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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6th January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 23, 28, 34-35, 42-43, 48, 50 and 52 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 23 line 3, “…connected to each side of the fuselage…” should read “…connected to the fuselage…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 23 line 13, “…at a fixed tilt angle…” should read “…at a first fixed tilt angle…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 23 line 15, “…at the fixed tilt angle…” should read “…at a second fixed tilt angle…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 23 line 17, “…the fixed tilt angle is greater…” should read “…the first and second fixed tilt angles are greater…”.
In claim 28 line 2, “…one rotor and one proprotor to the single wing…” should read “…one rotor of the plurality of rotors and one proprotor of the plurality of proprotors to the single wing…”.
In claim 34 line 2, “…a first proprotor is forward of a second proprotor that is adjacent …” should read “…a first proprotor of the plurality of proprotors is forward of a second proprotor of the plurality of proprotors that is adjacent…”.
In claim 35 lines 1-2, “…each proprotor has more blades than each rotor.” should read “…each proprotor of the plurality of proprotors has more blades than each rotor of the plurality of proprotors.”.
In claim 42 line 2, “…one proprotor to generate…” should read “…one proprotor of the plurality of proprotors to generate…”.
In claim 43 lines 1-2, “…the proprotors…” should read “…the plurality of proprotors…”.
In claim 48 lines 1-2, “…a rotational axis of a second outermost rotor on a second side…” should read “…the rotational axis of the second outermost rotor on the second side…” as positively recited in claim 23.
In claim 50 line 3, “…connected to each side of the fuselage…” should read “…connected to the fuselage…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 50 line 13, “…at a fixed tilt angle…” should read “…at a first fixed tilt angle…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 50 line 14, “…to a rotational axis…” should read “…to the rotational axis…”
In claim 50 line 15, “…at the fixed tilt angle…” should read “…at a second fixed tilt angle…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 50 line 16, “…the fixed tilt angle is greater…” should read “…the first and second fixed tilt angles are greater…”.
In claim 52 line 3, “…the second rotor…” should read “…the third rotor…” as second rotor is on the first side of the fuselage.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 24, 26 and 36-37 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.
Claim 24 recites “a rotational axis of an adjacent rotor of the plurality of rotors” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if an adjacent rotor is the “second outermost rotor on a second side of the fuselage” as recited in claim 23 or another rotor. For the examination purpose the limitation is interpreted as “a rotational axis of a further rotor of the plurality of rotors adjacent to the first outermost rotor”.
Claim 26 recites “a rotational axis of an adjacent rotor of the plurality of rotors” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if an adjacent rotor is the “first outermost rotor or second outermost rotor” as recited in claim 25 or another rotor. For the examination purpose the limitation is interpreted as “a rotational axis of a further rotor of the plurality of rotors adjacent to the innermost rotor”.
Claim 36 recites “…a first rotor of the plurality of rotors is canted relative to a second rotor of the plurality of rotors…” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if first rotor and second rotor are first outermost rotor and second outermost rotor respectively as claimed in claim 23 or different rotors. For the examination purpose the limitation is interpreted as “…a rotor of the plurality of rotors is canted relative to a further rotor of the plurality of rotors…”.
Claims not addressed above are rejected due to their dependency on rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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) 23-28, 31-32, 35-41, and 46-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tighe et al. (US 2021/0403154) in view of Kroo (US 2013/0020429) and Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155).
(Note: Provisional application of Tighe et al. (US 2021/0403154) has support under 35 USC 112A).
Regarding claims 23-26 and 46-47, Tighe et al. ‘154 teaches (figures 2A-2B) a vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising:
a fuselage (Para 0033);
a single pair of wings connected to the fuselage (Para 0033);
a plurality of rotors/lift fan assemblies (202s) connected to the single pair of wings for providing lift for vertical take-off and landing of the aircraft, wherein the plurality of rotors (202s) comprise a first outermost rotor (202) on a first side of the fuselage and a second outermost rotor (202) on a second side of the fuselage, wherein each rotor of the plurality of rotors is fixed in position (clearly shown in the figure below) (Para 0033; fuselage has two sides with 3 rotors on each sides); and
a plurality of proprotors/tilting fan assemblies (204s) connected to the single pair of wings and tiltable between lift configurations (figure 2B) for providing lift for vertical take-off and landing of the aircraft and propulsion configurations (figure 2A) for providing forward thrust to the aircraft (Para 0033);
wherein the plurality of rotors further comprises an inner most rotor (202) on the first side of the fuselage (clearly seen in figure 2A), and
a further rotor (clearly shown in the figure below)
PNG
media_image1.png
326
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the aircraft wherein each rotor comprises more than two blades.
Kroo ‘429 teaches (figure 1) two canted vertical rotor assemblies (101) wherein each rotor comprises four blades (clearly seen in figure 1) (0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tighe et al. ‘154 to incorporate the teachings of Kroo ‘429 to configure the aircraft wherein each rotor comprises more than two blades.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would increase lift.
Modified Tighe et al. ‘154 is silent about the aircraft wherein a rotational axis of the first outermost rotor is tilted rearward at a first fixed tilt angle relative to a vertical axis of the aircraft,
a rotational axis of the second outermost rotor is tilted rearward at a second fixed tilt angle relative to the vertical axis of the aircraft, and
the first and second fixed tilt angles are greater than 0 degrees and less than or equal to 15 degrees,
wherein the rotational axis of the first outermost rotor is tilted rearward relative to a rotational axis of a further rotor of the plurality of rotors adjacent to the first outermost rotor,
wherein a rotational axis of the innermost rotor is tilted rearward relative to the vertical axis of the aircraft,
wherein the rotational axis of the innermost rotor is tilted rearward relative to a rotational axis of a further rotor of the plurality of rotors adjacent to the innermost rotor,
wherein the rotational axis of the first outermost rotor is tilted rearward or forward relative to a rotational axis of a further rotor of the plurality of rotors, and
wherein the further rotor is on the first side of the fuselage.
Reichert et al. ‘155 teaches (figure 2A) a rotor orientation of a mulitcopter wherein rotors are mounted such that rotors are alternately tilted forward and/or backward wherein two adjacent rotors in a column tilts in opposite direction wherein rotors are angled at a range from 5 to 10 degrees (Para 0022, 0026; rotors are tilted forward and/or backward with respect to each other and the vertical axis of the aircraft).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tighe et al. ‘154 to incorporate the teachings of Reichert et al. ‘155 to configure the aircraft wherein a rotational axis of the first outermost rotor is tilted rearward at a first fixed tilt angle relative to a vertical axis of the aircraft,
a rotational axis of the second outermost rotor is tilted rearward at a second fixed tilt angle relative to the vertical axis of the aircraft, and
the first and second fixed tilt angles are greater than 0 degrees and less than or equal to 15 degrees,
wherein the rotational axis of the first outermost rotor is tilted rearward relative to a rotational axis of a further rotor of the plurality of rotors adjacent to the first outermost rotor (rotors are alternately tilted),
wherein a rotational axis of the innermost rotor is tilted rearward relative to the vertical axis of the aircraft,
wherein the rotational axis of the innermost rotor is tilted rearward relative to a rotational axis of a further rotor of the plurality of rotors adjacent to the innermost rotor (rotors are alternately tilted),
wherein the rotational axis of the first outermost rotor is tilted rearward relative to a rotational axis of a further rotor of the plurality of rotors (rotors are alternately tilted and the first outermost rotor is rearward of the vertical axis of the aircraft), and
wherein the further rotor is on the first side of the fuselage.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
Regarding claim 27, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 teaches (figures 2A-2B) the aircraft wherein the plurality of rotors/lift fan assemblies (202s) are rearward of the single pair of wings and the plurality of proprotors/tilting fan assemblies (204s) are forward of the single pair of wings (clearly seen in figures 2A-2B) (Para 0033);
Regarding claim 28, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 teaches (figures 2A-2B) the aircraft comprising a plurality of booms (206s) mounted to the singe pair of wings, each boom (206) mounting one rotor of the plurality of rotors (202s) and one proprotor of the plurality of proprotors (204s) to the singe pair of wings (clearly seen in figures 2A-2B) (Para 0033).
Regarding claim 31, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 teaches (figures 2A-2B) the aircraft wherein the plurality of booms (206s) comprises a total of six booms (Para 0033).
Regarding claim 32, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 teaches (figures 2A-2B) the aircraft further comprising:
at least one battery/battery units (135) configured to power the plurality of rotors and the plurality of proprotors, the at least one battery comprising a first battery located in the fuselage (Para 0027).
Regarding claim 35, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 teaches (figures 2A-2B) the aircraft wherein each proprotor of the plurality of proprotors has more blades than each rotor of the plurality of rotors (clearly seen in figure 2A).
Regarding claims 36-38, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 teaches (figures 2A-2B) the aircraft of claim 23 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein a rotor of the plurality of rotors is canted relative to a further rotor of the plurality of rotors such that a rotational axis of the rotor is non-parallel with a rotational axis of the further rotor,
wherein a rotor cant angle between the rotational axis of the rotor and the vertical axis of the aircraft is between 0 degrees and 30 degrees, and
wherein the rotor cant angle is about 12 degrees.
Kroo ‘429 teaches (figures 1-3) two canted vertical rotor assemblies (101) wherein rotor assemblies are each mounted to cant outward, inward, forward, or back, for a proper combination of rotor thrust to result in a net force in the horizontal plane as well as needed vertical lift wherein 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 (0027, 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tighe et al. ‘154 to incorporate the teachings of Kroo ‘429 to configure the aircraft wherein a rotor of the plurality of rotors is canted relative to a further rotor of the plurality of rotors such that a rotational axis of the rotor is non-parallel with a rotational axis of the further rotor,
wherein a rotor cant angle between the rotational axis of the rotor and the vertical axis of the aircraft is between 0 degrees and 30 degrees, and
wherein the rotor cant angle is about 12 degrees (10 degrees is close to/about 12 degrees).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
Regarding claims 39-41, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 (figures 2A-2B) the aircraft of claim 23 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein a first proprotor of the plurality of proprotors is canted relative to a second proprotor of the plurality of proprotors such that a rotational axis of the first proprotor is non-parallel with a rotational axis of the second proprotor,
wherein a proprotor cant angle between the rotational axis of the first proprotor and the vertical axis of the aircraft is between 0 degrees and 30 degrees, and
wherein the proprotor cant angle is about 12 degrees.
Kroo ‘429 teaches (figures 1-3) two canted vertical rotor assemblies (101) wherein rotor assemblies are each mounted to cant outward, inward, forward, or back, for a proper combination of rotor thrust to result in a net force in the horizontal plane as well as needed vertical lift wherein 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 (0027, 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tighe et al. ‘154 to incorporate the teachings of Kroo ‘429 to configure the aircraft wherein a first proprotor of the plurality of proprotors is canted relative to a second proprotor of the plurality of proprotors such that a rotational axis of the first proprotor is non-parallel with a rotational axis of the second proprotor,
wherein a proprotor cant angle between the rotational axis of the first proprotor and the vertical axis of the aircraft is between 0 degrees and 30 degrees, and
wherein the proprotor cant angle is about 12 degrees (10 degrees is close to/about 12 degrees).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics by producing a vectored thrust.
Regarding claim 48, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 (figures 2A-2B) the aircraft comprising wherein the rotational axis of the second outermost rotor (202) on the second side of the fuselage is tilted rearward relative to the vertical axis of the aircraft (as modified by Reichert et al. ‘155) but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the rotational axis of the second outermost rotor is tilted by an amount that is equal to the rearward tilt of the first outermost rotor.
Kroo ‘429 teaches (figures 1-3) two canted vertical rotor assemblies (101) wherein rotor assemblies are each mounted to cant outward, inward, forward, or back, for a proper combination of rotor thrust to result in a net force in the horizontal plane as well as needed vertical lift wherein 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 (0027, 0028; rotors on two ends face same direction/outward and rotors in the middle faces opposite direction/inward).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tighe et al. ‘267 to incorporate the teachings of Kroo ‘429 to configure the aircraft wherein the rotational axis of the second outermost rotor is tilted by an amount that is equal to the rearward tilt of the first outermost rotor.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would balance the combined rotor thrust.
Claim(s) 29-30, 34 and 43-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tighe et al. (US 2021/0403154), Kroo (US 2013/0020429) and Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155) as applied to claims 23 and 28 above, and further in view of Tao (US 2021/0253234).
Regarding claims 29-30, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 teaches (figures 2A-2B) the aircraft wherein:
a first innermost rotor (202) of the plurality of rotors (202s) and a first innermost proprotor (204) of the plurality of proprotors (204s) are mounted to a first boom (206) of the plurality of booms (206s) on a first side of the fuselage (clearly shown in the figure below) (Para 0033);
the first outermost rotor (202) of the plurality of rotors (202s) and a first outermost proprotor (204) of the plurality of proprotors (204s) are mounted to a second boom (206) of the plurality of booms (206s) on the first side of the fuselage (clearly shown in the figure below) (Para 0033);
wherein:
the first boom (206) is between the second boom (206) and the fuselage (clearly shown in the figure below);
PNG
media_image2.png
422
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the aircraft wherein each boom of the plurality of booms is configured such that a first minimum distance in a direction along a length of the respective boom between a blade tip of one proprotor and a leading edge of the single pair of wings is greater than a second minimum distance in the direction along the length of the respective boom between a blade tip of one rotor and a trailing edge of the singe pair of wings,
the first innermost proprotor is forward of the first outermost proprotor , and
the first innermost rotor is rearward of the first outermost rotor.
Tao ‘234 teaches (figures 1-4) an aircraft (5) comprising wings (20s), one or more support elements/booms (28) configured to support the tilt-adjustable rotors (10s) and fixed tilt rotors (16s) wherein the length of the support element/boom (28) closer towards the fuselage is longer than the length of the support element (28) farther away from the fuselage such that the tilt-adjustable rotor (10) supported on a front end of the innermost support element/boom (28) is forward of other tilt-adjustable rotors (10s) supported on front ends of other support elements/booms (28s) and the fixed tilt rotor (16) supported on a rear end of the innermost support element/boom (28) is rearward of other fixed tilt rotors (16s) supported on rear ends other support elements/booms (28s), wherein tilt-adjustable rotors are in staggered configuration in forward-rearward direction such that the planes of rotation of tilt-adjustable rotors (10s) are non-coplanar in propulsion configuration (clearly seen in figure 4), and
wherein each support element/boom (28) is configured such that a first minimum distance in a direction along a length of the respective support element/boom (28) between a blade tip of the tilt-adjustable rotor (10) and a leading edge of the wing (20) is greater than a second minimum distance in the direction along the length of the respective support element/boom (28) between a blade tip of the one fixed tilt rotor (16) and a trailing edge of the wing (20) (clearly seen in figure 3) (Para 0018, 0035-0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tighe et al. ‘154 to incorporate the teachings of Tao ‘234 to configure the aircraft wherein each boom of the plurality of booms is configured such that a first minimum distance in a direction along a length of the respective boom between a blade tip of one proprotor and a leading edge of the single pair of wings is greater than a second minimum distance in the direction along the length of the respective boom between a blade tip of one rotor and a trailing edge of the singe pair of wings,
the first innermost proprotor is forward of the first outermost proprotor , and
the first innermost rotor is rearward of the first outermost rotor.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide reduced aerodynamic interference and improved structural packaging.
Regarding claim 34, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 teaches (figures 2A-2B) the aircraft of claim 23 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein a first proprotor of the plurality of proprotors is forward of a second proprotor of the plurality of proprotors that is adjacent to the first proprotor.
Tao ‘234 teaches (figures 1-4) an aircraft (5) comprising wings (20s), one or more support elements/booms (28) configured to support the tilt-adjustable rotors (10s) and fixed tilt rotors (16s) wherein the length of the support element/boom (28) closer towards the fuselage is longer than the length of the support element (28) farther away from the fuselage such that the tilt-adjustable rotor (10) supported on a front end of the innermost support element/boom (28) is forward of other tilt-adjustable rotors (10s) supported on front ends of other support elements/booms (28s) (Para 0018, 0035-0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tighe et al. ‘154 to incorporate the teachings of Tao ‘234 to configure the aircraft wherein a first proprotor of the plurality of proprotors is forward of a second proprotor of the plurality of proprotors that is adjacent to the first proprotor.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide reduced aerodynamic interference and improved structural packaging.
Regarding claim 43, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 teaches (figures 2A-2B) the aircraft of claim 23 but is silent about the aircraft wherein a range of tilt of the proprotors is greater than ninety degrees.
Tao et al. ‘234 teaches (figures 1-4) a vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising:
wing (20), a plurality of rotors/fixed-tilt rotors (16s) and a plurality of proprotors/tilt-adjustable rotors (10s) wherein the one or more tilt adjustable rotors (10s) are configured to tilt more than or less than 90 degrees (Para 0018, 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tighe et al. ‘154 to incorporate the teachings of Tao et al. ‘234 to configure the aircraft wherein a range of tilt of the proprotors is greater than ninety degrees.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
Regarding claim 44, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 (figures 2A-2B) the aircraft wherein the plurality of proprotors comprises an outermost proprotor but is silent about the aircraft wherein a range of tilt of the outermost proprotor is about 100 degrees.
Tao et al. ‘234 teaches (figures 1-4) a vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising:
wing (20), a plurality of rotors/fixed-tilt rotors (16s) and a plurality of proprotors/tilt-adjustable rotors (10s) wherein the one or more tilt adjustable rotors (10s) are configured to tilt more than 90 degrees (Para 0018, 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tighe et al. ‘154 to incorporate the teachings of Tao et al. ‘234 to configure the aircraft wherein a range of tilt of the plurality of proprotors is greater than ninety degrees.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
The Examiner further takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tighe et al. ‘154 to configure the aircraft wherein a range of tilt of the outermost proprotor is about 100 degrees.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would produce reverse thrust.
Regarding claim 45, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 (figures 2A-2B) the aircraft wherein at least two proprotors of the plurality of proprotors are on the first side of the fuselage (clearly seen in figure 10) but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the at least two proprotors are aligned such that their blade rotation planes are coplanar.
Tao et al. ‘234 teaches (figures 3-4) an aircraft comprising tilt-adjustable rotors (10) wherein tilt-adjustable rotors are aligned such that their blade rotation planes are coplanar in hover mode (clearly seen in figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tighe et al. ‘154 to incorporate the teachings of Tao et al. ‘234 to configure the aircraft wherein the at least two proprotors are aligned such that their blade rotation planes are coplanar.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would maximize the vertical thrust.
Claim(s) 33 and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tighe et al. (US 2021/0403154), Kroo (US 2013/0020429) and Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of McDonald (US 11,465,737).
Regarding claim 33, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 (figures 2A-2B) teaches the aircraft further comprising:
at least one battery/battery units (135) configured to power the plurality of rotors and the plurality of proprotors (Para 0027) but it is silent about the aircraft further comprising:
the at least one battery unit comprising a first battery located in the singe pair of wings.
McDonald ‘737 (figures 10-14) teaches the aircraft at least one battery (1202, 1204) configured to power the plurality of rotors and the plurality of proprotors, the at least one battery comprising a first battery located in the single pair of wings (1004, 1006) (Col. 8 Lines 3-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tighe et al. ‘154 to incorporate the teachings of McDonald ‘737 to configure the aircraft further comprising:
the at least one battery unit comprising a first battery located in the singe pair of wings.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would reduce wing bending loads.
Regarding claim 49, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 (figures 2A-2B) teaches the aircraft of claim 23 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the single pair of wings has a forward swept trailing edge.
McDonald ‘737 (figures 10-14) teaches the aircraft wherein the single pair of wings has a forward swept trailing edge (clearly seen in figure 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tighe et al. ‘154 to incorporate the teachings of McDonald ‘737 to configure the aircraft wherein the single pair of wings has a forward swept trailing edge.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics by reducing drag.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tighe et al. (US 2021/0403154), Kroo (US 2013/0020429) and Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Groninga et al. (US 2020/0391861).
Regarding claim 42, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 (figures 2A-2B) teaches the aircraft further comprising a control system (250) configured to actively alter a tilt of the at least one proprotor/tilting fan assembly (204s) (Para 0036) but it is silent about the aircraft further comprising a control system configured to actively alter a tilt of the at least one proprotor to generate yawing moments during take-off, landing and/or hover.
Groninga et al. ‘861 teaches (figures 1-3) a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft comprising two tiltable ducted fans (22) pivotable in the hover mode to provide yaw control by differential left and right ducted fan tilt (Para 0022; to create differential left and right ducted fan tilt the tiltable ducted fans must be individually tilted/controlled).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tighe et al. ‘154 to incorporate the teachings of Groninga et al. ‘861 to configure the aircraft further comprising a control system configured to actively alter a tilt of the at least one proprotor to generate yawing moments during take-off, landing and/or hover.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to provide yaw control (Para 0022).
Claim(s) 50 and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tighe et al. (US 2021/0403154) in view of Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155).
Regarding claim 50, Tighe et al. ‘154 teaches (figures 2A-2B) a vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising:
a fuselage (Para 0033);
a single pair of wings connected to the fuselage (Para 0033);
a plurality of rotors/lift fan assemblies (202s) connected to the single pair of wings for providing lift for vertical take-off and landing of the aircraft, wherein the plurality of rotors (202s) comprise a first rotor (202) and a second rotor (202) on a first side of the fuselage and a third rotor (202) and a fourth rotor (202) on a second side of the fuselage, wherein each rotor of the plurality of rotors is fixed in position (clearly seen in figure 2A) (Para 0033; fuselage has two sides with 3 rotors on each sides); and
a plurality of proprotors/tilting fan assemblies (204s) connected to the single pair of wings and tiltable between lift configurations (figure 2B) for providing lift for vertical take-off and landing of the aircraft and propulsion configurations (figure 2A) for providing forward thrust to the aircraft (clearly shown in the figure below) (Para 0033);
PNG
media_image3.png
320
558
media_image3.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the aircraft wherein a rotational axis of the first rotor is tilted rearward relative to a rotational axis of the second rotor at a first fixed tilt angle relative to a vertical axis of the aircraft,
a rotational axis of the third rotor is tilted rearward relative to the rotational axis of the second rotor at a second fixed tilt angle relative to the vertical axis of the aircraft, and
the first and second fixed tilt angles are greater than 0 degrees and less than or equal to 15 degrees.
Reichert et al. ‘155 teaches (figure 2A) a rotor orientation of a mulitcopter wherein rotors are mounted such that rotors are alternately tilted forward and/or backward wherein two adjacent rotors in a column tilts in opposite directions wherein rotors are angled at a range from 5 to 10 degrees (Para 0022, 0026; rotors are tilted forward and/or backward with respect to each other and the vertical axis of the aircraft).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tighe et al. ‘154 to incorporate the teachings of Reichert et al. ‘155 to configure the aircraft wherein a rotational axis of the first rotor is tilted rearward relative to a rotation axis of the second rotor at a first fixed tilt angle relative to a vertical axis of the aircraft (rotors are alternately tilted),
a rotational axis of the third rotor is tilted rearward relative to a rotational axis of the second rotor at a second fixed tilt angle relative to the vertical axis of the aircraft (rotors are alternately tilted), and
the first and second fixed tilt angles are greater than 0 degrees and less than or equal to 15 degrees.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
Regarding claim 52, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 teaches (figures 2A-2B) the aircraft wherein:
the first rotor comprises an outermost rotor on the first side of the fuselage (clearly shown in the figure above), and
the third rotor comprises an outermost rotor on the second side of the fuselage (clearly shown in the figure above).
Claim(s) 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tighe et al. (US 2021/0403154) and Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155) as applied to claim 50 above and further in view of Kroo (US 2013/0020429).
Regarding claim 51, modified Tighe et al. ‘154 teaches (figures 2A-2B) the aircraft of claim 50 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein each rotor comprise more than two blades.
Kroo ‘429 teaches (figure 1) two canted vertical rotor assemblies (101) wherein each rotor comprises four blades (clearly seen in figure 1)(0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tighe et al. ‘154 to incorporate the teachings of Kroo ‘429 to configure the aircraft wherein each rotor comprise more than two blades.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would increase lift.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6th January 2026, with respect to the amended claim(s) 23 and 50 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in as explained in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642