DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Restriction
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 February 2025 stating “The examiner must provide a clear and detailed record or the restriction requirement to provide a clear demarcation between restricted inventions so that it can be determined whether inventions claimed in a divisional application are consonant with the restriction requirement and therefore subject to the prohibition against double patenting rejections.” M.P.E.P. § 814 (emphasis in original). “In setting forth the restriction requirement, separate inventions should be identified by a grouping of the claims with a short description of the total extent of the invention claimed in each group, specifying the type or relationship of each group as by stating the group is drawn to a process, or to a subcombination, or to a product, etc., and should indicate the classification or separate status of each group, as for example, by class and subclass… Examiner has not explained how these species are claimed independently or distinctly, nor which claims are meant to encompass the separate species. As such, Applicant respectfully suggests, the Restriction does not meet the burden set forth in M.P.E.P. §§ 815 and 817” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that the aforementioned passage in MPEP 814 is included under the heading “II. INVENTIONS OTHER THAN SPECIES” and that the “grouping” requirements described in MPEP 817 pertain to groups of inventions (not species; the previous restriction requirement was directed towards species). Form paragraph 8.01, which was included in the election/restriction requirement, states “Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include… (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species”. Accordingly, the burden is on Applicant to identify the claims in a species restriction requirement.
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 February 2025 stating “Applicant respectfully submits that the figures do not show distinctly claimed embodiments” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that the listing of Figures on page 18, at the least, indicates that Figures 1, 3, and 5 represent distinct embodiments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 February 2025 stating “For example, the difference between the embodiment shown in FIG. 3 relative to the embodiment shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 is merely that “first and second gear 22, 24” are “contemplated and illustrated as being operationally coupled to first and second length of mast 34, 54, respectively” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that a comparison of Figures 2 and 3 shows that the implementation of the aforementioned variation results in notable differing structural relationships - e.g., the positioning of elements 38 relative to element 26, element 22, element 24, element 34, and/or element 54.
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 February 2025 stating “It would be highly problematic for the Office to hold that individual “gears” comprising a “gear assembly” should each constitute patentably distinct inventions absent some material alteration in output directly attributable to some novel configuration” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that the species requirement has been made properly with sufficient justification being provided by the disclosure (Figures 1, 3, and 5 are indicated as being different embodiments - see, at the least, the listing of Figures). If Applicant considers the identified Species 1 and Species 2 to be obvious variants of each other, then such a statement should be clearly made on the record (note: in such a case, the species restriction requirement would be withdrawn, and any prior art rejections addressing one species would be equally applicable to the other species).
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 February 2025 stating “This is no way affects the inventive step claimed” (page 4) in regards to Species 3 have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that Applicant’s disclosure at pg.21:ln.20 through pg.22:ll.1-14 describes various differences of Figure 5 compared to Figure 3. If Applicant considers the identified Species 1 or Species 2 and Species 3 to be obvious variants of each other, then such a statement should be clearly made on the record (note: in such a case, the species restriction requirement would be withdrawn, and any prior art rejections addressing one species would be equally applicable to the other species).
Applicant’s remarks filed 18 February 2025 stating “Examiner makes no mention regarding FIGS. 6 or 7” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that the disclosure at pg.18:ll.14-16 indicates that Figures 6 and 7 are further views of Figure 5.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 corresponding with claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 18 February 2025 is acknowledged. As Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive, the restriction requirement is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 16 November 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document. It has been placed in the application file, but the foreign references referred to therein have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “shaft” (claim 15), “keyed” (claim 15), “central member collar” (claim 15), “channel” (claim 17), “oil pump” (claim 17), “airframe” (claim 17), “at least one cogwheel shaft” (claim 18), “apertures in the at least one protrusion” (claim 18) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 12, and 15-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “each aforementioned assembly” (page 1, line 13) should be changed to --the first rotor assembly, the second rotor assembly, and the contra-rotating gear assembly-- (to exclude “contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly”).
In claim 2, --, respectively-- should be added after “protrusion” (page 2, line 1).
In claim 2, --at least one-- should be added before “first” (page 2, line 2) (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice and/or number agreement).
In claim 3, “the” (before “rotational energy”; page 2, line 5) should be deleted (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 3, “will” (page 2, line 5) should be changed to --is--.
In claim 3, last line, --respective-- should be added before “length”.
In claim 4, “the” (before “rotational energy”; page 2, line 21) should be deleted (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 4, “will be” (page 2, line 22) should be changed to --is--.
In claim 6, line 1, “A” should be changed to --The--.
In claim 6, “member base aperture” should be changed to --at least one aperture of the member base-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 7, line 2, “either end” should be changed to --one or more of the at least one end, respectively,-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice - see claim 1).
In claim 7, line 5, --at least one-- should be added before “mast nut” (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice and/or number agreement).
In claim 12, line 1, --at least one-- should be added before “first” (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice and/or number agreement).
In claim 15, line 2, --at least one first gear and the at least one second gear of the-- should be added before “contra-rotating gear assembly” (since only these parts of “contra-rotating gear assembly” rotate “with the mast”).
In claim 16, “will create” should be changed to --creates--.
In claim 17, last line, “stacked assemblies thereupon” should be changed to --stacked drivetrain-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 18, “apertures” (page 7, line 16) should be changed to --at least one aperture, respectively-- (to imbue number agreement with “at least one protrusion”).
In claim 18, “thereof” (page 7, line 17) should be changed to --, respectively-- (to imbue number agreement, “thereof” is redundant/superfluous).
In claim 18, --at least one-- should be added before “first” (page 7, line 20)(to imbue proper antecedent basis practice and/or number agreement).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) except as otherwise indicated in this 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) except as otherwise indicated in this 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) 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: “friction-reducer” (claim 3).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 8, 9, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing the written description requirement.
In claim 8, the combination of limitations required by “the design of first and second gears as well as the at least one cogwheel of the contra-rotating gear assembly resembles at least one gear, or cogwheel, selected from a group comprising: straight gears, spiral gears, spur gears, planetary gears, sun gears, zerol gears, worm gears, barbell gears, rack and pinion gears, roller pinion gears, cage and peg gears, bevel gears, helical gears, flat gears, ring gears, crown gears, tooth jack shaft gears, miter gears, screw gears, and magnetic variations thereof” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2168 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2163.05 B II, a “laundry-list” disclosure of possible configurations does not constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not reasonably lead those skilled in the art to any particular species. In the instant case, the disclosure only describes an embodiment(s) of the invention where the contra-rotating gear assembly 20 includes first and second gears 22,24 in the form of ring gears and cogwheels 28 in the form of bevel gears and does not provide any description or depiction of how the other listed elements of the claim are used in combination with each other to form the contra-rotating gear assembly 20.
In claim 9, the combination of limitations required by “the at least one power transmission cogwheel and the at least one power translation cogwheel resembles at least one gear, or cogwheel, selected from a group comprising: straight gears, spiral gears, spur gears, planetary gears, sun gears, zerol gears, worm gears, barbell gears, rack and pinion gears, roller pinion gears, cage and peg gears, bevel gears, helical gears, flat gears, ring gears, crown gears, tooth jack shaft gears, miter gears, screw gears, and magnetic variations thereof” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2168 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2163.05 B II, a “laundry-list” disclosure of possible configurations does not constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not reasonably lead those skilled in the art to any particular species. In the instant case, the disclosure only describes and depicts an embodiment(s) of the invention where the power transmission gear 62 is in the form of a cogwheel and the power translation gear 60 is in the form of a cogwheel and does not provide any description or depiction of how the other listed elements of the claim are used in combination with each other to form the assembly thereof.
In claim 15, the limitation recited as “the collar allows for simultaneous rotation of the contra-rotating gear assembly with the mast while it and the at least one protrusion therefrom remain stationary, such as via a shaft, keyed, or central member collar” (emphasis added) was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2168 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In the instant case, the originally filed disclosure neither describes nor depicts “shaft”, “keyed”, or “central member collar” and/or how these elements apply to and/or modify other disclosed elements.
In claim 17, the limitation recited as “an oil pump affixed to the airframe capable of driving oil, grease, or other lubricants up a channel disposed between the central member and the stacked assemblies” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2168 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In the instant case, the originally filed disclosure neither describes nor depicts “oil pump” and/or “channel” and/or how “oil pump” is fluidically connected to “channel”, and the figures do not depict any opening/through-hole in the contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly 10 for permitting fluidic communication of a fluid into “a channel disposed between the central member and the stacked assemblies”.
In claim 18, the limitation recited as “at least one cogwheel shaft affixed to the collar via the at least one protrusion, operationally engaged to both the at least one cogwheel and either the at least one first gear or the at least one second gear; wherein the at least one cogwheel shaft is affixed to the collar via apertures in the at least one protrusion thereof; wherein rotation of the at least one second gear in a first direction turns the at least one cogwheel, via its operationally engaged cogwheel shaft, which then rotates surrounding cogwheels and thereby turns the first gear in a second direction, via its operationally engaged cogwheel shaft” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2168 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In the instant case, the originally filed disclosure omits any description and/or depiction of “at least one cogwheel shaft” and, thus, its relationship to “collar”, “at least one protrusion”, “at least one first gear”, and/or “at least one second gear”. Additionally/relatedly, in light of the figures, it is unclear how a “cogwheel shaft”, which is claimed as forming part of a “cogwheel”, can be both “affixed to the collar via the at least one protrusion” and “operationally engage… either the at least one first gear or the at least one second gear” since “first gear” and “second gear” are claimed as movable relative to “cogwheel”. Furthermore, the originally filed disclosure omits any description and/or depiction of “apertures in the at least one protrusion thereof” and, thus, support for the claimed structural relationships depending thereon.
In claim 19, the combination of limitations required by “belt drives, chain drives, shaft couplings, and/or lead screws are used in conjunction with, or in lieu of, all of the gears and cogwheels of the contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly’s individual assemblies, such that direct operational coupling and engagement of said gears and cogwheels is replaceable with indirect operational coupling and engagement” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2168 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2163.05 B II, a “laundry-list” disclosure of possible configurations does not constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not reasonably lead those skilled in the art to any particular species. In the instant case, the disclosure only describes and depicts an embodiment(s) of the invention where the power transmission gear 62 is in the form of a cogwheel and the power translation gear 60 is in the form of a cogwheel and does not provide any description or depiction of how the other listed elements of the claim are used in combination with each other to form the assembly thereof.
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.
Claims 3-10, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 3, the limitation recited as “the at least one gear” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)) and/or since it is unclear if it is referring to “each gear of the contra-rotating gear assembly” (claim 3) or introducing a new limitation. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 4-6, 9, 10, and 13.
In claim 4, the limitation recited as “the second length of mast” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing this --the length of mast of the second rotor assembly--. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 5, 6, and 9.
In claim 4, the limitation recited as “[the] second rotor” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing this --the rotor of the second rotor assembly--. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 5, 6, and 9.
In claim 4, the limitation recited as “the second friction-reducer” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing this --the friction-reducer of the second rotor assembly--. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 5, 6, and 9.
In claim 5, the limitation recited as “the output shaft” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing “the” to --an--. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 6 and 9.
In claim 5, the limitation recited as “at least one power transmission cogwheel” (page 3, line 9) renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to an antecedent limitation (page 3, lines 6-7) of the same name introducing a new limitation. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 6 and 9.
In claim 5, the limitation recited as “at least one… gear” (page 3, line 9) renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring the antecedent limitation “each gear” (claim 3), the antecedent limitation “at least one gear” (claim 3), or introducing a new limitation.
In claim 6, the limitation recited as “threadable… aperture” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what constitutes “threadable” and/or how “threadable” can apply to the structure of “aperture”. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing “threadable” to --threaded--.
In claim 6, the limitation recited as “lockable… aperture” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what constitutes “lockable” and/or how “lockable” can apply to the structure of “aperture”. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests reciting the structure that achieves any “locking” function.
In claim 6, the limitation recited as “all parts thereon” renders the claim indefinite since it (i.e., “parts”) lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)).
In claim 6, the limitation recited as “such that the central member and all parts thereon are individually removable and replaceable within the contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear (1) if “within” is establishing steps of the method/process of replacing/removing (i.e., “replaceable”/”removable”) or (2) if “within the contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly” is specifying a subset of “all parts thereon”. In the case of (1), the required method/process step(s) required by “within the contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly” is/are unclear. In the case of (2), the scope of “all parts thereon” (i.e., all parts on the “central member”) and the scope of parts that are “within the contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly” are contradictory.
In claim 7, the limitation recited as “the assembly” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear to which of the multiple antecedent limitations described as “assembly” it is referring.
In claim 7, the limitation recited as “each individual assembly” renders the claim indefinite since it (i.e., “individual assembly”) lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests expanding “each individual assembly” to recite the corresponding antecedently established limitations.
In claim 7, the limitation recited as “each component… thereof” renders the claim indefinite since it (i.e., “component”) lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests deleting this limitation (since it is redundant/superfluous) or expanding “each component… thereof” to recite the corresponding antecedently established limitations.
In claim 7, the limitation recited as “every component thereon” renders the claim indefinite since it (i.e., “component”) lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests deleting this limitation (since it is redundant/superfluous) or expanding “every component thereon” to recite the corresponding antecedently established limitations.
In claim 8, the limitations recited as “the design of first and second gears as well as the at least one cogwheel … resembles at least one gear, or cogwheel” renders the claim indefinite since it is grammatically/semantically unclear how the “resembles” aspect applies to the “design” aspect - i.e., does “resembles at least one gear” apply individually to “first gear”, “second gear”, and “at least one cogwheel”? does “resembles at least one gear” apply to the assembly of “first gear” and “second gear”? does “resembles at least one gear” apply to the assembly of “first gear”, “second gear”, and “at least one cogwheel”? does “resembles… cogwheel” apply individually to “first gear”, “second gear” and “at least one cogwheel”? does “resembles… cogwheel” apply to the assembly of “first gear” and “second gear”? does “resembles… cogwheel” apply to the assembly of “first gear”, “second gear”, and “at least one cogwheel”? (this is a non-exhaustive list of possible interpretations). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests cancelling this claim. Due to a similar issue, this rejection also applies to claim 9.
In claim 8, the term “resembles” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite since it 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. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing “resembles” to --is--. Due to an identical issue, this rejection also applies to claim 9.
In claim 8, the limitation recited as “the at least one cogwheel” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)).
In claim 8, the limitation recited as “magnetic variations thereof” renders the scope of the claim indefinite since the disclosure does not describe what specific elements satisfy such a determination and/or since the disclosure does not describe what conditions are required to satisfy a “magnetic variation” determination.
In claim 9, the limitation recited as “magnetic variations thereof” renders the scope of the claim indefinite since the disclosure does not describe what specific elements satisfy such a determination and/or since the disclosure does not describe what conditions are required to satisfy a “magnetic variation” determination.
In claim 10, the limitation recited as “the first and second friction-reducers” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing this to --the friction-reducers--.
In claim 10, the recitation “such as” is unclear as to whether the subsequent “crossed roller bearings” and/or “uncrossed roller bearings” and/or “lubricated bushings” is a limitation, thereby rendering indefinite the scope of the claim (see MPEP 2173.05(d)).
In claim 10, the limitation recited as “such as via” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear as to whether “crossed roller bearings, uncrossed roller bearings, lubricated bushings, or equivalents thereof” are possible implementations of “first and second friction-reducers” or used in addition to and/or in conjunction with “first and second friction-reducers”.
In claim 10, the limitation recited as “equivalents thereof” renders the scope of the claim indefinite since the disclosure does not describe what specific elements satisfy such a determination and/or since the disclosure does not describe what conditions are required to satisfy an equivalency determination. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests deleting this phrase.
In claim 10, the limitation recited as “the first and second friction-reducers are capable of supporting moment loads, tilting loads, and radial forces, such as via cross roller bearings, uncrossed roller bearings, lubricated bushings, or equivalents thereof” renders the claim indefinite since it is grammatically/semantically unclear how the possible listed implementations correspond with “the first and second friction-reducers” - i.e., is “first friction-reducers” implemented as “cross roller bearings”? is “first friction-reducers” implemented as both “cross roller bearings” and “uncrossed roller bearings”? is “first friction-reducers” implemented as all three of “cross roller bearings”, “uncrossed roller bearings”, “lubricated bushings”, and “equivalents thereof”? is the set of “first friction-reducers” and “second friction-reducers” constituted entirely by “cross roller bearings”, or a combination of “cross roller bearings” and “uncrossed roller bearings”? (this is a non-exhaustive list of possible interpretations). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests clearly identifying the possible implementations of “first friction-reducer” and “second friction-reducer” separately from each other.
In claim 13, the limitation recited as “the first and second bearings” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)). To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests changing this to --the bearings--.
In claim 13, the recitation “such as” is unclear as to whether the subsequent “thrust bearings”, “needle bearings”, and “conical bearings” is/are a limitation(s), thereby rendering indefinite the scope of the claim (see MPEP 2173.05(d)).
In claim 13, the limitation recited as “designed for withstanding thrust and load bearing as well as twisting caused by gears and cogwheels motion” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is merely stating a property inherent “axial plane bearings or rotary bearings, such as thrust or needle or conical bearings” or if it is reciting an additional property/function that is not inherent to “axial plane bearings or rotary bearings, such as thrust or needle or conical bearings”. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests deleting this limitation (since in the case of (1), the recitation is redundant/superfluous, and in the case of (2), the recitation is unclear as to the corresponding structure).
In claim 13, the limitation recited as “gears and cogwheels” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to the antecedent limitations of similar names or introducing new limitations.
In claim 15, the limitation recited as “the mast” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)).
In claim 15, the recitation “such as” is unclear as to whether the subsequent “shaft”, “keyed”, and “central member collar” is/are a limitation(s), thereby rendering indefinite the scope of the claim (see MPEP 2173.05(d)).
In claim 15, the limitation recited as “the collar allows for simultaneous rotation of the contra-rotating gear assembly with the mast while it and the at least one protrusion therefrom remain stationary, such as via a shaft, keyed, or central member collar” renders the claim indefinite since the phrase “such as via a shaft, keyed, or central member collar” stands alone without any indication as to what other claimed elements are modified by “shaft, keyed, or central member collar” - e.g., is “shaft, keyed, or central member collar” applied to “collar”, “protrusion”, or some other claimed/unclaimed component? does “shaft, keyed, or central member collar” represent a connection between “collar” or “protrusion”, or some other claimed/unclaimed component(s)?
In claim 16, the limitation recited as “will create lift while either offsetting at least a portion of the torque produced or converting said portion of torque into additional lift” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is merely stating a property inherent to “contra-rotation of these members” or if it is reciting an additional property/function that is not inherent to “contra-rotation of these members”. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests deleting this limitation (since in the case of (1), the recitation is redundant/superfluous, and in the case of (2), the recitation is unclear as to the corresponding structure required for achieving this function).
In claim 17, the limitation recited as “the airframe” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)).
In claim 17, the limitation recited as “an oil pump affixed to the airframe” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.04, a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. In this instance, “oil pump affixed to the airframe” is outside the scope of the claimed invention characterized as “A contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly”. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests deleting this limitation.
In claim 18, the limitation recited as “surrounding cogwheels” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to and/or part of “at least one cogwheel” or introducing a new limitation.
In claim 18, the limitation recited as “rotation of the at least one second gear turns the at least one cogwheel, via its operationally engaged cogwheel shaft, which then rotates surrounding cogwheels and thereby turns the first gear in a second direction, via its operationally engaged cogwheel shaft” renders the claim indefinite since it is contradictory to the antecedent limitation “at least one cogwheel shaft… operationally engaged to… either the at least one first gear or the at least one second gear” - i.e., the instant limitation establishes that “cogwheel shaft” is “operationally engaged” to both of “at least one first gear” and “at least one second gear”, whereas the antecedent limitation establishes that “cogwheel shaft” is “operationally engaged” to ”either” (i.e., only one of) of “at least one first gear” or “at least one second gear”.
In claim 19, the limitation recited as “in lieu of” renders the claim indefinite since it requires negation of antecedent limitations.
In claim 19, the limitation recited as “the cogwheels” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)).
In claim 19, the limitation recited as “the individual assemblies” renders the claim indefinite since it lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)).
In claim 19, the limitation recited as “such that direct operational coupling and engagement of said gears and cogwheels is replaceable with indirect operational coupling and engagement” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is merely stating a property inherent to “in conjunction with, or in lieu of [recited elements]” or if it is reciting an additional property/function that is not inherent to “in conjunction with, or in lieu of [recited elements]”. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests deleting this limitation (since in the case of (1), the recitation is redundant/superfluous, and in the case of (2), the recitation is unclear as to the corresponding structure required for achieving this function).
In claim 19, the limitation recited as “direct operational coupling” renders the claim indefinite since the disclosure does not describe what specific elements satisfy such “direct operational coupling” and/or since the disclosure does not describe what conditions are required to satisfy such “direct operational coupling”.
In claim 19, the limitation recited as “indirect operational coupling” renders the claim indefinite since the disclosure does not describe what specific elements satisfy such “indirect operational coupling” and/or since the disclosure does not describe what conditions are required to satisfy such “indirect operational coupling”.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pescara (GB 159309 A; see attached copy) in view of Thompson et al. (US 11,459,088 - hereafter referred to as Thompson).
In reference to claim 1
Pescara discloses:
A contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly comprising:
a central member (i.e., tube T);
a first rotor assembly (i.e., the assembly of elements B and M) disposed endwise upon the central member;
a second rotor assembly (i.e., the assembly of elements D and N) disposed upon the central member spaced apart from the first rotor assembly;
a contra-rotating gear assembly (i.e., the assembly of at least elements H, K, C, and F) coaxially disposed medial to the first rotor assembly and the second rotor assembly; and
wherein rotation (see pg.1:ll.40-50) of the second rotor assembly in a first direction is translated to the first rotor assembly in a second direction by means of the contra-rotating gear assembly.
Pescara does not disclose:
wherein at least one end of the central member is capped with a head or operationally engages thereto and creates preload force throughout the contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly;
wherein each aforementioned assembly is stacked upon the central member thereby forming a stacked drivetrain of force transference.
Thompson discloses:
a rotor assembly for a rotorcraft comprising a mast and a nut (132 or 232) that applies a compressive force through rotor components stacked on the mast in order to increase the stiffness (see e.g. col.2:ll.52-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor assembly of Pescara to include a nut that applies a compressive force through the rotor components stacked on the central member, as disclosed by Thompson, for the purpose of increasing the stiffness of the central member / rotor assembly. It is noted that such a modification necessarily involves configuring the rotor components such that a path of force transference therethrough is present (i.e., in order to achieve the compressive force through the stacked components).
Pescara in view of Thompson therefore addresses:
wherein at least one end of the central member is capped with a head (Thompson - 132 or 232) or operationally engages thereto and creates preload force throughout the contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly;
wherein each aforementioned assembly is stacked upon the central member thereby forming a stacked drivetrain of force transference.
In reference to claim 2
Pescara in view of Thompson addresses:
The contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly of claim 1, wherein the contra-rotating gear assembly (Pescara - H & K & C & F) comprises:
at least one first gear (Pescara - H) operationally coupled to the first rotor assembly (Pescara - B & M);
at least one second gear (Pescara - K) operationally coupled to the second rotor assembly (Pescara - D & N);
a collar (see annotated Pescara Figure below) having at least one protrusion (see annotated Pescara Figure below); and
at least one cogwheel (F and/or C - Pescara) affixed to the collar via the at least one protrusion, said at least one cogwheel operationally engaged (see Pescara) to both the first and second gears;
wherein rotation of the at least one second gear in a first direction turns the at least one cogwheel, which then rotates, and thereby turns (see Pescara pg.1:ll.40-50) the at least one first gear in a second direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
344
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 7 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Pescara in view of Thompson addresses:
The contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly of claim 1, further comprising: at least one mast nut (Thompson - 132 or 232) disposed upon either end of the contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly and operationally engaged to the central member; wherein the mast nut locks the assembly, and each individual assembly and component thereof, in place along the central member thereby keeping every component disposed thereon in a state of compression (as in Thompson - see col.2:ll.60-64).
In reference to claim 8 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Pescara in view of Thompson addresses:
The contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly of claim 1 wherein the design of first and second gears as well as the at least one cogwheel of the contra-rotating gear assembly resembles at least one gear, or cogwheel, selected from a group comprising: straight gears, spiral gears, spur gears, planetary gears, sun gears, zerol gears, worm gears, barbell gears, rack and pinion gears, roller pinion gears, cage and peg gears, bevel gears (note: Pescara elements H, K, C, and F are bevel gears), helical gears, flat gears, ring gears, crown gears, tooth jack shaft gears, miter gears, screw gears, and magnetic variations thereof.
In reference to claim 11
Pescara in view of Thompson addresses:
The contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly of claim 2 wherein the at least one cogwheel (Pescara - F and/or C) of the contra-rotating gear assembly possess a pitch angle between the range of 0 degrees to 90 degrees (see Pescara Figure showing the teeth of a cogwheel extending at an acute angle towards the center of a respective cogwheel).
In reference to claim 12
Pescara in view of Thompson addresses:
The contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly of claim 11 wherein the first and second gears (Pescara - H & K) of the contra-rotating gear assembly each possess a complementary pitch angle (see Pescara Figure) relative to the at least one cogwheel (Pescara - F and/or C).
In reference to claim 14
Pescara in view of Thompson addresses:
The contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly of claim 2 wherein each of the at least one cogwheel (Pescara - F and/or C) is affixed (see Pescara Figure ) to the collar (Pescara) via each of the at least one protrusion (Pescara) extending radially therefrom.
In reference to claim 16 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Pescara in view of Thompson addresses:
The contra-rotating coaxial rotor assembly of claim 1 wherein the first and second rotor assembly each possess at least one blade member (M and N - Pescara), whereby contra-rotation of these members will create lift while either offsetting at least a portion of the torque produced or converting said portion of torque into additional lift (note: the instant clause is considered as a statement of intended result that does not structurally limit the claimed invention).
Examiner’s Comment / Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Although claims 4-6, 9, 10, 13, 15, and 17-19 are not rejected over prior art, patentability cannot be determined in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 issues described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone number is (571)270-3364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9-5 PM ET.
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, Kenneth Bomberg, can be reached at 571-272-4922. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like a