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 12/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 remain pending. Claim 10 has been canceled. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are amended. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(d) rejection set forth previously in Non-Final Office Action dated 09/18/2025.
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) 1-2, 4-9, 11-13, and 15-20 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), Kroo (US 8,485,464) and Patterson et al. (US 2018/0155021 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baharav teaches an aircraft comprising: a fuselage (#110); a wing connected to the fuselage (#200); a tail assembly at an aft end of the fuselage, the tail assembly comprising a pair of airfoils (Figs. 1-2, tail #300 with airfoils #320 and #340); a first boom connected to a first side of the wing (#400; Fig. 1); a second boom connected to a second, opposite side of the wing (#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 expressly disclose exactly six propulsion systems, the propulsion systems.
However, in an analogous tiltrotor art, Bevirt teaches comprising exactly six propulsion systems (Figs. 1A-1B & 14A-18C shows exactly 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 exactly 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 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 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 disclose wherein aft ends of the first and second booms are not connected to the tail assembly.
However, in an analogous tiltrotor art, Patterson teaches wherein aft ends of the first and second booms are not connected to the tail assembly (Figs. 1-6 show various configurations with the tail not connected to any booms, only the fuselage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Baharav wherein aft ends of the first and second booms are not connected to the tail assembly, as taught by Patterson, with a reasonable expectation for success, since “the function and structure of the various flight control surfaces well known in the art”, as discussed by Patterson, Para. [0033]. 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).
Regarding claim 2, 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 4, 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]).
Regarding claim 5, Baharav teaches wherein the airfoils extend from a top surface of the fuselage at an angle θ2 from one another (As seen by V-tail #300 in Figs. 1-2)
Baharav is silent on the angle between the airfoils of V-tail #300.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft wherein θ2 is selected from the range consisting of 30 to 330 degrees, with a reasonable expectation for success, because the angle of the V-tail is not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting the angle could provide benefits to the vertical to horizontal tail area ratio, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Baharav teaches further comprising control surfaces on trailing edges of the airfoils. (“The port stabilizer 320 and starboard stabilizer 340 each include a control surface in the form of a respective pivotable ruddervator 330 for providing control moments to the air vehicle 10, particularly in pitch and/or yaw.”, Para. [0137]).
Regarding claim 7, Baharav teaches wherein each of the control surfaces comprises multiple independently controlled segments. (Figs. 1 and 2 show stabilizers 320 and 340 each have independent control surfaces, therefore comprising at least two or multiple segments; “The port stabilizer 320 and starboard stabilizer 340 each include a control surface in the form of a respective pivotable ruddervator 330 for providing control moments to the air vehicle 10, particularly in pitch and/or yaw.”, Para. [0137]).
Regarding claim 8, Bevirt teaches wherein the propulsion systems collectively comprise a hexrotor arc when the aircraft is in the hover mode (Figs. 1A, 15A-15B, & Fig. 17B shows a hexrotor arc when in a hover configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aircraft of Baharav wherein the propulsion systems collectively comprise a hexrotor arc when the aircraft is in the hover mode, as further 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.
Regarding claim 9, Baharav teaches an aircraft comprising: a fuselage (#110); a wing connected to the fuselage (#200); a tail assembly at an aft end of the fuselage, the tail assembly comprising a pair of stabilizers (Figs. 1-2, tail #300 with stabilizers #320 and #340); a first boom connected to a first side of the wing (#400; Fig. 1); a second boom connected to a second, opposite side of the wing (#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 with the first outboard end of the wing and the second outboard end of the wing between a first position when the aircraft is in a 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 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 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 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 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 disclose the tail assembly comprising a vertical stabilizer having a first end connected to the aft end of the fuselage and a second end connected to a horizontal stabilizer; wherein aft ends of the first and second booms are not connected to the tail assembly.
However, in an analogous aircraft art, Patterson teaches the tail assembly (Fig. 1, tail #180) comprising a vertical stabilizer (Fig. 1, vertical stabilizer #16) having a first end connected to the aft end of the fuselage (forward end attached to fuselage #12) and a second end connected to a horizontal stabilizer (Fig. 1, top end attached to horizontal stabilizer #18); wherein aft ends of the first and second booms are not connected to the tail assembly (Figs. 1-6 show various configurations with the tail not connected to any booms, only the fuselage).
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 the tail assembly comprising a vertical stabilizer having a first end connected to the aft end of the fuselage and a second end connected to a horizontal stabilizer; wherein aft ends of the first and second booms are not connected to the tail assembly, as taught by Patterson, with a reasonable expectation for success, to improve aircraft efficiency and control by putting the horizontal stabilizer out of the disturbed airflow from the propulsion systems; “the function and structure of the various flight control surfaces well known in the art”, as discussed by Patterson, Para. [0033]. 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).
Regarding claim 11, Patterson, relied upon above for teaching a T-tail, further teaches wherein the tail assembly comprises a T-tail (As seen by tail #180 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Patterson, relied upon above for teaching a T-tail, further teaches further comprising control surfaces on trailing edges of the vertical stabilizer (Fig. 1, rudder #19) and the horizontal stabilizer (Fig. 1, elevators #17).
Regarding claim 13, Baharav further 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 15, 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]).
Regarding claim 16, Baharav teaches an aircraft comprising: a fuselage (#110); a wing connected to the fuselage (#200); a tail assembly at an aft end of the fuselage, the tail assembly comprising at least one of a T-tail and a V-tail (Figs. 1-2, tail #300 with stabilizers #320 and #340 in a V-tail configuration); a first boom connected to a first side of the wing (#400; Fig. 1); a second boom connected to a second, opposite side of the wing (#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 each of the first and second wing-mounted propulsion systems includes a pylon for housing a drive system (Fig. 1 shows that propulsion systems at the end of “wing” #200 are attached with a pylon and discloses that the drive system for the propellers and rotors #650 and #750 inside pylons, see Figs. 5 and 6); wherein each of the pylons is tiltable relative to the wing between a first position when the eVTOL is in a hover mode (Fig. 6) and a second position when the eVTOL is in a 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 exactly six propulsion systems, the propulsion systems.
However, in an analogous tiltrotor art, Bevirt teaches comprising exactly six propulsion systems (Figs. 1A-1B & 14A-18C shows exactly 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 exactly 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 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 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 disclose wherein aft ends of the first and second booms are not connected to the tail assembly.
However, in an analogous tiltrotor art, Patterson teaches wherein aft ends of the first and second booms are not connected to the tail assembly (Figs. 1-6 show various configurations with the tail not connected to any booms, only the fuselage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Baharav wherein aft ends of the first and second booms are not connected to the tail assembly, as taught by Patterson, with a reasonable expectation for success, since “the function and structure of the various flight control surfaces well known in the art”, as discussed by Patterson, Para. [0033]. 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).
Regarding claim 17, Baharav further teaches wherein the tail assembly comprises a pair of airfoils each connected at one end to the aft end of the fuselage and wherein at least one of the airfoils extends from a top surface of the fuselage at an angle θ1 from vertical, wherein θ1 is less than 180 degrees (Figs. 1 and 3, V-tail #300 stabilizers #320 and #340 shown extending at an angle less than 90 degrees from vertical).
Regarding claim 18, Baharav is relied upon for teaching a V-tail and does not expressly disclose a T-tail or wherein the tail assembly comprises a vertical stabilizer and a horizontal stabilizer and wherein a first end of the vertical stabilizer is connected to the aft end of the fuselage and a second end of the vertical stabilizer is connected to the horizontal stabilizer.
However, in an analogous aircraft art, Patterson teaches wherein the tail assembly (Fig. 1, tail #180) comprising a vertical stabilizer (Fig. 1, vertical stabilizer #16) having a first end connected to the aft end of the fuselage (forward end attached to fuselage #12) and a second end connected to a horizontal stabilizer (Fig. 1, top end attached to horizontal stabilizer #18).
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 the tail assembly comprising a vertical stabilizer having a first end connected to the aft end of the fuselage and a second end connected to a horizontal stabilizer, as taught by Patterson, with a reasonable expectation for success, to improve aircraft efficiency and control by putting the horizontal stabilizer out of the disturbed airflow from the propulsion systems.
Regarding claim 19, Baharav further teaches further comprising control surfaces on trailing edges of the tail assembly (“The port stabilizer 320 and starboard stabilizer 340 each include a control surface in the form of a respective pivotable ruddervator 330 for providing control moments to the air vehicle 10, particularly in pitch and/or yaw.”, Para. [0137]).
Regarding claim 20, Baharav further teaches wherein each of the control surfaces comprises multiple independently controlled segments (Figs. 1 and 2 show stabilizers 320 and 340 each have independent control surfaces, therefore comprising at least two or multiple segments; “The port stabilizer 320 and starboard stabilizer 340 each include a control surface in the form of a respective pivotable ruddervator 330 for providing control moments to the air vehicle 10, particularly in pitch and/or yaw.”, Para. [0137]).
Claim(s) 3 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), Kroo (US 8,485,464) and Patterson et al. (US 2018/0155021 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Tao (US 2021/0253234 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Baharav does not expressly disclose wherein the first and second forward propulsion systems are tiltably connected to forward ends of the first and second booms such that the first and second forward propulsion systems 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 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.
Claim(s) 14 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), Kroo (US 8,485,464), and Patterson et al. (US 2018/0155021 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of Tao (US 2021/0253234 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Baharav as modified by Bevirt, Kroo, and Patterson teaches the aircraft of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first and second forward propulsion systems are tiltably connected to forward ends of the first and second booms such that the first and second forward propulsion systems 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the added limitation in the amended independent claims, it is noted that Patterson further teaches: wherein aft ends of the first and second booms are not connected to the tail assembly (Figs. 1-6 show various configurations with the tail not connected to any booms, only the fuselage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Baharav wherein aft ends of the first and second booms are not connected to the tail assembly, as taught by Patterson, with a reasonable expectation for success, since “the function and structure of the various flight control surfaces well known in the art”, as discussed by Patterson, Para. [0033]. 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).
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
Prosecution Insights