Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to the Applicant’s arguments
The previous rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are entered. Applicant’s remarks are also entered into the record. A new search was made necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
A new reference was found. A new rejection is made herein.
Claim 1 is amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but AUERBACH teaches “...wherein the first and second rotary blades further include electric motors which rotate (see paragraph 43 where the device includes electric motors to power the aircraft)
the first and second rotary blades so that the first and second rotary blades obtain at least one of
lift force and thrust for the flight vehicle, (see paragraph 47 where the rotors can move from vertical take off and landing to horizonal rotor cruising)
and the acquisition unit acquires at least one of the
rotational positions of a rotor of the electric motors and the rotational positions of the first and
second rotary blades as the rotational positions of the first and second rotary blades” (see paragraph 23 where the sensor 104 can measure the position of the rotors via a rotational encoded and this can be saved and provided digitally to the pilot; Alternatively or additionally, sensor 104 may sense a pilot interaction 112 digitally and convert a digital signal to an analog control signal 116, for example by way of a digital to analog converter. For instance, in some embodiments, sensor 104 may sense a characteristic through a digital means or digitize a sensed signal natively. In some cases, for example, sensor 104 may include a rotational encoder and be configured to sense a rotational speed or position of a rotor; in this case, the rotational encoder digitally may sense rotational “clicks” by any known method, such as without limitation magnetically, optically, and the like.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of BUILTA with the teachings of AUERBACH with a reasonable expectation of success since AUERBACH teaches that a rotational speed sensor can provide speed information via a sensor 104 of each of the rotors. A relative speed can indicate a strain and this can be provided to the pilot. One of the rotors or components can be rotating differently via a strain loading. One of the controllers can pick this up and provide a signal to remediate the issue. See paragraph 23 and 64-65
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of European Patent Pub. N.: EP 2474470 B1 to Builta of Bell Helicopter that was filed in 2004 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 20220404842 A1 to Auerbach that was filed in 2021.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Builta discloses “...1. A flight vehicle comprising:
a main body;
a plurality of rotary blades that include a first rotary blade provided on one side of the main body in a width direction and a second rotary blade provided on the other side of the main body in the width direction; (see FIG. 1 where the aircraft has a first propeller and a second propeller extending in a width direction from the main body)
an acquisition unit that acquires rotational positions of the rotary blades; and (see paragraph 29 and Fig. 8-9 and claim 1 where the device has a tilting nacelle that is controlled by a cyclic swashplate that includes receiving a lateral velocity control signal and then adjusting each rotor so one can change a rotational position forward and a second rotor on the other side can be moved and tiled backwards) (see paragraph 5 where the cyclic control device can vary the angle of attack of the blades as they are rotating to vary a pitch of the blades unevenly as they are rotating to provide a higher angle or attack or a lower angle of attack and more lift on one side of the rotation and a less lift on a second side or to change the pitch and roll)
PNG
media_image2.png
552
760
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a control unit that controls the rotational positions based on the rotational positions acquired so that the rotational positions of the first rotary blade and the second rotary blade associated with each other are in a predetermined positional relationship” (see Fig. 8-9 and claim 1 where the device has a tilting nacelle that is controlled by a cyclic swashplate that includes receiving a lateral velocity control signal and then adjusting each rotor so one can change a rotational position forward and a second rotor on the other side can be moved and tiled backwards) .
Claim 1 is amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but AUERBACH teaches “...wherein the first and second rotary blades further include electric motors which rotate (see paragraph 43 where the device includes electric motors to power the aircraft)
the first and second rotary blades so that the first and second rotary blades obtain at least one of
lift force and thrust for the flight vehicle, (see paragraph 47 where the rotors can move from vertical take off and landing to horizonal rotor cruising)
and the acquisition unit acquires at least one of the
rotational positions of a rotor of the electric motors and the rotational positions of the first and
second rotary blades as the rotational positions of the first and second rotary blades” (see paragraph 23 where the sensor 104 can measure the position of the rotors via a rotational encoded and this can be saved and provided digitally to the pilot; Alternatively or additionally, sensor 104 may sense a pilot interaction 112 digitally and convert a digital signal to an analog control signal 116, for example by way of a digital to analog converter. For instance, in some embodiments, sensor 104 may sense a characteristic through a digital means or digitize a sensed signal natively. In some cases, for example, sensor 104 may include a rotational encoder and be configured to sense a rotational speed or position of a rotor; in this case, the rotational encoder digitally may sense rotational “clicks” by any known method, such as without limitation magnetically, optically, and the like.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of BUILTA with the teachings of AUERBACH with a reasonable expectation of success since AUERBACH teaches that a rotational speed sensor can provide speed information via a sensor 104 of each of the rotors. A relative speed can indicate a strain and this can be provided to the pilot. One of the rotors or components can be rotating differently via a strain loading. One of the controllers can pick this up and provide a signal to remediate the issue. See paragraph 23 and 64-65
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of European Patent Pub. N.: EP 2474470 B1 to Builta of Bell Helicopter that was filed in 2004 and in view of European Patent Pub. No.: EP2985220B1to Dusan that was filed in 2014 and Auerbach.
Dusan teaches “...2. The flight vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the acquisition unit acquires a rotational speed of the rotary blade, and (see paragraph 65)
wherein the rotational speed acquired is less than a threshold value, the control unit controls the rotational position. (see paragraph 65-70)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of BUILTA with the teachings of DUSAN with a reasonable expectation of success since DUSAN teaches that a speed sensor can provide speed information via a sensor 28. A relative position of the propellor can be adjusted based on the thrust and the speed information. See claims 1-3. This can enhance the lift generated at low speeds during vertical take off and landing. See paragraph 1-5.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of European Patent Pub. N.: EP 2474470 B1 to Builta of Bell Helicopter that was filed in 2004 and in view of United States Patent No.: US11299287B1 to Moy that was filed on 6-29-21 and Auerbach.
PNG
media_image3.png
750
796
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Moy teaches “...3. The flight vehicle according to claim 1, comprising:
a determination unit that determines whether the rotary blade has failed,
wherein, when it is determined that the rotary blade has failed, the control unit controls the rotational positions of the rotary blade that has failed, and the rotary blade associated with the rotary blade that has failed” (see abstract and claims 1-10 and see FIG. 6 where a failure in one of the propellors can be detected and then a new thrust orientation datum can be provided in blocks 605-645 that has a new orientation).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of BUILTA with the teachings of MOY with a reasonable expectation of success since MOY teaches that vehicle can include four propellors that can be adjusted in terms of speed and can be tilted for a thrust orientation . Then a processor can detect an abnormality of one of the propellors and the processor can include a neural network artificial engine and can correct the device using a failure datum to pivot the remaining propellors and to adjust the speed to reduce and eliminate the yaw and pitch and roll to adjust for the failure. See claims 11-20.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of European Patent Pub. N.: EP 2474470 B1 to Builta of Bell Helicopter that was filed in 2004 and in view of United States Patent No.: US11299287B1 to Moy that was filed on 6-29-21 and Auerbach.
Moy teaches “....4. The flight vehicle according to claim 3,
wherein the acquisition unit acquires a rotational speed of the rotary blade, and (see col. 4, lines 50-65 where the rotational speed of the failure propeller can be accounted for that one propellor is in failure and has stopped rotation)
wherein, when it is determined that the rotary blade has failed, the control unit controls the rotational speed of the rotary blade that has failed to be below a threshold value, controls the rotary blade associated with the rotary blade that has failed to cause the rotational speed of the rotary blade to approach the rotational speed of the rotary blade that has failed, and controls the rotational position of the rotary blade when the rotational speed of the rotary blade is less than the threshold value”. (see col. 16, lines 1-20 where a corner propellor has failed and from one of the lift propellors then an opposition propeller can be controller to prevent an uncontrolled yawing and see col. 5, line 1-20 where a failure of the propellor can be providing a yaw moment and col. 30, lines 49-65 where the joint receives the failure datum and then can control the joint to compensate for the failure and speed and thrust and angle can be provided)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of BUILTA with the teachings of MOY with a reasonable expectation of success since MOY teaches that vehicle can include four propellors that can be adjusted in terms of speed and can be tilted for a thrust orientation . Then a processor can detect an abnormality of one of the propellors and the processor can include a neural network artificial engine and can correct the device using a failure datum to pivot the remaining propellors and to adjust the speed to reduce and eliminate the yaw and pitch and roll to adjust for the failure. See claims 11-20.
PNG
media_image4.png
746
998
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
652
892
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Moy teaches “...5. The flight vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the control unit transmits a position command for controlling the rotational position,
the flight vehicle comprising:
a motor control apparatus provided in each of the plurality of rotary blades and including a lower-level control unit that controls the rotational position of the rotary blade based on the position command transmitted from the control unit (See FIG. 1 where the controller 104 has a lower level processor and in Fig. 4 the device also has a higher level neural network 404; see Fig. 4 where the contr4oller 404 receives a pilot signal from the pilot and then it also can receives a failure to change the flight component 432)
and a lower-level determination unit that determines whether there is an abnormality in communication between the control unit and the motor control apparatus, (see FIG. 6, block 625)
wherein, the lower-level control unit sets, when there is an abnormality in communication, the rotational position of the rotary blade provided with the motor control apparatus having an abnormality in communication and the rotational position of the rotary blade associated with the rotary blade provided with the motor control apparatus having an abnormality in communication in the predetermined positional relationship”. (see col. 31, lines 1-9 where the joint receives a thrust orientation in response to the failure and see col. 16, lines 1-20 where a corner propellor has failed and from one of the lift propellors then an opposition propeller can be controller to prevent an uncontrolled yawing and see col. 5, line 1-20 where a failure of the propellor can be providing a yaw moment and col. 30, lines 49-65 where the joint receives the failure datum and then can control the joint to compensate for the failure and speed and thrust and angle can be provided)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of BUILTA with the teachings of MOY with a reasonable expectation of success since MOY teaches that vehicle can include four propellors that can be adjusted in terms of speed and can be tilted for a thrust orientation . Then a processor can detect an abnormality of one of the propellors and the processor can include a neural network artificial engine and can correct the device using a failure datum to pivot the remaining propellors and to adjust the speed to reduce and eliminate the yaw and pitch and roll to adjust for the failure. See claims 11-20.
PNG
media_image6.png
600
834
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Moy teaches “...6. The flight vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the predetermined positional relationship comprises mirror-symmetrical positions or the same rotational position in a top view”. (see motors 224, 224, 224 and 224 in a symmetric position)
Moy teaches “..7. The flight vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein the predetermined positional relationship comprises positions in which a total distance in a width direction of the first rotary blade and the second rotary blade associated with each other is minimum. (see motors 224, 224, 224 and 224 in a symmetric position)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of BUILTA with the teachings of MOY with a reasonable expectation of success since MOY teaches that vehicle can include four propellors that can be adjusted in terms of speed and can be tilted for a thrust orientation . Then a processor can detect an abnormality of one of the propellors and the processor can include a neural network artificial engine and can correct the device using a failure datum to pivot the remaining propellors and to adjust the speed to reduce and eliminate the yaw and pitch and roll to adjust for the failure. See claims 11-20.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of European Patent Pub. N.: EP 2474470 B1 to Builta of Bell Helicopter that was filed in 2004 and in view of United States Patent No.: 9567075 B2 to Tighe that was filed in 2014 and Auerbach.
Tighe teaches “...8. The flight vehicle according to claim 1, comprising:
a storage unit configured to store the rotary blades when the first rotary blade and the second rotary blade are at predetermined rotational positions for storage,
wherein the predetermined positional relationship comprises the rotational positions for storage”. (see FIG. 6 where the propellers are housed with the vehicle from fig. 2, 15, 17 when the vehicle transitions to the forward horizontal flight mode 17a, 15a)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of BUILTA with the teachings of TIGHE with a reasonable expectation of success since TIGHE teaches that vehicle can include four propellors that can be stowed for vertical flight and then used again for vertical flight.
Claims 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of European Patent Pub. N.: EP 2474470 B1 to Builta of Bell Helicopter that was filed in 2004 and in view of United States Patent No.: US11299287B1 to Moy that was filed on 6-29-21 and in view of Auerbach.
Claim 9 and 10-13 are amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but AUERBACH teaches “...wherein the first and second rotary blades further include electric motors which rotate (see paragraph 43 where the device includes electric motors to power the aircraft)
the first and second rotary blades so that the first and second rotary blades obtain at least one of
lift force and thrust for the flight vehicle, (see paragraph 47 where the rotors can move from vertical take off and landing to horizonal rotor cruising)
and the acquisition unit acquires at least one of the
rotational positions of a rotor of the electric motors and the rotational positions of the first and
second rotary blades as the rotational positions of the first and second rotary blades” (see paragraph 23 where the sensor 104 can measure the position of the rotors via a rotational encoded and this can be saved and provided digitally to the pilot; Alternatively or additionally, sensor 104 may sense a pilot interaction 112 digitally and convert a digital signal to an analog control signal 116, for example by way of a digital to analog converter. For instance, in some embodiments, sensor 104 may sense a characteristic through a digital means or digitize a sensed signal natively. In some cases, for example, sensor 104 may include a rotational encoder and be configured to sense a rotational speed or position of a rotor; in this case, the rotational encoder digitally may sense rotational “clicks” by any known method, such as without limitation magnetically, optically, and the like.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of BUILTA with the teachings of AUERBACH with a reasonable expectation of success since AUERBACH teaches that a rotational speed sensor can provide speed information via a sensor 104 of each of the rotors. A relative speed can indicate a strain and this can be provided to the pilot. One of the rotors or components can be rotating differently via a strain loading. One of the controllers can pick this up and provide a signal to remediate the issue. See paragraph 23 and 64-65
In regard to claim 9, 12 and 13, Builta discloses “...9. A motor control apparatus provided in each of a plurality of rotary blades of a flight vehicle, the flight vehicle including: a main body; the plurality of rotary blades that include a first rotary blade provided on one side of the main body in a width direction and a second rotary blade provided on the other side of the main body in the width direction; and a higher-level control apparatus that controls the plurality of rotary blades,
the motor control apparatus comprising: (see FIG. 1 where the aircraft has a first propeller and a second propeller extending in a width direction from the main body) (see paragraph 29 and Fig. 8-9 and claim 1 where the device has a tilting nacelle that is controlled by a cyclic swashplate that includes receiving a lateral velocity control signal and then adjusting each rotor so one can change a rotational position forward and a second rotor on the other side can be moved and tiled backwards) (see paragraph 5 where the cyclic control device can vary the angle of attack of the blades as they are rotating to vary a pitch of the blades unevenly as they are rotating to provide a higher angle or attack or a lower angle of attack and more lift on one side of the rotation and a less lift on a second side or to change the pitch and roll)”.
Moy teaches “....a lower-level control unit that controls the rotary blades based on a command transmitted from the higher-level control apparatus; and
a lower-level determination unit that determines whether there is an abnormality in communication between the higher-level control apparatus and the motor control apparatus,
wherein the lower-level control unit sets, when there is an abnormality in communication, the rotational position of the first rotary blade provided with the motor control apparatus having an abnormality in communication and the rotational position of the
second rotary blade associated with the first rotary blade in a predetermined positional relationship regardless of the command from the higher-level control apparatus”. (see col. 4, lines 50-65 where the rotational speed of the failure propeller can be accounted for that one propellor is in failure and has stopped rotation) (see col. 16, lines 1-20 where a corner propellor has failed and from one of the lift propellors then an opposition propeller can be controller to prevent an uncontrolled yawing and see col. 5, line 1-20 where a failure of the propellor can be providing a yaw moment and col. 30, lines 49-65 where the joint receives the failure datum and then can control the joint to compensate for the failure and speed and thrust and angle can be provided)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of BUILTA with the teachings of MOY with a reasonable expectation of success since MOY teaches that vehicle can include four propellors that can be adjusted in terms of speed and can be tilted for a thrust orientation . Then a processor can detect an abnormality of one of the propellors and the processor can include a neural network artificial engine and can correct the device using a failure datum to pivot the remaining propellors and to adjust the speed to reduce and eliminate the yaw and pitch and roll to adjust for the failure. See claims 11-20.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of European Patent Pub. N.: EP 2474470 B1 to Builta of Bell Helicopter that was filed in 2004 and in view of United States Patent No.: US11299287B1 to Moy that was filed on 6-29-21 and Auerbach.
Moy discloses “...10. A method of controlling a flight vehicle including: a main body; and a plurality of rotary blades that include a first rotary blade provided on one side of the main body in a width direction and a second rotary blade provided on the other side of the main body in the width direction,
the method comprising:
acquiring rotational positions of the rotary blades; and
controlling the rotational positions based on the rotational positions acquired so that the rotational positions of the first rotary blade and the second rotary blade associated with each other are in a predetermined positional relationship”. (see col. 31, lines 1-9 where the joint receives a thrust orientation in response to the failure and see col. 16, lines 1-20 where a corner propellor has failed and from one of the lift propellors then an opposition propeller can be controller to prevent an uncontrolled yawing and see col. 5, line 1-20 where a failure of the propellor can be providing a yaw moment and col. 30, lines 49-65 where the joint receives the failure datum and then can control the joint to compensate for the failure and speed and thrust and angle can be provided) (see motors 224, 224, 224 and 224 in a symmetric position)
Claim 10 is amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but AUERBACH teaches “...wherein the first and second rotary blades further include electric motors which rotate (see paragraph 43 where the device includes electric motors to power the aircraft)
the first and second rotary blades so that the first and second rotary blades obtain at least one of
lift force and thrust for the flight vehicle, (see paragraph 47 where the rotors can move from vertical take off and landing to horizonal rotor cruising)
and the acquisition unit acquires at least one of the
rotational positions of a rotor of the electric motors and the rotational positions of the first and
second rotary blades as the rotational positions of the first and second rotary blades” (see paragraph 23 where the sensor 104 can measure the position of the rotors via a rotational encoded and this can be saved and provided digitally to the pilot; Alternatively or additionally, sensor 104 may sense a pilot interaction 112 digitally and convert a digital signal to an analog control signal 116, for example by way of a digital to analog converter. For instance, in some embodiments, sensor 104 may sense a characteristic through a digital means or digitize a sensed signal natively. In some cases, for example, sensor 104 may include a rotational encoder and be configured to sense a rotational speed or position of a rotor; in this case, the rotational encoder digitally may sense rotational “clicks” by any known method, such as without limitation magnetically, optically, and the like.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of BUILTA with the teachings of AUERBACH with a reasonable expectation of success since AUERBACH teaches that a rotational speed sensor can provide speed information via a sensor 104 of each of the rotors. A relative speed can indicate a strain and this can be provided to the pilot. One of the rotors or components can be rotating differently via a strain loading. One of the controllers can pick this up and provide a signal to remediate the issue. See paragraph 23 and 64-65
Moy discloses “..11. Anon-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores a program for controlling a flight vehicle including: a main body; and a plurality of rotary blades that include a first rotary blade provided on one side of the main body in a width direction and a second rotary blade provided on the other side of the main body in the width direction,
the program causing a computer to execute:
acquiring rotational positions of the rotary blades; and
controlling the rotational positions based on the rotational positions acquired so that the rotational positions of the first rotary blade and the second rotary blade associated with each other are in a predetermined positional relationship”. (see col. 31, lines 1-9 where the joint receives a thrust orientation in response to the failure and see col. 16, lines 1-20 where a corner propellor has failed and from one of the lift propellors then an opposition propeller can be controller to prevent an uncontrolled yawing and see col. 5, line 1-20 where a failure of the propellor can be providing a yaw moment and col. 30, lines 49-65 where the joint receives the failure datum and then can control the joint to compensate for the failure and speed and thrust and angle can be provided) (see motors 224, 224, 224 and 224 in a symmetric position)
Claim 11 is amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but AUERBACH teaches “...wherein the first and second rotary blades further include electric motors which rotate (see paragraph 43 where the device includes electric motors to power the aircraft)
the first and second rotary blades so that the first and second rotary blades obtain at least one of
lift force and thrust for the flight vehicle, (see paragraph 47 where the rotors can move from vertical take off and landing to horizonal rotor cruising)
and the acquisition unit acquires at least one of the
rotational positions of a rotor of the electric motors and the rotational positions of the first and
second rotary blades as the rotational positions of the first and second rotary blades” (see paragraph 23 where the sensor 104 can measure the position of the rotors via a rotational encoded and this can be saved and provided digitally to the pilot; Alternatively or additionally, sensor 104 may sense a pilot interaction 112 digitally and convert a digital signal to an analog control signal 116, for example by way of a digital to analog converter. For instance, in some embodiments, sensor 104 may sense a characteristic through a digital means or digitize a sensed signal natively. In some cases, for example, sensor 104 may include a rotational encoder and be configured to sense a rotational speed or position of a rotor; in this case, the rotational encoder digitally may sense rotational “clicks” by any known method, such as without limitation magnetically, optically, and the like.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of BUILTA with the teachings of AUERBACH with a reasonable expectation of success since AUERBACH teaches that a rotational speed sensor can provide speed information via a sensor 104 of each of the rotors. A relative speed can indicate a strain and this can be provided to the pilot. One of the rotors or components can be rotating differently via a strain loading. One of the controllers can pick this up and provide a signal to remediate the issue. See paragraph 23 and 64-65
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 JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666