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
The 112 rejections have been addressed and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In light of the new amendments, Kellogg has been reinterpreted to read different elements on the claim limitations. For example, the first portion is now interpreted as the shaft 5, with shoulder 16, which do rotate relative to the second portion, due to the wormed sleeve 7.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellogg et al (US 1864045 A ) in view of Kramer (US 11279466 B1) and Stearns et al (US 20210147076 A1).
For claim 1, Kellogg discloses an aircraft, comprising:
a rotor device Fig. 2;
wherein a rotor device comprises at least one rotor blade 13, which is configured to be rotatable about a rotor blade axis screw 14;
wherein the rotor device has:
a first portion shaft 5/shoulder 16 rotatably driven about an axis of rotation axis of shaft;
a second portion hub 11, which is configured to be rotatable relative to the first portion about an axis that runs coaxially with the axis of rotation and to which the rotor blade is fastened or that comprises the rotor blade hub 11 rotates around the shaft axis, but slower than the shaft, due to the wormed sleeve 7; Page 1, last line: “the resistance of the water or air retards the rotary movement of the propeller blades causing them to rotate slower than the propeller shaft”;
wherein a relative rotational position of the second portion to the first portion depends upon a torque with which the first portion is driven Page 1, last line: “the resistance of the water or air retards the rotary movement of the propeller blades causing them to rotate slower than the propeller shaft”, and a mechanical coupling arms 18/sleeve 7, which couples the relative rotational position of the first portion relative to the second portion to a rotational position of the rotor blade about the rotor blade axis Page 2, line 10: “when said hub moves forward said arms cause the propeller blades to turn on their pivotal connections with said hub”.
wherein the rotor device comprises a restoring device springs 24, which at least temporarily presses the rotor blade in the direction of an initial position with regard to its rotational position Page 2, lines 25-29: “said springs will move the hub back to the normally retracted position whereby the pitch of the blades will be again decreased to their original pitch”;
wherein the restoring device is in the form of an elastic coupling device that elastically and at least indirectly couples the second portion to the first portion springs 24.
Kellogg fails to disclose that the elastic coupling device has a progressive spring characteristic curve and that there are multiple rotor devices.
However, Kramer teaches a spring for a self-adjusting variable pitch propeller in which “The spring compression type (progressive vs constant), determines the rate of pitch change generated” (Col 6, lines 48-49). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Kellogg by using a progressive spring curve as disclosed by Kramer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification since it “determines the rate of pitch change generated”, in order to provide the desired response for the aircraft.
Kellogg disclose that the propeller device may be used on aircraft but not explicitly what type. However, Stearns teaches a multicopter with multiple rotor devices with pitch change mechanisms Fig. 5. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Kellogg by using the propeller device on a multicopter as disclosed by Stearns. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to use the propeller on many types of aircraft such as a multicopter in order to gain the advantages of this passive pitch change system.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have two rotor devices on the aircraft in order to provide additional thrust, redundancy, or additional control, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
For claim 2, Kellogg discloses the multicopter according to claim 1, wherein the elastic coupling device comprises a plurality of elastic bending elements multiple spring 24, that are preferably arranged in a manner evenly distributed as seen in the circumferential direction of the first portion “preferably” – not required, wherein the plurality of elastic bending elements are connected at one end to the first portion and at the other end to the second portion Fig. 6: springs 24 at least indirectly connected at the left end to 16/5 via pins 22 and connected to 11 at the right end, at least indirectly.
For claim 5, Kellogg discloses the multicopter according to claim 1, wherein the mechanical coupling comprises a driver lever that is rigidly connected to the rotor blade and that is coupled to a driver portion of the first portion Fig. 3: screw 20 connected to blade 13 and at least indirectly coupled to disc 16/5.
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 COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
