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 of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 14 April 2026.
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim(s) 6, 8 and 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see remarks at page(s) 10, filed 14 April 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kang et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the Examiner agrees the prior art does not explicitly teach “wherein the configuration comprises a torque of the electric motor and a pitch and a rotational speed of the blades”. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Kang et al. (US 20230026233 A1) in view of de Magalhães (US 20210276693 A1) in further view of Noppel et al. (US 20200354049 A1).
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: “propulsion assembly configured to…” in claim 1, 5, 8 and 11, “lead/lag filter configured to…” in claim 3 and 9, “torque to collective blade pitch lead module receives…” in claim 4 and 10 and “rpm error to torque proportional derivative module configured to…” in claims 6 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20230026233 A1) in view of de Magalhães (US 20210276693 A1) in further view of Noppel et al. (US 20200354049 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, Kang teaches an aircraft comprising: a propulsion assembly comprising: an electric motor (¶[0029] “motors”); and a propeller having blades with a variable pitch and blade actuators (¶[0033] “plurality of propellers” “angle adjustment”); and a flight controller (¶[0027] “automatic controller”) configured to: receive a command associated with the aircraft (¶[0008] “command”); determine a configuration of the propulsion assembly to cause the command to be executed (¶[0027] “generating a collective pitch angle command upon receiving a thrust control command”); create a torque command (¶[0027]-[0028] “thrust control command”, i.e., thrust generates and/or is the reactive effect of torque) and a revolutions per minute (RPM) command associated with the configuration (¶[0027]-[0028] “electronic speed control (ESC) command for compensating for a revolution per minute (RPM) error”); and communicate the torque command and the RPM command to the propulsion assembly (¶[0027]-[0028] “thrust control command”, i.e., thrust generates and/or is the reactive effect of torque, and “electronic speed control (ESC) command for compensating for a revolution per minute (RPM) error”; ¶[0018] “transmit command to ESC controller”).
Kang does not explicitly teach wherein the configuration comprises a torque of the electric motor and a pitch and a rotational speed of the blades; wherein the propulsion assembly is configured to: generate a motor torque command based on the torque command and the RPM command; generate a current command based on the motor torque command; create a blade pitch command based on the torque command and the RPM command; and communicate the blade pitch command to the blade actuators to control a pitch of the blade, wherein the current command and the blade pitch command cause the blades to rotate at a revolutions per minute (RPM) associated with the configuration. However, de Magalhães discloses a propeller governor for electric synchronous thrust and teaches wherein the propulsion assembly is configured to: generate a motor torque command based on the torque command and the RPM command (¶[0011] “current adjustment for an electric motor associated with a power command” and [0017] “current dependent on the rotational speed”); generate a current command based on the motor torque command (¶[0011] “current adjustment associated with a power command” and [0017] “current dependent on the rotational speed”); create a blade pitch command based on the torque command and the RPM command (¶[0011] “propeller pitch is controlled as a function of electric current” “current is associated with power command”; ¶[0009] “speed of rotation is controlled by the frequency of the alternator”, i.e., when current is adjusted based on power command, rotation speed increases and blade pitch is adjusted); and communicate the blade pitch command to the blade actuators to control a pitch of the blade ¶[0011] “propeller pitch is controlled as a function of electric current”, wherein the current command and the blade pitch command cause the blades to rotate at a revolutions per minute (RPM) associated with the configuration (¶[0009] “speed of rotation is controlled by the frequency of the alternator”, i.e., when current is adjusted based on power command, rotation speed increases and blade pitch is adjusted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for controlling propeller and RPM of an aerial vehicle having multiple power devices of Kang to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the propulsion assembly is configured to: generate a motor torque command based on the torque command and the RPM command; generate a current command based on the motor torque command; create a blade pitch command based on the torque command and the RPM command; and communicate the blade pitch command to the blade actuators to control a pitch of the blade, wherein the current command and the blade pitch command cause the blades to rotate at a revolutions per minute (RPM) associated with the configuration, as taught by de Magalhães, to provide finding the propeller pitch which produces a desired setup electric current. (de Magalhães at ¶[0014])
The combination of Kang and de Magalhães does not explicitly teach wherein the configuration comprises a torque of the electric motor and a pitch and a rotational speed of the blades. However, Noppel discloses a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) vehicle and teaches wherein the configuration comprises a torque of the electric motor and a pitch and a rotational speed of the blades (¶[0045] “controlling the multiple engine modules independently based on one or more from the group of: revolutions per minute of rotors of an engine module; rotor blade pitch of an engine module; torque differentials acting on each engine module”; the Examiner notes you cannot have torque differentials on each engine module without setting torque).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for controlling propeller and RPM of an aerial vehicle having multiple power devices of Kang as modified by de Magalhães to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the configuration comprises a torque of the electric motor and a pitch and a rotational speed of the blades, as taught by Noppel, to provide changing speed, direction or position of the vehicle. (Noppel at ¶[0045])
Regarding claims 4, 10 and 17, Kang teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein a torque to collective blade pitch lead module receives the torque command and applies a correction based on a change of torque that the torque command will cause to the electric motor (¶[0027]-[0031] “collective pitch angle command generating unit 100 generating a collective pitch angle command upon receiving a thrust control command”).
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 18, Kang teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the propulsion assembly is configured to subtract a determined current RPM measurement of the blades to create an RPM difference value (¶[0015] “a difference between the RPM of the RPM limiting signal generated by the rotation speed change rate limiting unit and the RPM of the information on the real-time RPM measured by the current rotation speed checking unit”).
Regarding the further limitation in claim 18, Kang teaches determining a current RM of the blades (¶[0015] “real-time RPM measured by the current rotation speed checking unit”).
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 19, Kang teaches the aircraft of claim 5, wherein the propulsion assembly further comprising an RPM error to torque proportional derivative module configured to receive the RPM difference value and modify the RPM difference value to increase a bandwidth of the flight controller by adding an adjustment to the RPM difference value (¶[0036] “RPM compensation from a difference between an RPM limiting signal derived through the rotation speed change rate limiting unit 230 and the current RPM measured by the current rotation speed checking unit 220”).
Regarding claims 7, 13 and 20, Kang teaches the aircraft of claim 5, further comprising an RPM governor proportional integral derivative controller configured to receive the RPM difference value and apply proportional, integral, and derivative actions to the RPM difference value (¶[0036] and [0039]-[0040] “proportional-integral (PI) control of the RPM compensation ESC command generating unit”).
Regarding claim 16, Kang teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising determining a current RPM of the blades (¶[0015] “real-time RPM measured by the current rotation speed checking unit”), wherein the blade pitch command is based at least partially on the determined current RPM of the blades (abstract and ¶[0027] “generating the collective pitch angle command by the collective pitch angle command generating unit and the RPM compensation ESC command”).
Claim(s) 2-3, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20230026233 A1) in view of de Magalhães (US 20210276693 A1) in view of Noppel et al. (US 20200354049 A1), as applied to claims 1, 8 and 14 above, and in further view of Cameron (US 20120078446 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kang, de Magalhães and Noppel does not explicitly teach the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the propulsion assembly further comprising a lead/lag filter. However, Cameron discloses filtering for a multi-rate controller for an electro-mechanical flight actuation system and teaches the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the propulsion assembly further comprising a lead/lag filter (¶[0029] “lead-lag filter 204”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for controlling propeller and RPM of an aerial vehicle having multiple power devices of Kang as modified by de Magalhães as modified by Noppel to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, further comprising a lead/lag filter, as taught by Cameron, to provide producing a feed forward rate command that reduces phase loss at low frequencies. (Cameron at ¶[0029])
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 15, the combination of Kang, de Magalhães and Noppel does not explicitly teach the aircraft of claim 2, wherein the lead/lag filter is configured to receive the torque command and apply forward path shaping to a bandwidth and a crossover frequency of the torque command. However, Cameron discloses filtering for a multi-rate controller for an electro-mechanical flight actuation system and teaches the aircraft of claim 2, wherein the lead/lag filter is configured to receive the torque command and apply forward path shaping to a bandwidth and a crossover frequency of the torque command (abstract and ¶[0025] and [0029] “lead-lag filter for filtering the limited incremental command to attenuate high frequencies, and a feed forward path for reducing phase loss in rate output signal at low frequencies”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for controlling propeller and RPM of an aerial vehicle having multiple power devices of Kang as modified by de Magalhães as modified by Noppel to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the lead/lag filter is configured to receive the torque command and apply forward path shaping to a bandwidth and a crossover frequency of the torque command, as taught by Cameron, to provide producing a feed forward rate command that reduces phase loss at low frequencies. (Cameron at ¶[0029])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fenny et al. (US 20200391847 A1) is pertinent because it is a pitch-change apparatus and method for pitching rotor blades.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/C.L.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights