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 .
Application Status
Claims 22-41 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the second action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 9/12/2024 and reviewed by the Examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/6/2025 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claims 22-27, 30, 31, and 37 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.
In the applicant’s arguments they argued that the independent claim is only drawn to the flight vehicle and does not require the road vehicle and that the road vehicle is claimed passively to help further define the docking mechanism of the flight vehicle. However, claims 22-25, 27, 30, 31, and 37 all positively claim structures and functionality of the road vehicle, and it is unclear to the examiner how the road vehicle can be both a passive limitation and have the claims impart specific limitations onto the road vehicle. The road vehicle specific limitations either need to be canceled or the road vehicle needs to be positively claimed in an independent claim.
Claim 26 is rejected due to their respective dependencies on claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 22-25, 28-38, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmke et al. (US #3,017,137) in view of Gull et al. (PGPub #2020/0361606), and Levy (PGPub #2020/0140081).
Regarding claim 41, Helmke teaches a flight vehicle system comprising: a main body (26) and at least one propulsion device (20, as currently written this propulsion device is not required to be located on the main body), the main body comprising a fuselage, and a tail section (Shown below in figure 3); and a docking mechanism (40, and 130) positioned on the main body (26, 40, 130, and 132 as seen in figure 7), the docking mechanism configured to selectively join a complementary docking structure to the flight vehicle system (Column 3, lines 26-56, and Column 4, lines 54-63, this teaches that the system helps to create a releasable connection between the flight vehicle and road vehicle), the docking mechanism comprising: an elongated catch tongue (130, and 132) that protrudes outward from a bottom end of the fuselage of the flight vehicle system (26, 130, and 132 as seen in figure 7, as can be seen the catch tongue extends from the bottom portion of the fuselage), the catch tongue configured and dimensioned for insertion into a receiving opening proximate to a bottom end of the complementary docking structure to support a bottom portion of the complementary docking structure relative to the flight vehicle system (12, 130, 132, and 134 as seen in figure 7, and Column 4, lines 54-63, this teaches that the end of the tongue is received within the body of the road vehicle, and as can be seen in figure 7 the catch tongue enters the road vehicle at a bottom portion of the road vehicle and creates a connection which helps to support the road vehicle); and a connector pin receptacle positioned along the elongated catch tongue (Column 4, lines 54-63), the connector pin receptacle configured to interface with a connector pin of the complementary docking structure (Column 4, lines 54-63, this teaches that the catch tongue forms an electrical interface with a complementary pin structure of the docking structure); and at least one docking connector (40) positioned along and proximate to a top end of the main body opposite the elongated catch tongue (The top most 48 as seen in figure 4, 40, and 48 as seen in figure 5, and Column 3, lines 26-56, this teaches that the locking mechanisms can be placed all around the perimeter of the connection between the road vehicle and the flight vehicle including at the top most portion of the systems and opposite the catch tongue located at the bottom of the perimeter) and configured to support an upper portion of the complementary docking structure relative to the flight vehicle system (The top most 48 as seen in figure 4, 40, and 48 as seen in figure 5, and Column 3, lines 26-56); and wherein the system has at least one propulsion device (20). But does not teach that the main body comprises a plurality of propeller assemblies; and said connector pin receptacle being configured to communicate with a flight vehicle controller, and that the docking connector is a clamp.
PNG
media_image1.png
334
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Gull does teach that the main body comprises a plurality of propeller assemblies (514a-d). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the main body have a plurality of propeller assemblies because Helmke and Gull are both flight systems that can be attached to another system. The motivation for having the main body have a plurality of propeller assemblies is that it provides additional flight capabilities to the system. But does not teach that said connector pin receptacle being configured to communicate with a flight vehicle controller, and that the docking connector is a clamp.
However, Levy does teach that said connector pin receptacle being configured to communicate with a flight vehicle controller (Paragraphs 34, and 39), and that the docking connector is a clamp (17, and 25). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the connector pin communicate with a flight vehicle controller, and have the docking connectors be clamps because Helmke and Levy are both flight systems that can be attached to a road vehicle. The motivation for having the connector pin communicate with a flight vehicle controller is that it allows the flight vehicle to receive flight commands from the pilot and implement the commands, and the motivation for having the docking connectors be clamps is that it helps to strengthen the connection between the two systems by increasing the amount of contact at the connection.
Regarding claim 22, Helmke as modified by Gull, and Levy teaches the flight vehicle system of claim 41, wherein the complementary docking structure is a road vehicle which comprises a chassis (10 as seen in figure 1 of Helmke), a plurality of wheels (18 as seen in figure 1 of Helmke), an engine (Column 3, lines 12-25 of Helmke), a top end (10 as seen in figure 1 of Helmke), a back end (10 as seen in figure 1 of Helmke), and a cabin area (Column 2, line 70-Column 3, line 11 of Helmke).
Regarding claim 23, Helmke as modified by Gull, and Levy teaches the flight vehicle system of claim 41, wherein the complementary docking structure is a road vehicle which includes a docking plug (134 of Helmke), but Helmke does not teach that the docking plug is configured to communicate with a road vehicle controller.
However, Levy does teach that the docking plug is configured to communicate with a road vehicle controller (Paragraphs 34, and 39). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the docking plug communicate with a road vehicle controller because Helmke and Levy are both flight systems that can be attached to a road vehicle. The motivation for having the docking plug communicate with a road vehicle controller is that it allows the road vehicle to send flight commands from the pilot to the flight vehicle.
Regarding claim 24, Helmke as modified by Gull, and Levy teaches the flight vehicle system of claim 41, wherein complementary docking structure is a road vehicle which in a disconnected orientation, the road vehicle is configured to drive on land (10 as seen in figure 2, and Column 2, line 70-Column 3, line 11 of Helmke), and in a connected orientation, the flight vehicle and the road vehicle are configured to takeoff, fly and land (10 as seen in figure 1, and Column 2, line 70-Column 3, line 11 of Helmke).
Regarding claim 25, Helmke as modified by Gull, and Levy teaches the flight vehicle system of claim 41, wherein complementary docking structure is a road vehicle (10 as seen in figure 2 of Helmke) but Helmke does not teach that the road vehicle includes a docking mechanism which includes a pair of rails that are positioned along the top end of the road vehicle, each of the pair of rails comprising one or more openings.
However, Levy does teach that the road vehicle includes a docking mechanism which includes a pair of rails (30) that are positioned along the top end of the road vehicle (30 as seen in figure 6), each of the pair of rails comprising one or more openings (30 as seen in figure 6). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the road vehicle have a pair of docking rails on the top of the vehicle with openings because Helmke and Levy are both flight systems that can be attached to a road vehicle. The motivation for having the road vehicle have a pair of docking rails on the top of the vehicle with openings is that it helps to create a strong connection between the road and flight vehicle.
Regarding claim 28, Helmke as modified by Gull, and Levy teaches the flight vehicle system of claim 41, wherein the flight vehicle includes a pair of wings (32 of Helmke) and at least one flight control surface (28 of Helmke).
Regarding claim 29, Helmke as modified by Gull, and Levy teaches the flight vehicle system of claim 28, but Helmke does not teach that the at least one docking clamp includes a pair of docking clamps located along the wings of the flight vehicle. However, Levy does teach that the at least one docking clamp includes a pair of docking clamps (17, and 25) located along the wings of the flight vehicle (11, 13, and 17 as seen in figure 3, as can be seen the clamps are mounted to an airfoil structure that is integrated with the rest of the wings). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the docking mechanism have a pair of clamps mounted on the wings because Helmke and Levy are both flight systems that can be attached to a road vehicle. The motivation for having the docking mechanism have a pair of clamps mounted on the wings is that it helps to create a strong connection between the flight and road vehicle.
Regarding claim 30, Helmke as modified by Gull, and Levy teaches the flight vehicle system of claim 29, wherein complementary docking structure is a road vehicle (10 as seen in figure 2 of Helmke) but Helmke does not teach that each of the pair of docking clamps are configured to engage one of a pair of rails positioned along a top end of the road vehicle when the flight vehicle system is in a connected orientation in order to secure the top end of the road vehicle to a bottom surface of the wings.
However, Levy does teach that each of the pair of docking clamps are configured to engage one of a pair of rails (30) positioned along a top end of the road vehicle (30 as seen in figure 6) when the flight vehicle system is in a connected orientation in order to secure the top end of the road vehicle to a bottom surface of the wings (11, 20, and the docking mechanisms as seen in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a pair of rails on the top of the road vehicle that engage with the pair of clamps because Helmke and Levy are both flight systems that can be attached to a road vehicle. The motivation for having a pair of rails on the top of the road vehicle that engage with the pair of clamps is that it helps to create a strong connection between the flight and road vehicle.
Regarding claim 31, Helmke as modified by Gull, and Levy teaches the flight vehicle system of claim 24, wherein in the connected orientation, the catch tongue is positioned through the opening (130, 132, and134 as seen in figure 7 of Helmke, as can be seen when the system is connected the catch tongue would extend into the road vehicle), a docking plug of the road vehicle is connected to the connector pin receptacle (Column 4, lines 54-63 of Helmke), but Helmke does not teach that a road vehicle controller is communicatively linked with the flight vehicle controller.
However, Levy does teach that a road vehicle controller is communicatively linked with the flight vehicle controller (Paragraphs 34, and 39). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the road vehicle controller be communicatively linked to the flight vehicle controller because Helmke and Levy are both flight systems that can be attached to a road vehicle. The motivation for having the road vehicle controller be communicatively linked to the flight vehicle controller is that it allows commands from the road vehicle to be communicated to the flight vehicle.
