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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 appears to contain a typographical error wherein it recites “the LPCE”. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “the LPCEs”. 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.
Claims 7-8 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation 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.
Claims 7-8: “means for controlling the LPCEs” is not a recognized name for structure in this art. As such, it is a generic placeholder for structure. The recitation “for controlling the LPCEs” provides a function for what “means for controlling the LPCEs” does, but does not add structure to the limitation. Therefore, this limitation should be interpreted under 112(f) because it satisfies the 3-prong analysis. There is no corresponding structure disclosed in the specification for performing the claimed function, rendering this limitation indefinite (see 112(b) rejection below) as well as lacking written description (see 112(a) rejection below). For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as any structure that can perform the function.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C., 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 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claim function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 7-8 recite “means for controlling the LPCEs.” The specification fails to provide an adequate written description thereof. A person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the disclosure of the application as filed. The specification does not disclose the structure of means for adjusting the rotor speed, nor is this element shown in the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 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.
Claim 4 recites “as distant as possible”. This limitation is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “as distant as possible” 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. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “the two LPCEs on each side of the airborne craft” in lines 2-3. This is indefinite because this limitation lacks antecedent basis, as parent claims 1 or 2 do not require two LPCEs on each side of the airborne craft. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7-8 recite “means for controlling the LPCEs”. This is indefinite for two reasons. First, this limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Second, the scope of the structure of the “means” is unclear and the specification does not provide clarification. See 112(f) rejection above. Examiner recommends more clearly defining this limitation in terms of the physical structure of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kummer et al. (US 20120111994 A1, as cited by Applicant in IDS dated 08/04/2025), hereafter Kummer, in view of Kummer, Embodiment of Fig. 21a.
Regarding Claim 1, Kummer discloses a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) airborne craft (160, Fig. 11) comprising a system for controlling yaw during vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) operation of an airborne craft (para. [0071], “…differential spanwise fan speed…for yaw..control”), where the system airborne craft further comprises:
two crossflow fan lift, propulsion and control elements (LPCEs) (111 and 112, Fig. 11), each comprising a rotor (rotors of 111 and 112, Fig. 1a) and at least one airfoil (wing body of Fig. 11) with a flexing lip (capable of geometry changes of as shown by dotted lines 123, Fig. 12b) and a flap (thrust deflector flap on top right, Fig. 12b), wherein, the LPCEs are disposed around a central longitudinal fuselage of the airborne craft (112 and 112 are disposed around the front fuselage of the aircraft, which may be considered a central longitudinal fuselage, Fig. 11), and wherein the rotors in the crossflow fan lift, propulsion and control elements (LPCEs) rotate in one common direction (para. [0081], “…rotate in the same direction”), wherein
the flexing lip and the flap are movable to vector thrust from the four of the LPCEs of the airborne craft from a substantially vertical direction for VTOL operation (para. [0081], “…vertical takeoff and landing…”) to a more horizontal forward or rearward direction, for forward or rearward thrust perpendicular to the rotor axis of an LPCE rotor (para. [0081], “…causing the vehicle to translate in an airplane mode…”)), and
the rotor speed can be controlled to compensate for the loss of vertical lift when vectoring thrust from vertical direction to forward or rearward direction (para. [0071], “…differential spanwise fan speed…for yaw..control”), where the forward thrust component from a front and/or rear Right Hand LPCE or rearward thrust component from a front and/or rear Left Hand LPCE produces a clockwise torque when viewed from above about the central vertical axis of the airborne craft and the rearward thrust component from a front and/or rear Right Hand LPCE or forward thrust component from a front and/or rear Left Hand LPCE produces an anticlockwise torque when viewed from above about the central vertical axis of the airborne craft (see para. [0071], Kummer is clearly capable of this function).
Kummer is silent about four LPCEs in a quadrotor format.
Kummer, embodiment of Fig. 21a, teaches four LPCEs (213, Fig. 21a) in a quadrotor format (examiner notes quadrotor is interpreted as any configuration with four rotors, and the embodiment of 21a includes four rotors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the 2 LPCEs of Kummer to be four LPCEs in a quadrotor format, as taught by Kummer Fig. 21a, for enhanced control authority of the aircraft and redundancy in case of failure of one of the fans (para. [0088]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kummer discloses a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) airborne craft (160, Fig. 11) comprising a system for controlling yaw during vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) operation of an airborne craft (para. [0071], “…differential spanwise fan speed…for yaw..control”), where the airborne craft further comprises:
two crossflow fan lift, propulsion and control elements (LPCEs) (111 and 112, Fig. 11), each comprising a rotor (rotors of 111 and 112, Fig. 1a) and at least one airfoil (wing body of Fig. 11) with a flexing lip (capable of geometry changes of as shown by dotted lines 123, Fig. 12b) and flap (thrust deflector flap on top right, Fig. 12b), where the LPCEs are disposed around a central longitudinal fuselage (112 and 112 are disposed around the front fuselage of the aircraft, which may be considered a central longitudinal fuselage, Fig. 11) and where the rotors of the four LPCEs rotate in one common direction (Kummer is capable of this function, para. [0081], “…rotate in the same direction”), wherein
each LPCE can generate a lateral thrust component that is parallel to a rotor axis of the crossflow fan in each LPCE, where said lateral thrust component from both a Front Right Hand (FRH) and a Rear Left Hand (RLH) LPCEs produces a clockwise torque when viewed from above about a central vertical axis of the airborne craft, and said lateral thrust component from both a Front Left Hand (FLH) and a Rear Right Hand(RRH) LPCEs produces an anti-clockwise torque when viewed from above about the central vertical axis of the airborne craft (examiner notes Kummer is capable of this function, see para. [0071], for example, “…differential spanwise fan speed…for yaw..control”).
Kummer is silent about four LPCEs in a quadrotor format.
Kummer, embodiment of Fig. 21a, teaches four LPCEs (213, Fig. 21a) in a quadrotor format (examiner notes quadrotor is interpreted as “four rotors” and the embodiment of 21a includes four rotors in a four rotor format).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the 2 LPCEs of Kummer to be four LPCEs in a quadrotor format, as taught by Kummer Fig. 21a, for enhanced control authority of the aircraft and redundancy in case of failure of one of the fans (para. [0088]).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kummer teaches the airborne craft according to claim 2, where the means for controlling the LPCEs are configured to set a higher rotor speed on the FRH and RLH rotors and a correspondingly lower speed on the FLH and RRH rotors, thereby producing a clockwise torque when viewed from above about the airborne craft's central vertical axis and maintaining both altitude and roll and pitch attitude (Kummer is clearly capable of this function, see para. [0071], for example, “…differential spanwise fan speed…for yaw..control”).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kummer teaches the airborne craft according to claim 2, where the means for controlling the LPCEs are configured to set a higher rotor speed on the FLH and RRH rotors and a correspondingly lower speed on the FRH and RLH rotors, thereby producing an anti-clockwise torque when viewed from above about the airborne craft's central vertical axis and maintaining both altitude and roll and pitch attitude (Kummer is clearly capable of this function, see para. [0071], for example, “…differential spanwise fan speed…for yaw..control”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kummer as applied above, in view of Kwek (Viability of Cross-Flow Fan with Helical Blades NPL).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kummer teaches the airborne craft according to claim 2.
Modified Kummer is silent about where the LPCEs comprise helically bladed rotors configured to produce said lateral thrust component directed away from a central fore and aft vertical plane of the airborne craft.
Kwek teaches employing helically bladed rotors (Pg. v, Abstract) configured to produce said lateral thrust component directed away from a central fore and aft vertical plane of the airborne craft (examiner notes that Kwek’s helically blades rotors are clearly capable of this function, Pg. v, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the LPCEs of modified Kummer with the helically bladed rotors as taught by Kwek, with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are from the same field of endeavor of cross-flow fans in VTOL aircraft. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine modified Kummer with Kwek because this would have achieved the desirable result of reducing noise levels and increasing thrust (Kwek, Pg. v, Abstract).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kummer as applied above, in view of In view of DuPont (US 4482109 A).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kummer teaches the airborne craft according to claim 2.
Modified Kummer is silent about where the LPCEs comprise yaw vanes configured to produce said lateral thrust component directed away from a central fore and aft vertical plane of the airborne craft and as distant as possible from the central lateral vertical plane of the airborne craft.
DuPont teaches yaw vanes (array 52) configured to produce said lateral thrust component directed away from a central fore and aft vertical plane of the airborne craft and as distant as possible from the central lateral vertical plane of the craft (Col. 5, lines 47-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the LPCEs of modified Kummer with the yaw vanes as taught by DuPont, with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are from the same field of endeavor of propulsion in VTOL aircraft. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine modified Kummer with DuPont because this would have achieved the desirable result enhanced yaw control for the aircraft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but 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:
The prior arts of record, individually or in combination, do not disclose or render obvious the combined limitations of Claims 5 or 6. The closest prior arts of record are Kummer et al. (US 20120111994 A1) and DuPont (US 4482109 A). Specifically, Kummer discloses a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) airborne craft (160) comprising a system for controlling yaw during vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) operation of an airborne craft (para. [0071]), where the system airborne craft further comprises: two crossflow fan lift, propulsion and control elements (LPCEs) (111 and 112, Fig. 11), each comprising a rotor (rotors of 111 and 112) and at least one airfoil (wing body of Fig. 11) with a flexing lip (capable of geometry changes of as shown by dotted lines 123, Fig. 12b) and a flap (thrust deflector flap on top right, Fig. 12b), wherein, the LPCEs are disposed around a central longitudinal fuselage of the airborne craft (112 and 112 are disposed around the front fuselage of the aircraft, which may be considered a central longitudinal fuselage, Fig. 11), and wherein the rotors in the crossflow fan lift, propulsion and control elements (LPCEs) rotate in one common direction (para. [0081], “…rotate in the same direction”) and vector thrust from the four of the LPCEs of the airborne craft (para. [0081]). Additionally, DuPont teaches yaw vanes (52).
However the prior art of record does not appear to teach the combined limitations of the Claims 5 or 6, specifically two wing fences terminating the outer extremity of the two LPCEs on each side of the airborne craft combined with yaw vanes having an upper vertical part attached to the wing fences so as to engage with the exit thrust of the rotors during VTOL operation, and/or yaw vanes positioned lower than the flaps and flexing lips of the LPCE. While wing fences and yaw vanes (such as taught by DuPont) are found in the prior art, it is the combination and configuration of these elements with cross-flow fans as required by claims 5 and 6 that does not appear to be found in the prior arts of record, and it would not be obvious to combine or modify the prior arts of record to teach the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment and Applicant’s submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 08/04/2025 necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a) and MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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 HUSON can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642