DETAILED ACTION
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, 4, 5, and 8 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 P1 = P2 + P3, where P2 is equal or less than 70% of the thrust P1 in the hovering state and P3 is 30% or more of P1 in the hovering state. However, this leads to situations where P2 + P3 does not equal 100%, as required to satisfy the equation to maintain the steady state in hover. For example, P2 may be 60% and P3 may be 30%, leading to only 90% of P1. Alternatively, P2 may be 70% and P3 may be 40%, rendering P1 110%. Further, there are no other sources of thrust to accommodate a thrust value less than 100%. Accordingly, the total value of P1 is unclear.
Similarly for claim 5.
Claim 4 is drawn to a flight device, however is substantially drawn to the process of using the device, specifically by reciting that the arithmetic control “changes” the revolutions. It is unclear whether this limitation is a functional capability of the system or a required method step.
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)(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 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ishikawa (WO 2019/065848; previously provided English translation used).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Ishikawa discloses a flight device comprising:
a main rotor (either of 14A/B);
a sub-rotor (any of 15A-D);
an engine (30) for driving the main rotor (page 3, para 3);
a motor (21) for driving the sub-rotor (page 3, para 3); and
an arithmetic control unit (31) that causes a thrust generated by the rotation of the main rotor to be smaller than a thrust necessary for keeping altitude constant (90%:10% ratio between main and sub-rotor outputs during hover; page 10, para 7), and altering the sub-rotor output during attitude change while maintaining main rotor output constant (page 12, paras 2-5).
The claim is drawn to an apparatus, not a method of use, and as such the control functions are deemed intended use of the system. Ishikawa provides for the capabilities (note: page 12, para 3, indicates use of a 70:30 ratio during operation).
However, in the event the control functions are required, Ishikawa discloses 90:10 arrangement during hover, and a 70:30 arrangement, but does not disclose a 70:30 (or less:greater) arrangement during hover. (Note: P1 = P2 + P3 inherently as these are the only thrust producing devices.)
In the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantage obtained by having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention (as evidenced by [0059], which notes 90:10 is sufficient), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the 70:30 ratio during hover for the predictable advantage maintaining engine speed at the optimal/desired level, e.g. to improve engine efficiency (higher thrust output may require more fuel).
Regarding claim 4:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Ishikawa discloses the control configured to change the number of revolutions of the engine (page 4, paras 2-3) to change the revolutions of the main rotor in the ascending/descending state.
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) 1, 4, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (JP 2015137092; previously provided English translation, page numbers, and newly provided translation, [para] numbers, used) in view of Lee (KR 20170061884; provided English translation used) and Ishikawa (‘848).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 5:
Yasuda discloses a flight device comprising:
a main rotor (3);
a sub-rotor (any of 5-8);
an engine (2) for driving the main rotor (page 4; claims);
a motor (abstract) for driving the sub-rotor (page 4; claims); and
an arithmetic control unit (11) that causes a thrust generated by the rotation of the main rotor to be smaller than a thrust necessary for keeping altitude constant (page 5 notes for “steady flight” to “float” the aircraft, the main rotor output is between 50-75 N and the sub-rotor output is a total between 25-50 N depending upon the power condition, the sub-rotors providing for a portion of the lift).
Yasuda generally implies hover flight due to the design and use as a VTOL aircraft and the disclosure of “steady” flight and “floating”, however does not explicitly disclose hover flight.
Lee teaches hover flight (page 8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Yasuda to perform hover flight as taught by Lee for the predictable advantage of maintaining a set position in space, e.g. for “observation” or “scientific research” (Yasuda, page 1) of specific locations.
Yasuda discloses adjusting output for descending by changing the thrust of the four sub-rotors (e.g. [0019]), but does not specifically disclose maintaining the main rotor constant while changing attitude.
Ishikawa teaches altering sub-rotor output while maintaining main rotor output constant, whereby the “number of revolutions of the engine may be constant or may be as high as necessary” (e.g. page 11, para 8; page 12, paras 2-5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Yasuda to maintain the main rotor output during attitude change as taught by Ishikawa for the predictable advantage maintaining engine speed at the optimal/desired level, e.g. to improve engine efficiency.
Further, Yasuda discloses a main rotor output equal to or less than 70% of the thrust and the sub-rotors output equal to or greater than 30% of the thrust, in the hovering state (main rotor: 70 N / 100 N = 70%, sub-rotors: 30 N / 100 N = 30%; main rotor: 50 N / 100 N = 50%, sub-rotors: 50 N / 100 N = 50%).
Regarding claims 4 and 8:
The discussion above regarding claim 4 is relied upon.
Yasuda discloses the arithmetic control unit changing the rpms of the engine to change the rpms of the rotor (the control unit controls the output of the engine, which is based on the rpms, which then drives the propeller accordingly).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the amendment clarifies the addition of the thrusts, the amendment merely restates the mathematical formula cited prior in the claims (e.g. claim 1, line 19). The claim requires two percentages that add together, but does not require the percentages to equal 100% (e.g. one percentage, and the other a remainder), which is required for hovering flight.
In response to applicant’s argument that Ishikawa does not disclose the claimed ratio in the hovering state, the claim only requires the capability thereof. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ishikawa discloses the general operation in hovering state, with the capability of the disclosed ratios during operation, rendering the device capable of operating as claimed.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Yasuda provides for control during descent, to which Ishikawa teaches the concept of providing constant main rotor operation while adjusting sub-rotor operation.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 ET.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on 571-270-5788. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619