Okay, it's an efficient design, although made from exotic composites which translates into "not that cheap." What's really missing from the equation is the hardware and software for mostly automated flight controls, so that even Grandma can punch in a destination and let the aircraft fly itself there.

The Punch in a destination and "let the plane fly grandpa there", is already a possibility.. Talk to FAA, JAA, CASA, etc as to their motivation for restricting the field in terms of Automation and Liability....
Would you as an engineer (If you were an engineer) take the blame for every time some dimwitt flies the plane to fly itself into an inner city condo... Hey I just wanted to get home real quick....
One of the real problems is idiot proofing the control and navigation system. Maybe it would need an on-line controller approving each and every flight plan filing, then monitoring the flight in real time.... And stepping in if it diverges from the "Plan"
Traffic avoidance etc is easy to do, as long as all of the traffic are fully automated....
That one maverick who Loves flying by the seat of his pants, in the "automated control space" would really mess things up.
As my old professor would have said.... "The first disaster with any sort of Automatic aviation, would be the last..." It really ain't that necessary. There are other ways of getting places... These toys will always be the province of those who can afford to jump through the hoops.... Not Grandpa. Loving it..

Must be an electric plane because those wings look incapable of carrying fuel.

No this is the just right common sense design. Even the other comments can't criticise it but put in additions which will be in the future design, this is only prototype. This is also the actual future flying car concept. It's fuel efficiency also makes it more affordable. This is the jackpot if it can move forward. If the wings could be made from lithium polymer, this could eventually be an electric. Congratulations and good luck.

Is the design concept and intended effect scalable. If you can make this work with say a 747 carrying capacity, it becomes extremely interesting for both investment and reduced cost for travel.

A staggered box wing is a good amount better in being lighter, lower drag and much better stability than this structurally weak design, thus has to be heavier to make up for it, flight of fancy.
Now a nice staggered box wing seaplane with twin rear props, one engine done in medium tech composites has real possiblities.

Is this not just another potential toy for the wealthy? Also, Boeing has a staggered wing airliner project in the works.

re; Buellrider
First with the efficiency they are talking about why would you need to put fuel into the wings. Second the wings are hollow three dimensional objects why can't you fill them with fuel?

It seems disingenuous to compare a very small prop-driven plane with a jet, and crow about its theoretical economy.
1) Brag when you have actual fuel economy figures from an actual plane.
2) How does it compare to a conventional single wing, single engine plane of equivalent size?

How many times have we heard a similar story about a new and better light aircraft in development? I am not saying that this is particular project is a bad concept, just unproven as yet. And when the 'low costs' skyrocket and the plane is basically unmarketable on a large scale, everybody sighs and starts over with another project that intends to do the same thing as the last only this time better and cheaper. When manufacturers are NOT saddled with the kinds of regulation and liability they currently work under, they just MIGHT be able to push a concept like this all the way across the finish line and into the mass market. Unfortunately, those conditions only exist in places like China as of now.