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 .
Status of the Claims
This first non-final action is in response to applicant's original filing on May 29, 2024. 2-21 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the Examiner may require and is requiring descriptive text labels. Specifically, the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels (see Fig. 17) [MPEP 608.02(b) examiner note].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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: “a rates calculation module” in claims 9, 11-12, 16-7; “an attitude calculation module” in claims 10-13, 16-17; “a rate calculation module” and “an attitude calculation module” in claim 20.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 2-7, 9-13, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yoeli (US 20070034734 A1 ) in view of Didey (US 20200317332Al)
Regarding claim 2, Yoeli teaches a multirotor aircraft (Fig. 17-21), comprising
a fuselage (Fig. 20);
a plurality of rotors attached to the fuselage (Fig. 20, [0010]-[0011], Other types of VTOL vehicles have used a multitude of smaller rotors or propellers, usually two or sometimes four, mounted at the tip of a wing or tandem wings, and having the ability to be oriented vertically for obtaining VTOL and then the ability to be tilted forward in a manner similar to fixed wing aircraft for providing thrust while the wing(s) provide(s) lift. These vehicles are often termed “tilt-rotor”. Some of these VTOL vehicles have used circular ducts surrounding the rotors or propellers to achieve the previously mentioned advantages possible with a duct, while retaining the tilting capability of the “tilt-rotor”. Such vehicles are often termed “tilt-duct”.) ; and
a plurality of separately operating flight controller units, each flight controller unit comprising a respective inertial measurement unit (IMU) (Fig. 40, [0159]Operation of the control system of FIG. 40 is now described with respect to control of the vehicle inertial and other sensors. In the system of FIG. 40, four separate inertial position, rate and acceleration, altitude and airspeed sensors (IMU) are installed. Each IMU is connected to a different computer within its respective group );
While Yoeli controller Com1-Com 4 control Rotor1 and Rotor 2 ([0130] Control of the blades pitch angle on both main lift rotors Rl, R2, [0157]-[0159]), Yoeli does not explicitly teach but Didey teaches the specific limitations of wherein each of the rotors is separately controlled by a respective flight control unit, based on measurements from the flight control unit's respective IMU ([0229] The motors M1 to MS are in this embodiment distributed evenly between the forward and aft wings and the ESC (electronic speed controllers) required to control each motor may be located inside the wings if space permits, in order to reduce wire count and wire length, or within the fuselage if the wings are too small).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, VTOL flight control, as taught by Yoeli, each of the rotors being separately controlled by a respective flight control unit, as taught by Didey, as Yoeli and Didey are directed to VTOL control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using each of the rotors being separately controlled by a respective flight control unit to improve control reliability ( failure of any group(s) still leaves at least rest power available for controlling the directional vanes of the remaining groups).
Regarding claim 19, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Yoeli teaches wherein each of the plurality of flight controller units receives measurements from the respective IMU of each other flight controller unit (Fig. 40 and [0157]-[0159] ).
Regarding claim 4, Yoeli teaches wherein the flight controller units share IMU data, such that each flight controller unit has access to an estimated overall current aircraft flight state ([0157]It will be appreciated that in the event of a "hardover" failure, where the vanes in a group move to a position fully opposite the desired position, then all of the vanes of a second group will be required to cancel the effect of the first group, leaving the vanes of the third and fourth groups to provide flight control sufficient to safely land the vehicle).
Regarding claim 5, Yoeli teaches wherein each flight controller unit issues commands targeted to bring about a same overall aircraft flight state, based on said estimated overall current aircraft flight state (Fig. 40, each group control ¼ main rotor ).
Regarding claim 6, Yoeli teaches wherein each flight controller unit is configured to issue commands modified by changes in its own IMU measurements relative to a description of overall aircraft flight state, and wherein the modification comprises an adjustment in response to one or both of strut and airframe flexing of the multirotor aircraft ([0157] It will be appreciated that in the event of a "hardover" failure, where the vanes in a group move to a position fully opposite the desired position, then all of the vanes of a second group will be required to cancel the effect of the first group, leaving the vanes of the third and fourth groups to provide flight control sufficient to safely land the vehicle).
Regarding claim 7, Yoeli teaches wherein each of the plurality of flight controller units is configured to issue commands that take into account how other control units are likely to react ([0157] It will be appreciated that in the event of a "hardover" failure, where the vanes in a group move to a position fully opposite the desired position, then all of the vanes of a second group will be required to cancel the effect of the first group, leaving the vanes of the third and fourth groups to provide flight control sufficient to safely land the vehicle).
Regarding claim 9, Yoeli teaches wherein each flight controller comprises a rates calculation module for performing rates calculation based on a flight measurement data received from the respective IMU ([0152]-[0160]).
Regarding claim 10, Yoeli teaches wherein each flight controller comprises an attitude calculation module for performing attitude calculation based on a flight measurement data received from the respective IMU (Fig. 40 [0159] four separate inertial position, rate and acceleration, altitude and airspeed sensors (IMU) are installed. Each IMU is connected to a different computer within its respective group).
Regarding claim 11, Yoeli teaches wherein the rates calculation module and the attitude calculation module are configured to give preference to data of the respective IMU, but use comparisons with other available data from IMU of other flight controller units to validate said data of the respective IMU([0138], [0149][0146]).
Regarding claim 12, Yoeli teaches wherein the rates calculation module and the attitude calculation module are configured to give preference to data of the respective IMU during more dynamic flight periods([0138], [0146]).
Regarding claim 13, Yoeli teaches wherein the attitude calculation module is configured to ignore input from the respective IMU or input from another IMU, wherein said data is found to give unreasonable differences from a consensus of data from other IMUs([0138], [0146]).
Regarding claim 18, Yoeli teaches comprises a plurality of motor assemblies, each configured to generate thrust by movement of air past the motor assembly along a respective axis of thrust of the motor assembly (Fig. 40, [0023] as determined by vane adjustment and/or blade pitch and/or prime mover speed control, etc. for both the main lift fan propellers and the pusher or thrust propellers. In some instances, blade pitch adjustment may be controlled by just two groups such that each group controls ¼ of the directional vane adjustments and/or two of the groups may each control ½ of the blade pitch adjustments.), wherein each motor assembly comprises a rotor of said plurality of rotors; and
a wing (Figs, 28a-28d);
wherein: the orientations of the axes of thrust are each fixed, during operation of the aircraft, at a constant respective pitch angle oblique to a pitch orientation of the wing ([0130] –[0132] Control of the blades pitch angle on both main lift rotors Rl, R2 );
the plurality of motor assemblies is operable together to both fully support the aircraft in a hovering mode, and to propel the aircraft forward in a forward flight mode (claim 33 VTOL aircraft also has at least one forward force generating propeller with plural control inputs that are connected for control by different respective ones of said control subsystems); and
each motor assembly is positioned where the wing does not intersect the flow of air before entering or after leaving the motor assembly in a direction along the respective axis of thrust, within a radius of the motor assembly ([0111] Each of the stub wings 120a, 120b is actuated by an actuator 130a, 130b driven by a hydraulic or electrical motor (not shown)).
Regarding claim 20, Yoeli teaches, please see the rejection above with respect to claims 9-13.
Regarding claim 21, Yoeli teaches outputting flight measurement data to other flight controllers ([0146] The subsystems within each group may share one or more computers using conventional control rules to compute the control outputs ).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yoeli (US 20070034734 A1 ) in view of Didey (US 20200317332Al) in view of Pham (US 20050045762 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Yoeli as modified by Didey does not explicitly teach but Pham teaches wherein the plurality of rotors are configured to provide watchdog signals to each other indicating their continuing functional status ([0051] the onboard microcomputer can be assigned the task of monitor the rotational speed of the feathered main rotor and to adjust the pitch to compensate for change in rotational speed in order to avoid decay in rotational speed that can lead to blade instability at too slow a rotational speed. When the airspeed of the aircraft decreases, the main rotor blade pitch should be accordingly increased in order to maintain a rotational speed conducive to blade stability and integrity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, VTOL flight control, as taught by Yoeli as modified by Didey, watchdog signals for rotors, as taught by Pham, as Yoeli, Pham and Didey are directed to VTOL control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using watchdog signals for rotors to improve control reliability and safety.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yoeli (US 20070034734 A1 ) in view of Didey (US 20200317332Al) in view of Wang (US20170045892)
Regarding claim 14, Yoeli as modified by Didey does not explicitly teach but Wang teaches comprising one or both of a central controller and a central IMU (primary controller 104 and IM sensor A1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, VTOL flight control, as taught by Yoeli as modified by Didey, a central controller and a central IMU, as taught by Wang, as Yoeli, Wang and Didey are directed to VTOL control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using a central controller and a central IMU to provide unified control.
Regarding claim 15, wherein the central controller receives input from the plurality of flight controller units, calculates an estimated overall current aircraft flight state and distributes the estimated overall current aircraft flight state back to the plurality of flight controller units (Wang, [0026] The control module 102 may determine the validity of the measurement results received from the sensors, and further determine which measurement result can be used for the flight control of the UAV. the primary controller 104 is used to determine the validity of the measurement results from the first set of sensors, and the secondary controller 106 is used to determine the validity of the measurement results from the second set of sensors. Furthermore, the primary controller 104 and the secondary controller 106 may communicate with each other regarding the validity determination of the measurement results from the two sets of sensors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, VTOL flight control, as taught by Yoeli as modified by Didey, a central controller and a central IMU, as taught by Wang, as Yoeli, Wang and Didey are directed to VTOL control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using a central controller and a central IMU to provide unified control.
Regarding claim 16, Yoeli as modified by Didey does not explicitly teach but Wang teaches wherein the central controller receives input from the plurality of flight controller units, calculates an estimated overall current aircraft flight state and distributes the estimated overall current aircraft flight state back to the plurality of flight controller units (Wang, [0026] The control module 102 may determine the validity of the measurement results received from the sensors, and further determine which measurement result can be used for the flight control of the UAV. the primary controller 104 is used to determine the validity of the measurement results from the first set of sensors, and the secondary controller 106 is used to determine the validity of the measurement results from the second set of sensors. Furthermore, the primary controller 104 and the secondary controller 106 may communicate with each other regarding the validity determination of the measurement results from the two sets of sensors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, VTOL flight control, as taught by Yoeli as modified by Didey, a central controller and a central IMU, as taught by Wang, as Yoeli, Wang and Didey are directed to VTOL control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using a central controller and a central IMU to provide unified control.
Regarding claim 17, Yoeli as modified by Didey does not explicitly teach but Wang teaches wherein the rates calculation module and the attitude calculation module are configured to select to rely on said central controller depending on the pattern of failure detected ( Wang [0023]the primary controller 104 may have more functionality than the secondary controller 106; [0037] the primary controller 104 may determine the validity of the measurement results from both the first and second sets of sensors, wherein the measurement results from the second set of sensors are transmitted to the primary controller 104 immediately after it is collected by the secondary controller 106 without processing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, VTOL flight control, as taught by Yoeli as modified by Didey, a central controller and a central IMU, as taught by Wang, as Yoeli, Wang and Didey are directed to VTOL control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using a central controller and a central IMU to provide unified control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm EST.
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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 86-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100.
/J.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666