DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to arguments filed 3 March 2026 for the application filed 6 November 2024 which is a 371 of PCT/US2023/021315 filed 8 May 2023 which claims priority to PRO 63/339,102 filed 6 May 2022. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-8, 11-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Long (US 2022/0126996).
- Regarding Claim 1. Long discloses an aircraft lift enhancement system (100, “vertical takeoff and landing” [0002], fig. 1-2) comprising:
an airfoil (206/208) having a leading edge and a trailing edge (illustrated by the figures) defining a longitudinal axis of the airfoil (illustrated by fig. 1-2), and a proximal end and a distal end defining a length of the airfoil (206/208 illustrated by fig. 1-2); and
at least one rotor (7-12) positioned a first distance D1 substantially behind the trailing edge (illustrated by fig. 1-2) of the airfoil (206/208) as measured along the longitudinal axis and a second distance D2 substantially vertically below a lower surface of the airfoil (206/208, illustrated by fig. 1), the at least one rotor (7-12) comprising a hub (104) and a plurality of aerodynamic blades (“blades” [0041]) extending outwards from the hub (104) a radial distance R and configured to rotate in a substantially horizontal plane around a center point CP of the rotor (illustrated by fig. 1-2).
- Regarding Claim 2. Long discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first distance D1 and the second distance D2 are measured relative to a quarter chord point CH of the airfoil, the quarter chord point CH is positioned on a chord measured between the leading edge and the trailing edge (illustrated by fig. 1, the distances are not defined further than a relationship which is satisfied by the figures of Long).
- Regarding Claim 3. Long discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the first distance D1 is about 2 times the radial distance R (fig. 1 illustrates the distance being “about” 2 times the radial distance).
- Regarding Claim 4. Long discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the second distance D2 is about 0.7 times the radial distance R (fig. 1 illustrates the distance being “about” .7 times the radial distance).
- Regarding Claim 5. Long discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first distance D1 is such that the positioning of the at least one rotor (7-12) results in a longitudinal overlap of the trailing edge of the airfoil and the at least one rotor of less than 0.125 times the radial distance R (fig.1 illustrates the lack of overlap with the trailing edge of the airfoil).
- Regarding Claim 6. Long discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one rotor (7-12) comprises a plurality of rotors positioned the first distance D1 and the second distance D2 from the airfoil (206/208) and adjacent one another along the length of the airfoil (fig. 2 illustrates three rotors per wing aligned).
- Regarding Claim 7. Long discloses the system of claim 6, wherein each of the plurality of rotors (7-12) is separated from each respective adjacent rotor by a blade-tip to blade-tip spacing of about 0.25 times the radial distance R (fig. 2 illustrates the spacing being “about” .25 times radial distance).
- Regarding Claim 8. Long discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the airfoil has an asymmetrical shape (fig. 1 illustrates the asymmetrical airfoil).
- Regarding Claim 9. Long discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one rotor is driven by an electric motor (“electrically powered aircraft” [0037]).
- Regarding Claim 11. Long discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the proximal end of the airfoil (206/208) is connected to a fuselage (110) of an aircraft (illustrated by fig. 1).
- Regarding Claim 12. Long discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one rotor (7-12) is connected to the airfoil (206/208) via a mounting bracket (106, illustrated by fig. 1-2).
- Regarding Claim 13. Long discloses an aircraft (100, fig. 1-2) comprising:
a fuselage (110) having a front end and a tail end defining a longitudinal axis of the aircraft, a first lateral side, and a second lateral side opposite the first lateral side (illustrated by fig. 2);
a first airfoil (206) having a first leading edge and a first trailing edge substantially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft (100), and a first proximal end and a first distal end defining a length of the airfoil, the first proximal end is connected to the first lateral side of the fuselage (110, illustrated by fig. 2);
a second airfoil (208) having a second leading edge and a second trailing edge substantially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the aircraft (100), and a second proximal end and a second distal end defining a length of the airfoil, the second proximal end is connected to the second lateral side of the fuselage (110, illustrated by fig. 2);
at least one first rotor (10-12) positioned a first distance D1 substantially behind the first trailing edge of the first airfoil as measured along the longitudinal axis and a second distance D2 substantially vertically below a first lower surface of the first airfoil (206, illustrated by fig. 1); and
at least one second rotor (7-9) positioned the first distance D1 substantially behind the second trailing edge of the second airfoil as measured along the longitudinal axis and the second distance D2 substantially vertically below a second lower surface of the second airfoil (208, illustrated by fig. 2);
each of the at least one first rotor and the at least one second rotor comprising a hub (104) and a plurality of aerodynamic blades (“blades” [0041]) extending outwards from the hub a radial distance R and configured to rotate in a substantially horizontal plane around a center point CP of the rotor (7-12, illustrated by fig. 2).
- Regarding Claim 14. Long discloses the aircraft of claim 13, wherein the first distance D1 and the second distance D2 are measured relative to a first quarter chord point CH1 of the first airfoil and a second quarter chord point CH2 of the second airfoil, the first quarter chord point CHI is positioned on a chord measured between the first leading edge and the first trailing edge, and the second quarter chord point CH2 is positioned on a chord measured between the second leading edge and the second trailing edge (illustrated by fig. 2, the distances are not defined further that a relationship which is satisfied by the figures of Malvestuto).
- Regarding Claim 15. Long discloses the aircraft of claim 13, wherein the first distance D1 is about 2 times the radial distance R (see claim 3).
- Regarding Claim 16. Long discloses the aircraft of claim 13, wherein the second distance D2 is about 0.7 times the radial distance R (see claim 4).
- Regarding Claim 17. Long discloses the aircraft of claim 13, wherein the first distance D1 is such that the positioning of each of the at least one first rotor and at least one second rotor results in a longitudinal overlap of the trailing edge of the respective airfoil and the respective rotor of less than 0.125 times the radial distance R (see claim 5).
- Regarding Claim 18. Long discloses the aircraft of claim 13, wherein the at least one first rotor comprises a plurality of first rotors positioned the first distance D1 and the second distance D2 from the first airfoil and adjacent one another along the length of the first airfoil, and the at least one second rotor comprises a plurality of second rotors positioned the first distance D1 and the second distance D2 from the second airfoil and adjacent one another along the length of the second airfoil (see claim 6).
- Regarding Claim 19. Long discloses the aircraft of claim 18, wherein each of the plurality of first rotors and the plurality of second rotors is separated from each respective adjacent rotor by a blade-tip to blade- tip spacing of about 0.25 times the radial distance R (see claim 7).
- Regarding Claim 20. Long discloses the aircraft of claim 13, wherein each of the first airfoil and the second airfoil has an asymmetrical shape (see claim 8).
- Regarding Claim 21. Long discloses the aircraft of claim 13, wherein each of the at least one first rotor and the at least one second rotor is driven by a respective electric motor (see claim 9).
- Regarding Claim 23. Long discloses the aircraft of claim 13, wherein the at least one first rotor is connected to the first airfoil via a first mounting bracket and the at least one second rotor is connected to the second airfoil via a second mounting bracket (see claim 12).
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.
Claims 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long in view of Obviousness.
- Regarding Claim 10. Long discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one rotor is driven (“electrically powered aircraft” [0037]). Long does not disclose the drive means as being a wet fuel engine.
However, the examiner contends it is well known in the art that an electrically driven rotor can also utilize a turbine engine or an electric motor connected to a battery. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed to have provided for whatever form of a conventional power source was deemed appropriate for the application given the disclosure of Long teaches power sources of conventional means. Further, the examiner contends that the criticality of an electric motor or wet fuel engine is brought into question as both options are provided for within the claims.
- Regarding Claim 22. Long discloses the aircraft of claim 13, wherein the at least one rotor is driven (“electrically powered aircraft” [0037]). Long does not disclose the drive means as being a wet fuel engine.
However, the examiner contends it is well known in the art that an electrically driven rotor can also utilize a turbine engine or an electric motor connected to a battery. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed to have provided for whatever form of a conventional power source was deemed appropriate for the application given the disclosure of Long teaches power sources of conventional means. Further, the examiner contends that the criticality of an electric motor or wet fuel engine is brought into question as both options are provided for within the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYE W ABELL whose telephone number is (303) 297-4408. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1500 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TYE WILLIAM ABELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644 13 March 2026