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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
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 1-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaki et al. (WO 2020109100 A1), hereafter Inaki, in view of Liviu (WO 2018106137 A2), and Morris et al. (US 20200148354 A1), hereafter Morris.
Regarding Claim 1, Inaki disclose a multi-rotor aircraft (aerial vehicle 1, Fig. 1) comprising:
a body (body 8, Fig. 1) which includes a front (front of body 8, Fig. 1) and a rear (rear of body 8, Fig. 1),
wherein said body defines a longitudinal axis extending through said front and said rear (longitudinal axis extending through front and rear of body 8, Fig. 1), and
wherein said body also defines a lateral axis which is parallel with a horizontal plane and which is perpendicular to said longitudinal axis (axis transverse to longitudinal axis of body 8, Fig. 1);
at least one right rotor group which includes at least two right rotors each (quadcopters 2b, 2d, Fig. 1) of which includes a plurality of propellers (blades 5, Fig. 1) and each of which is capable of generating a lift when said propellers rotate (Pg. 9, lines 16-20, “rotor blades 5 are to provide lift”);
at least one left rotor group (quadcopters 2a, 2c, Fig. 1) which includes at least two left rotors each of which includes a plurality of propellers (blades 5, Fig. 1) and each of which is capable of generating a lift when said propellers rotate (Pg. 9, lines 16-20, “rotor blades 5 are to provide lift”);
at least one right tilting unit (joint assembly 40, Fig. 8) which includes a right joint (joint assembly 40, Fig. 8), a right upper arm (socket portion 47, Fig. 8) and a right lower arm (45, Fig. 8),
wherein said right upper arm is one of directly and indirectly coupled to said right rotor group (47 is directly coupled to rotor group, Fig. 8),
wherein said right joint is movably disposed between said right upper arm and said right lower arm (Fig. 8), and allows rotation of said right upper arm with respect to said right lower arm (Fig. 8), and
at least one left tilting unit (joint assembly 40, Fig. 8) which includes a left joint (joint assembly 40, Fig. 8), a left upper arm (socket portion 47, Fig. 8), and a left lower arm (45, Fig. 8),
wherein said left upper arm is one of directly and indirectly coupled to said left rotor group (47 is coupled to rotor group, Fig. 8),
wherein said left joint is movably disposed between said left upper arm and said left lower arm (Fig. 8), and allows rotation of said left upper arm with respect to said left lower arm (Fig. 8),
wherein, when a first vector sum of said lifts generated by said rotors acts in a tilted direction which forms a non-zero angle with a vertical direction (Fig. 3B, rotors are tilted at an angle relative to axis z, for example), said first vector sum has a non-zero horizontal component which tilts said tilting units in said tilted direction (Fig. 3B), said rotor groups coupled to said upper arms of said tilting units are also tilted in said tilted direction (Fig. 3B), and said aircraft performs moving in a moving direction which is defined by a second vector sum of said first vector sum and a vector of a weight load of said aircraft (Pg. 10, line 33 - Pg. 11, line 31);
wherein said right and left lower arms are configured to remain at least substantially upright while said upper arms rotate relative thereto (46 remains remains substantially upright while 47 rotates, Fig. 8).
Inaki is silent about a right wing which is coupled to a right side of said body and which extends along said lateral axis;
a left wing which is coupled to a left side of said body and which extends along
said lateral axis;
the at least one right rotor group is coupled to said right wing;
the at least one left rotor group is coupled to said left wing;
wherein said right lower arm is one of directly and indirectly coupled to said right wing;
wherein said left lower arm is one of directly and indirectly coupled to said left wing; and
wherein said right and left tilting units are passively tiltable and are free of any dedicated tilting motor configured to actively rotate said upper arms relative to said lower arms.
Liviu teaches a similar aircraft body with similar left and right rotor groups coupled to wings, wherein a right wing (right half of wing 141, Fig. 12) is coupled to a right side of the similar body and extends along a lateral axis (Fig. 11);
a left wing (left half of wing 141, Fig. 11) which is coupled to a left side of said body and
which extends along a lateral axis (Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aircraft of Inaki with the left wing and right wing as taught by Liviu, with a reasonable expectation of success, whereby Inaki’s right and left rotor groups are coupled to Liviu’s right and left wings, wherein Inaki’s right and left lower arms are one of directly and indirectly coupled to Liviu’s right and left wings. Although Inaki teaches arms 10 connecting the rotor groups to the body, it is known in the art to place rotor groups at the end of wings, with the benefit of combining the advantages of vertical flight ability with the advantages of conventional fixed wings for high speed and efficiency in forward flight (Liviu, Pg. 1, 3rd para.).
Morris teaches similar tilting units are passively tiltable and are free of any dedicated tilting motor configured to actively rotate (para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the right and left tilting units of modified Inaki as passively tiltable and free of any dedicated tilting motor, as taught by Morris, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the benefit of removing heavy tilting mechanisms (Morris, para. [0045]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein said moving in said moving direction is one of:
moving in a forward direction while maintaining, increasing or decreasing an altitude of said aircraft (Inaki, Pg. 4, lines 8-14 and Pg. 11, lines 20-31, examiner notes this is a common maneuver performed by a rotary wing aircraft);
making a turning operation while maintaining, increasing or decreasing said altitude (Inaki, Pg. 6, lines 3-36, examiner notes this is a common maneuver performed by a rotary wing aircraft);
performing a yaw rotation while maintaining, increasing or decreasing said altitude (Inaki, Pg. 6, lines 3-36, examiner notes this is a common maneuver performed by a rotary wing aircraft);
performing said yaw rotation while increasing said altitude (Inaki, Pg. 6, lines 3-36, examiner notes this is a common maneuver performed by a rotary wing aircraft);
moving in a backward direction while maintaining, increasing or decreasing said altitude (Inaki, Pg. 6, lines 3-36, examiner notes this is a common maneuver performed by a rotary wing aircraft).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 1,
wherein said first vector sum includes said horizontal component and a vertical component (Inaki, Pg. 11, lines 1-13), and
wherein said aircraft manipulates said lifts of said rotors in such a way that said horizontal component of said first vector sum moves said aircraft in a forward direction (Inaki, Pg. 4, lines 8-14 and Pg. 11, lines 17-31, examiner notes this is a common maneuver performed by a rotary wing aircraft).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 1,
wherein said second vector sum includes a horizontal component and a vertical component (Inaki, Pg. 11, lines 7-13), and
wherein said aircraft manipulates said lifts of said rotors in such a way that said vertical component of said second vector sum manipulates an altitude of said aircraft (Pg. 11, lines 1-16, examiner notes this is a common maneuver performed by a rotary wing aircraft).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein said body is at least not substantially tilted in said tilted direction while said aircraft moves in said moving direction (Inaki, Figs. 2B, 3B, 4B, examiner notes body 8 remains in substantially the same orientation despite maneuvering of the aircraft via the rotors), such that tilting of said rotor groups occurs without corresponding tilting of said body or said wings (Inaki, examiner notes tilting or rotor groups occurs independently of any tilting of the body as the rotor groups tilt about the body, Figs. 2B, 3B, 4B).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein at least one of said right and left joints of said tilting units is a mechanical joint capable of providing said rotation (Inaki, joint assembly 40, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 6, wherein said mechanical joint includes at least one of a ball-socket joint (Inaki, joint assembly 40, Fig. 8), a bolted joint, a condyloid joint, a cotter-pin, an ellipsoidal joint, a ginglymus joint, a gliding joint, a hinge joint, a knuckle joint, a pin joint, a pivot joint, a plane joint, a prismatic joint, a revolute joint, a saddle joint, a screw joint, a slider joint, a spherical joint (Inaki, 40, Fig. 8), a turnbuckle, and a universal joint.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein at least one said tilting units is one of a path-dependent tilting unit and a bearing-type tilting unit (Inaki, ball joint assembly 40, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein at least one of said tilting units has a tilting range (Inaki, inherent range of joint assembly 40, Fig. 8 and mechanical limits such a “bump stop”, see Pg. 15, lines 15-20), and wherein said tilting range limits passive tilting induced by said vector sum without joint actuation (Pg. 15, lines 15-20)
Modified Inaki does not specifically teach the tilting range is one of about 150, 300, 450, 600, 750, and 900. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement of tilting range of one of about 150, 300, 450, 600, 750, and 900,, in order to ensure safe maneuvering of the aircraft, 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.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein at least one of said upper arms has a tilting range defining an upper bound and a lower bound (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 5-14).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 10, further comprising at least one stopper (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 8-9),
wherein said stopper is configured to obstruct at least one of a first movement of said at least one of said upper arms (Inaki, examiner notes movement of the upper arm in an upwards direction is obstructed due to attachment of upper arm to joint assembly 40, for example) and a second movement of said at least one of said upper arms (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 5-14),
wherein said first movement is a movement of said at least one of said upper arms beyond said upper bound (Inaki, examiner notes movement of the upper arm in an upwards direction is obstructed due to attachment of upper arm to joint assembly 40, for example), and
wherein said second movement is another movement of said at least one of said upper arms below said lower bound (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 5-14).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 10, further comprising at least one bumper (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 15-20),
wherein said bumper includes at least one of an elastic element and a viscous element (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 15-20), and
wherein said bumper is disposed in at least one end of a path of a movement of said at least one of said upper arms (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 15-20),
whereby, when said at least one of said tilting units reaches at least one of said upper and lower bounds, said bumper abuts said at least one of said upper arms, and absorbs at least a portion of mechanical energy associated with said movement of said at least one of said upper arms (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 15-20).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Inaki discloses the aircraft of claim 1, wherein said at least one of said tilting units includes a first tilting unit (Inaki, joint assembly 40, Fig. 8), wherein said first tilting unit provides a first passive rotation of said at least one of said tilting units about said lower arm of said at least one of said tilting units in a first angular direction and within a first tilting range (Inaki, Fig. 8 as modified by Morris).
Modified Inaki is silent about a second tilting unit directly coupled to the first tilting unit in a series mode, wherein said second tilting unit provides a second passive rotation of said at least one of said tilting units about said lower arm of said at least one of said tilting units within a second tilting range and in a second angular direction which is different from said first angular direction.
Liviu teaches a second tilting unit arranged in a series mode with a similar first tilting unit (joint 5, Fig. 1) wherein said second tilting unit provides a second rotation within a second tilting range and in a second angular direction (range of joint 5 about axis 8, Figs. 1-2, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the first tilting unit of modified Inaki with the second tilting unit of Liviu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide supplemental rotation of the propellers for thrust vectoring (Liviu, Pg. 5, first para.).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 13.
Modified Inaki does not specifically teach wherein said first tilting range is one of about 150, 300, 450, 600, 750, and 900, and wherein said second tilting range has a low end which is greater than 00 and a high end which is less than 3600. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement said first tilting range is one of about 150, 300, 450, 600, 750, and 900, and wherein said second tilting range has a low end which is greater than 00 and a high end which is less than 3600,, in order to ensure safe maneuvering of the aircraft, 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.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 13.
Modified Inaki does not specifically teach wherein said first tilting range has a low end which is greater than 00 and a high end which is less than 1800, and wherein said second tilting range has a low end which is greater than 00 and a high end which is less than 3600. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention wherein said first tilting range has a low end which is greater than 00 and a high end which is less than 1800, and wherein said second tilting range has a low end which is greater than 00 and a high end which is less than 3600, in order to ensure safe maneuvering of the aircraft, 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.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein said right wing and said left wing are directly coupled to each other (Liviu, left and right halves of wing 141 are directly coupled to each other, Fig. 12)
Regarding Claim 17, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 1, further comprising at least one stopper (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 8-9),
wherein at least one of said right and left tilting units has a tilting range having its upper bound and its lower bound (examiner notes a tilting range inherently includes an upper and lower bound),
wherein said stopper is configured to obstruct a movement of at least one of said upper arm of said at least one of said tilting units (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 5-14) and said lower arm of said at least one of said tilting units one of beyond said upper bound and below said lower bound (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 5-14).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 1, further comprising
at least one bumper (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 15-20),
wherein said bumper includes at least one of an elastic element and a viscous element (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 15-20), and
wherein said bumper is disposed in at least one end of a path of a movement of one of said right and left upper arms of one of said tilting units (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 15-20),
whereby, when said one of said tilting unit reaches one of said ends of said paths of said one of said upper arms, said bumper is capable of stopping said one of said up- per arms of said one of said tilting units and absorbing at least a portion of mechanical energy associated with said stopping of said one of said upper arms of said one of said tilting units (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 15-20).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 1,
wherein said aircraft defines N rows of installation of said rotors starting in a direction from said front to said rear (Inaki, rows of rotors 6 that are parallel to arms 10, Fig. 1),
wherein said rows are at least partly parallel with said lateral axis (Inaki, rows of rotors 6 that are parallel to arms 10, Fig. 1),
wherein N is a positive integer and greater than 2 (Inaki, rows of rotors 6 that are parallel to arms 10, Fig. 1), and
wherein at least one of said rotors are installed in each of said N rows (Inaki, rows of rotors 6 that are parallel to arms 10, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 19, wherein each of said N rows is defined along N curvilinear lines, and wherein said curvilinear lines is one of:
a straight line (Inaki, rows of rotors 6 that are parallel to arms 10, Fig. 1);
a curve which is convex upward with respect to said longitudinal axis in a direction from said front to said rear; and
a curve which is convex downward with respect to said longitudinal axis in said direction.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 19, wherein said rotors installed in said N rows have elevations in one of:
a first arrangement in which said rotors of all of said N rows have the same elevation;
a second arrangement in which said rotors of (N-1)-th row which is next to said N-th row and which is closer to said front than said N-th row have a first elevation which is smaller than a second elevation of said rotors of n-th row, where n is an integer between 2 and N (Inaki, Pg. 11, lines 2-4); and
a third arrangement in which said rotors of said (N-1)-th row have said first elevation which is greater than said second elevation of said rotors of n-th row.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 1,
wherein said aircraft includes a plurality of wings including said right wing and said left wing which are arranged such that said aircraft is one of an unstaggered bi-plane, a forward stagger bi-plane, a backwards stagger bi-plane, a tandem-wing plane (Liviu, Fig. 11 is a tandem wing plane), and a cruciform-wing plane.
Regarding Claim 23, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein said aircraft includes a plurality of wings which are arranged such that said aircraft is one of an unequal-span biplane (Fig. 9, examiner notes a smaller unequal sized wing attached below wing 102), a sesquiplane, an inverted sesquiplane, a Busemann biplane, a triplane, a quadruplane, and a multiplane.
Regarding Claim 24, Inaki discloses a multi-rotor aircraft (aerial vehicle 1, Fig. 1) comprising:
a body (body 8, Fig. 1) which includes a front (front of body 8, Fig. 1) and a rear (rear of body 8, Fig. 1),
wherein said body defines a longitudinal axis extending between said front and said rear (longitudinal axis extending through front and rear of body 8, Fig. 1), and
wherein said body also defines a lateral axis which is parallel with a horizontal plane and which is perpendicular to said longitudinal axis (axis transverse to longitudinal axis of body 8, Fig. 1);
a right side of said body (right side of body 8, Fig. 1);
a left side of said body (left side of body 8, Fig. 1);
at least one right rotor group which includes at least one front right rotor and at least one right rear rotor (quadcopters 2b, 2d, Fig. 1),
wherein said right front rotor and said right rear rotor are disposed substantially parallel to said longitudinal axis (Figs. 1 and 2a, for example),
wherein each of said right rotors includes a plurality of propellers (blades 5, Fig. 1), and
wherein each of said right rotors is capable of generating a lift when said propellers rotate (Pg. 9, lines 16-20, “rotor blades 5 are to provide lift”);
at least one left rotor group (quadcopters 2a, 2c, Fig. 1) which includes at least one left front rotor and at this point left rear rotor (2a, 2c, Fig. 1),
wherein said left front rotor and said left rear rotor are disposed along said longitudinal axis (2a, 2c are parallel to longitudinal axis, Fig. 1),
wherein each of said left rotors includes a plurality of propellers (blades 5, Fig. 1),
where each of said left rotors is capable of generating a lift when said propellers rotate (Pg. 9, lines 16-20, “rotor blades 5 are to provide lift”);
at least one right tilting unit (joint assembly 40, Fig. 8) which includes a right joint (joint assembly 40, Fig. 8), a right upper arm (socket portion 47, Fig. 8) and a right lower arm (arm 46, Fig. 8),
wherein said right upper arm is one of directly and indirectly coupled to said right rotor group (47 is coupled to the rotor group, see Fig. 8), and
wherein said right tilting unit allows rotation of said right upper arm about said right lower arm (Fig. 8); and
at least one left tilting unit (joint assembly 40, Fig. 8) which includes a left joint (joint assembly 40, Fig. 8), a left upper arm (socket portion 47, Fig. 8), and a left lower arm (arm 46, Fig. 8),
wherein said left upper arm is one of directly and indirectly coupled to said left rotor group (arm 46 is coupled to rotor group, Fig. 8),
wherein said left tilting unit allows rotation of said left upper arm about said left lower arm (Fig. 8);
wherein, when a first vector sum of said lifts generated by said front and rear rotors acts in a tilted direction which forms a non-zero angle with a vertical direction (Fig. 3B, rotors are tilted at an angle relative to axis z, for example), said rotor groups coupled to said upper arms of said tilting units are also tilted in said tilted direction (Fig. 3B), and said aircraft performs moving in a moving direction which is defined by a second vector sum of said first vector sum and a vector of a weight load of said aircraft (Pg. 6, lines 26-36 and Pg. 10, line 33 - Pg. 11, line 31).
Inaki is silent about a right wing which is coupled to the right side of the body and extends along said lateral axis;
a left wing which is coupled to a left side of said body and extends along said
lateral axis;
the at least one right rotor group is coupled to said right wing;
the at least one left rotor group is coupled to said left wing;
wherein said right lower arm is one of directly and indirectly coupled to said body; and
wherein said left lower arm is one of directly and indirectly coupled to said left wing; and
said tilting occurs passively without active joint actuation.
Liviu teaches a similar aircraft body with similar left and right rotor groups coupled to wings, wherein a right wing (right wing 122, Fig. 11) is coupled to a right side of the similar body and extends along a lateral axis (Fig. 11);
a left wing (left wing 122, Fig. 11) which is coupled to a left side of said body and
which extends along a lateral axis (Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aircraft of Inaki with the left wing and right wing as taught by Liviu, with a reasonable expectation of success, whereby Inaki’s right and left rotor groups are coupled to Liviu’s right and left wings, wherein Inaki’s right and left lower arms are one of directly and indirectly coupled to Liviu’s right and left wings. Although Inaki teaches arms 10 connecting the rotor groups to the body, it is known in the art to place rotor groups at the end of wings, with the benefit of combining the advantages of vertical flight ability with the advantages of conventional fixed wings for high speed and efficiency in forward flight (Liviu, Pg. 1, 3rd para.).
Morris teaches similar tilting units with tilting that occurs passively without active joint actuation (para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the right and left tilting units of modified Inaki as passively tiltable without active joint actuation, as taught by Morris, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the benefit of removing heavy tilting mechanisms (Morris, para. [0045]).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 24,
wherein said moving and said moving direction are one of:
moving in a forward direction while maintaining, increasing or decreasing an altitude of said aircraft (Inaki, Pg. 4, lines 8-14 and Pg. 11, lines 20-31, examiner notes this is a common maneuver performed by a rotary wing aircraft);
making a turning operation while maintaining, increasing or decreasing said altitude (Inaki, Pg. 6, lines 3-36 and Pg. 9, lines 16-20, examiner notes this is a common maneuver performed by a rotary wing aircraft); and
performing a yaw rotation while maintaining, increasing or decreasing said altitude (Inaki, Pg. 6, lines 3-36 and Pg. 9, lines 16-20, examiner notes this is a common maneuver performed by a rotary wing aircraft); and
moving in a backward direction while maintaining, increasing or decreasing said altitude (Inaki, Pg. 6, lines 3-36 and Pg. 9, lines 16-20, examiner notes this is a common maneuver performed by a rotary wing aircraft).
Regarding Claim 26, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 24,
wherein said first vector sum includes a horizontal component and a vertical component (Inaki, Pg. 11, lines 1-13), and
wherein said aircraft manipulates said lifts of said rotors in such a way that said horizontal component of said first vector sum moves said aircraft at a preset speed in a forward direction (Inaki, Pg. 4, lines 8-14 and Pg. 11, lines 17-31, examiner notes this is a common maneuver performed by a rotary wing aircraft).
Regarding Claim 27, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 24,
wherein said second vector sum includes a horizontal component and a vertical component (Inaki, Pg. 11, lines 1-13), and
wherein said aircraft manipulates said lifts of said rotors in such a way that said vertical component of said second vector sum manipulates an altitude of said aircraft (Inaki, Pg. 11, lines 1-16, examiner notes this is a common maneuver performed by a rotary wing aircraft).
Regarding Claim 28, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 24,
wherein said body is at least not substantially tilted in said tilted direction while said aircraft moves in said moving direction (Figs. 2B, 3B, 4B, examiner notes body 8 remains in substantially the same orientation despite maneuvering of the aircraft via the rotors).
Regarding Claim 29, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 24, wherein at least one of said right and left joints is a mechanical joint capable of providing said rotation (Inaki, joint assembly 40, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 30, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 29, wherein said mechanical joint includes at least one of a ball-socket joint (Inaki, joint assembly 40, Fig. 8), a bolted joint, a condyloid joint, a cotter-pin, an ellipsoidal joint, a ginglymus joint, a gliding joint, a hinge joint, a knuckle joint, a pin joint, a pivot joint, a plane joint, a prismatic joint, a revolute joint, a saddle joint, a screw joint, a slider joint, a spherical joint (Inaki, joint assembly 40, Fig. 8), a turnbuckle, and a universal joint.
Regarding Claim 31, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 24,
wherein at least one of said right and left tilting units is one of a path-dependent tilting unit and a bearing-type tilting unit (Inaki, ball joint assembly 40, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 32, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 24.
Modified Inaki does not specifically teach wherein at least one of said right and left tilting units has a tilting range which is one of about 150, 300, 450, 600, 750,900, 105, 120, 135, 150, 165, 180. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement a tilting range which is one of about 150, 300, 450, 600, 750,900, 105, 120, 135, 150, 165, 180,, in order to ensure safe maneuvering of the aircraft, 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.
Regarding Claim 33, modified Inaki teaches the aircraft of claim 24,
wherein at least one of said right and left tilting units includes a moving element (Inaki, housing 42, Fig. 8) and a stationary element (Inaki, ball stud 41, Fig. 8),
wherein said at least one of said tilting units has a tilting range defining an upper bound and a lower bound (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 5-14), and
wherein said moving element of said at least one of said tilting units is not tilted beyond said upper bound and below said lower bound (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 5-14).
Regarding Claim 34, Inaki discloses a tiltable rotor group (quadcopters 2a-2d, Fig. 1) of a multi-rotor aircraft (aerial vehicle 1, Fig. 1) including a body (body 8, Fig. 1) comprising:
at least one rotor group including a plurality of rotors (quadcopters 2a-2d, Fig. 1); and
at least one tilting unit (joint assembly 40, Fig. 8) which includes an upper arm (socket portion 47, Fig. 8), a lower arm (arm 46, Fig. 8), and
a mechanical joint (joint assembly 40, Fig. 8),
wherein said upper arm is coupled to said rotor group (47 is directly coupled to rotor group, Fig. 8),
wherein said joint is disposed between said upper arm and said lower arm (Fig. 8), and
wherein said joint allows at least one rotation of said upper arm with respect to said lower arm (Fig. 8),
wherein, when said rotor group generates lifts acting solely in a vertical direction (Pg. 11, lines 1-16),
said tilting unit is in an upright position in which said upper arm is disposed above said joint which is in turn disposed above said lower arm (Pg. 11, lines 1-16 and Fig. 8), and
wherein, when said rotor group generates said lifts acting in a tilted direction which includes a non-zero vertical component as well as a non-zero horizontal component (Pg. 11, lines 20-31 and Figs. 3A-3C, and Fig. 8), said upper arm of said tilting unit is tilted in said tilted direction, while said lower arm remains at least substantially in said upright position (Pg. 11, lines 20-31 and Figs. 3A-3C, and Fig. 8),
whereby said tilted rotor group is capable of moving said aircraft in a horizontal direction with said horizontal component, while at least substantially maintaining said lower arm in said upright direction (Pg. 11, lines 20-31 and Figs. 3A-3C, and Fig. 8).
Inaki is silent about a left wing and a right wing;
wherein said lower arm is coupled to said one of said wings of said aircraft.
Liviu teaches a similar aircraft with similar rotor groups coupled to wings, including a left wing (left wing 122, Fig. 11) and a right wing (right wing 122, Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aircraft of Inaki with the left wing and right wing as taught by Liviu, with a reasonable expectation of success, whereby Inaki’s lower arm is coupled to one of Liviu’s said wings. Although Inaki teaches arms 10 connecting the rotor groups to the body, it is known in the art to place rotor groups at the end of wings, with the benefit of combining the advantages of vertical flight ability with the advantages of conventional fixed wings for high speed and efficiency in forward flight (Liviu, Pg. 1, 3rd para.).
Regarding Claim 35, modified Inaki teaches the tiltable rotor group of claim 34,
wherein said moving and said moving direction are one of:
moving in a forward direction while maintaining, increasing or decreasing an of said aircraft (Inaki, Pg. 4, lines 8-14 and Pg. 11, lines 20-31, examiner notes this is a common maneuver performed by a rotary wing aircraft);
making a turning operation while maintaining, increasing or decreasing said altitude (Inaki, Pg. 6, lines 3-36, examiner notes this is a common maneuver performed by a rotary wing aircraft);
performing a yaw rotation while maintaining, increasing or decreasing said altitude (Inaki, Pg. 6, lines 3-36, examiner notes this is a common maneuver performed by a rotary wing aircraft);
moving in a backward direction while maintaining, increasing or decreasing said altitude (Inaki, Pg. 6, lines 3-36, examiner notes this is a common maneuver performed by a rotary wing aircraft).
Regarding Claim 36, modified Inaki teaches the tiltable rotor group of claim 34,
wherein said mechanical joint is one of a ball-socket joint (Inaki, joint assembly 40, Fig. 8), a bolted joint, a condyloid joint, a cotter-pin, an ellipsoidal joint, a ginglymus joint, a gliding joint, a hinge joint, a knuckle joint, a pin joint, a pivot joint, a plane joint, a prismatic joint, a revolute joint, a saddle joint, a screw joint, a slider joint, a spherical joint (Inaki, joint assembly 40, Fig. 8), a turnbuckle, and a universal joint.
Regarding Claim 37, modified Inaki discloses the tiltable rotor group of claim 34.
Modified Inaki does not specifically teach wherein said tilting unit has a tilting range which is one of about 150, 300, 450, 600, 750,900, 105, 1200, 135, 150, 165, 180. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement a tilting range which is one of about 150, 300, 450, 600, 750,900, 105, 1200, 135, 150, 165, 180,, in order to ensure safe maneuvering of the aircraft, 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.
Regarding Claim 38, modified Inaki teaches the tiltable rotor group of claim 34,
wherein said tilting unit has a tilting range defining an upper bound and a lower bound (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 5-14), and
wherein said upper arm is not tilted beyond said upper bound and below said lower bound (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 5-14).
Regarding Claim 39, modified Inaki teaches the tiltable rotor group of claim 34, further comprising at least one stopper (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 8-9),
wherein said stopper is configured to obstruct a movement of at least one of its upper bound and its lower bound (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 5-14), and
wherein said stopper is configured to obstruct a movement of at least one of said upper arm of said at least one of said tilting units and said lower arm of at least one of said tilting units one of beyond said upper bound and below said lower bound (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 5-14).
Regarding Claim 40, modified Inaki teaches the tiltable rotor group of claim 34, further comprising
at least one bumper (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 15-20),
wherein said bumper includes at least one of an elastic element and a viscous element (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 15-20), and
wherein said bumper is disposed in at least one end of a path of a movement of said up- per arm (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 15-20),
whereby, when said upper arm reaches at least one of said upper and lower bounds, said bumper is capable of stopping said upper arm of and absorbing at least a portion of mechanical energy associated with said stopping of said upper arm of said tilting unit (Inaki, Pg. 15, lines 15-20).
Regarding Claim 41, modified Inaki discloses the tiltable rotor group of claim 34,
wherein said tiltable rotor group includes a first tilting unit (Inaki, joint assembly 40, Fig. 8),
wherein said first tilting unit provides a first rotation of said upper arm about said lower arm in a first angular direction (Inaki, Fig. 8).
Inaki is silent about a second tilting unit both of which are mechanically coupled to each other in a series mode wherein said second tilting unit provides a second rotation of said upper arm about said lower arm within a second tilting range and in a second angular direction which is different from said first angular direction.
Liviu teaches a second tilting unit arranged in a series mode mechanically coupled to a similar first tilting unit (joint 5, Fig. 1) wherein said second tilting unit provides a second rotation within a second tilting range and in a second angular direction (range of joint 5 about axis 8, Figs. 1-2, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the first tilting unit of Inaki with the second tilting unit of Liviu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide supplemental rotation of the propellers for thrust vectoring (Pg. 5, first para.).
Regarding Claim 42, modified Inaki teaches the tiltable rotor group of claim 41, except for wherein said first tilting range and said second tilting range is identical to each other. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the two tilting ranges identical, in order to optimize lift and efficiency of the tilting units, 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.
Regarding Claim 43, modified Inaki teaches the tiltable rotor group of claim 41, and
wherein said first and second tilting ranges are one of identical to each other and different from each other (examiner notes that this claim is inherently taught by modified Inaki, because whether modified Inaki’s first and second tilting ranges are identical or they are different, modified Inaki teaches this limitation).
Modified Inaki does not specifically teach wherein said first tilting unit has a first tilting range which is one of about 150, 300, 450,600, 750, 900, 1050, 1200, 1350, 1500, 1650, 1800, wherein said second tilting unit has a second tilting range which is one of about 150, 300,450, 600, 750, 900, 1050, 1200, 1350, 1500, 1650, 1800. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention wherein said first tilting unit has a first tilting range which is one of about 150, 300, 450,600, 750, 900, 1050, 1200, 1350, 1500, 1650, 1800 and wherein said second tilting unit has a second tilting range which is one of about 150, 300,450, 600, 750, 900, 1050, 1200, 1350, 1500, 1650, 1800,, in order to ensure safe maneuvering of the aircraft, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 34 and dependent claims 35-43 are moot as Applicant has argued on Pg. 21: “….claim 34, which depends from claim 24…recites additional structural or operational limitations applied to the passively tiltable architecture…”. Examiner notes that claim 34 is an independent claim and has not been amended to include the passively tilted architecture, rendering this argument moot.
Conclusion
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 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642