardly between) of the plurality of second engines mounted on the first pod, and
wherein a second vertical stabilizer (right side 150) is positioned on the second pod between (inwardly between) two second engines of the plurality of second engines mounted on the second pod.
4. The aircraft of claim 1, wherein each second engine of the plurality of second engines is configured to, as each second engine of the plurality of second engines is rotated toward the axial direction, provide thrust to accelerate the aircraft in the axial direction (see angle of rotors at bottom of Fig. 4B).
5. The aircraft of claim 1, wherein the first engine includes a propellor, and
wherein the axial direction is collinear to an axis of rotation of the propellor (See large arrow pointing backwards in Fig. 6).
6. The aircraft of claim 1, wherein each second engine of the plurality of second engines is configured to power down (“may not provide thrust (e.g., to conserve power”; Col 2 Line 34) while rotating toward the axial direction.
7. The aircraft of claim 1, wherein the second inboard wing is offset in the axial direction from the second outboard wing, and
wherein the first inboard wing is offset in the axial direction from the first outboard wing (See Fig. 20 which has four inboard and four outboard wings. Each outboard wing is offset from at least one inboard wing).
8. The aircraft of claim 1, wherein the plurality of second engines is configured to provide thrust to the aircraft when the wing is in a stall condition (“transition from VTOL hover to fixed-wing flight”; Col. 5 Line 33).
9. The aircraft of claim 8, wherein the aircraft is configured to take off vertically or conventionally (“with propulsion from the set of longitudinal-thrust engines, the aircraft may perform gradually scanning or creeping maneuvers, weathervane maneuvers (e.g., pointing the nose or other aircraft component into the wind), takeoff/landing maneuvers”; Col 2 Line 57).
Regarding Claims 10-13 and 17-20, the same elements and reasoning applied to Claims 1-9 are applied to Claims 10-13 and 17-20
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baity and Mullins as applied to claims 10-13 above, and further in view of ABRAMOV (US 2025/0083806 A1). Baity is silent on the use of combustion engines. Mullins teaches gas turbine jet engines (15) as already modified above. ABRAMOV teaches “in alternative variations of this example each second propulsion unit 450A can instead include a ducted fan arrangement, or a turbojet arrangement, or a turbofan arrangement”. Thus at the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the second engines of Baity as:
14. The aircraft of claim 13, wherein the plurality of second engines are turbofan engines.
15. The aircraft of claim 13, wherein the plurality of second engines are turbojet engines.
16. The aircraft of claim 14, wherein each second engine of the plurality of second engines includes a gimbaled exhaust nozzle, and wherein each of the gimbaled exhaust nozzles is configured to be individually controllable (rendered obvious by ducted fan).
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more powerful and longer distance motor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M O'HARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5224. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM eastern.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/BRIAN M O'HARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights