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 .
Application Status
Claims 2-5, and 8-18 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the fourth action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 1/3/2023 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 2-5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevirt et al. (PGPub #2016/0304194) in view of Bevirt et al. (PGPub #2016/0031555), and Britchford (PGPub #2023/0021800).
Regarding claim 18, Bevirt teaches a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft having a fuselage (101) ending with a tail (The fuselage as seen in figures 1, and 2), a first wing (102, and 103) fixedly attached to the fuselage (101, 102, and 103 as seen in figure 1), a second wing (104, and 105) fixedly attached to the fuselage (101, 104, and 105 as seen in figure 1) and located between the first wing and the tail (101, 102, 103, 104, and 105 as seen in figure 1, and 104 and the fuselage as seen in figure 2, as can be seen in figure 2 the tail of the fuselage extends slightly past the trailing edge of the second wing), wherein the first wing is provided with four tilting propulsion units forwards of the first wing (102, 103, and 107 as seen in figure 1) and attached to the first wing (102, 103, and 107 as seen in figure 1), wherein no other propulsion units are provided on the first wing (102, 103, and 107 as seen in figure 1); wherein the second wing is provided with multiple tilting propulsion units forwards of the second wing and attached to the second wing (The propulsion units attached to elements 104, and 105 as seen in figure 1); wherein each propulsion unit is provided with propeller blades (107 as seen in figure 1). But Bevirt does not teach that the second wing has four tilting propulsion units, wherein no other propulsion units are provided on the second wing; and wherein the propeller blades forwards of the first wing are at least 10 % longer than the propeller blades of the tilting propulsion units on the second wing; and wherein the propeller blades of the tilting propulsion units have variable pitch.
However, Bevirt (555) does teach that the second wing has four tilting propulsion units (204, 205, and 208 as seen in figure 29), wherein no other propulsion units are provided on the second wing (204, 205, and 208 as seen in figure 29). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second wing have exactly four tilting propulsion units because Bevirt (194) and Bevirt (555) are both tilt rotor aircraft with tilt rotors mounted to multiple wings. The motivation for having the second wing have exactly four tilting propulsion units is that it increases the amount of thrust available to the system to increase its performance. But Bevirt (555) does not teach that the propeller blades forwards of the first wing are at least 10 % longer than the propeller blades of the tilting propulsion units on the second wing; and wherein the propeller blades of the tilting propulsion units have variable pitch.
However, Britchford does teach that the propeller blades forwards of the first wing are at least 10 % longer than the propeller blades of the tilting propulsion units on the second wing (18, 30, and 32 as seen in figures 1, and Paragraph 12, lines 1-9, as can be seen in figure 9 the blades of the propulsion units on the front wing are more than 10% larger than the blades on the second wing); and wherein the propeller blades of the tilting propulsion units have variable pitch (Abstract, lines 1-8). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the blades of the rear propulsion units be smaller than the front propulsion units and to have the blades have a variable pitch because Bevirt and Britchford are both VTOL aircraft with the rotors located on a pair of wings. The motivation for having the blades of the rear propulsion units be smaller than the front propulsion units is that it can allow the propulsion units to produce equal thrust while rotating at different speeds to help reduce the noise pollution generated by the system, and the motivation for having the blades have a variable pitch is that it can allow the dynamics of the propulsion unit to change while in use to control the amount of thrust that the system is generating.
Regarding claim 2, Bevirt (194) as modified by Bevirt (555), and Britchford teaches the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 18, wherein the second wing has a smaller surface area than the first wing (102, 103, 104, and 105 as seen in figure 1 of Bevirt (194)).
Regarding claim 3, Bevirt (194) as modified by Bevirt (555), and Britchford teaches the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 18, wherein each tilting propulsion unit is an open propeller (107 as seen in figure 1 of Bevirt (194)).
Regarding claim 4, Bevirt (194) as modified by Bevirt (555), and Britchford teaches the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 18, wherein each of the propulsion units is attached to the associated one of the first wing and second wing via an associated pylon (102, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107 as seen in figure 1 of Bevirt (194)), wherein each pylon carries one propulsion unit mounted on a tip thereof forward of a leading edge of the associated one of the first wing and the second wing (102, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107 as seen in figure 1 of Bevirt (194)).
Regarding claim 5, Bevirt (194) as modified by Bevirt (555), and Britchford teaches the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 4, wherein each of the pylons extend only forward of the wing to which they are attached (102, 103, 104, 105, and 106 as seen in figure 1 of Bevirt (194)).
Regarding claim 8, Bevirt (194) as modified by Bevirt (555), and Britchford teaches the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 18, wherein each of the propulsion units is driven by an electric motor (Paragraph 31, lines 1-13 of Bevirt (194)).
Regarding claim 9, Bevirt (194) as modified by Bevirt (555), and Britchford teaches the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 8, wherein each of the electric motors is embodied as a separate unit (Paragraph 31, lines 1-13 of Bevirt (194)) powered and controlled by a central control system (Paragraph 31, lines 1-13, and paragraph 34, lines 1-19 of Bevirt (194)).
Regarding claim 11, Bevirt (194) as modified by Bevirt (555), and Britchford teaches the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 8, but does not teach that the aircraft carries an electricity generator installed onboard the aircraft. However, Britchford does teach that the aircraft carries an electricity generator installed onboard the aircraft (Paragraph 16, lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a generator installed on the aircraft because Bevirt and Britchford are both VTOL aircraft with the rotors located on a pair of wings. The motivation for having a generator installed on the aircraft is that it can help to extend the range of the electric aircraft.
Regarding claim 12, Bevirt (194) as modified by Bevirt (555), and Britchford teaches the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 11, but Bevirt does not teach that the electricity generator comprises a gas turbine for converting mechanical and/or thermal energy of flowing gases into mechanical work for rotating a shaft of an alternator. However, Britchford does teach that the electricity generator comprises a gas turbine for converting mechanical and/or thermal energy of flowing gases into mechanical work for rotating a shaft of an alternator (Paragraph 16, lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electricity generator include a gas turbine that drives a system to generate the electricity because Bevirt and Britchford are both VTOL aircraft with the rotors located on a pair of wings. The motivation for having the electricity generator include a gas turbine that drives a system to generate the electricity is that a gas turbine generator system is capable of efficiently generating a large amount of electricity to help to extend the range of the aircraft.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevirt et al. (PGPub #2016/0304194) as modified by Bevirt et al. (PGPub #2016/0031555), and Britchford (PGPub #2023/0021800) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Speller et al. (PGPub #2021/0371120).
Regarding claim 10, Bevirt (194) as modified by Bevirt (555), and Britchford teaches the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 8, but does not teach at least one of the propulsion units comprises two or more electric motors powering one propeller. However, Speller does teach at least one of the propulsion units comprises two or more electric motors powering one propeller (Paragraph 23, lines 1-7). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each propulsion units have a plurality of electric motors because Bevirt and Speller are both tilt rotor aircraft. The motivation for having each propulsion units have a plurality of electric motors is that it helps to provide redundancy for the system so that one of the motors failing would not cause a complete loss of thrust for the unit.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevirt et al. (PGPub #2016/0304194) as modified by Bevirt et al. (PGPub #2016/0031555), and Britchford (PGPub #2023/0021800) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mikic et al. (PGPub #2020/0361601).
Regarding claim 13, Bevirt (194) as modified by Bevirt (555), and Britchford teaches the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 18, but does not teach that the tilting of each of the tilting propulsion units is controlled by servomotors and/or by hydraulic units. However, Mikic does teach that the tilting of each of the tilting propulsion units is controlled by servomotors and/or by hydraulic units (Paragraph 112, lines 1-8). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tilting performed by a hydraulic system because Bevirt and Mikic are both tilt rotor aircraft. The motivation for having the tilting performed by a hydraulic system is that hydraulic systems are able to efficiently deliver the large forces that are needed to transition the propulsion units while they are in use.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevirt et al. (PGPub #2016/0304194) as modified by Bevirt et al. (PGPub #2016/0031555), and Britchford (PGPub #2023/0021800) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Lovering et al. (PGPub #2020/0164995).
Regarding claim 14, Bevirt (194) as modified by Bevirt (555), and Britchford teaches the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 8, but does not teach that each of the electric motors is embodied as a separate unit controlled by a separate control unit linked to a primary control unit. However, Lovering does teach that each of the electric motors is embodied as a separate unit controlled by a separate control unit linked to a primary control unit (110, 221, 222, 228, 231, 232, and 238 as seen in figure 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the motors controlled by a separate controller linked to a primary controller because Bevirt and Lovering are both tilt rotor VTOL aircraft with control systems.
Claims 11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevirt et al. (PGPub #2016/0304194) as modified by Bevirt et al. (PGPub #2016/0031555), and Britchford (PGPub #2023/0021800) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Fredericks et al. (PGPub #2016/0244158).
Regarding claim 11, Bevirt (194) as modified by Bevirt (555), and Britchford teaches the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 8, but does not teach that the aircraft carries an electricity generator installed onboard the aircraft. However, Fredericks does teach that the aircraft carries an electricity generator installed onboard the aircraft (Paragraph 30, lines 1-23). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a generator installed on the aircraft because Bevirt and Fredericks are both VTOL aircraft with the tilting rotors powered by electric motors. The motivation for having a generator installed on the aircraft is that it can help to extend the range of the electric aircraft.
Regarding claim 15, Bevirt (194) as modified by Bevirt (555), Britchford, and Fredericks teaches the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 11, but Bevirt does not teach that the electricity generator comprises an engine for rotating a shaft of an alternator. However, Fredericks does teach that the electricity generator comprises an engine for rotating a shaft of an alternator (Paragraph 30, lines 1-23). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the generator be an engine driving an alternator because Bevirt and Fredericks are both VTOL aircraft with the tilting rotors powered by electric motors. The motivation for having the generator be an engine driving an alternator is that it allows the system to provide additional electrical power as it is needed.
Regarding claim 16, Bevirt (194) as modified by Bevirt (555), Britchford, and Fredericks teaches the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 12, but Bevirt does not teach that the engine is an internal combustion engine. However, Fredericks does teach that that the engine is an internal combustion engine (Paragraph 30, lines 1-23). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the engine be an internal combustion engine because Bevirt and Fredericks are both VTOL aircraft with the tilting rotors powered by electric motors. The motivation for having the engine be an internal combustion engine is that internal combustion engines are able convert energy dense liquid fuels into mechanical energy to drive an alternator which helps to extend the range of the vehicle.
Claims 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevirt et al. (PGPub #2016/0304194) as modified by Bevirt et al. (PGPub #2016/0031555), and Britchford (PGPub #2023/0021800) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wiegman (US #11,530,028).
Regarding claim 11, Bevirt (194) as modified by Bevirt (555), and Britchford teaches the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 8, but does not teach that the aircraft carries an electricity generator installed onboard the aircraft. However, Wiegman does teach that the aircraft carries an electricity generator installed onboard the aircraft (Column 13, lines 19-26). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a generator installed on the aircraft because Bevirt and Wiegman are both VTOL aircraft with the rotors powered by electric motors. The motivation for having a generator installed on the aircraft is that it can help to extend the range of the electric aircraft.
Regarding claim 17, Bevirt (194) as modified by Bevirt (555), Britchford, and Wiegman teaches the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft according to claim 11, but Bevirt does not teach that the electricity generator is a fuel cell, fueled by hydrogen or methanol. However, Wiegman does teach that the electricity generator is a fuel cell, fueled by hydrogen or methanol (Column 13, lines 19-26). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electricity generator be a hydrogen or methanol fuel cell because Bevirt and Wiegman are both VTOL aircraft with the rotors powered by electric motors. The motivation for having the electricity generator be a hydrogen or methanol fuel cell is that it allows the system to convert a liquid fuel, which can be more energy dense than a battery to electricity which can increase the range of the aircraft.
Response to Arguments
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments that Bevirt (194) does not teach the limitations of the propulsion units of the first wing. While the examiner agrees that the exact placement on the wing differs between Bevirt (194) and the applicant’s figures, however all that the claim requires is that there are four propulsion units that are attached to, and placed forward of the first wing which can be clearly seen in the cited figures of Bevirt (194). The examiner agrees that Bevirt (555) does not teach all of the limitations of the propulsion units of the first wing however Bevirt (555) is not relied upon to teach any limitations of the propulsion units of the first wing.
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s argument that it would require the use of hindsight reconstruction to combine the two Bevirt references. While the two references are not identical aircraft, they both are tilt rotor aircraft with the tilt rotors mounted with a plurality of tilt rotors mounted to both the front wing and to the rear stabilizer, and Bevirt (555) is used to modify the number of the plurality of tiltable propulsion units that are mounted to the rear stabilizer. Because Bevirt (555) is used to modify an element that is shared between the two references and because the two references are in the same area and are mechanically similar the examiner does not believe that it would require hindsight reconstruction to combine the references.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Examiner, Art Unit 3647