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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-7, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 08/08/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 7, paragraph 3, only one use of the word “several” has been amended. All other 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Pages 8-11, concerning “cross-medium operation”. Claims as written do not require the telescopic blade to operation in cross media. Only that that may be for an aircraft that is a trans-media aircraft. For example, the telescopic blades could be required to be stored while in water and deployed when in air.
Page 8, regarding “leading edge of the blade root section is a curve”. Limitation as written is treated under Broadest reasonable interpretation. The curvature of the blades in US 3065938 A Calkins Eugene M. in figures 1 and 2, elements 16 and 17 are orientated from top surface of blade to bottom surface of blade. Instant application does not limit direction of curvature to length of blade.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the trans-media aircraft is not shown. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: The preamble of claim of claim 1 recites the blade is "for" a trans media aircraft. The claim later claims "a trans media aircraft". The aircraft is not shown in the drawings and therefore not clear. Is this blade only a boat propeller that can spin in both water and air?. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 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.
Dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 1, line 2 recite limitation “several”. It is unclear how many several encompasses, 2, 3, 4 etc.? Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2713393 A Vittorio Isacco and further in view of US 6902370 B2 Dawson (herein after known as Dawson70); Mark H. et al. and US 3065938 A Calkins Eugene M.
Regarding claim 1, Vittorio teaches, a variable-diameter blade suitable for a trans-media aircraft, wherein the variable-diameter blade is divided into several sub-blades in a direction from a root to a tip (fig. 1, elements 1, 1’ and 1’’), all the sub-blades are named as blade root section, telescopic section and blade tip section in turn from the root to the tip (fig. 1, elements 1, 1’ and 1’’), the telescopic section comprises one or more telescopic sections (fig. 1, elements 1), the blade root section comprises one blade root section and the blade tip section comprises one blade tip section (fig. 1, elements 1’ and 1’’); but fails to teach, any two closer sub-blades except the blade tip section are in sliding fit,
However Dawson70 teaches, any two closer sub-blades except the blade tip section are in sliding fit (fig. 9, element 18’),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft taught by Vittorio with the extended tip section taught by Dawson70 with a reasonable expectation of success to provide enhancement of power (col. 9, lines 41-56).
Vittorio further teaches, and the sub-blade, closer to the blade tip section, of the any two closer sub-blades except the blade tip section is able to be accommodated in another sub-blade of the any two closer sub-blades (fig. 5, element 1), and the blade tip section is fixedly connected to an adjacent one of the one or more telescopic sections which is closer to the blade tip section (fig. 4); but fails to teach, the variable-diameter blade further comprises:
a telescopic rod partially located in the variable-diameter blade, the blade root section and the blade tip section each are fixedly connected to the telescopic rod, and the telescopic rod is fixedly connected to the trans-media aircraft;
a spring arranged in the telescopic rod,
the spring is configured to drive the telescopic rod to extend to a maximum length; a pulley installed on the trans-media aircraft, the pulley is closer to the blade root section and has a gap with the blade root section;
a pull rope, wherein an end of the pull rope passes through an inside of the variable-diameter blade and is fixedly connected to the blade tip section, and an other end of the pull rope is wound around the pulley; and
a driving device for driving the pulley to rotate;
a leading edge of the blade root section is a curve, and a trailing edge of the blade root section is a straight line; and a leading edge and a trailing edge of the blade tip section are both straight lines.
However Calkins teaches, the variable-diameter blade further comprises: a telescopic rod partially located in the variable-diameter blade (fig. 6, element 29), the blade root section and the blade tip section each are fixedly connected to the telescopic rod (figs. 5 and 6, elements 24 and 26 equal to blade sections), and the telescopic rod is fixedly connected to the trans-media aircraft (fig. 6 and fig, 1, element 29 jack and 16 wing inboard of inner edge of wing is the aircraft);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft taught by Vittorio with the rod taught by Calkins with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine is to drive the airfoil sections to the extended position.
The examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to use a spring in telescoping rod as they are common in the art to help in extending or retracting the rod. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vittorio with a spring. The motivation to do so would be to help in extend the rod.
Calkins further teaches, a pulley installed on the trans-media aircraft, the pulley is arranged adjacent to the blade root section and with a gap therebetween (fig. 6, element 31); a pull rope (fig. 6, element 32), wherein an end of the pull rope passes through an inside of the variable-diameter blade and is fixedly connected to the blade tip section (fig. 6), and an other end of the pull rope is wound around the pulley (fig. 6); and a leading edge of the blade root section is a curve (fig. 1, element 16 and 17 curved from top to bottom), and a trailing edge of the blade root section is a straight line (fig. 6, element 16 and 24); and a leading edge and a trailing edge of the blade tip section are both straight lines (fig. 6, element 26 leading edge and trailing edge are straight lines from top view).
Regarding claim 2, Vittorio as modified teaches, Vittorio as modified teaches, the variable-diameter blade suitable for a trans-media aircraft according to claim 1, Calkins teaches, wherein an outer wall of an end , closer to the blade root section, of each telescopic section is provided with an outer convex ring (fig. 5, element 3 and 3’) on an outer wall of the telescopic section, and the outer convex ring is arranged at one of two ends, which is closer to the blade root section than the other end of the telescopic section (fig. 5); Calkins teaches, the blade root section and each telescopic section are provided with first limit rings and second limit rings (fig. 10, element 4 and fig. 5, element 2), respectively; the first limit ring is closer to the root (element 4), and the second limit ring is closer to the tip (element 2); the outer convex ring on the sub-blade, closer to a blade tip segment, of any two closer sub-blades except the blade tip section is configured for being abutted against the first limit ring or the second limit ring on the other sub-blade of the any two closer sub-blades (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Vittorio as modified teaches, the variable-diameter blade suitable for a trans-media aircraft according to claim 1, wherein when all telescopic sections are located in the blade root section (fig. 7, elements 1, 1’ and 1”), an outer wall of an end , closer to the blade root section, of the blade tip section is in smooth transition connection with an end , closer to the blade tip section, of the blade root section, and a blade composed of the blade root section and the blade tip section is configured as a blade for an underwater mode; when a length of the variable-diameter blade is in a longest state, the blade is configured as a blade for an aerial mode.
Regarding claim 5, Vittorio as modified teaches, the variable-diameter blade suitable for a trans-media aircraft according to claim 4, wherein a shape of the blade root section is designed according to a situation that the trans-media aircraft navigates in water.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that statements of intended use or purpose do not impose patentable limitation on an apparatus claim, Specifically MPEP 2112 II. Manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.
Dawson as modified by Calkins teaches the variable-diameter blade suitable for a trans-media aircraft according to claim 4, but is silent about “wherein a shape of the blade root section is designed according to a situation that the trans-media aircraft navigates in water.”
However, this is merely a statement of intended use that does not impose any structural or functional limitation on the claimed equipment. It does not specify any changes to the structure, configuration, or operation of the system that would distinguish it from the equipment disclosed by Calkins.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vittorio in view Dawson70 and Calkins and further in view of US 8231347 B2 Dawson; Mark et al. (herein after known as Dawson47).
Regarding claim 3 Vittorio teaches, the variable-diameter blade suitable for a trans-media aircraft according to claim 1, but fails to teach, wherein an axis of the telescopic rod is coaxial with a blade variable pitch axis of the variable-diameter blade (fig, 5, element 28); and a length direction of a part of the pull rope located in the variable-diameter blade is parallel to an axial direction of the telescopic rod.
However Dawson47 teaches, wherein an axis of the telescopic rod is coaxial with a blade variable pitch axis of the variable-diameter blade (fig, 5, element 28);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft taught by Vittorio with the an axis of the telescopic rod is coaxial with a blade variable pitch axis taught by Dawson47 with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine is to simplify the balancing of the blade with only one axis.
Calkins teaches, and a length direction of a part of the pull rope located in the variable-diameter blade is parallel to an axial direction of the telescopic rod (fig. 6).
Conclusion
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 CINDI M. CURRY whose telephone number is (469)295-9296. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-F.
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 J. 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.
/C.M.C/
Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642