,
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submissions
The corrected reissue application papers filed on October 27, 2025 and the preliminary amendments filed on March 17, 2025 and October 27, 2025 have been entered.
Restriction Requirement
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Patent claims 1-4 and reissue claim 5, drawn to a tilting (rotor) system, classified in B64C 27/28.
II. Reissue claims 6-22, drawn to an electric powered VTOL aircraft, classified in B64C 29/0033.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because claim 6-22 do not recite the truss and actuators required by claims 1-5. The subcombination has separate utility such as in an aircraft that does not have the particular electric motor and battery configuration required by claims 6-22.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Should applicant traverse this restriction requirement on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
A tilting (rotor) system having three linear actuators (claims 1-4).
A tilting (rotor) system having one linear actuator and one rotary actuator (claim 5).
Currently, no claim is generic to Species A and B.
The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. Species A requires three linear actuators whereas Species B requires one linear actuator and one rotary actuator. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: Species A and B have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; Species A and B require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries); and non-prior art issues (compliance with 35 USC 112, etc.) are relevant to one species and not the other.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Constructive Election
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.176, the subject matter of original patent claims 1-4 is held to be constructively elected since a disclaimer of all the patent claims has not been filed in the instant reissue application.
Accordingly, new reissue claims 5-22 are constructively non-elected and withdrawn from examination in this reissue application because these claims are drawn to a new independent and distinct invention.
As explained in MPEP 1450, applicant is advised that:
The claims to the original patented invention will continue to be examined in the instant reissue application and the non-elected claims will be held in abeyance in a withdrawn status.
A divisional reissue application directed to the constructively non-elected invention may be filed.
The non-elected claims will only be examined if filed in a divisional reissue application.
If the original patent claims are found allowable in the instant reissue application and no error (other than the failure to present the non-elected claims) is being corrected in this application, and if a divisional application has been filed for the non-elected claims, further action in the instant reissue application will be suspended pending resolution of the divisional application.
Claims Subject to Examination
Amended patent claims 1-4 are subject to examination. New reissue claims 5-22 are withdrawn for the reasons given above.
Objection to Amendment - Formalities
The claim amendments filed on October 27, 2025 are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2), (d) and/or (g). All amendments must be made relative to the patent claims, which are in effect as of the date of filing the reissue application. Matter to be omitted must be enclosed in single brackets. Matter to be added must be underlined.
The claim amendments filed on October 27, 2025 are improper because new claims 5-21 are not underlined in their entirety.
Applicant is required to place the amendments into compliance with 37 CFR 1.173(a)-(g) in response to this Office action.
The preliminary amendment filed on March 17, 2025 added new claims 5-22. However, the claim listing filed on October 27, 2025 does not include claim 22. This creates confusion as to the status of claim 22. For the purposes of this Office action, claim 22 is considered to be pending (not canceled).
Application Data Sheet
The instant reissue application was not filed with the required Application Data Sheet (ADS). The original application papers filed on March 17, 2025 included an amendment to the title of the invention. Subsequent to the original filing, applicant filed an ADS on July 17, 2025.
The ADS is defective because:
The mailing addresses for Inventors 1 and 2 differ from the mailing addresses provided in the Reissue Application Declaration by the Assignee filed on October 27, 2025. Thus, the ADS does not appear to properly identify the mailing addresses.
It sets forth a different title of the invention than the amended title filed prior to the ADS on March 17, 2025. This creates confusion as to the intended title.
In the Domestic Benefit Information, the filing date of US Provisional Application No. 62/656,971 is inaccurately identified as “2018-12-04”. The filing date should read “2018-04-12”.
Correction of the ADS is required in response to this Office action.
Establishing Right of Assignee to Act
This application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.172(a) as the assignee has not established its ownership interest in the patent for which reissue is being requested. An assignee must establish its ownership interest in order to support the consent to a reissue application required by 37 CFR 1.172(a). The assignee’s ownership interest is established by: (a) filing in the reissue application evidence of a chain of title from the original owner to the assignee, or (b) specifying in the record of the reissue application where such evidence is recorded in the Office (e.g., reel and frame number, etc.). The submission with respect to (a) and (b) to establish ownership must be signed by a party authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. See MPEP 1410.01.
The Statement under 37 CFR 3.73(c) filed on March 17, 2025 identifies the assignee (patent owner) as Overair, Inc. However, no consent under 37 CFR 1.172(a) was filed on behalf of Overair, Inc. on March 17, 2025 (or thereafter). Thus, the 3.73(c) statement filed on March 17, 2025 does not support the consent to a reissue application required by 37 CFR 1.172(a).
The Statement under 37 CFR 3.73(c) filed on July 17, 2025 identifies the assignee (patent owner) as Archer Aviation Inc., but it fails to establish the named assignee’s ownership interest in the patent for which reissue is being requested. The 3.73(c) statement filed on July 17, 2025 identifies Application No. 19/081,768 filed on March 17, 2025 and, thus, pertains to Application No. 19/081,768. It does not identify or pertain to US Patent No. 11,964,755 B2 issued on April 23, 2024.
An appropriate paper satisfying the requirements of 37 CFR 3.73 must be submitted in reply to this Office action.
Consent of Assignee
This application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.172(a) as lacking the written consent of all assignees owning an undivided interest in the patent. The consent of the assignee must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172. See MPEP 1410.01.
The Reissue Application: Consent of Assignee filed on October 27, 2025 is defective because:
It inaccurately identifies the patentee as William Martin Waide. The applicant named on US Patent No. 11,964,755 B2 is Overair, Inc.
It inaccurately identifies the issue date of US Patent No. 11,964,755 B2 as “April 3, 2024”.
It incorrectly states that the required 3.73(c) statement was filed herein. As explained above, applicant has failed to provide a 3.73(c) statement that supports the consent to a reissue application.
A proper written consent of the assignee in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172 and 3.73 is required in reply to this Office action.
Claim Construction
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
The following claim limitations are construed by the examiner to aid in examination:
Claim Limitation:
drive system (claim 1)
Examiner’s Construction:
a rotating hub, a bearing supporting the rotating hub, a gearbox driving the rotating hub, and at least one motor driving the gearbox to thereby define an integrated system, and art-recognized equivalents thereof
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “system” is a generic placeholder for structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The specification states that, for each rotor, a rotating hub, hub bearing, gearbox, and a motor mounting fixture are all configured together as an integrated rotor drive system. See col. 7, ll. 61-63. More specifically, the corresponding structure identified in the specification is the hub drive system shown in Fig. 19A and described at col. 12, line 32 to col. 13, line 6, which includes a rotating hub 1903 supported on a large diameter bearing 1904, and three electric motors 1905, 1906 symmetrically disposed about the center of the hub 1903, with each motor driving the hub 1903 via a respective sun gear 1907, respective planet gears 1909, a respective pinion 1911 and a common ring gear 1912.
Claim Limitation:
truss (claim 1)
Examiner’s Construction:
an assembly of structural members (such as struts or beams) that are connected at nodes to create a rigid structure
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “truss” is interpreted based upon its plain and customary meaning.
Original Disclosure – Definition
The instant application seeks reissue of US Patent No. 11,964,755 B2, which issued from US Application No. 16/872,017, which was a divisional of US Application No. 16/155,669, which was a divisional of US Application No. 15/985,507. The “original disclosure” is the disclosure of US Application No. 15/985,507 as filed on May 21, 2018. Any subject matter added to the disclosure (including the claims) during the examination of the instant reissue application or during the earlier-concluded examination of any of US Application Nos. 16/872,017, 16/155,669, and 15/985,507 does not constitute a part of the “original disclosure”.
Prohibition of New Matter
35 USC 132(a) states, in part, that “No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.”
35 USC 251(a) states, in part, that “No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.”
New Matter Added During Earlier-Concluded Examination
New matter was improperly added to the disclosure during the earlier examination of Application No. 16/872,017. See the detailed explanation that follows.
The amendment filed on September 20, 2023 amended claim 1 to read as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
242
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The original disclosure that pertains to the subject matter that was newly-added to claim 1 in Application No. 16/872,017 is found in Figs. 19A-19B of US Patent No. 11,964,755 B2 and at col. 12, line 32 to col. 13 line 3 and col. 14, lines 24-26 of the patent specification. The original disclosure describes:
Figs. 19A-19B as showing a rotating hub 1903 supported on a large diameter bearing 1904, with hub loads carried from the hub bearing 1904 through an intermediate structure 1913, which is attached to nacelle 1914.
Fig. 19A as showing three electric motors 1905, 1906 symmetrically disposed about the center of the hub 1903, with each motor driving the hub 1903 via a respective sun gear 1907, respective planet gears 1909, a respective pinion 1911 and a common ring gear 1912.
Fig. 19A as showing the (forward) nacelle 1914 attached to an aft nacelle at hinge points 1915, with a tilt actuation truss 1916 connecting both nacelles 1914, 1915 at an actuator attachment bracket 1917.
Fig. 19A as showing a nacelle tilt system that tilts/rotates the thrust axis of the rotor from a horizontal flight condition to a vertical lift condition through an angle not less than 90 degrees and possibly 105 degrees or more, wherein the nacelle tilt system is a system of three linear actuators, with the aft pair of actuators providing 60 degrees of nacelle travel and the forward actuator providing the remaining 55 degrees (of nacelle travel).
The original disclosure also describes:
The nacelle tilt system shown in Fig. 19A as being a part of an aircraft having a static nacelle 1102, a tilting nacelle 1103, and a first tilting rotor system 1110 including rotor blades 1120. See Fig. 11; col. 8, ll. 56-62 of US Patent No. 11,964,755 B2. Fig. 11 shows right and left static nacelles, right and left tilting nacelles, and right and left first tilting rotor systems.
The aircraft as including tilt rotors that can be tilted, i.e., the rotors (as a whole) are tilted. See col. 6, ll. 44-49.
Each rotor as being disposed in a rotor assembly configured to tilt at least 90 degrees. See col. 8, ll. 3-8.
The rotor blades 1120 and tilting nacelle 1103 as capable of tilting along a path 1111 about a tilt axis 1112. See Fig. 11; col. 9, ll. 4-6. Thus, the rotor blades 1120 and tilting nacelle 1103 are part of the first tilting rotor system 1110 that tilts as a whole.
The amendment filed in Application No. 16/872,017 on September 20, 2023 introduced new matter into claim 1 (and, thus, into the disclosure) because the original disclosure fails to provide support for:
Separated second and third actuators (i.e., the disclosed aft pair of linear actuators) being disposed to exert second and third forces, respectively, through the truss and the first actuator, to the rotor hub. As shown in Fig. 19A, the aft pair of linear actuators are coupled to lower rear corners of the tilt actuation truss 1916 and, thus, exert forces on the truss 1916. According to the original disclosure, the truss 1916 is coupled to the forward nacelle 1914 and the aft nacelle, and the forward nacelle 1914 and the aft nacelle are hinged at 1915, which means that the forces applied by the aft pair of linear actuators on the truss 1916 acts on the forward nacelle 1914 to tilt it about the hinge points 1915. The original disclosure does not describe the aft pair of linear actuators as exerting forces through the truss 1916 (and the forward linear actuator) to the rotor hub 1903.
Actuation of any of the first, second, and third actuators is configured to tilt the rotor hub.
As explained above, there is no support for the aft pair of linear actuators being actuated to tilt the rotor hub. Further, the original disclosure does not establish that actuation of the forward linear actuator results in tilting of the rotor hub.
According to the original disclosure, the rotor system/assembly tilts as a whole. There is no support for actuation of the actuators resulting in tilting of the rotor hub. The claim scope encompasses exclusive tilting of the rotor hub (apart from tilting of the whole rotor system/assembly collectively); such claim scope is not supported by the original disclosure.
For these reasons, the amendments made in Application No. 16/872,017 violated the prohibition of new matter under 35 USC 132(a).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in response to this Office action.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
OBJECTION 1: The Reissue Application Declaration By The Assignee (Form PTO/AIA /06) filed on October 27, 2025 is defective because it inaccurately identifies the issue date of US Patent No. 11,964,755 B2 as “April 3, 2024”.
OBJECTION 2: The Reissue Application Declaration By The Assignee (Form PTO/AIA /06) filed on October 27, 2025 is defective because it states that the patent is believed to be wholly or partly inoperative or invalid “by reason of other errors”. The error statement only addresses errors in the patent claims. No “other errors” are identified.
OBJECTION 3: The Reissue Application Declaration By The Assignee (Form PTO/AIA /06) filed on October 27, 2025 is defective because it fails to properly and specifically identify at least one error which can be relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP 1414-1414.01.
As required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), the reissue oath/declaration must specifically identify at least one error pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 251 being relied upon as the basis for reissue. In identifying the error, it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. It is not sufficient to merely state that applicant seeks to broaden or narrow the scope of a patent claim. Further, a statement in the reissue oath/declaration of “…failure to include a claim directed to…” and then reciting all the limitations of a newly added claim would not be considered a sufficient error statement because applicant has not pointed out what the other claims lacked that the newly added claim has, or vice versa.
In the present case, the declaration’s error statement reads as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
114
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This statement fails to properly identify an error which can be relied upon to support this reissue application. As explained below, broadening claim 1 to recite a “tilting system” violates the original-patent requirement. Further, the quotation “and through the first actuator” is not an accurate quotation of subject matter recited in patent claim 1. Further, the discussion of new claims 5-21 fails to identify a specific error in the patent claims.
OBJECTION 4: The Reissue Application Declaration By The Assignee (Form PTO/AIA /06) filed on March 17, 2025 is defective because:
It fails to identify the inventors. Note that the inventor information has been left blank.
It fails to properly and specifically identify at least one error which can be relied upon to support the reissue application. The general reference to “Claims 5-22” does not identify a specific error in the patent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.—The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
GROUND 1: Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration. See 37 CFR 1.175. See the explanation above.
GROUND 2: Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 for failing to comply with the original patent requirement. See MPEP 1412.01.
As explained in MPEP 1412.01:
The reissue claims must be for the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention in the original patent, as required by 35 U.S.C. 251. The entire disclosure, not just the claim(s), is considered in determining what the patentee objectively intended as the invention. See In re Amos, 953 F.2d 613, 21 USPQ2d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1991); and In re Rowand, 526 F.2d 558, 187 USPQ 487 (CCPA 1975).
The patentee’s “intent to claim” is analogous to the written description requirement of 35 USC 112(a). See In re Mead, 581 F.2d 251, 198 USPQ 412 (CCPA 1978). However, the original patent standard and the written description requirement are not the same. Where the written description requirement is based on what the skilled artisan would have understood was within the possession of the inventor, recent Federal Circuit case law indicates that the original patent requirement requires something more.
A claim submitted in reissue may be rejected under the original patent clause of 35 USC 251 if the original specification demonstrates, to one skilled in the art, an absence of disclosure sufficient to indicate that a patentee could have claimed the subject matter. The essential inquiry is whether one skilled in the art, reading the specification, would identify the subject matter of the new claims as invented and disclosed by the patentee. See In re Amos.
The original patent requirement is not satisfied when the patent only discloses one invention (e.g., a particular class of jet injectors), as evidenced by the clearly repetitive use of a descriptive term or classifier (e.g., jet injector) throughout the specification, but the reissue claims recite a broader/different invention (e.g., a generic injector encompassing a non-jet injector). See Antares Pharma Inc., v. Medac Pharma Inc. and Medac GMBH, 771 F.3d 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Where a new invention is sought by reissue, the specification must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention. See Antares Pharma Inc., v. Medac Pharma Inc. and Medac GMBH, 771 F.3d 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, claims drawn to an invention comprising a newly claimed combination of features, which were only disclosed in the original patent as suggested alternatives (and not as a single combination), or which were only disclosed as part of the original invention and not as an invention separate from the original invention, would not satisfy the original patent requirement. See Antares Pharma Inc.
When the written description and drawings fail to disclose that a feature required by the patent claims is an optional feature of the invention, omission of such feature from the reissue claims fails to satisfy the original patent requirement. See Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC, 926 F.3d 1346, 1352, 2019 USPQ2d 221227 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
In this case, the original disclosure:
Identifies the field of the invention as vertical take-off and landing aircraft. See col. 1, ll. 15-19 of US Patent No. 11,964,755 B2.
States that the inventive subject matter provides apparatus, systems and methods pertaining to an electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft. See col. 4, ll. 51-56.
Describes the aircraft as including tilt rotors, with each rotor being disposed in a tilting rotor assembly/system configured to tilt at least 90 degrees, and with the tilting rotor assembly/system including a tilting nacelle hinged to a static nacelle such that the rotor blades and the tilting nacelle are capable of tilting along a path about a tilt axis. See further explanation above.
Describes the aircraft as including the nacelle tilt system shown in Fig. 19A for tilting the tilting nacelle with respect to the static nacelle. See further explanation above.
With respect to the subject matter of patent claims 1-4, the original disclosure only discloses one invention, i.e., a particular class/type of tilting system used to tilt a rotor assembly/system of an aircraft. However, amended claims 1-4 of this application recite a broader/different invention, i.e., a generic tilting system used to tilt a rotor hub in any application that includes a rotor hub (not limited to an aircraft with a tilting rotor assembly/system). As a result, amended claim 1 fails to comply with the original patent requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
GROUND 3: Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because these claims recite new matter. See the explanation above. Claims 2-4 are included in the rejection because of their dependencies.
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.
GROUND 4: Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A tilting [rotor ]system, comprising a drive system enclosed within a nacelle” (ll. 1-2). The claim goes on to define components of the tilting rotor system (ll. 3-7). However, the claim fails to define any relationship between the components of the tilting rotor system (ll. 3-7) and either the “drive system” (l. 1) or the “nacelle” (l. 2). Absent any interrelationship between the recited elements, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Claim 1 recites “a first actuator mechanically disposed between the rotor hub and the truss” (l. 4). According to the original disclosure, (i) the rotating hub 1903 is supported on the hub bearing 1904, (ii) hub loads are carried from the hub bearing 1904 through the intermediate structure 1913, (iii) the intermediate structure 1913 is attached to the forward nacelle 1914, (iv) the forward nacelle 1914 and the aft nacelle are hinged at 1915, (v) the tilt actuation truss 1916 connects both the forward nacelle 1914 and the aft nacelle at the actuator attachment bracket 1917, (vi) the nacelle tilt system is a system of three linear actuators, (vii) the aft pair of linear actuators provides 60 degrees of nacelle travel, and (viii) the forward linear actuator provides the remaining 55 degrees of nacelle travel. However, the specification fails to explain or define the manner in which the first (forward) linear actuator is “mechanically disposed between” the rotor hub 1903 and the truss 1916. As shown in Fig. 19A, an aft end of the forward linear actuator appears to be connected to the actuator attachment bracket 1917, and a forward end of the forward linear actuator appears to be connected to some structure located below the motors 1905, 1906 and their gearboxes. The specification provides no explanation of the manner in which the forward end of the forward linear actuator is interconnected with the other structure of the tilting rotor system so as to be “mechanically disposed between” the rotor hub 1903 and the truss 1916. Absent any definition of the “mechanically disposed between” relationship in the specification, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Claim 1 recites “such that actuation of any of the first, second, and third actuators is configured to tilt the rotor hub” (ll. 6-7). According to the original disclosure, (i) the nacelle tilt system is a system of three linear actuators, (ii) the aft pair of linear actuators provides 60 degrees of nacelle travel, and (iii) the forward linear actuator provides the remaining 55 degrees of nacelle travel. However, the specification fails to explain or define the manner in which actuation of any of the linear actuators produces tilting of the rotor hub 1903. Since the forward linear actuator is positioned forward of the truss 1916 and the aft linear actuators are positioned rearward of the truss 1916 (see Fig. 19A), it is unclear how actuation of the forward linear actuator functions to provide 55 degrees of nacelle travel since extension of the forward linear actuator would appear to oppose hinging of the forward nacelle 1914 and/or truss 1916 about the pivot points 1915. Absent a sufficient explanation of the manner in which the claimed function is accomplished, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Claim 2 recites “the drive system includes an electric motor configured to drive a rotor”. As explained above, claim 1 recites “A tilting [rotor ]system, comprising a drive system enclosed within a nacelle” (ll. 1-2) and goes on to define components of the tilting rotor system (ll. 3-7) without defining any relationship between the components of the tilting rotor system (ll. 3-7) and either the “drive system” (l. 1) or the “nacelle” (l. 2). Likewise, claim 2 fails to define any relationship between the components of the tilting rotor system (claim 1, ll. 3-7) and either the “electric motor” (claim 2, l. 2) or the “rotor” (claim 2, l. 2). Absent any interrelationship between the recited elements, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the drive system includes a reduction gear mechanically coupled between the electric motor and the rotor”. According to the specification, the invention includes at least one electric motor used with a gearbox. See col. 7, ll. 61-63. The gearbox provides a gear reduction and includes a planetary (gear) reduction set. See col. 14, ll. 9-17. Each motor drives the hub 1903 via a respective sun gear 1907, respective planet gears 1909, a respective pinion 1911 and a common ring gear 1912. See col. 12, ll. 45-51; col. 14, ll. 11-17. The claim term “reduction gear” is indefinite because the singular “gear” is not consistent with the specification’s description of the gearbox and planetary (gear) reduction set. Thus, the claim fails to accurately define the invention in a manner that conforms to the explanation of the invention in the specification.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference used for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Balayn et al.”
US Patent No. 6,276,633 B1
“Groninga et al.”
US Publication No. 2018/0354616 A11
“Isaac et al.”
US Patent No. 8,602,347 B2
“Kisovec”
US Patent No. 3,797,783
“Kulesha”
US Patent No. 9,555,881 B2
“Parastayev et al.”
WO Publication No. 2015/133932 A2 (with translation)
AIA – First to File
The present reissue application contains claims to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. Accordingly, this application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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.
GROUND 5: Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balayn et al. in view of Kulesha.
Balayn et al. discloses an aircraft tilting rotor system, comprising:
A nacelle 6 having (i) a forward nacelle part 8 pivoted about a pivot axis XX to an aft nacelle part 7, and (ii) a dome 20 forward of the forward nacelle part 8. See Figs. 1-4b; col. 5, ll. 35-55; col. 5, l. 64 to col. 6, l. 5; col. 6, ll. 50-62.
A drive system enclosed within the nacelle 6, the drive system including a rotor hub 19, bearings 23 supporting the rotating hub 19, a gearbox 11 driving the rotating hub 19, and an engine unit 12 driving the gearbox 11. See Figs. 4a-6; col. 5, ll. 56-63; col. 6, l. 27 to col. 7, l. 1.
A housing 24 with integral feet (brackets) 26, 27, with the housing 24 mechanically coupled to the rotor hub 19 via bearings 23 and rotor shaft 10. See Figs. 4a-4b; col. 6, l. 62 to col. 7, l. 14.
First linear actuators 22 mechanically disposed between the rotor hub 19 (via swash plate device 21) and the housing 24 (via the feet 26) such that actuation of the first actuators 22 is configured to tilt the rotor hub 19. See Figs. 4a-4b; col. 6, l. 50 to col. 7, l. 7.
Separated (parallel) second and third linear actuators 28 (only one of which is shown) disposed to exert second and third forces, respectively, through the housing 24 (via the feet 27) and the first actuators 22, to the rotor hub 19 such that actuation of the second and third actuators 28 is configured to tilt the rotor hub 19. See Figs. 4a-4b; col. 7, ll. 7-18.
Balayn et al. discloses the housing 24 instead of the claimed truss.
Kulesha an aircraft tilting rotor system, comprising:
A truss defined by strut-like structural members 303A, 303B, 303C, 303D, 350R that are connected at nodes (defined by outer bearing races 301R1, 302R1, mounts 302CA, 302CB, 302CC, 302CD, and connectors 350C) to create a rigid structure. See Figs. 2-3 and 7-8; col. 3, l. 65 to col. 4, l. 5; col. 4, ll. 49-57; col. 5, ll. 24-61. As an alternative to Kulesha’s truss structure, the strut-like structural members 303A, 303B, 303C, 303D, 350R may be combined into an integral component (like the housing 24 of Balayn et al.). See col. 6, ll. 1-6.
The truss (see above) being mechanically coupled to a rotor hub 140H via bearing assemblies 301, 302 and rotor shaft 125. See Figs. 2-8; col. 3, ll. 38-65; col. 4, ll. 32-49; col. 4, l. 65 to col. 5, l. 23.
Linear actuators 300A, 300B, 300C, 300D applying forces to the truss (see above) such that actuation of the actuators 300A, 300B, 300C, 300D is configured to tilt the rotor hub 140H. See Figs. 2-3 and 7-8; col. 4, ll. 5-31 and 49-65; col. 5, ll. 62-67; col. 6, l. 7 to col. 7, l. 26.
Thus, Kulesha establishes that a truss is a well-known alternative to the housing of Balayn et al. From the teachings of Kulesha, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Balayn et al. by replacing the housing with a truss because the substitution of one well-known alternative for another is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art when, as here, the substitution yields only a predictable result. Further, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the use of a truss is advantageous in (i) reducing weight (compared to a completely solid body) while retaining strength, and (ii) providing greater access to internal components.
GROUND 6: Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balayn et al. in view of Kulesha (GROUND 5) and further in view of Parastayev et al.
Balayn et al. discloses the engine unit 12 instead of the claimed electric motor.
Parastayev et al. teaches an aircraft tilting rotor system, comprising a power plant 11 enclosed within a tiltable nacelle 10. See Figs. 1A-1B; ¶¶ 0038, 0042, 0044-0045.2 The power plant 11 can be a piston engine, a gas turbine engine, or an electric motor. See ¶ 0039.
Thus, Parastayev et al. establishes that an electric motor is a well-known alternative to the engine unit of Balayn et al. From the teachings of Parastayev et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Balayn et al. by replacing the engine unit with an electric motor because the substitution of one well-known alternative for another is recognized to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art when, as here, the substitution yields only a predictable result. Further, Parastayev et al. teaches that an electric motor has the advantages of smaller overall dimensions and lower relative mass. See ¶ 0040. Also, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the use of an electric motor is advantageous in reducing emissions and reliance on fossil fuels.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Groninga et al. and Isaac et al. both teach a tilting rotor system including (i) a linear actuator 133 for tilting the system between horizontal and vertical flight positions, and (ii) linear actuators 131a-131c for tilting a rotor hub via a swash plate 129.
Kisovec teaches a tilting rotor system including (i) linear actuators 37 for moving a rotor hub 50 between retracted and extended positions and for also tilting the rotor hub 50 via a swash plate 41, (ii) a rotary actuator 27 for rotating (tilting) the system between horizontal and vertical flight positions, and (iii) a linear actuator 53 for positioning rotor blades 19, 21 relative to the rotor hub 50.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because the phrase “each of” does not agree grammatically with the phrase “are linear actuators”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the subject matter recited in lines 3-7 of claim 1. See MPEP 608.01(o). Correction is required.
The specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.57(d) and (e) because:
Col. 7, ll. 8-13 incorporates material by reference to US provisional applications. This is improper for essential material per 37 CFR 1.57(d). It is also improper for non-essential material per 37 CFR 1.57(e) since the provisional applications are not commonly owned.
Col. 14, ll. 42-48 incorporates material by reference to US provisional applications. This is improper for essential material per 37 CFR 1.57(d). It is also improper for non-essential material per 37 CFR 1.57(e) since the provisional applications are not commonly owned.
The specification is objected to because:
Col. 2, ll. 59-64 fails to accurately describe the different aircraft depicted in Figs. 9A and 9B.
Col. 5, ll. 20-21 fails to accurately describe the different aircraft depicted in Figs. 9A and 9B.
In col. 6, at l. 13, “Fig. 21b” should read “FIG. 21B”.
In col. 6, l. 33 is missing a period.
In col. 7, at l. 35, “Pat. No.” should read “Pat. Nos.”
In col. 7, at l. 36, “6641365” should read “6,641,365”.
Col. 8, ll. 56-61 fails to accurately describe Fig. 11 (and is inconsistent with col. 9, ll. 6-10) because Fig. 11 does not show only a single static nacelle 1102, a single tilting nacelle 1103, a single first tilting rotor system 1110, and a single first tilting auxiliary rotor system 1140. Rather, right and left versions of each of these components is shown. See col. 9, ll. 6-10.
Col. 8, ll. 27-28 is inaccurate because the illustrated aircraft does not have only a single main landing gear wheel 1310. Rather, Fig. 13E shows two main landing gear wheels 1310.
Col. 9, ll. 31-32 is inaccurate because Fig. 13B does not show (i) two of the nose hatches 1312, or (ii) four of the doors 1313, 1314.
At col. 9, l. 32, “13B and 1314” should read “1313 and 1314”.
At col. 9, l. 56, “the large tail elevators” is confusing and not understood since the aircraft does not appear to be illustrated with large tail elevators and such elevators are not mentioned elsewhere.
At col. 10, l. 45, “simple hinge 1404” fails to accurately describe Fig. 14. No “hinge” is shown in Fig. 14. Rather, reference number 1404 labels a point or location.
At col. 11, l. 57, “FIGS. 16C-E” should read “FIGS. 16B-16D”.
At col. 11, l. 63, “FIG. 20F” should read “FIG. 16E”.
At col. 12, l. 33, the description of a single “streamlined nacelle” is inconsistent with the earlier description of a static nacelle 1102 and a tilting nacelle 1103 at col. 8, l. 58.
At col. 12, ll. 40-41, the description of a “forward section of the nacelle” is inconsistent with the earlier description of a single “streamlined nacelle” (l. 33) and the earlier description of a tilting nacelle 1103 at col. 8, l. 58.
At col. 12, ll. 53-54, the description of a “Nacelle, 1914” is inconsistent with the earlier description of a single “streamlined nacelle” (l. 33) and the earlier description of a tilting nacelle 1103 at col. 8, l. 58.
At col. 12, l. 55, the description of an “aft nacelle” is inconsistent with the earlier description of a single “streamlined nacelle” (l. 33) and the earlier description of a static nacelle 1102 at col. 8, l. 58.
At col. 12, ll. 56-57, the description of “nacelle elements” is inconsistent with the earlier description of a single “streamlined nacelle” (l. 33) and the earlier description of a static nacelle 1102 and a tilting nacelle 1103 at col. 8, l. 58.
At col. 12, ll. 56-57, “with the tilt actuation Truss, 1916, connecting both nacelle elements at actuator Attachment Bracket, 1917” fails to accurately described Fig. 19A. Fig. 19A does not show the truss 1916 as (i) connecting the aft/static nacelle, or (ii) connecting both the forward/tilting nacelle 1914 and the aft/static nacelle at the actuator attachment bracket 1917.
At col. 12, ll. 61-63, the description of an “alternative” embodiment is confusing since the other embodiment (having three linear actuators) is not introduced until much later (col. 14, ll. 24-26).
At col. 12, l. 65, the description of a single “streamlined nacelle” is inconsistent and/or inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At col. 13, l. 9, “the rotating frame” is confusing and not understood since such a rotating frame is not mentioned elsewhere. It is unclear which feature of the aircraft corresponds to this rotating frame, or how this rotating frame relates to the other structure described in the specification.
At col. 14, l. 33, “actuators 2101” should read “actuators”. Note that reference number 2101 is used to designate a blade spar (col. 15, l. 10).
At col. 14, l. 36, “shows a similar to that” is not correct grammatically. At least one word is missing.
At col. 15, l. 26, it appears that “Spline, 2117” should read “Spline, 2118”.
At col. 16, l. 9, “the nacelle” (i.e., a single nacelle) is inconsistent and/or inaccurate for the reasons given above.
At col. 16, l. 17, “long wing 2321” is inconsistent with “wing structure 2312” at col. 16, l. 14.
At col. 16, l. 27, “primary rotors 2401” is inconsistent with “rotor blades 2401” at col. 16, l. 37. See Fig. 24A.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 7 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l). All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction.
Fig. 7 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(m). Solid black shading areas are not permitted.
Fig. 13A does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). Reference characters (i.e., 270, 358, 576, R68, R126) not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings.
Fig. 13B does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). Reference characters (i.e., 9.0, 40.0, 217, 384) not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings.
Fig. 14 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). Reference characters mentioned in the description (i.e., position “0” mentioned at col. 10, ll. 43 and 45) must appear in the drawings.
Fig. 19A does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5). Modified forms of construction must be shown in separate views. Thus, the alternative embodiment utilizing the rotary tilt actuator 1922 must be shown in a separate view.
Fig. 21A does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). Reference characters (i.e., 2118) not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings.
Fig. 22 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). Reference characters (i.e., 2201, 2202, 2203, 2220, 2230, 2250) not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings.
The objections to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Amendments in Reissue Applications
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this reissue application should be directed:
By Patent Center3: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail4 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/Laura Davison/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 Groninga et al. qualifies as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(2) since Provisional Application Nos. 62/509,666 and 62/509,674 (to which the instant application claims priority) fail to provide support for the subject matter claimed in the manner required by 35 USC 112(a).
2 All citations are to the English translation.
3 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).
4 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.
Prosecution Insights