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 .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 12/05/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected with traverse Species D (Figs. 18-22), Sub-Species 1 (Fig. 11) and Sub-Sub-Species C1 (Fig. 25) in the reply filed on 6/12/2025. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office fails to demonstrate why each Species, Sub-Species and Sub-Sub-Species are distinct and/or independent. This is not found persuasive because The Restriction/Election dated 4/14/2025 identifies characteristics of each of the Species, Sub-Species and Sub-Sub-Species in a manner that one of ordinary skill would recognize each mutually exclusive characteristics, and the species are not obvious variants of each other, as discussed in previous office action.
Figures 8-10, 16, 17 and 24 are non-elected species.
Figures 12-14 are non-elected species.
Figure 26 are non-elected species.
Election by Original Presentation:
Newly submitted claims 9-18 directed to inventions that are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The amended claims filed on 12/05/2025 include new independent claims.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1-8, drawn to an aircraft comprising, classified in B64C 11/46.
Claims 9-12, drawn to a flight control system, classified in B64C 39/005.
Claims 13-18, drawn to a method of controlling an aircraft, classified in B64D31/12.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I, II and III are different in scope, as mentioned by Applicant in the Remarks dated 12/05/2025.
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because invention I a processor and invention II does not . Invention II has separate utility such as controlling an aircraft without a processor.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Inventions I and II, and Invention III, are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case Inventions I and II do not require “receiving” sensor information, or “determining a thrust” as required by Invention III.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required. Pursuant to MPEP § 808.02, the inventions require searching different classes and subclasses, as set forth above. This shows each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. See MPEP § 808.02 (A). Additionally, each invention necessitates employing different search strategies, queries, and/or search terms. A search for one of the inventions is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other. See MPEP § 808.02 (C).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 9-19 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation " the translated dynamics error value". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elshafei 20160023755. (Note: claim 1 is rejected under two different interpretations, see rejections below)
Regarding claim 1, Elshafei teaches:
An aircraft (quadrotor air vehicles (QRAV) (abstract); QRAV may perform vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) [0009]) comprising:
a first propeller pair (inter alia, 1 and 3; “A first pair of rotors of the four rotors may rotate in a first direction while a second pair of the four rotors may rotate in a second direction, opposite of the first direction. The angular speed of each of the rotors may be controlled independently. Separately, the thrust of each rotor may be independently tilted in any direction within a hemisphere. Therefore, the air vehicle may include a total of twelve independent control parameters to enable full and precise control” [0022]; it is noted other pairing combinations are possible); and
a flight control system (inter alia, Fig. 3) comprising a processor (flight computer [0024], computer [0094-0095], Figs. 3, 7) configured to:
receive sensor information indicative of vehicle dynamics of the aircraft (a central processing core may be provided to communicate with sensors, [0024]; sensors 723 Fig. 7, sensors [0098, 0100]);
determine a thrust to be provided by the first propeller pair (inter alia, hover elevation [0023], “the thrust of each rotor may be independently tilted in any direction within a hemisphere” [0022] (where grouping two rotors creates a pair), elevation/ascending speed z, ż […] roll control φ [0061]) based on the vehicle dynamics of the aircraft speed ( as shown in FIG. 6, the dynamics of the quadrotor 601 is measured by the on-board flight instruments 602, the measurement vector X 610 is then compared with the desired values in 605. The error, that is the difference between the desired and measured states of the air vehicle, is then used by the one of the control methods to produce the control vector U 609 [0083]) and using a first set of one or more control laws (elevation/ascending speed z, ż […] roll control φ [0061]); and
determine a moment to be provided by the first propeller pair based on the vehicle dynamics of the aircraft (“A QRAV's motion states of interest to pilot control of the aircraft may include: {{dot over (x)},{umlaut over (x)},{dot over (y)},ÿ,z,ż,θ,{dot over (θ)},φ,{dot over (φ)},{dot over (ψ)},{umlaut over (ψ)}}, which correspond to: forward speed, forward acceleration, lateral speed, lateral acceleration, elevation, ascending speed, pitch angle, rate of change of pitch angle, roll angle, rate of change of roll angle, yaw angular velocity, and yaw angular acceleration” [0102], where pitch, roll yah etc are controlled based on moment) and using a second set of one or more control laws (pitch control θ; yaw control {dot over (ψ)}; and/or roll control φ” [0061]; “In one embodiment, the twelve control parameters enable the pilot to have independent control over each of the above QRAV motion states” [0102], teaching multiple control laws to independently control each motion state).
wherein the first set of one or more control laws is independent of the second set of one or more control laws (inter alia, [0041-0061], especially the equations and [0060-0061], “elevation/ascending speed z, ż; pitch control θ; yaw control {dot over (ψ)}; and/or roll control φ” [0061].; the table on page 7, “Activated Control Parameter” depicts the different control laws for, inter alia, vertical motion, roll and others; “With respect to fault tolerance, the control method for a QRAV with up to twelve total control inputs may be operated using different modes. A QRAV's motion states of interest to pilot control of the aircraft may include: {{dot over (x)},{umlaut over (x)},{dot over (y)},ÿ,z,ż,θ,{dot over (θ)},φ,{dot over (φ)},{dot over (ψ)},{umlaut over (ψ)}}, which correspond to: forward speed, forward acceleration, lateral speed, lateral acceleration, elevation, ascending speed, pitch angle, rate of change of pitch angle, roll angle, rate of change of roll angle, yaw angular velocity, and yaw angular acceleration. In one embodiment, the twelve control parameters enable the pilot to have independent control over each of the above QRAV motion states” [0102]”; furthermore, “can fully function with two rotors, can fully function if one or more tilting servos fail, provide safe flight even if all servos fail, and provide emergency landing with a single rotor.” [0020] would require different control laws that operate based on different parameters and availability of different rotors).
Regarding claim 1 (second interpretation of control laws), Elshafei teaches:
An aircraft (quadrotor air vehicles (QRAV) (abstract); QRAV may perform vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) [0009]) comprising:
a first propeller pair (inter alia, 1 and 3; “A first pair of rotors of the four rotors may rotate in a first direction while a second pair of the four rotors may rotate in a second direction, opposite of the first direction. The angular speed of each of the rotors may be controlled independently. Separately, the thrust of each rotor may be independently tilted in any direction within a hemisphere. Therefore, the air vehicle may include a total of twelve independent control parameters to enable full and precise control” [0022]; it is noted other pairing combinations are possible); and
a flight control system (inter alia, Fig. 3) comprising a processor (flight computer [0024], computer [0094-0095], Figs. 3, 7) configured to:
receive sensor information indicative of vehicle dynamics of the aircraft (a central processing core may be provided to communicate with sensors, [0024]; sensors 723 Fig. 7, sensors [0098, 0100]);
determine a thrust to be provided by the first propeller pair (inter alia, “the control method for a QRAV with up to twelve total control inputs may be operated using different modes. A QRAV's motion states of interest to pilot control of the aircraft may include: {{dot over (x)},{umlaut over (x)},{dot over (y)},ÿ,z,ż,θ,{dot over (θ)},φ,{dot over (φ)},{dot over (ψ)},{umlaut over (ψ)}}, which correspond to: forward speed, forward acceleration, lateral speed, lateral acceleration, elevation, ascending speed, pitch angle, rate of change of pitch angle, roll angle, rate of change of roll angle, yaw angular velocity, and yaw angular acceleration” [0102], where at least acceleration, ascending speed, rate of change or roll, read on thrust; two propellers can be combined to form a propeller pair) based on the vehicle dynamics of the aircraft speed (as shown in FIG. 6, the dynamics of the quadrotor 601 is measured by the on-board flight instruments 602, the measurement vector X 610 is then compared with the desired values in 605. The error, that is the difference between the desired and measured states of the air vehicle, is then used by the one of the control methods to produce the control vector U 609 [0083]; also see [0102] and “execution of all steps is typically repeated at each sampling period” [0101], indicating that the current state, vehicle dynamics including speed, are taken into account at each sampling/iteraction) and using a first set of one or more control laws (“a first mode may be a normal mode where there are four fully functional rotors and all twelve control parameters may be available to the pilot: { w1 ,w2,w3 ,w4 ,a 1,B 1,a2,B2,a3 ,B3 ,a 4 ,B4 }“ [0104-0105]); and
determine a moment to be provided by the first propeller pair based on the vehicle dynamics of the aircraft (“A QRAV's motion states of interest to pilot control of the aircraft may include: {{dot over (x)},{umlaut over (x)},{dot over (y)},ÿ,z,ż,θ,{dot over (θ)},φ,{dot over (φ)},{dot over (ψ)},{umlaut over (ψ)}}, which correspond to: forward speed, forward acceleration, lateral speed, lateral acceleration, elevation, ascending speed, pitch angle, rate of change of pitch angle, roll angle, rate of change of roll angle, yaw angular velocity, and yaw angular acceleration” [0102], where pitch, roll yah etc are controlled based on moment) and using a second set of one or more control laws (“However, if either the left rotor, or the right rotor, or both the left and right rotors fail, a second mode may be activated where the left and right rotors are shut off All the control commands may then be executed using the front and the rear rotors only” [0104-0105]).
wherein the first set of one or more control laws is independent of the second set of one or more control laws (inter alia, However, if either the left rotor, or the right rotor, or both the left and right rotors fail, a second mode may be activated where the left and right rotors are shut off All the control commands may then be executed using the front and the rear rotors only” [0104-0105], “In the second mode, the available control parameters may include {w1,w3,a1,B1,a3 ,B3 }, and the pilot would have limited capabilities over _six QRAV motion states, which may include {{dot over (x)},{dot over (y)},z,θ,φ,{dot over (ψ)}}” [0105]).
Regarding claim 2, Elshafei teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Elshafei further teaches:
The VTOL aircraft of claim 1 additionally comprising a second propeller pair (2 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, Elshafei teaches the invention as discussed for claim 2. Elshafei further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 2 wherein each propeller pair (as already discussed) comprises a first and second propeller (2 and 4, or 1 and 3) that are across an envelope (Image below) containing an aircraft center of gravity (Image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
704
1020
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Elshafei teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Elshafei further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 1 wherein a dynamics error value (The error, that is the difference between the desired and measured states of the air vehicle, is then used by the one of the control methods to produce the control vector U 609 [0083]) is translated into a propeller pair coordinate frame (inter alia, the earth inertia frame [0059], and coordinate frame about the aircraft center of gravity [0053-0061]) by the electronic flight control system (inter alia, Fig. 6, 7).
Regarding claim 6, Elshafei teaches the invention as discussed for claim 5. Elshafei further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 5 wherein the electronic flight control system computes a vehicle dynamics control signal (609 [0083]) using the translated dynamics error value (The error, that is the difference between the desired and measured states of the air vehicle, is then used by the one of the control methods to produce the control vector U 609 [0083]).
Regarding claim 7, Elshafei teaches the invention as discussed for claim 6. Elshafei further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 6 wherein the flight control system commands an electric motor (rotors 1, 2, 3, 4 may be driven by brushless DC motors [0043]) using the vehicle dynamics control system (“The output from the flight control filters may include set-points for the vehicle control systems which determine the thrust of each motor and the tilting angles of each rotor” [0073]).
Regarding claim 8, Elshafei teaches the invention as discussed for claim 6. Elshafei further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 1, wherein the aircraft is a “VTOL aircraft (QRAV may perform vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) [0009]).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. However, to the extent possible, applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections above, at the appropriate location.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
357
842
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: the amended claims are addressed in the rejection above. As explained in the rejection, the prior art teaches pairs of propellers that can be controlled according to different control laws. The independent control of each propeller indicates independent control laws, and pairing of propellers teaches pairs of propellers operating under separate control laws, independent of the others.
Additionally, examiner notes that, as currently claimed, “using a first set of one or more control laws” and “using a second set of one or more control laws” appears to be independent of the determination of thrust or moment (differing from what applicant’s remarks appear to indicate above as a limitation).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741