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
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/11/2026. Claims 6, 8, 9, 13, 16, and 25 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 4, 11-12, 14-15, 17-24, 26-27, 29-41 are currently pending and under examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 63512834, 63581086, and 63587605, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claims 2-4, 17, 20, 27, and 32-38 are not entitled to the benefit date of 07/10/2023 of Application No. 63512834 or the benefit date of 09/07/2023 of Application No. 63581086. Provisional applications 63512834 and 63581086 do not appear to disclose the following claimed elements:
Regarding Claims 2-4 and 36: Specific turn angles or inlet axis angles (such as “no more than 45 degrees” or “20 degrees to 45 degrees”).
Regarding Claim 17: “A cross-sectional area of the outlet of the duct is greater than a cross-section area of the inlet of the duct”.
Regarding Claim 20: “A third lifting body”.
Regarding Claim 27: “one or more deployable parachutes”
Regarding Claims 32-35 and 37: “A plurality of vanes”
Regarding Claim 38: Due to dependency on Claim 35
Claims 17, 20, 27, 33 and 35-38 are not entitled to the benefit date of 10/03/2023 of Application No. 63587605. Provisional applications 63587605 does not appear to disclose the following claimed elements:
Regarding Claim 17: “A cross-sectional area of the outlet of the duct is greater than a cross-section area of the inlet of the duct”.
Regarding Claim 20: “A third lifting body”.
Regarding Claim 27: “one or more deployable parachutes”
Regarding Claims 33 and 35: “a first plurality of vanes positioned adjacent the inlet and a second plurality of vanes positioned adjacent the outlet.”
Regarding Claims 36-38: Due to dependency on Claim 35
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) 1-2, 4, 11-12, 14-15, 17, 23-24, 27, 30-31, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 3276723 A), hereafter Miller.
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses an aircraft (Fig. 1) comprising:
a central body (F, Fig. 1) defining a reference axis (vertical axis extending through center of F and 20, Fig. 1); and
one or more aerolift systems attached with the central body, each aerolift system comprising:
a propulsion unit configured to move air (M, Fig. 1 and Col. 2, lines 61-64);
a duct configured to receive the air moved by the propulsion unit (defined by S and D, Fig. 1) into an inlet end (36a, Fig. 1) formed between an inner wall (24, Fig. 1) and an outer wall of the duct (36, 37, 38, Fig. 1) and to expel the air out of an outlet end formed between the inner wall and the outer wall of the duct (38a, Fig. 1),
wherein the inner wall of the duct is coupled to the central body (24 is coupled to 25, Fig. 1 and Col. 3, lines 22-25),
wherein the inlet end extends along an inlet axis (vertical axis defined by airflow into 36a, Fig. 1) and the outlet end extends along an outlet axis (axis along 38a, Fig. 1), and wherein the inlet axis and the outlet axis define a turn angle therebetween (Fig. 1); and
a lifting body configured to receive the air expelled from the outlet end of the duct such that the air imparts a lifting force on the lifting body (A, Fig. 1 and Col. 6, lines 72-74).
Although Miller’s turn angle appears in Fig. 1 to be about 45 degrees, Miller does not explicitly disclose the turn angle is from 20 degrees to 45 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the turn angle from 20 degrees to 45 degrees, to optimize the lifting force, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 1, wherein the inlet axis is angled no more than 45 degrees relative to the reference axis (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 1, wherein the lifting body defines a chord (chord of A, Fig. 1).
Examiner notes that Miller’s chord appears in Fig. 1 to be angled at about 45 degrees relative to the reference axis (chord of A, Fig. 1), but acknowledges that Miller does not explicitly disclose the angle is no more than 45 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the angle no more than 45 degrees, to optimize the lifting force, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 1, further comprising a supporting structure attaching one or more of the one or more aerolift systems with the central body (21, 11, 25, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 11, wherein the supporting structure is configured to expand or collapse (examiner notes this limitation is given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the supporting structure being capable of collapsing, for example, elements of Frame F are capable of collapsing in the event of an impact with the ground).
Regarding claim 14, modified Miller teaches he aircraft of Claim 1, wherein the central body is located at least partially below the one or more aerolift systems (F is below elements of aerolift system, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 1, wherein the outlet end extends from a vertically lower portion to a vertically higher portion (Fig. 1), and wherein the lifting body comprises a leading edge positioned closer to the vertically lower portion than to the vertically higher portion (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 1.
Modified Miller is silent about where a cross-sectional area of the outlet end of the duct is greater than a cross-sectional area of the inlet end of the duct, and instead teaches that the outlet end is approximately the same as the inlet end (Col. 3, lines 63-68).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention where a cross-sectional area of the outlet end is greater than a cross-sectional area of the inlet end, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 23, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 1, the duct comprising a series of openings along a bottom portion thereof at the outlet end of the duct (27a, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 24, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 1, wherein the central body comprises a passenger compartment (via seat 17, Fig. 1) or a cargo compartment.
Regarding claim 27, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 1, further comprising at least one of landing gear (landing legs L, Fig. 1) or one or more deployable parachutes.
Regarding claim 30, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 1, further comprising one or more walled structures positioned radially inward of the outer wall of the duct of each of the one or more aerolift systems (ribs 27 and plate 25, for example, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 31, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 30, wherein the one or more walled structures are collapsible or moveable (examiner notes this limitation is given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the supporting structure being capable of collapsing, for example, and 27 and 25 are capable of collapsing in the event of an impact with the ground for example).
Regarding claim 39, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 1, wherein the duct is a single, annular duct (duct defined by S and D is a single annular duct, Fig. 1 and Col. 2, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 40, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 1, wherein the inlet end is annular (Fig. 1, and Col. 3, lines 47-52) and the outlet end is annular (“annular discharge 38a”, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Miller as applied above, in further view of Lan et al. (US 10486810 B2), hereafter Lan.
Regarding claim 18, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 1, wherein the propulsion unit is configured to rotate one or more blades (Col. 2, line 70-Col. 3, line 1).
Miller is silent about wherein the propulsion unit comprises an electric motor, and instead teaches a gasoline engine (20).
Lan teaches an electric motor for a similarly propulsion unit (142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the propulsion unit of modified Miller with an electric motor instead of a gasoline engine, as taught by Lan, with a reasonable expectation of success, for enhanced efficiency and reduced environmental emissions.
Claim(s) 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Miller as applied above, in further view of Wharton (US 3041009 A).
Regarding claim 19, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 1, wherein the lifting body is a first lifting body.
Modified Miller is silent about a second lifting body configured to receive the air expelled from the outlet end of the duct such that the air imparts a lifting force on the second lifting body,
wherein the second lifting body is positioned farther away from the outlet end of the duct than the first lifting body.
Wharton teaches a second lifting body configured to receive air expelled from a similar outlet end such that the air imparts a lifting force on the second lifting body (15, Fig. 2), wherein the second lifting body is positioned farther away from the outlet end of the similar duct than a similar first lifting body (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aerolift system and first lifting body of modified Miller with a second lifting body as taught by Wharton, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order provide additional lift force and control to the aircraft.
Regarding claim 20, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 19.
Modified Miller is silent about a third lifting body configured to receive the air expelled from the outlet end of the duct such that the air imparts a lifting force on the third lifting body, wherein the third lifting body is positioned farther away from the outlet end of the duct than the second lifting body.
Wharton teaches a third lifting body configured to receive the air expelled from the outlet end of a similar duct such that the air imparts a lifting force on the third lifting body (17, Fig. 2), wherein the third lifting body is positioned farther away from the similar outlet end than the second lifting body (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aerolift system and first lifting body of modified Miller with a second lifting body as taught by Wharton, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order provide additional lift force and control to the aircraft.
Regarding claim 21, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 19, wherein the outlet end of the duct extends from a vertically lower portion to a vertically higher portion (Miller, Fig. 1, 38 extends from 38a to 38), and wherein the first lifting body comprises a leading edge (Miller, leading edge of A, Fig. 1) positioned closer to the vertically lower portion than to the vertically higher portion (Miller, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Miller as applied above, in further view of Beck (US 5170963 A).
Regarding claim 22, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 1, wherein the lifting body comprises a stationary forward portion (leading portion of A, Fig. 1).
Modified Miller is silent about a moveable rearward portion rotatably attached to the stationary forward portion.
Beck teaches a moveable rearward portion (29, Fig. 2) rotatably attached to a similar stationary forward portion (29 is attached to 6, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the stationary forward portion of modified Miller with a moveable rearward portion rotatably attached, as taught by Beck, with a reasonable expectation of success, for enhanced thrust control/vectoring.
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Miller as applied above, in further view of Wagner et al. (US 20030062443 A1), hereafter Wagner.
Regarding claim 26, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 1.
Modified Miller is silent about one or more additional propulsion units configured to provide a thrust force in a direction for forward flight.
Wagner teaches one or more additional propulsion units configured to provide a thrust force in a direction for forward flight (30, Fig. 1 and para. [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aircraft of modified Miller with one or more additional propulsion units configured to provide a thrust force in a direction for forward flight, as taught by Wagner, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to exert a force in the horizontal direction (Wagner, para. [0090]) and enhance maneuverability of the aircraft.
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Miller as applied above, and further in view of Quarrie (US 10766615 B1).
Regarding claim 29, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 1.
Modified Miller is silent about one or more solar panels.
Quarrie teaches one or more solar panels (Col. 4, lines 48-49, “solar panels”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aircraft of modified Miller with the one or more solar panels as taught by Quarrie, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an auxiliary power source for aircraft components.
Claim(s) 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Miller as applied above, and further in view of Moller (US 3614030 A).
Regarding claim 32, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 1.
Modified Miller is silent about wherein the duct comprises a plurality of vanes therein.
Moller teaches a similar duct comprising a plurality of vanes (23 and 61, Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the duct of modified Miller with a plurality of vanes, as taught by Moller, whereby modified Miller’s duct comprises a plurality of vanes as taught by Moller, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce air turbulence and improve airflow efficiency.
Regarding claim 33, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 32, wherein the plurality of vanes comprises a first plurality of vanes positioned adjacent the inlet end (Moller, 23, Fig. 2) and a second plurality of vanes positioned adjacent the outlet end (Moller, 61, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 34, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 32, wherein the plurality of vanes comprises one or more vanes adjacent the outlet end that are angled with respect to the outlet axis (Moller, 61 are angled with respect to the outlet axis).
Claim(s) 35-37 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 3276723 A), and further in view of Moller (US 3614030 A).
Regarding claim 35, Miller discloses an aircraft (Fig. 1) comprising:
a central body (20, Fig. 1) defining a reference axis (vertical axis through center of 20, Fig. 1);
a propulsion unit configured to move air (M, Fig. 1 and Col. 2, lines 61-64);
a duct coupled to the central body and extending along at least a length thereof (defined by S and D, Fig. 1), the duct configured to receive the air moved by the propulsion unit into an inlet end of the duct (36a, Fig. 1) and to expel the air out of an outlet end of the duct (38a, Fig. 1), the duct having an inner wall (24, Fig. 1) and an outer wall (36, 37, 38, Fig. 1) extending from the inlet end to the outlet end (Fig. 1), a difference between an orientation of the inlet end of the duct and an orientation of the outlet end of the duct defining a turn angle of the duct (Fig. 1),
wherein the turn angle is configured such that the outlet end of the duct is further from the reference axis than the inlet end of the duct (38a is further from the central axis than 36a, Fig. 1); and
a lifting body configured to receive the air expelled from the outlet end of the duct such that the air imparts a lifting force on the lifting body (A, Fig. 1 and Col. 6, lines 72-74),
wherein the lifting body defines a chord that is angled relative to the reference axis (chord of A, Fig. 1).
Miller is silent about where a first plurality of vanes positioned adjacent the inlet end and a second plurality of vanes positioned adjacent the outlet end; and the lifting body defines a chord that is angled no more than 45 degrees relative to the reference axis.
Moller teaches a first plurality of vanes positioned adjacent the inlet end of a similar duct (23, Fig. 2), and a second plurality of vanes positioned adjacent the outlet end of the similar duct (61, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the duct of modified Miller with a first and second plurality of vanes, as taught by Moller, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce air turbulence and improve airflow efficiency.
While Examiner notes that Miller’s chord appears in Fig. 1 to be angled at about 45 degrees relative to the reference axis (chord of A, Fig. 1), but acknowledges that Miller does not explicitly disclose the angle is no more than 45 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the angle no more than 45 degrees, to optimize the lifting force, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 36, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 35, wherein the turn angle is within a range of 20 degrees to 45 degrees (see para. 63 directly above).
Regarding claim 37, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 35, wherein the second plurality of vanes positioned adjacent the outlet end comprises one or more vanes that are angled with respect to the orientation of the outlet end of the duct (Moller, 61 are angled with respect to the outlet axis).
Regarding claim 41, modified Miller teaches he aircraft of Claim 35, wherein the inlet end of the duct is annular and spans an entire 360-degree profile of the aircraft relative to the reference axis (Fig. 1, examiner notes shroud S is annular and spans 360-degree profile of the aircraft relative to the central reference axis).
Claim(s) 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Miller as applied above, and further in view of Wharton (US 3041009 A).
Regarding claim 38, modified Miller teaches the aircraft of Claim 35, wherein the lifting body is a first lifting body.
Modified Miller is silent about wherein the aircraft further comprises a second lifting body configured to receive the air expelled from the outlet end of the duct such that the air imparts a lifting force on the second lifting body, wherein the second lifting body is positioned farther away from the outlet end of the duct than the first lifting body.
Wharton teaches a second lifting body configured to receive air expelled from a similar outlet end such that the air imparts a lifting force on the second lifting body (15, Fig. 2), wherein the second lifting body is positioned farther away from the outlet end of the similar duct than a similar first lifting body (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aerolift system and first lifting body of modified Miller with a second lifting body as taught by Wharton, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order provide additional lift force and control to the aircraft.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Priority Claim (Pg. 8 of remarks) have been considered but are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that claims 2-4, 17, 20, 27, and 32-38 are not entitled to the benefit dates of 07/10/2023 or 9/7/2023, and claims 17, 20, 27, 33, and 35-38 are not entitled to the benefit date of 10/03/2023, as outlined in the Priority section above. Applicant’s traversal did not provide evidence of any errors in Examiner’s analysis or amount to any substantial arguments. Therefore, Examiner maintains the Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of the earlier filing dates under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Drawing Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections regarding Claims 4, 12, and 17 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 35 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
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 ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights