DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract includes the purported merits of applicant’s invention (namely efficiency, maneuverability, hover performance, and speed performance). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The last line of ¶7 includes an erroneous ‘s’ “… complex usage scenarios s and obtain …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-12 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.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited. FOR EXAMPLE:
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “aerodynamic efficiency in entire flight envelope is greatly improved,” “risk and difficulty in the switching process are reduced, “and “which improves overall efficiency of the entire aircraft” claim the purported benefits of applicant’s invention relative to the prior art, not actual structure and simultaneously compare the present invention to the prior art. The terms “improved,” “reduced,” and “improve” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. These limitations should be removed.
Also regarding claim 1, the phrase "may" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Also, regarding claim 1, it is unclear whether the terms “a forward flying propulsion device” “a propulsion device” are intended to refer to the same propulsion devices or whether these are separate propulsion devices. This is being interpreted as the former.
Additionally lines 5-17 are narrative in form and it is unclear what actual structure is being required. These lines are being interpreted as requiring that the aircraft is capable of vtol operations and wings level flight; a two blade rotary wing which can be fixed in forward flight; a wing to fuselage joint; and a power system configured to provide energy for a forward flying propulsion device.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear what structures are actually being claimed. It appears to applicant is attempting to claim functional limitations requiring a rotary wing configuration to fly at a low speed and a fixed wing configuration to fly at a medium speed, but the use of narrative language and relative terms including “low speed” and “medium-high speed” are relative terms which render the claims indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, grammatical issues make it difficult to interpret what structures applicant is attempting to claim.
Regarding claim 4, lines 3-5 are narrative in form and it is unclear what actual structure is being required. These lines are being interpreted as requiring that tandem two bladed rotors that are parallel to each other and mirror each other in one of the flight modes.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “a shape of the lifting fuselage is similar to a flying wing with small aspect ratio,” particularly the phrase "similar to" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Also the term “small” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such it is not clear how small the aspect ratio must be.
Additionally, given the nature of the invention the term “lower surface” indefinite because there is no clear lower or upper direction. The term “lower” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “corresponding actuation devices are provided with a rotating direction opposite to a lifting fuselage rolling direction” is indefinite because the it is not clear whether applicant intends for an anti-roll direction or a direction orthogonal to the roll direction.
Regarding claim 7, in the limitation “the forward flying propulsion device is mounted at the rear portion of the lifting fuselage to provide forward flying thrust for the aircraft, and it can be selected from two ways comprising propeller or jet” the use of ‘it’ is indefinite because it is unclear what ‘it’ refers to.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the main power device generates most of energy for the aircraft” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this requires another power device for generating the rest of the energy or not. This is being interpreted as merely requiring a main power device which generates energy for the aircraft.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the apron parking status” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, lines 3-7 are narrative in form and include grammatical issues that make unclear what actual structure is being required. These lines are being interpreted as requiring that the rotor wings are counter-rotating and arranged co-axially through the center of gravity.
Regarding claim 11, lines 3-8 are narrative in form and include grammatical issues that make unclear what actual structure is being required. These lines are being interpreted as requiring that the rotor-wings are located on opposite ends of the wing and a tandem arrangement of the rotor-wings.
Regarding claim 12, lines 3-10 are narrative in form and include grammatical issues that make unclear what actual structure is being required. These lines are being interpreted as requiring that the aircraft is capable of rolling 90 degrees to transition between vertical and forward flight.
Claims 2-12 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
NOTE: this is not an exhaustive list; applicant should take care to rewrite the claims clear up any and all similar issues to those brought up here.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6-8, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gaonjur (US 20140312177 A1).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Gaonjur (US 20140312177 A1) discloses a vertical take-off and landing aircraft based on variable rotor-wing technology and dual rotor-wing layout, comprising dual blade variable rotor-wings (Gaonjur, figure 1, items 102 and 103, two bladed rotors), a dual rotor-wing system (Gaonjur, figure 1, items 102 and 103, two rotors), a lifting fuselage (Gaonjur, figure 1, items 101, fuselage), a wing-fuselage connecting mechanism (Gaonjur, figure 1, items 104 and 105), a forward flying propulsion device (Gaonjur, figure 1, items 106), a central power system (Gaonjur, figure 3, item 11), and a take-off and landing auxiliary device; wherein
the aircraft uses a design of variable configuration to achieve vertical take-off and landing (Gaonjur, figure 1) and high-speed level flight (Gaonjur, figure 2), simultaneously (Gaonjur, same aircraft in figures 1 and 2);
a main aerodynamic wing surface adopts a design of dual blade variable rotor-wing, which is a core component for the aircraft to generate lift and switch configurations, and can be switched between a rotor wing configuration and a fixed wing configuration with variation of a forward flight speed, and aerodynamic efficiency in entire flight envelope is greatly improved by introducing the dual blade variable rotor-wing technology and the dual rotor-wing layout (Gaonjur, figure 1, items 102 and 103);
aerodynamic shape of the lifting fuselage and the wing-fuselage connecting mechanism are in coordinated linkage with the rotor-wing configuration (Gaonjur, figure 1, wings are linked to the rotor-wings), which may maintain stable level flight of the aircraft when the configurations is switching, and risk and difficulty in the switching process are reduced; the aircraft uses a propulsion device at a rear portion to provide forward thrust (Gaonjur, figure 1, item 106), and a central power system provide energy for the forward flying propulsion device and the dual rotor- wing system (Gaonjur, figure 3, item 11), which improves overall efficiency of the entire aircraft (unclear).
Regarding claim 2 (as best understood), Gaonjur discloses the vertical take-off and landing aircraft based on variable rotor-wing technology and dual rotor-wing layout according to claim 1, wherein
working state of the main aerodynamic wing surface can be divided into a rotor wing configuration (Gaonjur, figure 2) and a fixed wing configuration (Gaonjur, figure 1), and a transition flight state connecting the rotor wing configuration and the fixed wing configuration (Gaonjur, figures 1-2, transitions between configurations);
a flight speed of the rotor wing configuration is low, and the main aerodynamic wing surface generate all lift by rapidly rotating around its vertical central axes (Gaonjur, rotor wing configuration enables lower airspeed); the fixed wing configuration corresponds to medium-high speed flight (Gaonjur, rotor wing configuration enables higher airspeed flight), and the main aerodynamic wing surface are rigidly connected with the lifting fuselage and generate all lift together with the lifting fuselage (Gaonjur, figure 1, items 104 and 105, structures connecting wings and fuselage);
a speed range of the transition flight state is between that of the rotor wing configuration and the fixed wing configuration; the lifting fuselage generates all lift, and the main aerodynamic wing surface maintain aerodynamic force unloading in entire process (Gaonjur).
Regarding claim 4 (as best understood), Gaonjur discloses the vertical take-off and landing aircraft based on variable rotor-wing technology and dual rotor-wing layout according to claim 1, wherein
the design of a dual rotor-wing system is adopted, and two sets of the dual blade variable rotor-wing which are independent and operate in a coordinated mode are arranged in parallel on the lifting fuselage by adopting a mirror symmetry mode (Gaonjur, figures 1-2, symmetrical rotor wings).
Regarding claim 6 (as best understood), Gaonjur discloses the vertical take-off and landing aircraft based on variable rotor-wing technology and dual rotor-wing layout according to claim 1, wherein
the wing-fuselage connecting mechanism is arranged at two spanwise ends of the lifting fuselage for connecting the lifting fuselage and the dual blade variable rotor-wing, and a 90-degree rotating shaft and corresponding actuating device are provided with a rotating direction opposite to a lifting fuselage rolling direction (Gaonjur, figure 1, items 101, 104, and 105, fuselage connected to rotor wings at spanwise ends of fairing).
Regarding claim 7 (as best understood), Gaonjur discloses the vertical take-off and landing aircraft based on variable rotor-wing technology and dual rotor-wing layout according to claim 1, wherein
the forward flying propulsion device is mounted at the rear portion of the lifting fuselage to provide forward flying thrust for the aircraft, and it can be selected from two ways comprising propeller
Regarding claim 8 (as best understood), Gaonjur discloses the vertical take-off and landing aircraft based on variable rotor-wing technology and dual rotor-wing layout according to claim 1, wherein
the central power system provides power for the dual rotor-wing system and the forward flying propulsion device, and is composed of a main power device and a transmission device (Gaonjur, figure 3, items 11 and 14, engine and transmission);
the main power device generates most of energy for the aircraft, and can be selected from the internal combustion engine,
Regarding claim 10 (as best understood), Gaonjur discloses the vertical take-off and landing aircraft based on variable rotor-wing technology and dual rotor-wing layout according to claim 2, wherein
when the aircraft is in the rotor wing configuration, the lifting fuselage is in a vertical state along downstream flow, rotor disk planes of the two sets of dual blade variable rotor-wing are kept
horizontal but the rotation directions are opposite (Gaonjur, ¶33, rotors are counter rotating), a rotating shaft is mutually overlapped and pass through a centre of gravity of the entire aircraft (Gaonjur, ¶41, center of gravity located in alignment with the center of lift which is located along the shaft between the rotors), thus forming a coaxial dual rotor-wing tail-pushing layout with the forward flying propulsion device (Gaonjur, figure 1).
Regarding claim 11 (as best understood), Gaonjur discloses the vertical take-off and landing aircraft based on variable rotor-wing technology and dual rotor-wing layout according to claim 2, wherein
when the aircraft is in the fixed wing configuration, the lifting fuselage is in a horizontal state along downstream flow, two sets of dual blade variable rotor-wing are located on a left end and a right end of the lifting fuselage and are in mirror symmetry relative to the central symmetry plane of the lifting fuselage, wing blades of each set of the dual blade variable rotor-wing are kept horizontal and in front-rear tandem arrangement, and forms a front-rear tandem rotor-wing layout with the lifting fuselage (Gaonjur, figure 1, wings from a tandem configuration and are mirrored on opposite ends of the fuselage).
Regarding claim 12 (as best understood), Gaonjur discloses the vertical take-off and landing aircraft based on variable rotor-wing technology and dual rotor-wing layout according to claim 2, wherein
when the aircraft is in the transition flight state, the dual blade variable rotor-wings are in coordinated linkage with the lifting fuselage through the wing-fuselage connecting mechanism (Gaonjur, figure 1, items 104 and 105, rotor wings are linked to the fuselage);
wherein the lifting fuselage can laterally roll by 90 degrees around a speed direction of the aircraft, and switch between the horizontal state along downstream flow and the vertical state along downstream flow, and maintain in the horizontal state along downstream flow for most of the time to generate all lift required by level flight; the dual blade variable rotor-wing rapidly switch the rotor-wing configuration in a mode of completely unloading aerodynamic force under assistance of the wing-fuselage connecting mechanism (Gaonjur, figures 1-2, items 102 and 103, rotors can transition between rotary configuration and fixed wing configuration).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaonjur (US 20140312177 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Groninga (US 20180057161 A1).
Regarding claim 3 (as best understood), Gaonjur discloses the vertical take-off and landing aircraft based on variable rotor-wing technology and dual rotor-wing layout according to claim 1, wherein
the main aerodynamic wing surface adopts dual blade variable rotor-wing design, and can be switched between the rotor wing configuration and the fixed wing configuration with the variation of the forward flight speed of the aircraft;
when the main aerodynamic wing surface is switched to the rotor wing configuration, each group of the dual blade variable rotor-wing carries out cyclic pitch variation through a teetering of the rotor hub (Gaonjur, ¶42, cyclic control of the rotors), except:
on basis of the dual blade rotor-wing, a variable sweep angle device capable of independently adjusting sweep angle is provided at a connection between each wing blade and a rotor hub, and a dual blade variable rotor-wing is formed; a leading-trailing ends asymmetric wing section shape is adopted, and a wing blade collective pitch adjusting device is arranged on an outer side of a variable sweep angle device of each of the dual blade variable rotor-wing.
Groninga (US 20180057161 A1) teaches on basis of the dual blade rotor-wing, a variable sweep angle device capable of independently adjusting sweep angle is provided at a connection between each wing blade and a rotor hub, and a dual blade variable rotor-wing is formed; a leading-trailing ends asymmetric wing section shape is adopted, and a wing blade collective pitch adjusting device is arranged on an outer side of a variable sweep angle device of each of the dual blade variable rotor-wing (Groninga, figure 1a-c, items 22 and 24, rotor blades/wing can have sweep adjusted).
Gaonjur and Groninga are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rotor/wings of Gaonjur with the sweep adjustment of Groninga with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the effective mach number of the rotors/wings.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaonjur (US 20140312177 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yogev (US 20130020432 A1).
Regarding claim 5 (as best understood), Gaonjur discloses the vertical take-off and landing aircraft based on variable rotor-wing technology and dual rotor-wing layout according to claim 1,
wherein a shape of the lifting fuselage is similar to a flying wing with small aspect ratio (Gaonjur, figure 1, fuselage provides lift and has an aspect ratio);
the lifting fuselage can laterally roll by 90 degrees around a speed direction of the aircraft in the transition flight state, except:
wherein two sets of fuselage spoiler are lateral-symmetrically arranged on a lower surface;
Yogev (US 20130020432 A1) teaches a shape of the lifting fuselage is similar to a flying wing with small aspect ratio (Yogev, ¶88, aircraft can be a flying wing), two sets of fuselage spoiler are lateral-symmetrically arranged on a lower surface (Yogev, figure 2a, item 222b, spoilers on lower surface); the lifting fuselage can laterally roll by 90 degrees around a speed direction of the aircraft in the transition flight state.
Gaonjur and Yogev are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lower surface of Gaonjur with the spoilers of Yogev with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce airspeed for landing/low speed flight.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaonjur (US 20140312177 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kövesdi (US 10443565 B2).
Regarding claim 9 (as best understood), Gaonjur discloses the vertical take-off and landing aircraft based on variable rotor-wing technology and dual rotor-wing layout according to claim 1, wherein
the take-off and landing auxiliary device is rigidly connected with a mechanism device in a belly portion of the lifting fuselage through an extended mechanical arm to support the aircraft in the apron parking status.
Kövesdi (US 10443565 B2) teaches a take-off and landing auxiliary device which is rigidly connected with a mechanism device in a belly portion of the lifting fuselage through an extended mechanical arm to support the aircraft in the apron parking status (Kövesdi, figure 11, items 20 and 300, arm attaches to a portion of fuselage, including the underside of the fuselage to support the aircraft).
Gaonjur and Kövesdi are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lower surface of Gaonjur with the takeoff and landing auxiliary device of Kövesdi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to enable landing without a large footprint and/or reduce the amount of infrastructure required for a landing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Holle (US 1115073 A) teaches a jointed wing similar to a bird wing which can vary wing sweep
Bass (US 20040056144 A1) teaches a tandem wing with turbofan propeller
Petrov (US 20180312251 A1) teaches a vtol aircraft with folding wings
Bradshaw (US 11760511 B1) teaches a docking device for a uav attached to the underside of the fuselage
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642