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 Objections
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: is a motor required by the claims? Appropriate clarification or 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.
Claims 7-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 103910066 A).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses a flight device drone, comprising:
an engine (engine one 20, and engine two 22);
a transmission shaft (main shaft 4, and main shaft 36); and
a rotor (rotor device one 1, and rotor device two 96);
wherein the engine includes a first engine and a second engine (Fig. 1);
the transmission shaft includes a first transmission shaft rotated by the first engine and a second transmission shaft rotated by the second engine (pg. 6: the rotor device 1 and the rotor device 96 are rotated by the engine 20 and the engine 22 in parallel of translation);
the rotor includes a first rotor rotated by the first transmission shaft and a second rotor rotated by the second transmission shaft (Fig. 1);
the first transmission shaft has a hollow structure (pg. 7); the second transmission shaft is arranged inside the first transmission shaft (via the arrangement detailed on pg. 7: The main shaft one 4 and the main shaft two 36 are both hollow structures, the inner ring of the double row angular contact ball bearing 5 and the inner wall of the main shaft one 4 are interference fit, and the outer ring of the double row angular contact ball bearing 5 has an interference fit with the inner wall of the upper end of the main shaft two 36);
the engine is arranged below the transmission shaft; the transmission shaft extends along a vertical axis about which the rotor rotates (Fig. 1 – the office notes 20 and 22 are below 4 and 36); and
as the first engine, the second engine, and the transmission shaft are viewed along an axial direction of the transmission shaft, the first engine and the second engine are located on opposite sides of the transmission shaft (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses the flight device according to claim 7, further comprising:
a first drive transmission configured to transmit driving force from the first engine to the first transmission shaft (power output shaft one 17); and
a second drive transmission configured to transmit driving force from the second engine to the second transmission shaft (power output shaft two 24);
wherein as the first drive transmission, the second drive transmission, and the transmission shaft are viewed along the axial direction of the transmission shaft, the first drive transmission and the second drive transmission are arranged so as to interpose the transmission shaft therebetween (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses the flight device according to claim 7, further comprising:
a first drive transmission configured to transmit driving force from the first engine to the first transmission shaft (at least timing pulley 18); and
a second drive transmission configured to transmit driving force from the second engine to the second transmission shaft (at least timing pulley 25);
wherein as the transmission shaft, the first drive transmission, and the second drive transmission are viewed along the axial direction of the transmission shaft, the first drive transmission and the second drive transmission are arranged so as to interpose the transmission shaft therebetween (Fig. 1), and the transmission shaft, the first drive transmission, and the second drive transmission are substantially aligned along a straight line (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses the flight device according to claim 7, wherein the first engine and the second engine are arranged symmetrically with respect to the transmission shaft and are configured to operate in synchronization with each other so that vibrations generated by the first engine and vibrations generated by the second engine cancel each other (the office notes the power coupling detailed on page 4 drives synchronization; reproduced from page 4: The invention has the beneficial effects that the parallel dual-engine coaxial unmanned helicopter of the invention is a dual-engine coaxial unmanned helicopter with small vibration, sufficient power, safety and reliability, and capable of carrying heavy loads. The engine I and the engine II are symmetrically arranged, and the transmission system as a whole is symmetrical, which can cancel the respective vibrations; the engine I and the engine II can realize the non-equal speed input through the power coupling device, and the engine I and the engine II have flexibility; The device outputs the total torque of engine I and engine II through one shaft, which can realize large torque, and realize common shaft reversal through the reducer.)
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses the flight device according to claim 8, wherein the first drive transmission includes a first pulley connected to the first engine (see power coupling detailed on page 9; timing pulley 18), a second pulley connected to the first transmission shaft (14), and a first belt laid over the first pulley and the second pulley (16), and the second drive transmission includes a corresponding pair of pulleys (25, 28) and a second belt (26).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 7, and further, in view of Powell (US 2012/0024147 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses the flight device according to claim 7 but does not appear to specifically disclose a combustion or an electric engine, i.e., wherein the first engine includes a first piston, and the second engine includes a second piston, and the first piston and the second piston reciprocate within a single common combustion chamber shared by the first engine and the second engine.
However, Powell teaches a co-axial engine in a similar field of endeavor including a plurality of pistons and a single common combustion chamber configured for two pistons.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the flight device disclosed by Chen with the plurality of pistons and a single common combustion chamber configured for two pistons as taught by Powell, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the first engine includes a first piston and the second engine includes a second piston, and the first piston and the second piston reciprocate within a single common combustion chamber shared by the first engine and the second engine. The benefit being the predictable outcome of at least a more compact design and improved synchronization.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 7, and further, in view of Judas et al. (US 2016/0207625 A1), hereinafter Judas.
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses the flight device according to claim 7 but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the engine further includes a third engine and a fourth engine, wherein the first rotor is rotated by the first engine and the third engine, and the second rotor is rotated by the second engine and the fourth engine.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the flight device with a third and fourth engine, in addition to the first and second engine, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the first rotor is rotated by the first engine and the third engine, and the second rotor is rotated by the second engine and the fourth engine, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The benefit being the predictable outcome of introducing redundancy to the power system to increase safety, for example as taught with respect to the flight device in Judas, cited above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 7, and further, in view of Steinwandel et al. (US 2015/0285165 A1), hereinafter Steinwandel.
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses the flight device according to claim 7 but does not appear to specifically disclose a generator driven by the engine.
However, Steinwandel teaches a flight device in the same field of endeavor including a generator driven by an engine (thrust generator 18 driven by internal combustion engine 28), and a separate generator 38, G, (generator 38, G is part of an electric machine 34 that is able to operate as a generator G or as an electric motor M are connected via an electronic control unit—the power electronics 42,E—to a backup battery which is alternately charged during generator operation or is used to supply electrical energy to the electrical machine 34 in electric motor operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the flight device disclosed by Chen with at least one of the generators taught by Steinwandel, with a reasonable expectation of success, for each engine, so the that the flight device comprises a first generator driven by the first engine and a second generator driven by the second engine. The benefit being the predictable outcome of compatibility of the invention with a range of flight devices, particularly, larger UAVs having a maximum takeoff weight from about 70 kg, and unmanned flying apparatus’ having low-cost propulsion that also be used in a very versatile manner for different flight functions.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 7, and further, in view of Hofi et al. (US 2023/0139693 A1), hereinafter Hofi.
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses the flight device according to claim 7 but does not appear to specifically disclose the flight device comprises a sub-rotor or a motor, wherein the sub-rotor is configured to be rotationally driven by the motor.
However, Hofi teaches a flight device in the same field of endeavor; Specifically, an air vehicle comprising a secondary rotor (210) configured to be rotationally driven by motor (240).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the flight device disclosed by Chen with the sub-rotor configured to be rotationally driven by the motor as taught by Hofi, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the flight devices comprises the sub-rotor configured to be rotationally driven by the motor. The benefit being the predictable outcome of providing fine control moments to the air vehicle in at least one of pitch, yaw and roll (§[0023], Hofi).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 7, and further, in view of Chen (WO 2019/052530 A1), hereinafter 2nd Chen.
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses the flight device according to claim 7 but does not appear to specifically disclose the flight device comprises a sub-rotor or a motor, wherein the sub-rotor is configured to be rotationally driven by the motor.
However, 2nd Chen teaches a flight device in the same field of endeavor; Specifically, a hybrid electric unmanned vehicle comprising a secondary rotor (4) configured to be rotationally driven by motor (one electric engine, see ABSTRACT reproduced here: Disclosed is a hybrid electric unmanned aerial vehicle, comprising a primary frame (1) and two secondary frames (2), two primary rotors (3) respectively arranged at two ends of the primary frame (1), four secondary rotors (4) respectively arranged on the four ends of the two secondary frames (2), a fuel engine, and a plurality of electric engines, wherein the two primary rotors (3) are both powered by the fuel engine; and each of the secondary rotors (4) is respectively powered by one electric engine. The hybrid electric unmanned aerial vehicle cooperatively uses the fuel engine and the electric engines, and the fuel engine drives the two primary rotors (3), so as to provide a lift force and forward power to the unmanned aerial vehicle. The electric engines drive the four secondary rotors (4) to control the attitude of the aerial vehicle, such as pitch, roll and yaw. Only one fuel engine is used to control the two main primary rotors (3), so that various parameters such as the rotational speed of the two primary rotors (3) can easily be consistent, and there is no need to cooperatively use a complex control system for adjusting).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the flight device disclosed by Chen with the sub-rotor configured to be rotationally driven by the motor as taught by 2nd Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the flight devices comprises the sub-rotor configured to be rotationally driven by the motor. The benefit being the predictable outcome of having a great load-bearing capacity and a long operable duration. (ABSTRACT, 2nd Chen).
Regarding claim 15, modified Chen discloses the flight device according to claim 14, comprising a mechanical driving system that mechanically rotates the rotor by driving force of the engine (ABSTRACT), and an electric driving system that rotates the sub-rotor by the motor (ABSTRACT), wherein the mechanical driving system and the electric driving system are provided in parallel (the office notes modified Chen discloses a parallel-type hybrid drone as the as is evidenced by the ABSTRACT, e.g., electric not merely used for longevity or as a storage battery but consistently as the primary driving source for the secondary rotors).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/2026 have been fully considered. The arguments regarding Fiat (GB 360167 A) and Chen (CN 211281442 U) are moot as neither are relied upon for the rejections of amended claims 7-9 or newly added claims 10-16.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections, the rejections are obviated per the amendments. The rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 replying 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 case, however, will the statutory period for replying 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 SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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 Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights