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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 states “The aircraft of claim 6 wherein, the flight”. The comma should be moved to read --The aircraft of claim 6, wherein the flight--.
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 1-12 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, 6, and 12 state “move an outboard wing section to a first aircraft angle of attack”. How is a wing section moved to an “aircraft angle of attack”? The next clause states “second angle of attack”, so perhaps this is intended to read --first angle of attack--.
Claim 3 states “wherein the control system is configured to adjust the two outboard wing sections on the rear wings more than the two outboard wing sections on the front wings during high front wing downwash flight conditions”. What is meant by adjusting the wings more than other wings? Are they moved further, at a faster angular rate, moved more slowly, etc? Further, what is meant by “high front wing downwash conditions”? Does this occur at all phases of flight?
Claim 11 states “determine the second outboard wing pitch angle using a front wing downwash factor”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the second outboard wing” or “second outboard wing pitch angle”. Further, what is “a front wing downwash factor”?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tao (US 20210024208 A1).
For claim 1, Tao discloses an aircraft control system Fig. 6c configured to
receive an airspeed Para 0096; Fig. 6c;
move an outboard wing section to a first angle of attack upon determining the received airspeed is lower than a threshold Fig. 3a: angle of front left wing section at 0 knots; Para 0096: processor tilts rotors as a function of airspeed as in Fig. 5b; and
move the outboard wing section to a second angle of attack upon determining the received airspeed is greater than the threshold Fig. 3b at 60 knots;
wherein, in the first angle of attack, an angle between the outboard wing section and an inboard wing section Fig. 3a shows an angle at 146 deg – there is also a reciprocal angle on the other side which is 34 deg between the inboard and outboard sections is less than in the second angle of attack Fig. 3b: angle is 85 deg, which is more than 34.
For claim 2, Tao discloses the aircraft control system of claim 1, wherein the aircraft comprises a tandem wing aircraft comprising four outboard wing sections, and wherein the control system is configured to move each of the four outboard wing sections Fig. 3a-c.
For claim 3, Tao discloses the aircraft control system of claim 2, wherein two of the four outboard wing sections are on front wings and two of the four outboard wing sections are on rear wings Fig. 3, and wherein the control system is configured to adjust the two outboard wing sections on the rear wings more than the two outboard wing sections on the front wings during high front wing downwash flight conditions Fig. 6c: processor 612 controls each tilt actuator 620 individually and therefore is configured to adjust the rear wing sections more during any flight condition (in this case high front wing downwash is interpreted as occurring any time the wings produce lift).
For claim 4, Tao discloses the aircraft control system of claim 2, wherein the aircraft comprises a quad tiltrotor aircraft Fig. 3, and wherein the four outboard wing sections are each outboard of a tiltrotor the sections outboard of the rotor.
For claim 5, Tao discloses the aircraft control system of claim 1, wherein the outboard wing section comprises an entire chord-wise section from a wing section leading edge to a wing section trailing edge Fig. 3.
For claim 6, Tao discloses an aircraft including:
an outboard wing section Fig. 3: front left outboard section;
an inboard wing section front left inboard section;
a flight control computer Fig. 6c: flight control system/processor with memory as in Para 0054 comprising non-transitory memory comprising machine readable instructions that include the actions:
move the outboard wing section to a first angle of attack upon determining the received airspeed is lower than a threshold Fig. 3a: angle of front left wing section at 0 knots; Para 0096: processor tilts rotors as a function of airspeed as in Fig. 5b; and
move the outboard wing section to a second angle of attack upon determining the received airspeed is greater than the threshold Fig. 3b at 60 knots;
wherein, in the first angle of attack, an angle between the outboard wing section and the inboard wing section Fig. 3a shows an angle at 146 deg – there is also a reciprocal angle on the other side which is 34 deg between the inboard and outboard sections is less than in the second angle of attack Fig. 3b: angle is 85 deg, which is more than 34.
For claim 7, Tao discloses the aircraft of claim 6, wherein the outboard wing section comprises a wing section comprising an entire chord-wise section from leading edge to trailing edge Fig. 3.
For claim 8, Tao discloses the aircraft of claim 6, wherein the aircraft comprises a tandem wing aircraft comprising four outboard wing sections, and wherein the flight control computer is configured to move each of the four outboard wing sections Fig. 3a-c.
For claim 9, Tao discloses the aircraft of claim 6, wherein the aircraft comprises a quad tiltrotor aircraft, and wherein the flight control computer is configured to move each of four outboard wing sections Fig. 3a-c.
For claim 10, Tao discloses the aircraft of claim 9, wherein each of the four outboard wing sections are outboard of a tiltrotor Fig. 3: the sections outboard of the rotor.
For claim 11, Tao discloses the aircraft of claim 6, wherein the flight control computer is configured to determine the second outboard wing pitch angle using a front wing downwash factor it is interpreted that downwash is a product of airflow and therefore a downwash factor is interpreted as the airspeed of the aircraft; as shown in Fig. 5b, the pitch of all wing sections is based on airspeed.
For claim 12, Tao discloses a method for improving aircraft stall characteristics, comprising
receive an airspeed Para 0096; Fig. 6c;
move an outboard wing section to a first angle of attack upon determining the received airspeed is lower than a threshold Fig. 3a: angle of front left wing section at 0 knots; Para 0096: processor tilts rotors as a function of airspeed; and
move the outboard wing section to a second angle of attack upon determining the received airspeed is greater than the threshold Fig. 3b at 60 knots;
wherein, in the first angle of attack, an angle between the outboard wing section and an inboard wing section Fig. 3a shows an angle at 146 deg – there is also a reciprocal angle on the other side which is 34 deg between the inboard and outboard sections is less than in the second angle of attack Fig. 3b: angle is 85 deg, which is more than 34.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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