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 Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
change claim 1 lines 18-19 accordingly: “combined noise produced by both rotation of [[both]] the first rotor and rotation of the second rotor” (it is thought this is clearer)
change claim 20 lines 18-19 accordingly: “combined noise produced by both rotation of [[both]] the first rotor and rotation of the second rotor” (it is thought this is clearer)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “estimate, via a noise estimation module, a noise generated by at least one of the first rotor and the second rotor” in claims 1 and 20; and “estimating, via a noise estimation module, a noise generated by the at least one rotor” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, the limitations “estimate, via a noise estimation module, a noise generated by at least one of the first rotor and the second rotor” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “noise estimation” and, “estimate … a noise generated by at least one of the first rotor and the second rotor” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: a noise estimation algorithm as part of controller 102 in fig. 3 (see par. 37) or a stored table or database (see par. 39).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations “estimating, via a noise estimation module, a noise generated by the at least one rotor” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language “noise estimation” and, “estimating … a noise generated by the at least one rotor” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: a noise estimation algorithm as part of controller 102 in fig. 3 (see par. 37) or a stored table or database (see par. 39).
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, 5-10 and 14-20 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 “a noise generated by at least one of the first rotor and the second rotor, the noise generated by the first rotor being based on the position of the first rotor and an operational parameter of the first rotor and the noise generated by the second rotor being based on the position of the second rotor and an operational parameter of the second rotor”. The metes and bounds of the claim appear to be unclear: it is not clear if the requirement is to estimate the noise of (1) just one of the first rotor and second rotor, or (2) both the first and second rotor. Claim 20 recites similar limitations and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 1 recites “the noise generated by the first rotor being based on the position of the first rotor and an operational parameter of the first rotor and the noise generated by the second rotor being based on the position of the second rotor and an operational parameter of the second rotor”. This appears to be indefinite regarding correspondence with applicant specification (MPEP 2173.03). For example, par. 39 states “the noise estimation module 104 may access a stored table or database that indicates an approximate noise generated based on one or more operational parameters of a fan rotor, such as position and/or rotational speed for example. Further par. 39 states “the noise estimation module 104 uses the positional information of a fan rotor in combination with one or more additional operational parameters, such as frequency and/or rotational speed of the fan rotor for example, to approximate the noise generated by the fan rotor of each fan stage 60, 62.”
The claim is interpreted as shown here: the estimated noise generated by the first rotor being based on the position of the first rotor and an operational parameter of the first rotor and the estimated noise generated by the second rotor being based on the position of the second rotor and an operational parameter of the second rotor – (italic and underline emphasis added). Claim 20 recites a similar limitation and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the at least one propulsion motor " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
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, 5-10 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No.: US 2022/0194557 A1 (Thomas) in view of US 2013/0106333 A1 (Durkee) and Pub. No.: US 2016/0083073 A1 (Beckman).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas discloses (see figs. 1-3, 6, 7, 9 and 11) a propulsion system 12 comprising: a propulsion unit 42A,42B including a multi-stage fan (see blades 44A,44A’,44B,44B’ in fig. 6) having a first fan stage including a first rotor 42A and a second fan stage including a second rotor 42B; at least one propulsion motor 48A,48B operably coupled (via shafts 50A,50B in fig. 6) to the first rotor and the second rotor to drive the first rotor and the second rotor about a fan axis A;
a controller 24,54A,54B (see fig. 7) configured to:
determine a position of at least one of the first rotor and the second rotor in response to an electrical signature (“output waveforms” from the motors can be the “rotation angle sensors”, see par. 31, communicates “rotation angle of the first and second motors” to instant controllers, see par. 29 and fig. 7 showing example controller 54A and rotation angle sensor 56A; the relative positions of the instant blades on the rotors is then determined in order to regulate the phase as an operating parameter in order to reduce noise, see pars. 10, 39 and 41, and see figs. 4-5 showing differing phase differential angles [Symbol font/0x6A]) of the at least one propulsion motor 48A,48B; and
(evaluate1) (see par. 41: “the computer may adjust the setpoint in an open-loop manner based on one or more sensed or predicted parameter values. Suitable parameter values include rotational velocity of the rotors”; one of ordinary skill would understand that phase [Symbol font/0x6A] and rotational velocity of the rotor correspond with noise; Thomas points out in par. 41 that in order to “reduce the amount of acoustic noise” of the rotors, see par. 18, bottom, the phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] is set by the rotor velocity, the phase differential angle being the difference in “positions” of the two rotors and such phase difference is determined based on sensing the position of each rotor; as general information one of ordinary skill understands when reading Thomas par. 40 that there is a database or table correlating phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] and velocity with a particular noise level and such a table or database is developed by empirical measurements that determines an estimated noise level of each phase angle [Symbol font/0x6A] for particular rotor velocities and this is explained in more detail in pertinent prior art of the office action mailed 03/09/2026 (PPA) that explains knowledge of the ordinary worker in the instant art; the PPA explains how the Thomas par. 41 open loop algorithm, or lookup table, is developed and also explains how one of ordinary skill would understand applicant par. 39 database is developed; it is noted that there is no disclosure in applicant specification of a particular algorithm, other than the database, of how the claimed noise estimate is arrived at) via a noise estimation module (the computer performs the instant evaluating and thus there must be an algorithm), a noise generated by at least one of the first rotor 42A and the second rotor 42B, the noise generated by the first rotor being based on the position (the position of each rotor is used to determine the phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] that is used to evaluate the noise as explained above to reduce the noise) of the first rotor and an and an operational parameter (rotor velocity; see par. 41) of the first rotor and the noise generated by the second rotor based on the position (the position of each rotor is used to determine the phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] that is used in the claimed “estimate a noise” as explained above) of the second rotor and an operational parameter (rotor velocity; see par. 41) of the second rotor;
(The setting of the phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] in Thomas par. 41 (i.e. moving the rotors so as to arrive at the phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] setpoint is done to reduce noise) is an evaluation of noise. For example, one phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] setpoint results in a different noise than another phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] setpoint. This is an evaluation of noise because it evaluates the noise of Thomas and because such phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] setpoint is set using the rotor velocity when a direct measurement of noise is not used (see par. 41: “In some examples, the onboard computer may receive input from an onboard microphone and adjust the [phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] ] setpoint in a closed-loop manner so as to reduce the amount noise. In other examples, the computer may adjust the setpoint in an open-loop manner based on … parameter values include rotational velocity of the rotors”).
in response to the evaluated noise generated by the first rotor and evaluated noise generated by the second rotor, adjust one or more operating parameters ((1)2 phase differential angle, rotational velocity of instant rotors 42A,42B, see pars. 21, 29 and 41, during powered operation of the electric motors for example during VTOL operations using propulsion systems 12 that include the instant motors 48A,48B and rotors 42A,42B; for example, positions of the first 42A and second 42B rotors of Thomas are used reduce noise or acoustic emissions by way of setting the differential phase angle [Symbol font/0x6A] between the positions of the first rotor 42A and the second rotor 42B wherein the differential phase angle [Symbol font/0x6A] is determined by measuring the positions of the first rotor 42A and the second rotor 42B and discussed earlier in this claim analysis (i.e., electric signal from sensors 56A,56B communicates “rotation angle of the first and second motors”, or in other words the position of the rotor, to instant controllers, see par. 29 and fig. 7; the relative positions of the instant blades 44A,44B on the rotors 42A,42B is then determined in order to regulate the phase as an operating parameter in order to reduce noise, see pars. 10, 39 and 41, and see figs. 4-5 showing differing phase differential angles [Symbol font/0x6A]; and (2)3 alignment of the blades with ambient wind during cruise of the aircraft 10, see pars. 26 and 42, wherein non-alignment of blades causes noise as pointed out in par. 24, such that the instant motors 48A,48B must adjust all the blades to be aligned to the wind to reduce drag on the aircraft; as pointed out in par. 24 whenever the “position” of the rotors 42A,42B are such that blades are not aligned with the wind direction, then this is representative of a noise condition; therefore for example on a day when the wind is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the pylon (see annotated figure below) the position of some blades would represent noise (see par. 24 and see annotated blades below in path of lateral airflow); the motors can change the position of the instant blades to be more aligned with the wind direction (see annotated figures below) based on the position of the lateral blade oriented blade below causing drag (the position being an evaluation of noise of Thomas wherein the noise is reduced by the instant aligning, see step 90 in fig. 9); thus during vertical flight of scenario (1), the phase difference [Symbol font/0x6A] between the two rotors are changed, see figs. 4-5, to reduce noise, and during horizontal cruise flight of scenario (2), wherein aircraft propulsion is accomplished by aft engine 20, the phase differential of the instant rotors is zero, see fig. 2, and the position of all the blades together are changed to align with the wind, see par. 19; see annotated figures below) of at least one of the first rotor 42A and the second rotor 42B to reduce a combined noise produced by both rotation of the first rotor (regarding scenario (2) pertaining to “cruise” discussed above, each rotor causes noise when each rotor is not aligned with the wind, see par. 24 and such noise is reduced by aligning the rotor with the wind) and rotation of the second rotor (regarding scenario (1) during VTOL when the motors are electrically powered, the wake vortex of upstream rotor causes noise when it passes by downstream rotor in fig. 11, see pars. 39-40, and such noise is reduced by varying the phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] as discussed above).
Thomas does not explicitly disclose the output waveform electrical signature of Thomas including at least one of a phase of a voltage and a current provided to the Thomas at least one propulsion motor; and estimate noise (via the noise estimation module).
PNG
media_image1.png
652
944
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (long. axis of pylon)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (blades not concealed from lateral airflow (see par. 24))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (blades more aligned with wind direction)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
412
643
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (blade 44A aligned with wind direction)][AltContent: arrow]
Durkee teaches an electric motor (see abstract) and further teaches (see fig. 1) determine a position of a rotor (see abstract) in response to an electrical signature (from current detector 20) of a motor (see abstract), the electrical signature including at least one of a phase of a voltage and a current (current from current detector 20; see par. 25, bottom) provided to the motor 12. It is noted the phrase “at least one of a phase of a voltage and a current” is interpreted as either (1) a phase of voltage or (2) a current. Durkee also teaches the electrical signature also includes a phase of voltage (measurement of back emf by way of voltage detector 22 that measures voltage in one of the three phases of motor 12; such measurement being from a non-energized winding, see par. 34) from the motor and this is similar to the Thomas “output” waveform from the motors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Thomas with determine a position of at least one of the first rotor and the second rotor in response to an electrical signature of the at least one propulsion motor, the electrical signature including a current provided to the at least one propulsion motor as taught by Durkee in order to facilitate improvement of quality of controlling motors when there is low rotational velocity (see Durkee pars. 4 and 5).
Beckman teaches (see fig. 1) an electric propulsion unit including electric motors 110,112 coupled to coaxial, see par. 23, fan rotors including a first fan rotor 106 and a second fan rotor 108 and further teaches estimate noise (via a noise estimation module as discussed more below). Beckman teaches the general concept of estimating noise from a rotor. For example, Beckman points out in par. 28 that noise may be measured with an audio sensor 118 or alternatively noise from the rotor may be estimated or predicted using parameters that are a representation of noise:
“The sensor 118 may be configured to sense/detect/measure the noise 120 generated by the lower propeller 106. For example, the sensor 118 may be an audio sensor such as a microphone. However, the sensor 118 may be any type of sensor suitable for directly or indirectly sensing/detecting/ measuring an operational characteristic or parameter associated with the lower propeller 106 that may be interpreted as a representation of the noise 120 generated by the lower propeller 106. For example, the sensor 118 may additionally or alternatively be configured to detect rotational speed of the lower propeller 106, rotational speed of the lower motor 110, etc. AlthoughFIG.1 shows an individual sensor 118, multiple sensors may be used to detect noise generated by an individual propeller, by multiple propellers, in the ambient environment, etc.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Thomas in view of Durkee with estimate a noise as taught by Beckman in order to facilitate using the estimate for reasons in addition to or consistent with the “adjusting” discussed above. For example, having a noise estimate can permit evaluation of compliance with surface noise regulations and/or permit noise reduction using the teachings 606 of Beckman in fig. 6 regarding counter-rotation scenario of rotor operation (see par. 13 and pertinent prior art of previous office action describing knowledge of the POSITA in this area). This results in a noise estimate based on rotor velocity and rotor position (Thomas above discloses that phase angle [Symbol font/0x6A] is representative of noise, the phase angle [Symbol font/0x6A] comprising the positions of the first rotor and the second rotor). It is noted that Beckman sensor 118 discussed in par. 28 cited above is connected to computer controller 122 and thus such estimate would also be done with an algorithm. For example, par. 26-29 regarding measuring noise and canceling noise. This corresponds with method 600 (i.e. fig. 6), such method being done by software or in other words an algorithm (see par. 71; also see par. 93 discussing that software is used to implement the functions of Beckman). In addition, par. 28, bottom points out that instant estimating is applicable to multiple rotors and this is consistent with estimating the noise from the first and second rotors (if that is the intended claim scope; see 112 section above).
Regarding claim 10, Thomas discloses (see figs. 1-3, 6, 7, 9 and 11) a method for reducing noise (see pars. 40-41) of a propulsion system 12 comprising:
determining a position of at least one rotor 42A,42B of a propulsion unit 42A,42B having a plurality of rotors 42A,42B, in response to an electrical signature (electric signal, i.e. par. 31 “output waveform” from sensors 56A,56B communicates “rotation angle of the first and second motors” to instant controllers, see par. 29 and fig. 7; the relative positions of the instant blades on the rotors is then determined in order to regulate the phase as an operating parameter in order to reduce noise, see pars. 10, 39 and 41, and see figs. 4-5 showing differing phase differential angles [Symbol font/0x6A]) of the at least one propulsion motor 48A,48B, the at least one rotor being driven about an axis A by at least one propulsion motor 48A,48B;
(evaluate4) (see par. 41: “the computer may adjust the setpoint in an open-loop manner based on one or more sensed or predicted parameter values. Suitable parameter values include rotational velocity of the rotors”; one of ordinary skill would understand that phase [Symbol font/0x6A] and rotational velocity of the rotor correspond with noise; Thomas points out in par. 41 that in order to “reduce the amount of acoustic noise” of the rotors, see par. 18, bottom, the phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] is set by the rotor velocity, the phase differential angle being the difference in “positions” of the two rotors and such phase difference is determined based on sensing the position of each rotor; as general information one of ordinary skill understands when reading Thomas par. 40 that there is a database or table correlating phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] and velocity with a particular noise level and such a table or database is developed by empirical measurements that determines an noise level of each phase angle [Symbol font/0x6A] for particular rotor velocities and this is explained in more detail in pertinent prior art the office action mailed 03/09/2026 (PPA) that explains knowledge of the ordinary worker in the instant art; the PPA explains how the Thomas par. 41 open loop algorithm, or lookup table, is developed and also explains how one of ordinary skill would understand applicant par. 39 database is developed; it is noted that there is no disclosure in applicant specification of a particular algorithm, other than the database, of how the claimed noise estimate is arrived at) via a noise estimation module (the computer performs the instant evaluating and thus there must be an algorithm) a noise generated by the at least one rotor 42A,42B based on the position (this position of each rotor is used to determine the phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] that is used in the claimed “estimate a noise” as explained above) and an operational parameter (rotor velocity; see par. 41) of the at least one rotor;
(The setting of the phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] in Thomas par. 41 (i.e. moving the rotors so as to arrive at the phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] setpoint is done to reduce noise) is an evaluation of noise. For example, one phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] setpoint results in a different noise than another phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] setpoint. This is an evaluation of noise because it evaluates the noise of Thomas and because such phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] setpoint is set using the rotor velocity when a direct measurement of noise is not used (see par. 41: “In some examples, the onboard computer may receive input from an onboard microphone and adjust the [phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] ] setpoint in a closed-loop manner so as to reduce the amount noise. In other examples, the computer may adjust the setpoint in an open-loop manner based on … parameter values include rotational velocity of the rotors”).
adjusting one or more operating parameters ((1) phase differential angle, rotational velocity of instant rotors 42A,42B, see pars. 21, 29 and 41, during powered operation of the electric motors for example during VTOL operations using propulsion systems 12 that include the instant motors 48A,48B and rotors 42A,42B; for example, positions of the first 42A and second 42B rotors of Thomas are used reduce noise or acoustic emissions by way of setting the differential phase angle [Symbol font/0x6A] between the positions of the first rotor 42A and the second rotor 42B wherein the differential phase angle [Symbol font/0x6A] is determined by measuring the positions of the first rotor 42A and the second rotor 42B and discussed earlier in this claim analysis (i.e., electric signal from sensors 56A,56B communicates “rotation angle of the first and second motors”, or in other words the position of the rotor, to instant controllers, see par. 29 and fig. 7; the relative positions of the instant blades 44A,44B on the rotors 42A,42B is then determined in order to regulate the phase as an operating parameter in order to reduce noise, see pars. 10, 39 and 41, and see figs. 4-5 showing differing phase differential angles [Symbol font/0x6A]; and (2) alignment of the blades with ambient wind during cruise of the aircraft 10, see pars. 26 and 42, wherein non-alignment of blades causes noise as pointed out in par. 24, such that the instant motors 48A,48B must adjust all the blades to be aligned to the wind to reduce drag on the aircraft; as pointed out in par. 24 whenever the “position” of the rotors 42A,42B are such that blades are not aligned with the wind direction, then this is representative of a noise condition; therefore for example on a day when the wind is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the pylon (see annotated figure above) the position of some blades would represent noise (see par. 24 and see annotated blades above in path of lateral airflow); the motors can change the position of the instant blades to be more aligned with the wind direction (see annotated figures above) based on the position of the lateral blade oriented blade below causing drag (the position being an estimate of noise of Thomas wherein the noise is reduced by the instant aligning, see step 90 in fig. 9); thus during vertical flight of scenario (1), the phase difference [Symbol font/0x6A] between the two rotors are changed, see figs. 4-5, to reduce noise, and during horizontal cruise flight of scenario (2), wherein aircraft propulsion is accomplished by aft engine 20, the phase differential of the instant rotors is zero, see fig. 2, and the position of all the blades together are changed to align with the wind, see par. 19; see annotated figures above) of the at least one rotor 42A,42B using the noise (evaluation) to reduce a noise produced by the plurality of rotors (adjusting the phase differential angle reduces noise of wake vortex discussed in pars. 39-40; adjusting the wind alignment also reduces noise, see par. 24). Thomas does not explicitly disclose the output waveform electrical signature of Thomas including at least one of a phase of a voltage and a current provided to the Thomas at least one propulsion motor; and estimating a noise (via the noise estimation module).
Durkee teaches (see an electric motor (see abstract) and further teaches (see fig. 1) determine a position of a rotor (see abstract) in response to an electrical signature (from current detector 20) of a motor (see abstract), the electrical signature including at least one of a phase of a voltage and a current (current from current detector 20; see par. 25, bottom) provided to the motor 12. It is noted the phrase “at least one of a phase of a voltage and a current” is interpreted as either (1) a phase of voltage or (2) a current. Durkee also teaches the electrical signature also includes a phase of voltage (measurement of back emf by way of voltage detector 22 that measures voltage in one of the three phases of motor 12; such measurement being from a non-energized winding, see par. 34) from the motor and this is similar to the Thomas “output” waveform from the motors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Thomas with determine a position of at least one of the first rotor and the second rotor in response to an electrical signature of the at least one propulsion motor, the electrical signature including a current provided to the at least one propulsion motor as taught by Durkee in order to facilitate improvement of quality of controlling motors when there is low rotational velocity (see Durkee pars. 4 and 5).
Beckman teaches (see fig. 1) an electric propulsion unit including electric motors 110,112 coupled to coaxial, see par. 23, fan rotors including a first fan rotor 106 and a second fan rotor 108 and further teaches estimating a noise. Beckman teaches the general concept of estimating noise from a rotor. For example, Beckman points out in par. 28 that noise may be measured with an audio sensor 118 or alternatively noise from the rotor may be estimated or predicted using parameters that are a representation of noise:
“The sensor 118 may be configured to sense/detect/measure the noise 120 generated by the lower propeller 106. For example, the sensor 118 may be an audio sensor such as a microphone. However, the sensor 118 may be any type of sensor suitable for directly or indirectly sensing/detecting/ measuring an operational characteristic or parameter associated with the lower propeller 106 that may be interpreted as a representation of the noise 120 generated by the lower propeller 106. For example, the sensor 118 may additionally or alternatively be configured to detect rotational speed of the lower propeller 106, rotational speed of the lower motor 110, etc. AlthoughFIG.1 shows an individual sensor 118, multiple sensors may be used to detect noise generated by an individual propeller, by multiple propellers, in the ambient environment, etc.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Thomas in view of Durkee with estimate a noise as taught by Beckman in order to facilitate using the estimate for reasons in addition to or consistent with the “adjusting” discussed above. For example, having a noise estimate can permit evaluation of compliance with surface noise regulations and/or permit noise reduction using the teachings 606 of Beckman in fig. 6 regarding counter-rotation scenario of rotor operation (see par. 13 and pertinent prior art of the previous office action describing knowledge of the POSITA in this area). This results in a noise estimate based on rotor velocity and rotor position (Thomas above discloses that phase angle [Symbol font/0x6A] is representative of noise, the phase angle [Symbol font/0x6A] comprising the positions of the first rotor and the second rotor). It is noted that Beckman sensor 118 discussed in par. 28 cited above is connected to computer controller 122 and thus such estimate would also be done with an algorithm. For example, par. 26-29 regarding measuring noise and canceling noise. This corresponds with method 600 (i.e. fig. 6), such method being done by software or in other words an algorithm (see par. 71; also see par. 93 discussing that software is used to implement the functions of Beckman).
Regarding claim 20, Thomas discloses (see figs. 1-3, 6, 7, 9 and 11) an aircraft 10 comprising:
a fuselage 26;
a propulsion unit 12 mounted (via wings 14) to the fuselage, the propulsion unit including a first fan stage including a first rotor 42A and a second fan stage including a second rotor 42B (see blades 44A,44A’,44B,44B’ in fig. 6 regarding fan stages), the first rotor and the second rotor being rotatable about a fan axis A by (via shafts 50A,50B in fig. 6) at least one propulsion motor 48A,48B; and
a controller 24,54A,54B (see fig. 7) configured to:
determine a position of at least one of the first rotor and the second rotor in response to an electrical signature (“output waveforms” from the motors can be the “rotation angle sensors”, see par. 31, communicates “rotation angle of the first and second motors” to instant controllers, see par. 29 and fig. 7 showing example controller 54A and rotation angle sensor 56A; the relative positions of the instant blades on the rotors is then determined in order to regulate the phase as an operating parameter in order to reduce noise, see pars. 10, 39 and 41, and see figs. 4-5 showing differing phase differential angles [Symbol font/0x6A]) of the at least one propulsion motor 48A,48B; and
(evaluate5) (see par. 41: “the computer may adjust the setpoint in an open-loop manner based on one or more sensed or predicted parameter values. Suitable parameter values include rotational velocity of the rotors”; one of ordinary skill would understand that phase [Symbol font/0x6A] and rotational velocity of the rotor correspond with noise; Thomas points out in par. 41 that in order to “reduce the amount of acoustic noise” of the rotors, see par. 18, bottom, the phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] is set by the rotor velocity, the phase differential angle being the difference in “positions” of the two rotors and such phase difference is determined based on sensing the position of each rotor; as general information one of ordinary skill understands when reading Thomas par. 40 that there is a database or table correlating phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] and velocity with a particular noise level and such a table or database is developed by empirical measurements that determines an estimated noise level of each phase angle [Symbol font/0x6A] for particular rotor velocities and this is explained in more detail in pertinent prior art of the office action mailed 03/09/2026 (PPA) that explains knowledge of the ordinary worker in the instant art; the PPA explains how the Thomas par. 41 open loop algorithm, or lookup table, is developed and also explains how one of ordinary skill would understand applicant par. 39 database is developed; it is noted that there is no disclosure in applicant specification of a particular algorithm, other than the database, of how the claimed noise estimate is arrived at) via a noise estimation module (the computer performs the instant evaluating and thus there must be an algorithm), a noise generated by at least one of the first rotor 42A and the second rotor 42B, the noise generated by the first rotor being based on the position (the position of each rotor is used to determine the phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] that is used to evaluate the noise as explained above to reduce the noise) of the first rotor and an and an operational parameter (rotor velocity; see par. 41) of the first rotor and the noise generated by the second rotor based on the position (the position of each rotor is used to determine the phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] that is used in the claimed “estimate a noise” as explained above) of the second rotor and an operational parameter (rotor velocity; see par. 41) of the second rotor;
(The setting of the phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] in Thomas par. 41 (i.e. moving the rotors so as to arrive at the phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] setpoint is done to reduce noise) is an evaluation of noise. For example, one phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] setpoint results in a different noise than another phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] setpoint. This is an evaluation of noise because it evaluates the noise of Thomas and because such phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] setpoint is set using the rotor velocity when a direct measurement of noise is not used (see par. 41: “In some examples, the onboard computer may receive input from an onboard microphone and adjust the [phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] ] setpoint in a closed-loop manner so as to reduce the amount noise. In other examples, the computer may adjust the setpoint in an open-loop manner based on … parameter values include rotational velocity of the rotors”).
in response to the evaluated noise generated by the first rotor and evaluated noise generated by the second rotor, adjust one or more operating parameters ((1)6 phase differential angle, rotational velocity of instant rotors 42A,42B, see pars. 21, 29 and 41, during powered operation of the electric motors for example during VTOL operations using propulsion systems 12 that include the instant motors 48A,48B and rotors 42A,42B; for example, positions of the first 42A and second 42B rotors of Thomas are used reduce noise or acoustic emissions by way of setting the differential phase angle [Symbol font/0x6A] between the positions of the first rotor 42A and the second rotor 42B wherein the differential phase angle [Symbol font/0x6A] is determined by measuring the positions of the first rotor 42A and the second rotor 42B and discussed earlier in this claim analysis (i.e., electric signal from sensors 56A,56B communicates “rotation angle of the first and second motors”, or in other words the position of the rotor, to instant controllers, see par. 29 and fig. 7; the relative positions of the instant blades 44A,44B on the rotors 42A,42B is then determined in order to regulate the phase as an operating parameter in order to reduce noise, see pars. 10, 39 and 41, and see figs. 4-5 showing differing phase differential angles [Symbol font/0x6A]; and (2)7 alignment of the blades with ambient wind during cruise of the aircraft 10, see pars. 26 and 42, wherein non-alignment of blades causes noise as pointed out in par. 24, such that the instant motors 48A,48B must adjust all the blades to be aligned to the wind to reduce drag on the aircraft; as pointed out in par. 24 whenever the “position” of the rotors 42A,42B are such that blades are not aligned with the wind direction, then this is representative of a noise condition; therefore for example on a day when the wind is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the pylon (see annotated figure above) the position of some blades would represent noise (see par. 24 and see annotated blades below in path of lateral airflow); the motors can change the position of the instant blades to be more aligned with the wind direction (see annotated figures above) based on the position of the lateral blade oriented blade below causing drag (the position being an evaluation of noise of Thomas wherein the noise is reduced by the instant aligning, see step 90 in fig. 9); thus during vertical flight of scenario (1), the phase difference [Symbol font/0x6A] between the two rotors are changed, see figs. 4-5, to reduce noise, and during horizontal cruise flight of scenario (2), wherein aircraft propulsion is accomplished by aft engine 20, the phase differential of the instant rotors is zero, see fig. 2, and the position of all the blades together are changed to align with the wind, see par. 19; see annotated figures above) of at least one of the first rotor 42A and the second rotor 42B to reduce a combined noise produced by both rotation of the first rotor (regarding scenario (2) pertaining to “cruise” discussed above, each rotor causes noise when each rotor is not aligned with the wind, see par. 24 and such noise is reduced by aligning the rotor with the wind) and rotation of the second rotor (regarding scenario (1) during VTOL when the motors are electrically powered, the wake vortex of upstream rotor causes noise when it passes by downstream rotor in fig. 11, see pars. 39-40, and such noise is reduced by varying the phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A] as discussed above).
Thomas does not explicitly disclose the output waveform electrical signature of Thomas including at least one of a phase of a voltage and a current provided to the Thomas at least one propulsion motor; and estimate noise (via the noise estimation module).
Durkee teaches an electric motor (see abstract) and further teaches (see fig. 1) determine a position of a rotor (see abstract) in response to an electrical signature (from current detector 20) of a motor (see abstract), the electrical signature including at least one of a phase of a voltage and a current (current from current detector 20; see par. 25, bottom) provided to the motor 12. It is noted the phrase “at least one of a phase of a voltage and a current” is interpreted as either (1) a phase of voltage or (2) a current. Durkee also teaches the electrical signature also includes a phase of voltage (measurement of back emf by way of voltage detector 22 that measures voltage in one of the three phases of motor 12; such measurement being from a non-energized winding, see par. 34) from the motor and this is similar to the Thomas “output” waveform from the motors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Thomas with determine a position of at least one of the first rotor and the second rotor in response to an electrical signature of the at least one propulsion motor, the electrical signature including a current provided to the at least one propulsion motor as taught by Durkee in order to facilitate improvement of quality of controlling motors when there is low rotational velocity (see Durkee pars. 4 and 5).
Beckman teaches (see fig. 1) an electric propulsion unit including electric motors 110,112 coupled to coaxial, see par. 23, fan rotors including a first fan rotor 106 and a second fan rotor 108 and further teaches estimate noise (via a noise estimation module as discussed more below). Beckman teaches the general concept of estimating noise from a rotor. For example, Beckman points out in par. 28 that noise may be measured with an audio sensor 118 or alternatively noise from the rotor may be estimated or predicted using parameters that are a representation of noise:
“The sensor 118 may be configured to sense/detect/measure the noise 120 generated by the lower propeller 106. For example, the sensor 118 may be an audio sensor such as a microphone. However, the sensor 118 may be any type of sensor suitable for directly or indirectly sensing/detecting/ measuring an operational characteristic or parameter associated with the lower propeller 106 that may be interpreted as a representation of the noise 120 generated by the lower propeller 106. For example, the sensor 118 may additionally or alternatively be configured to detect rotational speed of the lower propeller 106, rotational speed of the lower motor 110, etc. AlthoughFIG.1 shows an individual sensor 118, multiple sensors may be used to detect noise generated by an individual propeller, by multiple propellers, in the ambient environment, etc.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Thomas in view of Durkee with estimate a noise as taught by Beckman in order to facilitate using the estimate for reasons in addition to or consistent with the “adjusting” discussed above. For example, having a noise estimate can permit evaluation of compliance with surface noise regulations and/or permit noise reduction using the teachings 606 of Beckman in fig. 6 regarding counter-rotation scenario of rotor operation (see par. 13 and pertinent prior art of previous office action describing knowledge of the POSITA in this area). This results in a noise estimate based on rotor velocity and rotor position (Thomas above discloses that phase angle [Symbol font/0x6A] is representative of noise, the phase angle [Symbol font/0x6A] comprising the positions of the first rotor and the second rotor). It is noted that Beckman sensor 118 discussed in par. 28 cited above is connected to computer controller 122 and thus such estimate would also be done with an algorithm. For example, par. 26-29 regarding measuring noise and canceling noise. This corresponds with method 600 (i.e. fig. 6), such method being done by software or in other words an algorithm (see par. 71; also see par. 93 discussing that software is used to implement the functions of Beckman). In addition, par. 28, bottom points out that instant estimating is applicable to multiple rotors and this is consistent with estimating the noise from the first and second rotors (if that is the intended claim scope; see 112 section above).
Regarding claim 5, Thomas in view of Durkee and Beckman teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Thomas discloses (see fig. 7 and par. 29) the controller 54A,54B is configured to determine a relative position of the first rotor and the second rotor in response to the electrical signature (“output waveform” of Thomas par. 31 and teachings of Durkee of the claim 1 analysis above) of the at least one propulsion motor 48A,48B (the relative positions are determined via instant sensors and then the instant controllers adjust the motors to arrive at a differential phase angle [Symbol font/0x6A] that reduces noise).
Regarding claim 6, Thomas in view of Durkee and Beckman teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Thomas discloses (see figs. 4 and 7) the one or more operating parameters of at least one of the first rotor and the second rotor is phase (the phase of each rotor is compared to one another to arrive at a phase difference [Symbol font/0x6A] such that noise is reduced; the phase difference is shown in fig. 4, wherein the individual instant phases α and β are discussed in par. 28 having been arrived at from sensors 56A,56B providing par. 31 “output waveform”).
Regarding claim 7, Thomas in view of Durkee and Beckman teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Thomas discloses (see fig. 6) the one or more operating parameters of at least one of the first rotor 48A and the second rotor 48B is rotational speed (change of the rotational velocity of the rotors is used to reduce noise; see pars. 29 and 41).
Regarding claim 8, Thomas in view of Durkee and Beckman teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Thomas discloses (see fig. 6) the propulsion unit is an electric fan (electric motors 48A,48B drive fan rotors 42A,42B that have blades (44A,44A’,44B,44B’).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Thomas in view of Durkee and Beckman teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Thomas discloses (see figs. 1 and 6) (claims 9 and 19) the propulsion unit 42A,42B is a part of propulsion system 12, see fig. 6, that is mounted to an aircraft 10 (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Thomas in view of Durkee and Beckman teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Thomas discloses (see fig. 6) the at least one rotor 42A,42B further comprises a first rotor 48A and a second rotor 48B and determining the position of the at least one rotor further comprises determining a relative position of the first rotor and the second rotor (electric signature from sensors 56A,56B communicates “rotation angle of the first and second motors” to instant controllers, see par. 29 and fig. 7; the relative positions of the instant blades on the rotors is then determined in order to regulate the phase as an operating parameter in order to reduce noise, see pars. 10, 39 and 41, and see figs. 4-5 showing differing phase differential angles [Symbol font/0x6A]; the relative positions are determined via instant sensors and then the instant controllers adjust the motors to arrive at a differential phase angle [Symbol font/0x6A] that reduces noise).
Regarding claim 15, Thomas in view of Durkee and Beckman teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Thomas discloses the adjusting one or more operating parameters ((1) phase differential angle, rotational velocity of instant rotors, see pars. 21, 29 and 41, during powered operation of the electric motors for example during VTOL operations using propulsion systems 12 that include the instant motors and rotors; and (2) alignment of the blades with ambient wind during cruise of the aircraft 10, see pars. 26 and 42, wherein non-alignment of blades causes noise as pointed out in par. 24, such that the instant motors must adjust all the blades to be aligned to the wind to reduce drag on the aircraft; thus during vertical flight, the phase difference [Symbol font/0x6A] between the two rotors are changed, see figs. 4-5, to reduce noise, and during horizontal cruise flight, wherein aircraft propulsion is accomplished by aft engine 20, the phase differential of the instant rotors is zero, see fig. 2, and the position of all the blades together are changed to align with the wind, see par. 19) of at least one rotor is performed to lessen the noise generated by one of the first rotor and the second rotor (adjusting the phase differential angle reduces noise of wake vortex discussed in pars. 39-40; adjusting the wind alignment also reduces noise, see par. 24).
Regarding claim 16, Thomas in view of Durkee and Beckman teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above including the adjusting one or more of at least one rotor (see claim 10 analysis above). Thomas does not explicitly disclose controlling one or more operating parameters of the second rotor to actively cancel the noise generated by the first rotor.
Beckman teaches (see fig. 1) an electric propulsion unit including electric motors 110,112 coupled to coaxial, see par. 23, fan rotors including a first fan rotor 106 and a second fan rotor 108 and further teaches (see par. 15) controlling one or more operating parameters (rotational speed) of the second rotor to actively cancel the noise generated by the first rotor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Thomas in view of Durkee and Beckman with controlling one or more operating parameters of the second rotor to actively cancel the noise generated by the first rotor as taught by Beckman in order to facilitate reducing additional noise (see Beckman abstract). This permits noise reduction when the rotors are counter-rotating (see par. 26, bottom) wherein this is known regarding coaxial propellers (see pertinent prior art of previous office action).
Regarding claim 17, Thomas in view of Durkee and Beckman teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Thomas discloses the adjusting one or more operating parameters of at least one rotor includes adjusting a phase of the at least one rotor (the phase of each rotor is compared to one another to arrive at a phase difference [Symbol font/0x6A] such that noise is reduced; the phase difference is shown in fig. 4, wherein the individual instant phases α and β are discussed in par. 28 having been arrived at from sensors 56A,56B; the phase difference, or in other words the phase differential angle [Symbol font/0x6A], is adjusted to reduce noise, see par. 41).
Regarding claim 18, Thomas in view of Durkee and Beckman teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Thomas discloses the adjusting one or more operating parameters of at least one rotor 48A,48B includes adjusting a rotational speed of the at least one rotor (change of the rotational velocity of the rotors is used to reduce noise; see pars. 29 and 41).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., noise estimation model) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification or applicant arguments are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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). For example, Applicant argues that Thomas (Pub. No.: US 2022/0194557 A1) does not teach using an electronic signature including one or more of a phase of the voltage and a current provided to the motor. In response, this was taught by Durkee (US 2013/0106333 A1). Durkee teaches an electric motor (see abstract) and further teaches (see fig. 1) determine a position of a rotor (see abstract) in response to an electrical signature (from current detector 20) of a motor (see abstract), the electrical signature including at least one of a phase of a voltage and a current (current from current detector 20; see par. 25, bottom) provided to the motor 12. This teaching improves measurement of the position of the rotor of the combination during lower rotor speeds.
Applicant further faults Thomes suggesting Thomas does not have a noise estimation module. This term is interpreted under 112(f) and discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above. Applicant computer implemented corresponding structure regarding the nonce term module is an algorithm or a lookup table as discussed in par. 39. Thomas discloses both an algorithm and a lookup table in par. 41 that is discussed more in the 103 section above. Thomas uses rotor position and velocity to arrive at a phase angle set point in order to reduce noise (although Thomas does not output a noise estimate). Beckman is used to teach such an estimate. Beckman can use a sensor to measure noise or alternatively determine noise (i.e., estimate noise) from rotor velocity and other parameters as discussed in par. 28 and below.
“Applicant notes that the [prior art] recited noise reduction is a consequence of the variation of the differential phase angle. This is different than actively reducing the noise of the rotors which may result in an adjustment of the differential phase angle of the rotors.” In response variation in phase angle is “active” reduction of noise (the prior art is not used to teach a noise insulation in the fuselage for example). Further this is what applicant invention does: “Examples of the parameters that may be controlled included to reduce the noise generated by a fan rotor include, but are not limited to modulation, phase, and/or rotational speed of a fan rotor.
Applicant argues Thomas does not explicitly suggest the setpoint is adjusted based on an estimated noise generated by a noise estimation module. Thomas uses for example a lookup table to arrive at a setpoint of phase angle. Such lookup table is a noise estimation module according to applicant specification. Applicant further argues against Beckman. However, Beckman estimates noise based on parameters that represent noise such as rotor velocity (see par. 28). Thomas discloses that phase angle is representative of noise, the phase angle comprising the positions of the first rotor and the second rotor. Thus, the combination teaches estimating noise based on rotor position and rotor velocity.
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 MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
1 This term is used for readability because Thomas discloses an evaluation of noise that is similar to an estimate but such evaluation does not reach an approximation of noise and this approximation is taught by Beckman in this claim analysis. Applicant specification discusses “estimate” regarding an approximation of noise (par. 39) and states the “the operational or noise information output from the noise estimation module 104” (par. 40) such noise information similar to what Thomas does in par. 41 when direct noise measurement is not used.
2 During VTOL when the motors are driving the propellers.
3 During cruise when the motors are not driving the propellers except for aligning propellers with wind to reduce noise.
4 This term is used for readability because Thomas discloses an evaluation of noise that is similar to an estimate but such evaluation does not reach an approximation of noise and this approximation is taught by Beckman in this claim analysis. Applicant specification discusses “estimate” regarding an approximation of noise (par. 39) and states the “the operational or noise information output from the noise estimation module 104” (par. 40) such noise information similar to what Thomas does in par. 41 when direct noise measurement is not used.
5 This term is used for readability because Thomas discloses an evaluation of noise that is similar to an estimate but such evaluation does not reach an approximation of noise and this approximation is taught by Beckman in this claim analysis. Applicant specification discusses “estimate” regarding an approximation of noise (par. 39) and states the “the operational or noise information output from the noise estimation module 104” (par. 40) such noise information similar to what Thomas does in par. 41 when direct noise measurement is not used.
6 During VTOL when the motors are driving the propellers.
7 During cruise when the motors are not driving the propellers except for aligning propellers with wind to reduce noise.
Prosecution Insights