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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an airflow generated by the duct on an inner periphery side of the duct” appears as if it should read “an airflow generated in[[by]] the duct on an inner periphery side of the duct”. 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 1-5 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrases “outer periphery side” and “inner periphery side” of the duct in claim 1 include relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “outer periphery” and “inner periphery” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear when a part of the duct would relate to a ‘periphery’ and specifically an inner vs outer periphery. These terms are being interpreted as referring to an outer vs inner surface of the duct respectively.
Claims 2-5 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 10526066 B2) in view of Tunekawa (US 20180297697 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki (US 10526066 B2) discloses an electric flying object comprising:
an airframe (Suzuki, figure 1, items 10-14);
a plurality of propulsors (Suzuki, figure 1, items 21-28 and 31-38) provided in pairs (Suzuki, figure 1, Q1-Q4, propulsors mirrored with diagonal quadrants) to sandwich a center of gravity (Suzuki, figure 1, item G) of the airframe when viewed in a plan view; and
a control unit (Suzuki, figures 3-4, items 5) that controls an operation of the propulsor (Suzuki, figures 3-4, items 61-68),
wherein the propulsor includes a fan (Suzuki, figure 1, items 31-38) rotatable around an axis,
an electric motor (Suzuki, figure 1, items 21-28) that rotationally drives the fan.
Suzuki also teaches an embodiment where the control unit switches, in a case where any one of the plurality of propulsors is stopped due to abnormality, the propulsor located on an opposite side to the stopped propulsor with the center of gravity interposed therebetween to an abnormality response mode (Suzuki, figure 17, items a-e, in response to an outage of the left rotor, the right motor output is modified to out either 0 in b, d, and e or a modified output in c).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the layout and control of rotors of the embodiment shown in figure 1-4 of Suzuki with the hexagonal arrangement and control shown in figure 17 of Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the number of required propulsion units.
Suzuki does not disclose/teach:
a duct that covers the fan from an outer periphery side
a thrust vectoring unit that thrust-vectors an airflow generated by the duct on an inner periphery side of the duct, and
a thrust vectoring actuator unit that controls an angle of the thrust vectoring unit,
the thrust vectoring unit is a flap.
Tunekawa (US 20180297697 A1) teaches a duct (Tunekawa, figures 1a-b, item 31a-b) that covers the fan (Tunekawa, figures 1a-b, item 32a-b) from an outer periphery side (Tunekawa, figures 1a-b, duct around the propeller);
a thrust vectoring unit (Tunekawa, figures 1a-b, item 36a-b and 37a-b, control vanes) that thrust-vectors an airflow generated by the duct on an inner periphery side of the duct (Simon, figure 1, item 8), and
a thrust vectoring actuator unit that controls an angle of the thrust vectoring unit,
the thrust vectoring unit is a flap (Tunekawa, figures 1a-b, item 36a-b and 37a-b, ¶32, control vanes angle adjusted by drive sources, which might be electric motors).
Suzuki and Tunekawa are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of rotorcraft propulsion arrangements. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the propulsors of Suzuki with the ducts and thrust vectoring units of Tunekawa with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an alternative/redundant control in case of additional failures.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki as modified by Tunekawa teaches the electric flying object according to claim 1,
wherein in the abnormality response mode, the propulsor located on the opposite side is stopped (Suzuki, figure 17, items a-e, in response to an outage of the left rotor, the right motor output is modified to out either 0 in b, d, and e).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki as modified by Tunekawa teaches the electric flying object according to Claim 2,
wherein the control unit adjusts a pitching angle with a horizontal direction orthogonal to a travelling direction of the airframe as a pitch axis by changing rotation speeds of the propulsors other than at least one pair of the propulsors stopped in the abnormality response mode (Suzuki, figure 17, items b and e, col 25 line 55 - col 26 line 24, moving in an up or down direction by changing differential rotation speed on upper and lower sides).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 10526066 B2) in view of Tunekawa (US 20180297697 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yoeli (US 7946528 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki as modified by Tunekawa teaches the electric flying object according to claim 2, except:
wherein the control unit adjusts a rolling angle with a travelling direction of the airframe as a roll axis by operating the thrust vectoring units of the propulsors other than at least one pair of the propulsors stopped in the abnormality response mode.
Yoeli (US 7946528 B2) teaches adjusting a rolling angle with a travelling direction of the airframe as a roll axis (Yoeli, col 8 lines 57-61, col 20 lines 38-61, yaw and roll controlled using vanes) by operating the thrust vectoring units (Yoeli, figure 12, items 15 and 29).
Suzuki as modified by Tunekawa and Yoeli are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of rotorcraft control. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control of operational rotor of Suzuki as modified by Tunekawa with the use of vanes to control yaw of Yoeli with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a redundant control authority.
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki as modified by Simon teaches the electric flying object according to Claim 2, except:
wherein the control unit adjusts a yawing angle with respect to a yaw axis passing through the center of gravity of the airframe by operating the thrust vectoring units of the propulsors other than at least one pair of the propulsors stopped in the abnormality response mode.
Yoeli (US 7946528 B2) teaches adjusting a yawing angle with a travelling direction of the airframe as a yaw axis passing through the center of gravity of the airframe (Yoeli, col 8 lines 57-61, col 20 lines 38-61, yaw and roll controlled using vanes) by operating the thrust vectoring units (Yoeli, figure 12, items 15 and 29).
Suzuki as modified by Tunekawa and Yoeli are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of rotorcraft control. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the operational rotors of Suzuki as modified by Tunekawa with the use of vanes to control yaw of Yoeli with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a redundant control authority.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10513341 B2 teaches a method finding a rotor failure and adjusting controls allocation matrix in response to failure
US 11155356 B2 teaches a control system for a multicopter compensating for an out motor/rotor using the other rotors
US 11591082 B2 teaches turning off bilateral symmetric rotor after a corresponding rotor fails
US 11760483 B2 teaches using an air flap when a rotor has an abnormality; air flap is more of a brake and does not rotate
US 20030085319 A1 teaches a vtol rotorcraft with 6 ducted rotors and swiveling nozzles for thrust vectoring; failure of one rotor addressed
US 20130126680 A1 teaches a controller using control vanes to control, roll, pitch, and yaw of a rotorcraft; talks about handling control vane failure and compensation for such a failure
US 20170158342 A1 teaches a rotorcraft drone with pairs of rotors; paired rotor de-activated when a rotor fails
US 20220315207 A1 teaches a vtol with 4 rotors and talks about thrust vectoring in the event of a failure; might be appropriate for a base ref to modify with a flap
US 20240343403 A1 teaches a vtol aircraft compensating for a failed rotor by turning off a rotor on an opposite side of symmetry
WO 2016132040 A1 teaches a duct (Simon, figures 1-5, item 8) that covers the fan (figures 1-5, item 1a-b) from an outer periphery side (figures 1-5, duct around the propeller); a thrust vectoring unit (figure 1, items 6a and 6b) that thrust-vectors an airflow generated by the duct on an inner periphery side of the duct (figure 1, item 8), and a thrust vectoring actuator unit that controls an angle of the thrust vectoring unit, the thrust vectoring unit is a flap (figure 1, items 6a and 6b, flap).
WO 2019232472 A1 teaches a vtol aircraft with a system for compensating for rotor failure by during off opposing rotors
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights