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 2-10 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the arc curvature" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the middle" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the aircraft fuselage" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the cross section" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the separation surface geometry" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the aircraft platform structure" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, lines 2 states “rapidly detachable” which is indefinite as it is unclear what makes the canard outer segment detachable and what structure allows for the rapid detachment thereof. Applicant should amend to clearly and distinctly point out the limitations being claimed.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the original lift value" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, lines 2 states “rapidly detachable” which is indefinite as it is unclear what makes the suspended outer arm detachable and what structure allows for the rapid detachment thereof. Applicant should amend to clearly and distinctly point out the limitations being claimed.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the original lift value" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the distance" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the sum" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the maximum propeller diameter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note to applicant: Although the term "optionally" or "optional" is generally accepted language within the claims, the term "optionally" in claim 1 does not appear to distinctly define if the structure is required or not based on the claim language and it is suggested that applicant reevaluate the terms usage.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Parks (US 2018/0305005).
Regarding claim 1, 10, Parks discloses a suspended outer arm for an aircraft, characterized in that the suspended outer arm comprises: an outer arm body (118); wherein the outer arm body (118) exhibits a linear structure in vertical projection (Figs. 1a, 1b); wherein the body (118) includes multiple openings (each lift motor 124 is mounted to a shaft depicted in Figs. 1e and 1f which is mounted into a hole/opening in the upper portion of element 118, Figs. 1e, 1f) to accommodate lift motors (124); wherein the body (118) tapers (the forward and aft sections of element 118 taper to a point, Figs 1a, 1b, 1e, 1f) from each opening (each lift motor 124 is mounted to a shaft depicted in Figs. 1e and 1f which is mounted into a hole/opening in the upper portion of element 118, Figs. 1e, 1f) toward both ends (forward and aft end of element 118); wherein the outer arm body (118) is optionally attachable to fixed wings (106) of the aircraft (100) depending on takeoff weight requirements (weight of aircraft/equipment thereon).
Regarding claims 4-6, Parks discloses a modular aircraft, comprising: left fixed wing (106) and right fixed wing (106); left canard (104) and right canard (104); an avionics compartment (200) coupled to the left fixed wing (106) and the right fixed wing (106); left inner arm (left inner portion of element 118 between 104 and 122) connecting the left fixed wing (106) to the left canard (104), equipped with first (124), second (124), third lift propellers (124) and left vertical stabilizer (120); right inner arm (right inner portion of element 118 between 104 and 122) connecting the right fixed wing (106) to the right canard (104), equipped with fourth (124), fifth (124), sixth lift propellers (124) and right vertical stabilizer (120); and the suspended outer arm (118) according to claims of 1; wherein modular aircraft components (118, 124, 128) are selectively installed without altering the aircraft platform structure (100) to meet varying functional and mission demands under increased cruise payload requirements ([0087] additional lift rotors may be employed depending on demands).
Regarding claim 7, Parks discloses the suspended outer arm (128) is mounted on leading edges (leading edges of elements 106) of the left fixed wing (106) and the right fixed wing (106), or on trailing edges (trailing edges of element 106) thereof, or both on leading and trailing edges (Figs. 3a, 3b).
Regarding claim 9, Parks discloses the distance (Figs. 3a, 3b) between the suspended outer arm (128) and the inner arm (118) exceeds the sum of: rotational radius of lift propellers (124) mounted on the inner arm (118), rotational radius of lift propellers (124) mounted on the suspended outer arm (128), and convective clearance (Figs. 3a, 3b).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parks (US 2018/0305005) in view of Tian (US 10472064).
Regarding claim 2, Parks further discloses the outer arm body (118) features a streamlined cross-sectional design along its length (1a-1c), and the cross-section tapers (from connection point of elements 104 and 118 towards forward and aft ends) gradually from the middle (connection point at elements 104 and 118) toward both ends (forward and aft ends); wherein the streamlined design reduces vortices formed by propeller interference with the aircraft fuselage, thereby enhancing efficiency of the lift motors ([0074] to mitigate the rotor wake, [0080] minimizes rotor-wing interference, [0081] decreasing drag and weight, and the width of the rotor booms 118 should be minimized to avoid obstructing airflow from the lift rotors 124 during vertical flight, which will also greatly reduce noise generated by the airflow being reflected off the rotor booms 118, [0095] tilting of the lift rotors 124 generates thrust vectors that are directed away (outward) from the fuselage 102 provides for increased stability during vertical flight), but does not expressly disclose the arc curvature at one end of the outer arm body is smaller than at the other end.
However, Tian discloses a similar structure having a suspended outer arm (103a/b) with an arc curvature at one end (aft end, Fig. 3) of the outer arm body (103a/b) is smaller than at the other end (forward end, Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Parks, by making the arc curvature at one end of the outer arm body is smaller than at the other end, as taught by Tian, for the purpose of maximizing the aerodynamic qualities of the aircraft and adjoining structure.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parks (US 2018/0305005) and Tian (US 10472064) in view of Baity (US 2019/0135424).
Regarding claim 3, Parks/Tian disclose the invention substantially as set forth above, but do not expressly disclose the suspended outer arm includes an arm recess, wherein the cross-section of the arm recess along its length is an inverted isosceles trapezoid, adapted to match the separation surface geometry of the fixed wing.
However, Baity discloses a similar structure (10) with a suspended outer arm (18) that includes an arm recess (Fig. 37), wherein the cross-section of the arm recess (Fig. 37) along its length is an inverted isosceles trapezoid (the area on element 18 where element 180 would be installed matches the claimed trapezoid shape), adapted to match the separation surface geometry (180) of the fixed wing (12, 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Parks, by making the suspended outer arm include an arm recess, wherein the cross-section of the arm recess along its length is an inverted isosceles trapezoid, adapted to match the separation surface geometry of the fixed wing, as taught by Baity, for the purpose of achieving desired thrust lines, angle-of-attack, and trim ([0075]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parks (US 2018/0305005) in view of Baity (US 2019/0135424).
Regarding claim 8, Parks discloses the invention substantially as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the canard outer segment comprises a positioning member and a locking member; after installing the canard outer segment via the positioning member at a fixed position on the inner arm, the locking member secures the canard outer segment to the inner arm.
However, Baity discloses a similar structure (10) having an outer segment (14) that comprises a positioning member (20, 22) and a locking member (24); after installing the canard outer segment (14) via the positioning member (20, 22) at a fixed position (Figs. 3-5), the locking member (24) secures the canard outer segment (14) to the inner arm (18 via element 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Parks, by making canard outer segment comprises a positioning member and a locking member; after installing the canard outer segment via the positioning member at a fixed position on the inner arm, the locking member secures the canard outer segment to the inner arm, as taught by Baity, for the purpose of providing an interlocking spar arrangement that is retained by a quick release pin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner lists referenced documents on PTO-892 because the references present other/alternative or conceptual designs similar in scope that illustrate relevant features, which may demonstrate the level of novelty in comparison to Applicant’s inventive submission. The record relates to Applicant’s identified material and Examiner’s discovered references concerning Applicant’s subject matter relevant for a patentability determination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON M RODZIWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 6 pm.
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.
/AARON M RODZIWICZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
