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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS document submitted 1/13/2025 is acknowledged and has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 1/13/2025 are acknowledged and acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-14 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. The term
“in particular”, used in various claims including the lone independent claim 1, renders the associated claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention, or it other limitations are intended.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "pair of tilt wings" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Tao et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0024208).
In regards to claim 1, Tao et al (henceforth referred to as Tao) disclose an electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft, Tao teaches a VTOL electrically powered aircraft as described in abstract of patent, comprising:
a fuselage (item 102),
a straight through tilt wing, wherein the straight through tilt wing is tiltable relative to the fuselage in a range of tilt wing angles. Tao teaches a multi-part wing with tilting sections that move through a range of angles relative to the airframe (see items 142b and 144b),
control surfaces arranged at the straight through tilt wing. Tao teaches that the wings may include control surfaces (par. 62),
a horizontal stabilizer with an elevator, in particular configured as a stabilator. Tao teaches an aft wing set functioning as a horizontal stabilizer and including control surfaces functioning as elevators (see items 146a,b and 148a,b and par. 62),
a vertical stabilizer with a rudder, in particular configured as a fully movable vertical stabilizer. As illustrated, Tao teaches vertical stabilizers including rudders (items 128 and item 130 of figure 1d);
at least one electric engine for powering main propellers arranged at the tilt wing or the pair of tilt wings. Tao teaches electric motors, battery and associated components for powering the propellers (items 608, 628),
at least one software control device. Tao teaches a processor (item 612),
characterized in that the control device is configured to control at least the control surfaces, the main propellers and the tilt wing angle during
hover, and transition between hover and cruise flight. Tao teaches that the processor and flight control system control all aspects of the aircraft including the control surfaces, main propellers and tilt wing angle during hover, cruise and transition between (pars. 79, 96, 97 and 98).
In regards to claim 9, Tao discloses that the control device is configured to control roll during hover by modulating the main propellers. Tao teaches controlling roll and pitch utilizing variations in each of the propeller thrust (par. 81).
In regards to claim 10, Tao discloses that a control propeller arranged at the tail of the aircraft, wherein the control device is configured to control
pitch during hover by modulating the control propeller, and/or
pitch during transition by modulating the control propeller and/or moving position of the elevator, in particular of the stabilator. Tao teaches manipulation of the propeller thrust including the aft wing propellers and also controlling the control surfaces in/on the aft wing to control the pitch of the aircraft. Note that the aft wing constitutes a horizontal stabilizer and incorporates control surfaces constituting an elevator.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 2-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0024208) in view of Horn et al. (U.S. Patent 9,908,616).
In regards to claim 2, disclose that the control device is configured to control the tilt wing angle during hover and transition depending on the airspeed of the aircraft (par. 79). Tao teaches, during unmanned mode, the aircraft actuates the wing tilt angle based on the airspeed. Note that the “tiltable rotor assemblies” incorporate a tiltable portion of the wing (see figure 2b), in particular wherein
Tao does not explicitly disclose that [when] the aircraft is piloted and the control device is configured to restrict the range of the tilt wing angle selectable by the pilot depending on the airspeed of the aircraft, or
the aircraft is unpiloted and the control device is configured to select the value of the tilt wing angle depending on the airspeed of the aircraft. However, Horn et al (henceforth referred to as Horn) teaches establishment of maximum and minimum parameters based on the wing tilt angle and establishment of a wing tilt angle which depends on the airspeed of the aircraft (col. 8, lines 30-43, col. 9. Ines 30-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the flight control system of the Tao aircraft to control the flight characteristics of the Tao aircraft as taught by Horn, to increase the safety of the aircraft whether piloted or unpiloted.
In regards to claim 3, Tao discloses that the control device is configured to control at least one control parameter during hover and transition depending on the tilt wing angle by defining at least one value. Tao teaches controlling various parameters including airspeed and control surfaces, wherein
Tao does not explicitly disclose that if the aircraft is piloted, the control device is configured to restrict the range of the at least one control parameter selectable by the pilot depending on the tilt wing angle by defining a minimum selectable value and/or a maximum selectable value. However, Horn teaches a tilt-wing aircraft with a flight control system that establishes a maximum and minimum of a parameter based on the aircraft’s wing tilt (col. 8, lines 30-43, col. 9. Ines 30-40, note airspeed is controlled based on wing tilt and Horn teaches a maximum and minimum value). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the flight control system of Tao with the capacity to restrict certain flight parameters to a min and max as taught by Horn, to allow for a safer flight, or
if the aircraft is unpiloted, the control device is configured to determine a particular value for the at least one control parameter depending on the tilt wing angle. Tao teaches establishment of a particular wing tilt or other control surfaces based on flight speed and other sensor parameters (pars. 79, 96, 97 and 98).
In regards to claim 4, Tao does not explicitly disclose that one of the at least one control parameter is a moving position of the control surfaces arranged at the tilt wing,
the elevator, in particular configured as a stabilator, and/or
the rudder. However, Horn teaches determination of various parameters including control surfaces of wings, stabilizers etc. (col. 6, lines 10-18) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to consider all possible control parameters relative to the wing tilt for the Tao aircraft system including control surfaces as taught by Horn, to provide a robust control of the aircraft,
Horn teaches that the moving position is controlled by the control device during transition depending on the tilt wing angle (col. 6, lines 10-18).
In regards to claim 5, Tao discloses that one of the at least one control parameter is the thrust of the main propellers, wherein the thrust of the main propellers is controlled by the control device during transition depending on the tilt wing angle. Tao teaches adjustment of the propeller thrust based at least partially on the tilt control command (par. 98).
In regards to claim 6, Tao discloses that one of the at least one control parameter is the thrust of a control propeller arranged at the tail of the aircraft, wherein the thrust of the control propeller is controlled by the control device during transition depending on the tilt wing angle. Tao teaches propeller thrust control based on wing tilt and including the propellers situated on the aft wing constituting the tail of the aircraft (see figures).
In regards to claim 7, Tao as modified by Horn discloses that the minimum and the maximum value or the particular value of the at least one control parameter are differently defined at least for three different specific tilt wing angles. The system, as modified, produces various parameters based on a multitude of changing wing tilt angles including three different specific angles,
in particular wherein the values between the specific tilt wing angles are linearly interpolated. As modified by Horn, the different tilt angles are determined via linear interpolation (see figure 9 of Horn), and/or
one of the at least three tilt wing angles is the tilt wing angle for cruise and one of the at least three tilt wing angles is the tilt wing angle for hover. The systems of Tao and Horn include the two basic wing tilt angles for horizontal flight and for vertical flight.
In regards to claim 8, Tao as modified by Horn discloses that the at least one value is defined depending on airspeed, angle of attack, side slip, temperature and/or pressure. The system is taught to incorporate airspeed relative to wing tilt.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0024208) in view of Nelson et al. (U.S. Patent 3,179,352).
In regards to claim 11, Tao does not explicitly disclose that the control device is configured to control yaw during hover by modulating the ailerons. However, Nelson et al (henceforth referred to as Nelson) teaches utilizing ailerons to facilitate yaw during hover mode of a VTOL aircraft (col. 3, lines 33-70) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to facilitate the control device to influence the yaw of the aircraft when hovering by modulating the ailerons on the forward wings of Tao as taught by Nelson, to pivot the aircraft on its yaw axis.
In regards to claim 12, Tao discloses that the control device is configured to control roll during transition by modulating the main propellers and the ailerons. Tao teaches independent control of the rotor assemblies to control yaw and roll balance (par. 87). Tao does not explicitly teach utilizing modulation of the ailerons to control roll during transition. However, Nelson teaches utilizing ailerons to facilitate roll during hover mode of a VTOL aircraft (col. 3, lines 33-70) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to facilitate the control device to influence the roll of the aircraft when hovering by modulating the ailerons on the forward wings of Tao as taught by Nelson, to pivot the aircraft on its roll axis.
In regards to claim 13, disclose that the control device is configured to control yaw during transition by modulating the main propellers and the rudder. Tao teaches independent control of the rotor assemblies to control yaw and roll balance (par. 87) and also using the rudder to influence yaw.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0024208) in view of Lovering et al. (WIPO Document 2019006469).
In regards to claim 14, Tao does not explicitly disclose that wherein the control device is configured to control the at least one control parameter during hover and transition depending on existence of a failure of an aircraft device,
in particular on the existence of a failure of one of the control surfaces arranged at the tilt wings. However, failure tolerant systems are very common in aerospace structures and Lovering et al (henceforth referred to as Lovering) teaches a VTOL aircraft that incorporates a failure contingency system that alters control parameters based on a failure involving a control surface (par. 37) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide the Tao system with a failure contingency as taught by Lovering, to increase the survivability of the aircraft.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1-14 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. 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).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641