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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 7/18/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent #11724793 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 9-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Sa (US PgPub #2018/0273170) in view of Rahrig (US Patent #10526069).
For Claims 1 and 21, the figures of D’Sa ‘170 disclose a system comprising: at least one microcontroller (162) in communication with at least one first and second engine (90) connected to respective first and second propellers. While figure 10 and paragraph [0057] of D’Sa ‘170 disclose using the microcontroller to independently vary the thrust of the different propellers (42a-d) for a desired thrust, it is silent about specifically halting rotation of an inboard propeller and adjusting a rotation of an outboard propeller. However, the figures of Rahrig ‘069 teach an aircraft that controls both inboard and outboard propellers in different embodiments to halt when the other of the inboard or outboard propellers thrust is adjusted which has a safe distance from the ground at all times. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to modify Rahrig ‘069 with the ability to halt a propeller. The motivation to do so would be to turn off a propeller when not needed so as to reduce the work done by the propeller resulting in a longer life.
For Claim 2, the figures of D’Sa ‘170 disclose that the system comprises an unmanned aerial vehicle; an inner wing panels (30b and 30c); and outer wing panels (30a and 30d); wherein the inboard propellers are attached to the first engine disposed on the inner wing panels; and wherein the tip propellers are attached to the second engines disposed on the outer wing panels.
For Claim 3, figure 11 of D’Sa ‘170 disclose that the outer wing panels are disposed on either side of the inner wing panels, and wherein the outer wing panels are disposed at an upward angle to a plane formed by the one or more inner wing panels.
For Claim 6, the figures of D’Sa ‘170 disclose that the UAV is a high altitude long endurance aircraft.
For Claim 7, the figures of D’Sa ‘170 disclose a solar array covering at least a portion of the wing panels.
For Claims 9-10, while D’Sa ‘170 teaches a microcontroller to control the power to the propellers, it is silent about determining an altitude and sending a signal based on that. However, figure 12 of Rahrig ‘069 teaches that it is known to halt rotation of the larger blade (200) that would hit the ground and to send a signal to rotate the smaller propeller (202) to provide thrust for takeoff and landing and then to start the larger blade when above an altitude that it won’t strike the ground. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify D'Sa ‘170 with the propeller control of Rahrig ‘069. The motivation to do so would be to provide thrust for the aircraft during take-off and landing while protecting the larger propeller that can be used once there is clearance to provide more efficient thrust.
For Claim 11, the figures of D’Sa ‘170 disclose sending, by a microcontroller (162) in communication with a first and second engine, signals to independently control the thrust produced by the tip propeller and inboard propeller. While figure 10 and paragraph [0057] of D’Sa ‘170 disclose using the microcontroller to independently vary the thrust of the different propellers (42a-d) for a desired thrust, it is silent about specifically halting rotation of an inboard propeller and adjusting a rotation of an outboard propeller. However, the figures of Rahrig ‘069 teach an aircraft that controls both inboard and outboard propellers in different embodiments to halt when the other of the inboard or outboard propellers thrust is adjusted. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to modify Rahrig ‘069 with the ability to halt a propeller. The motivation to do so would be to turn off a propeller when not needed so as to reduce the work done by the propeller resulting in a longer life.
For Claim 12, the figures of D’Sa ‘170 disclose that the first engine is on an unmanned aerial vehicle, and wherein the at least one inboard propeller is disposed on the inner wing panels (30b and 30c) of the UAV.
For Claims 13-15, while D’Sa ‘170 teaches a microcontroller to control the power to the propellers, it is silent about determining an altitude and sending a signal based on that. However, figure 12 of Rahrig ‘069 teaches that it is known to halt rotation of the larger blade (200) that would hit the ground and to send a signal to rotate the smaller propeller (202) to provide thrust for takeoff and landing and then to start the larger blade when above an altitude that it won’t strike the ground. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify D'Sa ‘170 with the propeller control of Rahrig ‘069. The motivation to do so would be to provide thrust for the aircraft during take-off and landing while protecting the larger propeller that can be used once there is clearance to provide more efficient thrust.
For Claim 16, the figures of D’Sa ‘170 disclose at least one microcontroller (162) in communication with a first and second engine (90), wherein an inboard propeller is attached to the first engine, wherein at least one tip propeller is attached to the second engine, and wherein the microcontroller is configured to send a first signal to the inboard propeller; and send a second signal to the second engine to adjust rotation of the tip propeller. While figure 10 and paragraph [0057] of D’Sa ‘170 disclose using the microcontroller to independently vary the thrust of the different propellers (42a-d) for a desired thrust, it is silent about specifically halting rotation of an inboard propeller and adjusting a rotation of an outboard propeller. However, the figures of Rahrig ‘069 teach an aircraft that controls both inboard and outboard propellers in different embodiments to halt when the other of the inboard or outboard propellers thrust is adjusted. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to modify Rahrig ‘069 with the ability to halt a propeller. The motivation to do so would be to turn off a propeller when not needed so as to reduce the work done by the propeller resulting in a longer life.
For Claim 17, the figures of D’Sa ‘170 disclose an unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein the UAV comprises the tip propeller attached to the second engine, wherein the tip propeller can rotate freely without contacting the surface during rotation of the tip propeller when the UAV is located on the surface.
For Claims 18-19, while D’Sa ‘170 discloses a microcontroller controlling an inner propeller, it is silent about adjusting other propellers when the inner propeller is halted. However, figure 12 of Rahrig ‘069 teaches that it is known to halt rotation of the larger blade (200) that would hit the ground and to send a signal to rotate the smaller propeller (202) to provide thrust for takeoff and landing. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Firanski ‘857 and Rawdon ‘969 with the propeller control of Rahrig ‘069. The motivation to do so would be to provide thrust for the aircraft during takeoff and landing while protecting the larger propeller that can be used once there is clearance to provide more efficient thrust.
Claim(s) 5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Sa (US PgPub #2018/0273170) in view of Rahrig (US Patent #10526069) as applied to claims 2 and 18 above, and further in view of Rawdon (US PgPub #2016/0144969).
For Claim 5, while D’Sa ‘170 is silent about landing pods, however, the figures of Rawdon ‘969 teach having landing pods (20). Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify D’Sa ‘170 with the landing pods of Rawdon ‘969. The motivation to do so would be to use larger landing pods for greater stability.
For Claim 20, while D’Sa ‘170 discloses inboard and outboard wing panels with propellers and engines, it is silent about having landing pods. However, figures 1A-1B of Rawdon ‘969 teach a UAV having an inner wing panel (12) having inboard propellers with engines (18) and outer wing panels (14 and 16) that disposed at an upward angle to a plane formed by the inner wing panel and having a tip propeller with engine disposed one the outer wing panel that are free to rotate without hitting the ground surface and having landing pods (20). Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the known propeller and engine system and landing pods of Firanski ‘857 on a larger UAV as taught by Rawdon ‘969. The motivation to do so would be to provide greater thrust with larger propeller blade diameters which allowing for the propellers to be controlled to eliminate ground contract and damage to the aircraft and to use larger landing pods for greater stability.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Sa (US PgPub #2018/0273170) in view of Rahrig (US Patent #10526069) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Firanski (US PgPub #2015/0008857).
For Claim 8, while D’Sa ‘170 is silent about a hall effect position sensor to sense where the propeller is, the figures and paragraph [0030] of Firanski ‘857 disclose a position sensor (110 and 802) in communication with the microcontroller, wherein the position sensor detects a position of the at least one inboard propeller, and wherein the position is a Hall effect rotary position sensor. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify D’Sa ‘170 with the position sensor of Firanski ‘857. The motivation to do so would be to provide specific propeller location.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-14, filed 7/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 11, and 16 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of D’Sa ‘170.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 8/22/2025