DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/10/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1, 13, and 18 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4 and 7-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baharav et al. (US 2022/0009626 A1) in view of Bevirt et al. (US 2020/0148347 A1), Tao (US 2021/0253234 A1), Kroo (US 8,485,464), and Anderson et al. (US 2018/0079493 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baharav teaches an aircraft comprising: a fuselage (#110); a wing connected to the fuselage (#200); a first boom connected to a first side of the fuselage and a first side of the tail assembly (#400; Fig. 1); a second boom connected to a second, opposite side of the fuselage and a second, opposite side of the tail assembly (#400; Fig. 1, two booms shown on opposite starboard and port sides); the propulsion systems including: first and second forward propulsion systems (#650, forward two Fig. 4) connected to forward ends of the first and second booms (Fig. 4); first and second aft propulsion systems (#650, aft two Fig. 4) fixedly attached proximate aft ends of the first and second booms (Fig. 4); a first wing-mounted propulsion system (#750, two attached to #200, Fig 7) connected to a first side of the wing (Fig. 7); and a second wing-mounted propulsion system (#750, two attached to #200, Fig 7) connected to a second, opposite side of the wing (Fig. 7; two #750 shown attached at opposite ends of wing #200), wherein the first and second wing-mounted propulsion systems are tiltable between a first position when the aircraft is in the hover mode (Fig. 6) and a second position when the aircraft is in the cruise mode (Fig. 5), and wherein each of the propulsion systems includes a rotor assembly comprising a plurality of rotor blades (Fig. 6).
Baharav does not appear to teach the first and second forward propulsion systems are tiltably connected; wherein the tail assembly is not directly connected to the fuselage.
However, in an analogous aircraft art, Tao teaches wherein the first and second forward propulsion systems (#10) are tiltably connected ([0018]; Figs. 3/4) to forward ends of the first and second booms (#28; Fig. 1) such that the first and second forward propulsion systems are tiltable between a first position when the aircraft is in the hover mode (#13) and a second position when the aircraft is in the cruise mode (#14); wherein the tail assembly is not directly connected to the fuselage (As shown in Figs. 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the front propellers of Baharav to be tiltable; wherein the tail assembly is not directly connected to the fuselage, as taught by Tao, with a reasonable expectation for success since doing so would allow the propellers to operate in both hover mode and cruise mode, therefore, capable of contributing to the balance in hover mode as well as providing additional thrust for cruise mode to travel faster without the addition of more propellers. Further, since a simple substitution of one known element for another, such as one aircraft tail configuration for another, would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Baharav as modified by Tao does not expressly disclose no more than six propulsion systems, the propulsion systems.
However, in an analogous tiltrotor art, Bevirt teaches comprising no more than six propulsion systems (Figs. 1A-1B & 14A-18C shows no more than six propulsion systems).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Baharav as modified by Tao to further include no more than six propulsion systems with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Bevirt, since “the desired hover arrangement can include six propeller discs arranged in a hexagonal configuration, wherein each disc area centroid is substantially equidistant from the CoG of the aircraft 100 as at least one other disc area reflected across the roll or pitch axes of the aircraft 100 (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 1A and 3), whereas the desired forward arrangement can include the six propeller discs rotated 90° (e.g., such that the rotation axes of each propeller 122 are substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis) and translated toward the portion of the airframe 110 to which they are attached at the propulsion assembly attachment points (e.g., as shown in FIG. 1B). However, the arrangement of the propellers in each mode (e.g., the forward arrangement, the hover arrangement, etc.) can additionally or alternatively include or omit translation of any of the plurality of propellers.” (Bevirt, Para. [0041]). Further, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before, such as only using six propulsion systems of Baharav to reduce manufacturing cost, weight, and fuel/battery consumption, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Baharav as modified by Tao and Bevirt does not expressly disclose wherein each of the aft propulsions systems is angled outboard from a top surface of the one of the booms to which it is attached such that an axis of rotation of the aft propulsion system forms a non-zero angle outboard from a vertical axis.
However, in an analogous tiltrotor art, Kroo teaches wherein each of the aft propulsions systems is angled outboard from a top surface of the one of the booms to which it is attached such that an axis of rotation of the aft propulsion system forms a non-zero angle outboard from a vertical axis (As seen in Fig. 2; “In one embodiment with four rotors per side, the rotors are oriented, from front to back, 10 degrees out, 10 degrees in, 10 degrees in, and 10 degrees out.”, Col. 6, Lines 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the angle of the aft propulsion systems of Baharav as modified by Tao and Bevirt wherein each of the aft propulsions systems is angled outboard from a top surface of the one of the booms to which it is attached such that an axis of rotation of the aft propulsion system forms anon-zero angle outboard from a vertical axis, as taught by Kroo, with a reasonable expectation of success for “minimizing the disturbance to the flow during cruise” (Kroo, Col. 5, Lines 66-67).
Baharav does not expressly include having a first wing tip at a first outboard end of the wing and having a second wing tip at a second, opposite outboard end of the wing; wherein the first and second wing tips are tiltable between a first position when the aircraft is in the hover mode and a second position when the aircraft is in the cruise mode.
However, in an analogous tilt-rotor art, Anderson teaches having a first wing tip at a first outboard end of the wing and having a second wing tip at a second, opposite outboard end of the wing (Figs. 1A-1B, “winglets” 58 and 60 shown at opposite outboard ends); wherein the first and second wing tips are tiltable between a first position when the aircraft is in the hover mode (Fig. 1B) and a second position when the aircraft is in the cruise mode (Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Baharav to further include having a first wing tip at a first outboard end of the wing and having a second wing tip at a second, opposite outboard end of the wing; wherein the first and second wing tips are tiltable between a first position when the aircraft is in the hover mode and a second position when the aircraft is in the cruise mode, as taught by Anderson, with a reasonable expectation for success, since “Proprotors 38, 40 produce a generally horizontal slipstream in forward flight mode, a generally vertical slipstream in VTOL flight mode and a slipstream that is intermediate to the horizontal and vertical slipstreams in conversion flight mode. By rotating wing extensions 50, 52 and winglets 58, 60 as illustrated in FIGS. 1A-1C, minimal dimensions 68, 70 of wing extensions 50, 52 and minimal dimensions 72, 74 of winglets 58, 60, as opposed to top and broad surfaces 76, 78 of wing extensions 50, 52, remain in the slipstreams of proprotors 38, 40 in all operational modes, thereby minimizing the download forces on wing extensions 50, 52.”, as discussed by Anderson, Para. [0026].
Regarding claim 2, Baharav as modified by Tao, Bevirt, Kroo, and Anderson teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Further, Baharav teaches wherein the rotor assemblies of the first and second aft propulsion systems rotate when the aircraft is in the hover mode and cease to rotate when the aircraft is in the cruise mode ([0174]).
Regarding claim 3, Baharav as modified by Tao, Bevirt, Kroo, and Anderson teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Further, Baharav teaches wherein the rotor assemblies of the first and second forward propulsion systems rotate when the aircraft is in the hover mode and cease to rotate when the aircraft is in the cruise mode ([0174]).
Regarding claim 4, Baharav as modified by Tao, Bevirt, Kroo, and Anderson teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Further, Baharav teaches wherein the rotor assemblies of the forward propulsion systems and the wing-mounted propulsion systems include an identical number of blades (four blades for #650, [0196] states #750 could also have two sets of two blades, therefore both assemblies have the same number of blades).
Regarding claim 7, Baharav as modified by Tao, Bevirt, and Kroo teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Further, Baharav teaches wherein the wing is disposed on a top surface of the fuselage (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Baharav as modified by Tao, Bevirt, and Kroo teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Further, Baharav teaches wherein a portion of each of the booms is integrated into the wing (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Baharav as modified by Tao, Bevirt, and Kroo teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Further, Baharav teaches wherein the propulsion systems collectively comprise a hexrotor arc when the aircraft is in the hover mode (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 10, Baharav as modified by Tao, Bevirt, and Kroo teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Further, Baharav teaches wherein the first and second forward propulsion systems are located forward of the first and second wing-mounted propulsion systems (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11, Baharav as modified by Tao, Bevirt, and Kroo teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Further, Baharav teaches wherein the first and second wing-mounted propulsion systems are located outboard of the first and second forward propulsion systems (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Baharav as modified by Tao, Bevirt, and Kroo teaches the aircraft of claim 1. Further, Baharav teaches wherein the first and second aft propulsion systems are attached to a top surface of the first and second booms such that the rotor assemblies rotate above the first and second booms (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Baharav teaches an electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (eVTOL) ([0054]) selectively convertible between a hover mode and a cruise mode (Figs. 1 and 2), the eVTOL comprising: a fuselage (#110); a wing connected to a top surface of the fuselage and having opposite outboard ends (#200; Fig. 7); first and second booms connected (#400; Fig. 1) to the wing on opposite sides of the fuselage and including forward ends disposed forward of the wing (#410) and aft ends disposed aft of the wing (#420); and a propulsion arrangement for propelling the aircraft, the propulsion arrangement comprising of at least six propulsion systems (the “propulsion arrangement” of Baharav is considered to be the grouping of the forwardmost six rotors), the six propulsion systems comprising: first and second forward propulsion systems (#650, forward two, Fig. 4) attached to the forward ends of the first and second booms (Fig. 7); first and second aft propulsion systems (#650, aft two, Fig. 4) fixedly attached proximate the aft ends of the first and second booms (Fig. 7); and a first wing-mounted propulsion system (#750, two attached to #200, Fig 7) connected to a first side of the wing (Fig. 7); and a second wing-mounted propulsion system (#750, two attached to #200, Fig 7) connected to a second, opposite side of the wing (Fig. 7; two #750 shown attached at opposite ends of wing #200), wherein the first and second wing-mounted propulsion systems are tiltable between a first position when the aircraft is in the hover mode (Fig. 6) and a second position when the aircraft is in the cruise mode (Fig. 5), and wherein each of the propulsion systems includes a rotor assembly comprising a plurality of rotor blades (Fig. 6).
Baharav does not expressly disclose comprising no more than six propulsion systems.
However, in an analogous tiltrotor art, Bevirt teaches comprising no more than six propulsion systems (Figs. 1A-1B & 14A-18C shows no more than six propulsion systems).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Baharav to further include no more than six propulsion systems with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Bevirt, since “the desired hover arrangement can include six propeller discs arranged in a hexagonal configuration, wherein each disc area centroid is substantially equidistant from the CoG of the aircraft 100 as at least one other disc area reflected across the roll or pitch axes of the aircraft 100 (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 1A and 3), whereas the desired forward arrangement can include the six propeller discs rotated 90° (e.g., such that the rotation axes of each propeller 122 are substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis) and translated toward the portion of the airframe 110 to which they are attached at the propulsion assembly attachment points (e.g., as shown in FIG. 1B). However, the arrangement of the propellers in each mode (e.g., the forward arrangement, the hover arrangement, etc.) can additionally or alternatively include or omit translation of any of the plurality of propellers.” (Bevirt, Para. [0041]). Further, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before, such as only using six propulsion systems of Baharav to reduce manufacturing cost, weight, and fuel/battery consumption, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Baharav as modified by Bevirt does not expressly disclose first and second aft propulsion systems including fairings for covering masts of the first and second aft propulsions systems, wherein each of a height of the fairings relative to a radius of the aft propulsion systems and a width of the fairings relative to a width of the booms is configured to minimize rotor-boom noise.
However, in an analogous tiltrotor art, Kroo teaches first and second aft propulsion systems including fairings for covering masts of the first and second aft propulsions systems, wherein each of a height of the fairings relative to a radius of the aft propulsion systems and a width of the fairings relative to a width of the booms is configured to minimize rotor-boom noise (As seen in Figs. 1-4; “The vertical lift rotor assemblies 101 in various embodiments are protected by protective fences 110 to avoid accidental blade strikes. In some embodiments the protective fence is designed to maximize the thrust of all the rotors near the fence by providing incremental lift. In this embodiment the fence 110 is shaped so that the flow over the fence induced by the rotor system 101 creates an upward force on the fence 110. This is accomplished by selecting a cross sectional shape and angle with respect to vertical of the fence that generates the upward force. In some embodiments the fence is designed to reduce the apparent noise of the rotor system by shielding bystanders from the noise of the rotors. In these embodiments, the fences are either filled with a conventional sound absorbing material, or are coated with a conventional sounds adsorbing material.”, Col. 6, Line 55 – Col. 7, Line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aft propulsion systems of Baharav as modified by Bevirt further including fairings for covering masts of the first and second aft propulsions systems, wherein each of a height of the fairings relative to a radius of the aft propulsion systems and a width of the fairings relative to a width of the booms is configured to minimize rotor-boom noise, as taught by Kroo, with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the noise of the rotors of the aircraft, as discussed by Kroo.
Baharav does not expressly include having a first wing tip at a first outboard end of the wing and having a second wing tip at a second, opposite outboard end of the wing; wherein the first and second wing tips are tiltable between a first position when the aircraft is in the hover mode and a second position when the aircraft is in the cruise mode.
However, in an analogous tilt-rotor art, Anderson teaches having a first wing tip at a first outboard end of the wing and having a second wing tip at a second, opposite outboard end of the wing (Figs. 1A-1B, “winglets” 58 and 60 shown at opposite outboard ends); wherein the first and second wing tips are tiltable between a first position when the aircraft is in the hover mode (Fig. 1B) and a second position when the aircraft is in the cruise mode (Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Baharav to further include having a first wing tip at a first outboard end of the wing and having a second wing tip at a second, opposite outboard end of the wing; wherein the first and second wing tips are tiltable between a first position when the aircraft is in the hover mode and a second position when the aircraft is in the cruise mode, as taught by Anderson, with a reasonable expectation for success, since “Proprotors 38, 40 produce a generally horizontal slipstream in forward flight mode, a generally vertical slipstream in VTOL flight mode and a slipstream that is intermediate to the horizontal and vertical slipstreams in conversion flight mode. By rotating wing extensions 50, 52 and winglets 58, 60 as illustrated in FIGS. 1A-1C, minimal dimensions 68, 70 of wing extensions 50, 52 and minimal dimensions 72, 74 of winglets 58, 60, as opposed to top and broad surfaces 76, 78 of wing extensions 50, 52, remain in the slipstreams of proprotors 38, 40 in all operational modes, thereby minimizing the download forces on wing extensions 50, 52.”, as discussed by Anderson, Para. [0026].
Baharav does not expressly disclose wherein the tail assembly is independent from the fuselage.
However, in an analogous tiltrotor art, Tao teaches wherein the tail assembly is independent from the fuselage (As shown in Figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Baharav wherein the tail assembly is independent from the fuselage, as taught by Tao, with a reasonable expectation for success, since a simple substitution of one known element for another, such as one aircraft tail configuration for another, would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, Baharav teaches wherein the first and second aft propulsion systems are operable when the aircraft is in the hover mode and inoperable when the aircraft is in the cruise mode ([0174]).
Regarding claim 15, Baharav does not appear to teach the first and second forward propulsion systems are tiltably connected.
However, in an analogous aircraft art, Tao teaches wherein the first and second forward propulsion systems (#10) are tiltably connected ([0018]; Figs. 3/4) to forward ends of the first and second booms (#28; Fig. 1) such that the first and second forward propulsion systems are tiltable between a first position when the aircraft is in the hover mode (#13) and a second position when the aircraft is in the cruise mode (#14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the front propellers of Baharav to be tiltable, as taught by Tao, with a reasonable expectation for success since doing so would allow the propellers to operate in both hover mode and cruise mode, therefore, capable of contributing to the balance in hover mode as well as providing additional thrust for cruise mode to travel faster without the addition of more propellers.
Regarding claim 16, Baharav teaches wherein the first and second forward propulsion systems are fixedly attached to the forward ends of the first and second booms ([0165]-[0166]) and wherein the first and second forward propulsion systems are operable when the aircraft is in the hover mode and inoperable when the aircraft is in the cruise mode ([0174]).
Regarding claim 17, Baharav teaches wherein the propulsion systems collectively comprise a hexrotor arc when the aircraft is in the hover mode (Fig. 8).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baharav et al. (US 2022/0009626 A1) in view of Bevirt et al. (US 2020/0148347 A1), Tao (US 2021/0253234 A1), Kroo (US 8,485,464), and Anderson et al. (US 2018/0079493 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Lee (US 2021/0206483 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Baharav as modified by Tao, Bevirt, Kroo, and Anderson teaches the aircraft of claim 4, but does not appear to teach the aft propulsion systems having fewer blades than the forward and wing propulsion systems.
However, Baharav further teaches having fewer blades on the non-tilting propellers than the tilting propellers (Fig. 4) and all the tilting rotors having the same number of blades and the fixed rotors having the same number of blades. Baharav as modified by Tao and Bevirt teaches the forward propulsion systems being tiltable.
In an analogous aircraft art, Lee teaches wherein the rotor assemblies of the aft rotor propulsion systems (L3/L4) include fewer blades (2 blades) than the rotor assemblies of the tiltable propulsion systems (5 blades on tilting propellers T1-T4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the number of blades in Baharav as modified by Tao, Bevirt, and Kroo such that the tilting propellers have more blades than the fixed propellers, as taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would allow the tilting propellers to provide sufficient propulsion force during cruising with five blades (Lee: [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Baharav as modified by Tao, Bevirt, Kroo, and Anderson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not appear to teach the aft propulsion systems having two blades each and the forward and wing propulsion systems having five blades each.
However, Baharav further teaches having fewer blades on the non-tilting propellers than the tilting propellers (Fig. 4) and all the tilting rotors having the same number of blades and the fixed rotors having the same number of blades. Baharav as modified by Tao and Bevirt teaches the forward propulsion systems being tiltable.
In an analogous aircraft art, Lee teaches wherein the rotor assemblies of the tiltable propulsion systems include five blades each (tilting propellers T1-T4; [0034]) the rotor assemblies of the aft rotor propulsion systems (L3/L4) include two blades each (Fig. 2; [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the number of blades in Baharav as modified by Tao, Bevirt, and Kroo such that all of the tilting propellers have five blades and the fixed propellers have two blades, as taught by Lee, with a reasonable expectation for success since doing so would allow the tilting propellers to provide sufficient propulsion force during cruising with five blades (Lee: [0034]) as well as allow the aft propeller blades to align parallel to the flight direction (Lee: [0046]).
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baharav et al. (US 2022/0009626 A1) in view of Kroo (US 8,485,464), Anderson et al. (US 2018/0079493 A1), and Tao (US 2021/0253234 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Baharav teaches an electrical vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (eVTOL) ([0054]) selectively convertible between a hover mode and a cruise mode, the eVTOL comprising: a fuselage (#110); a wing connected to a top surface of the fuselage and having opposite outboard ends (#200); first and second booms connected to the wing on opposite sides of the fuselage (#400; Fig. 1) and including forward ends disposed forward of the wing (#410) and aft ends disposed aft of the wing (#420); first and second forward propulsion systems (#650, forward two Fig. 4) connected to forward ends of the first and second booms (Fig. 4); first and second aft propulsion systems (#650, aft two Fig. 4) fixedly attached proximate aft ends of the first and second booms (Fig. 4); and a first wing-mounted propulsion system (#750, two attached to #200, Fig 7) connected to a first side of the wing (Fig. 7); and a second wing-mounted propulsion system (#750, two attached to #200, Fig 7) connected to a second, opposite side of the wing (Fig. 7; two #750 shown attached at opposite ends of wing #200), wherein the first and second wing-mounted propulsion systems are tiltable between a first position when the aircraft is in the hover mode (Fig. 6) and a second position when the aircraft is in the cruise mode (Fig. 5), and wherein each of the propulsion systems includes a rotor assembly comprising a plurality of rotor blades (Fig. 6).
Baharav does not expressly disclose wherein each of the aft propulsions systems is angled outboard from a top surface of the one of the booms to which it is attached such that an axis of rotation of the aft propulsion system forms anon-zero angle outboard from a vertical axis.
However, in an analogous tiltrotor art, Kroo teaches wherein each of the aft propulsions systems is angled outboard from a top surface of the one of the booms to which it is attached such that an axis of rotation of the aft propulsion system forms anon-zero angle outboard from a vertical axis (As seen in Fig. 2; “In one embodiment with four rotors per side, the rotors are oriented, from front to back, 10 degrees out, 10 degrees in, 10 degrees in, and 10 degrees out.”, Col. 6, Lines 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the angle of the aft propulsion systems of Baharav wherein each of the aft propulsions systems is angled outboard from a top surface of the one of the booms to which it is attached such that an axis of rotation of the aft propulsion system forms anon-zero angle outboard from a vertical axis, as taught by Kroo, with a reasonable expectation of success for “minimizing the disturbance to the flow during cruise” (Kroo, Col. 5, Lines 66-67).
Baharav does not expressly include having a first wing tip at a first outboard end of the wing and having a second wing tip at a second, opposite outboard end of the wing; wherein the first and second wing tips are tiltable between a first position when the aircraft is in the hover mode and a second position when the aircraft is in the cruise mode.
However, in an analogous tilt-rotor art, Anderson teaches having a first wing tip at a first outboard end of the wing and having a second wing tip at a second, opposite outboard end of the wing (Figs. 1A-1B, “winglets” 58 and 60 shown at opposite outboard ends); wherein the first and second wing tips are tiltable between a first position when the aircraft is in the hover mode (Fig. 1B) and a second position when the aircraft is in the cruise mode (Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Baharav to further include having a first wing tip at a first outboard end of the wing and having a second wing tip at a second, opposite outboard end of the wing; wherein the first and second wing tips are tiltable between a first position when the aircraft is in the hover mode and a second position when the aircraft is in the cruise mode, as taught by Anderson, with a reasonable expectation for success, since “Proprotors 38, 40 produce a generally horizontal slipstream in forward flight mode, a generally vertical slipstream in VTOL flight mode and a slipstream that is intermediate to the horizontal and vertical slipstreams in conversion flight mode. By rotating wing extensions 50, 52 and winglets 58, 60 as illustrated in FIGS. 1A-1C, minimal dimensions 68, 70 of wing extensions 50, 52 and minimal dimensions 72, 74 of winglets 58, 60, as opposed to top and broad surfaces 76, 78 of wing extensions 50, 52, remain in the slipstreams of proprotors 38, 40 in all operational modes, thereby minimizing the download forces on wing extensions 50, 52.”, as discussed by Anderson, Para. [0026].
Baharav does not expressly disclose wherein the aft ends of the booms comprise a tail assembly.
However, in an analogous tiltrotor art, Tao teaches wherein the aft ends of the booms comprise a tail assembly (As shown in Figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Baharav wherein the aft ends of the booms comprise a tail assembly, as taught by Tao, with a reasonable expectation for success, since a simple substitution of one known element for another, such as one aircraft tail configuration for another, would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, Baharav teaches wherein the rotor assemblies of the first and second aft propulsion systems and the first and second forward propulsion systems rotate when the aircraft is in the hover mode and cease to rotate when the aircraft is in the cruise mode ([0174]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baharav et al. (US 2022/0009626 A1) in view of Kroo (US 8,485,464), Anderson et al. (US 2018/0079493 A1), and Tao (US 2021/0253234 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, further in view of Fink et al. (US 2020/0269975 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Baharav does not expressly disclose wherein the first and second aft propulsion systems are attached to a bottom surface of the first and second booms such that rotor assemblies of the first and second aft propulsion systems rotate below the first and second booms.
However, in an analogous VTOL aircraft art, Fink teaches wherein the first and second aft propulsion systems are attached to a bottom surface of the first and second booms such that rotor assemblies of the first and second aft propulsion systems rotate below the first and second booms (Fig. 3, “thrust producing unit” 33 shown attached to a bottom surface of an aft boom).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the eVTOL of Baharav wherein the first and second aft propulsion systems are attached to a bottom surface of the first and second booms such that rotor assemblies of the first and second aft propulsion systems rotate below the first and second booms, as taught by Fink, with a reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention, such as moving propulsion assemblies from the top surface of booms to the botoom surface of booms as shown by Fink Fig. 3, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Further, applicant discloses aft propulsion assemblies on both the top and bottom surfaces of the boom, Fig. 1A vs Fig. 4A, and states: “It will be recognized that while rotor assemblies of propulsion systems 410a, 410b, are illustrated as being disposed below (i.e., on the underside of) booms 404a, 404b, they may alternatively be disposed above (i.e., on top of) booms.”, Para. [0041], therefore disclosing a lack of criticality in the placement and orientation of the aft propulsion systems.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the added limitations in the amended independent claims, it is noted that Tao further teaches: wherein the tail assembly is not directly connected to the fuselage; wherein the tail assembly is independent from the fuselage; wherein the aft ends of the booms comprise a tail assembly (As shown in Figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Baharav wherein the tail assembly is not directly connected to the fuselage; wherein the tail assembly is independent from the fuselage; wherein the aft ends of the booms comprise a tail assembly, as taught by Tao, with a reasonable expectation for success, since a simple substitution of one known element for another, such as one aircraft tail configuration for another, would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
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 STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647