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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed 19th March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5 and 7-8 remain pending in the application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochida et al. (US 2008/0006739) in view of Wright (US 2018/0076664) and Jones (US 2020/0207238).
Regarding claim 1, Mochida et al. ‘739 teaches (figures 1-3, 9F) an aircraft/vehicle (10) comprising:
at least one propulsion system including:
a propulsor/propulsion member (14) (Para 0037);
an engine/power source (22a) coupled to the propulsor/propulsion member (14) and configured to drive rotation of the propulsor/propulsion member (14) (Para 0065); and
an electrical assembly including an electric motor/power source (22b), a battery, and an electrical distribution system/system connecting electric motor/power source (22b) and battery, the electric motor/power source (22b) is coupled to the propulsor/propulsion member (14) and configured to drive rotation of the propulsor/propulsion member (14), and the electrical distribution system electrically connects the electric motor/power source (22b) and the battery (Para 0065)
but it is silent about the aircraft including:
a landing gear assembly;
an electrical assembly including an external power assembly; and
a mounting assembly extending between an upper end and a lower end, the upper end mounted to the landing gear assembly.
Wright ‘664 teaches (figures 2-3) charging of the vehicle/aircraft (100) using inductive power transfer (IPT) receiver/ external power assembly (101) coupled to the vehicle’s/aircraft’s landing gear (300) via. retractable skid/mounting assembly (201) and IPT transmitter (102) (Para 0030-0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mochida eta l.’ 739 to incorporate the teachings of Wright ‘664 to configure the aircraft including:
a landing gear assembly;
an electrical assembly including an external power assembly; and
a mounting assembly extending between an upper end and a lower end, the upper end mounted to the landing gear assembly.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would charge the aircraft batteries using external power source.
Modified Mochida et al. ‘739 is silent about the aircraft including:
the external power assembly includes a first connector and a second connector, the first connector and the second connector are positionable at an exterior of the aircraft, and the electrical distribution system electrically connects the electric motor, the battery, the first connector and the second connector, and
the first connector and the second connector mounted at the lower end, the first connector mounted on the mounting assembly on a first lateral side of the landing gear assembly, the second connector mounted on the mounting assembly on a second lateral side of the landing gear assembly opposite the first lateral side.
Jones ‘238 teaches (figures 1-5) a system (10) comprising a tracked electric vehicle (TEV) track (12) made up of sections of electrified track (14) and an electrically-powered vehicle (16) configured to operate on, and draw electrical power from the track (14) wherein electrified track (14) comprises first and second rails/conductive rails (30, 32) and vehicle (16) includes two retractable electrical pickups (116) which conduct electric power between the TEV track (12) and the vehicle (16) (Para 0059, 0076; a pickup (116) and a rail (30, 32) together forms a connector).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Mochida eta l. ‘739 to incorporate the teachings of Jones ‘238 to configure the aircraft including:
the external power assembly includes a first connector and a second connector, the first connector and the second connector are positionable at an exterior of the aircraft, and the electrical distribution system electrically connects the electric motor, the battery, the first connector and the second connector (first and second connectors extends from the interior of the aircraft during charging) and
the first connector and the second connector mounted at the lower end, the first connector mounted on the mounting assembly on a first lateral side of the landing gear assembly, the second connector mounted on the mounting assembly on a second lateral side of the landing gear assembly opposite the first lateral side (mounting assembly/retractable skid is next to nose landing gear assembly, thus arranging first and second connectors on two sides of the nose landing gear ensures that nose landing gear doesn’t accidently run over and destroy the connectors).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would reduce the battery charge time.
Regarding claim 2, modified Mochida et al. ‘739 teaches (figures 1-3, 9F) the aircraft/vehicle (10) wherein the first connector includes a first conductive rail/track (30) and the second connector includes a second conductive rail/track (32) (as modified by Jones ‘238).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochida et al. (US 2008/0006739), Wright (US 2018/0076664) and Jones (US 2020/0207238) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ichikawa et al. (US 2016/0114687).
Regarding claim 5, modified Mochida et al. ‘739 teaches (figures 1-3, 9F) the aircraft/vehicle (10) wherein the mounting assembly/retractable skids (201) extends the first and connector and the second connector vertically downward at the exterior of the aircraft (as modified by Wright ‘664 and Jones ‘238; conductive rails underneath the vehicle)
but it is silent about the aircraft/vehicle (10) wherein the mounting assembly biases the first connector and the second connector vertically downward at the exterior of the aircraft.
Ichikawa et al. ‘687 teaches (figures 1-9) an electrically powered vehicle (10) including a power receiving device (11) comprising power receiving unit (200) wherein power receiving unit (200) moves from first position (S1) accommodated to the electrically powered vehicle (10) vehicular body (70) to a second position (S2) and a movement mechanism (30) comprising biasing member (33) which causes power receiving unit (200) descend to vertically face power transmitting unit (56) to transfer electric power between the power receiving unit (200) and a power transmitting unit (56) (Para 0074-0076, 0116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Mochida et al. ‘739 to incorporate the teachings of Ichikawa et al. ‘687 to configure the aircraft/vehicle (10) wherein the mounting assembly biases the first and connector and the second connector vertically downward at the exterior of the aircraft.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would establish and ensure firm connection of the connectors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19th March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are explained in the rejection above.
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 ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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 J Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642