DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filled on 12/10/2025 and 12/11/2025 is being considered in the examination of this application.
Drawings
3. 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, the “control surface… rotating around the axis where it is attached to the canard” in claim 4, the “anti-torque system which is moved on the body (2) in a direction” in claim 8 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.
Specification
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Hybrid air vehicle with rotor and control surface extending telescopically from closed position through a canard to an open position.
Claim Objections
5. INDENTATION (Claim 1)
where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75. Appropriate correction is required.
6. Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 1, line 1: the term “comprising” should be rewritten as --comprising:-- with the body of the claim entered on the next line, following appropriate indentation.
b. Claim 1, line 2: the term “required power for the flight of the body on the air vehicle” should be replaced with “power for flight of the air vehicle” or the like for the purpose of clarity.
c. Claim 1, line 4: the term “on the air vehicle” is redundant and should be removed for the purpose of clarity.
d. Claim 1, line 6: the term “the body on the air vehicle” should be rewritten as --the air vehicle--.
e. Claim 1, line 8: the term “on the air vehicle” is redundant and should be removed for the purpose of clarity.
f. Claim 1, lines 8-9: the term “the body on the air vehicle” should be rewritten as --the air vehicle-- for the purpose of clarity.
g. Claim 1, line 9: the term “helicopter mode” should be rewritten as --helicopter mode-- for the purpose of clarity.
h. Claim 1, lines 11-12: the term “the movement of the body when the body on the air vehicle is in airplane mode” should be rewritten as “movement of the air vehicle when the air vehicle in the airplane mode” for the purpose of clarity.
i. Claim 1, lines 13-14: the term “the body (2) on the air vehicle is switched from helicopter mode (H) to airplane mode (A)” should be rewritten as --the air vehicle is switched from the helicopter mode to the airplane mode” for the purpose of clarity.
j. Claim 1, line 15: the term “the nose area” should be rewritten as --a nose area-- for the purpose of clarity.
k. Claim 1, lines 15-16: the term “on the air vehicle” is redundant and should be removed.
l. Claim 1, line 16: the term “the body on the air vehicle” should be rewritten as --the air vehicle-- for the purpose of clarity.
m. Claim 1, line 19: the term “the direction in which the wing” should be replaced with “a direction in which a canard that” for the purpose of clarity.
n. Claim 1, lines 19-20: the term “the body on the air vehicle is in transition mode” should be rewritten as --the air vehicle is in the transition mode-- for the purpose of clarity.
o. Claim 1, line 20: the term “and thus moves” should be replaced with “, and thus the control surface moves” for the purpose of clarity.
oo. Claim 1, line 22: the term “the wing” should be rewritten as --the canard-- for the purpose of clarity.
p. Claim 1, line 23: the term “on the air vehicle” is redundant and should be removed.
q. Claim 1, line 26: the term “the body on the air vehicle is in helicopter mode (H), transition mode (T), or airplane mode (A).” should be rewritten as --the air vehicle is in the helicopter mode, the transition mode, or the airplane mode” for the purpose of clarity.
r. Claims 1-2, 3, 5-8 and 10: all symbols within parenthesis indicating a type of mode (i.e., helicopter (H), airplane (A) and transition (T)) as well as positions of the control surface (i.e., closed and open) should be removed since none of the symbols are being referenced on their own and for the purpose of clarity.
s. Claims 2-11: the term “A hybrid air vehicle” should be rewritten as --The hybrid air vehicle-- such that the claims conform with current U.S. practice.
t. Claim 2, line 4: the term “the body on the air vehicle is in transition mode” should be rewritten as --the air vehicle is in the transition mode-- for the purpose of clarity.
u. Claim 2, line 5: the term “the body of the air vehicle” should be rewritten as --the air vehicle-- for the purpose of clarity.
v. Claims 5-6 and 10, line 2, each: the term “wherein” should be rewritten as --further comprising-- such that the claim conforms with current U.S. practice.
w. Claim 5, lines 3-4: the term “transition mode (T) and/or airplane mode (A)” should rewritten as --the transition mode and/or the airplane mode-- for the purpose of clarity.
x. Claim 6, line 3-4: the limitation “the body (2) on the air vehicle to switch from helicopter mode (H) to airplane mode (A) according to the input by the user or when it reaches” should be rewritten as --the air vehicle to switch from the helicopter mode to the airplane mode according to an input by a user or when the air vehicle reaches-- for the purpose of clarity.
y. Claim 7, lines 2-3: the limitation “control unit (11) that moves, through telescopic movement, the control surface (9)” should be rewritten as --the control unit is configured to move the control surface, by telescopic movement,” for the purpose of clarity.
z. Claim 7, line 5: the term “the body on the air vehicle is switched to airplane mode (A) or helicopter mode (H)” should be rewritten as --the air vehicle is witched to the airplane mode or the helicopter mode” for the purpose of clarity.
za. Claim 10, line 3: the term “angles of attack of the blades” should be rewritten “an angle of attack of the plurality of blades” for the purpose of clarity.
zb. Claim 10, line 4: the term “airplane mode” should be rewritten as --the airplane mode-- for the purpose of clarity.
zc. Claim 11, line 2: the limitation “the blade with an elliptical cross-section” should be rewritten as --each blade of the plurality of blades comprises an elliptical cross-section-- for the purpose of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
The examiner kindly requests a clean version of the claims, in addition to the amendments to the claims, to be supplied in response to this office action in the interest of expedited prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-11 are 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.
9. Claim 1, lines 3-5, recites the limitation “at least one rotor… rotating around itself” renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly how the rotor is recited as rotating around itself. It is not conceivable for the rotor to rotate around itself. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
10. Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Similarly, claims 5-6 are unclear for the same reasons.
11. Claim 1, lines 28-23, recites the limitation “control surface (9) that moves along the direction in which the wing (8) extends outward from the body (2) while the body (2) on the air vehicle is in transition mode (T) and thus moves from the closed position (C) to the open position (O), thus increasing the aerodynamic surface area of the wing (8) and providing additional load-bearing force to the body (2) on the air vehicle” and lines 23-27, recites the limitation “closed position (C) in which the control surface (9) is located in the canard (8); an open position (O) in which the control surface (9) is moved from the closed position (C) and extends outward from the canard (8) when the body (2) on the air vehicle is in helicopter mode (H), transition mode (T), or airplane mode (A)” which renders the claim indefinite, since it appears that at least a portion of the amendments to the claim is in an incorrect order based on the positive recitations of the terms closed and open positions as recited later in the claim. The examiner suggests, moving the limitations (i.e., amendments/underlined) to the end of the claim, in the form of a contingent clause (i.e., wherein) such that metes and bounds of the claim is definitively clear. Furthermore, the term “wing” is being suggested per the minor informalities to the claims above, to be replaced with “canard” given the applicant’s disclosure.
12. Claim 4, lines 1-4, recites the limitation “the control surface (9) extending outward from the canard (8), rotating around the axis where it is attached to the canard (8), thereby acting as a flap on the body (2) on the air vehicle” which renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly what is meant by “acting as a flap on the body on the air vehicle”. Is the control surface configured to function as a flap of the air vehicle? Further, as best understood per the applicant’s disclosure, the wing is rotatably connected to the body as opposed to the control surface as suggested by the claim. See MPEP 2173.02. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the axis” in the claim.
13. Claim 15, lines 2-2, recites the limitation “at least one vertical stabilizer (10) that provides the anti-torque required by the body (2) on the air vehicle in transition mode (T) and/or airplane mode (A) when the body (2) on the air vehicle reaches flight values such as flight speed and altitude” which renders the claim indefinite, since it is unclear as to whether the anti-torque is the same as or different from the anti-torque created by the anti-torque system as recited in claim 1.
14. Claim 8, lines 2-5, recites the limitation “the anti-torque system (6) which is moved on the body (2) in a direction providing thrust to the body (2) on the air vehicle by means of the control unit (11), when the body (2) on the air vehicle is switched from helicopter mode (H) to airplane mode (A)” which renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear as to exactly how the anti-torque system is suggested as being movable with respect to the body with consideration of the applicant’s disclosure where the location of the system is not variable. It is not conceivable for anti-torque systems being movable with respect to the body of an aircraft. See MPEP 2173.02.
15. Claim 9, lines 2-4, recites the limitation “the canard (8) which can rotate around itself during a flight, along an axis where it is attached to the body (2) on the air vehicle, thus allowing the body (2) on the air vehicle to be directed” which renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it unclear as to exactly how the canards rotates around itself and exactly what is meant by the air vehicle to directed. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
16. Claim limitation “anti-torque system… which creates anti-torque” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
17. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
18. Claim 3 indicates “the control surface (9) moving along the direction that the canard (8) extends outward from the body (2) when the body (2) is in transition mode (T), such that the control surface (9) is switched from the closed position (C) to the open position (O), thereby increasing the aerodynamic surface area of the canard (8) and providing additional lift to the body (2)” which does not constitute a further limitation considering that claim 1 already indicates that “the control surface (9) that moves along the direction in which the wing (8) extends outward from the body (2) while the body (2) on the air vehicle is in transition mode (T) and thus moves from the closed position (C) to the open position (O), thus increasing the aerodynamic surface area of the wing (8) and providing additional load-bearing force to the body (2) on the air vehicle”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The examiner kindly requests a clean version of the claims, in addition to the amendments to the claims, to be supplied in response to this office action in the interest of expedited prosecution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowability:
The prior art of record fails to disclose the combined limitations of claim 1, in particular the configuration of the control surface while the air vehicle in the transition mode.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Prior Art
The prior art made of record not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Baillie (US 2020/0055595 A1), Kennedy et al. (US 7837141 B2), Walliser (US 8757537 B2), Oleshchuk et al. (US 7611090 B2), Barocela et al. (US 7014142 B2) individually disclose an aerial vehicle comprising a body, a rotor, canards and control surfaces, wherein the air vehicle is configurable between airplane mode, helicopter mode and transition mode.
Krastev (US 2015/0102155 A1) discloses an air vehicle comprising a body, canards and control surfaces extendible from with the canard, wherein the air vehicle is configuration between airplane mode and driving mode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm EST.
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 J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642