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 .
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority of 17/515,425 on 10/30/21 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant filed an IDS on 12/31/24. It has been annotated and considered.
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 4, 13 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 4 (and similarly 13 and 19), the claim is not clear because in claim 1 (and similarly 11 and 17), the second data represents the pitch angle having exceeded a threshold. Thus it is not clear how the same second data represents throttle data exceeding a second threshold.
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)(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 2-3, 6-7, 11-12, 15-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morrison (US 20160200421 hereinafter Morrison).
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly 11 and 17), Morrison teaches a system comprising a processor, the processor being configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving first data from one or more sensors associated with an aircraft;
determining, based on the first data, a pitch angle associated with the aircraft (See at least: [0040] via “In addition, autopilot computer 32 may also be configured for automatic recording or reporting of aircraft position, aircraft state data, velocity, altitude, pitch angle, bank angle, thrust, and other parameters typical of capturing aircraft position and performance, for later analysis or playback. To accomplish these requirements, said autopilot contains an embedded air data computer (ADC) and embedded inertial measurement sensors, although these data could also be derived from small, separate stand-alone units.”);
determining second data representing that the pitch angle exceeds a threshold; and based at least in part on the second data, causing a flight controller associated with the aircraft to generate an autopilot command (See at least: [0010] via “Automatic computer monitoring by a programmed redundant digital Autopilot Computer controls pitch, bank, yaw and elevation, while simultaneously using on-board inertial sensors to maintain vehicle stability and restrict the flight regime that the pilot or route planning software can command, to protect the vehicle from inadvertent steep bank or pitch, or other potentially harmful acts that might lead to loss of control.”; [0029] via “The autopilot is also responsible for measuring other vehicle state information, such as pitch, bank angle, yaw, accelerations, and for maintaining vehicle stability.”).
Regarding claim 3 (and similarly 12 and 18), Morrison teaches wherein the flight controller is further configured to: control the aircraft based on the autopilot command (See at least: [0010] via “Automatic computer monitoring by a programmed redundant digital Autopilot Computer controls pitch, bank, yaw and elevation, while simultaneously using on-board inertial sensors to maintain vehicle stability and restrict the flight regime that the pilot or route planning software can command, to protect the vehicle from inadvertent steep bank or pitch, or other potentially harmful acts that might lead to loss of control.”; [0029] via “The autopilot is also responsible for measuring other vehicle state information, such as pitch, bank angle, yaw, accelerations, and for maintaining vehicle stability.”).
Regarding claim 6 (and similarly 15 and 21), Morrison teaches wherein the autopilot command includes a maneuver configured to cause the pitch angle to fall below or equal to the threshold (See at least: [0010] via “Automatic computer monitoring by a programmed redundant digital Autopilot Computer controls pitch, bank, yaw and elevation, while simultaneously using on-board inertial sensors to maintain vehicle stability and restrict the flight regime that the pilot or route planning software can command, to protect the vehicle from inadvertent steep bank or pitch, or other potentially harmful acts that might lead to loss of control.”).
Regarding claim 7 (and similarly 16), Morrison teaches wherein the autopilot command includes an instruction to adjust a torque applied to a lift propulsor component of the aircraft (See at least: [0009] via “a redundant autopilot system to manage motors and maintain vehicle stability, a tablet-computer-based mission planning and vehicle control system to provide the operator with the ability to pre-plan a route and have the system fly to the destination via autopilot or to directly control thrust, pitch, roll and yaw through movement of the tablet computer, and ADSB or ADSB-like capability to provide traffic and situational awareness, weather display and collision avoidance warnings. Power is provided by one or more on-board motor-generators for generating electrical voltage and current, or an on-board fuel cell for generating electrical voltage and current, electronics to monitor and control electrical generation, and motor controllers to control the commanded voltage and current to each motor and to measure its performance (which may include such metrics as resulting RPM, current, torque and temperature among others)”.
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.
Claims 4-5, 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison in view of Burnside et al. (US 20120053760 hereinafter Burnside).
Regarding claim 4 (and similarly 13 and 19), Morrison fails to teach the following limitation, but Burnside teaches wherein the second data further represents that a throttle associated with the aircraft exceeds a the error signal .DELTA.h to the control threshold .DELTA.H(h). If the magnitude of the error signal .DELTA.h exceeds the throttle change-threshold .DELTA.H(h) and the error signal .DELTA.h is positive, this implies that the aircraft 200 is too high and the auto-throttle level selector/speed brake selector 460 responds by generating a deploy speed brake signal 465 that causes the speed brakes to deploy, or to command a lower throttle setting, T.sub.L, or both. If the magnitude of the error signal .DELTA.h exceeds the throttle-change threshold .DELTA.H(h) and the error signal .DELTA.h is negative, this implies that the aircraft 200 is too low and the auto-throttle level selector 460 responds by generating an auto-throttle signal 465 corresponding to the upper throttle setting T.sub.U.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Morrison in view of Burnside to teach wherein the second data further represents that a throttle associated with the aircraft exceeds a second threshold so that the aircraft can be prevented from exceeding safe speeds which could lead to an accident.
Regarding claim 5 (and similarly 14 and 20), Morrison fails to teach the following limitation, but Burnside teaches wherein the threshold the resulting pitch angle remains within safe limits for the aircraft 200 in its current configuration, that the engines remain operating within recommended limits, or that a change in engine thrust and/or a given elevator command will not cause the airspeed of the aircraft 200 to depart from safe limits. Further details regarding such systems follow.).
Therefore, as the Applicant did not present any unexpected results from this limitation and seems to be a matter of design choice, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Morrison in view of Burnside to teach wherein the threshold is substantially equal to seventy-five degrees so that the aircraft can be prevented from exceed safe pitch angles which could lead to an accident.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison in view of Pak (US 20060016930 hereinafter Pak).
Regarding claim 8, Morrison fails to teach the following limitation, but Pak teaches wherein adjusting the torque includes reducing the torque from a first torque value to a second torque value to transition the aircraft from a vertical lift flight mode to a fixed-wing flight mode (See at least: claim 24 via “24. The vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (VTOL) of claim 22, wherein the torque split control switch comprises: a neutral position wherein a total torque is proportioned 25% between each of first and second, forward and after propulsion units; a 12 o'clock position wherein the total torque is proportioned 70% between the forward propulsion units, and 30% between the after propulsion units; a 6 o'clock position wherein the total torque is proportioned 30% between the forward propulsion units, and 70% between the after propulsion units; a 3 o'clock position wherein the total torque is proportioned 70% between the first propulsion units, and 30% between the second propulsion units; and a 9 o'clock position wherein the total torque is proportioned 30% between the first propulsion units, and 70% between the second propulsion units.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Morrison in view of Pak to teach wherein adjusting the torque includes reducing the torque from a first torque value to a second torque value to transition the aircraft from a vertical lift flight mode to a fixed-wing flight mode so that the aircraft can be controlled stably and safely while transitioning between
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison in view of Landers et al. (US 20210347409 hereinafter Landers).
Regarding claim 9, Morrison fails to teach the following limitation but Landers teaches wherein the autopilot command includes a regenerative drag operation (See at least: [0033] via “The combination of increased drag from the regenerative electric motors and the flight control surfaces may be used together to reduce the speed and/or increase the angle of approach of a descending aircraft.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Morrison in view of Landers to teach wherein the autopilot command includes a regenerative drag operation so that the aircraft can be use the drag on it to generate energy while slowing itself down.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison in view of Douglas et al. (US 11181932 hereinafter Douglas).
Regarding claim 10, Morrison fails to teach the following limitation, but Douglas teaches wherein the autopilot command includes a reverse thrust operation (See at least: Col. 7 lines 57-62 via “(20) Forward propulsion system 216 includes one or more rotors, corresponding engines or motors, and other systems associated with forward propulsion. The rotor or rotors of forward propulsion system 216 are oriented vertically or in an approximately vertical configuration to provide forward or reverse thrust to the aircraft.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Morrison in view of Douglas to teach wherein the autopilot command includes wherein the autopilot command includes a reverse thrust operation so that the aircraft can slow itself down when needed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Harry Oh whose telephone number is (571)270-5912. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 9:00-3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/HARRY Y OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights