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 .
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 1-5, 8, and 10-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a first rotary wing part including a plurality of rotary wings… and a second rotary wing part” contradicts the earlier limitation “a rotary wing part” because it requires a single part to instead be multiple parts. This similarly applies to “a first rotary wing part including a plurality of rotary wings”.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claims 2-5, 8, 10-11, and 13 are rejected for depending on a rejected 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arata (US 7137589 B2) in view of Li (CN 107697268 A).
Regarding claim 1, Arata (US 7137589 B2) discloses an aircraft including:
a body part (Arata, figure 1, item 12);
a main wing (Arata, figure 1, items 20 and 22) extending in a horizontal direction from the body part so as to intersect with a longitudinal direction (Arata, figure 1, wings extending laterally from the fuselage); and
a rotary wing part (Arata, figure 1, item 14) disposed on the aircraft (Bosworth, figures 2-4, items 144),
wherein the rotary wing part includes:
a first rotary wing part including a rotary wing (Arata, figure 1, item 14) configured to generate vertical thrust for the aircraft (Arata, figure 1, item 14, rotary wing provide vertical thrust for the aircraft), a propeller rotation axis of the rotary wing being along a direction that includes an upper-lower direction component (Arata, figure 1, item 14, rotary wing rotate in the vertical direction);
the main wing having, at a position in the main wing outside the body part, a rotary portion (Arata, figure 5, shows the wing fold mechanism for rotating the outer wing portions) that is able to rotate an outer portion (Arata, figures 1-4, items 24a and 26a) of the main wing outside the position in the main wing, along a rotation direction with a rotation axis being the longitudinal direction, with respect to an extension direction of the main wing (Arata, figures 3-4, items 24a and 26a, wings rotated downwards in a rotation axis being aligned with the longitudinal axis) except:
wherein the rotary wing part further includes:
wherein the first rotary wing part further includes a plurality of rotary wings and a propeller rotation axis of each of the plurality of rotary wings being along a direction that includes an upper-lower direction component; and
a second rotary wing part configured to generate horizontal thrust for the aircraft, a propeller rotation axis of the second rotary wing part being along a direction that includes a longitudinal direction component.
Li (CN 107697268 A) teaches a first rotary wing part including plurality of rotary wings (Li, figure 1, items 7-10) wherein each of the plurality of rotary wings being along a direction that includes an upper-lower direction component (Li, figure 1, items 7-10, propellers arranged in the vertical direction); and
a second rotary wing part configured to generate horizontal thrust for the aircraft (Li, figure 1, item 6), a propeller rotation axis of the second rotary wing part being along a direction that includes a longitudinal direction component (Li, figure 1, item 6, horizontal propeller).
Arata and Li are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotary wing part of Arata with the plurality of vertical rotors/propellers and the longitudinal/forward propeller of Li with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase redundancy of the vertical lift system and to provide forward thrust to propel the aircraft efficiently in wings level flight.
Regarding claim 2, Arata as modified by Li teaches the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the main wing includes, at a tip portion of the main wing, a landing portion (Arata, figures 3-5, items 24a, 24b, 32a, and 32b, tips of wing include wheels) that is able to be installed on a landing surface in a downward rotated state (Arata, figures 3-5, items 32a and 32b, wheels on a surface).
Regarding claim 3, Arata as modified by Li teaches the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the rotary portion is disposed such that the outer portion of the main wing is rotatable by 90 degrees or more with respect to the extension direction of the main wing (Arata, figures 3-5, items 24a, 24b, outward portion of wing rotates 90 degrees with respect to the lateral direction).
Regarding claim 4, Arata as modified by Li teaches the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the main wing includes a shock mitigation device (Arata, figures 2-5, item 32a-b).
Regarding claim 5, Arata as modified by Li teaches the aircraft according to claim 4, wherein the shock mitigation device is disposed on the main wing and is deformable or movable in the extension direction of the main wing (Arata, figures 2-5, item 32a-b, wheel rotates with wing tip).
Regarding claim 8, Arata as modified by Li teaches the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the body part is configured to be able to mount a payload and a plurality of batteries inside (Arata, figure 1, item 12, body is capable of including a payload and batteries inside).
Regarding claim 12, Arata (US 7137589 B2) discloses an aircraft control method for controlling an aircraft,
the aircraft including:
a body part (Arata, figure 1, item 12);
a main wing (Arata, figure 1, items 20 and 22) extending in a horizontal direction from the body part so as to intersect with a longitudinal direction (Arata, figure 1, wings extending laterally from the fuselage); and
a rotary wing part (Arata, figure 1, item 14) disposed on the aircraft,
wherein the rotary wing part includes:
a first rotary wing part includes a rotary wing (Arata, figure 1, item 14) configured to generate vertical thrust for the aircraft (Arata, figure 1, item 14, rotary wing provide vertical thrust for the aircraft), a propeller rotation axis of the rotary wing being along a direction that includes an upper-lower direction component (Arata, figure 1, item 14, rotary wing rotate in the vertical direction);
the main wing having, at a position in the main wing outside the body part, a rotary portion (Arata, figure 5, shows the wing fold mechanism for rotating the outer wing portions) that is able to rotate an outer portion (Arata, figures 1-4, items 24a and 26a) of the main wing outside the position in the main wing, along a rotation direction with a rotation axis being the longitudinal direction, with respect to an extension direction of the main wing (Arata, figures 3-4, items 24a and 26a, wings rotated downwards in a rotation axis being aligned with the longitudinal axis),
the aircraft control method including controlling the main wing to bring the main wing to a folded state by the rotary portion when the aircraft moves downward for landing during flight of the aircraft (Arata, col 1 line 45 – line 57, wings are rotated downwards to act as landing struts) except:
wherein the rotary wing part further includes:
wherein the first rotary wing part further includes a plurality of rotary wings and a propeller rotation axis of each of the plurality of rotary wings being along a direction that includes an upper-lower direction component; and
a second rotary wing part configured to generate horizontal thrust for the aircraft, a propeller rotation axis of the second rotary wing part being along a direction that includes a longitudinal direction component.
Li (CN 107697268 A) teaches a first rotary wing part including plurality of rotary wings (Li, figure 1, items 7-10) wherein each of the plurality of rotary wings being along a direction that includes an upper-lower direction component (Li, figure 1, items 7-10, propellers arranged in the vertical direction); and
a second rotary wing part configured to generate horizontal thrust for the aircraft (Li, figure 1, item 6), a propeller rotation axis of the second rotary wing part being along a direction that includes a longitudinal direction component (Li, figure 1, item 6, horizontal propeller).
Arata and Li are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotary wing part of Arata with the plurality of vertical rotors/propellers and the longitudinal/forward propeller of Li with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase redundancy of the vertical lift system and to provide forward thrust to propel the aircraft efficiently in wings level flight.
Regarding claim 13, Arata as modified by Li teaches the aircraft control method according to claim 12, comprising controlling the main wing to bring a part of the main wing into contact with a landing surface when the aircraft lands (Arata, claim 8, distal ends of the wing support the aircraft on landing).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arata (US 7137589 B2) in view of Li (CN 107697268 A), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Pitre (US 20220267017 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Arata as modified by Li teaches the aircraft according to claim 8, except:
wherein the batteries are positioned with a space in between, in which the payload is mounted.
Pitre (US 20220267017 A1) teaches an aircraft wherein batteries (Pitre, figure 2, item 24r and 24l) are positioned with a space (Pitre, figure 2, item 18) in between, in which the payload (Pitre, figure 2, item 18c, luggage compartment) is mounted.
Arata as modified by Li and Pitre are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the batteries with the body part of Arata as modified by Li with batteries with a space in between them located in the body part of Pitre with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an energy source for the propulsion system of the aircraft.
Such a modified aircraft would meet the requirements for a payload between batteries.
Regarding claim 11 (as best understood), Arata as modified by Li and Pitre teaches aircraft according to claim 10, wherein when the body part is viewed from front, the space in which the mounting part is mounted extends from above to below (Arata, figure 1, item 12, body is capable of including a payload and batteries inside, body extends from top to bottom).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6 of applicant’s reply, filed 09/07/2026, with respect to drawing objections and claim rejections of claims 9-10 under 35 USC § 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 8, and 10-13 under 35 USC § 102/103 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.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 12 incorporate a modified version of the limitations from claim 6 (this limitation requires a plurality of rotary wings configured to generate vertical thrust as opposed to merely one being required in cancelled claim 6). This necessitated a new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that claim 7 was not rejected previously and that this means that the subject matter of claim 7 being incorporated into claims 1 and 12 make these claims allowable. Claim 7 was previously rejected, although an error omitted claim 7 from the heading of the claim rejection (see page 10 of the office action mailed 06/11/2026 under the heading for claim 6). The relevant part reads “Bosworth (US 11046416 B2) teaches a rotary wing part including: a rotary wing part [that] includes a rotary wing part that generates horizontal thrust against the aircraft (Bosworth, figure 6, item 144).
Arata and Bosworth are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Arata with the payload attached to the rotary wing generating horizontal thrust against the aircraft of Bosworth with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide forward thrust to propel the aircraft efficiently in wings level flight.”
Nevertheless, this matter has been addressed in claims 1 and 12 above by Li. This new reference was required to address the plurality of rotary wings configured to generate vertical thrust.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 106275416 A/ CN 113306354 A / RU 2681423 C1 / US 10131426 B2 teach 4 rotors on booms and a horizontal propeller.
CN 105775128 A teaches a vtol aircraft with wings
US 6126113 A teaches a helicopter with a storage compartment (item 36) and a battery behind (item 38)
US 11021245 B2 teaches a vtol aircraft with folding wingtips used as landing gear
US 11117674 B2 teaches batteries (figs 3-4, item 11) and a space (figs 3-4, item 14) between the batteries; a cargo compartment (figs 3-4, item 17)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 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, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights