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 Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 appears to contain a grammatical error on line 20: “a rotor blade rotation circles”. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “rotor blade rotation circles”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 is similarly objected to.
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 1, 4-5, 8-10, and 20 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 1 recites “the symmetrical tilt…of the at least two pairs of rotors generates side forces…” in lines 15-16. The use of the active verb “generates” causes a lack of clarity as to whether the limitations are infringeable when the apparatus is not in operation. For purposes of examination, “generates” is interpreted as “is configured to generate”. Appropriate clarification or correction is required. Claim 8 is similarly rejected. Claims 4-5, 9-10, and 20 fail to cure the deficiency.
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 1, 4, 6-10 and 20-22 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (CN 104494820 A), cited by Applicant in IDS dated 01/16/2025, in view of Mores et al. (US 11052998 B2), hereafter Mores.
Regarding Claim 1, Lin discloses an aerial vehicle (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of rotors (1, Fig. 1), each of the plurality of rotors having at least one blade (11, Figs. 1-2), wherein the aerial vehicle is enabled to modify a pitch angle (a) of the at least one blade of each of the plurality of rotors (para. [0008]);
wherein:
the aerial vehicle is a quadcopter drone (Fig. 1);
the aerial vehicle enables maneuvering in the yaw plane of the aerial vehicle by modifying the pitch angles (a) of the at least one blade, without changing a rotational speed of the at least one blade (para. [0010]);
the axis of movement of the plurality of rotors are distanced from each other such that there is no overlap of a rotor blade rotation circles of any of the plurality of rotors (Fig. 1);
each pair of rotors consists of one rotor rotating clockwise and one rotor rotating counter-clockwise (Fig. 5 and para. [0011]), wherein diagonally opposite rotors of the plurality of rotors rotate in the same direction (Fig. 5); and
the plurality of the rotors are powered mechanically driven by a single propulsion system (2, Fig. 1) configured to simultaneously distribute torque to each of the plurality of rotors via a main drive shaft coupled to the propulsion system and one or more gear assemblies (gearbox, Abstract) configured to split and distribute the torque among the plurality of rotors (Abstract).
Lin is silent about wherein an axis of movement of at least two pairs of the aerial vehicle's plurality of rotors are fixedly tilted in a symmetrical configuration in relation to the aerial vehicle's yaw plane, so that each of the at least two pairs of rotors of the aerial vehicle converges towards another point on the same level along a longitudinal axis plane of the aerial vehicle while creating an angle (y) between rotation planes of corresponding rotors of the at least two pairs of the plurality of rotors, which is less than 180° and greater than 140°; and the symmetrical tilt of the axes of movement of the at least two pairs of rotors generates side forces, that, in combination with the modification of the pitch angles (a), contribute to and increase the torque in the yaw plane of the aerial vehicle.
Mores teaches similar two pairs of rotors wherein an axis of movement (rotor axis 12a-12d, for example, Fig. 4) of the at least two pairs of similar rotors (examiner notes the first pair is interpreted as 7a, 8b, and the second pair is interpreted as 8c, 7d) are fixedly tilted in a symmetrical configuration in relation to the aerial vehicle's yaw plane (first lateral inclination angle 13a, and second lateral inclination angle, 13b, Fig. 4, and Col. 16, lines 28-56, examiner notes the first and second lateral inclination angles both “preferably amounts to 5 degrees”, which is the same, symmetrical, angle), so that each of the at least two pairs of rotors of the aerial vehicle converges towards another point on the same level along a longitudinal axis plane of the aerial vehicle (Fig. 4, examiner notes rotor axes 12a-12c converge towards plane of 1a) while creating an angle (y) between rotation planes of corresponding rotors of the at least two pairs of the plurality of rotors (Fig. 4, examiner notes an angle is created by the convergence of the rotation planes of rotors 7a, 8b and 8c, 7d, additionally see Col. 16, lines 28-36), which is less than 180° and greater than 140° (Col. 16, lines 40-42, examiner notes inclination angle 13a of thrust producing units 3a and 3c, is disclosed as “preferably” 5 degrees, which would result in a convergence of the rotation planes of 170, which is less than 180 and greater than 140); and
the symmetrical tilt of the axes of movement of the at least two pairs of rotors generates side forces, that contribute to and increase the torque in the yaw plane of the aerial vehicle (examiner notes that Mores’ symmetrical tilt performs this function, as a rotor system with symmetrical tilt would create not only a vertical component of thrust, but also a horizontal component of thrust, which is known as a side force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the at least two pairs of Lin’s plurality of rotors to be fixedly tilted as taught by Mores, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide reduced gust sensitivity and to increase the maneuverability of the aircraft (Mores, Col. 16, lines 8-18).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Lin teaches the aerial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the propulsion system has an internal combustion engine (Lin, para. [0017], “gasoline…as fuel, adopts…aero-engine as power”).
Regarding Claim 6, Lin discloses a method for providing improved maneuverability in a yaw plane (para. [0030], for example) of a multi-blade aerial vehicle (Fig. 1) comprising:
providing the axis of movement of at least two pairs of rotors of the multi-blade aerial vehicle (axis of movement of 1, Fig. 1), each rotor of the at least two pairs of rotors having a blade (11, Figs. 1-2), wherein:
the multi-blade aerial vehicle is a quadcopter drone (Fig. 1);
the multi-blade aerial vehicle enables maneuvering in the yaw plane of the multi-blade aerial vehicle by modifying the pitch angles (a) of the at least one blade, without changing a rotational speed of the at least one blade (para. [0030] and Fig. 5);
the axis of movement of the rotors are distanced from each other such that there is no overlap of a rotor blade rotation circles of any of the four rotors (Fig. 1); and
each pair of rotors consists of one rotor rotating clockwise and one rotor rotating counter-clockwise (Fig. 5), wherein diagonally opposite rotors of the at least two pairs of rotors rotate in the same direction (Fig. 5); and
the plurality of the rotors are powered mechanically driven by a single propulsion system (2, Fig. 1) configured to simultaneously distribute torque to each of the plurality of rotors via a main drive shaft coupled to the propulsion system and one or more gear assemblies (gearbox, Abstract ) configured to split and distribute the torque among the plurality of rotors (Abstract);
wherein the multi-blade aerial vehicle is enabled to modify a pitch angle (a) of the blades of the at least two pairs of rotors (para. [0010]).
Lin is silent about wherein the at least two pairs of rotors are fixedly tilted in a symmetrical configuration in relation to the multi-blade aerial vehicle's yaw plane so that the axes of movement of the rotors converge in the direction of the at least two pairs of rotors, each of the at least two pairs of rotors towards another point on the same level along a longitudinal axis plane of the multi-blade aerial vehicle, while creating an angle (y) between the rotation planes of the blades of each pair, which is less than 180° and greater than 140° wherein the multi-blade aerial vehicle is enabled to modify a pitch angle (a) of the blades of the at least two pairs of rotors; and the symmetrical tilt of the axes of movement of the at least two pairs of rotors generates side forces that, in combination with the modification of the pitch angles (a), contribute to and increase the torque in the yaw plane of the multi-blade aerial vehicle.
Mores teaches similar two pairs of rotors fixedly tilted in a symmetrical configuration in relation to the multi-blade aerial vehicle's yaw plane so that the axes of movement of the rotors (rotor axis 12a-12d, for example, Fig. 4) converge in the direction of the at least two pairs of rotors (examiner notes the first pair is interpreted as 7a, 8b, and the second pair is interpreted as 8c, 7d), each of the at least two pairs of rotors towards another point on the same level along a longitudinal axis plane of the multi-blade aerial vehicle (first lateral inclination angle 13a, and second lateral inclination angle, 13b, Fig. 4, and Col. 16, lines 28-56, examiner notes the first and second lateral inclination angles both “preferably amounts to 5 degrees”, which is the same, symmetrical, angle), while creating an angle (y) between the rotation planes of the blades of each pair (Fig. 4, examiner notes an angle is created by the convergence of the rotation planes of rotors 7a, 8b and 8c, 7d, additionally see Col. 16, lines 28-36), which is less than 180° and greater than 140° (Col. 16, lines 40-42, examiner notes inclination angle 13a of thrust producing units 3a and 3c, is disclosed as “preferably” 5 degrees, which would result in a convergence of the rotation planes of 170, which is less than 180 and greater than 140); and
the symmetrical tilt of the axes of movement of the at least two pairs of rotors generates side forces, that contribute to and increase the torque in the yaw plane of the multi-blade aerial vehicle (examiner notes that Mores’ symmetrical tilt performs this function, as a rotor system with symmetrical tilt would create not only a vertical component of thrust, but also a horizontal component of thrust, which is known as a side force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the at least two pairs of Lin’s plurality of rotors to be fixedly tilted as taught by Mores, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide reduced gust sensitivity and to increase the maneuverability of the aircraft (Mores, Col. 16, lines 8-18).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Lin teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising:
maneuvering the multi-blade aerial vehicle to yaw by increasing the pitch angle (a) of a first set of diagonally opposite rotors of the at least two pairs of rotors tilted in the symmetrical configuration in relation to the multi-blade aerial vehicle's yaw plane, and reducing the pitch angle (a) of a second set of diagonally opposite rotors of the at least two pairs of rotors tilted in the symmetrical configuration in relation to the multi-blade aerial vehicle's yaw plane (Lin, para. [0030] and Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 8, Lin discloses an aerial vehicle (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of rotors (1, Fig. 1), each of the plurality of rotors having at least one blade (11, Figs. 1-2), wherein the aerial vehicle is enabled to modify a pitch angle (a) of the at least one blade of each of the plurality of rotors (para. [0008]);
wherein the plurality of rotors includes forward rotors (3 and 4, Fig. 5, for example) and rearward rotors (1 and 2, Fig. 5, for example) arranged in at least two pairs of rotors (3 and 4; 1 and 2, Fig. 5) and said aerial vehicle is formed with a first geometrical dimension (x) between the forward rotors and the rearward rotors (dimension between forward and rearward rotors, Fig. 5) and a second geometrical dimension (y) between each rotor of the forward rotors and between each rotor of the rearward rotors (dimension between each of the forward rotors and each of the rearward rotors, Fig. 5);
wherein:
the aerial vehicle is a quadcopter drone (Fig. 5);
the aerial vehicle enables maneuvering in the yaw plane of the aerial vehicle by modifying the pitch angles (a) of the at least one blade, without changing a rotational speed of the at least one blade (para. [0010]);
each of the plurality of rotors is distanced from each other such that there is no overlap of a rotor blade rotation circles of any of the plurality of rotors (Fig. 5);
each pair of rotors consists of one rotor rotating clockwise and one rotor rotating counter-clockwise, wherein diagonally opposite rotors of the plurality of rotors rotate in the same direction (Fig. 5); and
the plurality of the rotors are powered mechanically driven by a single propulsion system (2, Fig. 1) configured to simultaneously distribute torque to each of the plurality of rotors via a main drive shaft coupled to the propulsion system and one or more gear assemblies (gearbox, Abstract) configured to split and distribute the torque among the plurality of rotors (Abstract).
Lin is silent about an axis of movement of each of the plurality of rotors is fixed in a tilted symmetrical configuration; the symmetrical tilt of the axes of movement of the at least two pairs of rotors generates side forces that, in combination with the modification of the pitch angles (a), contribute to and increase the torque in the yaw plane of the aerial vehicle; and the axes of movement of the at least two pairs of rotors are fixedly tilted in a symmetrical configuration in relation to the aerial vehicle’s yaw plane.
Mores teaches the axis of movement of similar rotors is fixed in a tilted symmetrical configuration (rotor axis 12a-12d, for example, Fig. 4); and the symmetrical tilt of the axes of movement of the at least two pairs of rotors generates side forces, that contribute to and increase the torque in the yaw plane of the multi-blade aerial vehicle (examiner notes that Mores’ symmetrical tilt performs this function, as a rotor system with symmetrical tilt would create not only a vertical component of thrust, but also a horizontal component of thrust, which is a side force), and the axes of movement of the at least two pairs of rotors are fixedly tilted in a symmetrical configuration in relation to the aerial vehicle’s yaw plane (rotor axis 12a-12d, for example, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the axis of movement of each of Lin’s plurality of rotors to be fixed in a tilted symmetrical configuration, as taught by Mores, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide reduced gust sensitivity and to increase the maneuverability of the aircraft (Mores, Col. 16, lines 8-18).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Lin teaches the aerial vehicle according to claim 8, wherein the aerial vehicle is a quadcopter drone with four rotors (Lin, Fig. 5), wherein the forward rotors comprise a forward pair of rotors (Lin, 3 and 4, Fig. 5) and the rearward rotors comprise a rearward pair of rotors (Lin, 1 and 2, Fig. 5), and the first geometrical dimension (x) is between the forward pair of rotors and the rearward pair of rotors and the second geometrical dimension (y) is between each rotor of the forward pair of rotors and between each rotor of the rearward pair of rotors (Lin, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Lin teaches the aerial vehicle of claim 8, wherein the axis of movement of each of the plurality of rotors is tilted toward the center of the aerial vehicle (Mores, first lateral inclination angle 13a, and second lateral inclination angle, 13b).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Lin teaches the aerial vehicle of claim 8, wherein the propulsion system has an internal combustion engine (Lin, para. [0017], “gasoline…as fuel, adopts…aero-engine as power”).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Lin teaches the aerial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the aerial vehicle is configured to maneuver in the yaw plane by increasing the pitch angle (a) of a first set of diagonally opposite rotors of the at least two pairs of rotors, and reducing the pitch angle (a) of a second set of diagonally opposite rotors of the at least two pairs of rotors (Lin, para. [0030] and Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Lin teaches the aerial vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the aerial vehicle is configured to maneuver in the yaw plane while the pitch angle (a) of the at least one blade is modified (Lin, para. [0030]).
Modified Lin is silent about wherein the pitch angle is within a range of 0 to 6 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to configure the pitch angle within a range of 0 to 6 degrees, to optimize the yaw response, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 5 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Lin as applied above, in view of Harmon et al. (US 20120209456 A1), hereafter Harmon.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Lin teaches the aerial vehicle according to claim 1.
Modified Lin is silent about wherein the propulsion system is a hybrid system, and is comprised of an internal combustion engine in tandem with an electric engine.
Harmon teaches a similar internal combustion engine in tandem with an electric engine to make a hybrid system (Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the propulsion system of modified Lin as a hybrid system comprised of an internal combustion engine in tandem with an electric engine, as taught by Harmon, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the benefits of more efficient propulsion (Harmon, para. [0100]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on Pg. 8:
“Lin achieves yaw control solely through reaction torque and does not teach or suggest the claimed side forces”…Neither Lin, which has no rotor tilt, nor Mores, whose inclination is directed to stability (as shown below), teaches or suggests using tilt-generated side forces to augment yaw torque.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Lin teaches a constant-RPM, variable-pitch control aerial vehicle, that yaws the aircraft by differentially modifying pitch angles of diagonally opposite rotors, as acknowledged by Applicant. Lin is not used to teach the claimed side forces in the rejection. As outlined in the rejection of the independent claims above, Mores is used to teach the symmetrical rotor tilt, and the thrust vector of the symmetrically tilted rotor would inherently include a vertical element as well as a horizontal element, also known as a side force. This side force would clearly contribute to and increase the torque in the yaw direction. For these reasons, Examiner maintains that Lin in view of Mores teaches the independent claims.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on Pg. 9:
“Mores points away from the claimed control approach and supplies no motivation for the combination”…”At the outset, the Office does not rely on Mores for the claimed pitch-based control. It maps that limitation onto Lin’s constant RPM, variable-pitch operation (Office Action at 3, 5) and cites Mores only for rotor inclination…Mores expressly recommends the opposite of variable-pitch control, stating that “the mechanical complexity of the inventive multi-rotor aircraft can be reduced to a minimum resulting in reduced costs and increased reliability…”…Although Mores mentions pitch variation as an alternative, its stated preference for fixed-pitch, RPM-controlled rotors gives a person of ordinary skill no apparent reason to turn to Mores when seeking improved variable-pitch yaw authority, and provides no suggestion that Mores’ inclination was intended to cooperate with differential pitch control. The Office has therefore not identified, in either reference, a reason that would have led a person of ordinary skill to the claimed combination of symmetric tilt and differential pitch modulation…”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, as noted by Applicant in the argument above, Lin is used to teach the general aerial vehicle structure including the rotors enabled to modify a pitch angle, and Mores is only used to modify the rotor inclination of Lin. Whether Mores uses variable pitch or variable rotor speed for torque adjustments is moot, as Mores is only relied upon to teach the rotor inclination itself. Mores clearly teaches a motivation for the rotor inclination, as cited in the Claim 1 rejection above: “…the plurality of thrust producing units 3 is inclined in the lateral direction 1b…in order to provide reduced gust sensitivity and to increase the maneuverability of the multirotor aircraft (Mores, Col. 16, lines 8-12).” Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably combine modify Lin’s rotor inclinations as taught by Mores, in order to capture these benefits. In response to applicant's argument that one of ordinary skill would not turn to Mores when seeking improved variable-pitch yaw authority, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding Applicant’s argument on Pg. 10:
“Mores’ symmetric inclination produces no net yaw torque and serves a different purpose….Mores’ inclination is symmetric and balanced, and therefore produces no net torque in the yaw plane…At the equal thrust levels Mores contemplates for stable flight, the lateral side-force components on opposite sides of the aircraft are equal and opposite, and so cancel – leaving the inclination to do what Mores says it does…without generating any net yaw torque. A person of ordinary skill…would therefore have had no reasonable expectation that adding Mores’ symmetric inclination to Lin would yield the net yaw torque the pending claims require. In the claimed invention, that net yaw torque arises only because the symmetric tilt is combined with differential modification of the pitch angles…the very combination that neither Lin nor Mores discloses or suggests….to the extent Mores achieves yaw at all, it does so not through the lateral inclination…but through the differential torque of the coaxially arranged, counter-rotating upper and lower rotor assemblies within each thrust producing unit….That torque based yaw mechanism is a product of Mores coaxial, counter-rotating rotor pairs, not of the lateral inclination the Office relies upon. The lateral inclination itself is described only “in order to provide reduced gust sensitivity and to increase the maneuverability…”…not to generate yaw torque.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Mores’ is not relied upon to teach torque changes due to pitch adjustments, Mores is only relied upon to teach the symmetric tilt of the rotors. Applicant has argued that during stable flight, Mores’ aircraft produces no net yaw torque, which examiner notes is also true of the instant invention and Lin. Examiner notes it is the blade pitch adjustments of Lin that result in maneuvering of the yaw plane. As the rotor inclination taught by Mores introduces a lateral side force, both the modification of the pitch angles, and the side force as a result of the rotor inclination, would contribute to and increase the torque in the yaw plane. For these reasons, examiner maintains that Lin in view of Mores teaches the claimed invention.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on Pg. 11:
“A person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Mores’ inclination with Lin’s single-engine drone…The express purpose of Mores’ multirotor architecture is to provide redundancy…Mores’ inclination is one feature of a redundant dual-rotor architecture…and its asserted benefits – gust insensitivity and lateral stability – are described in, and tied to, that multi-engine, counter-rotating context. A person of ordinary skill seeking to improve the yaw authority of Lin’s single-engine, single-rotor-per-position drone would have had no apparent reason to look to Mores’ stability-oriented inclination, and…no reasonable expectation that Mores’ symmetric inclination would generate net yaw torque in Lin’s very different architecture…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, Mores is only used modify Lin’s rotors to have the symmetrical tilt, which would provide the clear benefit of “reduced gust sensitivity and to increase the maneuverability” of the aircraft. These benefits of reduced gust sensitivity and increased maneuverability are not dependent on Mores’ specific engines or rotors, but rather on the symmetric rotor tilt itself. Therefore, Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill would be reasonably motivated to modify Lin’s aerial vehicle with the symmetrical tilt as taught by Mores, in order to benefit from increased maneuverability and reduced gust sensitivity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lacy et al. (US 11027836 B2) teaches a rotorcraft with canted rotors for increased yaw control.
Examiner notes that Fisher et al. (US 20170121034 A1), cited in PTO-892 dated 02/28/2024, teaches a quadcopter with inclined rotors wherein the symmetrical tilt of the axes of movement of the at least two pairs of rotors generates side forces which contribute to and increase torque in the yaw plane (para. [0016] and para. [0032]).
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 ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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 HUSON can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 4186
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights