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.
Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 30 June 2025. The Applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 4 and 11. Claims 2, 9 and 10 were previously canceled. Claims 1, 3-8 and 11-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 30 June 2025 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections previously set forth.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 30 June 2025, with regard to the rejections of claims 1, 3-8 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments that for claim 1 “…Vander Lind …the airflow…does not flow up through them while in a hover configuration…The aircraft is not in a hover configuration as the free stream is coming…” (pages 14-15), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 does not recite “The aircraft is in a hover configuration”, instead, the claim recites “…rotors in a hover configuration”. The rotor in the hover configuration is not equivalent to the aircraft is descending in a hovering mode, i.e., it is merely describing how the rotors are placed relevant to the fuselage of the aircraft, instead of how the aircraft or the rotors aircraft are actually working. Further, the claim does not recite “…free stream is coming into the …rotor discs”, instead, the claim merely recites “…such that the airflow flows up through the rotor blades…”. Vander discloses the rotors in the hover configuration (Vander, para 0040-0041, “In the final stage of descent, the aircraft may pull sharply upwards, away from the ground. The aircraft may pull upwards to better orient the propellers to counter gravity. The aircraft may transition into a vertical flight position and complete the landing in substantially vertical flight … Rotors 726 and 728 face upwards and are parallel to the fuselage of the aircraft”, also see Fig. 7A) and “airflow flows up through the rotor blades” (Vander, para 0041, “The rotors may be powered at maximum power, pulling the aircraft backwards and away from ground”). Therefore, the prior art discloses the claim limitations as recited and the prior art and rejections have been maintained.
Claims 3, 4 and 11 recite similar languages as claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons above.
With respect to the dependent claims 5-8 and 12-20, the Applicant provides no additional arguments other than their dependency from the independent claims 1, 3-4 and 11. Because independent claims 1, 3-4 and 11 are not allowable, dependent claims 5-8 and 12-20 are not allowable.
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 4, 7 and 11-20 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 4 recites “…determining a vertical landing approach mode…”, and further recites “…determining a landing approach mode…”. It is not clear whether the “landing approach mode” is the same as “vertical landing approach mode” OR is a different landing mode. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112b. The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “…determining a vertical landing approach mode” for the purpose of examination.
Claim 11 recites similar languages as claim 4 and are rejected for similar reasons above.
Claims 7 and 12-20 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on previously rejected claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. CN107492938 in view of Bartsch US2022/0281351 further in view of Vander et al. US2018/0321690 and furthest in view of Wu (“Analysis of Low Temperature Preheating Effect Based on Battery Temperature-Rise Model”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method for landing an electrically powered aircraft in a deep discharge battery condition (emergency power supply device that boost the battery electric energy using the unmanned aerial system emergency landing process to smoothly function see at least abstract and pg.1 and Fig.1) said aircraft comprising rotors and a battery or batteries (rotors and battery Fig. 1 and 2), said
said method comprising the steps of: preparing the battery or batteries for flare control ( abstract “emergency boost the battery electric energy using the unmanned aerial system emergency landing process to smoothly function,” and “the user firstly closes the switch 9, the battery 10 through a switch 9 connected with the DC-DC boost module 7, a DC-DC boost module (7)”, that means the system prepares the battery for flare control for landing. Zhang also discloses “when the output voltage of the battery 10 is reduced the electric parameter detecting module 6 acquires the condition feedback to the control circuit module 3, a control circuit module 3 regulate the boost multiple of DC-DC boost module 7,”. Furthermore Zhang discloses when the voltage of the battery is low then the system boost the battery by transmitting 2-3V voltage to 4.2 voltage to boost the battery for successful landing. That means the system prepares the battery or batteries for a flare control see at least abstract and claim 4 and pg. 5, and more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of Bartsch);
controlling the aircraft descent rate (“the control circuit module 3 controls the steering engine driving module 2 to control rotor 5 to adjust the track of unmanned machine system flight make it stable landing” controlling the descent rate see at least pg. 5); and
Zhang does not explicitly discloses determine a vertical landing approach mode; determining a descent trajectory, beginning a descent with rotors in a hover configuration, descending the aircraft such that the airflow flows up through the rotor blades; wherein the step of preparing the battery or batteries for flare control comprises heating up the battery by 10-20oC prior to the step of arresting the aircraft motion, and arresting the aircraft motion.
According to specification of the instant application “thermally condition the battery to optimize for flare control performance. S140 can include circulating fluid through and/or cooling the batteries, reducing and/or ceasing power supply to thermal management systems (e.g., to preserve energy for flare control). S 142 can include: increasing battery cell temperatures, decreasing battery cell temperatures, substantially maintaining cell temperatures, redistributing heat from one battery cell to another, shifting a battery temperature towards a predetermined temperature range (e.g., maximum power output range), and/or any other suitable battery thermal conditioning”
However, Bartsch is directed to battery preheating system for an aircraft. Bartsch discloses preparing the battery or batteries for flare control comprises thermally conditioning the battery prior to the step of arresting the aircraft motion (the aircraft includes system that adjust the temperature of the batteries for the climb/descent, where the system proactively adjust thermal management systems to ensure batteries are within desired temperature range for the descent, which is while is landing and before arresting aircraft motion, that means the system thermally conditioned the battery prior to the step of arresting the aircraft motion (see at least [¶ 27] and Fig. 4). Therefore, from the teaching of Bartsch, It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of preparing the battery or batteries for flare control comprises thermally conditioning the battery prior to the step of arresting the aircraft motion similar to that of the teaching of Bartsch in order to enhance the aircraft operation.
However, Wu is directed to preheating a battery. Wu discloses a temperature rise model relating the inner resistance of a battery to the temperature (see at least Wu page 6-7, Fig. 5) and reducing inner resistance resulting in less Joule heat dissipation thus allowing for more efficient use of the battery energy (see at least Wu page 3, Eq 1).
Therefore, from the teaching of Wu, It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of preparing the battery or batteries for flare control comprises heating up the battery prior to the step of arresting the aircraft motion similar to that of the teaching of Wu in order to make full use of the battery power. As to the temperature range for heating up the battery, i.e., 10-20oC, it is held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skills in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
However, Vander is directed to aircraft power source landing. Vander discloses determine a vertical landing approach mode; determining a descent trajectory, beginning a descent with rotors in a hover configuration, descending the aircraft such that the airflow flows up through the tilted-up rotor blades (the system determine to initiate descent and determine a stage of descent based on sensor data and the aircraft trajectory see at least [¶ 27-29], Fig. 5A, 6B and 7A for rotors and Fig. 9 for vertical land approach modes. Vander further discloses “In the final stage of descent, the aircraft may pull sharply upwards, away from the ground. The aircraft may pull upwards to better orient the propellers to counter gravity. The aircraft may transition into a vertical flight position and complete the landing in substantially vertical flight”, “The wings are
perpendicular to the aircraft. Rotors 726 and 728 face upwards and are parallel to the fuselage of the aircraft. The rotors may be powered at maximum power, pulling the aircraft backwards and away from ground”, “The power surge landing system may enable an aircraft to touch down with little or no forward speed without hovering” and the aircraft touches ground, throttle levels may be turned to zero, that means system arresting the vehicle motion see at least [¶ 37, 40-43 & 46] and Fig. 7A).
Therefore, from the teaching of Vander, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of arresting the aircraft motion similar to that of the teaching of Vander in order to enhance the safety.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang, Bartsch and Vander in combination disclose all the limitation of claim 1 as discussed above, Zhang does not explicitly disclose determining a landing approach mode; and determining a descent trajectory.
However, Vander discloses determining a landing approach mode; and determining a descent trajectory (the system determine to initiate descent and determine a stage of descent based on sensor data and the aircraft trajectory see at least [¶ 27-29]). Therefore, from the teaching of Vander, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of determining a landing approach mode and a descent trajectory similar to that of the teaching of Vander in order to enhance safety.
Claims 3, 11-13, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. CN107492938 in view of Bartsch US2022/0281351 and further in view of Vander et al. US2018/0321690.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses a method for landing an electrically powered aircraft in a deep discharge battery condition (emergency power supply device that boost the battery electric energy using the unmanned aerial system emergency landing process to smoothly function see at least abstract and pg.1 and Fig.1) said aircraft comprising rotors and a battery or batteries (rotors and battery Fig. 1 and 2), said
said method comprising the steps of: preparing the battery or batteries for flare control ( abstract “emergency boost the battery electric energy using the unmanned aerial system emergency landing process to smoothly function,” and “the user firstly closes the switch 9, the battery 10 through a switch 9 connected with the DC-DC boost module 7, a DC-DC boost module (7)”, that means the system prepares the battery for flare control for landing. Zhang also discloses “when the output voltage of the battery 10 is reduced the electric parameter detecting module 6 acquires the condition feedback to the control circuit module 3, a control circuit module 3 regulate the boost multiple of DC-DC boost module 7,”. Furthermore Zhang discloses when the voltage of the battery is low then the system boost the battery by transmitting 2-3V voltage to 4.2 voltage to boost the battery for successful landing. That means the system prepares the battery or batteries for a flare control see at least abstract and claim 4 and pg. 5, and more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of Bartsch);
controlling the aircraft descent rate (“the control circuit module 3 controls the steering engine driving module 2 to control rotor 5 to adjust the track of unmanned machine system flight make it stable landing” controlling the descent rate see at least pg. 5); and
Zhang does not explicitly disclose determine a vertical landing approach mode; determining a descent trajectory, beginning a descent with rotors in a hover configuration, descending the aircraft such that the airflow flows up through the rotor blades, wherein the step of preparing the battery, and arresting the aircraft motion, and wherein the step of preparing the battery or batteries for flare control comprises idling the battery.
According to specification of the instant application “thermally condition the battery to optimize for flare control performance. S140 … increasing battery cell temperatures, decreasing battery cell temperatures, …., shifting a battery temperature towards a predetermined temperature range (e.g., maximum power output range), and/or any other suitable battery thermal conditioning”
Bartsch is directed to battery preheating system for an aircraft. Bartsch discloses preparing the battery or batteries for flare control (the aircraft includes system that adjust the temperature of the batteries for the climb/descent, where the system proactively adjust thermal management systems to ensure batteries are within desired temperature range for the descent (see at least [¶ 27] and Fig. 4). Therefore, from the teaching of Bartsch, It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of preparing the battery or batteries for control flare similar to that of the teaching of Bartsch in order to enhance the aircraft operation.
Vander is directed to aircraft power source landing. Vander discloses determine a vertical landing approach mode; determining a descent trajectory, beginning a descent with rotors in a hover configuration, descending the aircraft such that the airflow flows up through the rotor blades (the system determine to initiate descent and determine a stage of descent based on sensor data and the aircraft trajectory see at least [¶ 27-29], Fig. 5A, 6B and 7A for rotors and Fig. 9 for land approach modes. Vander further discloses “In the final stage of descent, the aircraft may pull sharply upwards, away from the ground. The aircraft may pull upwards to better orient the propellers to counter gravity. The aircraft may transition into a vertical flight position and complete the landing in substantially vertical flight”, “The wings are
perpendicular to the aircraft. Rotors 726 and 728 face upwards and are parallel to the fuselage of the aircraft. The rotors may be powered at maximum power, pulling the aircraft backwards and away from ground”, “The power surge landing system may enable an aircraft to touch down with little or no forward speed without hovering” and the aircraft touches ground, throttle levels may be turned to zero, that means system arresting the vehicle motion. Furthermore, Vander discloses preparing the battery or batteries for flare control comprises idling the battery (“……. approach at a stabilized speed and descent angle with low, none, or negative power consumption”, that means idling see at least [¶ 37-38, 40-43 & 46] and Fig. 7A).
Therefore, from the teaching of Vander, It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of arresting the aircraft motion and preparing the battery for flare control by idling the battery similar to that of the teaching of Vander in order to enhance the aircraft operation and improve safety.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses a method for landing an electrically powered vertical take-off and landing aircraft (see at least abstract and pg.1 and Fig. 1), said aircraft comprising rotors and a battery or batteries (rotors and battery Fig. 1 and 2) said method comprising the steps of:
determining satisfaction of a deep discharge condition (the electric parameter detecting module 6 detects the battery voltage/deep discharge condition see at least pg. 5)
preparing the battery or batteries for flare control ( see at least abstract “emergency boost the battery electric energy using the unmanned aerial system emergency landing process to smoothly function,” and “the user firstly closes the switch 9, the battery 10 through a switch 9 connected with the DC-DC boost module 7, a DC-DC boost module (7)”, that means the system prepares the battery for flare control for landing. Furthermore, Zhang also discloses “when the output voltage of the battery 10 is reduced the electric parameter detecting module 6 acquires the condition feedback to the control circuit module 3, a control circuit module 3 regulate the boost multiple of DC-DC boost module 7,”. Furthermore Zhang discloses when the voltage of the battery is low then the system boost the battery by transmitting 2-3V voltage to 4.2 voltage to boost the battery for successful landing. That means the system prepares the battery or batteries for a flare control see at least abstract and claim 4 and pg. 5 more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of Bartsch);
controlling the vehicle descent rate (“the control circuit module 3 controls the steering engine driving module 2 to control rotor 5 to adjust the track of unmanned machine system flight make it stable landing” controlling the descent rate see at least pg. 5); and
Zhang does not explicitly discloses determine a vertical landing approach mode; determining a descent trajectory, beginning a descent with rotors in a hover configuration, descending the aircraft such that the airflow flows up through the rotor blades, wherein the step of preparing the battery or batteries for flare control, and arresting the aircraft motion.
According to specification of the instant application “thermally condition the battery to optimize for flare control performance. S140 ….. increasing battery cell temperatures, decreasing battery cell temperatures, …., shifting a battery temperature towards a predetermined temperature range (e.g., maximum power output range), and/or any other suitable battery thermal conditioning”
Bartsch is directed to battery preheating system for an aircraft. Bartsch discloses preparing the battery or batteries for flare control comprises thermally conditioning the battery prior to the step of arresting the aircraft motion (the aircraft includes system that adjust the temperature of the batteries for the climb/descent, where the system proactively adjust thermal management systems to ensure batteries are within desired temperature range for the descent, which is while is landing and before arresting aircraft motion, that means the system thermally conditioned the battery prior to the step of arresting the aircraft motion (see at least [¶ 27] and Fig. 4). Therefore, from the teaching of Bartsch, It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of preparing the battery or batteries for flare control comprises thermally conditioning the battery prior to the step of arresting the aircraft motion similar to that of the teaching of Bartsch in order to enhance the aircraft operation.
Vander is directed to aircraft power source landing. Vander discloses determining a vertical landing approach mode; and determining a descent trajectory, beginning a descent with rotors in a hover configuration, descending the aircraft such that the airflow flows up through the rotor blades (the system determine to initiate descent and determine a stage of descent based on sensor data and the aircraft trajectory see at least [¶ 27-29], Fig. 5A, 6B and 7A for rotors and Fig. 9 for land approach modes Vander further discloses “In the final stage of descent, the aircraft may pull sharply upwards, away from the ground. The aircraft may pull upwards to better orient the propellers to counter gravity. The aircraft may transition into a vertical flight position and complete the landing in substantially vertical flight”, “The wings are perpendicular to the aircraft. Rotors 726 and 728 face upwards and are parallel to the fuselage of the aircraft. The rotors may be powered at maximum power, pulling the aircraft backwards and away from ground”, “The power surge landing system may enable an aircraft to touch down with little or no forward speed without hovering” and the aircraft touches ground, throttle levels may be turned to zero, that means system arresting the vehicle motion see at least [¶ 37, 40-43 & 46] and Fig. 7A). Therefore, from the teaching of Vander, It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of arresting the aircraft motion similar to that of the teaching of Vander in order to enhance the safety.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang, Bartsch and Vander in combination disclose all the limitation of claim 11 as discussed above, Zhang does not explicitly discloses wherein the step of preparing the battery or batteries for flare control comprises thermally conditioning the battery prior to the step of arresting the aircraft motion.
However, Bartsch is directed to battery preheating system for an aircraft. Bartsch discloses preparing the battery or batteries for flare control comprises thermally conditioning the battery prior to the step of arresting the aircraft motion (the aircraft includes system that adjust the temperature of the batteries for the climb/descent, where the system proactively adjust thermal management systems to ensure batteries are within desired temperature range for the descent, which is while is landing and before arresting aircraft motion, that means the system thermally conditioned the battery prior to the step of arresting the aircraft motion (see at least [¶ 27] and Fig. 4). Therefore, from the teaching of Bartsch, It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of preparing the battery or batteries for flare control comprises thermally conditioning the battery prior to the step of arresting the aircraft motion similar to that of the teaching of Bartsch in order to enhance the aircraft operation.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang, Bartsch and Vander in combination disclose all the limitation of claims 1 and 11as discussed above, Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the step of preparing the battery or batteries for flare control comprises idling the battery.
However, Vander discloses preparing the battery or batteries for flare control comprises idling the battery (“……. approach at a stabilized speed and descent angle with low, none, or negative power consumption”, that means idling see at least [¶ 38])
Therefore, from the teaching of Vander, It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of preparing the battery for flare control by idling the battery similar to that of the teaching of Vander in order to save energy.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang, Bartsch and Vander in combination disclose all the limitation of claim 11 as discussed above, Zhang does not explicitly disclose the step of determining satisfaction of a deep discharge condition comprises a determination that there is no significant hover time remaining.
However, Vander discloses determining satisfaction of a deep discharge condition comprises a determination that there is no significant hover time remaining ( aircraft to touch with little or without hovering see at least [¶ 43]). Therefore, from the teaching of Vander, It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of determining there is no significant hover time remaining similar to that of the teaching of Vander in order to enhance the safety.
Regarding claims 19-20, Zhang, Bartsch and Vander in combination disclose all the limitation of claim 11 as discussed above, Zhang does not explicitly disclose determining a landing approach mode; and determining a descent trajectory.
However, Vander discloses determining a landing approach mode; and determining a descent trajectory (the system determine to initiate descent and determine a stage of descent based on sensor data and the aircraft trajectory see at least [¶ 27-29]). Therefore, from the teaching of Vander, It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of determining a landing approach mode and a descent trajectory similar to that of the teaching of Vander in order to enhance safety.
Claims 4, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bartsch and Vander, further in view of Criado US2014/0129056 and furthest in view of Gamble US 2017/0284371.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses a method for landing an electrically powered aircraft in a deep discharge battery condition (emergency power supply device that boost the battery electric energy using the unmanned aerial system emergency landing process to smoothly function see at least abstract and pg.1 and Fig.1) said aircraft comprising rotors and a battery or batteries (rotors and battery Fig. 1 and 2), said
said method comprising the steps of: preparing the battery or batteries for flare control ( abstract “emergency boost the battery electric energy using the unmanned aerial system emergency landing process to smoothly function,” and “the user firstly closes the switch 9, the battery 10 through a switch 9 connected with the DC-DC boost module 7, a DC-DC boost module (7)”, that means the system prepares the battery for flare control for landing. Zhang also discloses “when the output voltage of the battery 10 is reduced the electric parameter detecting module 6 acquires the condition feedback to the control circuit module 3, a control circuit module 3 regulate the boost multiple of DC-DC boost module 7,”. Furthermore Zhang discloses when the voltage of the battery is low then the system boost the battery by transmitting 2-3V voltage to 4.2 voltage to boost the battery for successful landing. That means the system prepares the battery or batteries for a flare control see at least abstract and claim 4 and pg. 5, and more clarification the examiner is using secondary reference of Bartsch);
controlling the aircraft descent rate (“the control circuit module 3 controls the steering engine driving module 2 to control rotor 5 to adjust the track of unmanned machine system flight make it stable landing” controlling the descent rate see at least pg. 5); and
Zhang does not explicitly discloses determine a vertical landing approach mode; determining a descent trajectory, beginning a descent with rotors in a hover configuration, descending the aircraft such that the airflow flows up through the blades, wherein the step of preparing the battery; and arresting the aircraft motion; and wherein the step of preparing the battery or batteries for flare control comprises selecting a blade pitch angle for regenerating energy during the descent; and regenerating energy using the rotors of the aircraft.
According to specification of the instant application “thermally condition the battery to optimize for flare control performance. S140 ….. increasing battery cell temperatures, decreasing battery cell temperatures, …., shifting a battery temperature towards a predetermined temperature range (e.g., maximum power output range), and/or any other suitable battery thermal conditioning”
Bartsch is directed to battery preheating system for an aircraft. Bartsch discloses preparing the battery or batteries for flare control (the aircraft includes system that adjust the temperature of the batteries for the climb/descent, where the system proactively adjust thermal management systems to ensure batteries are within desired temperature range for the descent (see at least [¶ 27] and Fig. 4). Therefore, from the teaching of Bartsch, It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of preparing the battery or batteries similar to that of the teaching of Bartsch in order to enhance the aircraft operation.
Vander is directed to aircraft power source landing. Vander discloses determine a vertical landing approach mode, determining a landing approach mode; and determining a descent trajectory, beginning a descent with rotors in a hover configuration, descending the aircraft such that the airflow flows up through the rotor blades (the system determine to initiate descent and determine a stage of descent based on sensor data and the aircraft trajectory see at least [¶ 27-29], Fig. 5A, 6B and 7A for rotors and Fig. 9 for land approach modes. Vander further discloses “In the final stage of descent, the aircraft may pull sharply upwards, away from the ground. The aircraft may pull upwards to better orient the propellers to counter gravity. The aircraft may transition into a vertical flight position and complete the landing in substantially vertical flight”, “The wings are perpendicular to the aircraft. Rotors 726 and 728 face upwards and are parallel to the fuselage of the aircraft. The rotors may be powered at maximum power, pulling the aircraft backwards and away from ground”, “The power surge landing system may enable an aircraft to touch down with little or no forward speed without hovering” and the aircraft touches ground, throttle levels may be turned to zero, that means system arresting the vehicle motion see at least [¶ 37, 40-43 & 46] and Fig. 7A).
Therefore, from the teaching of Vander, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of arresting the aircraft motion similar to that of the teaching of Vander in order to enhance the safety.
However, Criado is directed to unmanned aerial vehicle. Criado discloses regenerating energy using the rotors of the aircraft (“The rotor 190 may act as a turbine, i.e. the rotor 190 may be driven to rotate by the relative flow of air past the UAV 10. A motor/generator 140 is coupled to the rotor 190 to be driven thereby to generate electricity” see at least [¶ 28]). Therefore, from the teaching of Criado, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of regenerating energy using the rotors of the aircraft similar to that of the teaching of Criado in order to enhance energy.
However, Gamble is directed to wind powered recharging for a helicopter. Gamble discloses determining a direction and/or angle in which to orient blades for wind regeneration (see at least [¶ 0073]). Therefore, from the teaching of Gamble, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of regenerating energy using the rotors of the aircraft with blades at a determined direction and/or angle similar to that of the teaching of Gamble in order to enhance energy.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang, Bartsch and Vander in combination disclose all the limitation of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above, Zhang does not explicitly disclose
wherein the step of preparing the battery or batteries for flare control comprises regenerating energy using the rotors of the aircraft.
However, Criado is directed o unmanned aerial vehicle. Criado discloses regenerating energy using the rotors of the aircraft (“The rotor 190 may act as a turbine, i.e. the rotor 190 may be driven to rotate by the relative flow of air past the UAV 10. A motor/generator 140 is coupled to the rotor 190 to be driven thereby to generate electricity” see at least [¶ 28]). Therefore, from the teaching of Criado, It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of regenerating energy using the rotors of the aircraft similar to that of the teaching of Criado in order to enhance energy.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang, Bartsch and Vander in combination disclose all the limitation of claim 11 as discussed above, Zhang does not explicitly disclose the step of determining satisfaction of a deep discharge condition comprises a determination that there is no significant hover time remaining.
However, Vander discloses determining satisfaction of a deep discharge condition comprises a determination that there is no significant hover time remaining ( aircraft to touch with little or without hovering see at least [¶ 43]). Therefore, from the teaching of Vander, It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of determining there is no significant hover time remaining similar to that of the teaching of Vander in order to enhance the safety.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Bartsch, Vander and Wu, and further in view of Seale et al. WO2016/109408.
Regarding claim 5. Zhang, Bartsch and Vander in combination disclose all the limitation of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above, furthermore, Vander discloses wherein the step of arresting the vehicle motion comprises the steps of: determining a translational velocity of the aircraft (aircraft velocity is determined via sensor see at least [¶ 26]); determining a maximum instantaneous power of the battery or batteries (as shown in Fig. 2 the level power of the battery can be determined from the graph, that means the maximum instantaneous power of the battery can be determined see at least [¶ 20-23] and Fig. 1).
Zhang, Bartsch and Vander do not explicitly disclose controlling the rotors at up to the maximum instantaneous power to arrest a vertical rate of the aircraft.
However, Seale is directed to controlling a rotary VTOL in flight mode. Seale discloses controlling the rotors at up to the maximum instantaneous power to arrest the vertical rate of the aircraft (at the maximum power the aircraft puts on extra speed, angles its flight path upward to the vertical while losing speed, and comes to a stop, that means see system controls rotors up to max power to stop the vertical rate of the aircraft at least [¶ 119-120] and Fig. 35). Therefore, from the teaching of Seale, It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of controlling the rotors at up to the maximum instantaneous power to arrest the vertical rate of the aircraft similar to that of the teaching of Seale in order to enhance aircraft operation and safety.
Claims 6, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Bartsch and Vander, and further in view of Seale et al. WO2016/109408.
Regarding claims 6 and 17-18. Zhang, Bartsch and Vander in combination disclose all the limitation of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above, furthermore, Vander discloses wherein the step of arresting the vehicle motion comprises the steps of: determining a translational velocity of the aircraft (aircraft velocity is determined via sensor see at least [¶ 26]); determining a maximum instantaneous power of the battery or batteries (as shown in Fig. 2 the level power of the battery can be determined from the graph, that means the maximum instantaneous power of the battery can be determined see at least [¶ 20-26] and Fig. 1, claim 14).
Zhang, Bartsch and Vander do not explicitly disclose controlling the rotors at up to the maximum instantaneous power to arrest a vertical rate of the aircraft.
However, Seale is directed to controlling a rotary VTOL in flight mode. Seale discloses controlling the rotors at up to the maximum instantaneous power to arrest the vertical rate of the aircraft (at the maximum power the aircraft puts on extra speed, angles its flight path upward to the vertical while losing speed, and comes to a stop, that means see system controls rotors up to max power to stop the vertical rate of the aircraft at least [¶ 119-120] and Fig. 35). Therefore, from the teaching of Seale, It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of controlling the rotors at up to the maximum instantaneous power to arrest the vertical rate of the aircraft similar to that of the teaching of Seale in order to enhance aircraft operation and safety.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Bartsch and Vander, Criado and Gamble as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view Seale et al. WO2016/109408.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang, Bartsch Vander, Criado and Gamble in combination disclose all the limitation of claim 4 as discussed above, furthermore, Vander discloses wherein the step of arresting the vehicle motion comprises the steps of: determining a translational velocity of the aircraft (aircraft velocity is determined via sensor see at least [¶ 26]); determining a maximum instantaneous power of the battery or batteries (as shown in Fig. 2 the level power of the battery can be determined from the graph, that means the maximum instantaneous power of the battery can be determined see at least [¶ 20-26], Fig. 1 and claim 14).
Zhang, Bartsch, Vander and Criado do not explicitly disclose controlling the rotors at up to the maximum instantaneous power to arrest a vertical rate of the aircraft.
However, Seale is directed to controlling a rotary VTOL in flight mode. Seale discloses controlling the rotors at up to the maximum instantaneous power to arrest the vertical rate of the aircraft (at the maximum power the aircraft puts on extra speed, angles its flight path upward to the vertical while losing speed, and comes to a stop, that means see system controls rotors up to max power to stop the vertical rate of the aircraft at least [¶ 119-120] and Fig. 35). Therefore, from the teaching of Seale, It would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Zhang to use the technique of controlling the rotors at up to the maximum instantaneous power to arrest the vertical rate of the aircraft similar to that of the teaching of Seale in order to enhance aircraft operation and safety.
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.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph 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 from the applicant in preparing 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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on 571-272-4896. 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.
/HONGYE LIANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664