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 .
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 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.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Double patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
At least Claim 1 of the instant application rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12157553.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variations.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/09/2026 has been entered.
Drawings Objections
MATERIAL NOT SHOWN
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, an unobstructed imaging corridor extending along at least one of a forward direction or an aft direction of the aerial vehicle., must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The above are only examples of such informalities. The Applicant is required to review the entire drawings and correct all such informalities.
Specification Objection
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-4, 6-15 and 17-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The above identified claims will be examined as best understood.
Re claim 1 the phrases "an unobstructed imaging corridor extending along at least one of a forward direction or an aft direction of the aerial vehicle.” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear what "an unobstructed imaging corridor extending along at least one of a forward direction or an aft direction of the aerial vehicle.” refers to.
Re claim 4 the phrases "a vertically staggered imaging corridor extends longitudinally between the forward rotor plane and the aft rotor plane.” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear what "a vertically staggered imaging corridor extends longitudinally between the forward rotor plane and the aft rotor plane.” refers to.
Re claim 12 the phrases "a rotor-free imaging corridor extending along a longitudinal direction of the body.” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear what "a rotor-free imaging corridor extending along a longitudinal direction of the body.” refers to.
Re claims 8 and 18 the phrases "the rotor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Reference of prior art
Beckman et al. (US 9764829, Multirotor Aircraft With Enhanced Yaw Control).
Campbell. (US 20190100313, Tiltrotor Aircraft Having Interchangeable Payload Modules).
Bevirt. (US 20120287274, Tracking Of Dynamic Object Of Interest And Active Stabilization Of An Autonomous Airborne Platform Mounted Camera).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 11-15, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman and further in view of Campbell.
Re Claim 1 Referring to the figures and detailed description above, Beckman discloses: An aerial vehicle comprising: a central body extending along a longitudinal axis from a forward end to an aft end, the central body having a port side and a starboard side on opposite sides of the longitudinal axis (fig.1, items 100,104);
multiple rotor arms, each rotor arm having a proximal end coupled to the central body (fig.1, items 105-1,105-2); and
multiple rotor assemblies, each rotor assembly arranged at a distal end of a rotor arm of the multiple rotor arms, the multiple rotor assemblies configured to provide propulsion for the aerial vehicle (fig.1, items 102-1,102-4 and 106-1, 106-4),
wherein the multiple rotor assemblies include:
a first set of rotor assemblies arranged in a non-inverted configuration on a top side of the aerial vehicle such that each rotor assembly of the first set of rotor assemblies includes an upward-facing rotor (fig.1, items 102-1,102-2 and 106-1, 106-2), and
However Beckman fails to teach as disclosed by Campbell: a second set of rotor assemblies arranged in an inverted configuration on a bottom side of the aerial vehicle such that each rotor assembly of the second set of rotor assemblies includes a downward-facing rotor (fig.1A, items 28c, 26c, 28d and 26d).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Campbell teachings of a second set of rotor assemblies arranged in an inverted configuration on a bottom side of the aerial vehicle such that each rotor assembly of the second set of rotor assemblies includes a downward-facing rotor into the Beckman to create no download on airframe.
and wherein the upward-facing rotors of the first set define a first rotor plane, the downward- facing rotors of the second set define a second rotor plane, and the first rotor plane is vertically spaced from the second rotor plane so as to form an unobstructed imaging corridor extending longitudinally between the rotor planes along at least one of a forward direction or an aft direction of the aerial vehicle, the imaging corridor defining a region between the rotor planes that remains free of rotor blades during operation of the aerial vehicle (placing the imaging devices on Campbell fig. 1A, items 16a, 16b, or on Beckman fig. 1, items 105-1, 105-2 similar to the imagining devices in fig. 6B, items 617a, 617b of the instant application that would form an unobstructed imaging corridor defining a region between the rotor planes that remains free of rotor blades during operation of the aerial vehicle).
Re Claim 2 Referring to the figures and detailed description above, Beckman, as modified above, discloses: The aerial vehicle of claim 1, wherein the first set of rotor assemblies comprises: a first rotor assembly extending from the port side of the body proximate to the aft end (Beckman fig.1, items 102-1, 106-1); and a second rotor assembly extending from the starboard side of the body proximate to the aft end (Beckman fig.1, items 102-2 and 106-2).
Re Claim 3 Referring to the figures and detailed description above, Beckman, as modified above, discloses: The aerial vehicle of claim 2, wherein the second set of rotor assemblies comprises: a third rotor assembly extending from the port side of the body proximate to the forward end (Campbell fig.1A, items 28c, 26-c); and
a fourth rotor assembly extending from the starboard side of the body proximate to the forward end (Campbell fig.1A, items 28d, 26-d).
Re Claim 4 Referring to the figures and detailed description above, Beckman, as modified above, discloses: An aerial vehicle comprising: a body extending along a longitudinal axis from a forward end to an aft end, the body having a port side and a starboard side on opposite sides of the longitudinal axis; a first rotor assembly extending from the port side of the body proximate to the forward end, the first rotor assembly arranged in an inverted configuration on a bottom side of the aerial vehicle such that a first rotor is downward-facing; a second rotor assembly extending from the starboard side of the body proximate to the forward end, the second rotor assembly arranged in the inverted configuration on the bottom of the aerial vehicle such that a second rotor is downward-facing; a third rotor assembly extending from the port side of the body proximate to the aft end, the third rotor assembly arranged in a non-inverted configuration on a top side of the aerial vehicle such that a third rotor is upward-facing; and a fourth rotor assembly extending from the starboard side of the body proximate to the aft end, the fourth rotor assembly arranged in a non-inverted configuration on the top side of the aerial vehicle such that a fourth rotor is upward-facing, wherein the downward-facing rotors define a forward rotor plane, the upward-facing rotors define an aft rotor plane positioned vertically above the forward rotor plane, and a vertically staggered imaging corridor extends longitudinally between the forward rotor plane and the aft rotor plane.
(Claim 4 is similar in scope to Claims 1-3; therefore, Claim 4 is rejected under the same rationale as Claims 1-3).
Re Claim 6 Referring to the figures and detailed description above, Beckman, as modified above, discloses: The aerial vehicle of claim 4, wherein the rotor blades are removably attachable to the upward-facing rotors and the downward-facing rotors (Campbell ¶ 0024).
Re Claims 7 and 17 Referring to the figures and detailed description above, Beckman, as modified above, discloses: The aerial vehicle, wherein the rotor blades are removably attachable to the rotor assemblies (Campbell ¶ 0024).
Beckman, as modified above, discloses the aerial vehicle according to claim 7, but does not expressly disclose wherein the rotor blades are removably attachable via a keyhole/pin attachment mechanism. However, it would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute the attachment mechanism used in the line replaceable units for a keyhole/pin attachment mechanism in order to enabling easy installation, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Re Claims 11 and 19 Referring to the figures and detailed description above, Beckman, as modified above, discloses: The aerial vehicle of claim 4, wherein the aerial vehicle is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Campbell ¶ 0029, …autonomously control some or all aspects of flight operation for aircraft).
Re Claim 12 Referring to the figures and detailed description above, Beckman, as modified above, discloses: An aerial vehicle comprising: a body; a plurality of rotor assemblies configured to provide propulsion for the aerial vehicle, the plurality of rotor assemblies including: a first set of rotor assemblies arranged in a non-inverted configuration on a top side of the aerial vehicle, and a second set of rotor assemblies arranged in an inverted configuration on a bottom side of the aerial vehicle; and a plurality of rotor arms, each rotor arm having a proximal end structurally coupled to the body and a rotor assembly of the plurality of rotor assemblies structurally coupled to a distal end, wherein the first set of rotor assemblies defines an upper rotor plane, the second set of rotor assemblies defines a lower rotor plane, and the upper rotor plane is vertically spaced from the lower rotor plane to provide a rotor-free imaging corridor extending along a longitudinal direction of the body.
(Claim 12 is similar in scope to Claims 1-4; therefore, Claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as Claims 1-4)
Re Claim 13 Referring to the figures and detailed description above, Beckman, as modified above, discloses: The aerial vehicle of claim 12, wherein the body extends along a longitudinal axis from a forward end to an aft end, the body having a port side and a starboard side on opposite sides of the longitudinal axis (Beckman fig.1, items 100,104).
Re Claim 14 Referring to the figures and detailed description above, Beckman, as modified above, discloses: The aerial vehicle of claim 13, wherein the first set of rotor assemblies includes: a first rotor assembly extending from the port side of the body proximate to the aft end, the first rotor assembly including a first upward-facing rotor (Beckman fig.1, items 102-1, 106-1); and a second rotor assembly extending from the starboard side of the body proximate to the aft end (Beckman fig.1, items 102-2 and 106-2), the second rotor assembly including a second upward-facing rotor (Campbell fig.1A, items 28d, 26-d).
Re Claim 15 Referring to the figures and detailed description above, Beckman, as modified above, discloses: The aerial vehicle of claim 14, wherein the second set of rotor assemblies includes: a third rotor assembly extending from the port side of the body proximate to the forward end (Campbell fig.1A, items 28c, 26c), the third rotor assembly including a first downward-facing rotor; and a fourth rotor assembly extending from the starboard side of the body proximate to the forward end, the fourth rotor assembly including a second downward-facing rotor (Campbell fig.1A, items 28d, 26d).
Re Claim 20 Referring to the figures and detailed description above, Beckman, as modified above, discloses: The aerial vehicle of claim 19, wherein the aerial vehicle comprises a quadcopter (Campbell fig.1A, item 10).
Claim(s) 8-10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman and further in view of Campbell and further in view of Bevirt.
Re Claims 8 and 18 Referring to the figures and detailed description above, Beckman, as modified above, discloses: The aerial vehicle, further comprising: a plurality of support arms structurally attached to the body; wherein each rotor assembly of the first rotor assembly, the second rotor assembly, the third rotor assembly, and the fourth rotor assembly further includes: a rotor housing structurally attached to a support arm of the plurality of support arms (Beckman 105-1, 105-2 and col. 3, l 4-12);
However Beckman, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Bevirt: an image capture device arranged opposite the rotor (fig. 3, item 103); and an isolator system configured to isolate the image capture device by reducing vibrations from the rotor and/or motion of the rotor housing (¶ 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Bevirt teachings of an image capture device arranged opposite the rotor (fig. 3, item 103); and an isolator system configured to isolate the image capture device by reducing vibrations from the rotor and/or motion of the rotor housing into the Beckman, as modified above, to record video of an Object of Interest.
Re Claim 9 Referring to the figures and detailed description above, Beckman, as modified above, discloses: The aerial vehicle of claim 8, wherein the rotor housing is substantially cylindrical in shape (item 111, depicts the limitation).
Re Claim 10 Referring to the figures and detailed description above, Beckman, as modified above, discloses: The aerial vehicle of claim 8, further comprising: a computer system configured to: process images captured by the image capture devices (Bevirt ¶ 0024); generate a planned trajectory for the aerial vehicle through a physical environment based on the processing of the images (Bevirt ¶ 0015); and control the rotors to autonomously maneuver the aerial vehicle along the planned trajectory (Bevirt ¶ 0067).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, in addition the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant made the following arguments:
In response to the applicant’s response, the examiner respectfully disagrees; a vertically staggered imaging corridor, vertically separated rotor planes and all remarks in the response dated 12/16/2025 have been addressed above as the remarks included new limitations in the amended claims; the corridor recited in the claim must be shown to better define the invention, however when placing the imaging devices on Campbell fig. 1A, items 16a, 16b, or on Beckman fig. 1, items 105-1, 105-2 similar to the imagining devices in fig. 6B, items 617a, 617b of the instant application that would form an unobstructed imaging corridor defining a region between the rotor planes that remains free of rotor blades during operation of the aerial vehicle; thus, the structural limitations of the claims have been met.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 571-272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights