DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment/request for reconsideration dated 25 November 2025 (hereinafter “Reply”).
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 20 August 2025 was/were filed after the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered.
Response to Amendment
The objection(s) to the specification is/are withdrawn after consideration of the submitted amendment(s).
The objection(s) to claim(s) 1-3, 6, 10 is/are withdrawn after consideration of the submitted amendment(s).
The rejection of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is/are withdrawn after consideration of the submitted amendment(s).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1-7 and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stuart, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At page 10 of the submitted Reply:
The cited art fails to disclose the following features of claims 1 and 10: the function part remains perpendicular to the rotorcraft throughout flight operation and ground operation. Specifically, Stuart teaches the function part changes from a perpendicular orientation to a parallel orientation (for more details see the interview summary dated 14 October 2025).
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) is/are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informality(ies):
(A) At line 9: “the motor wherein” is suggested to be: the motor, wherein. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 4 is/are objected to because of the following informality(ies):
(A) At line 1: “an auxiliary member” is suggested to be: the auxiliary member. 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 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: (1) rotating part in claims 1 and 10, (2) connection part in claims 1 and 10, (3) function part in claims 1 and 10, (4) auxiliary member in claim 4, and (5) grounding part in claim 7.
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. Such corresponding structure is in the instant specification is : (1) propeller, shaft and rotating portion of the motor at paragraph 0023, (2) a single part or integral parts that define a space at paragraph 0032, (3) a landing leg at paragraph 0018, (4) a bearing structure at paragraph 0018 and (5) a tip member at paragraph 0033.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(A) Regarding Claim(s) 1:
Claim(s) 1 recite(s): an auxiliary member configured as a bearing structure. The most relevant portion(s) of the specification and/or drawings, found by the Office, at paragraph 0030 discloses the function part can be configured so that the rotation of the connection part has no effect and paragraph 0018 discloses the function part is provided with an auxiliary member such as bearings or the like to reduce the effect of rotation. Thus, claim(s) 1 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the claimed auxiliary member is a bearing structure or like a bearing structure due to the phrase “configured as.” Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting any structural feature that allows the function part to rotate at a reduced speed compared to the connection part as pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(B) Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected due to inheriting the deficiency(ies) raised with regard to claim 1.
(C) Regarding Claim(s) 5:
Claim(s) 5 recite(s): the auxiliary member is a bearing structure. The most relevant portion(s) of the specification and/or drawings, found by the Office, at paragraph 0018 discloses the function part is provided with an auxiliary member such as bearings or the like to reduce the effect of rotation. Thus, claim(s) 5 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, claim 1 recites the auxiliary member is configured as a bearing structure (see line 10). As a result, it is unclear if the bearing structure of claim 5 is further limiting the auxiliary member structure of claim 1 or is a duplicate limitation. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting a bearing structure to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
Please note, claim 5 will require amendment or canceling if the bearing structure of claim 5 is a duplicate limitation to line 10 of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018-199444 to Mogi et al. (hereinafter “MOGI”), submitted with the IDS dated 20 August 2025 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180362146 to Klein et al. (hereinafter “KLEIN”).
(A) Regarding Claim 1:
MOGI teaches:
A rotorcraft (Fig. 1), comprising:
a rotor blade part (14) comprising a motor (15), a propeller (17), and a rotating part (16) configured to be rotated by the motor;
a connection part (see Fig. 7, e.g. the portion of the pitch change structure 50 that surrounds the rotating shaft 16 and extends upward to the change members 54 attached to the propeller blades) fixedly connected to the rotating part of the rotor blade part, the connection part configured to rotate together with the rotating part; and
a function part (53, Fig. 7) that is at least partially held by the connection part and is maintained in a state of reduced rotation speed compared to a rotation speed of the connection part during the rotation of the connection part by the motor (i.e. see in Fig. 7 that the function part 53 is coupled to the stationary support member 40 via the lever 52 and pitch motor 51), and
the function part (53) remains perpendicular to the rotorcraft throughout flight operation and ground operation (i.e. the function part 53 remains perpendicular to the support members 40, 13 throughout flight and grounding operations).
However, the difference between MOGI and the claimed invention is that MOGI does not explicitly teach the function part is coupled to the connection part via an auxiliary member configured as a bearing structure.
KLEIN teaches:
the function part (only partly shown in Fig. 6 (e.g. plate 604 without link); however, see para. 0038: The stationary plate 604 can be coupled to a rod or other linkage component that is mechanically actuated up and down to adjust the location of the stationary plate 604) is coupled to the connection part (610) via an auxiliary member (608) configured as a bearing structure (para. 0038: rotary bearing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include rotary bearing structure between the non-rotating part and rotating part of the pitch change mechanism, as taught by KLIEN, in order to allow the rotating part of the pitch change mechanism to be coupled with the drive system and thereby achieve the predictable result of allowing the rotating plate of the pitch change mechanism to rotate with the propeller during operation (KLEIN para. 0038).
(B) Regarding Claim 2:
Modified MOGI further teaches:
wherein the connection part (see MOGI Fig. 7, e.g. the portion of the pitch change structure 50 that surrounds the rotating shaft 16 and extends upward to the change members 54 attached to the propeller blades) is connected to a propeller side of the rotor blade part.
(C) Regarding Claim 3:
Modified MOGI further teaches:
wherein the propeller consists of a propulsive propeller (MOGI para. 0020: propulsive force).
(D) Regarding Claim 4:
Modified MOGI further teaches:
the function part (53, MOGI, Fig. 7) is held in the connection part (see MOGI Fig. 7, e.g. the portion of the pitch change structure 50 that surrounds the rotating shaft 16 and extends upward to the change members 54 attached to the propeller blades) by means of an auxiliary member (608, KLEIN, Fig. 6).
(E) Regarding Claim 5:
Modified MOGI further teaches:
the auxiliary member is a bearing structure (608, KLEIN, Fig. 6 and para. 0038).
(F) Regarding Claim 6:
Modified MOGI further teaches:
the function part (53, MOGI, Fig. 7) is substantially stationary in the state of reduced rotation speed (i.e. see in MOGI Fig. 7 that the function part 53 is coupled to the stationary support member 40 via the lever 52 and pitch motor 51).
(G) Regarding Claim 10:
MOGI teaches:
A rotor blade apparatus of a rotorcraft (Fig. 1) comprising a rotating part (16), a motor (15) rotating the rotating part and a propeller (!7) fixed on the rotating part, comprising:
a connection part (see MOGI Fig. 7, e.g. the portion of the pitch change structure 50 that surrounds the rotating shaft 16 and extends upward to the change members 54 attached to the propeller blades) connected to the rotating part and rotated together with the rotating part;
and
a function part (53) that is at least partially held by the connection part and is maintained in a state of reduced rotation speed compared to a rotation speed of the connection part during the rotation of the connection part by the motor (i.e. see Fig. 7 that the function part 53 is coupled to the stationary support member 40 via the lever 52 and pitch motor 51),
the function part (53) remains perpendicular to the rotorcraft throughout flight operation and ground operation (i.e. the function part 53 remains perpendicular to the support members 40, 13 throughout flight and grounding operations).
However, the difference between MOGI and the claimed invention is that MOGI does not explicitly teach the function part is coupled to the connection part via an auxiliary member configured as a bearing structure.
KLEIN teaches:
the function part (only partly shown in Fig. 6 (e.g. plate 604 without link); however, see para. 0038: The stationary plate 604 can be coupled to a rod or other linkage component that is mechanically actuated up and down to adjust the location of the stationary plate 604) is coupled to the connection part (610) via an auxiliary member (608) configured as a bearing structure (para. 0038: rotary bearing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include rotary bearing structure between the non-rotating part and rotating part of the pitch change mechanism, as taught by KLIEN, in order to allow the rotating part of the pitch change mechanism to be coupled with the drive system and thereby achieve the predictable result of allowing the rotating plate of the pitch change mechanism to rotate with the propeller during operation (KLEIN para. 0038).
(H) Regarding Claim 11:
Modified MOGI further teaches:
wherein the propeller consists of a propulsive propeller (MOGI para. 0020: propulsive force).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
(A) Regarding Claim(s) 7:
Claim(s) 7 is/are deemed novel and nonobvious over the cited art due to the inclusion of the limitation “the function part includes a grounding part that is in contact with the ground during landing” which, in combination with the other requirements of the claim(s), is neither taught nor suggested by the cited prior art as a whole, either alone or in combination. Specifically, the cited art (e.g. MOGI) teaches the function part is connected to the upper support member 40. Thus, the function part does not come into contact with the ground during landing. Furthermore, it would not be obvious to modify MOGI to have the function part come into contact with the ground since it is part of the pitch change mechanism and could be damaged by direct contact with the ground.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA M MCCAFFREY whose telephone number is (571)272-3438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (excluding Wednesday) 10AM - 2 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached on 571-272-8648. 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.
KAYLA M. MCCAFFREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/Kayla McCaffrey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745