Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a shaft" in line 5 and further recites “a shaft” in line 10. There is some confusion as whether both shafts are the same or different shafts because both “shafts” are connected to the rotor. For examining purposes, the 2nd reference to “a shaft” will be interpreted as “the shaft”. Claims 2-20
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a stator" in line 4 and also recites “a stator” in claim 1 line 3. There is some confusion as whether both “stators” are the same or different stators because both “stators” are connected to the vertical take-off and landing vehicle. For examining purposes, the 2nd reference to “a stator” will be interpreted as “the stator”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a winding" in line 1 and also recites “a winding” in claim 1 line 13. There is some confusion as whether both “windings” are the same or different windings because both “windings” are a part of the stator. For examining purposes, the 2nd reference to “a winding” will be interpreted as “the winding”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear as to what “a vehicle” is referring to apart from the “vertical take-off and landing vehicle” in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Both claims fail to further limit claim 1 from which they depend due to the winding in the stator (as per claim 1 line 13) and the stator being affixed to the vertical take-off and landing vehicle (as per claim 1 line 3). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8 & 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Filippis et al. (US 20060022529) in view of Bevirt et al. (US 9694911).
1. De Fillipis et al. teach:
An electrical propulsor motor 2 (since it generates airflow 103, fig 1), the motor comprising:
an axis of rotation 2.21;
a stator 2.1 affixed to a vertical take-off and landing aircraft, wherein the stator comprises a through-hole located at the axis of rotation (fig 1);
a rotor 2.2 mechanically coupled to a shaft 2.20 and mounted in magnetic communication with the stator (fig 1), wherein:
the rotor is rotatably mounted about the axis of rotation (since it generates airflow 103, fig 1);
the rotor includes a first cylindrical surface facing the stator (fig 3), wherein the stator and the first cylindrical surface form a first air gap (figs 1 & 3);
the shaft operatively coupled to the rotor and rotatably mounted to the vertical take-off and landing aircraft, the shaft located coaxially with the axis of rotation (fig 1);
an impeller 8.1 operatively coupled to the shaft and configured to force air through an air flow path 12 adjacent at least a winding 2.10 of the stator; and
a propulsor 7.1 affixed to the shaft and configured to generate a lift thrust 103 (depending on the weight of the kind of vehicle it is attached to, MPEP 2112) as a function of rotation of the shaft; but does not teach that i) the stator is affixed to an electric vertical take-off and landing vehicle; and ii) the propulsor generates lift force on the electric vertical take-off and landing vehicle.
Bevirt et al. teaches an electric vertical take-off and landing vehicle 100 that has motor driven propellors 107 which have stators inherently affixed to the electric vertical take-off and landing vehicle 100 (since the motor 265 drives the propellors, it has a stator which is affixed to it and the motor is inherently affixed to the vertical take-off and landing vehical, MPEP 2112) and ii) the propulsor 107 generates lift force on the electric vertical take-off and landing vehicle. By using the motor design of De Filippis et al. in the electric vertical take-off and landing vehicle of Bevirt et al., the motor of De Fillipis would have improved versatility.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of De Fillipis being effectively filed to modify it such that i) the stator is affixed to an electric vertical take-off and landing vehicle; and ii) the propulsor generates lift force on the electric vertical take-off and landing vehicle, as taught by Bevirt et al. so as to improve the versatility of the motor.
2. De Fillipis et al. teach:
The motor of claim 1, wherein the stator comprises at least a first magnetic element 2.10 generating a first magnetic field.
3. De Fillipis et al. teach:
The motor of claim 2, wherein the at least a first magnetic element comprises a productive element (as defined by applicants’ specification).
4. De Fillipis et al. teach:
The motor of claim 1, wherein the propulsor comprises at least a second magnetic element 2.22, the at least a second magnetic element generating a second magnetic field.
5. De Fillipis et al. teach:
The motor of claim 4, wherein the at least a second magnetic element comprises a receptive element (as defined by applicants’ specification).
6. De Fillipis et al. teach:
The motor of claim 4, wherein the rotor comprises the at least a second magnetic element (fig 3).
8. De Fillipis et al. teach:
The motor of claim 1, further comprising a varying magnetic field that varies with respect to time.
14. De Fillipis et al. teach:
The motor of claim 8, wherein the varying magnetic field is configured to generate a magnetic force between the at least a first magnetic element and the at least a second magnetic element wherein the magnetic force causes the rotor to rotate with respect to a stator.
15. De Fillipis et al. teach:
The motor of claim 1, wherein the propulsor comprises an exterior space, wherein the exterior space further comprises a first air passage connecting the first air gap to air outside the exterior surface of the propulsor.
16. De Fillipis et al. in view of Bevirt et al. teach:
The motor of claim 1, wherein the stator is affixed to the vertical take-off and landing aircraft.
17. De Fillipis et al. teach:
The motor of claim 1, wherein the stator includes a winding.
18. De Fillipis et al. teach:
The motor of claim 1, wherein the stator comprises a frame/teeth 2.11.
20. De Fillipis et al. teach:
The motor of claim 1, further comprising a bearing cartridge, wherein the bearing cartridge is attached to a structural element of a vehicle.
Claim(s) 7 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Fillipis et al. in view of Bevirt et al. and further in view of Park (US 20140175915).
7. De Fillipis et al. teach:
The motor of claim 4, further comprising a hub 8; but does not teach that the at least a second magnetic element is affixed to the hub.
Park teaches that the at least a second magnetic element M is affixed to the hub 510. One having ordinary skill in the art would use this configuration to reduce the size of the propulsor motor of De Fillipis et al..
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of De Fillipis et al. to modify it such that the at least a second magnetic element is affixed to the hub, as taught by Park so as to reduce the size of the Propulsor motor.
9. De Fillipis et al. teach:
The motor of claim 1, further comprising a hub 13 rotatably mounted to the stator.
10. De Fillipis et al. teach:
The motor of claim 9, wherein the hub is mechanically coupled to a plurality of blades.
11. De Fillipis et al. teach:
The moto of claim 9, wherein the impeller comprises a plurality of axial impeller vanes.
12. De Fillipis et al. in view of Bevirt et al. teach:
The motor of claim 1, further comprising at least an inverter (This is inherent since the VTOL vehicle is powered by electric motors, MPEP 2112) electrically connected to the stator (This is inherent since the VTOL vehicle is powered by electric motors, MPEP 2112), wherein the inverter is configured to change DC power (also inherent since the VTOL vehicle is powered by electric motors, MPEP 2112) from a power source (also inherent since the VTOL vehicle is powered by electric motors, MPEP 2112) into AC power (also inherent since the VTOL vehicle is powered by electric motors, MPEP 2112) to drive the motor (also inherent since the VTOL vehicle is powered by electric motors, MPEP 2112).
13. De Fillipis et al. teach:
The motor of claim 9, wherein the hub comprises: an interior space 13, wherein the impeller is located in the interior space (fig 1).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Fillipis et al. in view of Bevirt et al. and further in view of Jun et al. (US 9556551).
19. De Fillipis et al. in view of Bevirt et al. have been discussed above, re claim 1; but do not teach that the stator comprises a sensor configured to detect a temperature of the motor.
Jun et al. teach that the stator 2000 comprises a sensor 7610/7620 configured to detect a temperature of the motor to prevent overheating which prolongs the service life of the motor..
Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention of De Fillipis et al. being effectively filed to modify it such that the stator comprises a sensor configured to detect a temperature of the motor, as taught by Jun et al. so as to prolong the service life of the Propulsor motor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Verna (US 20230202667) and Verna (US 20230303262) – general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRANCE L KENERLY whose telephone number is (571)270-7851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834