DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 16 September 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argus (US 2019/0263519) in view of Ahn et al. (US 2016/0325829).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Argus discloses a flying device comprising:
a main rotor (24);
an engine (40) in a body part casing (20) to drive the rotor ([0097]) via a power transmission part (26); and
a motor (60) to drive a sub rotor (72) at an outer end of the sub frame (50).
Argus does not disclose the main rotor at the outer end of a main frame disposed outside the body part.
Ahn teaches main rotors (100-400) at the end of respective main frames (103-403) outside the body (e.g. Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Argus to use main rotors on main frames outside the body as taught by Ahn for the predictable advantage of increasing the “base” of the device to increase stability and/or maneuverability during flight (e.g. longer moment arms between the rotors and CG requiring less force to adjust attitude).
Regarding claim 2:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Argus discloses the power transmission part as a belt (80, 82, 86).
Regarding claims 6, 8, and 9:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Argus as modified renders main rotor centers of rotation outside the body part on the left and right sides and two sub rotors each outside the body part on the front and rear sides of the body part (Figs 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 7:
The discussion above regarding claim 6 is relied upon.
Argus discloses speed control for the rotors, thus rendering the vehicle capable of keeping the main rotor speeds unchanged while the sub rotor speeds are changed.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argus (‘519) in view of Ahn et al. (‘829) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishikawa et al. (EP 2 762 704).
Regarding claim 3:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Argus discloses two main rotors on the left and right sides driven by the engine and two sub rotors each on the front and back sides, but does not specifically disclose driving the rotors with respective first and second engine parts.
Ishikawa teaches an engine having two output parts (e.g. g1 and g2) to drive to components (note: the background indicates components may be propellers).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Argus to use respective outputs as taught by Ishikawa for the predictable advantage of permitting operation of one rotor in the event of failure of a transmission component of the other, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 4:
The discussion above regarding claim 3 is relied upon.
Argus discloses an internal combustion engine (40), but does not disclose engine parts arranged opposite each other.
Ishikawa teaches an opposed-piston engine having pistons (4, 5) facing each other within a common cylinder (1) to cancel inertia and reduce vibrations ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Argus to use opposed pistons as taught by Ishikawa for the predictable advantage of cancelling the inertia of the piston movement to reduce vibrations.
Regarding claim 5:
The discussion above regarding claim 3 is relied upon.
Argus as modified renders one rotor and engine part one the left and one pair on the right (as seen in e.g. Fig 2, with the outputs modified accordingly to match).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to argument that Ishikawa cannot provide for outputs in the event of failure because shafts 23 and 24 are not independent, the rejection relies upon shafts g1 and g2, not 23 and 24. The arguments are thus not commensurate with the rejection.
Similarly, applicant’s argument with respect to the vibrations rely upon citations to the alternative output shaft g, and not to the internal crank shaft components (the opposing pistons) as recited in [0028], cited above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 ET.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights