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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on March 18, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Pat. Nos. 12,017,769, 11,603,202, and 11,117,660 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: The recitation “terminates is the first end of the first support boom” should read “terminates in the first end of the first support boom” or the like. The subsequent recitation of “terminates is the first end of the first support boom” should read “terminates in the first end of the second support boom” or the like. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. For example, the recitation of “a means for positioning the respective second support boom at the selected sweet angle” is so interpreted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 4, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “The unmanned aerial vehicle of Claim 4, wherein a rotation axis of each of the at least two electric motors coupled to the second support boom is offset in a transverse direction from a rotation axis of each of the at least two adjacent electric motors coupled to the first support boom” which is indefinite for three reasons. First, the claim depends from itself, which is improper. Second, there is a lack of antecedent basis for a requirement that “the at least two electric motors coupled to the second support boom” since claim 1 only requires that each motor be coupled to a boom, with no requirement for a particular number. Third, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the requirement that the first boom have two adjacent electric motors. Claim 17 is likewise rejected, and dependent claim 13 fails to cure the deficiency.
Claim 15 recites “a plurality of electric motors comprising at least two electric motors coupled to the first support boom and at least two electric motors coupled to the second support boom” which is indefinite, because there are two first support booms and two second support booms in the claim. It is unclear to refer to a single one of the two support booms without further detail or clarity. Dependent claims 16-20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shaw (US 2012/0119016 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shaw discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle (abstract), the vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body (fuselage 14; fig. 1A) defining a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction (as shown in fig. 1A), the vehicle body having opposing longitudinal sides (as shown in fig. 1A) and defining a first transverse axis and a second transverse axis positioned rearward of the first transverse axis (in line with the attachment points of the forwardmost and rearmost sets of support arms 26, respectively, as shown in fig. 1D);
a pair of first support boom (the forwardmost pair of support arms 26, as shown in fig. 1A), each first support boom coupled to the vehicle body (14) at a first end (as shown in fig. 1A; see related rejection under §112(b) detailed hereinabove) and extending outwardly from one of the opposing longitudinal sides of the vehicle body at a selected first sweep angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle axis (the forwardmost set of support arms 26 are configured to extend straight out from the fuselage 14 at an angle, as shown in fig. 1A), and wherein the respective first ends of the pair of first support booms are positioned along a common first boom axis (fig. 1D);
a pair of second support booms (the rearmost pair of support arms 26; fig. 1A), each second support boom coupled to the vehicle body (14) at a first end (as shown in fig. 1A; see related rejection under §112(b) detailed hereinabove) and extending outwardly from one of the opposing longitudinal sides of the vehicle body at a selected first sweep angle relative to the longitudinal axis (the rearmost set of support arms 26 are configured to extend straight out from the fuselage 14 at an angle, as shown in fig. 1A), and wherein the respective first ends of the pair of second support booms are positioned along a common first boom axis (fig. 1D);
a plurality of electric motors (shown as engines 32 in fig. 1A, which may be configured as electric motors per para. [0067]), each coupled to one of the first support boom or the second support boom (as shown in fig. 1A); and
a means for positioning the respective first support boom at the selected first sweep angle (para. [0056], regarding the support arms 26 are secured to the flight vehicle portion 20 at their proximal ends 28 at a rotational hinge-like structure about which the support arms may pivot away from and against the flight vehicle portion 20; fig. 1B),
wherein the longitudinal axis of the vehicle body (14) is configured to remain substantially level during horizontal flight parallel to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle body (as shown in fig. 4, which depicts a forward flight configuration).
Regarding claim 3, Shaw discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses further comprising a plurality of rotors (as shown in fig. 1A), each of the plurality of rotors coupled to a respective one of the plurality of electric motors (para. [0052], regarding each propeller 24 is linked to and individually powered by a devoted engine 32, with a linked propeller 24 and engine 32 forming an engine-propeller assembly 34), wherein each of the plurality of rotors comprises a propeller configured to rotate in flight about a rotation axis in a rotation plane angled with respect to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle body by a tilt angle (as shown in fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 5, Shaw discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses at least one drag-reducing fairing (airfoil 62; fig. 2A and 2B) rotatably coupled to at least one of the first and second support booms (para. [0077], regarding airfoil 62 can rotate about axis 64 of the support arm 26), the at least one drag-reducing fairing being a passively controlled fairing configured to be rotatably biased in response to aerodynamic forces acting on the drag-reducing fairing (para. [0077], regarding airfoil 62 may rotate freely in response to gravity or airflow);
Regarding claim 6, Shaw discloses the invention in claim 5, and further discloses wherein the drag-reducing fairing is configured to trim to an angle of attack in a range of between about zero to about eight degrees during forward flight parallel to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle body (para. [0077], regarding the airfoil 62 can be rotated forward to a more horizontal position for forward flight, which enables the airfoil to reduce drag while also generating lift; fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 7, Shaw discloses the invention in claim 6, and further discloses wherein the drag-reducing fairing defines an airfoil shape (62).
Regarding claim 9, Shaw discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein each second support boom extends outwardly from one of the opposing longitudinal sides of the vehicle body at a selected second sweep angle relative to the longitudinal axis (as shown in fig. 1D).
Regarding claim 11, Shaw discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses the invention further comprising a means for positioning the respective second support boom at the selected second sweep angle (para. [0056], regarding the support arms 26 are secured to the flight vehicle portion 20 at their proximal ends 28 at a rotational hinge-like structure about which the support arms may pivot away from and against the flight vehicle portion 20).
Regarding claim 20, Shaw discloses the invention in claim 15, and further discloses wherein each first support boom (26) has an elongate section that extends outwardly from the opposing longitudinal sides of the vehicle body at least partially in the transverse direction (as shown in fig. 1D) and terminates is the first end of the first support boom (as shown in fig. 1D), and wherein each second support boom has an elongate section that extends outwardly from the opposing longitudinal sides of the vehicle body at least partially in the transverse direction and terminates is the first end of the first support boom (as shown in fig. 1D).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 2012/0119016 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Shaw discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle (abstract), the vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body (fuselage 14; fig. 1A) defining a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction (as shown in fig. 1A), the vehicle body having opposing longitudinal sides (as shown in fig. 1A) and defining a longitudinal axis (as shown in fig. 1D);
a pair of first support boom (the forwardmost of support arms 26 taken together, as shown in fig. 1A), each first support boom coupled to the vehicle body (14) at a first end (as shown in fig. 1A; see related rejection under §112(b) detailed hereinabove) and extending outwardly from the opposing longitudinal sides of the vehicle body (the forwardmost set of support arms 26 are configured to extend straight out from the fuselage 14 or at an angle, as shown in fig. 1A), wherein the respective first ends of the pair of first support booms are positioned along a common first boom axis (fig. 1D);
a pair of second support booms (the rearmost set of support arms 26 taken together; fig. 1A), each second support boom coupled to the vehicle body (14) at a first end (as shown in fig. 1A; see related rejection under §112(b) detailed hereinabove) and extending outwardly from one of the opposing longitudinal sides of the vehicle body (the rearmost set of support arms 26 are configured to extend straight out from the fuselage 14 or at an angle, as shown in fig. 1A), wherein the respective first ends of the pair of second support booms are positioned along a common second boom axis (fig. 1D);
a means for positioning at least one of the first or second support booms at a selected sweep angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle body (para. [0056], regarding the support arms 26 are secured to the flight vehicle portion 20 at their proximal ends 28 at a rotational hinge-like structure about which the support arms may pivot away from and against the flight vehicle portion 20; fig. 1B),
a plurality of electric motors (shown as engines 32 in fig. 1A, which may be configured as electric motors per para. [0067]) comprising an electric motor coupled to the first support boom and an electric motor coupled to the second support boom (as shown in fig. 1A); and
at least one drag-reducing fairing (airfoil 62; fig. 2A and 2B) rotatably coupled to at least one of the first and second support booms (para. [0077], regarding airfoil 62 can rotate about axis 64 of the support arm 26), the at least one drag-reducing fairing being a passively controlled fairing configured to be rotatably biased in response to aerodynamic forces acting on the drag-reducing fairing (para. [0077], regarding airfoil 62 may rotate freely in response to gravity or airflow),
wherein the longitudinal axis of the vehicle body (14) is configured to remain substantially level during horizontal flight parallel to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle body (as shown in fig. 4, which depicts a forward flight configuration).
Shaw does not appear to specifically disclose at least two electric motors coupled to the first support boom and at least two electric motors coupled to the second support boom.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the invention to include at least two electric motors coupled to the first support boom and at least two electric motors coupled to the second support boom, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The purpose would be to ensure a sufficient number of motors and propellers on each boom to provide the required amount of lift.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 2012/0119016 A1) in view of Armstrong et al. (US 2016/0365810 A1), hereinafter Armstrong.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Shaw discloses the invention in claims 1 and 15, and further discloses wherein the propulsion system comprises a hybrid propulsion system (see again [0067]) comprising:
a combustion engine (para. [0067], regarding electricity could be provided by a conventional engine that consumes fuel) positioned within the internal cavity of the body (para. [0052], regarding one or more engines could be positioned within the vehicle 10 itself);
an electric generator (para. [0067], regarding the engine acts as a generator to provide electricity) positioned within the internal cavity of the body (see again para. [0052]).
Shaw does not appear to specifically disclose an electrical bus operatively coupled to the electric generator; wherein each of the plurality of electric motors is electrically coupled to the electrical bus.
However, Armstrong is in the field of electric propulsion systems for aircraft (para. [0002]) and teaches an electrical bus (AC power bus 16; fig. 1) operatively coupled to the electric generator (AC generator 2; fig. 1); wherein each of the plurality of electric motors (motors 6A-6C; fig. 1) is electrically coupled to the electrical bus (as shown in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unmanned aerial vehicle of Shaw to include an electrical bus operatively coupled to the electric generator; wherein each of the plurality of electric motors is electrically coupled to the electrical bus as taught by Armstrong in order to ensure that power from the generator is properly distributed to the motors (see Armstrong, para. [0019]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 2012/0119016 A1) in view of LeGrand, III et al. (US 9,598,169 B1), hereinafter LeGrand.
Regarding claim 8, Shaw discloses the invention in claim 7, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the drag-reducing fairing comprises a counterweight extending from a leading edge of the fairing.
However, LeGrand is in the field of VTOL aircraft propellers (abstract) and teaches wherein the drag-reducing fairing (single blade propeller 102; fig. 1B) comprises a counterweight (counterweight 106; fig. 1B) extending from a leading edge of the fairing (col. 4, lines 36-39, regarding the single blade propeller 102 may weathervane in the wind, coming to a stop with the aerodynamic blade oriented away from the direction of travel; fig. 1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unmanned aerial vehicle of Shaw such that the drag-reducing fairing comprises a counterweight extending from a leading edge of the fairing as taught by LeGrand in order to ensure that the drag-reducing fairing can freely rotate in the air flow while being biased towards a level orientation (see LeGrand, col. 4, lines 32-44).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 2012/0119016 A1) in view of Caubel et al. (US 2016/0130015 A1), hereinafter Caubel.
Regarding claim 14, Shaw discloses the invention in claim 3, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the hybrid propulsion system further comprises a vibration isolation system configured to reduce vibration transferred from the propulsion system to the vehicle body.
However, Caubel is in the field of vibration absorbing plates for drones (abstract) and teaches a vibration isolation system configured to reduce vibration transferred from the propulsion system to the vehicle body (para. [0004], regarding elastic interface absorbs mechanical vibrations caused by motors and propellers, so that the vibrations do not disturb the sensors of the unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unmanned aerial vehicle of Shaw such that the hybrid propulsion system further comprises a vibration isolation system configured to reduce vibration transferred from the propulsion system to the vehicle body as taught by Caubel in order to ensure that the vibrations from the vehicle’s engines do not disturb the operation of any sensors that are on the vehicle (see Caubel, para. [0004]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 2012/0119016 A1) in view of Armstrong et al. (US 2016/0365810 A1), hereinafter Armstrong, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Caubel et al. (US 2016/0130015 A1), hereinafter Caubel.
Regarding claim 19, Shaw as modified discloses the invention in claim 16, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the hybrid propulsion system further comprises a vibration isolation system configured to reduce vibration transferred from the propulsion system to the vehicle body.
However, Caubel is in the field of vibration absorbing plates for drones (abstract) and teaches a vibration isolation system configured to reduce vibration transferred from the propulsion system to the vehicle body (para. [0004], regarding elastic interface absorbs mechanical vibrations caused by motors and propellers, so that the vibrations do not disturb the sensors of the unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unmanned aerial vehicle of Shaw such that the hybrid propulsion system further comprises a vibration isolation system configured to reduce vibration transferred from the propulsion system to the vehicle body as taught by Caubel in order to ensure that the vibrations from the vehicle’s engines do not disturb the operation of any sensors that are on the vehicle (see Caubel, para. [0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 12 are 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.
Claims 4, 13, and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights