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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 defines the same limitation as already stated in Claim 19 which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmuck (US Patent #5511947) in view of Muren (US PgPub #2019/0047689) and Paulos (US PgPub #2016/0001877).
For Claims 1, 3, 8, and 19-20, the figures and column 6, lines 7-18 of Schmuck ‘947 disclose a system comprising a vertical lift propulsor coupled to the shaft (90) and driven by the motor and configured to generate vertical thrust for powering an aircraft, the vertical lift propulsor comprising a rigid structure formed from a hub and tow blades, wherein the motor is configured to rotate the plurality of blades in a propulsor plane of rotation that is substantially perpendicular to the rotational axis of the shaft; a cyclic (77) operably coupled to the vertical lift propulsor and configured to rotate the plurality of blades about a pitch axis that is perpendicular to the rotational axis of the shaft to vary an angle of attack of the vertical lift propulsor as a function of a rotational position of the vertical lift propulsor such that the plurality of blades is not individually adjustable in response to operation of the cyclic; a teetering mechanism (75) configured to allow deflection of the plurality of blades of the vertical lift propulsor in and out of the propulsor plane of rotation, about a teetering axis (76) that is perpendicular to the rotational axis of the shaft and different than the pitch axis of the plurality of blades.
While Schmuck ‘947 discloses controlling the cyclic pitch of the propulsor for different modes of operations based on airspeed to reduced loads on the propulsor, it is silent about a specific flight controller. However, the figures of Muren ‘689 teach and electric system and a flight controller (33) used to control the electric motor (31) providing power to the vertical lift propulsor (12) as well as to provide cyclic change in the blades for different stages of flight. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schmuck ‘947 with electric motors which are lighter and provide less pollution as well as a flight controller to control the system of Muren ‘689. The motivation to do so would be to have a system with real time control that is lighter and provides less pollution.
While Schmuck ‘947 discloses that the rotating power-driven hub is defined at a central portion of the plurality of blades, it is silent about the hub and blades being monolithic, however, the figures and paragraph [0089] of Paulos ‘877 teach a system with an electric motor having a drive shaft to power a vertical lift propulsor. The rotor being able to be monolithic in order to have fewer parts. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schmuck ‘947 with having a monolithic propulsion unit as taught by Paulos ‘877. The motivation to do so would be to reduce the number of parts of the system.
For Claim 2, the figures and column 6, lines 7-18 of Schmuck ‘947 disclose that the cyclic is configured to rotate the plurality of blades about the pitch axis which would reduce asymmetric loads on the blades due to edgewise flight.
For Claims 4-6, while Schmuck ‘947 is silent about a specific flight controller, however, the figures of Muren ‘789 teach that the flight controller (33) is connected with the vertical lift propulsor and the cyclic to adjust a maximum change in pitch in response to a control command from a pilot, the flight controller generating cyclic control commands and is positioned in the fuselage of an aircraft. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schmuck ‘947 with the flight controller of Muren ‘789. The motivation to do so would be to provide control of the cyclic pitch based on pilot and cyclic movement.
For Claim 7, while the combination of Schmuck ‘947 and Muren ‘789 teach the vertical lift propulsor powering an electric aircraft and an electric motor including the electric motor driving the vertical lift propulsor and independently varying the angle of attack of the lift propulsor, it is silent about a plurality of vertical lift propulsors powered by electric motors. However, the figures and paragraph [0050] of Paulos ‘877 teach that an electric motor controlled lift propulsor can be used on a variety of aircraft including quadcopters.
For Claim 9, the figures and column 6, lines 7-18 of Schmuck ‘947 disclose that the teetering mechanism is configured to allow the deflection of the plurality of blades, in and out of the propulsor plane of rotation, in response to asymmetrical forces applied to the vertical lift propulsor during a transition of flight modes of the aircraft in which the system is installed.
For Claim 10, the figures and column 6, lines 7-18 of Schmuck ‘947 disclose that the system is a lift plus cruise aircraft configured to operate in the wing-borne flight mode and the thrust-borne flight mode, and wherein the flight controller is configured to generate at least on cyclic control command for adjusting the angle of attack based on at least an airspeed.
For Claims 11 and 16, the figures and column 6, lines 7-18 of Schmuck ‘947 disclose a method, comprising: generating, by a vertical lift propulsor driven by a motor, vertical thrust for powering an aircraft, the vertical lift propulsor being coupled to the motor by a shaft (90) such that the shaft and the vertical lift propulsor rotate about a rotational axis to produce vertical thrust, the vertical lift propulsor including a plurality of blades extending radially from a rotating power-driven hub, wherein the plurality of blades are not individually adjustable; rotating, in response to actuation of a cyclic, the plurality of blades about a pitch axis that is perpendicular to the rotational axis to vary an angle of attack of the vertical lift propulsor as a function of a rotational position of the vertical lift propulsor; generating cyclic control for controlling the cyclic, to lower forces on the vertical lift propulsor during transition phase of flight between modes; and allowing, by a teetering mechanism (75), deflections of the plurality of blades about a teetering axis that is perpendicular to the rotational axis of the shaft and different than the pitch axis of the plurality of blades.
While Schmuck ‘947 discloses controlling the cyclic pitch of the propulsor for different modes of operations, it is silent about a specific flight controller. However, the figures of Muren ‘689 teach and electric system and a flight controller (33) used to control the electric motor (31) providing power to the vertical lift propulsor (12) as well as to provide cyclic change in the blades for different stages of flight. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schmuck ‘947 with electric motors which are lighter and provide less pollution as well as a flight controller to control the system of Muren ‘689. The motivation to do so would be to have a system with real time control that is lighter and provides less pollution.
While Schmuck ‘947 is silent about the hub and blades being monolithic, however, the figures and paragraph [0089] of Paulos ‘877 teach a system with an electric motor having a drive shaft to power a vertical lift propulsor. The rotor being able to be monolithic in order to have fewer parts. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schmuck ‘947 with having a monolithic propulsion unit as taught by Paulos ‘877. The motivation to do so would be to reduce the number of parts of the system.
For Claim 12, the figures and column 6, lines 7-18 of Schmuck ‘947 disclose that varying the angle of attack of the vertical lift propulsor includes adjusting a rotor.
For Claim 13, the figures and column 6, lines 7-18 of Schmuck ‘947 disclose controlling the cyclic to reduce asymmetric loads.
For Claims 14-16, while Schmuck ‘947 is silent about a specific flight controller, however, the figures of Muren ‘789 teach that the flight controller (33) is connected with the vertical lift propulsor and the cyclic to adjust a maximum change in pitch in response to a control command from a pilot, the flight controller generating cyclic control commands and is positioned in the fuselage of an aircraft. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schmuck ‘947 with the flight controller of Muren ‘789. The motivation to do so would be to provide control of the cyclic pitch based on pilot and cyclic movement.
For Claim 17, while the combination of Schmuck ‘947 and Muren ‘789 teach generating vertical thrust by the vertical lift propulsor incudes generating vertical thrust driven by an electric motor including the electric motor to power an electric aircraft; and varying the angle of attack of the vertical lift propulsor includes independently varying the angle of attack of the vertical lift propulsor in response to actuation of the cyclic coupled to the vertical lift propulsors. However, it is silent about a plurality of vertical lift propulsors powered by electric motors. However, the figures and paragraph [0050] of Paulos ‘877 teach that an electric motor controlled lift propulsor can be used on a variety of aircraft including quadcopters.
For Claim 18, the figures and column 6, lines 7-18 of Schmuck ‘947 disclose that generating cyclic control command includes generating cyclic control command based on airspeed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 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 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 10/17/2025