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 § 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) 1-2, 4, 8 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoen et al. (US 10053214 B2 in view of Cueto-Gomez (US 20210086903 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Schoen teaches a rotorcraft (Fig. 8 element 6) with a fuselage (Fig. 8 element 60) and a tail boom (Fig. 8 element 62), comprising: a horizontal stabilizer (Shown in Fig. 8) mounted to the tail boom; at least one main rotor with a rotor head and a plurality of rotor blades (Fig. 8 elements 63) extending from the rotor head toward associated rotor blade tips (Fig. 8 elements 632), wherein the associated rotor blade tips form a virtual blade tip circle upon rotation around the rotor head (Virtual blade tip circle formed when rotating); at least one luminescent component (Fig. 8 elements 10 and 20) provided on at least one of the associated rotor blade tips; and a blade tip illumination device comprising at least one light source (Fig. 8 elements 72) configured to emit a light beam toward the virtual blade tip circle for excitation of the at least one luminescent component; wherein the emitted light beam is at least approximately emitted in a direction perpendicular to the horizontal stabilizer, and wherein the emitted light beam is focused towards the virtual blade tip circle and strikes the at least one luminescent component at least approximately perpendicularly during rotation of the associated rotor blade tips around the rotor head (Beam direction shown in Fig. 8 with elements 72 as “approximately” perpendicular); wherein the at least one luminescent component is adapted to emit light in response to excitation via the emitted light beam, wherein the emitted light forms during rotation of the associated rotor blade tips around the rotor head on the virtual blade tip circle a luminous ring (“the light sources 71, 72 emit white light 711, 721 for “charging” a light emitting section 11 of a layer material arranged on a rotor blade tip” Col. 7 lines 37-39).
Schoen fails to explicitly teach at least one light source that is integrated into the horizontal stabilizer.
However, Cueto-Gomez teaches at least one light source that is integrated into the horizontal stabilizer (“The light source (12) may be housed in a compact module (19) positioned within a wing, fuselage or vertical or horizontal stabilizer. The light source (12) in the compact module (19) may be positioned near electrical power and control connections and mounting structures within the aircraft” Par. [0070] lines 7-12).
Schoen and Cueto-Gomez are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft illumination devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light source of Schoen to be integrated into the horizontal stabilizer as disclosed by Cueto-Gomez. Doing so would allow the light source to be present without increasing the drag around the horizonal stabilizer, improving the control of the rotorcraft.
Regarding Claim 2, Schoen and Cueto-Gomez teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Schoen further discloses the horizontal stabilizer forms a wing-like structure with an inner volume (Shown in Fig. 8).
Cueto-Gomez further discloses the at least one light source is arranged inside the inner volume (“The light source (12) may be housed in a compact module (19) positioned within a wing, fuselage or vertical or horizontal stabilizer. The light source (12) in the compact module (19) may be positioned near electrical power and control connections and mounting structures within the aircraft” Par. [0070] lines 7-12).
Regarding Claim 4, Schoen and Cueto-Gomez teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Schoen further discloses the emitted light beam is a white light beam with a luminous intensity of at least 65,000 cd (“he at least one light source comprises at least one first light source configured to be arranged on one of a helicopter main frame and tail of the helicopter body and to emit white light. This provides the advantage that such emitted light may be arranged to be in compliance, and not to interfere, with navigation light according to the FAR (Federal Aviation Requirements) standard, especially FAR § 25.1397, according to which white light is used as navigation or position light indicating a rear position of the helicopter” Col. 3 lines 12-21; luminous intensity ranges provided by FAR standard), and with a beam angle of less than 10 degrees (Fig. 8 shows beam angle of element 72).
Regarding Claim 8, Schoen and Cueto-Gomez teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Schoen further discloses the at least one light source is one of a LED, Halogen, Laser or Xenon light (“It may comprise any appropriate lighting device, such as a light bulb, LED, or OLED in any appropriate number, which is capable of generating light in appropriate color and of sufficient lighting power to be directed onto the layer material for sufficient light emission and/or reflection by the layer material” Col. 6 lines 44-49).
Regarding Claim 15, Schoen and Cueto-Gomez teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Schoen further discloses the luminous ring disappears within a predetermined period of time, if the at least one light source is switched off (“According to an embodiment of the invention, a phosphorescent material is used which comprises a light emission half-life (or half-value period, or discharging mean time) of approximately lower than 1 minute, preferably lower than 1 second. Preferably, a short discharge time of the phosphorescent material allows a kind of “switching on and off” of the light emission by the layer material” Col. 4 lines 61-67).
Regarding Claim 16, Schoen and Cueto-Gomez teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Schoen further discloses the luminous ring disappears within a predetermined period of time that is less than 5 minutes, if the at least one light source is switched off (“According to an embodiment of the invention, a phosphorescent material is used which comprises a light emission half-life (or half-value period, or discharging mean time) of approximately lower than 1 minute, preferably lower than 1 second. Preferably, a short discharge time of the phosphorescent material allows a kind of “switching on and off” of the light emission by the layer material” Col. 4 lines 61-67).
Regarding Claim 17, Schoen and Cueto-Gomez teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Schoen further discloses the at least one luminescent component comprises a luminescent sticker attached on the at least one of the associated rotor blade tips (“according to embodiments of the invention, a semi-passive rotor tip light in the form of a strip can be integrated into or glued on the rotor tip. Such strip may include a phosphorescent or fluorescent section” Col. 8 lines 6-9).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoen et al. (US 10053214 B2 in view of Cueto-Gomez (US 20210086903 A1) and further in view of Schoen et al. (US 20190383462 A1), cited as “Schoen-2019” below to avoid confusion.
Regarding Claim 3, Schoen and Cueto-Gomez teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Schoen and Cueto-Gomez fail to explicitly teach the at least one light source is covered by a transparent cover, and wherein the transparent cover is aligned with an upper surface of the horizontal stabilizer.
However, Schoen-2019 teaches the at least one light source is covered by a transparent cover, and wherein the transparent cover is aligned with an upper surface of the horizontal stabilizer (Fig. 2 element 70).
Schoen, Cueto-Gomez and Schoen-2019 are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft illumination systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light sources of Schoen to have a transparent cover as disclosed by Schoen-2019. Doing so would reduce the drag of the system as they light source would be within the horizontal stabilizer while allowing the light to transmit through the cover onto the blade tips without changing the aerodynamics of the horizontal stabilizer.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoen et al. (US 10053214 B2 in view of Cueto-Gomez (US 20210086903 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Schoen and Cueto-Gomez teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Schoen and Cueto-Gomez fail to explicitly teach the horizontal stabilizer and the virtual blade tip circle are spaced apart from each other by a predetermined vertical distance of at most 2 m.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotorcraft of Schoen in view of Cueto-Gomez to have the virtual blade tip circle spaced apart from the horizontal stabilizer by at most 2 meters. Doing so would ensure the rotor blades would not impact the horizontal stabilizer while also not increasing the drag of the system.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoen et al. (US 10053214 B2 in view of Cueto-Gomez (US 20210086903 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Schoen and Cueto-Gomez teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Schoen and Cueto-Gomez fail to explicitly teach the horizontal stabilizer and the virtual blade tip circle are spaced apart from each other by a predetermined vertical distance of at most 2 m.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotorcraft of Schoen in view of Cueto-Gomez to have the virtual blade tip circle spaced apart from the horizontal stabilizer by 1.5 meters. Doing so would ensure the rotor blades would not impact the horizontal stabilizer while also not increasing the drag of the system.
Claim(s) 9-12, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoen et al. (US 10053214 B2) in view of Cueto-Gomez (US 20210086903 A1) and further in view of Ming et al. (CN 109018394 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Schoen and Cueto-Gomez teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Schoen and Cueto-Gomez fail to explicitly teach the at least one luminescent component comprises a luminescent coating applied to the at least one of the associated rotor blade tips.
However, Ming teaches the at least one luminescent component comprises a luminescent coating applied to the at least one of the associated rotor blade tips (“such as the material of the main rotor is changed higher reflection rate of the material or polishing the wing tip, most simply method of is coated with reflecting material on the lower part of the tip part of the main rotor, bonding the reflecting film or reflecting plate fixed by mechanical method” Highlighted in previously attached PE2E English translation).
Schoen, Cueto-Gomez and Ming are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft illumination systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the luminescent component of Schoen in view of Cueto-Gomez to be a luminescent coating as disclosed by Ming. Doing so would allow for the blade tips to be illuminated while reducing the risk of the luminescent component becoming detached.
Regarding Claim 10, Schoen, Cueto-Gomez and Ming teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Schoen further discloses at least a base coating and a phosphorescent layer (“Instead of having an active light source in the rotor blade (such as a light bulb, LED, OLED, electroluminescence-stripes, etc.), a passive element with a layer material like phosphorescent material can be used” Col. 8 lines 14-17).
Ming further discloses the luminescent coating comprises a glossy clear coating (the polishing plane can be coated with a transparent protective film” Highlighted in previously attached PE2E translation).
Regarding Claim 11, Schoen, Cueto-Gomez and Ming teach limitations set forth in Claim 10.
Schoen, Cueto-Gomez and Ming fail to explicitly teach the glossy clear coating comprises a glossiness of more than 90 Gloss units.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the invention was made to implement the value of Gloss units disclosed in the claim, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It is known in the art that a high value of Gloss units, such as more than 90 Gloss units, would be beneficial as it would mean a higher range of reflectivity of the light.
Regarding Claim 12, Schoen, Cueto-Gomez and Ming teach the limitations set forth in Claim 10.
Schoen further discloses the phosphorescent layer is adapted to return light in response to excitation with a white light beam (“the at least one light source comprises at least one first light source configured to be arranged on one of a helicopter main frame and tail of the helicopter body and to emit white light” Col. 3 lines 12-15).
Ming further discloses the glossy clear coating is adapted to return light in response to excitation with an infrared light beam (“emitter 2 is installed in front of helicopter 3, left, right and front each emit a beam of infrared laser to irradiate on the helicopter main rotor wing tip radius of gyration track. the wing tip displaying means 1 is under the infrared laser irradiation can emit yellow-green visible light photoluminescent material film, the component is adhered to the tip part of the main rotor” Highlighted in previously attached PE2E translation).
Regarding Claim 14, Schoen, Cueto-Gomez and Ming teach the limitations set forth in Claim 12.
Ming further discloses the emitted light has a wavelength suitable for detection with a night-vision device, if the emitted light beam is the infrared light beam with a radiant intensity of approximately 0.1 W/sr (“emitter 2 is installed in front of helicopter 3, left, right and front each emit a beam of infrared laser to irradiate on the helicopter main rotor wing tip radius of gyration track. the wing tip displaying means 1 is under the infrared laser irradiation can emit yellow-green visible light photoluminescent material film, the component is adhered to the tip part of the main rotor” Highlighted in previously attached PE2E translation).
Regarding Claim 18, Schoen and Cueto-Gomez teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Schoen further discloses the at least one luminescent component comprises a luminescent sticker attached on the at least one of the associated rotor blade tips (“according to embodiments of the invention, a semi-passive rotor tip light in the form of a strip can be integrated into or glued on the rotor tip. Such strip may include a phosphorescent or fluorescent section” Col. 8 lines 6-9).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoen et al. (US 10053214 B2) in view of Cueto-Gomez (US 20210086903 A1), in view of Ming et al. (CN 109018394 A) and further in view of Schoen et al. (US 20190383462 A1), cited as “Schoen-2019” below to avoid confusion.
Regarding Claim 13, Schoen, Cueto-Gomez and Ming teach the limitations set forth in Claim 12.
Schoen, Cueto-Gomez and Ming fail to explicitly teach a command unit configured to command the at least one light source to emit one of the white light beam, or the infrared light beam.
However, Schoen-2019 teaches a command unit configured to command the at least one light source to emit one of the white light beam, or the infrared light beam (Fig. 1 control unit 4).
Schoen, Cueto-Gomez, Ming and Schoen-2019 are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft lighting systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the illumination system of Schoen, Cueto-Gomez and Ming with the command unit disclosed by Schoen-2019. Doing so would allow for the light source to be reliably turned on and off as required. Command units are known in the art to control lighting systems and are not considered novel.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoen et al. (US 10053214 B2 in view of Cueto-Gomez (US 20210086903 A1) and further in view of Schoen et al. (US 20190383462 A1), cited as “Schoen-2019” below to avoid confusion.
Regarding Claim 19, Schoen and Cueto-Gomez teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Schoen further discloses the horizontal stabilizer forms a wing-like structure with an inner volume (Shown in Fig. 8) and Cueto-Gomez further discloses the at least one light source is arranged inside the inner volume (“The light source (12) may be housed in a compact module (19) positioned within a wing, fuselage or vertical or horizontal stabilizer. The light source (12) in the compact module (19) may be positioned near electrical power and control connections and mounting structures within the aircraft” Par. [0070] lines 7-12).
Schoen and Cueto-Gomez fail to explicitly teach the at least one light source is covered by a transparent cover, and wherein the transparent cover is aligned with an upper surface of the horizontal stabilizer.
However, Schoen-2019 teaches the at least one light source is covered by a transparent cover, and wherein the transparent cover is aligned with an upper surface of the horizontal stabilizer (Fig. 2 element 70).
Schoen, Cueto-Gomez and Schoen-2019 are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft illumination systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light sources of Schoen to have a transparent cover as disclosed by Schoen-2019. Doing so would reduce the drag of the system as they light source would be within the horizontal stabilizer while allowing the light to transmit through the cover onto the blade tips without changing the aerodynamics of the horizontal stabilizer.
Regarding Claim 20, Schoen, Cueto-Gomez and Schoen-2019 teach the limitations set forth in Claim 19.
Schoen further discloses a luminescent sticker attached on the at least one of the associated rotor blade tips, or a luminescent coating applied to the at least one of the associated rotor blade tips (“according to embodiments of the invention, a semi-passive rotor tip light in the form of a strip can be integrated into or glued on the rotor tip. Such strip may include a phosphorescent or fluorescent section” Col. 8 lines 6-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the previous rejection. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the previous rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the limitation of claim(s) 1, pertaining to the integrated light source, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relying on Cueto-Gomez (US 20210086903 A1) as shown above.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 with respect to the limitation of claim(s) 1, pertaining to the angle of the light emitted, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the light source of Schoen does not strike the rotating tip approximately perpendicular. The examiner respectfully disagrees as there is no clear definition of approximately perpendicular in the claim or the specification. The examiner considers the light emitted by elements 72 to be striking the blade tip approximately perpendicular. It is noted that the emission of the light source would have elements striking the blade tip approximately perpendicular.
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 ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644