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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-30 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits of these claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “configured to power to the traction wheel” in lines 8-9 appears to have an extra word and should be amended to, for example, “configured to power the traction wheel”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1, 3-5, 8, 14 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Number 2018/0009279 by Hamel.
Regarding claim 1, Hamel discloses a flight vehicle (vehicle 2) comprising:
A frame (frame 22);
A propulsion system coupled to the frame (propeller 6);
A first source of power coupled to the frame and configured to power the propulsion system (propeller engine 4);
A traction wheel coupled to the frame and configured for tractional engagement with a ground surface during low-speed ground operation of the flight vehicle (ground traction elements 10);
A second source of power coupled to the frame and configured to power the traction wheel (ground engine 8).
Regarding claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Hamel discloses the propulsion system comprises one or more fixed-pitch propellers (propeller 6).
Regarding claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Hamel does not disclose the second source comprises a pedal set coupled to the frame and configured for operation by a human operator onboard the flight vehicle to drive the traction wheel. Paragraph 42 discloses “The multimodal vehicle 2 preferably drives with typical automobile controls such as foot accelerator and foot brakes 56 to control the ground speed”. The foot accelerator comprises a pedal set that drives the traction wheel.
Regarding claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), Hamel discloses the second source comprises a traction motor configured to drive the traction wheel (ground engine 8).
Regarding claim 8 (dependent on claim 1), Hamel discloses the low-speed ground operation includes speeds of the flight vehicle between zero and 28 miles per hour. Paragraph 28 discloses “The multimodal vehicle preferably has a maximum ground speed of at least 70 mph”. A maximum speed of 70 mph allows for low-speed operation between zero and 28 mph.
Regarding claim 14 (dependent on claim 1), Hamel discloses the traction wheel is further configured to apply a braking force to the flight vehicle during landing of the flight vehicle. Paragraph 42 discloses “The multimodal vehicle 2 preferably drives with typical automobile controls such as foot accelerator and foot brakes 56 to control the ground speed”.
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 2 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2018/0009279 by Hamel.
Regarding claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Hamel discloses the flight vehicle is not capable of a level flight speed of more than 55 knots. Paragraph 24 discloses “The multimodal vehicle preferably has…a maximum air speed of at least 50 mph 43 knots 80 k/h”.
Hamel does not disclose the flight vehicle weights less than 254 pounds and has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons. However, paragraph 43 discloses a desire to save unnecessary weight from the vehicle. It thus would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the vehicle to decrease weights to save unnecessary weight for shorter flight durations.
Claims 6, 7, 9 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2018/0009279 by Hamel in view of US Patent Application Number 2012/0325573 by Miller.
Regarding claim 6 (dependent on claim 5), Hamel does not disclose the first source comprises one or more propulsion batteries, and wherein the traction motor is further operable to charge the one or more propulsion batteries. However, this limitation is taught by Miller. Paragraph 22 discloses “Electric traction motor/generator 14, during braking, generates electricity which is applied to storage batteries (not shown) through an inverter (not shown)” and paragraph 25 discloses “periods when the parallel hybrid-electric vehicle is operating on battery power”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hamel using the teachings from Miller in order to generate and store additional fuel for the aircraft as needed.
Regarding claim 7 (dependent on claim 5), Miller further teaches the second source comprises one or more or a traction battery or a traction capacitor configured to supply power to the traction motor. Paragraph 22 discloses “Electric traction motor/generator 14, during braking, generates electricity which is applied to storage batteries (not shown) through an inverter (not shown)”.
Regarding claim 9 (dependent on claim 1)¸Miller further teaches the first source comprises propulsion batteries. Paragraph 25 discloses “periods when the parallel hybrid-electric vehicle is operating on battery power”
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2018/0009279 by Hamel in view of US Patent Application Number 2025/0197003 by Kaplinsky.
Regarding claim 10 (dependent on claim 1), Hamel does not disclose at least one wing coupled to the frame, wherein the propulsion system comprises a plurality of electrically driven propulsors distributed along the at least one wing. However, this limitation is taught by Kaplinsky. Kaplinsky discloses a hybrid road-air vehicle with wings 22 and 24 coupled to the frame and rotors 38, 40, and 42 distributed along the wings. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hamel using the teachings from Kaplinsky as a substitution of known propulsion and lift mechanisms for hybrid air/ground vehicles.
Regarding claim 11 (dependent on claim 10)¸ Kaplinsky further teaches the at least one wing comprises a forward wing (22) and an aft wing (24), wherein a first set of the plurality of propulsors are distributed along the forward wing (38) and a second set of the plurality of propulsors are distributed along the aft wing (40 and 42).
Kaplinsky does not explicitly disclose a width of the flight vehicle does not exceed twelve feet. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the wingspan to provide the required lift while minimizing unnecessary weight from oversized wings, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2018/0009279 by Hamel in view of US Patent Application Number 2025/0197003 by Kaplinsky, in further view of US Patent Number 12,030,631 to Langer.
Regarding claim 12 (dependent on claim 10), Hamel does not disclose the first source includes a plurality of propulsion batteries distributed along the at least one wing. However, this limitation is taught by Langer. Langer discloses a ground-air vehicle, and column 4, lines 41-43 disclose “The electric motors 107 can be powered by rechargeable batteries mounted in the rotor booms 105”, and Figures 1B and 1C show rotor booms 105 being distributed along the wing. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hamel and Kaplinsky using the teachings from Langer to place the batteries closer to the propellers to reduce the amount of wiring needed between the two.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2018/0009279 by Hamel in view of US Patent Application Number 2025/0197003 by Kaplinsky, in further view of US Patent Application Number 2015/0102155 by Krastev.
Regarding claim 13 (dependent on claim 10)¸ Hamel and Kaplinsky do not disclose the first source includes one or more solar panels positioned on a top surface of the at least one wing. However, this limitation is taught by Krastev. Krastev discloses an air/ground transport vehicle, and claim 26 discloses “all external surfaces of the wings, the body, the cabin and the glasses are covered by photovoltaic elements which generate electricity by transforming the light and the solar energy”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hamel and Kaplinsky using the teachings from Krastev in order to provide additional power to the aircraft during flight.
Claims 15-19, 21-23, 25-26 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2018/0009279 by Hamel in view of US Patent Number 7,178,757 to Breese.
Regarding claim 15, Hamel discloses a guidance wheel pivotably coupled to the frame and configured to steer the flight vehicle during ground operations. Paragraph 42 discloses “a steering wheel 58 to turn the direction of the front wheels 12”.
Hamel does not disclose a guidance wheel fairing coupled to the frame and at least partially enclosing, and configured to pivot with, the guidance wheel, wherein the guidance wheel fairing is operable as a control surface of the flight vehicle. However, this limitation is taught by Breese. Breese discloses a hybrid air/ground vehicle with steerable front wheels 52 with fairings 120 that is shown enclosing the wheels 52 in Figures 1-4, and Figures 3-4 show axle tie rod 42, which is used to turn the wheels, being attached to fairings 120, as well as the airfoil shape of fairings 120 that would make it operable as a control surface. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hamel using the teachings from Breese to better protect the wheels and to provide additional control during flight.
Regarding claim 16 (dependent on claim 15), 21 (dependent on claim 18), Breese further teaches the guidance wheel comprises a first guidance wheel and the guidance wheel fairing comprises a first guidance wheel fairing, and wherein the flight vehicle further comprises: a second guidance wheel pivotably coupled to the frame and configured to steer the flight vehicle during ground operations; and a second guidance wheel fairing coupled to the frame and at least partially enclosing, and configured to pivot with, the second guidance wheel, wherein the first and second guidance wheels are positioned on opposite sides of the frame. Figures 3 and 4 show first and second fairings 120 positioned on opposite sides of the frame.
Regarding claim 17 (dependent on claim 16)¸ Hamel as modified by Breese further teaches the traction wheel and the first and second guidance wheels cooperate to enable the flight vehicle to operate as a ground-based cycle on the ground surface. Hamel discloses steerable front wheels 12 and ground traction wheels 10 and Breese teaches the steerable wheels being guidance wheels as claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Hamel discloses a flight vehicle (vehicle 2) comprising:
A frame (frame 22);
A propulsion system coupled to the frame (propeller 6);
A first source of power coupled to the frame and configured to power the propulsion system (propeller engine 4);
A guidance wheel pivotably coupled to the frame and configured to steer the f light vehicle during ground operations (steerable front wheels 12).
Hamel does not disclose a guidance wheel fairing coupled to the frame and at least partially enclosing, and configured to pivot with, the guidance wheel, wherein the guidance wheel fairing is operable as a control surface of the flight vehicle. However, this limitation is taught by Breese. Breese discloses a hybrid air/ground vehicle with steerable front wheels 52 with fairings 120 that is shown enclosing the wheels 52 in Figures 1-4, and Figures 3-4 show axle tie rod 42, which is used to turn the wheels, being attached to fairings 120, as well as the airfoil shape of fairings 120 that would make it operable as a control surface. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hamel using the teachings from Breese to better protect the wheels and to provide additional control during flight.
Regarding claim 19 (dependent on claim 18), Breese further teaches the guidance wheel fairing defines an airfoil profile (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 22 (dependent on claim 21), Hamel discloses the flight vehicle includes no actuatable vertical control surfaces apart from the first and second guidance wheel fairings. Hamel does not disclose any other actuatable vertical control surfaces.
Regarding claim 23 (dependent on claim 21), Breese further teaches the first and second guidance wheel fairings are further operable to induce a drag force to decelerate the flight vehicle into a controlled glide path during descent from flight towards ground. Fairings 120 can be turned, which increases drag and therefore is operable to induce a drag force to decelerate the flight vehicle, and the autogiro allows the flight vehicle to have a controlled glide path during descent towards the ground.
Regarding claims 25 (dependent on claim 21), 26 (dependent on claim 25), Hamel and Breese do not disclose a front wheel, wherein the front wheel and the first and second guidance wheels cooperate to enable the flight vehicle to operate as a ground-based cycle on the ground surface, wherein the front wheel comprises a traction wheel configured for tractional engagement with a ground surface during a low-speed ground operation of the flight vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse which wheels between the front and rear wheels are steering wheels and traction wheels as both front wheel steering and rear wheel steering are well-known in the art, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2018/0009279 by Hamel in view of US Patent Number 7,178,757 to Breese, in further view of US Patent Number 4,881,701 to Bullard.
Regarding claim 20 (dependent on claim 18), Hamel and Breese do not disclose the guidance wheel fairing comprises an independently actuatable control flap at an aft portion thereof. However, this limitation is taught by Bullard. Bullard discloses a combination automobile and airplane, and Figures 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 show vertical stabilizers 20 forming a fairing over wheels 58 and having rudders 52 and 54 at an aft portion thereof. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hamel and Breese using the teachings from Bullard in order to provide additional control over the aircraft during flight.
Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2018/0009279 by Hamel in view of US Patent Number 7,178,757 to Breese and US Patent Application Number 2023/0034488 by Sathya.
Regarding claim 27, Sathya discloses a flight vehicle (20) comprising:
A frame (chassis 21);
A guidance wheel pivotably coupled to the frame (wheels 22, paragraph 33 discloses “operator controls (e.g., steering wheel, acceleration, and brake pedals) and the like to permit the vehicle to operate as an electric automobile”);
A plurality of propulsors coupled to the frame (propulsion devices 48-53);
A controller coupled to the frame (controller 54) and comprising at least one processor in communication with a memory and operably coupled to the plurality of propulsors (paragraph 52 discloses “The flight vehicle can include an onboard controller 54 that is electrically and communicatively linked to each of the propulsion devices…the onboard controller can include any number of discrete or integrated circuits such as computer processors ,memory, user interface components and communication devices”).
Sathya does not disclose a guidance wheel fairing at least partially enclosing the guidance wheel and configured to pivot, at least one manual control configured to orient the guidance wheel fairing in response to operation by an on-board human operator of the flight vehicle, wherein the orientation is selectable to set a heading of the flight vehicle during flight. However, this limitation is taught by Breese. Breese discloses a hybrid air/ground vehicle with steerable front wheels 52 with fairings 120 that is shown enclosing the wheels 52 in Figures 1-4, and Figures 3-4 show axle tie rod 42, which is used to turn the wheels, being attached to fairings 120, as well as the airfoil shape of fairings 120 that would allow it to set a heading of the flight vehicle during flight. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sathya using the teachings from Breese to better protect the wheels and to provide additional control during flight.
Sathya does not explicitly disclose the memory storing instructions that are executable to cause the processor to automatically maintain the flight vehicle in level flight during flight. However, paragraph 54 discloses “the onboard controller 54 alone or in combination with the vehicle control system 24 can include functionality…to permit the assembled vehicle system to fly autonomously and/or semi autonomously from one location to another”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sathya to include level flight as a well-known type of autonomous flight.
Regarding claims 28 (dependent on claim 27), 29 (dependent on claim 27), 30 (dependent on claim 27), Sathya discloses the two or more plurality of propulsors are distributed along a span dimension of the flight vehicle (see Figure 1).
Sathya does not explicitly disclose the instructions are executable to further cause the processor to automatically reduce yaw perturbations about the heading set by the manual orientation, pitch perturbations, or roll perturbations by commanding differential thrust from the two or more propulsors. However, the examiner takes official notice that the use of differential thrust to control yaw, pitch, and roll perturbations is well-known in the art, and that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sathya to use differential thrust to control perturbations in order to maintain more stable flight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
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, Josh 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.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights