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 .
Specification
The amendments to the specification filed on 08/14/2025 is acknowledged and is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/14/2025. These drawings are accepted by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 01/20/2026. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-20 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-20 are pending examination. Claims 1-20 are rejected as necessitated by amendments. This action is Non-Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments and comments regarding the previous office action:
No justification to combine Glad and Chamberlain and request clarity for reasoning.
Glad and Chamberlain do not disclose the amended claim 1 limitation of a system comprising: a mast sensor transmitter unit ("MST") mechanically coupled to a provided rotary mast of a provided rotary-wing aircraft by a mast clamp mount.
Regarding point A, the statement in the previous office action "Know processing and know sensors" is a typo. The examiner herein corrects this typo to state "Known processing and known sensors" which regard the processors and sensors taught by Chamberlain. Regarding the mention of false alarms, operator warnings, localization, and fidelity, the Examiner mentioned these features to convey the advantages of Chamberlains rotor warning system. The prevention of false alarms (Description, Paragraph 23, determining that a potentially hazardous object is in one of the cells when the likelihood of a potentially hazardous object in the cell is greater that an threshold likelihood for a threshold period of time), early operator warnings (Description paragraph 4, Additionally or alternatively, it can also generate other cues for the crew, such as audible warnings, etc.), localization (Description, Paragraph 7, the registration module 24 can continuously update in real-time the estimated position and orientation (pose) of the helicopter), and fidelity (Description, Paragraph 3, collecting hundreds of thousands (e.g., 300,000) lidar data points per second, with a measurement range of about 100 meters and an accuracy of about 2 cm or less), are mere reasons why one with skill in the art would find it advantageous to use aspects of Chamberlain’s disclosure along with Glad. As for the registration evaluation pipeline/method, Chamberlain discloses a method of evaluating lidar data from a registration and evaluation module, previously stated by the Examiner as a registration evaluation pipeline due to its purpose of evaluating the space around an aerial vehicle, such as a helicopter for safety purposes (Description paragraph 4, the registration module 24 registers the point data from the lidar sensing system 12 into a 3D space (such as a global 3D space based on geo-registration or local 3D space relative to the craft) based on position data from one or more other sensor systems of the helicopter 10. The evaluation module 26 detects object in the registered point clouds and determines whether the objects present hazards to the helicopter). The combining of Chamberlain and Glad is obvious due to the many safety advantages of Chamberlain's system as discussed supra, to protect the rotary wings on an aerial vehicle. It would have been obvious to someone in the art to implement the combination of features in Chamberlain and Glad to increase the safety of flying operations by preventing collisions via at least audible warnings to the flight crew. Furthermore Chamberlain goes on to state that (Final Paragraph, While various embodiments have been described herein, it should be apparent that various modifications, alterations, and adaptations to those embodiments may occur to persons skilled in the art with attainment of at least some of the advantages).
Regarding point B, with respect to amended claim 1 has been fully considered and is moot in light of the new grounds for rejection below.
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 1-5 and 11-20 are all rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Glad (US20130128258A1) in view of Chamberlain et al (US10139493B1), further in view of Garrison et al. (US4083518A).
Regarding claim 1, Glad discloses, the MST (Glad, 0074, Lines 2-5, the obstacle sensor unit), comprising: a processor coupled to a LiDAR emitter, a LiDAR detector, and a memory (Glad, 0074, Lines 2-5, the obstacle sensor unit comprises a window 82 a, a scanning mechanism 82 b, an optical assembly 82 c, a laser transmitter 82 d, a laser receiver 82 f, a detector 82 e, a signal processor) a transceiver coupled to the processor and an antenna (Glad, 0077, Lines 7-9, the signal processor is in communication with the detector 82 f and the wireless link 82 h which is in communication with the first antenna 73), a housing (Glad, 0074, Lines 1-7, FIG. 8 schematically shows a block diagram of the obstacle detection sensor unit 12. In the example shown, the obstacle sensor unit comprises a window 82 a, a scanning mechanism 82 b, an optical assembly 82 c, a laser transmitter 82 d, a laser receiver 82 f, a detector 82 e, a signal processor 82 g, a wireless link 82 h, a power converter 82 i, a power supply means, such as a battery 59 and an antenna 73. The power supply means can be a generator); a removable clamping unit providing mechanical coupling between the rotary mast and the MST (Glad, 0056, Lines 14-18, the obstacle detection sensor unit 12 can be mounted to the first rotor head 14 by any conventional method such as for example screwing, bolting or welding. The obstacle detection sensor unit 12 can be mounted to the first rotor head 14 by any conventional fastening means such as for example screws or bolts), and wherein the processor is configured to execute instructions stored in the memory that perform the steps of: transmitting a laser pulse from the LiDAR emitter; receiving a reflection from the emitted laser pulse by the LiDAR detector (Glad, 0075, Lines 2-6, the laser transmitter 82 d is adapted to transmit laser light. The laser receiver 82 f is adapted to receive reflected laser light. The optical assembly 82 c is adapted to emit laser light with a pre-determined angle. The angle of the laser light can be adjusted by optical lenses), measuring and storing in the memory data regarding at least one of: a time between pulse emissions (Glad, 0078, Lines 1-7, the timing of the received laser light and the position of the obstacle detection sensor unit 12 is synchronized in a suitable way, for example by having a fix point on the fuselage 10 a or the tail boom or any other fix point. The obstacle detection sensor unit 12 receives laser light from obstacles and the position of the obstacles is calculated trough a comparison of the angle between the position of the obstacle detection sensor unit 12 and the reference point), and an azimuth angle of the rotary mast when the reflection was received (Glad, 0078, Lines 1-7, the transmitted laser light from the obstacle detection sensor unit 12 will reach the fix point indicating the rotational position of the obstacle detection sensor unit 12. The rotational position of the obstacle detection sensor unit 12 is calculated by having said fix point as a reference point and the rotational velocity. The reference point can also be obtained by a position sensor of the rotor head axis indicating the rotational position of the obstacle detection sensor unit 12) … (Glad, 0071, Lines 7-10, the laser scanning mechanism is used for scanning and detecting in both elevation and azimuth direction around the first rotor head axis 11. Referring to FIG. 6, elevation direction is represented by the Y-axis 67 and the azimuth direction is represented by the X-axis 68), and wherein the MST is attached to the mast and oriented so that laser beams emitting from the LiDAR emitter are not substantially blocked by the blades of the rotary wing (Glad, 0057, Lines 1-4, the first angular extension 18 of the transmitted laser light is selected such that the transmitted laser light substantially always covers all obstacles 15 inline, above or below and in proximity of the helicopter or the rotor blades). However Glad does not explicitly disclose some limitation of claim 1.
Nevertheless, Chamberlain who is in the same field of endeavor of rotor safety systems for aircraft discloses, formatting a message for transmission to a sensor processing unit (SPU), the message containing the stored data(Chamberlain, Paragraph 8, Lines 6-10, the on-board computer system 22 comprises one or more processors and one or more memory units. The memory units may store software or instructions that are executed by the processor(s). The memory units may comprise primary computer memory, such as RAM or ROM, and/or secondary computer memory).
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention
would have been motivated to combine Glad with Chamberlain due to the many safety advantages of Chamberlain's system as discussed supra, to protect the rotary wings on an aerial vehicle. It would have been obvious to someone in the art to implement the combination of features in Chamberlain and Glad to increase the safety of flying operations by preventing collisions via at least audible warnings to the flight crew.
Justification for combining Glad with Chamberlain not only comes from the state of the art but from Chamberlain (Chamberlain, while various embodiments have been described herein, it should be apparent that various modifications, alterations, and adaptations to those embodiments may occur to persons skilled in the art with attainment of at least some of the advantages).
Furthermore, Garrison who is in the same field of endeavor of mast attached sensors for rotary aerial vehicles discloses, a system comprising: a mast sensor transmitter unit ("MST") (Description, Paragraph 14, mast torque sensor), mechanically coupled to a provided rotary mast of a provided rotary-wing aircraft (Description, Paragraph 14, portions of the main rotor mast 15 have been shown in section with a main rotor mast torque sensor mounted therein), by a mast clamp mount (Description, Paragraph 14, the upper face of the bearing 21 is clamped by a nut 25 which engages a threaded portion on the surface of the main rotor mast 15).
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention
would have been motivated to combine the combination of Glad and Chamberlain with Garrison because Garrison teaches a sensor mounted on the main rotor mast and secured via clamping. This substitution of the sensors location along the mast would have predictably provided a secure mast mounting location for the mast sensor unit on the rotating rotor system. This combination would merely involve using a known clamping mast sensor mounting technique such as the one disclosed by Garrison, in the known rotor hazard detection systems of Glad and Chamberlain to achieve both a secure mount and a reliable rotation with the mast.
Further justification for combining the combination of Glad and Chamberlain with Garrison not only comes from the state of the art but from Garrison (Garrison, it is to be understood that further modifications may now suggest themselves to those skilled in the art and it is intended to cover such modifications as fall within the scope of the appended claims).
Regarding claim 2, Glad, Chamberlain, and Garrison disclose, the system of Claim 1 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Chamberlain discloses, one or more of a camera, an accelerometer, centrifugal switch, and a ground test switch (Chamberlain, Paragraph 8, Lines 3-5, as shown in FIG. 2, those other sensor systems can include an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 30, a GPS system 32, and/or a camera system 34. The IMU unit 30 can include accelerometers, gyroscopes, and/or magnetometers) … (Chamberlain, Paragraph 23, Lines 1-5, in various embodiments, the rotor safety system 20 automatically turns on and off based on the altitude of the helicopter 10. For example, the helicopter 10 may include an altitude sensor (not shown), such as an aneroid barometer, radar altimeter, or GPS receiver with altitude capabilities, that senses the altitude of the helicopter above ground) … (Chamberlain, Paragraph 29, Lines 9-13, generate continuously updated graphics of the space around the rail rotor during the near-ground operation based on the lidar point data from the lidar scanner, wherein the graphic are for display by a flight crew interface of the rotorcraft). The justification and reasoning for combining these disclosures is the same as stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Glad, Chamberlain, and Garrison disclose, the system of Claim 1 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Chamberlain discloses, further comprising transmitting the message to the SPU (Chamberlain, Claim 20, detecting, by a rotor safety system that comprises a computer system that is in communication with the lidar scanner, objects that pose a threat of contacting the rotor during the near-ground operation of the rotorcraft based on time-stamped lidar point data from the lidar scanner, wherein detecting whether an object poses a threat of contacting the rotor comprises). The justification and reasoning for combining these disclosures is the same as stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Glad, Chamberlain, and Garrison disclose, the system of Claim 1 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Glad discloses, the MST is secured to the rotary mast below the blades of the rotary-wing aircraft (Glad, 0057, Lines 1-4, the first angular extension 18 of the transmitted laser light is selected such that the transmitted laser light substantially always covers all obstacles 15 inline, above or below and in proximity of the helicopter or the rotor blades). The justification and reasoning for combining these disclosures is the same as stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Glad, Chamberlain, and Garrison disclose, the system of Claim 1 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Glad discloses, the MST is mechanically secured proximate a top end of the rotary mast above the blades of the rotary wing aircraft (Glad, 0057, Lines 1-4, the first angular extension 18 of the transmitted laser light is selected such that the transmitted laser light substantially always covers all obstacles 15 inline, above or below and in proximity of the helicopter or the rotor blades). The justification and reasoning for combining these disclosures is the same as stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Glad, Chamberlain, and Garrison disclose, the system of Claim 3 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Glad discloses, a communication interface coupled to an SPU processor, the communication interface including an SPU transceiver coupled to an SPU antenna (Glad, 0077, Lines 7-9, the signal processor is in communication with the detector 82 f and the wireless link 82 h which is in communication with the first antenna 73); However Glad does not explicitly disclose some limitation of claim 11.
Nevertheless, Chamberlain discloses, an SPU memory coupled to the SPU processor, wherein the SPU processor executes program steps stored within the SPU memory to perform the steps of: receiving the transmitted message; analyzing the data from the received message to determine one or more of a range and a bearing to a detected object reflecting the emitted LiDAR pulse (Chamberlain, Paragraph 8, Lines 6-10, the on-board computer system 22 comprises one or more processors and one or more memory units. The memory units may store software or instructions that are executed by the processor(s). The memory units may comprise primary computer memory, such as RAM or ROM, and/or secondary computer memory) … (Chamberlain, Claim 1, the computer system detects whether an object poses a threat of contacting the rotor by: generating a series of time-stamped point clouds from the time-stamped lidar point data, wherein the series of time-stamped point clouds indicate a location of the object in a vicinity of the rotor at different time stamp instances; determining a relative velocity of the object relative to the rotor based on movement of the object relative to the rotor over the series of time-stamped point clouds; and determining, based on the determined relative velocity of object, that the object poses a threat of contacting the rotor when it is determined that the object will be within a threshold distance of the rotor within a threshold time period; and reaction means in communication with the computer system for taking a reaction in response to detection by the computer system that the object poses a threat of contacting the rotor). The justification and reasoning for combining these disclosures is the same as stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Glad, Chamberlain, and Garrison disclose, the system of Claim 11 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Chamberlain discloses, determining, by the SPU processor, whether the range and/or bearing to the object represents a hazardous condition (Chamberlain, Claim 1, that the object poses a threat of contacting the rotor when it is determined that the object will be within a threshold distance of the rotor within a threshold time period; and reaction means in communication with the computer system for taking a reaction in response to detection by the computer system that the object poses a threat of contacting the rotor). The justification and reasoning for combining these disclosures is the same as stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Glad, Chamberlain, and Garrison disclose, the system of Claim 12 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Chamberlain discloses, determining whether the range and/or bearing to the object represents a hazardous condition comprises determining that the range and/or 18 bearing is located within a predetermined distance and/or bearing in a predefined protected volume surrounding the aircraft (Chamberlain, Paragraph 15, Lines 2-7, can determine whether the objects represent hazards to the tail portion 18 or tail motor 16 of the helicopter 10 based on their distance to the tail portion/motor. Objects within a predefined threshold distance of any part of the tail portion 18, including the tail rotor 16, could be classified as hazards. Moving objects that are not within the threshold distance could also be classified as hazards). The justification and reasoning for combining these disclosures is the same as stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Glad, Chamberlain, and Garrison disclose, the system of Claim 12 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Chamberlain discloses, determining whether the range and/or bearing to the object represents a hazardous condition comprises determining that the range is located within a predetermined distance in a predefined protected volume surrounding the aircraft (Chamberlain, Paragraph 15, Lines 2-7, can determine whether the objects represent hazards to the tail portion 18 or tail motor 16 of the helicopter 10 based on their distance to the tail portion/motor. Objects within a predefined threshold distance of any part of the tail portion 18, including the tail rotor 16, could be classified as hazards. Moving objects that are not within the threshold distance could also be classified as hazards). The justification and reasoning for combining these disclosures is the same as stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Glad, Chamberlain, and Garrison disclose, the system of Claim 11 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Chamberlain discloses, the SPU is installed within the airframe of the aircraft (Chamberlain, Paragraph 8, Lines 3-6, an on-board computer system 22 that is included on or with the helicopter 10. The on-board computer system 22 may comprise one or a number of networked computer devices, such as personal computers, laptop computers, servers, etc.). The justification and reasoning for combining these disclosures is the same as stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Glad, Chamberlain, and Garrison disclose, the system of Claim 11 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Chamberlain discloses, the SPU processor transmits the range and a bearing to the object reflecting the emitted LiDAR pulse to an Alert Display Module (ADM), the ADM comprising one or more of a display, a speaker, and a user interface (Chamberlain, Paragraph 8, Lines 22-24, the display generation module 28 can generate graphical views of the vicinity of the tail portion of the helicopter that can be displayed on a monitor for the helicopter's flight crew) … (Chamberlain, Paragraph 18, Lines 7-11, the flight crew interface 40 could be relatively simple, such as lights and/or electroacoustic transducers. The lights may turn on or flash—and/or the electroacoustic transducers could make audible sounds, such as beeps or verbal warnings—when a hazardous object is detected by the evaluation module 26) … (Chamberlain, Paragraph 19, Lines 3-9, the flight crew interface 40 could comprise a video monitor on the control console of the helicopter 10 or at some other suitable location visible to the flight crew members. In that connection, the display generation module 30 could generate continuously updated graphics depicting, in real-time, objects in the vicinity of the helicopter based on the objects detected by the evaluation module. The graphics may depict the 3D space in the vicinity of the helicopter 10 and may include a representation of the helicopter 10 in the graphics). The justification and reasoning for combining these disclosures is the same as stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Glad, Chamberlain, and Garrison disclose, the system of Claim 16 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Chamberlain discloses, the ADM providing a visual indication of a location of the detected object with respect to the aircraft (Chamberlain, Paragraph 19, Lines 3-9, the flight crew interface 40 could comprise a video monitor on the control console of the helicopter 10 or at some other suitable location visible to the flight crew members. In that connection, the display generation module 30 could generate continuously updated graphics depicting, in real-time, objects in the vicinity of the helicopter based on the objects detected by the evaluation module. The graphics may depict the 3D space in the vicinity of the helicopter 10 and may include a representation of the helicopter 10 in the graphics). The justification and reasoning for combining these disclosures is the same as stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Glad, Chamberlain, and Garrison disclose, the system of Claim 16 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Chamberlain discloses, the ADM provides one or more of a visual warning and an aural warning indicating the object represents a potential threat or hazard to operation of the aircraft (Chamberlain, Paragraph 18, Lines 7-11, the flight crew interface 40 could be relatively simple, such as lights and/or electroacoustic transducers. The lights may turn on or flash—and/or the electroacoustic transducers could make audible sounds, such as beeps or verbal warnings—when a hazardous object is detected by the evaluation module 26). The justification and reasoning for combining these disclosures is the same as stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Glad, Chamberlain, and Garrison disclose, the system of Claim 16 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Chamberlain discloses, the ADM provides one or more of: a displayed range and/or bearing of the detected object with respect to the aircraft (Chamberlain, Paragraph 19, Lines 18-26, in addition, in various embodiments, the representation of the hazardous object could blink and/or change colors—such as to red—when it is within a threshold distance of the helicopter's tail. Additionally or alternatively, the display generation module 28 could generate side, front and/or review view graphics of the helicopter showing the hazardous object, such as shown in the examples of FIGS. 6 to 7 (side and front views). Other viewing angles could also be used. Further, in various embodiments the flight crew members could select which view to be displayed through an appropriate and suitable input selection means provided by the interface 40); and an aural indication of the range and/or bearing of the detected object with respect to the aircraft (Chamberlain, Paragraph 18, Lines 7-11, the flight crew interface 40 could be relatively simple, such as lights and/or electroacoustic transducers. The lights may turn on or flash—and/or the electroacoustic transducers could make audible sounds, such as beeps or verbal warnings—when a hazardous object is detected by the evaluation module 26). The justification and reasoning for combining these disclosures is the same as stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Glad, Chamberlain, and Garrison disclose, the system of Claim 1 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Glad discloses, the MST emits and measures a plurality of laser pulses as the rotor is turned in normal operation by the aircraft (Glad, Abstract, a helicopter obstacle detection and information system arranged to be transmitting laser light and receiving reflected laser light from obstacles for detecting and informing the pilot of a helicopter of obstacles in proximity of the helicopter. An obstacle detection sensor unit is arranged to be mounted on a rotor head of a helicopter such that the obstacle detection sensor unit is arranged to rotate with the rotor head when mounted); and the plurality of measured laser pulses is transmitted to the SPU for analysis to determine whether an object hazard exists within a detection volume scanned by the LiDAR emitter and detector (Glad, 0073, Lines 2-10, the obstacle detection sensor unit 12 or mounted separate from the obstacle sensor unit 12 on the helicopter 10. The second antenna 74 is in connection with the information unit 75 and can be incorporated in the information unit 75 or be a separate unit mounted on the helicopter 10. The information unit 75 has information means mounted inside the helicopter 10 for generating representation from received laser light. The information means can be a visual warning or an audible warning or a haptic warning to the pilot of the helicopter 10). The justification and reasoning for combining these disclosures is the same as stated in claim 1.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Glad to combine aspects of Chamberlains disclosure. This would allow for a more advanced system that offers azimuthal and elevational obstacle detection. In addition to the lidar with inductive power transfer and wireless data transmission the system would be less susceptible to wear.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glad (US20130128258A1) in view of Chamberlain et al (US10139493B1), further in view of Garrison et al. (US4083518A), further in view of Maglieri (US5704567A) further in view of Raad (US10243424B2).
Regarding claim 6, Glad, Chamberlain, and Garrison disclose, the system of Claim 1 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Maglieri, who is in the same field of endeavor of rotary wing aircraft power generation discloses, a sensor power generator mechanically coupled to the rotary mast and electrically coupled to the MST (Maglieri, THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS, Paragraph 1, Lines 1-3, power can be produced at each blade of a rotating component by using a series of magnets and coils. In FIG. 1A, a helicopter main rotor hub 51 and blade assembly 1 is shown. Magnets 5 are placed at strategic points on the rotor mast 50).
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention
would have been motivated to combine the combination of Glad, Chamberlain, and Garrison with Maglieri as this would allow the system to generate electricity to the rotor head attached lidar.
Justification for combining the combination Glad, Chamberlain, and Garrison with Maglieri not only comes from the state of the art but from Maglieri (Maglieri, Preferred Embodiments, Paragraph 1, this induces a high voltage and current that can be used for de-icing or for providing power through a small diameter lead or cable 20 to servos or actuators (not shown) that can now be mounted directly on the blade).
Regarding claim 7, Glad, Chamberlain, Garrison and Maglieri disclose, the system of Claim 6 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Maglieri discloses, a housing/mount including one or more pick-off coils; and a roller bearing for supporting axial rotation of an inner race thereby, wherein: the inner race is mechanically coupled to one or more external vanes; the inner race includes one or more permanent magnets that are embedded within and disposed near a surface of the inner race proximal to an area near the one or more pick-off coils within the housing mount (Maglieri, SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION, Paragraph 1, Lines 1-6, the invention comprises a multiplicity of magnets arranged around the rotor mast, the specific number selected to produce the desired number of electronic pulses introduced into each blade during one mast revolution, a coil with laminated metal plates arranged at the root end of each airfoil rotor blade, the magnets and coils being placed in sufficient proximity to each other to induce a high voltage and high current when they pass each other); the rotor being configured to receive mechanical drag producing a differential angular velocity between the rotor and the housing/mount (Maglieri, THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS, Paragraph 1, Lines 6-10, as the rotor head rotates through its cycle, or the laminated metal plates 10 with integral coil 15 pass the magnets 5 fixed on it, the magnets 5 pass by the laminated metal plates 10. This induces a high voltage and current that can be used for de-icing or for providing power through a small diameter lead or cable 20 to servos or actuators (not shown) that can now be mounted directly on the blade); and an electrical current is generated by the rotation of the inner race causing the one or more permanent magnets embedded in the rotor to pass by the one or more pick-off coils through the relative angular velocities of the rotor and the housing/mount attached to the rotary mast (Maglieri, Claim 1, a multiplicity of magnets placed on the rotor mast; a coil integrated with laminated metal plates mounted on each rotor blade cuff; the magnets and the coil with laminated plates being mounted in sufficient proximity to each other so that as the rotor turns through its cycle the magnets pass the laminated metal plates so as to induce a high voltage and high current). However Maglieri does not explicitly disclose some limitation of claim 7.
Nevertheless, Raad who is in the same field of endeavor of Mast-mounted aircraft generator discloses, the housing/mount being configured to rotate with the operational rotation of the rotary-wing rotor mast (Raad, Paragraph 11, Lines 2-6, the outer most portion of the main mast 110 may be defined by an elongated, generally cylindrical, outer housing 103 which may be coaxial with the main shaft 101. The outer housing 103 may be connected to the rotor blades 120 at an upper end and may be rotated by the main engine 200 through connection to the rotor gearbox 210 at a lower end).
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention
would have been motivated to combine the combination Glad, Chamberlain, Garrison and Maglieri with Raad as this would allow the system to rotate with the mast as the system would have a 360 degree spatial awareness and real time detection. The system also allows for placement of the housing on the top of the mast to allow for optimal cooling.
Justification for combining the combination of Glad, Chamberlain, Garrison and Maglieri with Raad not only comes from the state of the art but from Raad (Raad, Paragraph 18, Lines 3-4, the end use of the power generated by the described generator need not be limited to deicing applications).
Regarding claim 8, Glad, Chamberlain, Garrison Maglieri and Raad disclose, the system of Claim 7 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Glad discloses, the electrical current is provided to a power circuit card assembly of the MST to condition the provided current and provide operational power for the MST (Glad, 0069, Lines 13-16, the power supply means, such as the battery 59 can also be mounted directly above, as shown in FIG. 5, below or to the side of the rotor blade holders 53. Further the power supply means can be incorporated into said obstacle detection sensor unit). Furthermore, Raad clarifies that power can be generated to provide power to other systems (Raad, Paragraph 18, Lines 3-4, the end use of the power generated by the described generator need not be limited to deicing applications). The justification and reasoning for combining these disclosures is the same as stated in claim 6 and 7.
Regarding claim 9, Glad, Chamberlain, Garrison Maglieri and Raad disclose, the system of Claim 7 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Maglieri discloses, the housing/mount is mechanically coupled to the rotor mast through a clamping mechanism (Maglieri, THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS, Paragraph 2, Lines 9-10, another method is depicted in FIG. 2A. In this depiction, a shield 61 is slidably mounted over the rotor mast 50 on which are mounted the magnets 5. The shield 61 is moved to its on or off position by a bellcrank assembly). The justification and reasoning for combining these disclosures is the same as stated in claim 6 and 7.
Regarding claim 10, Glad, Chamberlain, Garrison Maglieri and Raad disclose, the system of Claim 6 as discussed supra. Furthermore, Raad discloses, the sensor power generator is mounted proximate a top end of the rotary mast (Raad, Paragraph 18, Lines 2-6, heat generated as a result of the operation of the generator 100 may be extracted by conduction through the main mast 110 outer housing 103, which is preferably aluminum, to the cooling dome or housing 106, which is also preferably aluminum, mounted on top of the main mast). The justification and reasoning for combining these disclosures is the same as stated in claim 6 and 7.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Glad and Chamberlain to incorporate aspects of Raad and Maglieri’s disclosures. This would allow the system to generate electricity to the rotor head attached lidar. Additionally, the system would be allowed to rotate with the mast as the system would have a 360 degree spatial awareness and real time detection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE E DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (703)756-1417. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM - 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, Christian Chace can be reached on (571) 272-4190. 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.
/S.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights