Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line one should be corrected to “A method [[of]] comprising:”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 2, 3, 4 + 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 15, 16, 17 + 18, 19 and 20, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,873,074. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are broader in scope than the patent claims. The claims are not patently distinct from each other since all of the elements required in the instant application claims listed above are recited in the patent claims listed above.
Instant Application Claims
Patent No. 11,873,074 Claims
Claim 1: A method of comprising: limiting deformation of a rotatable shaft with reinforcing contact between a first structure and a skid surface of a rotatable hub as the rotatable shaft bends; wherein a possibility of damage to a motor by a propeller ground strike is reduced by providing reinforcing contact between the first structure and the skid surface of the rotatable hub during at least a portion of a rotation of the rotatable shaft.
Claim 1: A method of comprising: applying a bending moment to a propeller; transmitting the bending moment to a rotatable shaft of a motor; and limiting bending deformation of the rotatable shaft with a reinforcing contact between a first structure and a skid surface of a rotatable hub as the rotatable shaft bends; wherein a possibility of damage to the motor by a propeller ground strike is reduced by the reinforcing contact between the first structure and the skid surface of the rotatable hub during at least a portion of a rotation of the rotatable shaft.
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, further comprising: applying a moment to a propeller; and transmitting the bending moment to the rotatable shaft of the motor.
Claim 1: Claim 1: A method of comprising: applying a bending moment to a propeller; transmitting the bending moment to a rotatable shaft of a motor; and limiting bending deformation of the rotatable shaft with a reinforcing contact between a first structure and a skid surface of a rotatable hub as the rotatable shaft bends; wherein a possibility of damage to the motor by a propeller ground strike is reduced by the reinforcing contact between the first structure and the skid surface of the rotatable hub during at least a portion of a rotation of the rotatable shaft.
Claim 3: The method of claim 2, wherein transmitting the moment to a rotatable shaft of a motor further comprises: transmitting the moment through the propeller to the rotatable hub; and transmitting the moment from the rotatable hub to the rotatable shaft of the motor.
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the bending moment to a rotatable shaft of a motor further comprises: transmitting the bending moment through the propeller to the rotatable hub; and transmitting the bending moment from the rotatable hub to the rotatable shaft of the motor.
Claim 4: The method of claim 2 further comprising: receiving and seating the propeller to the rotatable hub.
Claim 3: The method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving and seating the propeller the rotatable hub.
Claim 5: The method of claim 2 further comprising: receiving the rotatable shaft by a cavity of the rotatable hub, wherein the rotatable shaft has a threaded distal portion configured to threadably receive a spinner nut to hold the propeller to the rotatable hub, and wherein the hub has a channel which is contoured to approximate a bottom surface of an airfoil.
Claim 4: The method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving the rotatable shaft by a cavity of the rotatable hub, wherein the rotatable shaft has a threaded distal portion configured to threadably receive a spinner nut to hold the propeller to the rotatable hub.
Claim 5: The method of claim 4, wherein the hub has a channel which is contoured to approximate a bottom surface of an airfoil.
Claim 6: The method of claim 1, wherein the skid surface is annular.
Claim 6: The method of claim 1, wherein the skid surface is annular.
Claim 7: The method of claim 1, wherein the skid surface is non- annular.
Claim 7: The method of claim 1, wherein the skid surface is non- annular.
Claim 8: The method of claim 1 further comprising: transferring a load between the first structure and the skid surface during contact.
Claim 8: The method of claim 1 further comprising: transferring a load between the first structure and the skid surface during contact.
Claim 9: The method of claim 1, wherein the skid surface comprises opposing radial hub wings.
Claim 9: The method of claim 1, wherein the skid surface comprises opposing radial hub wings.
Claim 10: The method of claim 1, wherein the skid surface is a circumferential skid surface which is spaced apart from the first structure by a gap distance.
Claim 10: The method of claim 1, wherein the skid surface is a circumferential skid surface which is spaced apart from the first structure by a gap distance.
Claim 11: The method of claim 10, wherein the gap distance enables the contact of the circumferential skid surface onto the first structure prior to reaching a load limit of the rotatable shaft.
Claim 11: The method of claim 10, wherein the gap distance enables the contact of the circumferential skid surface onto the first structure prior to reaching a load limit of the rotatable shaft.
Claim 12: The method of claim 1, wherein the motor is attached to a fixed structure.
Claim 12: The method of claim 1, wherein the motor is attached to a fixed structure.
Claim 13: The method of claim 1, further comprising: seating the propeller onto the rotatable shaft by a channel, wherein the channel for seating is configured so that the moment applied to the propeller is transmitted to the rotatable shaft of the motor and results in the first structure contacting the skid surface for providing reinforcing contact.
Claim 13: The method of claim 1, further comprising: seating the propeller onto the rotatable shaft by a channel, wherein the channel for seating is configured so that the bending moment applied to the propeller is transmitted to the rotatable shaft of the motor and results in the first structure contacting the skid surface for providing reinforcing contact.
Claim 14: The method of claim 1, wherein the first structure is a motor casing.
Claim 14: The method of claim 1, wherein the first structure is a motor casing.
Claim 15: A system comprising: a rotatable hub having a skid surface; a first structure having a skid face for providing reinforcing contact spaced immediately apart from and in complementary opposition to the skid surface of the rotatable hub; wherein a deformation of a rotatable shaft is limited by reinforcing contact between the first structure and the skid surface of the rotatable hub as the rotatable shaft bends; and wherein a possibility of damage to a motor by a propeller ground strike is reduced by providing reinforcing contact between the first structure and the skid surface of the rotatable hub during at least a portion of a rotation of the rotatable shaft.
Claim 15: A system comprising: a rotatable hub coupled to a rotatable shaft, the rotatable hub having a skid surface; a motor rotatably coupled to the rotatable hub through the rotatable shaft; and a first structure having a skid face for providing reinforcing contact spaced immediately apart from and in complementary opposition to the skid surface of the rotatable hub; wherein a bending deformation of the rotatable shaft is limited by reinforcing contact between the first structure and the skid surface of the rotatable hub as the rotatable shaft bends; and wherein a possibility of damage to the motor by a propeller ground strike is reduced by the reinforcing contact between the first structure and the skid surface of the rotatable hub during at least a portion of a rotation of the rotatable shaft.
Claim 16: The system of claim 15, wherein the rotatable hub is coupled to the rotatable shaft, and wherein the motor is rotatably coupled to the rotatable hub through the rotatable shaft.
Claim 15: A system comprising: a rotatable hub coupled to a rotatable shaft, the rotatable hub having a skid surface; a motor rotatably coupled to the rotatable hub through the rotatable shaft; and a first structure having a skid face for providing reinforcing contact spaced immediately apart from and in complementary opposition to the skid surface of the rotatable hub; wherein a bending deformation of the rotatable shaft is limited by reinforcing contact between the first structure and the skid surface of the rotatable hub as the rotatable shaft bends; and wherein a possibility of damage to the motor by a propeller ground strike is reduced by the reinforcing contact between the first structure and the skid surface of the rotatable hub during at least a portion of a rotation of the rotatable shaft.
Claim 17: The system of claim 15, wherein the skid surface is at least one of: annular and non-annular, and wherein the first structure is a motor casing.
Claim 16: The system of claim 15, wherein the skid surface is at least one of: annular and non-annular, and wherein the first structure is a motor casing.
Claim 18: The system of claim 15, wherein the skid surface comprises at least one of: opposing radial hub wings and a circumferential skid surface which is spaced apart from the first structure by a gap distance.
Claim 17: The system of claim 15, wherein the skid surface comprises opposing radial hub wings.
Claim 18: The system of claim 15, wherein the skid surface is a circumferential skid surface which is spaced apart from the first structure by a gap distance.
Claim 19: The system of claim 18, wherein the gap distance enables the contact of the circumferential skid surface onto the first structure prior to reaching a load limit of the rotatable shaft.
Claim 19: The system of claim 18, wherein the gap distance enables the contact of the circumferential skid surface onto the first structure prior to reaching a load limit of the rotatable shaft.
Claim 20: The system of claim 15, further comprising: a channel, wherein the propeller is configured to be seated onto the rotatable shaft by the channel so that a moment applied to the propeller is transmitted to the rotatable shaft of the motor and results in the first structure contacting the skid surface for providing reinforcing contact.
Claim 20: The system of claim 15, further comprising: a channel, wherein the propeller is configured to be seated onto the rotatable shaft by the channel so that a bending moment applied to the propeller is transmitted to the rotatable shaft of the motor and results in the first structure contacting the skid surface for providing reinforcing contact.
Thus, it is apparent that the more specific patent claims encompass the instant application claims. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since the instant application claims listed above are anticipated by the patent claims listed above, then the instant application claims above are obvious over the patent claims listed above.
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.
Claims 13 and 20 are 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 the limitations "the propeller" in line 2, and “the moment” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 13 depends on Claim 1, which fails to recite either “a propeller” or “a bending moment”. Therefore, Claim 13 is indefinite due to a lack of antecedent basis. (Examiner’s note: Examiner notes that Claim 13 may have been meant to depend on Claim 2, which recites a propeller and a moment).
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the propeller" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 depends on Claim 15, which fails to recite “a propeller”. Therefore, Claim 20 is indefinite due to a lack of antecedent basis.
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 pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 10-12, and 14-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 2656988).
Regarding Claim 1, Smith discloses a method of comprising: limiting deformation of a rotatable shaft (Fig. 1 #18) with reinforcing contact between a first structure (Col. 2, lines 38-41; Fig. 1 #19 – top wall as first structure) and a skid surface of a rotatable hub as the rotatable shaft bends (Col. 3, lines 19-21; Fig. 1 #40 – surface of top member of rotor, facing top wall #19, as skid surface of a rotatable hub);
wherein a possibility of damage to a motor by a propeller ground strike is reduced by providing reinforcing contact between the first structure and the skid surface of the rotatable hub during at least a portion of a rotation of the rotatable shaft (Col. 3, lines 58-61; Fig. 1 – as Smith provides the reinforcing contact as claimed, the possibility of damage is therefore considered reduced).
Regarding Claim 6, Smith discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Smith further discloses wherein the skid surface is annular (Fig. 1 #40 – top of rotor, including surface, is annular).
Regarding Claim 8, Smith discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Smith further discloses transferring a load between the first structure and the skid surface during contact (Col. 3, lines 58-61; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Smith discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Smith further discloses wherein the skid surface is a circumferential skid surface which is spaced apart from the first structure by a gap distance (Fig. 1 #40 – top of rotor as circumferential skid surface, spaced from top wall #19).
Regarding Claim 11, Smith discloses all the limitations of Claim 10 above. Smith further discloses wherein the gap distance enables the contact of the circumferential skid surface onto the first structure prior to reaching a load limit of the rotatable shaft (Col. 3, lines 58-61; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Smith discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Smith further discloses wherein the motor is attached to a fixed structure (Col. 2, lines 37-41; Fig. 1 #14 – motor is attached to fixed wall #19 via bearing structure #16).
Regarding Claim 14, Smith discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Smith further discloses wherein the first structure is a motor casing (Col. 2, lines 37-41; Fig. 1 #19 - wall as first structure is considered part of motor casing as it is attached to bearing structure #16).
Regarding Claim 15, Smith discloses a system comprising:
a rotatable hub having a skid surface (Col. 3, lines 19-21; Fig. 1 #40 – surface of top member of rotor, facing top wall #19, as skid surface of a rotatable hub);
a first structure having a skid face for providing reinforcing contact spaced immediately apart from and in complementary opposition to the skid surface of the rotatable hub (Col. 2, lines 38-41; Fig. 1 #19 – top wall as first structure, with surface of top wall facing rotor #40 as skid face);
wherein a deformation of a rotatable shaft (Fig. 1 #18) is limited by reinforcing contact between the first structure and the skid surface of the rotatable hub as the rotatable shaft bends (Col. 3, lines 58-61; Fig. 1); and
wherein a possibility of damage to a motor by a propeller ground strike is reduced by providing reinforcing contact between the first structure and the skid surface of the rotatable hub during at least a portion of a rotation of the rotatable shaft (Col. 3, lines 58-61; Fig. 1 - as Smith provides the reinforcing contact as claimed, the possibility of damage is therefore considered reduced).
Regarding Claim 16, Smith discloses all the limitations of Claim 15 above. Smith further discloses wherein the rotatable hub is coupled to the rotatable shaft (Fig. 1), and wherein the motor is rotatably coupled to the rotatable hub through the rotatable shaft (Col. 2, lines 37-38; Fig. 1 #14 - motor).
Regarding Claim 17, Smith discloses all the limitations of Claim 15 above. Smith further discloses wherein the skid surface is at least one of: annular and non-annular (Fig. 1 #40 – top of rotor, including surface, is annular), and wherein the first structure is a motor casing (Col. 2, lines 37-41; Fig. 1 #19 - wall as first structure is considered part of motor casing as it is attached to bearing structure #16).
Regarding Claim 18, Smith discloses all the limitations of Claim 15 above. Smith further discloses wherein the skid surface comprises at least one of: opposing radial hub wings and a circumferential skid surface which is spaced apart from the first structure by a gap distance (Fig. 1 #40 – top of rotor as circumferential skid surface, spaced from top wall #19).
Regarding Claim 19, Smith discloses all the limitations of Claim 15 above. Smith further discloses wherein the gap distance enables the contact of the circumferential skid surface onto the first structure prior to reaching a load limit of the rotatable shaft (Col. 3, lines 58-61; Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith.
Regarding Claim 7, Smith teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above.
However, Smith fails to teach wherein the skid surface is non- annular.
Barring some criticality or unexpected results, changes in shape are obvious (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.). Therefore, it would have been obvious that the skid surface taught by Smith could be non-annular rather than annular, as changes in shape are an obvious matter of design choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKSON GILLENWATERS whose telephone number is (469)295-9151. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:00PM ET, M-F.
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, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JACKSON N GILLENWATERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights