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 .
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 03/10/2026, in which claims 1-14 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the abstract to overcome the objection to the abstract. Accordingly, the objection to the abstract of the disclosure has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the claim objections. Accordingly, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to recite sufficient structure. Accordingly, the claims are no longer subject to interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections:
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of the remarks that the cited references “fail to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations as set forth in amended claim 1.” Applicant specifically argues on pages 11-12 of the remarks that Blinkov and Kita “fail to disclose or suggest an environment-aware path control mechanism where the aircraft selects a flight path and systematically alternates between power generation and propulsion based on wind direction.”
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees that Blinkov in view of Kita fail to teach all limitations of the amended independent claims. Blinkov discloses the presence of a thrust propeller and lift propeller (Blinkov [0025]-[0026]). Blinkov further discloses a generator that generates electric power through rotation of the thrust propeller when the aircraft descends (Blinkov [0033]) and generates electric power through rotation of the lift propeller when the aircraft descends (Blinkov [0041]). Kita discloses controlling first and second generators to work as electric motors when the aircraft ascends (Kita [0027], [0049]).
The amended claims recite operating the generators as electric motors to generate thrust and lift when the aircraft receives tailwind along a flight path. However, the operation being performed when the aircraft receives a tailwind is recited as an intended use that does not require the presence of a tailwind. For example, thrust from the first generator is always generated using the engine and thrust propeller to move the aircraft forward, regardless of whether a tailwind is present. Similarly, lift from the second generator is always generated using the lift propeller to ascend or descend the aircraft, regardless of the presence of a tailwind. Therefore, since Blinkov in view of Kita teach generators operating as motors to generate thrust and lift, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the specific control whether or not there is a tailwind. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow the pilot to operate the aircraft with the desired thrust and lift in any type of wind so the aircraft can move forward and ascend or descend the desired amount despite the current wind conditions.
The amended claims also recite the generators generating electric power when the aircraft receives headwind. As described above, the generators will generate power regardless of whether there is a tailwind or headwind. The generators will generate power to perform thrust and lift based on the desired control of the aircraft. For example, power to generate thrust will be used to move the aircraft forward, while power to generate lift will be used to ascend or descend the aircraft. Accordingly, the aircraft uses power to operate the proper propellers depending on whether it is moving forward or ascending, regardless of any headwind or tailwind. Additionally, the amended claims do not require any detection or measurement of a headwind or tailwind. Therefore, the use of the tailwind and headwind is interpreted as an intended use that does not require any modification of the prior art and would involve simply operating the prior art in the same manner regardless of the presence or absence of the tailwind and headwind.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and have been found not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitations “wherein the first generator and the second generator generate the electric power when the aircraft receives the headwind along a first flight path” and “wherein the first generator and the second generator operate as the electric motors to respectively generate the thrust and the lift when the aircraft receives the tailwind along a second flight path.” Claim 8 recites similar limitations. The limitations are interpreted as reciting an intended use because the presence or absence of a headwind and tailwind are not required to perform the recited control. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 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.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blinkov et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0339853 A1 (hereinafter Blinkov), in view of Kita, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0061932 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Blinkov discloses a vertical take-off and landing aircraft using a hybrid propulsion system (Blinkov Fig. 3), the vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising:
a thrust propeller configured to generate thrust to the aircraft (see at least Blinkov [0026]: “A second disparate power source can be the internal combustion engine 120, which drives the thrust propeller 121 to provide horizontal thrust for the drone 100.”);
a lift propeller configured to generate lift to the aircraft (see at least Blinkov [0025]: “The VTOL (i.e., vertical lift) system, including motors 110 and lift propellers 111, can be powered by a first power source that can be electrical, such as one or more batteries configured to provide electrical power in distributed fashion to the motors and lift propellers.”);
an engine installed on the aircraft to generate power by burning fuel (see at least Blinkov [0026]: “A second disparate power source can be the internal combustion engine 120, which drives the thrust propeller 121 to provide horizontal thrust for the drone 100. This internal combustion engine can be a heavy fuel engine that runs on, for example, diesel, biodiesel, kerosene, JP-5, JP-8, or any other suitable heavy fuel.”);
a clutch device configured to transmit the power of the engine to the thrust propeller (see at least Blinkov [0022]: “A clutch coupled to the thrust propeller of the heavy fuel engine can regulate whether all, some, or none of the power being generated by the heavy fuel engine is delivered to the thrust propeller.”);
a first generator configured to generate electric power using rotational force of the thrust propeller when the aircraft descends or flies against a headwind (see at least Blinkov [0033]: “Various ways of disengaging the engine from the power train can be implemented in order to allow the thrust propeller to back-drive the generator system during a long descent or deceleration maneuver.”; Blinkov discloses at least generating electric power through rotation of the thrust propeller when the aircraft descends);
Blinkov fails to expressly disclose a second generator and controlling the first and second generators to work as electric motors when the aircraft flies upward or flies with a tailwind. However, Kita teaches
a second generator configured to generate electric power with rotational force of the lift propeller when the aircraft descends or flies against the headwind (see at least Blinkov [0041]: “At a final process step 510, electrical power can be delivered from the generator directly to the lift propellers, so as to reduce the amount of electrical power needed from the rechargeable battery. This can be controlled automatically by the power regulation controller during a landing process of the VTOL drone aircraft.”; Blinkov discloses at least generating electric power through rotation of the lift propeller when the aircraft descends; this limitation is taught through the combination of Blinkov and Kita, where Kita teaches the presence of a second generator (Kita [0026]));
a battery management system including a battery pack configured to be charged with electricity generated from the first generator and the second generator (see at least Blinkov [0028]: “The generator can then provide the electrical power to recharge a rechargeable battery (not shown) that is used to power the VTOL lift components.”; this limitation is taught through the combination of Blinkov and Kita, where Kita teaches the presence of a second generator (Kita [0026]));
and a control processor configured to: control the first generator and the second generator to operate as electric motors when the aircraft ascends or flies with a tailwind (see at least Kita [0027]: “The high-pressure side and low-pressure side motor-generators 40 and 42 operate as motors when supplied with power and as generators when rotated by external force.”; [0049]: “Specifically, when propulsion force in the vertical direction of the frame 14 is to be obtained, the ECU 50 implements control to supply regenerative electric power obtained by driving one or the other of the high-pressure side motor-generator 40 and the low-pressure side motor generator 42 to the fan-side motor-generators 80, thereby increasing lift acting on the frame.”; Kita discloses at least controlling the generators to work as electric motors when the aircraft flies upward),
and control the first generator and the second generator to generate the electric power when the aircraft descends or flies against the headwind (see at least Blinkov [0033]: “Various ways of disengaging the engine from the power train can be implemented in order to allow the thrust propeller to back-drive the generator system during a long descent or deceleration maneuver.”; Blinkov discloses at least generating electric power when the aircraft descends; this limitation is taught through the combination of Blinkov and Kita, where Kita teaches the presence of a second generator (Kita [0026])),
wherein the first generator and the second generator generate the electric power when the aircraft receives the headwind along a first flight path (see at least Kita [0037]: “As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, the VTOL 10 is equipped with multiple, specifically four, fans 76 installed to be rotatable around axes parallel to a vertical axis 14 b (which crosses with the longitudinal (horizontal) axis 14 a) of the frame 14, and with four fan-side motor-generators (sub propulsion units) 80 (not shown in FIG. 1) that are individually connected to the four fans 76 and rotate the four fans 76 to generate lift (vertical force) on the frame 14.”; [0027]: “The high-pressure side and low-pressure side motor- generators 40 and 42 operate as motors when supplied with power and as generators when rotated by external force.”; “when the aircraft receives the headwind” is interpreted as intended use because it is not required to perform the recited control and does not result in any structural modification or structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art),
and wherein the first generator and the second generator operate as the electric motors to respectively generate the thrust and the lift when the aircraft receives the tailwind along a second flight path (see at least Kita [0027]: “The high-pressure side and low-pressure side motor- generators 40 and 42 operate as motors when supplied with power and as generators when rotated by external force.”; [0047]-[0048]: “Turning to an explanation with reference to FIG. 5, in the case of the operation sequence of the frame 14 to obtain horizontal propulsion force (S16 in FIG. 4), the ECU 50 implements an operating mode of the engine 12 in a propulsion mode that adjusts fuel supply in accordance with flight condition, supplies regenerative electric power obtained from one or the other of the high-pressure side motor-generator 40 and the low-pressure side motor generator 42, particularly from the high-pressure side motor-generator 40, to the low-pressure side motor generator 42 to operate it as a motor and thereby assist rotation of the high-pressure turbine shaft 30 a and low-pressure turbine shaft 32 a, particularly of the high-pressure turbine shaft 30 a, of the engine 12. Further, in order to obtain propulsion force in vertical direction (takeoff/ascending direction and descension/landing direction) of the frame 14 (S12 and S20 in FIG. 4), control is performed to implement operating mode of the engine 12 in a charging mode operating as a generator, thereby reducing rotation of the high-pressure turbine shaft 30 a and low-pressure turbine shaft 32 a to predetermined amounts, and to operate the fan-side motor-generators 80 to generate lift force in the vertical direction of the frame 14.”; “when the aircraft receives the tailwind” is interpreted as intended use because it is not required to perform the recited control and does not result in any structural modification or structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the aircraft disclosed by Blinkov with Kita with reasonable expectation of success. Kita is directed towards the related field of a hybrid vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Blinkov with Kita to enhance fuel efficiency performance (see at least Kita [0006]: “An object of this invention is therefore to resolve this shortcoming by providing a hybrid vertical takeoff and landing aircraft enhanced in fuel efficiency performance.”).
Regarding claim 7, Blinkov in view of Kita teach all elements of the vertical take-off and landing aircraft according to claim 1 as explained above. Blinkov teaches the aircraft further comprising:
a first power management circuit that manages the electric power by receiving a command from the control processor, wherein the first power management circuit manages the electric power produced by the first generator (see at least Blinkov [0028]: “Both drone 100 and drone 200 can have additional components that are similar to facilitate intelligent management of the disparate power sources aboard the aircraft. For example, an onboard electrical generator (not shown) can be coupled to the internal combustion engine to receive power therefrom and convert the carbon fuel-based power to electrical power. The generator can then provide the electrical power to recharge a rechargeable battery (not shown) that is used to power the VTOL lift components.”),
distributes the electric power to electronic components that require the electric power (see at least Blinkov [0029]: “The power regulation controller can be in communication with the primary processor and can provide a number of particular functions that manage the use of power from the multiple disparate power sources onboard the drone. For example, the power regulation controller can augment electrical power when the drone is in vertical flight mode by drawing power from the internal combustion engine to the generator and then distributing electrical power elsewhere about the drone as needed.”),
Kita further teaches
monitors whether excess electric power is produced and, if the excess electric power is produced, controls an engine output to be reduced through the control processor and an engine controller (see at least Kita [0061]-[0062]: “Further, in the VTOL 10, the controller controls to reduce, in a case where the direction of the propulsion force is in a frame descending direction, the power obtained by driving the low-pressure side motor generator 42 by rotation of the low-pressure turbine shaft 32 to less than that in a case where the direction of the propulsion force is a frame ascending direction, when obtaining propulsion force in the vertical direction of the frame 14. With this, in addition to the aforesaid effects and advantages, no unnecessary extraction of high electric power from the engine 12 occurs…With this, in addition to the effects and advantages, fuel efficiency performance can be further improved since the electric power not consumed can be stored in the battery 46 and discharged therefrom as desired.”).
Regarding claim 8, this claim recites a method performed by the vertical take-off and landing aircraft of claim 1. The combination of Blinkov and Kita also teaches the method performed by the vertical take-off and landing aircraft as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Blinkov in view of Kita teach all elements of the vertical take-off and landing aircraft according to claim 1 as explained above. Kita further teaches
wherein the first generator and the second generator are operated simultaneously to generate the electric power (see at least Kita [0037]: “As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, the VTOL 10 is equipped with multiple, specifically four, fans 76 installed to be rotatable around axes parallel to a vertical axis 14 b (which crosses with the longitudinal (horizontal) axis 14 a) of the frame 14, and with four fan-side motor-generators (sub propulsion units) 80 (not shown in FIG. 1) that are individually connected to the four fans 76 and rotate the four fans 76 to generate lift (vertical force) on the frame 14.”; [0059]: “As a configuration is thus adopted whereby the engine (main propulsion unit) 12 generates propulsion and electric power in accordance with horizontal propulsion and lift, electric power generated by the engine 12 can be relied on when high power is necessary for generating lift, so that a battery of relatively small capacity suffices as the battery 46.”).
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites a method performed by the aircraft of claim 12 as explained above. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 12.
Claims 2, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blinkov in view of Kita, and further in view of Botti et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0033097 A1 (hereinafter Botti).
Regarding claim 2, Blinkov in view of Kita teach all elements of the vertical take-off and landing aircraft according to claim 1 as explained above. Blinkov in view of Kita fail to expressly disclose control the clutch device to prevent power transmission from the engine to the thrust propeller when the first generator is operated with the power of wind to generate electric power. However, Botti teaches
wherein the control processor controls the clutch device to disengage the engine from the thrust propeller to prevent power transmission from the engine to the thrust propeller when the first generator is operated with a power of wind to generate electric power (see at least Botti [0185]: “The powertrain enables recovery of energy by wind driven or water driven effect. Thus, in particular during descent of the aircraft leaving the propeller 3 to turn because of the effect of the flow of air in which it is situated, as illustrated in FIGS. 4 and 4A, the clutches may be brought to the following configuration. The clutch E123 and the clutch E14 are disengaged to uncouple the propeller 3 from the thermal engine 1 and to uncouple the rotor 202 from the thermal engine 1. The clutch E23 is preferably disengaged. The clutch E324 is engaged.”; [0045]: “In accordance with one particular aspect, the clutch system comprises a fourth clutch configured, in the engaged state, to transmit the rotation of the thermal engine to the electric motor to cause it to function as a generator.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the aircraft disclosed by Blinkov in view of Kita with Botti with reasonable expectation of success. Botti is directed towards the related field of controlling an aircraft with an electric motor and thermal engine. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Blinkov in view of Kita with Botti to improve safety (see at least Botti [0038]: “The propeller powertrain of the machine can thus be driven independently or simultaneously by the electric powertrain and/or by the thermal powertrain. Safety, in particular on take-off when the machine is an aircraft, is improved since, in the event of a problem in the electric powertrain, the thermal powertrain is able to take over to drive the propeller.”).
Regarding claim 6, Blinkov in view of Kita teach all elements of the vertical take-off and landing aircraft according to claim 1 as explained above. Blinkov in view of Kita fail to expressly disclose the generator works as an electric motor within an allowable inertia moment limit of the clutch in addition to the engine output or works as an electric motor regardless of the engine. However, Botti teaches
wherein the first generator works as an electric motor that increases the thrust within an allowable inertia moment limit of the clutch in addition to an output of the engine, or works as a pure electric motor regardless of the engine (see at least Botti [0131]: “By way of example, the controller 42 is also able to transform the direct current from the battery 40 into alternating current, for example by chopping it to supply power to the electric motor 2, and conversely to transform the alternating current produced by the electric motor 2 into direct current for charging the battery 40 when the electric motor 2 is functioning as a generator, in particular when, as explained hereinafter, the rotor of the electric motor 2 is driven by the thermal engine 1 or the propeller 3.”; Botti [0157]-[0160] teaches the generator works as a motor regardless of whether the engine causes rotation movement or whether the engine is disconnected and the propeller causes the rotation movement; Botti teaches at least wherein the first generator works as an electric motor regardless of the engine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the aircraft disclosed by Blinkov in view of Kita with Botti with reasonable expectation of success. Botti is directed towards the related field of controlling an aircraft with an electric motor and thermal engine. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Blinkov in view of Kita with Botti to improve safety (see at least Botti [0038]: “The propeller powertrain of the machine can thus be driven independently or simultaneously by the electric powertrain and/or by the thermal powertrain. Safety, in particular on take-off when the machine is an aircraft, is improved since, in the event of a problem in the electric powertrain, the thermal powertrain is able to take over to drive the propeller.”).
Regarding claim 9, this claim recites a method performed by the aircraft of claim 2 as explained above. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 2.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blinkov in view of Kita, and further in view of Kalavrianos, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0359791 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Blinkov in view of Kita teach all elements of the vertical take-off and landing aircraft according to claim 1 as explained above. Blinkov in view of Kita fail to expressly disclose decreasing an angle of attack. However, Kalavrianos teaches
wherein the control processor reduces an angle of attack of the thrust propeller to a value where the thrust generated by the thrust propeller is prevented from affecting the flight of the aircraft when the aircraft takes off and lands vertically (see at least Kalavrianos [0144]: “The aircraft then takes off vertically. Once the aircraft has reached a desired altitude, the angle of attack of the tiltable wings, the angle of the control surfaces, and/or the active flow control system may be controlled to decrease the amount of forward thrust from the propulsion units that is being converted into lift. This will result in an increase in forward airspeed of the aircraft. The flow of air over the wings resulting from forward airspeed will produce further lift, enabling further reductions in the angle of attack of the tiltable wings without loss of height, and greater forward thrust. Eventually, the transition to cruising forward flight will be complete, and the propulsion units may be operated in a cruise mode (at less than full thrust) with the tiltable wings at a relatively low angle of attack”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the aircraft disclosed by Blinkov in view of Kita with Kalavrianos with reasonable expectation of success. Kalavrianos is directed towards the related field of a VTOL or STOL aircraft. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Blinkov in view of Kita with Kalavrianos to improve aircraft efficiency (see at least Kalavrianos [0043]: “The reduced overall size of the tiltable wing means that the wetted area of the tiltable wing is reduced. As such, skin friction drag is reduced, which may improve the efficiency of the aircraft.”).
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites a method performed by the aircraft of claim 3 as explained above. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 3.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blinkov in view of Kita, and further in view of Chew et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0182897 A1 (hereinafter Chew).
Regarding claim 4, Blinkov in view of Kita teach all elements of the vertical take-off and landing aircraft according to claim 1 as explained above. Blinkov further teaches
and a surplus electric power produced by the first generator to be charged in the battery pack of the battery management system (see at least Blinkov [0040]: “At a following process step 506, the amount of power received at the generator from the internal combustion engine can be adjusted. Electrical power can then be delivered from the generator to the rechargeable battery to recharge the rechargeable battery to a sufficient level at process step 508. Both of steps 506 and 508 can be controlled automatically by the power regulation controller while the VTOL drone aircraft is in a cruise flight mode.”).
Blinkov in view of Kita fail to expressly disclose controlling the thrust of the thrust propeller to increase in cruise flight or transition flight. However, Chew teaches
wherein the control processor controls the thrust of the thrust propeller to increase when the aircraft is in cruise flight or transition flight (see at least Chew [0049]: “The outlet louvers (14) that are more easily visible in FIG. 14 serve as thrust vector blades for controlling the aircraft and, in a corresponding manner, as flow guide blades to deflect the flow rearward and to generate an increasing horizontal thrust upon transition from the take-off phase to the cruising phase.”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the aircraft disclosed by Blinkov in view of Kita with Chew with reasonable expectation of success. Chew is directed towards the related field of a VTOL aircraft. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Blinkov in view of Kita with Chew to improve performance across various flight phases (see at least Chew [0007]-[0010]: “The inventive approach is based on the insight that a VTOL aircraft intended for lifting and cruising flight requires propulsion units that are able to handle every flight phase (take-off, transition, cruising, and landing)…A further advantage of this solution, in addition to the improved performance, is an appealing look of the aircraft, as this does not allow a view of the open rotors during cruising.”).
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites a method performed by the aircraft of claim 4 as explained above. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blinkov in view of Kita and Chew, and further in view of Shivareddy et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0050751 A1 (hereinafter Shivareddy).
Regarding claim 5, Blinkov in view of Kita and Chew teach all elements of the vertical take-off and landing aircraft according to claim 4 as explained above. Blinkov in view of Kita and Chew fail to expressly disclose batteries configured in parallel with a charging rate faster than 2 C-Rate and a discharging rate faster than maximum 60 C-Rate. However, Shivareddy teaches
wherein the battery pack comprises batteries configured in parallel (see at least Shivareddy [0302]: “The electrochemical cell may also refer to a battery comprising a plurality of electrochemical cells. The electrochemical cells may be connected in series or in parallel.”)
and, when managed by the battery management system, has a charging rate faster than 2 C-Rate and a discharging rate faster than maximum 60 C-Rate (see at least Shivareddy [0194]: “In some embodiments the charge rate of the battery is increased by 1C or more, preferably 2C or more, more preferably 3C or more.”; [0261]: “The discharge rate of the charger device battery is a C-rate of 3C or more, such as a 5C or more, 10C or more, 15C or more, 20C or more, 25C or more, 30C or more, 35C or more, 40C or more, 50C or more, 60C or more or 80C or more with respect to one electron transfer per transition metal per formula unit of working electrode active material.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the aircraft disclosed by Blinkov in view of Kita and Chew with the charging rates taught by Shivareddy with reasonable expectation of success. Shivareddy is directed towards the related field of a charging device for batteries. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Blinkov in view of Kita and Chew with Shivareddy to improve charging rates (see at least Shivareddy [0012]: “Accordingly, there is a need for charging devices which can provide improved charging rates to a receiver battery, improved capacity and energy density, and can be quickly recharged.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art teaches predicting possible emergency landing locations for a UAV based on the battery life and distance measurements (see Winkle et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0014461 A1). The prior art teaches determining a closest safe landing location relative to a plurality of aircraft locations based on an emergency energy reserve requirement (see Roy et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0396363 A1). The prior art teaches automatically transitioning to an emergency landing in response to a lack of pilot response to a prompt for a threshold time (see Mast et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0287560 A1). The prior art also teaches using VTOL and STOL to complete emergency landings (see Poh et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0245872 A1 and Bailey, U.S. Patent No. 10870486 B2). However, the examiner cannot
determine a reasonable motivation, either in the known prior art or the existing case law, to combine
the known elements to render the claimed invention. Therefore, there is a lack of motivation to
combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention as recited in claim 14.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights