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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15, 20, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Fernandez et al. (US 3149800 A), hereinafter Fernandez.
Regarding Claim 15
Fernandez teaches a lift module for a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft (Col. 1 Lines 14-45), comprising: a structural compartment (wing tip fuel tank (3)) including at least two lids (flight doors (4)), each lid of the at least two lids being moveable between an open position and a closed position (Col. 4 Lines 66-72); at least one drive assembly fixed to the structural compartment (assembly including rotor (5), shaft (7), and engine driving shaft (8)), the at least one drive assembly including a rotor and a plurality of blades (Fig. I), the plurality of blades defining a plane of rotation when the plurality of blades is rotating (Fig. I, Fig. III); and an actuator assembly configured to move the at least two lids between the open position and the closed position (brackets (42) and axis (41), Fig. IV), wherein the actuator assembly is configured such that, with the at least two lids in the open position, the at least two lids are positioned below the plane of rotation of the plurality of blades and permit rotation of the rotor (Claim 11).
Regarding Claim 20
Fernandez teaches the lift module of claim 15, wherein the at least two lids have a curved arc-shaped cross-section (Fig. IV) such that, with the at least two lids in the closed position, lower edges of the at least two lids overlap on an outside with upper edges of the structural compartment (Fig. IV), the structural compartment having a cross-section that is formed by another curved arc (Fig. IV).
Regarding Claim 29
Fernandez teaches a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft (convertiplane (1), Fig. I) comprising: at least one lift module according to claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above).
Regarding Claim 30
Fernandez teaches the VTOL aircraft of claim 29, wherein the at least one lift module is attached to at least one fixed-wing of the VTOL aircraft (Fig. III).
Claims 15, 16, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Clark et al. (US 2020031478 A1), hereinafter Clark.
Regarding Claim 15
Clark teaches a lift module for a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft (Para. [0006]), comprising: a structural compartment (structural element (108)) including at least two lids (enclosing panel (300), Fig. 3C-D), each lid of the at least two lids being moveable between an open position and a closed position (Para. [0034], Fig. 3C-D); at least one drive assembly fixed to the structural compartment (assembly including propulsor (104), rotor (112), and motor (116)), the at least one drive assembly including a rotor and a plurality of blades (rotor (112), Fig. 3C-D), the plurality of blades defining a plane of rotation when the plurality of blades is rotating (Fig. 3D); and an actuator assembly configured to move the at least two lids between the open position and the closed position (Para. [0034]), wherein the actuator assembly is configured such that, with the at least two lids in the open position, the at least two lids are positioned below the plane of rotation of the plurality of blades and permit rotation of the rotor (Fig. 3C-D).
Regarding Claim 16
Clark teaches the lift module of claim 15, wherein the actuator assembly is configured such that, with the at least two lids in the open position, the at least two lids are located at least partially below the structural compartment (Fig. 3D).
Regarding Claim 29
Clark teaches a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft (vehicle (700), Para. [0049], Fig. 7) comprising: at least one lift module according to claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above).
Regarding Claim 30
Clark teaches the VTOL aircraft of claim 29, wherein the at least one lift module is attached to at least one fixed-wing of the VTOL aircraft (Fig. 7).
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.
Claims 17, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez et al. (US 3149800 A), hereinafter Fernandez, in view of Moore et al. (US 20220234728 A1), hereinafter Moore.
Regarding Claim 17
Fernandez teaches the lift module of claim 15, wherein the actuator assembly comprises: at least one active first arm having an upper end attached to a first lid of the at least two lids (left bracket (42), Fig. IV); and at least one active second arm having an upper end attached to a second lid of the at least two lids (right bracket (42), Fig. IV), but does not teach:
a lower end of the at least one active first arm attached to a first shaft of a first motor;
and a lower end of the at least one active second arm attached to a second shaft of a second motor.
Moore teaches:
an end of the at least one active first arm attached to a first shaft of a first motor (Para. [0025], Fig. 7A-B shows how the arms are attached to a single motor, Examiner notes the first arm would be attached to a first shaft of a first motor when a plurality of actuators are used);
and a lower end of the at least one active second arm attached to a second shaft of a second motor (Para. [0025], Fig. 7A-B shows how the arms are attached to a single motor, Examiner notes the second arm would be attached to a second shaft of a second motor when a plurality of actuators are used).
Fernandez teaches a plurality of arms attached to a single point (41), which is defined as an axis of symmetry. However, the motor(s) required to actuate the doors (4), along with its surrounding structure, is not disclosed. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lift module of Fernandez with the teachings of Moore with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means to control the actuation of the doors. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use two independent motors as this would allow for independent articulation of the arms if desired or expedient, or in the event one of the motors failed. Examiner notes that Moore teaches the upper end of the at least one active first and second arms attached to a first shaft of a first motor and a second shaft of a second motor, respectively, since the doors are positioned at the bottom of the lift module and move upward to open. When applied to the lift module of Fernandez, however, these connections would be at a lower end of each of the arms as claimed.
Regarding Claim 18
Fernandez, in view of Moore, teaches the lift module of claim 17, wherein axes of rotation of the at least one active first arm and the at least one active second arm are fixed to the structural compartment and located on opposing sides and equidistant from a longitudinal axis of the lift module (Moore: Fig. 6-7), the axes of rotation of the at least one active first arm and the at least one active second arm being located in the same transverse plane (Moore: Fig. 6-7).
Regarding Claim 21
Fernandez teaches the lift module of claim 15, wherein the at least two lids have a curved arc-shaped cross-section (Fig. IV), the structural compartment having a cross-section that is formed by another curved arc (Fig. IV), but is silent on:
with the at least two lids in the closed position, lower edges of the at least two lids are flush with upper edges of the structural compartment.
Moore teaches:
with the at least two lids in the closed position, edges of the at least two lids are flush with edges of the structural compartment (Fig. 6-7).
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 lift module of Fernandez with the features of Moore with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a smooth aerodynamic surface without interruption when the lids are in the closed position. Examiner notes that Moore teaches the upper edges of the at least two lids are flush with the lower edges of the structural compartment, respectively, since the doors are positioned at the bottom of the lift module and move upward to open. When applied to the lift module of Fernandez, however, the lower edges of the at least two lids would be flush with the upper edges of the structural compartment as claimed.
Claims 19, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez et al. (US 3149800 A), hereinafter Fernandez, in view of Moore et al. (US 20220234728 A1), hereinafter Moore, as applied to claims 17, 18, and 21 above, and further in view of Popiks (US 10894599 B1) and Yulkowski (US 20020170249 A1).
Regarding Claim 19
Fernandez, in view of Moore, teaches the lift module of claim 17, but does not teach:
wherein the actuator assembly further comprises: at least one first passive arm having an upper end attached to the first lid and a lower end having a freely rotating solidary shaft in a bearing or bushing;
and at least one second passive arm having an upper end attached to the second lid and a lower end having a freely rotating solidary shaft attached to a bearing or bushing.
Popiks teaches:
wherein the actuator assembly further comprises: at least one first passive arm having an upper end attached to the first lid (rear support arm (340)).
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 lift module of Fernandez, in view of Moore, to have the lid include a passive arm as taught by Popiks with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of helping control the orientation of the cover during opening and closing operations (Popiks: Col. 7 Lines 51-56). Examiner notes that when applying the teachings of Popiks to the structure of the primary references, both lids would have passive arms, therefore teaching at least one second passive arm having an upper end attached to the second lid as claimed.
However, Popiks does not specify how the passive arm rotates when moving the lids from the closed to the open position. Examiner notes that using bearings or bushings is common and a well-known way to reduce friction and facilitate the motion of a rotating shaft. For purposes of compact prosecution, an additional reference is being brought in to explicitly teach the use of a bushing.
Yulkowski teaches:
an arm having a lower end having a freely rotating solidary shaft attached to a bearing or bushing (Para. [0038] “Pivot axis 54 may have a bushing 56 positioned thereon. Closer assembly 50 also includes an arm 58 having a first end 58A and a second end 58B. First end 58A is coupled to bushing 56 so that arm 58 rotates therearound”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the passive arm have a lower end attached to a bearing or a bushing as taught by Yulkowski with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of, for example, reducing friction between moving parts and extending the lifespan of the assembly.
Regarding Claim 22
Fernandez, in view of Moore, teaches the lift module of claim 21, wherein the actuator assembly comprises: at least one active first arm having an upper end attached to a first lid of the at least two lids and a lower end attached to a first shaft of a first motor (Moore: Para. [0025], Fig. 7A-B shows how the arms are attached to a single motor, Examiner notes the first arm would be attached to a first shaft of a first motor when a plurality of actuators are used, Examiner notes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the arms and motor structure of Fernandez with the teachings of Moore, see claim 17 rejection above); at least one active second arm having an upper end attached to a second lid of the at least two lids and a lower end attached to a second shaft of a second motor (Para. [0025], Fig. 7A-B shows how the arms are attached to a single motor, Examiner notes the second arm would be attached to a second shaft of a second motor when a plurality of actuators are used); but does not teach:
at least one first passive arm having an upper end attached to the first lid and a lower end having a freely rotating solidary shaft in a bearing or bushing;
and at least one second passive arm having an upper end attached to the second lid and a lower end having a freely rotating solidary shaft attached to a bearing or bushing.
Popiks teaches:
wherein the actuator assembly further comprises: at least one first passive arm having an upper end attached to the first lid (rear support arm (340)).
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 lift module of Fernandez, in view of Moore, to have the lid include a passive arm as taught by Popiks with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of helping control the orientation of the cover during opening and closing operations (Popiks: Col. 7 Lines 51-56). Examiner notes that when applying the teachings of Popiks to the structure of the primary references, both lids would have passive arms, therefore teaching at least one second passive arm having an upper end attached to the second lid as claimed.
However, Popiks does not specify how the passive arm rotates when moving the lids from the closed to the open position. Examiner notes that using bearings or bushings is common and a well-known way to reduce friction and facilitate the motion of a rotating shaft. For purposes of compact prosecution, an additional reference is being brought in to explicitly teach the use of a bushing.
Yulkowski teaches:
an arm having a lower end having a freely rotating solidary shaft attached to a bearing or bushing (Para. [0038] “Pivot axis 54 may have a bushing 56 positioned thereon. Closer assembly 50 also includes an arm 58 having a first end 58A and a second end 58B. First end 58A is coupled to bushing 56 so that arm 58 rotates therearound”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the passive arm have a lower end attached to a bearing or a bushing as taught by Yulkowski with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of, for example, reducing friction between moving parts and extending the lifespan of the assembly.
Regarding Claim 23
Fernandez, in view of Moore, Popiks, and Yulkowski, teaches the lift module of claim 22, wherein the actuator assembly is configured such that, during movement of the at least two lids from the closed position to the open position, the actuator assembly causes a lateral displacement of the at least two lids to clear the upper edges of the structural compartment and a downward displacement of the at least two lids that places the at least two lids below the plane of rotation of the plurality of blades (Moore: the doors move laterally to clear the lower edges of the structural compartment and have an upward displacement to place the doors above the plane of rotation, Fig. 6A-E, Examiner notes that when applied to the doors of Fernandez, the movement is flipped and meets the movement as claimed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11001377 B1 – “Aircraft Airfoil And Aircraft Having The Same”
US 20200055358 A1 – “Fly/Drive Vehicle That Is Convertible Between A Road Riding Condition And A Flying Condition”
US 20190270517 A1 – “Vertical Take-off And Landing Aircraft”
US 20180327091 A1 – “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle I.e. Drone, For Use In Emergency Situations, Has Flight Controller For Autonomously Managing Operations Of Propulsion Mechanisms During Vertical Flying Operation, Horizontal Flying Operation And Landing Operation”
US 6622962 B1 – “Fixed Wing Aircraft Having Powered Rotor VTOL Capability With Rotor Blades Stowable During Horizontal Flight”
US 3088694 A – “Wing-fan Doors”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine June Walter whose telephone number is (571)272-6150. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights