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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 29 October 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6, 21, 23-26, 28-29 are amended. Claims 9-20 and 31 have been canceled. Claims 1-8, 21-30, and 32-33 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 21-22, 26-27, and 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0001879 to Johannesson et al. ("Johannesson") have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn and the claims are allowed, see below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johannesson have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has contended that this amendment distinguishes over the art of record and that the Office has not demonstrated how a prima facie case of anticipation is present. Examiner does not agree. Johannesson teaches a first and second connector with a first and second bottom structures respectively, as will be shown in rejection below.
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 28, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johannesson et al. (hereafter Johannesson – US 20160001879).
Claim 28 recites “a propeller assembly.” Johannesson teaches such a propeller assembly, as will be shown.
Johannesson teaches (Figs 1-9B) a propeller assembly comprising:
a first blade 270A comprising:
a first connector 280 with a first bottom structure (see Fig. 4, bottom portion of connector 280 that contacts hub 130, 160);
a second blade 270B comprising:
a second connector 280 with a second bottom structure (see Fig. 4, bottom portion of connector 280 that contacts hub 130, 160); and
a central hub (130, 320) located between and connecting the first blade and the second blade, the central hub comprising:
a bottom component 130, 160;
a top component 320 connected to and located opposite the bottom component;
a first hinge pin 360 extending through the top component and the bottom component, and the first connector at a first end of the central hub to rotatably couple the first blade to the first end of the central hub, wherein the first blade is rotatable about the first hinge pin along a blade plane between a folded state and a flight state (para. 0099, Fig. 2, 4), and the first bottom structure contacts the bottom component when the first blade is in the folded state (see Fig. 4); and
a second hinge pin 360 extending through the top component and the bottom component, and the second connector at a second end of the central hub to rotatably couple the second blade to the second end of the central hub, wherein the second blade is movable about the second hinge pin along the blade plane between the folded state and the flight state (para. 0099, Fig. 2, 4), and the second bottom structure contacts the bottom component when the second blade is in the folded state (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 32, Johannesson teaches (Figs 1-9B) the propeller assembly of claim 28, wherein a longitudinal axis of the first blade and a longitudinal axis of the second blade are parallel when the first blade and the second blade are in the folded state and the longitudinal axis of the first blade and the longitudinal axis of the second blade are aligned when the first blade and the second blade are in the flight state (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 33, Johannesson teaches (Figs 1-9B) the wherein the first blade is rotatable in a counter-clockwise direction from the folded state to the flight state and the second blade is rotatable in a clockwise direction from the folded state to the flight state (col. 2, ln. 36-46).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johannesson in view of Le Velle (US 1445402).
Regarding Claim 29, Johannesson teaches (Figs 1-9B) the propeller assembly of claim 28. However, Johannesson does not teach:
a first spring element comprising:
a first arm and a second arm connected through a body of the first spring element, wherein the first spring element is located at the first end of the central hub, and
a second spring element comprising:
a first arm and a second arm connected through a body of the second spring element, wherein the second spring element is located at the second end of the central hub.
La Velle teaches (Figs. 5-8) a folding blade 8 having a hole (Fig. 7) comprising a wound torsion spring 16 having a hole (Fig. 7, 8) coupled to a central hub 7, 9 having a hole, (Fig. 7) through a first opening of the central hub (see Fig. 8), wherein the holes are concentric.
La Velle further teaches fan blades 1 will be held by the springs 16 in the folded positions shown by Figs. 2 and 4. When the motor is first energized, as its speed increases the centrifugal force upon the fan blades will overcome the tension of said springs, and the blades will swing out to their operative positions without noise or sticking... When the motor circuit is opened, the fan blades, as their velocity decreases, will fold inwardly (col. 2, ln. 36-46).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Le Velle to the unmanned aerial vehicle of Johannesson to have a first spring element comprising: a first arm and a second arm connected through a body of the first spring element, wherein the first spring element is located at the first end of the central hub, and a second spring element comprising: a first arm and a second arm connected through a body of the second spring element, wherein the second spring element is located at the second end of the central hub, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to folding blades. Doing so would result in blades that may open and fold automatically by centrifugal force, as recognized by Le Velle.
Regarding Claim 30, Johannesson, as modified with Le Velle in Claim 23 above, teaches (Figs 1-9B) the propeller assembly of claim 29, wherein the first arm of the first spring element is connected to the first blade and the second arm of the first spring element is connected to the central hub (as taught by Le Velle).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 21-27 are allowed.
The prior art does not teach a wound torsion spring comprising: a body having helical torsion spring elements; a first arm extending in a first direction outward from the body; a second arm extending in a second direction from the body that is different from the first direction, wherein the first arm and second are move relative to one another to cause twisting or untwisting of the body and a gap formed within the helical torsion spring elements in combination with the other limitations.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0685. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached on (571) 270-3508. 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).
/ANDREW THANH BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745