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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5−11, and 16 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over US Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0198781 to Haldeman et al. (“Haldeman 2020”) in view of US Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0315212 to Noiseux Boucher et al. (“Noiseux Boucher”).
Regarding claim 1, Haldeman 2020 teaches three separate embodiments for a helicopter: a first embodiment disclosed in figures 1−2 and paragraphs [0012]−[0015]; a second embodiment disclosed in figures 3−4 and paragraphs [0016]−[0017]; and a third embodiment disclosed in figures 5−6 and paragraphs [0018]−[0020]. Moreover, Haldeman 2020 states that “[a]lternative embodiments that result from combining, integrating, and/or omitting features of the embodiment(s) are also within the scope of the disclosure” (para. [0022]). Consequently, a combination of features from two different embodiments is either disclosed outright by Haldeman 2020, or at the very least would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of combining known elements (as taught by Haldeman 2020) to arrive at the “alternative embodiments” suggested by Haldeman 2020 for the known reasons (i.e. the benefit or purpose of each element taught by Haldeman 2020).
In particular, Haldeman 2020 discloses (in the first embodiment) an assembly for a rotorcraft, comprising:
a fuselage 102;
a tail structure comprising a tail boom 106, the tail boom projecting longitudinally along a centerline out from the fuselage to a distal end (fig. 1); and
an air system comprising an air flowpath (channel 140), the air flowpath passing into the tail boom and extending longitudinally within the tail boom towards the distal end (fig. 1); and
a plurality of tail rotors 112 connected to the tail structure at the distal end.
Furthermore, Haldeman 2020 discloses with the second and third embodiments an air system comprising an air flowpath, the air flowpath comprising an inlet (airflow intake 238 or 338) that is formed in the fuselage and is exposed to an external environment (figs. 3 and 5), and the air flowpath passing from the inlet out of the fuselage into the tail boom and extending longitudinally within the tail boom towards the distal end (paras. [0017] and [0019]).
Thus Haldeman 2020 either discloses an alternative embodiment where the air system of the first embodiment is replaced with the air system of the second or third embodiments (para. [0022]), or it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the air system of the first embodiment with the air system of the second or third embodiments since (1) the air system of the second embodiment provides forward-facing air intakes which function as airscoops in forward flight, requiring less work from the air system to move the airflow, or (2) the air system of the third embodiment allows for generating counter-torque along the length of the tailboom which partially offsets the torque of the main rotor (similar to NOTAR systems known to those of ordinary skill in the art), thereby decreasing the workload and thus power requirements of the tail rotor.
Haldeman 2020 fails to disclose the motive force driving the tail rotors. Noiseux Boucher teaches a tail rotor system having a plurality of electric motors 208, each of the plurality of electric motors operatively coupled to a respective one of a plurality of tail rotors 206.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use electric motors as taught by Noiseux Boucher to power the tail rotors of Haldeman 2020, since tail rotors are typically either driven by electrically by motors or mechanically by driveshafts from the main engine, and since the four rotors could be much more easily controlled individually as electric motors compared to a driveshaft, which would require a complicated gearbox and possibly variable pitch controls to power the four tail rotors.
Regarding claim 3, Haldeman 2020 as modified teaches that each of the plurality of tail rotors is configured as a ducted tail rotor (Haldeman 2020 fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Haldeman 2020 as modified teaches that the tail structure further comprises a stabilizer connected to the tail boom at the distal end (see extending above tail rotors in Haldeman 2020 fig. 1); and
the plurality of tail rotors are connected to the stabilizer (Haldeman 2020 fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Haldeman 2020 as modified teaches that the stabilizer is a vertical stabilizer; and
each of the plurality of tail rotors is disposed in a respective duct extending laterally through the vertical stabilizer (f Haldeman 2020 ig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Haldeman 2020 as modified fails to teach that the tail structure further comprises a tail rudder located longitudinally aft of the plurality of tail rotors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a rudder to give greater control to the helicopter in forward flight, and furthermore it would be obvious to place the rudder as far aft as possible, such as aft of the tail rotors, since the greater the distance from the rudder to the center of gravity, the greater the moment arm and therefore its ability to control the helicopter.
Regarding claim 8, Haldeman 2020 as modified teaches that the air system is configured as an anti-torque system for the rotorcraft (where para. [0014] of Haldeman 2020 teaches that the air system provides greater thrust to the anti-torque rotors, thus the air system is providing anti-torque).
Regarding claim 9, Haldeman 2020 as modified teaches that the tail boom includes a sidewall (wall of tail boom 306 in Haldeman 2020 fig. 6) extending longitudinally along the centerline and circumferentially about the air flowpath (Haldeman 2020 fig. 6); and
a slot 346 extending longitudinally in the sidewall, the slot projecting through the sidewall to fluidly couple the air flowpath to an environment external to the tail structure (Haldeman 2020 fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Haldeman 2020 as modified teaches that the tail structure further comprises a thruster (openings 134 in Haldeman 2020, through which airflow passes); and
the thruster is configured to direct air received from the air flowpath laterally out of the tail structure into an environment external to the tail structure (Haldeman 2020 fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Haldeman 2020 as modified teaches that the thruster is a fixed thruster (i.e. the openings are fixed structures).
Regarding claim 16, Haldeman 2020 as modified teaches that the air system further comprises an air mover (fan 142) configured to direct air within the air flowpath towards the tail structure (para. [0015]).
Claims 14−15 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Haldeman 2020 as modified in view of US Patent No. 10,118,695 to Thomassin et al. (“Thomassin“).
Regarding claims 14−15, Haldeman 2020 as modified fails to teach the vent system with flow regulator and bypass.
Thomassin also teaches a system that provides airflow to the tail rotor for anti-torque purposes. In Thomassin, the air flowpath includes an upstream section 80a and a downstream section 80b, and the air system further comprises a system vent (nozzle/door 92) fluidly coupled to an environment external to the fuselage (fig. 3); and
a flow regulator (fan 82) disposed in the fuselage, the flow regulator configured to direct air from the upstream section into:
the downstream section, while bypassing the system vent, during a first mode (i.e. when valve 90 is closed); and
the system vent, while bypassing the downstream section, during a second mode (i.e. when valve 90 is open);
wherein the flow regulator is further configured to direct the air from the upstream section into the downstream section and the system vent during a third mode (when both valve 90 and is open and air passes to downstream section 80b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the vent system of Thomassin into the aircraft of Haldeman 2020 as modified because the different modes taught by Thomassin gives Haldeman 2020 a greater degree of control compared to a system not having three modes.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,240,205 to Allongue in view of US Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0346135 to Haldeman et al. (“Haldeman 2018”).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Allongue teaches an assembly for a rotorcraft, comprising:
a fuselage 2;
a tail structure comprising a tail boom 3, the tail boom projecting longitudinally along a centerline out from the fuselage to a distal end (fig. 1) ;
an air system comprising an air flowpath (see flow arrows in fig. 1), the air flowpath comprising an inlet that is formed in the fuselage (“air intakes 11 formed in the fuselage” from col. 5 line 12) and is exposed to an external environment (fig. 1), and the air flowpath passing from the inlet out of the fuselage into the tail boom and extending longitudinally within the tail boom towards the distal end (fig. 1).
Allongue fails to teach a plurality of tail rotors. Haldeman 2018 teaches a plurality of tail rotors (112a−112i) connected to the tail structure of a rotorcraft at the distal end (fig. 1); and a plurality of electric motors, each of the plurality of electric motors operatively coupled to a respective one of the plurality of tail rotors (para. [0040]); wherein each of the plurality of tail rotors is configured as an open tail rotor (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the single tail rotor of Allongue with the array of electric tail rotors taught by Haldeman 2018, because the array of tail rotors provides redundancy and safety in the event of a single rotor failure as compared to Allongue.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because Applicant’s arguments are irrelevant to the new ground of rejection. In particular, the embodiment of Haldeman 2020 figure 1 is not relied on for the location of the air inlet, Noiseux Boucher discloses a plurality of electric tail rotors, and Balkus is not applied in a prior art rejection in the present Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael B Kreiner whose telephone number is (571)270-5379. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642