Regarding claim 32, Helmke as modified by Gull, and Levy teaches the flight vehicle system of claim 41, but Helmke does not teach that the flight vehicle system is configured to operate in a vertical flight mode. However, Gull does teach that the flight vehicle system is configured to operate in a vertical flight mode (Paragraph 74). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the vehicle operate in a vertical flight mode because Helmke and Gull are both flight systems that can be attached to another system. The motivation for having the vehicle operate in a vertical flight mode is that it allows the aircraft to operate in areas that do not have full runways.
Regarding claim 33, Helmke as modified by Gull, and Levy teaches the flight vehicle system of claim 32, but Helmke does not teach that in the vertical flight mode, each of the at least one propulsion devices are configured to impart a lifting force sufficient to lift a connected flight vehicle system and road vehicle vertically. However, Gull does teach that in the vertical flight mode, each of the at least one propulsion devices are configured to impart a lifting force sufficient to lift a connected flight vehicle system and road vehicle vertically (Paragraphs 22, and 74). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the propulsion device provide sufficient vertical thrust to lift the combined system because Helmke and Gull are both flight systems that can be attached to another system. The motivation for having the propulsion device provide sufficient vertical thrust to lift the combined system is that it allows the aircraft to operate in areas that do not have full runways.
Regarding claim 34, Helmke as modified by Gull, and Levy teaches the flight vehicle system of claim 41, wherein the flight vehicle system includes wings (32 of Helmke) and a plurality of flight control surfaces (28, and the elevators as seen in figure 3 of Helmke).
Regarding claim 35, Helmke as modified by Gull, and Levy teaches the flight vehicle system of claim 34, wherein the flight vehicle system is configured to operate in a horizontal flight mode (The vehicle as seen in figures 1, and 3, and Column 2, line 70-Column 3, line 11 of Helmke).
Regarding claim 36, Helmke as modified by Gull, and Levy teaches the light vehicle system of claim 35, wherein in the horizontal flight mode, each of the at least one propulsion devices are configured to generate thrust sufficient for the wings to lift a connected flight vehicle system and road vehicle through the air in sustained horizontal flight (The vehicle as seen in figures 1, and 3, and Column 2, line 70-Column 3, line 11 of Helmke).
Regarding claim 37, Helmke as modified by Gull, and Levy teaches the flight vehicle system of claim 41, wherein complementary docking structure is a road vehicle (10 as seen in figure 2 of Helmke) but Helmke does not teach that the road vehicle includes functionality for driving autonomously from a first location to a second location.
However, Levy does teach that the road vehicle includes functionality for driving autonomously from a first location to a second location (Paragraph 12, this teaches that the road vehicle can be autonomous which inherently allows it to drive from a first location to a second). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the road vehicle be driven autonomously because Helmke and Levy are both flight systems that can be attached to a road vehicle. The motivation for having the road vehicle be driven autonomously is that it can allow the system to operate without a driver present to allow the system to be able to carry additional cargo.
Regarding claim 38, Helmke as modified by Gull, and Levy teaches the flight vehicle system of claim 41, but Helmke does not teach that the flight vehicle system includes functionality for flying autonomously from a third location to a fourth location. However, Levy does teach that the flight vehicle system includes functionality for flying autonomously from a third location to a fourth location (Paragraph 11, this teaches that the vehicle can be autonomous which inherently allows it to fly from a third location to a fourth). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the flight vehicle be flown autonomously because Helmke and Levy are both flight systems that can be attached to a road vehicle. The motivation for having the flight vehicle be flown autonomously is that it can allow the system to operate without a pilot present to allow the system to be able to carry additional cargo.
Claims 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmke et al. (US #3,017,137) as modified by Gull et al. (PGPub #2020/0361606), and Levy (PGPub #2020/0140081) as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Talmage (US #7,946,530).
Regarding claim 39, Helmke as modified by Gull, and Levy teaches the flight vehicle system of claim 41, but Helmke does not teach landing gear that is positioned along the main body of the flight vehicle system. However, Talmage does teach landing gear that is positioned along the main body of the flight vehicle system (5 as seen in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have landing gear attached to the flight vehicle because Helmke and Talmage are both flight systems that can be attached to a road vehicle. The motivation for having landing gear attached to the flight vehicle is that it allows the flight vehicle to be stable and supported on the ground without being attached to the road vehicle.
Regarding claim 40, Helmke as modified by Gull, Levy, and Talmage teaches the flight vehicle system of claim 39, but Helmke does not teach that the landing gear is retractable. However, Talmage does teach that the landing gear is retractable (Column 5, lines 50-57). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the landing gear be retractable because Helmke and Talmage are both flight systems that can be attached to a road vehicle. The motivation for having the landing gear be retractable is that it allows it to be stored when they are not needed to reduce the drag on the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26, and 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claim 21 has been amended to show how the examiner believes that the previously cited prior art teaches the newly added claim 41. The examiner disagrees with the argument that Helmke does not teach an outwardly protruding catch tongue at a bottom of the fuselage and a docking connection at the top of the fuselage, and the rejection of claim 41 highlights the portions of Helmke that the examiner believes teaches these limitations.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647