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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7 January 2026, with respect to the abstract objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The abstract objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7 January 2026, with respect to the claims objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the claim objections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of objection is made in view of informalities arising from the claim amendments, see claims objections below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7 January 2026, with respect to the claims interpretations under 35 USC 112f have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Therefore, the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112f for the term “a triggering member” has been withdrawn. However, with respect to the newly presented term “an electronic controller” raises an issue under 35 USC 112a, see rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7 January 2026, with respect to the claims rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the claim objections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejections under 35 USC 112 is made in view of informalities arising from the claim amendments, see claims rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5-7 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 recites “of the respective blade)” in line 18, and “the closed position)” in line 21; the examiner points out that the “)” symbols should be deleted.
Claim 3 recites “the triggering triggering member device” in line 1-4; the examiner points out that the claim should recite “the triggering member” to overcome the claim informalities.
Claim 5 recites “a plurality of springs)” in line 2-3; the examiner points out that the “)” symbol should be deleted.
Claim 6 recites “mechanically coupled to the)” in line 2-3; the examiner points out that the “)” symbol should be deleted.
Claim 7 recites “mounted on the body)” in line 2; the examiner points out that the “)” symbol should be deleted.
Claim 11 recites “at least one further comprising” in line 1-2, and “a respective blade)” in line 3; the examiner points out that “at least one further comprising” limitation needs clarification and the “)” symbol should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-8 include the limitation “an electronic controller configured to generate control signals”, however, the original disclosure supports a control unit as represented by numeral “16” in the Figures, however, there is no support about what type of control unit has been disclosed, therefore, the newly added electronic controller limitation is not supported and the claim limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Clarification and/or amendment is respectfully requested.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites “an axis along which the shaft extends” in line 9-10 and also recites “an axis of the shaft” in line 30; it is not clear if an axis in line 30 refers to the same axis recited in line 9-10 or to a different and additional axis.
Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michel (US 4,461,611 A).
Regarding claim 1, Michel teaches an air vehicle (Fig.1/2, 10) comprising:
a body (12);
an engine (22) mounted on the body, the engine configured to generate force for flight of the air vehicle;
a rotor (14) coupled with the engine and extending outward from the body, the rotor configured to rotate around itself;
a shaft (26) positioned within the rotor, the shaft configured to be driven by the engine (via 24) and to rotate around an axis along which the shaft extends;
a plurality of blades (20) connected with the shaft, each blade of the plurality of blades configured to be driven by the shaft to move;
a plurality of flaps (38), wherein each flap of the plurality of flaps is located on a respective blade of the plurality of blades (Fig.2), each flap configured to apply a drag force to the rotor based on a position of the flap on the respective blade (Fig.2, note dotted lines positions of 38 will apply a drag force compared to the solid line position);
wherein each flap has a closed position in which the flap corresponds to an aerodynamic surface of the respective blade without extending outward from the respective blade (Fig.2, solid line position of 38);
wherein each flap has an open position (Fig.2, dotted line positions of 38) to which the flap moves from the closed position, wherein in the open position the flap extends outward from the respective blade and increases the drag force acting on the rotor (Fig.2);
a plurality of fasteners (50) positioned in the plurality of blades, wherein the plurality of fasteners allow the plurality of flaps to be attached to the plurality of blades movably (Fig.2); and
a triggering member (Fig.2) extending along the shaft and mechanically coupled with the shaft, the triggering member being movable relative to the shaft in a direction parallel to an axis of the shaft, the triggering member comprising at least one protrusion (54) extending outward from the triggering member,
wherein the triggering member is configured to contact the plurality of fasteners via the at least one protrusion to simultaneously rotate the plurality of fasteners around respective axes of the plurality of fasteners and move the plurality of fasteners in the plurality of blades along respective directions in which the plurality of fasteners extend, thereby allowing the plurality of flaps to move between the closed position and the open position on the plurality of blades (column 3 line 47-53).
Regarding claim 10, Michel further teaches each flap of the plurality of flaps has an elliptical cross-section that corresponds to a surface of a respective blade of the plurality of blades (Fig.2, 38).
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) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michel.
Regarding claim 4, Michel teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, and further teaches (Fig.2) a plurality of brackets (61/65), wherein each bracket of the plurality of brackets is located between a respective fastener of the plurality of fasteners and the rotor (Fig.2, note rotor includes the blade and each bracket is located between respective fastener 50 and rotor blades 20); wherein each bracket comprises an opening in a helical form (63); and a pin (67), wherein each pin extends inward from a respective fastener of the plurality of fasteners into a respective opening of a respective bracket (Fig.2), wherein each pin is configured to slide within the respective opening when a force is applied to the respective fastener (Fig.2), thereby enabling the respective fastener to rotate around the respective axis of the respective fastener and simultaneously enabling the respective fastener to move in a respective blade in the respective direction in which the respective fastener extends (column 4 line 65 – column 5 line 9).
Michel does not explicitly teach the pin being a plurality of pins and said pins extending outward from respective fasteners.
However, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI B). In the current instance there is no evidence that having plural pins would produce a new and unexpected result compared to Michel’s configuration, therefore, It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the bracket configuration of Michel by having plural pins as a duplication of parts modification.
Furthermore, it has been held that if shifting the position of a component in a device would not have modified the operation of said device, said position shift of said component is unpatentable, additionally, a particular placement of a component in a device has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In the current instance, there is no evidence that having the pins extending outward from respective fasteners instead of extending inward and having the helical opening surrounding and cooperating with the pins, would change the operation of the air vehicle, therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the propulsion assembly of Michel by shifting the position/placement of the pins extending outward and the helical opening surrounding/cooperating with the pins as an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Regarding claim 12, Michel further teaches each pin is configured to move along the respective opening, wherein walls of the respective opening restrict movement of the respective pin (Fig.2; column 5 line 2-3, note “67, which matingly engages helical groove 63”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5, 9 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The following claim limitations were not found in the prior art.
the triggering member is configured to bring each flap positioned on an advanced side of a respective blade to the open position in sequence depending on a direction of movement of the air vehicle during rotation of the rotor, thereby creating drag for the rotor (as in the context of claim 2).
The closest prior art reference (Michel) discloses each flap positioned on a trailing edge side of the respective blade and any potential modification of said position would render the operation of the blade inoperable.
the triggering member has: a first position in which the at least one protrusion contacts at least one fastener of the plurality of fasteners and moves the at least one fastener in a respective blade; and a second position to which the triggering member moves from the first position along the direction parallel to the axis of the shaft, and in which contact of the at least one protrusion with the plurality of fasteners is prevented (as in the context of claim 3).
The closest prior art reference (Michel) discloses the protrusion is always in contact with a respective fastener, eliminating said connection would potentially render the blade configuration of Michel inoperable.
a plurality of springs, wherein each spring of the plurality of springs is positioned on a respective fastener of the plurality of fasteners, each spring configured to move the respective fastener from the open position to the closed position when a force applied by the triggering member on the respective fastener is removed (as in the context of claim 5).
The closest prior art reference (Michel) does not disclose the claimed plurality of spring positioned on respective fasteners, instead springs are positioned inside hollow control rods (Fig.3, 30/64). Any potential modification of the position and functionality of the springs would have required impermissible hindsight and potentially render the blade configuration of Michel inoperable.
a plurality of support arms, each support arm of the plurality of support arms is located on a respective blade in connection with a respective fastener, each support arm configured to transfer movement of the respective fastener to a respective flap to keep the respective flap in the open position (as in the context of claim 11).
The closest prior art reference (Michel) does not disclose the claimed plurality of support arms as configured.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745