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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0023], Line 2, replace “disclosure” with --disclosure.--
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites “a transmission mechanism.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “a transmission mechanism” as recited in claim 13 relates to the previously recited “a transmission mechanism” of claim 10? I.e., are they the same or different components?
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 9,254,916 (Yang).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 6 and 7, Yang teaches: Claim 1 - a flying apparatus, comprising: a tandem tiltrotor system, comprising a front tiltrotor (1) and a rear tiltrotor (2); and a structural frame (5 and 7), configured to support the tandem tiltrotor system and comprising a front rotor-fixing support (7), a rear rotor-fixing support (7), and a linear support (5) configured to connect and fix the front rotor-fixing support (7) and the rear rotor-fixing support (7); wherein the front tilt rotor (1) is disposed at a middle portion of the front rotor-fixing support (7); and the rear tiltrotor (2) is disposed at a middle portion of the rear rotor-fixing support (7) wherein the front tiltrotor (1) and the rear tiltrotor (2) are arranged in a tandem manner and the flying apparatus is laterally symmetric to a connecting line between the front tiltrotor (1) and the rear tiltrotor (2), wherein the front tiltrotor (1) is configured to tilt at a front tilt angle to a gravity direction to control a flight of the flying apparatus, and the rear tiltrotor (2) is configured to tilt at a rear tilt angle to the gravity direction to control the flight of the flying apparatus, (Figures 16 and 17); Claim 2 - wherein the front tiltrotor (1) includes a front tilting axis that is generally parallel to an upper surface of the front rotor-fixing support (7), or the rear tiltrotor (2) includes a rear tilting axis that is generally parallel to an upper surface of the rear rotor-fixing support (7), (Figures 16 and 17); Claim 6 - at least one main wing (3) disposed between the front rotor-fixing support (7) and the rear rotor-fixing support (7) and configured to provide lift and be coupled to a fuselage, (Figures 16 and 17); Claim 7 - wherein a diameter of a front propeller of the front tiltrotor (1) is less than a length of the front rotor-fixing support (7), or a diameter of a rear propeller of the rear tiltrotor (2) is less than a length of the rear rotor-fixing support (7), (Figures 16 and 17).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,254,916 (Yang) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0298800 (Yoon).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang teaches the apparatus as described above, but does not teach: wherein at least one of the front tiltrotor and the rear tiltrotor is configured to tilt generally perpendicular to a ground level to drive taking off or landing vertically, or tilt generally parallel to the ground level to drive the flying apparatus take off, fly forward or backward (Claim 3). However, Yoon teaches: Claim 3 – wherein at least one of a front tiltrotor (131) and a rear tiltrotor (132) is configured to tilt generally perpendicular to a ground level to drive taking off or landing vertically, or tilt generally parallel to the ground level to drive the flying apparatus take off, fly forward or backward, (Figures 1-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Yang to have wherein at least one of the front tiltrotor and the rear tiltrotor is configured to tilt generally perpendicular to a ground level to drive taking off or landing vertically, or tilt generally parallel to the ground level to drive the flying apparatus take off, fly forward or backward (Claim 3) as taught by Yoon for the purposes of more accurately controlling the flight of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,254,916 (Yang) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0140079 (Campbell).
Regarding Claim 4, Yang teaches the apparatus as described above, but does not teach: a controller configured to ensure that the front tiltrotor and the rear tiltrotor have identical rotation speeds and opposite rotation directions, or control the front tiltrotor and the rear tiltrotor to tilt synchronically (Claim 4). However, Campbell teaches: Claim 4 - a controller configured to ensure that a front tiltrotor (116a and 116b) and a rear tiltrotor (116c and 116d) have identical rotation speeds and opposite rotation directions (the front tilt rotors (116a and 116b) are designed to counter rotate with regards to the rear tilt rotors (116c and 116d) to provide stable flight as described in at least paragraph [0022]), (Figures 1A-4 and Annotated Figure 1A as provided Below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Yang to have a controller configured to ensure that the front tiltrotor and the rear tiltrotor have identical rotation speeds and opposite rotation directions, or control the front tiltrotor and the rear tiltrotor to tilt synchronically (Claim 4) as taught by Campbell for the purposes of more accurately controlling the flight of the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10-12, and 14 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.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-21 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642