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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 11, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kimchi (US PgPub #2017/0160750).
For Claim 1, figures 1 and 3 and paragraph [0058] of Kimchi ‘075 disclose a locking system for an electric propulsion system, the locking system comprising: a lift propulsor configured to generate lift; and propel an electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft; a motor (300) operatively connected to the lift propulsor (310), the motor configured to power the lift propulsor, the motor including: a rotor (320) connected to the lift propulsor and having a rotor shaft; a stator (324) configured to rotate the rotor; and a lock (311-1) configured to prevent a movement of the lift propulsor and to hold the lift propulsor in a predetermined position, the lock being in contact with the rotor to prevent the movement of the lift propulsor, and prior to engaging the lock decelerating the rotor based on a threshold deceleration rate before locking the rotor to hold the lift propulsor at the predetermined position.
For Claim 9, figures 1 and 3 of Kimchi ‘075 disclose that the lock (311-1) is configured to be engaged during wing borne flight.
For Claim 10, figures 1 and 3 of Kimchi ‘075 disclose that the lock includes a brake.
For Claim 11, figures 1 and 3 of Kimchi ‘075 disclose that the lock includes an electromechanical system that engages a friction brake.
For Claim 22, the figures of Kimchi ‘075 disclose that the lock is configured to position to restrict movement of the lift propulsor during a flight mode transition.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-7 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimchi (US PgPub #2017/0160750) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Firanski (US PgPub 2015/0008857).
For Claims 2 and 5-7, while Kimchi ‘750 teaches a sensor to measure the proximity of the aircraft to other objects and to use that along with a controller to lock the lift propulsor, it is silent about a sensor in the locking system to determine a motion of the propulsor and using that to control the propulsor. However, the figures of Firanski ‘857 teach using a magnetic sensor (110) that can generate a signal based on a proximity between the sensor and the target so as to control the propulsor with a controller to slow the propulsor as desired.
For Claim 21, while Kimchi ‘750 is silent about locking the propulsor to reduce drag, paragraph [0034] of Firanski ‘857 teaches that it is known to reduce drag by locking the propulsor into place. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kimchi ‘750 with locking the propulsor to reduced drag as taught by Firanski ‘857.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimchi (US PgPub #2017/0160750) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
For Claims 12-13, while Kimchi ‘750 discloses an electromechanical braking system of the lock that allows for stopping rotation of the propulsor and releasing the propulsor to allow rotation, it is silent about it being a solenoid. However, the AAPA teaches that it is well known to use a variety of different braking systems to stop the speed of a rotor blade including using a solenoid to power a friction brake. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kimchi ‘750 with a solenoid braking system as taught by AAPA. The motivation to do so would be to have a system that has a simple on/off braking system.
Claim(s) 14-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimchi (US PgPub #2017/0160750) in view of Firanski (US PgPub 2015/0008857).
For Claims 14, 15, and 20, the figures and paragraph [0058] of Kimchi ‘750 disclose a method for locking an electric propulsion system, the method comprising: engaging, by a controller, a lock (311) configured to prevent a movement of the lift propulsor and to hold the lift propulsor in a predetermined position, the lock being in contact with a rotor (320) associated with the lift propulsor to prevent the movement of the lift propulsor, and prior to engaging the lock decelerating the rotor based on a threshold deceleration rate before locking the rotor to hold the lift propulsor at the predetermined position.
While Kimchi ‘750 teaches a sensor to measure the proximity of the aircraft to other objects and to use that along with a controller to lock the lift propulsor, it is silent about a sensor in the locking system to determine a motion of the propulsor and using that to control the propulsor. However, the figures of Firanski ‘857 teach using a magnetic sensor (110) that can generate a signal based on a proximity between the sensor and the target so as to control the propulsor with a controller to slow the propulsor as desired.
For Claim 16, the figures of Kimchi ‘750 disclose that the engaging lock includes allowing the lift propulsor to slow at a desire rate for parking.
For Claim 17, the figures of Kimchi ‘750 disclose that the lock includes an electromachanical system that engages a friction brake.
For Claim 19, the figures of Kimchi ‘750 disclose that the lock is configured to engage or disengage at any point.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimchi (US PgPub #2017/0160750) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
For Claim 18, while Kimchi ‘750 discloses an electromechanical braking system of the lock that allows for stopping rotation of the propulsor and releasing the propulsor to allow rotation, it is silent about it being a solenoid. However, the AAPA teaches that it is well known to use a variety of different braking systems to stop the speed of a rotor blade including using a solenoid to power a friction brake. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kimchi ‘750 with a solenoid braking system as taught by AAPA. The motivation to do so would be to have a system that has a simple on/off braking system.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimchi (US PgPub #2017/0160750) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eppink (US PgPub #2021/0229825).
For Claim 24, while Kimchi ‘750 teaches locking the propulsor for safety, it is silent about doing so corresponding to an aerodynamic efficient propulsor position for horizontal flight. However, figure 6 and paragraph [0096] of Eppink ‘825 teaches a locking system for a motor (24) having a rotor and a stator to lock the propulsor (26) corresponding to an aerodynamic efficient propulsor position for horizontal flight. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the locking system of Kimchi ‘750 which teaches both reducing or reversing current to slow the rotor down as well as locks to hold the propulsor in a desired location on the aircraft of Eppink ‘825. The motivation to do so would be to provide a known locking system on a system needing to lock a propulsor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Kimchi ‘750 does not teach prior to engaging the lock deceleration the rotor based on a threshold deceleration rate before locking the rotor to hold the lift propulsor at the predetermined position, however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0058] of Kimchi ‘750 states, “As an alternative, or in addition to, removing or reversing the current to the motor 300, in some implementations, the motor may include one or more stop bars 311 that may be deployed by the safety profile module 1313 (FIG. 13) from a retracted position to an extended position to stop the rotation of the rotor 320 of the motor 300 and, thus, stop the rotation of the propeller 310. During normal operation, the stop bar(s) 311 are maintained in a retracted position between the electromagnets 304 or within the stator 324. When deployed, the stop bar(s) 311-1 move from the retracted position to an extended position that causes the stop bar(s) 311-1 to engage the rotor 320 of the motor 300.” As such it can be seen that Kimchi ‘750 discloses that the current going to the motor can be stopped or reversed, thus slowing or decelerating the rotor based on a threshold deceleration rate. The Threshold deceleration being either removing current form the motor or reversing it which would decelerate the rotor at some amount. Any deceleration by removing current which means that the speed of the motor is not maintained or by reversing it which means that the current is actively slowing the motor down meets the limitation of “decelerating the rotor based on a threshold deceleration rate”. Then in addition to that the locks or stop bars can be engaged to lock and hold the lift propulsor at the predetermined position which is the position of not moving. The Applicant has not defined a specific threshold deceleration rate as such any design slowing of the rotor is read as a threshold deceleration rate. As such the Kimchi ‘750 meets the limitations of the claim.
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 PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 9/18/2025