Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/250,651

FLYING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 26, 2025
Examiner
KREINER, MICHAEL B
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Kubota Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
498 granted / 605 resolved
+30.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
617
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
40.6%
+0.6% vs TC avg
§102
35.7%
-4.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 605 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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. Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 3,591,109 to McLarty. Regarding claim 1, McLarty teaches a flying apparatus comprising: a main body assembly 1; a plurality of arms (shaft housings 19, see fig. 4) extending from the main body assembly; a plurality of rotors (S and S′) respectively attached to the plurality of arms (fig. 1); and an engine (E) to supply a driving force to the rotors (via drive shafts and bevel gears, see fig. 4); wherein the plurality of rotors include a first-side rotor and a second-side rotor such that, in a plan view, the first-side rotor is provided on a first side of the engine and the second-side rotor is provided on a second side of the engine opposite the first side (fig. 1); and the engine includes a first output shaft (leftmost shaft 18 in fig. 4) to supply a driving force to the first-side rotor and a second output shaft (rightmost shaft 18 in fig. 4) to supply a driving force to the second-side rotor. Regarding claim 3, McLarty teaches that the main body assembly includes a framed main body to enclose the engine in a plan view (fig. 1); the framed main body includes a first frame member (leftmost framework bracing member 10 in fig. 1) provided on the first side of the engine and a second frame member (rightmost framework bracing member 10 in fig. 1) provided on the second side of the engine; the first output shaft (inside shaft housing 19) extends obliquely relative to the first frame member in a plan view; and the second output shaft (inside shaft housing 19) extends obliquely relative to the second frame member in a plan view (fig. 1). Regarding claim 5, McLarty teaches that the engine includes an engine main body (cylindrical housing partially shown in fig. 1 at ref. E) from which the first output shaft and the second output shaft project (via vertical tubular housing 31); and the engine main body is oriented obliquely relative to the frame main body in a plan view (where the engine main body has a circular shape in plan view, and therefore portions of it are oblique to the frame main body around its circumference). Claims 1−3 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 3,053,480 to Vanderlip. Regarding claim 1, Vanderlip teaches a flying apparatus comprising: a main body assembly (fig. 1 and annotated figure below, which shows elements of Vanderlip fig. 1 as they would appear in plan view); a plurality of arms (arms formed by pairs of struts 37) extending from the main body assembly; a plurality of rotors (such as rotors W and N in fig. 1 and annotated figure below; see col. 5 lines 18−21) respectively attached to the plurality of arms; and an engine 20 to supply a driving force to the rotors (via shafts and bevel gears, see fig. 2); wherein the plurality of rotors include a first-side rotor and a second-side rotor such that, in a plan view, the first-side rotor is provided on a first side of the engine and the second-side rotor is provided on a second side of the engine opposite the first side (see annotated figure below); and the engine includes a first output shaft (sleeve 33 contains one shaft 45 or 46) to supply a driving force to the first-side rotor and a second output shaft (sleeve 34 contains another shaft 45 or 46) to supply a driving force to the second-side rotor. PNG media_image1.png 744 915 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, Vanderlip teaches that the first output shaft and the second output shaft extend, in a plan view, obliquely relative to a line connecting a center of the first-side rotor to a center of the second-side rotor (see annotated figure). Regarding claim 3, Vanderlip teaches that the main body assembly includes a framed main body (tubular frame comprised of tubes 10, 11, 12 at the bottom, best seen in fig. 5, tubular frame 24 forming a square or rectangle at the top, and vertical corner posts 25 and diagonals 26 connecting the bottom to the top; col. 4 lines 15−23) to enclose the engine in a plan view; the framed main body includes a first frame member (one of the pair of struts 37 corresponding to rotor W) provided on the first side of the engine and a second frame member (one of the pair of struts 37 corresponding to rotor N) provided on the second side of the engine (see annotated figure); the first output shaft extends obliquely relative to the first frame member in a plan view and the second output shaft extends obliquely relative to the second frame member in a plan view (see annotated figure). 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. Claims 6−7 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over McLarty as applied to claim 1 above. Regarding claims 6−7, McLarty fails to teach the orientation of the air intake and exhaust port for the engine. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the combustion engine taught by McLarty as including an air intake and exhaust port, since combustion engines require a source of air (i.e. oxygen) to mix with fuel for combustion, as well as an exhaust to expel the combustion byproduct gases from the engine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to orient an air intake facing upward so that the air intake would not ingest as much dust and dirt from the ground compared to other positions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to orient the exhaust port facing upward so as to prevent exhausting pollution directly toward and ground support crew who may be in the vicinity of the vehicle on takeoff and landing. Claims 6−7 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Vanderlip as applied to claim 1 above. Regarding claims 6−7, Vanderlip fails to teach the orientation of the air intake and exhaust port for the engine. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the combustion engine taught by Vanderlip as including an air intake and exhaust port, since combustion engines require a source of air (i.e. oxygen) to mix with fuel for combustion, as well as an exhaust to expel the combustion byproduct gases from the engine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to orient an air intake facing upward so that the air intake would not ingest as much dust and dirt from the ground compared to other positions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to orient the exhaust port facing upward so as to prevent exhausting pollution directly toward and ground support crew who may be in the vicinity of the vehicle on takeoff and landing. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the nearest prior art is considered to be Vanderlip, McLarty. Multirotor VTOL aircraft prior art overwhelmingly employs individual electric motors for each lift rotor. Furthermore, where a centralized engine is used to drive multiple lift rotors mechanically, belt drives are more common, most likely due to the reduced weight and increased flexibility of belts compared to rotating output shafts. McLarty and Vanderlip both teach apparatuses having output shafts driven at a common central hub (or gearbox) using bevel gears. Out of necessity, such arrangements feature output shafts which radiate out from a central axis. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify either to arrive at a design where two of the output shafts are parallel but not colinear. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael B Kreiner whose telephone number is (571)270-5379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00. 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. /M.B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 26, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600458
AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600465
WINGLET SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12570390
AIRCRAFT WITH DETACHABLE WINGS AND METHOD OF DETACHING ITS WINGS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569066
SEAT FRAME AND SEAT WITH SWITCHABLE SITTING AND LYING POSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564264
CHAIR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+13.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 605 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month