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 .
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 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.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I, claims 1-11. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/18/2026.
Double patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 2 of Patent Pub No. US 20230322362. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “being” are not positive limitations inasmuch as the terms including the word "being" are passive and thus do not serve to clearly limit the structure in an active sense.
Appropriate correction is required.
Reference of prior art
Mikic et al. (US 20230322362, Method For Controlling Vertical Take-Off And Landing Aircraft Using Different Propeller Blade Angle Of Attack Ranges For Different Flight Modes).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Mikic.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Mikic discloses:
A method of thrust control of a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, the method comprising:
tilting a propeller having a plurality of blades with variable pitch, the propeller being configured to tilt to a vertical orientation for hover flight mode and a horizontal orientation for forward flight mode (claim 2);
rotating the propeller to generate thrust (claim 2); and
controlling the variable pitch propeller to operate within different pitch regimes in the hover and forward flight modes, the pitch regime for the forward flight mode corresponding to a first angle of attack range and the pitch regime for the hover flight mode corresponding to a second angle of attack range (claim 2).
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Mikic discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the angle of attack range for forward flight mode is less than the angle of attack range for hover flight mode (claim 3).
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Mikic discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of blades is characterized by a lift coefficient curve having a shallower curve for a second angle of attack range than the lift coefficient curve for a first angle of attack range, and wherein the pitch regime for the hover flight mode corresponding to the second angle of attack range and the pitch regime for the forward flight mode corresponding to the first angle of attack range (claim 4).
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Mikic discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein the first angle of attack range and the second angle of attack range do not overlap (claim 5).
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Mikic discloses:
The method of claim 2 wherein the first angle of attack range and the second angle of attack range do not overlap (claim 6).
Re claim 6 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Mikic discloses:
The method of claim 3 wherein the first angle of attack range and the second angle of attack range do not overlap (claim 7).
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Mikic discloses:
The method of claim 6 wherein the first angle of attack range has a minimum of −5 degrees and a maximum of 5 degrees, and wherein the second angle of attack range has a minimum of 8 degrees and a maximum of 10 degrees (claim 9).
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Mikic discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein the slope of the lift coefficient curve of the blades in the first AOA range is in the range of 0.25 to 0.75 times the slope of the lift coefficient curve of the blades in the second AoA range (claim 10).
Re claim 9 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Mikic discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein the slope of the lift coefficient curve of the blades in the first AOA range is in the range of 0.25 to 0.50 times the slope of the lift coefficient curve of the blades in the second AoA range (claim 11).
Re claim 10 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Mikic discloses:
The method of claim 1 wherein said blades comprise an airfoil profile of chord length L with a high point located between 38-40% along the chord line (¶ 0064), and wherein the radius of curvature at the high point is in the range 115 to 119% of L (¶ 0061).
Re claim 11 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Mikic discloses:
The method of claim 10 wherein said blades further comprise: a leading edge comprising a lead edge radius between 0.002 L and 0.05 L (¶ 0061); a trailing edge comprising a thickness between zero and 0.03 L (¶ 0061); a maximum thickness between 0.07 L and 0.2 L located between 0.2 L and 0.6 L along the chord line (¶ 0064); and a maximum camber between 0 and 0.2 L located between 0.2 L and 0.7 L along the chord line(¶ 0065).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during office hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights