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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1−15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a ducted propulsor comprising a duct and a propulsor housed within the duct” and recites that “a bottom surface of the propulsor is positioned at a vertical distance from the fuselage that is at least 30% of the outer diameter of the propulsor” (emphasis added). Where the propulsor is housed within the duct and comprises a rotor with a plurality of blades, the bottom surface of the propulsor is considered the bottom of the lowest blade of the rotor. Applicant’s disclosure makes no mention of a specific distance to the lowest point of the lowest blade.
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 16−17 and 19−21 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 10,377,488 to Reusch et al. (“Reusch”).
Regarding claim 16, Reusch teaches an aircraft comprising:
a fuselage 102;
a wing (104, 106) attached to an upper surface of the fuselage (col. 3 lines 34−37), the wing comprising a leading edge and a trailing edge (fig. 1);
a pylon 102a attached to an upper surface of the aircraft behind the trailing edge of the wing and extending away from the upper surface of the aircraft (fig. 1); and
a propulsor (propeller assembly 112 comprised of blades 144 and central shaft 146, see col. 5 lines 53−55) attached to the pylon (fig. 1), wherein a bottom surface of the propulsor is attached to a top end of the pylon (i.e. bottom surface at central shaft 146 is mounted to top of tail 102a as described in col. 5 lines 53−55).
Regarding claim 17, Reusch teaches that a height of the pylon is slightly less than an outer diameter of the propulsor (where the pylon 102a extends to the central shaft of the propulsor which is roughly the height of one of the propeller blades, or 50% of the outer diameter of the propulsor).
Regarding claim 19, Reusch teaches one or more empennages (longitudinal stabilizers 120), wherein any empennage of the aircraft is attached to a wing of the aircraft (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Reusch teaches at least one payload (nose camera 134) within the fuselage and positioned at the forward end of the fuselage in front of a leading edge of the wing (in nose compartment 114).
Regarding claim 21, Reusch teaches that a first end of the pylon is attached to the upper surface of the aircraft and the propulsor is attached to a second end of the pylon that is opposite the first end (fig. 1).
Claims 16 and 19−21 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0267472 to Pratzovnick et al. (“Pratzovnick”).
Regarding claim 16, Pratzovnick teaches an aircraft comprising:
a fuselage 120;
a wing 160 attached to an upper surface of the fuselage (from para. [0267]: “the wings 160 are fixedly attached to an upper portion of the fuselage 120 at the respective wing roots”), the wing comprising a leading edge and a trailing edge (fig. 1);
a pylon (shown at ref. num. 184 in fig. 7)1 attached to an upper surface of the aircraft behind the trailing edge of the wing and extending away from the upper surface of the aircraft (fig. 7; para. [0268]); and
a propulsor (propulsion system 180 having nacelles 182) attached to the pylon, wherein a bottom surface of the propulsor is attached to a top end of the pylon (where fig. 7 clearly shows bottom of nacelle 182 attached to the pylon; see also fig. 12b and para. [0268]).
Regarding claim 19, Pratzovnick teaches one or more empennages, wherein any empennage of the aircraft is attached to a wing of the aircraft (para. [0265]: “[e]ach wing 160…comprises a vertical stabilizer in the form of winglet 165 at the respective tip 164” where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the vertical stabilizers as constituting empennages).
Regarding claim 20, Pratzovnick teaches at least one payload (sensor/emitter modules M1 and M2) within the fuselage and positioned at a forward end of the fuselage in front of the leading edge of the wing (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, Pratzovnick teaches that a first end of the pylon is attached to the upper surface of the aircraft and the propulsor is attached to a second end of the pylon that is opposite the first end (fig. 7; para. [0268]).
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 1−15 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Reusch in view of US Patent No. 8,333,348 to Miller.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood (see §112(a) rejection above), Reusch teaches an aircraft comprising:
a fuselage 102 comprising a forward end (“nose end”) and an aft end (near 102a);
a wing (104, 106) attached to an upper surface of the fuselage (col. 3 lines 34−37);
a pylon 102a attached to the upper surface of the fuselage at a location along the aft end of the fuselage and extending in an upward direction away from the fuselage (fig. 1); and
a ducted propulsor 112 comprising a duct 150 and a propulsor (blades 144 driven by shaft 146) housed within the duct (fig. 1),
wherein the propulsor comprises a rotor comprising a plurality of blades 144 that define an outer diameter of the propulsor,
wherein the propulsor is configured to generate thrust based on rotation of the rotor (where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the propeller as generating thrust, see also col. 6 lines 18−22);
wherein a positioning of the wing relative to the propulsor provides acoustic shielding at at least a portion of the fuselage from noise emanating from a forward end of the propulsor (where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand fig. 3 as showing a portion of the fuselage forward of the wings being shielded from noise emanating from a forward end of the propulsor).
Reusch fails to teach the relative locations for the fuselage and propulsor. In reducing the device of Reusch to practice, it would have been obvious to select a suitable relative height for the bottom surface of the propulsor, such as with a bottom surface of the propulsor positioned at a vertical distance from the fuselage that is at least 30% of the outer diameter of the propulsor, as a matter of routine design choice, where it is readily understood by those of ordinary skill that a ducted propulsor is ideally placed sufficiently above the boundary layer and into the freestream air for better propulsor performance.
Reusch fails to teach one or more tails positioned behind the wing; wherein the ducted propulsor is positioned ahead of the one or more tails. Miller teaches an aircraft having single fuselage 14 (fig. 5), wings 20 connected to an upper surface of the fuselage (where fig. 5 is a top view illustration), and a boom 60 attached to an end of the wing 22 opposite the fuselage (portion 82 of wing tip 22, see fig. 6); and a horizontal tail (tip tail element 58, which has both a horizontal and vertical component, see fig. 4) attached at a location along an aft end the boom (first end 76 of boom element 60) and extending in a horizontal direction away from the boom (figs. 5−6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the wingtip booms of Miller onto the wings of Reusch because Miller teaches that the booms are suitable for the type of aircraft of Reusch (i.e. a single fuselage having a high-wing configuration that is a “lower wing aspect ratio” air vehicle; see Miller col. 4 lines 4−23) and because Miller teaches that the wingtip booms alleviate gust loads that cause bending and weakening or outright failure of the wings (Miller col. 5 lines 32−61). In such an arrangement, the one or more tails are positioned behind the wing; and the ducted propulsor would be positioned ahead of the one or more tails.
Regarding claim 2, Reusch as modified teaches that the aircraft is a drone or an unmanned aircraft (col. 5 lines 1−6).
Regarding claim 3, Reusch as modified teaches that the fuselage is a singular, continuous structure (figs. 1−2).
Regarding claim 4, Reusch as modified teaches that the pylon sweeps aftward of the fuselage (fig. 1) and is orientated at an oblique angle relative to an upper surface of the fuselage (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Reusch as modified teaches at least one payload (nose camera 134) within the fuselage and positioned at the forward end of the fuselage in front of a leading edge of the wing (in nose compartment 114),
wherein the at least one payload is located within the portion of the fuselage shielded from the noise emanating from the forward end of the propulsor (where one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret fig. 3 as showing nose compartment 114 as being shielded from noise emanating from the propulsor by the wings).
Regarding claim 6, Reusch as modified teaches that the at least one payload comprises a camera (nose camera 134).
Regarding claim 7, Reusch as modified teaches that the at least one payload comprises one or more of a sensor, a radar sensor, a lidar sensor, an audio sensor, a vibration sensor, a microphone, or a directional microphone (where one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret nose camera 134 as being a sensor in that it senses visible light).
Regarding claim 8, Reusch as modified teaches that the at least one payload comprises one or more of intelligence equipment, surveillance equipment, or reconnaissance equipment (where one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret a camera transmitting images to the ground as constituting intelligence and surveillance equipment, and the relaying of the video feed to on-ground operators as constituting the camera as reconnaissance equipment, see col. 5 lines 1−19).
Regarding claims 9−10, Reusch as modified teaches a controller (UAS control system 124) comprising one or more processors and memory (col. 6 lines 35−41), wherein the controller is configured to control one or more control surfaces of the aircraft (col. 4 lines 18−22).
Regarding claim 11, Reusch as modified teaches that the wing is dihedral relative to the fuselage (col. 3 lines 39−42).
Regarding claim 12, Reusch as modified teaches that the wing comprises a first side attached to a right side of the fuselage and a second side attached to a left side of the fuselage (fig. 1), and wherein the wing is a singular, continuous surface (where one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the high-wing configuration from “high-wing or shoulder-wing configuration” in col. 3 lines 35−36 as having a wing that is a singular, continuous surface).
Regarding claim 13, Reusch as modified teaches one or more empennages (tail 102a and longitudinal stabilizers 120), wherein any empennage of the aircraft is attached to a wing of the aircraft (fig. 1, where the tail 102a is attached to the wing via the fuselage).
Regarding claim 14, Reusch as modified teaches that the one or more empennages comprises the one or more tails, and wherein the one or more tails comprises vertical tails extending in an upward vertical direction (Miller fig. 4, where the tip tail element 58 is angled upwards and outwards from the rest of the aircraft, giving the tails a vertical component).
Regarding claim 15, Reusch as modified teaches that the pylon is attached to an upper surface of the fuselage (fig. 1).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Reusch as applied to claim 16, and further in view of US Patent No. 8,333,348 to Miller.
Regarding claim 22, Reusch teaches as discussed above for claim 16, but fails to teach booms attached to the end of the wings.
Miller teaches an aircraft having single fuselage 14 (fig. 5), wings 20 connected to an upper surface of the fuselage (where fig. 5 is a top view illustration), and a boom 60 attached to an end of the wing 22 opposite the fuselage (portion 82 of wing tip 22, see fig. 6); and
a horizontal tail (tip tail element 58) attached at a location along an aft end the boom (first end 76 of boom element 60) and extending in a horizontal direction away from the boom (figs. 5−6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the wingtip booms of Miller onto the wings of Reusch because Miller teaches that the booms are suitable for the type of aircraft of Reusch (i.e. a single fuselage having a high-wing configuration that is a “lower wing aspect ratio” air vehicle; see Miller col. 4 lines 4−23) and because Miller teaches that the wingtip booms alleviate gust loads that cause bending and weakening or outright failure of the wings.
Claims 17−18 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Pratzovnick.
Regarding claims 17−18, Pratzovnick fails to teach that a height of the pylon is at least 30% of an outer diameter of the propulsor, or that a height of the pylon is sufficient to cause an inlet of the propulsor to receive, during operation, a substantially uniform flow of air. One of ordinary skill in the art is aware that a boundary layer of slow air forms along surfaces in flight, and that engine inlets placed outside the boundary layer receive a more uniform airflow to the engine, which results in greater efficiency for the engine in producing thrust. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select an appropriate height, such as a height of the pylon that is at least 30% of an outer diameter of the propulsor, in order to provide optimal conditions, thereby improving the efficiency of the engine.
Claims 22−27 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Pratzovnick in view of Miller.
Regarding claim 22, Pratzovnick teaches as discussed above for claim 16, but fails to teach booms attached to the end of the wings.
Miller teaches an aircraft having single fuselage 14 (fig. 5), wings 20 connected to an upper surface of the fuselage (where fig. 5 is a top view illustration), and a boom 60 attached to an end of the wing 22 opposite the fuselage (portion 82 of wing tip 22, see fig. 6); and
a horizontal tail (tip tail element 58) attached at a location along an aft end the boom (first end 76 of boom element 60) and extending in a horizontal direction away from the boom (figs. 5−6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the wingtip booms of Miller onto the wings of Pratzovnick because Miller teaches that the booms are suitable for the type of aircraft of Pratzovnick (see Miller col. 4 lines 4−23) and because Miller teaches that the wingtip booms alleviate gust loads that cause bending and weakening or outright failure of the wings.
Regarding claim 23, Pratzovnick teaches an aircraft comprising:
a fuselage 120;
a wing 160 attached to an upper surface of the fuselage (from para. [0267]: “the wings 160 are fixedly attached to an upper portion of the fuselage 120 at the respective wing roots”), the wing comprising a leading edge and a trailing edge (fig. 1);
a pylon (shown at ref. num. 184 in fig. 7; see previous footnote) attached to an upper surface of the aircraft behind the trailing edge of the wing and extending away from the upper surface of the aircraft (fig. 7; para. [0268]); and
a propulsor (propulsion system 180 having nacelles 182) attached to a top end of the pylon (where fig. 7 clearly shows bottom of nacelle 182 attached to the top of the pylon; see also fig. 12b and para. [0268]) and above the upper surface of the aircraft (where fig. 1 clearly shows the nacelles above the upper surface of the aircraft).
Pratzovnick fails to teach that a height of the pylon is sufficient to cause an inlet of the propulsor to receive, during operation, a substantially uniform flow of air. One of ordinary skill in the art is aware that a boundary layer of slow air forms along surfaces in flight, and that engine inlets placed outside the boundary layer receive a more uniform airflow to the engine, which results in greater efficiency for the engine in producing thrust. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select an appropriate height in order to provide optimal conditions, thereby improving the efficiency of the engine.
Pratzovnick fails to teach one or more tails positioned behind the wing; wherein aft end of the propulsor is positioned ahead of the one or more tails. Miller teaches an aircraft having fuselage 14 (fig. 5), wings 20 connected to an upper surface of the fuselage (where fig. 5 is a top view illustration), and a boom 60 attached to an end of the wing 22 opposite the fuselage (portion 82 of wing tip 22, see fig. 6); and a tail (tip tail element 58, see fig. 4) attached at a location along an aft end the boom (first end 76 of boom element 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the wingtip booms and tails of Miller onto the wings of Pratzovnick because Miller teaches that the booms are suitable for the type of aircraft of Pratzovnick and because Miller teaches that the wingtip booms alleviate gust loads that cause bending and weakening or outright failure of the wings (Miller col. 5 lines 32−61). In such an arrangement, the one or more tails are positioned behind the wing; and an aft end of the propulsor would be positioned ahead of the one or more tails.
Regarding claim 24, for Pratzovnick as modified, Pratzovnick teaches as discussed above in claim 19. Additionally, the tip tail elements 58 of Miller can be considered empennages.
Regarding claim 25, for Pratzovnick as modified, Pratzovnick fails to teach that the wing is constructed of a composite material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select composite materials for the material of the wing, since composites are well-known materials in aeronautics, and a composite wing provides sufficient rigidity while reducing weight compared to a metal wing.
Regarding claim 26, for Pratzovnick as modified, Pratzovnick teaches that the pylon sweeps aftward of the fuselage and is orientated at an oblique angle relative to the upper surface of the fuselage (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 27, for Pratzovnick as modified, Pratzovnick teaches as discussed above in claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to claim 1 are overcome by the above §103 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to claim 16 and Reusch is not found persuasive, since “propeller assembly 112” of Reusch is disclosed as including central shaft 146, and the bottom of this central shaft 146 is attached to the top end of the pylon as discussed above.
Similarly, Pratzovnick discloses that propulsion system 180 includes nacelles 182, and it is the bottom surface of these nacelles which is attached to the top of strut 184.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the tails postioned behind the wing in claim 23 is addressed in the above §103 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments on page 10 rely on a generalization which would not be made by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant essentially argues that Pratzovnick teaches an aft fairing which takes an aerodynamic penalty in return for greater functionality. Applicant then generalizes to state that one of ordinary skill in the art is not concerned with drag or aerodynamic efficiency. This cannot be so. Aeronautical engineers are deeply concerned with drag and aerodynamic efficiency for fixed-wing aircraft. For example, any drag penalty results in more fuel spent to accomplish the same goal. An Airborne Early Warning aircraft must, above all else, be airborne. Although the aeronautical engineers determined that a small aerodynamic penalty was worthwhile to improve radar capabilities, these engineers would not have, for example, attached streamers along the wing to create additional drag.
Applicant goes on to state that “the Office Action does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Pratzovnick’s teachings to arrive at what's claimed in independent claim 23 if doing so would have detrimentally impacted the radar capabilities of Pratzovnick' s aircraft.” Applicant has mistakenly concluded that all aerodynamic improvements elsewhere would negatively impact the aircraft’s radar capabilities. Applicant has mistakenly concluded that it is poorer aerodynamics in general which result in greater radar capabilities. This is not so. The blunt aft end shape provides greater radar capabilities for radar beams passing through that blunt aft end. An aerodynamic penalty elsewhere, such as streamers on the wings, would not improve transmission of radar beams through the blunt aft end.
Conclusion
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 Michael B Kreiner whose telephone number is (571)270-5379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/M.B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 4/7/2026
1 NOTE: Paragraph [0268] describes a streamlined strut 184 mounting each nacelle 182 in a transverse direction, where the streamlined strut 184 “is in turn mounted on the dorsal surface 129 of the fuselage 120, via streamlined pylon 186 (see FIG. 7).” However, figure 7 does not include reference numeral 186. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand this strut/pylon structure as being essentially T-shaped, with strut 184 forming the crossbar of the “T” and pylon 186 forming the stem of the “T.” As such, one of ordinary skill would consider the part labeled 184 in fig. 7 to actually be the streamlined pylon 186, with strut 184 being correctly labeled in fig. 4 and elsewhere.
Prosecution Insights