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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicants Amendment did not overcome the previous, 35 USC 103(a) rejections.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered and are not persuasive.
This office action is made final.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Please note, it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Specification objections
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 11 and 27 of the instant application rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12454375.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variations.
Reference of Prior Art
Conti et al. (US 20180170560, BOUNDARY LAYER INGESTION INTEGRATION).
Prisell. (US 20160152334, PROPULSION SYSTEM FOR AN AERIAL VEHICLE).
Sartorius et al. (US 20180086458, AIRFRAME).
Sikora et al. (US 20210229808, CONTROL OF DRONE-LOAD SYSTEM METHOD, SYSTEM, AND APPARATUS).
Gundlach et al. (US 11597490, Additive Manufactured Airframe Structure Having A Plurality Of Reinforcement Elements).
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 11-14, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conti.
Re claim 11 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Conti discloses: An
airframe device for an aerial vehicle, comprising: a body of one of a fuselage section or a tail section (¶ 0028); and a multi-inlet assembly integrated into the body and comprising at least three air intake passage structures (¶ 0028, fig. 2, items 22, 30 between items 34), where each air intake passage structure is equally spaced along a frame or wall of the body of the fuselage section or the tail section with respect to another of the air intake passage structures (¶ 0030, figs. 2, 3, items 22, 30), wherein each air intake passage structure of the multi-inlet assembly includes one or both of a curved and/or angled surface that interfaces with a corresponding opening on the frame or wall of the body to drive air within an interior of the body of the fuselage section or the tail section (¶ 0028, fig. 2, items 22, 30 to item intake of item 24).
PLEASE NOTE, However Conti discloses the claimed invention except for a multi-inlet assembly integrated into the body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a multi-inlet assembly integrated into the body for added rigidity and longer life span, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Re claim 12 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Conti discloses: The airframe device of claim 11, wherein the multi-inlet assembly is operable to reduce air intakes that cause ram drag when the aerial vehicle employing the airframe device is in flight (¶ 0028, fig. 2, items 22, 30, … The smooth contoured shape is operable to reduce air intakes that cause ram drag) .
Re claim 13 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Conti discloses: The airframe device of claim 12, wherein an airframe structure of the aerial vehicle includes non-flush surfaces (figs. 3A, 3B, items 38), such that the multi-inlet assembly is operable to reduce the ram drag attributed to the non-flush surfaces (fig. 2, items 22, 30). .
Re claim 14 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Conti discloses: The airframe device of claim 12, wherein the frame or wall of the body of the fuselage section or the tail section includes non-flush surfaces (figs. 3A, 3B, items 38), such that the multi-inlet assembly is operable to reduce the ram drag attributed to the non-flush surfaces (¶ 0028, fig. 2, items 22, 30, … The smooth contoured shape is operable to reduce air intakes that cause ram drag).
Re claim 16 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Conti discloses: The airframe device of claim 11, wherein the air intake passage structures converge into one internal passage structure that spans toward an intake region of a propulsion system of the aerial vehicle (¶ 0028, fig. 2, items 22 converge to item 30 then into intake of fan 24).
Re claim 17 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Conti discloses: The airframe device of claim 11, wherein the multi-inlet assembly further comprises at least one lip or scoop operable to drive airflow into the at least three air intake passage structures (¶ 0028, fig. 2, lip of items 22).
Claim(s) 15 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conti in view of Prisell.
Re claim 15 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Conti fails to teach as disclosed by Prisell: The airframe device of claim 11, wherein the corresponding opening of each of the at least three air intake passage structures are flush with respect to an outer surface of the body of the fuselage section or the tail section (¶ 0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Prisell teachings of the corresponding opening of each of the at least three air intake passage structures are flush with respect to an outer surface of the body of the fuselage section or the tail section into the Conti, in order to reduce drag.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartorius in view of Conti and further in view of Prisell.
Re claim 22 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Conti, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Prisell: The mission-adaptable aerial vehicle of claim 18, wherein the corresponding opening of each of the at least three air intake passage structures are flush with respect to an outer surface of the frame or wall of the tail segment housing (¶ 0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Prisell teachings of the corresponding opening of each of the at least three air intake passage structures are flush with respect to an outer surface of the frame or wall of the tail segment housing into the Conti, as modified above, in order to reduce drag.
Claim(s) 18-21 and 23-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartorius in view of Conti.
Re claim 18 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Sartorius discloses: A mission-adaptable aerial vehicle, comprising: a fuselage assembly (item 102) comprising one or more fuselage sections (¶ 0024, 0025); a wing assembly attachable to the fuselage assembly (¶ 0024, 0025 items 104), the wing assembly including one or more one wing sections (¶ 0024, 0025, items 104); a nose cone assembly attachable to the fuselage assembly (¶ 0027, fig. 1, unnumbered nose section that surrounds item 120); a tail assembly attachable to the fuselage assembly (¶ 0025, items 108, 110); and a propulsion unit configured to drive flight of the mission-adaptable aerial vehicle (¶ 0027, items 120, 122),
However Sartorius fails to teach as disclosed by Conti: wherein the tail assembly includes a tail section having an additively manufactured body comprising a multi-inlet assembly to direct air intake into a tail segment housing of the tail section where at least a portion of the propulsion unit is contained, wherein the multi-inlet assembly comprises at least three air intake passage structures, where each air intake passage structure is equally spaced along a frame or wall of the tail segment housing with respect to another of the air intake passage structures, wherein each air intake passage structure of the multi-inlet assembly includes one or both of a curved and/or angled surface that interfaces with a corresponding opening on the frame or wall of the tail segment housing to drive air within an interior of the tail segment housing (Applicant intends to claim a method step of a tail section having an additively manufactured body in an apparatus type system claim. In other words, it’s unclear what invention Applicant intends to claim because as currently presented, the claim encompasses two different statutory classes of invention, “an additively manufactured body” and “a mission-adaptable aerial vehicle” drawn to a tail assembly). (See Ex parte Lyell 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int 1990) OR (IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v Amazon.Com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005))
(PLEASE NOTE, PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS: [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
(the remaining of Claim 18 above is similar in scope to Claim 11; therefore, the remaining of Claim 18 above is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Sartorius teachings of the tail assembly includes a tail section having an additively manufactured body comprising a multi-inlet assembly to direct air intake into a tail segment housing of the tail section where at least a portion of the propulsion unit is contained, wherein the multi-inlet assembly comprises at least three air intake passage structures, where each air intake passage structure is equally spaced along a frame or wall of the tail segment housing with respect to another of the air intake passage structures, wherein each air intake passage structure of the multi-inlet assembly includes one or both of a curved and/or angled surface that interfaces with a corresponding opening on the frame or wall of the tail segment housing to drive air within an interior of the tail segment housing into the Conti, in order to modify the tail assembly by replacing the tail assembly with a suitable tail assembly of Conti to increase the total available thrust of the mission-adaptable aerial vehicle based on the mission requirement and reduce drag by enhancing the boundary layer.
Re claim 19 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Sartorius, as modified above, discloses: The mission-adaptable aerial vehicle of claim 18, wherein the multi-inlet assembly is operable to reduce air intakes that cause ram drag when the mission-adaptable aerial vehicle is in flight (Conti ¶ 0028, fig. 2, items 22, 30, … The smooth contoured shape is operable to reduce air intakes that cause ram drag) .
Re claim 20 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Sartorius, as modified above, discloses: The mission-adaptable aerial vehicle of claim 19, wherein an airframe structure of the mission-adaptable aerial vehicle includes non-flush surfaces (Conti figs. 3A, 3B, items 38), such that the multi-inlet assembly is operable to reduce the ram drag attributed to the non-flush surfaces (Conti fig. 2, items 22, 30).
Re claim 21 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Sartorius, as modified above, discloses: The mission-adaptable aerial vehicle of claim 19, wherein the frame or wall of the tail segment housing includes non-flush surfaces (Conti figs. 3A, 3B, items 38), such that the multi-inlet assembly is operable to reduce the ram drag attributed to the non-flush surfaces (Conti fig. 2, items 22, 30).
Re claim 23 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Sartorius, as modified above, discloses: The mission-adaptable aerial vehicle of claim 18, wherein the air intake passage structures converge into one internal passage structure that spans toward an intake region of a propulsion system of the mission-adaptable aerial vehicle (Conti ¶ 0028, fig. 2, items 22 converge to item 30 then into intake of fan 24). .
Re claim 24 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Sartorius, as modified above, discloses: The mission-adaptable aerial vehicle of claim 18, wherein the multi-inlet assembly further comprises at least one lip or scoop operable to drive airflow into the at least three air intake passage structures (Conti ¶ 0028, fig. 2, lip of items 22).
Re claim 26 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Sartorius, as modified above, discloses: The mission-adaptable aerial vehicle of claim 18, wherein the propulsion unit includes at least one of (i) one or more batteries, (ii) one or more fuel cells, or (iii) one or more powerplants comprising at least one of a rocket, an internal combustion engine-driven propeller, an electrically-driven propeller system, or a turbojet engine or a turbofan engine (Conti ¶ 0034, … turbofan or turboelectric BLI engines).
Re claim 27 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Sartorius, as modified above, discloses: The mission-adaptable aerial vehicle of claim 18, wherein the wing assembly is reversibly attachable to the fuselage assembly (Sartorius ¶ 0024, 0025, fig. 1, items 104, please see the arrow directions), the nose cone assembly is reversibly attachable to the fuselage assembly (Sartorius ¶ 0027, fig. 1, unnumbered nose section that surrounds item 120, please see the arrow directions), and the tail assembly is reversibly attachable to the fuselage assembly (Sartorius ¶ 0025, items 108, 110, please see the arrow directions).
Re claim 28 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Sartorius, as modified above, discloses: The mission-adaptable aerial vehicle of claim 18, wherein the wing assembly (Sartorius ¶ 0024, 0025, fig. 1, items 104, please see the arrow directions), the nose cone assembly (Sartorius ¶ 0027, fig. 1, unnumbered nose section that surrounds item 120, please see the arrow directions), and the tail assembly (Sartorius ¶ 0025, items 108, 110, please see the arrow directions) are attachable for on-demand assembly, disassembly, and/or modification at a location where the mission-adaptable aerial vehicle is to take off.
However Sartorius, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the wing assembly attachable, the nose cone assembly and the tail assembly are attachable for on-demand assembly, disassembly, and/or modification at a location where the mission-adaptable aerial vehicle is to take off. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the wing assembly attachable, the nose cone assembly and the tail assembly are attachable for on-demand assembly, disassembly, and/or modification at a location where the mission-adaptable aerial vehicle is to take off to save transportation time, since It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartorius in view of Conti and further in view of Sikora.
Re claim 25 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Sartorius, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Sikora: The mission-adaptable aerial vehicle of claim 18, further comprising: an electronics unit comprising a wireless transceiver device (¶ 0060, … wireless transceiver) and at least one of a location tracking device (¶ 0057, … GPS or another radio navigation or absolute positioning system) or a data processing device comprising a processor and a memory (¶ 0054, … electrical components, including computer processors, computer memory).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Sikora teachings of an electronics unit comprising a wireless transceiver device and at least one of a location tracking device or a data processing device comprising a processor and a memory into the Sartorius, as modified above, to enhance flight and navigational control of the mission-adaptable aerial vehicle systems.
Claim(s) 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartorius in view of Conti and further in view of Gundlach.
Re claim 29 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Sartorius, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Gundlach The mission-adaptable aerial vehicle of claim 18, wherein the one or more fuselage sections of the fuselage assembly includes a front fuselage section (front item 34), a central fuselage section reversibly attachable to the front fuselage section (central fuselage section item 34 is attached to front item 34), and a rear fuselage section reversibly attachable to the central fuselage section (rear fuselage section item 34 is attached to the central fuselage section 34), wherein a nose cone section of the nose cone assembly is reversibly attachable to the front fuselage section (nose cone section of the nose cone assembly is attached to front item 34), wherein the tail assembly is reversibly attachable to the rear fuselage section (the tail assembly is attached to the rear item 34), and wherein the wing assembly is reversibly attachable to the central fuselage section (the wing assembly item 32 is attached to the central fuselage section 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Gundlach teachings of the one or more fuselage sections of the fuselage assembly includes a front fuselage section, a central fuselage section reversibly attachable to the front fuselage section, and a rear fuselage section reversibly attachable to the central fuselage section, wherein a nose cone section of the nose cone assembly is reversibly attachable to the front fuselage section, wherein the tail assembly is reversibly attachable to the rear fuselage section, and wherein the wing assembly is reversibly attachable to the central fuselage section into the Sartorius, as modified above, to increase the availability of sections/segments to facilitate reconfiguring the mission-adaptable aerial vehicle as needed.
Re claim 30 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Sartorius, as modified above, discloses: The mission-adaptable aerial vehicle of claim 29, wherein the tail assembly includes the tail segment housing and a tail end component reversibly attachable to the tail segment housing (Conti figs. 1, 2 items 18, 26), which is reversibly attachable to the rear fuselage section (Conti figs. 1, 2 items 18, 26 are attached to the rear fuselage section item 10).
Re claim 31:The airframe device of claim 11, wherein the body of the one of the fuselage section or the tail section has an additively manufactured structure that is a 3D-printed structure or an injection molded structure.
Re claim 32:The airframe device of claim 18, wherein the additively manufactured body of the tail section is a 3D-printed structure or an injection molded structure.
(Re claims 31, 32: Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Conti (claim 31), as modified above, and Sartorius, as modified above (claim 32) discloses: the claimed invention except for an additively manufactured structure that is a 3D-printed structure or an injection molded structure, however:
PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS: [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, in addition the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant made the following arguments:
Examiner respectfully disagrees; the prior art rejection in view of the new rejection above discloses the limitations of the claims; thus, All the structural limitations of the claims have been met.
Applicant argues that “Unger fails to disclose a wing system having at least two wings positioned with respect to the axis of the projectile
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TIEN DINH can be reached on 571-272-6899. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights