DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Note
2. The examiner attempted to reach the attorney of record, Michael Guth, via telephone in the interest of expedited prosecution. In particular, the examiner intended to propose examiner’s amendments in order to address the new matter found in the claims for the purpose of allowability. However, the examiner was unable to reach the applicant’s representative to discuss the matters below.
Drawings
3. 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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
a. Claims 1 and 14: “a first and second aft-extending nacelle portions extending beyond a trailing edge of the wing”;
b. Claim 7: “a third and fourth forwardextending nacelle portion coupled to and extending beyond a leading edge of the wing, wherein each of the third and fourth forward-extending nacelle portions resides at a region inboard of the first and second forward-extending nacelle portions and outboard of the second set of two fixed rotors”.
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
4. 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.
5. Claims 2-20 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.
6. Claims 2 and 14 each indicate that “a first and second aft-extending nacelle portions extending beyond a trailing edge of the wing”, however, this is not supported by the original disclosure. While the disclosure supports the limitation “first and second forward-extending nacelle portions extending beyond a leading edge of the wing” and first and second aft-extending boom portions extending beyond a trailing edge of the wing, however, there is no support for the first/second aft extending nacelle portions in the applicant’s disclosure and therefore constitutes new matter in each of the claims.
7. Claim 7 indicates that “a third and fourth forwardextending nacelle portion coupled to and extending beyond a leading edge of the wing, wherein each of the third and fourth forward-extending nacelle portions resides at a region inboard of the first and second forward-extending nacelle portions and outboard of the second set of two fixed rotors”, however, this is not supported by the original disclosure. While the disclosure supports the limitation “first and second forward-extending nacelle portions extending beyond a leading edge of the wing” there is no support for third/fourth extending portions extending beyond the leading edge of the wing and positioned inboard of the first and second extending nacelle portions and outboard of the second set of two fixed rotors.
8. 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.
9. Claims 2-21 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.
10. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a first and second aft-extending nacelle portions extending beyond a trailing edge of the wing” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to exactly which disclosed structure is considered to be the first/second aft extending nacelle portions. Similarly, claim 14 is unclear for the same reasons. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the first/second aft extending nacelle portions as first and second aft-extending boom portions extending beyond a trailing edge of the wing considering that the boom portions support the first set of two fixed rotors coupled to a top portion of the respective first and second aft-extending boom portions. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
11. Claim 14 recites the limitation “a third and fourth forwardextending nacelle portion coupled to and extending beyond a leading edge of the wing, wherein each of the third and fourth forward-extending nacelle portions resides at a region inboard of the first and second forward-extending nacelle portions and outboard of the second set of two fixed rotors” which render the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to exactly which disclosed structure is considered to be third/fourth extending nacelle portions, since the applicant’s disclosed M-wing merely includes a set of forward extending nacelle portions and a set of aft extending boom portions. Accordingly, the claimed configuration is inconsistent with the configuration in the applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 2173.03. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
Claims not addressed are rejected based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the drawing objections as well as rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to disclose the combined limitation of claims 2 and 14. In particular, the first and second forward-extending nacelle portions extending beyond a leading of the wing; and a first and second aft-extending boom portions (as best understood under 112(b)) extending beyond a trailing edge of the wing; a first second two tilt rotors, and a second first set of two fixed rotors, and first, second, and third propeller blades as recited in claim 2, and the first and second forward-extending nacelle portions extending beyond a leading of the wing; and a first and second aft-extending boom portions (as best understood under 112(b)) extending beyond a trailing edge of the wing; a first second two tilt rotors, and a second first set of two fixed rotors, and the four propeller blades as recited in claim 14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to arguments pertaining the new claims, the applicant asserts that claims 2-21 have “full support for these claims is seen in the as-filed specification and Figures” on p. 6 of the remarks. However, this not considered to be persuasive. The examiner invites the applicant to particularly point out support for claims 2, 7 and 14 as discussed above, under the 112(a) rejection.
As a note, the examiner at this time is waiving the guidance set forth in MPEP 821.03 pertaining to claims for different invention added after Office action. Should future amendments to the claims be directed towards a different/distinct invention, again, the examiner shall consider election by original presentation via a restriction requirement.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights