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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species V, as represented by a variable-pitch rotor may be part of a coaxial rotor pair, wherein one or both of the rotors in the pair is variable (paragraph [0073] of the specification) in the reply filed on July 21, 2025 is acknowledged.
Pending claims 1-24 read on the elected species.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 11/22/2023, 02/25/2025, and 08/22/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed on 08/22/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because it does not include any identifying document number for the Non-Patent Literature Document 1, which is only listed as “PATENT COOPERATION TREATY, International Preliminary Examination Report on Patentability, 29 April 2025, pp 1-6.”
Therefore, the information referred to in Non-Patent Literature Document 1 has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate both the coaxial rotor pair assembly, and the collective pitch adjustment mechanism.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “28” has been used to designate both the bearing cage and the frame.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “32” has been used to designate both the horizontal thrusters and the controller.
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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code in paragraph 3, the last line. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
In paragraph 49, line 3, “22,” should be changed to -- 22), --.
In paragraph 60, line 9, “?” should be changed to -- . --.
In paragraph 60, line 14, “allow” should be changed to -- allows --.
In paragraph 60, line 14, “angle .Each” should be changed to -- angle. Each --.
In paragraph 63, line 2, “14.In” should be changed to -- 14. In --.
In paragraph 72, “10” has been used to designate both the coaxial rotor pair assembly, and the collective pitch adjustment mechanism (already used throughout the specification), which are different elements.
In paragraph 72, “28” has been used to designate the frame, which was already used to designate the bearing cage.
In paragraph 74, “32” has been used to designate the horizontal thrusters, which was already used to designate the controller.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9 and 12-24 are objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
In claims 2-9, line 1, “mechanism” should be changed to -- collective pitch adjustment mechanism --.
In claims 11-24, line 1, “vehicle” should be changed to -- flight vehicle --.
In claim 24, the last line, -- a -- should be inserted before “pitch”.
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:
“mounting portions” (claims 1, 7-10, and 18-20).
“a securement device” (claims 2 and 11).
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.
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 1, 3-4, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either (CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1) in view Holly et al. 2017/0057628.
CN 112319762A (note the attached English machine translation) or LU 500581B1 disclose a collective pitch adjustment mechanism for a variable-pitch rotor substantially as claimed, the variable pitch rotor comprising a plurality of blades 101d configured for rotation about a rotor axis, said mechanism comprising: an actuator 103a for varying a collective pitch of the plurality of blades of said variable-pitch rotor via a pushrod 103f, the actuator comprising a an actuator arm 103d that is configured for rotation and the actuator arm being connected to the pushrod via a joint to cause movement of the pushrod; a bearing cage comprising mounting portions 101b for securement of each blade thereto and an actuation horn 103c rotationally coupled to the pushrod, each of the plurality of blades being rotationally and translationally coupled to the actuation horn via the mounting portions; wherein, for varying the collective pitch of the plurality of blades of each variable-pitch rotor, the actuator is configured to cause rotational movement of the actuator arm, which in turn is configured to cause translational movement of the pushrod via the joint, and the pushrod is configured to cause linear movement of the actuation horn to thereby collectively cause a collective change in a pitch angle of all of the plurality of blades (claim 1).
An intermediate arm 103e is rotationally connected to the servo actuator arm at a first end and rotationally coupled to the pushrod at a second end thereof, such that, as the actuator arm rotates, the intermediate arm is configured to rotate at each of the first end and the second end, thereby causing the translational movement of the pushrod (claim 3).
The mounting portions are provided in the form of blade grips that secure a radially inner root of each respective blade therebetween and centripetally with regards to the bearing cage (claim 4).
Intermediate linkage arms 103b are between the mounting portions 101b and the actuation horn 103c, wherein the pushrod is configured to cause linear movement of the actuation horn and wherein said linear movement results in a collective change in a pitch angle of all of the plurality of blades, by converting via the intermediate linkage arms, said linear movement to rotational movement of the mounting portions (claim 7).
The bearing cage includes an even number (four) of mounting portions (claim 9).
Note the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
661
996
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1 do not explicitly disclose that the actuator is a servo actuator (claim 1). The definition of a servo actuator is a device that uses a feedback system to control and move a mechanical system, which takes an input signal, converts it into mechanical motion (linear or rotary), and uses a sensor to continuously monitor the output and correct any errors to ensure it reaches and maintains the commanded position, speed, or torque.
CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1 also do not disclose that the bearing cage includes an odd number of blade mounting portions (claim 8).
Holly et al. shows an unmanned aerial vehicle or aircraft, for example a helicopter 100 having variable pitch rotor blades 106, and servo actuators 184, 188, which provide for precise variable pitch control of the blades. There are three blades 106, each with a pair of mounting portions, as a number of blades and mounting portions which provide for acceptable performance.
Note the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
726
876
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to replace the actuator 103a of either CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1 with a servo actuator, as taught by Holly et al., for the purpose of providing for precise variable pitch control of the blades.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form either CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1 such that the bearing cage includes an odd number of blade mounting portions and with an odd number of blades, as taught by Holly et al., as a number of blades and mounting portions which provide for acceptable performance.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either (CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1) and Holly et al. 2017/0057628 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of CN 114148507A.
The modified collective pitch adjustment mechanism of either (CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1) shows all of the claimed subject matter including each blade grip comprises: a stem 101c pointing inwards towards the rotor axis of rotation for connection to the bearing cage via a rotary bearing (page 5, lines 20-23 of CN 112319762A and page 5, lines 6-9 of LU 500581B), and a pitch arm 101e extending away from a longitudinal axis of the respective blade, wherein each pitch arm is rotationally and translationally coupled to the actuation horn via a bearing assembly, inherently formed between arms 103b and each pitch arm 101e.
However, the modified collective pitch adjustment mechanism of either (CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1) does not show that each stem is for connection to the bearing cage via thrust bearings.
CN 114148507A (note the attached English machine translation) shows a variable pitch propeller with variable pitch blades 503, each having a stem 504 mounted to a bearing cage 501, 502 via a thrust bearing 506 and a ball bearing 507, for the purpose of accommodating for thrust in the variable pitch blades.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified collective pitch adjustment mechanism of either CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1 such that each stem is for connection to the bearing cage via thrust bearings, as taught by CN 114148507A, for the purpose of accommodating for thrust in the variable pitch blades.
Claims 10, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein et al. 10,836,467 in view of either (CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1) and Holly et al. 2017/0057628.
Klein et al. discloses a flight vehicle 102 substantially a claimed, comprising: a frame 106; a plurality of rotors 104 mounted to the frame, each of the plurality of rotors comprising a plurality of blades 502 extending in a radial direction; a drive motor 602 associated with each rotor for driving a respective rotor shaft about a rotor axis that extends in an axial direction; at least one of the plurality of rotors comprising a variable-pitch rotor (column 5, lines 4-29); and a controller 1502, 1506 configured to drive each motor and to initiate varying a collective pitch of the plurality of blades of each variable-pitch rotor, and a cage 612 connected to the respective drive motor of each variable-pitch rotor, the cage comprising mounting portions at 612 for securement of each blade thereto (claim 10).
The mounting portions 612 are provided in the form of blade grips that secure a radially inner root of each respective blade therebetween and centripetally with regards to the cage (claim 15).
The variable-pitch rotor has an odd number of blades (three) and the cage includes an odd number of mounting portions (three) (claim 19).
The vehicle comprises an even number of rotors (four or eight) (claim 21).
A diameter of the plurality of blades is constant, and the controller is configured to vary the collective pitch of the plurality of blades to increase pitch angle of the plurality of blades at a constant thrust level (column 5, lines 60-67, for example) (claim 24).
Note the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
494
694
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Klein et al. does not disclose a servo actuator for varying the collective pitch of the plurality of blades via a pushrod as a result of being initiated by the controller, the servo actuator comprising a servo actuator arm that is configured for rotation and the servo actuator arm being connected to the pushrod via a joint to cause movement of the pushrod; the cage being a bearing cage, the bearing cage comprising an actuation horn rotationally coupled to the pushrod, each of the plurality of blades being rotationally and/or translationally coupled to the actuation horn via the mounting portions; wherein, for varying the collective pitch of the plurality of blades of each variable-pitch rotor, the servo actuator is configured to cause rotational movement of the servo actuator arm, which in turn is configured to cause translational movement of the pushrod via the joint, and the pushrod is configured to cause linear movement of the actuation horn to thereby collectively cause a collective change in a pitch angle of all of the plurality of blades (claim 10), does not disclose an intermediate servo arm is rotationally connected to the servo actuator arm at a first end and rotationally coupled to the pushrod at a second end thereof, such that, as the servo actuator arm rotates, the intermediate servo arm is configured to rotate at each of the first end and the second end, thereby causing the translational movement of the pushrod (claim 12), and does not disclose intermediate linkage arms are between the blades and the actuation horn, wherein the pushrod is configured to cause linear movement of the actuation horn and wherein said linear movement results in a collective change in a pitch angle of all of the plurality of blades, by converting via the intermediate linkage arms, said linear movement to rotational movement of the mounting portions (claim 18).
CN 112319762A (note the attached English machine translation) or LU 500581B1 show a collective pitch adjustment mechanism for a variable-pitch rotor, the variable pitch rotor comprising a plurality of blades 101d configured for rotation about a rotor axis, said mechanism comprising: an actuator 103a for varying a collective pitch of the plurality of blades of said variable-pitch rotor via a pushrod 103f, the actuator comprising a an actuator arm 103d that is configured for rotation and the actuator arm being connected to the pushrod via a joint to cause movement of the pushrod; a bearing cage comprising mounting portions 101b for securement of each blade thereto and an actuation horn 103c rotationally coupled to the pushrod, each of the plurality of blades being rotationally and translationally coupled to the actuation horn via the mounting portions; wherein, for varying the collective pitch of the plurality of blades of each variable-pitch rotor, the actuator is configured to cause rotational movement of the actuator arm, which in turn is configured to cause translational movement of the pushrod via the joint, and the pushrod is configured to cause linear movement of the actuation horn to thereby collectively cause a collective change in a pitch angle of all of the plurality of blades.
An intermediate arm 103e is rotationally connected to the servo actuator arm at a first end and rotationally coupled to the pushrod at a second end thereof, such that, as the actuator arm rotates, the intermediate arm is configured to rotate at each of the first end and the second end, thereby causing the translational movement of the pushrod.
The mounting portions are provided in the form of blade grips that secure a radially inner root of each respective blade therebetween and centripetally with regards to the bearing cage.
Intermediate linkage arms 103b are between the mounting portions 101b and the actuation horn 103c, wherein the pushrod is configured to cause linear movement of the actuation horn and wherein said linear movement results in a collective change in a pitch angle of all of the plurality of blades, by converting via the intermediate linkage arms, said linear movement to rotational movement of the mounting portions.
The arrangement is provided for the purpose of providing a variable pitch adjusting mechanism in a bearing cage with simple and reliable structure and high control efficiency.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form/replace the rotors of Klein et al. such that they are in the form of rotors having an actuator for varying the collective pitch of the plurality of blades via a pushrod as a result of being initiated by the controller, the actuator comprising an actuator arm that is configured for rotation and the actuator arm being connected to the pushrod via a joint to cause movement of the pushrod; the cage being a bearing cage, the bearing cage comprising an actuation horn rotationally coupled to the pushrod, each of the plurality of blades being rotationally and translationally coupled to the actuation horn via the mounting portions; wherein, for varying the collective pitch of the plurality of blades of each variable-pitch rotor, the actuator is configured to cause rotational movement of the actuator arm, which in turn is configured to cause translational movement of the pushrod via the joint, and the pushrod is configured to cause linear movement of the actuation horn to thereby collectively cause a collective change in a pitch angle of all of the plurality of blades, with an intermediate arm that is rotationally connected to the actuator arm at a first end and rotationally coupled to the pushrod at a second end thereof, such that, as the servo actuator arm rotates, the intermediate servo arm is configured to rotate at each of the first end and the second end, thereby causing the translational movement of the pushrod, and such that it includes intermediate linkage arms between the blades and the actuation horn, wherein the pushrod is configured to cause linear movement of the actuation horn and wherein said linear movement results in a collective change in a pitch angle of all of the plurality of blades, by converting via the intermediate linkage arms, said linear movement to rotational movement of the mounting portions, as taught by either CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1, for the purpose of providing a variable pitch adjusting mechanism in a bearing cage with simple and reliable structure and high control efficiency.
The modified flight vehicle of Klein et al shows all of the claimed subject matter but does not explicitly show that the actuator is a servo actuator. The definition of a servo actuator is a device that uses a feedback system to control and move a mechanical system, which takes an input signal, converts it into mechanical motion (linear or rotary), and uses a sensor to continuously monitor the output and correct any errors to ensure it reaches and maintains the commanded position, speed, or torque.
Holly et al. shows an unmanned aerial vehicle or aircraft, for example a helicopter 100 having variable pitch rotor blades 106, and servo actuators 184, 188, which provide for precise variable pitch control of the blades.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to replace the actuator 103a of either CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1 with a servo actuator, as taught by Holly et al., for the purpose of providing for precise variable pitch control of the blades.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein et al. 10,836,467 and either (CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1) and Holly et al. 2017/0057628 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of CN 114148507A.
The modified flight vehicle of Klein et al. shows all of the claimed subject matter including each blade grip comprises: a stem 101c pointing inwards towards the rotor axis of rotation for connection to the bearing cage via a rotary bearing (page 5, lines 20-23 of CN 112319762A and page 5, lines 6-9 of LU 500581B, and a pitch arm 101e extending away from a longitudinal axis of the respective blade, wherein each pitch arm is rotationally and translationally coupled to the actuation horn via a bearing assembly, inherently formed between arms 103b and each pitch arm 101e.
However, the modified flight vehicle of Klein et al. does not show that each stem is for connection to the bearing cage via thrust bearings.
CN 114148507A (note the attached English machine translation) shows a variable pitch propeller with variable pitch blades 503, each having a stem 504 mounted to a bearing cage 501, 502 via a thrust bearing 506 and a ball bearing 507, for the purpose of accommodating for thrust in the variable pitch blades.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified flight vehicle of Klein et al. such that each stem is for connection to the bearing cage via thrust bearings, as taught by CN 114148507A, for the purpose of accommodating for thrust in the variable pitch blades.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein et al. 10,836,467 and either (CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1) and Holly et al. 2017/0057628 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of CN 114148507A.
The modified flight vehicle of Klein et al. shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the variable-pitch rotor has an even number of blades and the bearing cage includes an even number of mounting portions.
However, CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1 teach that the variable-pitch rotor has an even number of blades 101d and the bearing cage includes an even number of mounting portions 101b, as a number of blades and mounting portions which provide for acceptable performance.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified flight vehicle of Klein et al. such that the variable-pitch rotor has an even number of blades and the bearing cage includes an even number of mounting portions, as taught be either CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1, as a number of blades and mounting portions which provide for acceptable performance.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein et al. 10,836,467 and either (CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1) and Holly et al. 2017/0057628 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kim et al. 11,021,844.
The modified flight vehicle of Klein et al. shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the vehicle comprises an odd number of rotors.
Kim et al. shows a flight driven vehicle 100 having a frame 110 with three rotors 200 attached thereto, as a number of rotors which provide for acceptable performance.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified flight vehicle of Klein et al. such that the vehicle comprises three of rotors, as taught by Kim et al., as a number of rotors which provide for acceptable performance.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein et al. 10,836,467 and either (CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1) and Holly et al. 2017/0057628 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lee et al. 2019/0337607.
The modified flight vehicle of Klein et al. shows all of the claimed subject matter except for the plurality of rotors of the vehicle comprises at least one coaxial rotor pair comprising a fixed-pitch rotor and a variable-pitch rotor, the fixed-pitch rotor and the variable-pitch rotor being axially spaced relative to one another on a rotor axis and axially aligned along said rotor axis for rotation, each of the fixed-pitch rotor and the variable-pitch rotor comprising a number of blades extending in a radial direction, and wherein the servo actuator and pushrod are connected to blades of the variable-pitch rotor.
Lee et al. shows a flight vehicle 100 having plurality of rotors which comprises at least one coaxial rotor pair comprising a fixed-pitch rotor 310, 320 and a variable-pitch rotor 330,340, the fixed-pitch rotor and the variable-pitch rotor being axially spaced relative to one another on a rotor axis and axially aligned along said rotor axis for rotation, each of the fixed-pitch rotor and the variable-pitch rotor comprising a number of blades extending in a radial direction (paragraphs [0134] and [0135], for example), for the purpose of providing a desired flight control.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified flight vehicle of Klein et al. such that the plurality of rotors of the vehicle comprises at least one coaxial rotor pair comprising a fixed-pitch rotor and a variable-pitch rotor, the fixed-pitch rotor and the variable-pitch rotor being axially spaced relative to one another on a rotor axis and axially aligned along said rotor axis for rotation, each of the fixed-pitch rotor and the variable-pitch rotor comprising a number of blades extending in a radial direction, as taught by Lee et al., for the purpose of providing a desired flight control. This modification results in the servo actuator and pushrod are connected to blades of the variable-pitch rotor.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 112722245A is cited to show a propeller with an odd number of blades and an odd number of blade mounting portions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6, 11, 13-14, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 2, the closest art of record is the combination of either (CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1) in view of Holly et al. 2017/0057628, which shows a collective pitch mechanism substantially as claimed as set forth above with regard to claim 1, but does not show that the servo actuator arm comprises a slot that receives a securement device that is coupled to the pushrod, such that, as the servo actuator arm rotates via action of the servo actuator, the securement device moves linearly with respect to the rotor axis of the variable-pitch rotor and slides within the slot of the servo actuator arm, thereby causing the translational movement of the pushrod, without binding in the servo actuator arm.
With regard to claim 6, the closest art of record is the combination of either (CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1) and Holly et al. 2017/0057628 and CN 114148507A, which shows a collective pitch mechanism substantially as claimed as set forth above with regard to claim 5, but does not show that each pitch arm comprises a slot for receipt and movement of the bushing or bearing assembly therein, such that movement of the bushing or bearing assemblies within the slots of the pitch arms causes the collective change in the pitch angle of all of the plurality of blades.
With regard to claim 11, the closest art of record is the combination of Klein et al. 10, 836,467 in view of either (CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1) and Holly et al. 2017/0057628, which shows a collective pitch mechanism substantially as claimed as set forth above with regard to claim 10, but does not show that the servo actuator arm comprises a slot that receives a securement device that is coupled to the pushrod, such that, as the servo actuator arm rotates via action of the servo actuator, the securement device moves linearly with respect to the rotor axis of the variable-pitch rotor and slides within the slot of the servo actuator arm, thereby causing the translational movement of the pushrod, without binding in the servo actuator arm.
With regard to claim 13, the closest art of record is the combination of Klein et al. 10, 836,467 in view of either (CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1) and Holly et al. 2017/0057628, which shows a collective pitch mechanism substantially as claimed as set forth above with regard to claim 10, where the modified servo actuator 103a is positioned relatively below the drive motor 102a, with a portion of the variable-pitch rotor positioned relatively above the drive motor, but does not show that the pushrod passes through the drive motor from the servo actuator. Attempting to modify the combination such that the pushrod 103f passes through the drive motor 102a from the servo actuator, would destroy the operability of either (CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1), as the collective pitch mechanism would not be capable of moving.
Claim 14 is objected to by virtue of dependency on objected to claim 13
With regard to claim 17, the closest art of record is the combination of Klein et al. 10, 836,467 in view of either (CN 112319762A or LU 500581B1) and Holly et al. 2017/0057628 and further in view of CN 114148507A, which shows a collective pitch mechanism substantially as claimed as set forth above with regard to claim 16, but does not show that each pitch arm comprises a slot for receipt and movement of the bushing or bearing assembly therein, such that movement of the bushing or bearing assemblies within the slots of the pitch arms causes the collective change in the pitch angle of all of the plurality of blades.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Verdier whose telephone number is (571)272-4824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 571-270-3508. 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.
/Christopher Verdier/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745