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 Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14 and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 3, “…the wing…” should read “…the at least one wing…” for the purpose of consistency in the use of claim limitation.
In claim 4 line 4, “…nearer to the at least one wing tip.” should read “…nearer to a wing tip.” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 6 line 1, “…the orientation…” should read “…an orientation…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 9 line 3, “…from the front of the at least one wing to the aft of…” should read “…from a front of the at least one wing to an aft of…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 12 line 4, “…mounted to the at least one wing, the ducted fan…” should read “…mounted to at least one of the two wings, the at least one ducted fan…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 14 lines 2-3, “…where in the pitch angle of each of the plurality of blades is defied by the pitch angle…” should read “…wherein a pitch angle of each of the plurality of blades is defied by a pitch angle…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 18 lines 1-2, “…rotate the orientation of the ducted fan…” should read “…rotate an orientation of the at least one ducted fan…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim and for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 19 line 1, “…wherein the ducted fan…” should read “…wherein the at least one ducted fan…”.
In claim 19 line 4, “…to the at least one wing tip…” should read “…to a wing tip…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim and for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 20 line 1, “An eVTOL aircraft…” should read “An electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 20 line 3, “…fuselage, the wing comprising…” should read “…fuselage, each of the two wings comprising…” for the purpose of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 8-10, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the at least one wing further comprises: an airfoil comprising a Maldonado hicks airfoil” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if “the at least one wing”, “an airfoil” and “a Maldonado hicks airfoil” are the same component or three different components.
“Claim 8 recites “wherein the at least one array of ducted fans further comprises: a larger ducted fan array” which renders the claim indefinite as the limitation uses comparative adjective “larger” without any reference to which/what “larger ducted fan array” is being compared to.
Claim 16 recites “wherein each of the two wing further comprises: an airfoil comprising a Maldonado hicks airfoil” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if “a wing”, “an airfoil” and “a Maldonado hicks airfoil” are the same component or three different components.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the ducted fan comprises an array of ducted fans, the array of ducted fans further comprising: a larger ducted fan array” which renders the claim indefinite as the limitation uses comparative adjective “larger” without any reference to which/what “larger ducted fan array” is being compared to.
Claims not addressed above are rejected due to their dependency on rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 114802735) in view of Lougheed (US 1,909,186).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu ‘735 teaches (figures 1-4) a flying system/aircraft comprising:
a fuselage (aircraft has fuselage);
at least one wing (1) mounted to the fuselage (English Translation Pg.3 Para 15); and
at least one array of ducted fans/electric propulsion engines (4s) mounted to the lower surface of the at least one wing (1) (clearly shown in the figure below) (English Translation Pg.3 Para 15; at least one array of ducted fans/electric propulsion engine are mounted to the lower surface of the at least one wing via flap (2));
PNG
media_image1.png
477
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the flying system comprising the at least one wing comprising an undercambered lower surface.
Lougheed ‘186 teaches a concept of an undercambered wing (Pg. 3 lines 28-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu ‘735 to incorporate the teachings of Lougheed ‘186 to configure the flying system comprising the at least one wing comprising an undercambered lower surface.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would maximize the lift from the wing.
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhu ‘735 teaches (figures 1-4) the flying system/aircraft wherein the at least one wing further comprises two wings (clearly seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Zhu ‘735 teaches (figures 1-4) the flying system/aircraft wherein the at least one array of ducted fans further comprises:
an inner ducted fan array configured nearer to the fuselage (clearly shown in the figure below); and
an outer ducted fan array configured nearer to a wing tip (clearly shown in the figure below)
Regarding claim 5, modified Zhu ‘735 teaches (figures 1-4) the flying system/aircraft further comprising:
a wing flap (2), wherein the at least one array of ducted fans are mounted on the wing flap (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 15).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhu ‘735 teaches (figures 1-4) the flying system/aircraft wherein the wing flap (2) is configured to rotate an orientation of the array of ducted fans 90 degrees from a substantially horizontal position (figure 1) to a substantially vertical position (figure 2) (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 15).
Regarding claim 7, modified Zhu ‘735 teaches (figures 1-4) the flying system/aircraft wherein the at least one array of ducted fans is mounted on an aft region of the at least one wing (clearly seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 8 (as best understood), modified Zhu ‘735 teaches (figures 1-4) the flying system/aircraft wherein the at least one array of ducted fans further comprise:
a larger ducted fan array (ducted fans have dimension).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 114802735) and Lougheed (US 1,909,186) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seeley (US 2021/0139133).
Regarding claim 11, modified Zhu ‘735 teaches (figures 1-4) the flying system/aircraft further comprising:
a rotor blade associated with at least one fan/electric propulsion engine (4) in the ducted fan array (fan/electric propulsion engine has rotor blades) but it is silent about the flying system further comprising:
the rotor blade comprising:
a zero sweep leading edge; and
an elliptical trailing edge.
Seeley ‘133 teaches propellers having blades of zero sweep angle (Para 0047). Seeley ‘133 further teaches (figure 11) a propeller blade with an elliptical trailing edge (clearly seen in figure 11; trailing edge curves inward forming elliptical shape).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Zhu ‘735 to incorporate the teachings of Seeley ‘133 to configure the flying system further comprising:
the rotor blade comprising:
a zero sweep leading edge; and
an elliptical trailing edge.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide structural integrity as they are not subject to twisting moments associated with swept blades.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 114802735) in view of Seeley (US 2021/0139133).
Regarding claim 12, Zhu ‘735 teaches (figures 1-4) a system comprising:
a fuselage (aircraft has fuselage);
two wings (1s) mounted to the fuselage (English Translation Pg.3 Para 15); and
at least one ducted fan/electric propulsion engine (4) mounted to at least one of the two wings (English Translation Pg.3 Para 15), the at least one ducted fan comprising:
a duct (clearly shown in the figure below); and
a plurality of rotor blades (fan/electric propulsion engine has rotor blades)
PNG
media_image2.png
477
755
media_image2.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the system comprising:
each of the plurality of rotor blades comprising:
a zero sweep leading edge; and
an elliptical trailing edge.
Seeley ‘133 teaches propellers having blades of zero sweep angle (Para 0047). Seeley ‘133 further teaches (figure 11) a propeller blade with an elliptical trailing edge (clearly seen in figure 5; trailing edge curves inward forming elliptical shape).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu ‘735 to incorporate the teachings of Seeley ‘133 to configure the system comprising:
each of the plurality of rotor blades comprising:
a zero sweep leading edge; and
an elliptical trailing edge.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide structural integrity as they are not subject to twisting moments associated with swept blades.
Regarding claim 13, modified Zhu ‘735 teaches (figures 1-4) the system wherein each of the plurality of rotor blades further comprise:
a flat tip in spaced relation with the duct (as modified by Seeley ‘133; rotor blade with zero sweep leading edge have flat tip).
Regarding claim 14, modified Zhu ‘735 teaches (figures 1-4) the system wherein each of the plurality of rotor blades further comprise:
a blade root attached to a hub (ducted fan/electric propulsion engine has a hub to which blade is connected via blade root), wherein a pitch angle of each of the plurality of blades is defined by a pitch angle of the blade root on the hub (pitch angle at the blade root determines the overall pitch angle of a fixed pitch blades).
Regarding claim 17, modified Zhu ‘735 teaches (figures 1-4) the system further comprising:
a wing flap (2), wherein the at least one ducted fan (4) is mounted on the wing flap (2) (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 15).
Regarding claim 18, modified Zhu ‘735 teaches (figures 1-4) the system wherein the wing flap (2) is configured to rotate an orientation of the at least one ducted fan 90 degrees from a substantially horizontal position (figure 1) to a substantially vertical position (figure 2) (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 15).
Regarding claim 19 (as best understood), modified Zhu ‘735 teaches (figures 1-4) the system wherein the at least one ducted fan comprises an array of ducted fans, the array of ducted fans further comprising:
a larger ducted fan array (clearly shown in the figure below) (ducted fans have dimension);
an outer ducted fan array configured nearer to a wing tip (clearly shown in the figure above); and
an inner ducted fan array configured between the larger ducted fan array and the outer ducted fan array (clearly shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
477
757
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 114802735) and Seeley (US 2021/0139133) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lougheed (US 1,909,186).
Regarding claim 15, modified Zhu ‘735 teaches (figures 1-4) the system of claim 12 but it is silent about the system wherein each of the two wing further comprises:
an undercambered lower surface.
Lougheed ‘186 teaches a concept of an undercambered wing (Pg. 3 lines 28-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Zhu ‘735 to incorporate the teachings of Lougheed ‘186 to configure the system wherein each of the two wing further comprises:
an undercambered lower surface.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would maximize the lift from the wing.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 114802735) in view of Lougheed (US 1,909,186) and Seeley (US 2021/0139133).
Regarding claim 20, Zhu ‘735 teaches (figures 1-4) an electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft comprising:
a fuselage (aircraft has fuselage);
two wings (1s) mounted to the fuselage (English Translation Pg.3 Para 15); and
an array of ducted fans/electric propulsion engines (4s) mounted to the lower surface of each of the two wings (1s) (English Translation Pg.3 Para 15; an array of ducted fans/electric propulsion engine are mounted to the lower surface of the two wings via flaps (2s)), wherein each fan in the array of ducted fan comprises:
a duct (clearly shown in the figure below); and
a plurality of rotor blades (fan/electric propulsion engine has rotor blades);
PNG
media_image4.png
477
757
media_image4.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the eVTOL aircraft comprising:
each of the two wings comprising an undercambered lower surface.
Lougheed ‘186 teaches a concept of an undercambered wing (Pg. 3 lines 28-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhu ‘735 to incorporate the teachings of Lougheed ‘186 to configure the eVTOL aircraft comprising:
each of the two wings comprising an undercambered lower surface.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would maximize the lift from the wing.
Modified Zhu ‘735 is silent about the eVTOL aircraft comprising:
each of the plurality of rotor blades comprising:
a zero sweep leading edge; and
an elliptical trailing edge.
Seeley ‘133 teaches propellers having blades of zero sweep angle (Para 0047). Seeley ‘133 further teaches (figure 11) a propeller blade with an elliptical trailing edge (clearly seen in figure 5; trailing edge curves inward forming elliptical shape).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Zhu ‘735 to incorporate the teachings of Seeley ‘133 to configure the eVTOL aircraft comprising:
each of the plurality of rotor blades comprising:
a zero sweep leading edge; and
an elliptical trailing edge.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide structural integrity as they are not subject to twisting moments associated with swept blades.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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 J 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642