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 .
Claims 21-40 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “wherein each arm of the at least two pairs of arms supports a plurality of rotors,” as recited in claim 37, must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are not properly numbered, see, e.g., claims 29-31. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 22, 23, 28, 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the one or more belts is in the form of a serpentine belt.” It is unclear whether or not the claimed aerial vehicle includes only one belt. Also, claim 22 recites “a respective one of the clutches.” Claim 22, however, depends on claim 21, which recites “one or more clutches.” It is unclear whether or not claim 22 requires multiple clutches.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the one or more clutches includes a roller (or Sprag) type clutch.” Claim 28 recites “a one-way roller (Sprag) clutch.” Neither a roller clutch nor a one-way roller clutch is necessarily a Sprag clutch. It is unclear whether claim 23 is trying to recite “a roller clutch or a Sprag clutch,” and it is unclear whether claim 28 is trying to recite “a one-way roller clutch or a Sprag clutch.”
Claim 31 recites “wherein the at least one wing and the fuselage provide a blended-wing structure or blended wing body (BWB) structure.” A blended-wing structure is the same thing as a blended wing body (BWB) structure. Thus, it is unclear what is meant by the claim recitation.
Claim 32 recites “wherein the at least one wing and the fuselage provide a blended- wing structure or blended wing body (BWB) structure.” A blended-wing structure is the same thing as a blended wing body (BWB) structure. Thus, it is unclear what is meant by the claim recitation. Accordingly, claim 32 and dependent claims 33-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claims 21 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 3,340,748 to Young (“Young”).
Regarding claim 21, Young discloses an aerial vehicle comprising: a fuselage (11), at least one wing (12); and a propulsion system for forward flight of the aerial vehicle comprising: a forward flight propulsor (20) comprising a propeller mounted in an airstream of the vehicle, at least two engines (17, 19) to power the forward flight propulsor; one or more belts to transfer drive from the at least two engines to the forward flight propulsor (Col. 3, lines 6-19; FIGS. 1-5); and one or more clutches to enable drive to be delivered to the forward flight propulsor, the at least two engines being operatively coupled to the one or more clutches (FIGS. 1-5).
Regarding claim 24, Young discloses wherein the aerial vehicle further comprises a support arrangement supporting the forward flight propulsor on the fuselage above the at least two engines, and the one or more belts passing through the support arrangement (FIGS. 1-5).
Regarding claim 25, Young discloses wherein the support arrangement comprises a strut assembly comprising a fixed structural component and removable fairing, and the one or more belts being located between the fixed structural component and the removable fairing (FIGS. 1-5).
Regarding claim 26, Young discloses wherein the fixed structural component is rigid and has the at least two engines attached thereto (FIGS. 1-5).
Regarding claim 29, Young discloses wherein each of the engines is the same as the other of the engines or the engines differ in capability or type from each other (Col. 3-4; FIGS. 1-5)).
Regarding claim 30, Young discloses wherein the engines include at least one of a rotary internal combustion engine, a gas turbine engine or an electric engine (Col. 3-4; FIGS. 1-5).
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.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, as applied to claim 21 above. Claims 27-28, 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young.
Regarding claim 22, Young teaches each and every element of claim 21, as discussed above, and it teaches belts and pulleys (FIGS. 1-5), but it does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more belts is in the form of a serpentine belt that delivers drive to a shaft drive pulley of the forward flight propulsor, each engine having a drive pully to connect the engine to the serpentine belt, and a respective one of the clutches being connected to each of the respective engine drive pulleys.
It is well settled, however, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence. MPEP 2143. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aerial vehicle of Young so that the one or more belts is in the form of a serpentine belt that delivers drive to a shaft drive pulley of the forward flight propulsor, each engine having a drive pully to connect the engine to the serpentine belt, and a respective one of the clutches being connected to each of the respective engine drive pulleys, in order to improve efficiency.
Regarding claim 23, Young teaches each and every element of claim 21, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more clutches includes a roller (or Sprag) type clutch.
It is well settled, however, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence. MPEP 2143. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aerial vehicle of Young so that the one or more clutches includes a roller (or Sprag) type clutch, in order to improve efficiency.
Regarding claim 27, Young teaches an aerial vehicle comprising: a fuselage (11), at least one wing (12); a propulsion system for forward flight of the aerial vehicle; the propulsion system comprising: a forward flight propulsor (20) comprising a propeller mounted in an airstream of the vehicle and including a shaft drive pulley; at least two engines (17, 19) to power the forward flight propulsor, each having a drive pulley (FIGS. 1-5); a belt to transfer drive from the drive pulleys of the at least two engines to the shaft drive pulley of the forward flight propulsor (FIGS. 1-5); and a clutch operatively coupled to each engine to selectively couple the respective engine drive pulleys to the belt (FIGS 1-5).
Young does not explicitly teach a serpentine belt. It is well settled, however, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence. MPEP 2143. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aerial vehicle of Young so that the belt is a serpentine belt, in order to improve efficiency.
Regarding claim 28, Young as modified teaches each and every element of claim 27, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein each clutch is a one-way roller (Sprag) clutch configured to lock and drive when the respective engine is operating and the shaft revolutions are sufficient for driving, and to freely rotate when the respective engine is not running.
It is well settled, however, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence. MPEP 2143. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aerial vehicle of Young so that each clutch is a one-way roller (Sprag) clutch configured to lock and drive when the respective engine is operating and the shaft revolutions are sufficient for driving, and to freely rotate when the respective engine is not running, in order to improve efficiency.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young, as applied to claim 21 above, in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0237132 to Liu et al. (“Liu”).
Regarding claim 31, Young teaches each and every element of claim 21, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one wing and the fuselage provide a blended-wing structure or blended wing body (BWB) structure.
Liu teaches different wing configurations, including a blended wing or BWB configuration (FIG. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aerial vehicle of Young so that the wing and the fuselage provide a blended-wing structure or blended wing body structure, as taught by Liu, in order to increase fuel efficiency.
Claims 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 32, Young teaches an aerial vehicle comprising: a fuselage (11), at least one wing (12), a propulsion system for forward flight of the aerial vehicle; the propulsion system comprising: a forward flight propulsor (20) comprising a propeller mounted in an airstream of the vehicle; at least two engines (17, 19) to power the forward flight propulsor; one or more belts to transfer drive from the at least two engines to the forward flight propulsor (FIGS. 1-5); and a support arrangement supporting the forward flight propulsor on the fuselage above the at least two engines, wherein the one or more belts pass through the support arrangement (FIGS. 1-5).
Young does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one wing and the fuselage provide a blended- wing structure or blended wing body (BWB) structure.
Liu teaches various wing configurations, including a blended wing or BWB configuration (FIG. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aerial vehicle of Young so that the wing and the fuselage provide a blended-wing structure or blended wing body structure, as taught by Liu, in order to increase fuel efficiency.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Young and Liu teaches each and every element of claim 32, as discussed above, and Young teaches wherein the support arrangement comprises a strut assembly comprising a fixed structural component and removable fairing, and the one or more belts being located between the fixed structural component and the removable fairing and wherein the fixed structural component is rigid and has the at least two engines attached thereto (FIGS. 1-5).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Young and Liu teaches each and every element of claim 32, as discussed above, and Young teaches belts, pulleys, and clutches (FIGS. 1-5). The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more belts is in the form of a serpentine belt that delivers drive to a shaft drive pulley of the forward flight propulsor, each engine having a drive pully to connect the engine to the serpentine belt, and a respective clutch being connected to each of the respective engine drive pulleys.
It is well settled, however, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence. MPEP 2143. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aerial vehicle of the Young and Liu combination so that the one or more belts is in the form of a serpentine belt that delivers drive to a shaft drive pulley of the forward flight propulsor, each engine having a drive pully to connect the engine to the serpentine belt, and a respective clutch being connected to each of the respective engine drive pulleys, in order to improve efficiency.
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Young and Liu teaches each and every element of claim 32, as discussed above, and Liu teaches wherein the aerial vehicle further comprises at least two pairs of arms, each arm supporting at least one rotor, wherein each rotor is powered for vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) of the aerial vehicle, the arms of the at least two pairs of arms being retractable from a deployed position for vertical take-off or hovering to a retracted position during forward flight (FIGS. 15, 1-4; ¶¶ [0125], [0099]-[0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aerial vehicle of the Young and Liu combination so that the aerial vehicle further comprises at least two pairs of arms, each arm supporting at least one rotor, wherein each rotor is powered for vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) of the aerial vehicle, the arms of the at least two pairs of arms being retractable from a deployed position for vertical take-off or hovering to a retracted position during forward flight, as taught by Liu, in order to provide VTOL and hovering capabilities.
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Young and Liu teaches each and every element of claim 35, as discussed above, and Liu teaches wherein the arms are deployable between the retracted position during forward flight to the deployed position for hovering and/or vertical landing (FIGS. 15, 1-4; ¶¶ [0125], [0099]-[0121]).
Claims 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Liu as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0207625 to Judas (“Judas”).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Young and Liu teaches each and every element of claim 35, as discussed above, and it further teaches wherein each arm of the at least to pairs of arms supports a rotor. It does not explicitly teach wherein each arm of the at least two pairs of arms supports a plurality of rotors.
Where the only difference between the prior art and claimed invention is a duplicated part, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the prior art unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04, citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aerial vehicle of the Young and Liu combination so that each arm of the at least two pairs of arms supports a plurality of rotors, in order to increase lift.
Also, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein each arm includes two electric motors that power respective ones of the plurality of rotors for that arm, wherein the two electric motors are disposed inboard of the rotors and being offset from one another along the arm.
Judas teaches an aerial vehicle, including a forward flight propulsor that is driven by an engine and lift rotors that are driven by motors (claim 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aerial vehicle of the Young and Liu combination so that each arm includes two electric motors that power respective ones of the plurality of rotors for that arm, wherein the two electric motors are disposed inboard of the rotors and being offset from one another along the arm, as taught by Judas, in order to effectively power the aerial vehicle.
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Young, Liu, and Judas and teaches each and every element of claim 37, as discussed above, and it further teaches wherein the position of the two electric motors is configured to be adjustable and wherein tension of a belt to convey drive from the electric motors to the respective rotors is configured to be adjustable (Young at FIGS. 1-5; Judas at claim 38).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Young, Liu, and Judas and teaches each and every element of claim 37, as discussed above, and it further teaches wherein a fuselage end of at least one of the arms is bifurcated to provide space for the two electric motors to be installed and respective driving belts adjusted (Liu at FIGS. 1-4, 15).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Young, Liu, and Judas and teaches each and every element of claim 35, as discussed above, and it further teaches wherein at least one battery is included onboard the aerial vehicle to power the vehicle during VTOL (¶ [0044]).
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 MARISA CONLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, PETER POON can be reached at (571)272-6891. 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.
/MARISA V CONLON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643