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 1-8, 11-14, and 17-19 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.
For Claim 1, the claim defines “a pair of propellers coupled to the second mount, the pair of propellers rotatable about a common propeller axis, wherein the pair of propellers define a volumetric thrust stream along the common propeller axis, wherein the center or mass of the housing is disposed interior of the volumetric thrust stream; and a holder coupled to the housing, the holder being configured to detachably coupled to a load, wherein the holder extends laterally exterior of the volumetric thrust stream” which can be seen in figure 2 as the holder (230) is outside of the thrust stream (180) however in figure 2 it also shows the housing (200) being angled in phantom which would place the holder within the thrust stream. In addition in figures 15A-15C the propeller is angled which appear to place part of the housing and if the holder was connected outside of the thrust stream. As such it is not clear if the limitation, “a holder coupled to the housing, the holder being configured to detachably coupled to a load, wherein the holder extends laterally exterior of the volumetric thrust stream” is required during all phases of flight or if the vehicle just needs to be capable of this limitation at any point in it’s use. Therefore the claim is indefinite. Claims 2-8, 11-14, and 17-19 are indefinite as depending on Claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the control station" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gamble (US PgPub #2017/0320565).
For Claim 1, the figures of Gamble ‘565 disclose an aerial vehicle (100), comprising: a housing (180) defining a housing axis, the housing axis passing through a center of mass of the housing; a first motor (165b) coupled to the housing, the first motor including a first input shaft defining a first output axis (420b); a first mount coupled to the first output shaft, the first mount angularly displaceable about the first output axis by the first output shaft; a second motor (165a) coupled to the first mount, the second motor including a second output shaft defining a second output axis (420a); a second mount coupled to the second output shaft, the second mount angularly displaceable about the second output axis by the second output shaft; a pair of propellers (115a and 115b) coupled to the second mount, the pair of propellers rotatably about a common propeller axis, wherein the pair of propellers define a volumetric thrust stream along the common propeller axis, wherein the center of mass of the housing is disposed interior of the volumetric thrust stream; and a holder (615) coupled to the housing, the holder being configured to detachable couple to the load, wherein the holder extends exterior of the volumetric thrust stream when the propellers are rotated as is shown in figures 8-9 so that the volumetric thrust is oriented sideways.
For Claim 2, the figures of Gamble ‘565 disclose that each of the first output axis and the second output axis is orthogonal to the housing axis.
For Claim 3, the figures of Gamble ‘565 disclose that the first output axis and the second output axis are orthogonal to one another.
For Claim 4, the figures of Gamble ‘565 disclose that the pair of propellers are spaced apart form each other along the common propeller axis, wherein the pair of propellers are counter-rotating propellers.
For Claim 5, the figures of Gamble ‘565 disclose that the pair of propellers define a common propeller diameter.
For Claim 6, the figures of Gamble ‘565 disclose that in a neutral state, the common propeller axis is substantially coaxially aligned with the housing.
For Claim 7, the figures of Gamble ‘565 disclose that the pair of propellers are spaced apart from the housing along the housing axis, such that a counter moment acts on the aerial vehicle responsive to a disturbance on the aerial vehicle.
For Claim 8, the figures of Gamble ‘565 disclose that in a neutral state, the volumetric thrust stream is substantially parallel to the housing axis.
For Claim 11, the figures of Gamble ‘565 disclose a first orientation of the first mount relative to the housing is controllable by the first output shaft solely.
For Claim 12, the figures of Gamble ‘565 disclose that a second orientation of the second mount relative to the housing is controllable by the first output shaft and the second output shaft collectively.
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) 13-14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamble (US PgPub #2017/0320565) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Komerath (US PgPub #2022/0063802).
For Claims 13-14 and 17-19, while the figures and paragraph [0097] of Gamble ‘565 disclose varying an orientation of the load and latches and fittings to connectably release a payload and independently controlling multiple vehicles, it is silent about the plurality of vehicles being connected to a single payload. However, the figures and paragraph [0043] of Komerath ‘802 teaches a control station to independently control each of the aerial vehicles connected to a payload so as to detachably couple with a respective coupling point of the load, the load comprising multiple couple points; and move to a respective target position to vary a position of the load, wherein each of the respective target position is distinct from one another; move to a respective target position to vary an orientation of the load, determine each of the respective target position based on at least one geometrical dimension of the load; the coupling points can be non-symmetrically and non-uniformly distributed on the load; and the load is disposed at least partially in the lifting space. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Gamble ‘565 with the ability to couple multiple vehicles to a single payload as taught by Komerath ‘802. The motivation to do so would be to move payload that is heavier than a single vehicle can move.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Gamble ‘565 does not teach a holder that extends laterally exterior of the volumetric thrust stream, however, when the propellers of Gamble ‘565 are tilted the holder would be outside of the stream. In addition figure 4 of Komerath ‘802 teaches the tether line or hold extending laterally exterior of the volumetric thrust stream.
With respect to the argument that Komerath ‘802 does not teach determine each target positioned based on a geometrical dimension of the load, paragraph [0043] of Komerath ‘802 teaches that based on the load a range is given as such a target position is determined based on the load.
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 PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 4/2/2026