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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “mounting member 255” as described in paragraph [0041]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0017], Last Line, replace “surfaces:” with “surfaces.”
Paragraph [0031], Line 2, replace “units150” with “units 150.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25, Line 2, after “at least three thrust units” add “of the three pairs of independent thrust units”
Claim 25, Line 4, after “at least three thrust units” add “of the three pairs of independent thrust units”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 27-30, 35-38 and 41 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.
Claim 27 recites “wherein each fixed wing comprises a forwardly positioned thrust unit and a rearwardly positioned thrust unit.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “a forwardly positioned thrust unit” and the “a rearwardly positioned thrust unit” relate to the previously recited “three pairs of independent thrust units”? I.e., are they the same or different claim elements? Clarification is required.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the forwardly positioned thrust unit and the rearwardly positioned thrust unit" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether applicant means for claim 28 to actually depend upon claim 27?
Claim 29 recites “wherein each fixed wing comprises a forwardly positioned thrust unit and a rearwardly positioned thrust unit.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “a forwardly positioned thrust unit” and the “a rearwardly positioned thrust unit” relate to the previously recited “three pairs of independent thrust units”? I.e., are they the same or different claim elements? Clarification is required.
Claim 35 recites “each primary wing control surface comprises two independently moveable sub-surfaces”. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “primary wing control surface” and the “two independently moveable sub-surfaces” relate to the previously recited “control surface” and “two independent sub-surfaces” of claim 32? I.e., are they the same or different claim elements? Clarification is required.
Claim 36 recites “each secondary wing control surface comprises two independently moveable sub-surfaces”. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “secondary wing control surface” and the “two independently moveable sub-surfaces” relate to the previously recited “control surface” and “two independent sub-surfaces” of claim 32? I.e., are they the same or different claim elements? Clarification is required.
Claim 37 recites “each primary horizontal stabilizer control surface comprises two independently moveable sub-surfaces”. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “primary horizontal stabilizer control surface” and the “two independently moveable sub-surfaces” relate to the previously recited “control surface” and “two independent sub-surfaces” of claim 32? I.e., are they the same or different claim elements? Clarification is required.
Claim 38 recites “each primary vertical stabilizer control surface comprises two independently moveable sub-surfaces”. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “primary vertical stabilizer control surface” and the “two independently moveable sub-surfaces” relate to the previously recited “control surface” and “two independent sub-surfaces” of claim 32? I.e., are they the same or different claim elements? Clarification is required.
Claim 41 recites the limitation "the tapering floor" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 41 recites the limitation "the horizontal stabilizers" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether applicant means for claim 41 to actually depend upon some other claim as some other claims recite the structure noted as lacking antecedent basis in claim 41?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0362866 (Tian).
Regarding Claims 22-26, Tian teaches: Claim 22 - an unmanned fixed wing vertical take-off and landing aircraft (100), comprising: an elongated fuselage (102) defining a longitudinal axis, the fuselage (102) having a nose and a tail; a pair of rearward swept fixed wings (104A and 104B), each wing (104A and 104B) having a root end respectively attached at an opposite side of a middle portion of the fuselage (102); and three pairs of independent thrust units (108A-108F, 107, 170), wherein at least a first pair of thrust units (107, 170) is positioned at the nose and tail of the fuselage (102) and each of said fixed wings (104A and 104B) respectively comprises at least a pair of thrust units (108A-108F); wherein the three pairs of independent thrust units (108A-108F, 107, 170) are arranged at aerodynamically appropriate locations to enable vertical take-off and landing of the aircraft and to avoid a flight compromise when at least one of the three pairs of thrust units fails to operate (at least paragraphs [0044], [0092], [103], describe the various thrust units (108A-108F, 107, 170) may fail and other ones of the thrust units (108A-108F, 107, 170) may compensate top allow the aircraft (100) to continue flight), (Figures 1A-35); Claim 23 - wherein the thrust units (108A-108F, 107, 170) in each pair of said thrust units (108A-108F, 107, 170) are arranged at diametrically opposite locations, (Figures 1A-35); Claim 24 – wherein the three pairs of thrust units (108A-108F, 107, 170) are arranged in a hexagonal configuration balanced about a center of gravity located in the middle portion of the fuselage (102), (Figures 1A-35); Claim 25 – wherein a first plurality of at least three units (170, 108D/108E, 108A/108B) are mounted on the nose portion of the fuselage (102) and each fixed wing (104A, 104B) respectively to form a V-shaped configuration and a second plurality of at least three unit (107, 108C, 108F) are mounted on the tail portion of the fuselage (102) and each fixed wing (104A, 104B) respectively to form a rearward V-shaped configuration, (Figures 1A-35); Claim 26 – wherein one or more of the thrust unit (170, 108D/108E, 108A/108B) comprises rotors mounted to a rotary axle mechanism, (Figures 1A-35).
Claim(s) 22 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,696,392 (Bova et al.).
Regarding Claims 22 and 40, Bova et al. teaches: Claim 22 - an unmanned fixed wing vertical take-off and landing aircraft (110), comprising: an elongated fuselage (112) defining a longitudinal axis, the fuselage (112) having a nose and a tail; a pair of rearward swept fixed wings (120), each wing (120) having a root end respectively attached at an opposite side of a middle portion of the fuselage (112); and three pairs of independent thrust units (130-1, 130-2, 142-1, 142-2, 142-3, 142-4), wherein at least a first pair of thrust units (130-1, 130-2) is positioned at the nose and tail of the fuselage (112) and each of said fixed wings (120) respectively comprises at least a pair of thrust units (142-1, 142-2, 142-3, 142-4); wherein the three pairs of independent thrust units (130-1, 130-2, 142-1, 142-2, 142-3, 142-4) are arranged at aerodynamically appropriate locations to enable vertical take-off and landing of the aircraft and to avoid a flight compromise when at least one of the three pairs of thrust units fails to operate (at least Column 12, Line 49 – Column 13, Line 2, describe the various thrust units (130-1, 130-2, 142-1, 142-2, 142-3, 142-4) may fail and other ones of the thrust units (130-1, 130-2, 142-1, 142-2, 142-3, 142-4) may compensate top allow the aircraft (100) to continue flight), (Figures 1A-8); Claim 40 - wherein central section of the fuselage (112) comprises a height with an internal volume defined by a top wall, side walls and a bottom wall such that height of the fuselage (112) is substantially constant in the central section, and wherein the height gradually decreases from the central section towards the nose and tail respectively due to tapering of the floor and side walls towards the nose and tail respectively, (Figures 1A-8).
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.
Claim(s) 22-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No 10,124,890 (Sada-Salinas et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0362866 (Tian).
Regarding Claims 22-26 and 28, Sada-Salinas et al. teaches: Claim 22 - an unmanned fixed wing vertical take-off and landing aircraft (20), comprising: an elongated fuselage (71) defining a longitudinal axis, the fuselage (71) having a nose and a tail; a pair of rearward swept fixed wings (15 and 16), each wing (15 and 16) having a root end respectively attached at an opposite side of a middle portion of the fuselage (71); and three pairs of independent thrust units (AA-CC), wherein at least a first pair of thrust units (AA) is positioned at the nose and tail of the fuselage and each of said fixed wings (15 and 16) respectively comprises at least a pair of thrust units (BB and CC); wherein the three pairs of independent thrust units (AA-CC) are arranged at aerodynamically appropriate locations to enable vertical take-off and landing of the aircraft (20), (Annotated Figure 6 Blow); Claim 23 – wherein the thrust units (AA-CC) in each pair of said thrust units (AA-CC) are arranged at diametrically opposite locations, (Annotated Figure 6 Below); Claim 24 – wherein the three pairs of thrust units (AA-CC) are arranged in a hexagonal configuration balanced about a center of gravity located in the middle portion of the fuselage (71), (Annotated Figure 6 Below); Claim 25 – wherein a first plurality of at least three thrust units (AA-CC) are mounted on the nose portion of the fuselage (71) and each fixed wing (15 or 16) respectively to form a forward V-shaped configuration and a second plurality of at least three thrust units (AA-CC) are mounted on the tail portion of the fuselage (71) and each fixed wing (15 or 16) respectively to form a rearward V-shaped configuration, (Annotated Figure 6 Below); Claim 26 – wherein one or more of the thrust units (AA-CC) comprises rotors (4 and 73) mounted on a rotary axle mechanism, (Annotated Figure 6 Below); Claim 28 – wherein the forwardly positioned thrust unit and the rearwardly positioned thrust unit are mounted on a mounting member (17 or 18) extending across said fixed wing (15 or 16), (Annotated Figure 6 Below).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sada-Salinas et al. does not teach: wherein the three pairs of independent thrust units are arranged to avoid a flight compromise when at least one of the three pairs of thrust units fails to operate (Claim 22). However, Tian teaches: Claim 22 - an unmanned fixed wing vertical take-off and landing aircraft (100), comprising: an elongated fuselage (102) defining a longitudinal axis, the fuselage (102) having a nose and a tail; a pair of rearward swept fixed wings (104A and 104B), each wing (104A and 104B) having a root end respectively attached at an opposite side of a middle portion of the fuselage (102); and three pairs of independent thrust units (108A-108F, 107, 170), wherein at least a first pair of thrust units (107, 170) is positioned at the nose and tail of the fuselage (102) and each of said fixed wings (104A and 104) respectively comprises at least a pair of thrust units (108A-108F); wherein the three pairs of independent thrust units (108A-108F, 107, 170) are arranged at aerodynamically appropriate locations to enable vertical take-off and landing of the aircraft and to avoid a flight compromise when at least one of the three pairs of thrust units fails to operate (at least paragraphs [0044], [0092], [103], describe the various thrust units (108A-108F, 107, 170) may fail and other ones of the thrust units (108A-108F, 107, 170) may compensate top allow the aircraft (100) to continue flight), (Figures 1A-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft of Sada-Salinas et al. to have wherein the three pairs of independent thrust units are arranged to avoid a flight compromise when at least one of the three pairs of thrust units fails to operate (Claim 22) as taught by Tian for the purposes of being able to safely land and control the aircraft of Sada-Salinas et al. in the event of failure of any of the thrust units.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No 10,124,890 (Sada-Salinas et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0362866 (Tian), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0089279 (ROSEN).
Regarding Claim 27, Sada-Salinas et al. as modified by Tian teaches the aircraft as described above, in addition to Sada-Salinas et al. teaching: Claim 27 - wherein each fixed wing (15 or 16) comprises a forwardly positioned thrust unit (BB or CC) and a rearwardly positioned thrust unit (BB or CC), (Annotated Figure 6 Above).
Sada-Salinas et al. as modified by Tian does not teach: wherein each thrust unit comprises oppositely arranged rotors mounted on corresponding rotary axle mechanisms that extend in upwardly and downwardly directions respectively (Claim 27). However, ROSEN teaches: Claim 27 – an aircraft having a plurality of thrust units (102), wherein each thrust unit (102) comprises oppositely arranged rotors (104) mounted on corresponding rotary axle mechanisms that extend in upwardly and downwardly directions respectively, (Figures 1A-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thrust units of Sada-Salinas et al. as modified by Tian to have wherein each thrust unit comprises oppositely arranged rotors mounted on corresponding rotary axle mechanisms that extend in upwardly and downwardly directions respectively (Claim 27) as taught by ROSEN as it represents the simple substitution of one known element (the thrust units (102) of ROSEN) for another (the thrust units (AA-CC) of Sada-Salinas et al.) to achieve the predictable result of having additional rotors on the thrust units to increase control and efficiency of the thrust units.
Claim(s) 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No 10,124,890 (Sada-Salinas et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0362866 (Tian), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,441,467 (Tighe et al.).
Regarding Claims 29 and 30, Sada-Salinas et al. as modified by Tian teaches the aircraft as described above, in addition to Sada-Salinas et al. teaching: Claim 29 - wherein each fixed wing (15 or 16) comprises a forwardly positioned thrust unit (BB or CC) and a rearwardly positioned thrust (BB or CC) unit such that at least the forwardly positioned thrust unit (BB or CC) comprises said rotors mounted on the rotary axle mechanism, (Annotated Figure 6 Above); Claim 30 - wherein the rearwardly positioned thrust unit (BB or CC) comprises a rotor mounted on fixed rotary axle mechanism that does not undergo tilting, (Annotated Figure 6 Above).
Sada-Salinas et al. as modified by Tian does not teach: the axle mechanism is arranged to tilt between the vertical direction and the horizontal direction (Claim 29). However, Tighe et al. teaches: Claim 29 – an aircraft (100) including fixed wings including forward thrust units (114) and rearward thrust units (117), the forward thrust units (114) being arranged to be tilted between vertical and horizontal directions, with the rearward thrust units (117) being fixed, (Figure 1B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft of Sada-Salinas et al. as modified by Tian to have the axle mechanism is arranged to tilt between the vertical direction and the horizontal direction (Claim 29) as taught by Tighe et al. for the purposes of being able to increase control and efficiency of the thrust units.
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No 10,124,890 (Sada-Salinas et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0362866 (Tian), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0388647 (Ivans et al.).
Regarding Claim 31, Sada-Salinas et al. as modified by Tian teaches the aircraft as described above, but does not teach: wherein the tail portion of the fuselage is connected to horizontal stabilizers and a vertical stabilizer such that the thrust unit located on the tail portion is mounted on the vertical stabilizer (Claim 31). However, Ivans et al. teaches: Claim 31 – an aircraft (100) including a tail portion (112) of a fuselage (106) is connected to horizontal stabilizers (126) and a vertical stabilizer (110) such that a thrust unit (116) located on the tail portion (112) is mounted on the vertical stabilizer (110), (Figures 1A and 1B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft of Sada-Salinas et al. as modified by Tian to have wherein the tail portion of the fuselage is connected to horizontal stabilizers and a vertical stabilizer such that the thrust unit located on the tail portion is mounted on the vertical stabilizer (Claim 31) as taught by Ivans et al. as it represents the simple substitution of one known element (the tail section of Ivans et al.) for another (the tail section of Sada-Salinas et al. as modified by Tian) to provide control for the aircraft.
Claim(s) 39 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,696,392 (Bova et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0308979 (Nadir).
Regarding Claims 39 and 41, Bova et al. teaches the aircraft as described above, but does not teach: wherein an aft section of the fuselage comprises a parachute deployment system to enable deployment of a parachute in a rearward and downward direction during substantial failure of the thrust units and/or control surfaces (Claim 39); and wherein the parachute deployment system is arranged to deploy the parachute from an opening provided in the tapering floor section tapering towards the tail to allow the parachute to be unfurled out of a gap between the horizontal stabilizers of the fuselage, and wherein the parachute deployment system comprises an enclosure to enclose a parachute with a trigger mechanism coupled with the enclosure to trigger ejection of the parachute into deployed state, the trigger mechanism being operatively linked to a controller for controlling actuation of the trigger mechanism (Claim 41). However, Nadir teaches: Claim 39 - an aft section of a fuselage of an aircraft (300 or 400) comprises a parachute deployment system (302 or 402) to enable deployment of a parachute (302 or 402) in a rearward and downward direction during substantial failure of the thrust units and/or control surfaces, (Figure 4); Claim 41 - wherein the parachute deployment system (302 or 402) is arranged to deploy the parachute (302 or 402) from an opening provided in the tapering floor section tapering towards the tail to allow the parachute to be unfurled out of a gap between the horizontal stabilizers of the fuselage, and wherein the parachute deployment system (302 or 402) comprises an enclosure (306 or 406) to enclose a parachute with a trigger mechanism coupled with the enclosure to trigger ejection of the parachute (302 or 402) into deployed state, the trigger mechanism being operatively linked to a controller for controlling actuation of the trigger mechanism, (Figure 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft of Bova et al. to have wherein an aft section of the fuselage comprises a parachute deployment system to enable deployment of a parachute in a rearward and downward direction during substantial failure of the thrust units and/or control surfaces (Claim 39); and wherein the parachute deployment system is arranged to deploy the parachute from an opening provided in the tapering floor section tapering towards the tail to allow the parachute to be unfurled out of a gap between the horizontal stabilizers of the fuselage, and wherein the parachute deployment system comprises an enclosure to enclose a parachute with a trigger mechanism coupled with the enclosure to trigger ejection of the parachute into deployed state, the trigger mechanism being operatively linked to a controller for controlling actuation of the trigger mechanism (Claim 41) as taught by Nadir for the purposes of providing a parachute for saving the aircraft in the event of total failure of all the thrust units.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32-34 are 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.
Claim 35-38 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights