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 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 6/24/2025. Claims 1-13 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, however the request for foreign priority cannot yet be approved due to the lack of certified English copies, per requirements of 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), specifically 35 U.S.C. 119 (b)(3), see below.
(3) The Director may require a certified copy of the original foreign application, specification, and drawings upon which it is based, a translation if not in the English language, and such other information as the Director considers necessary. Any such certification shall be made by the foreign intellectual property authority in which the foreign application was filed and show the date of the application and of the filing of the specification and other papers.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 6/24/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 as currently presented states “…the flight mode…” which the Examiner recommends updating to instead state “…[ [ the ] ] a flight mode…” so as to avoid potential misinterpretation.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the claim refers to “…a diameter of the at least one second rotor…” and “…a diameter of each of the plurality of first rotors…” however it is unclear if the diameters being referenced are focused on a cross sectional diameter of the individual rotor blades or if the intention is a diameter of a circular path that the tips of rotors pass through. The Examiner will interpret the claim as pertaining to either scenario, per paragraph [0082] and Figure 5 of the instant specification and drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Independent claims 1 and 13 are directed towards an apparatus and a method, respectively. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1 and 13 and the corresponding dependent claims 2-12 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An unmanned aerial vehicle comprising:
a plurality of rotors including a plurality of first rotors and at least one second rotor; and
a controller configured or programmed to perform attitude control of a body of the vehicle by controlling rotation of the plurality of first rotors, and generate a main thrust by controlling rotation of the at least one second rotor; wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to:
calculate a first thrust that is a total thrust to be generated by the plurality of first rotors, and calculate a second thrust that is a total thrust to be generated by the at least one second rotor, based on the first thrust and a total thrust needed for flight;
determine a rotational speed of each of the plurality of first rotors based on the first thrust; and
determines a rotational speed of the at least one second rotor based on the second thrust.
These limitations, as drafted, are an apparatus that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as a mental process. For example, “calculate a first thrust…calculate a second thrust…” may be interpreted as assessing variables with a pen and paper to achieve a desired value, and “determine a rotational speed… determines a rotational speed…” may be interpreted as mentally determining values based on observable data. Therefore, the claims are directed towards reciting an abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application.”
In the present case, the additional elements beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An unmanned aerial vehicle comprising:
a plurality of rotors including a plurality of first rotors and at least one second rotor; and
a controller configured or programmed to perform attitude control of a body of the vehicle by controlling rotation of the plurality of first rotors, and generate a main thrust by controlling rotation of the at least one second rotor; wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to:
calculate a first thrust that is a total thrust to be generated by the plurality of first rotors, and calculate a second thrust that is a total thrust to be generated by the at least one second rotor, based on the first thrust and a total thrust needed for flight;
determine a rotational speed of each of the plurality of first rotors based on the first thrust; and
determines a rotational speed of the at least one second rotor based on the second thrust.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional elements of “an unmanned aerial vehicle,” “a plurality of rotors,” and “a controller configured or programmed to perform attitude control…and generate a main thrust…the controller…,” are merely generic components which allow the abstract idea to be applied (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)). The Examiner submits that these elements are mere computers or other machinery used as a tool to perform the existing process.
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed, the additional elements of “an unmanned aerial vehicle,” “a plurality of rotors,” and “a controller configured or programmed to perform attitude control…and generate a main thrust…the controller…,” amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (using additional elements such as “the controller”). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). In addition, the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”.
Claim 13 recites analogous limitations to that of claim 1 and is therefore rejected by the same premise.
Dependent claims 2-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2-8 further narrow the previously recited abstract limitations (calculating thrust(s)) without identifying any further additional elements. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 9-11 further characterize the generic components (rotor qualities) that apply the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites additional generic components (electric motors, internal combustion engine) that act to apply the abstract idea.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US-2021/0016880; hereinafter Ishikawa; already of record from IDS) in view of Miyata (US-2023/0393589).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle (see Ishikawa at least Abs) comprising:
a plurality of rotors including a plurality of first rotors and at least one second rotor (see Ishikawa at least Fig 1A and [0047] "Referring to FIG. 1A, the autonomous flying device 10 is a so-called hybrid autonomous flying device. Specifically, a main rotor 14A and the like are drivingly connected to an engine 30, while a sub rotor 15A and the like are supplied with electric energy from the engine 30 via a generator 16A and the like..."); and
a controller configured or programmed to perform attitude control of a body of the vehicle by controlling rotation of the plurality of first rotors (see Ishikawa at least [0059] "...The autonomous flying device 10 has an arithmetic control device 31 that controls its position and orientation in the air. The arithmetic control device 31 includes a CPU, a RAM, a ROM, and so on, and controls the rotation of the motor 21A and the like, which drive the sub rotor 15A and the like, based on instructions from various sensors, a camera, and an operating device that are not illustrated here. The operating device here is a so-called controller that is wirelessly connected or wired to the autonomous flying device 10 and enables a user to manipulate the position, altitude, moving direction, moving speed, and the like of the autonomous flying device 10." and [0065] "Using the electric power generated from the inverter 32, the drivers 24A, 24B, 24C, and 24D respectively control the amounts of current to be flowed into the motors 21A, 21B, 21C, and 21D, their rotation directions, their rotation timings, and so on. The behaviors of the drivers 24A, 24B, 24C, and 24D are controlled by the arithmetic control device 31."), and generate a main thrust by controlling rotation of the at least one second rotor (see Ishikawa at least [0062] "...Here, as described above, the engine 30 drives the main rotors 14 as well. The engine 30 is controlled by the arithmetic control device 31."); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to:
[determine] a first thrust that is a total thrust to be generated by the plurality of first rotors (see Ishikawa at least [0053] "The main rotors 14 have a function of generating lift that causes the autonomous flying device 10 to float in the air. The sub rotors 15, on the other hand, mainly serve to control the orientation of the autonomous flying device 10…" and [0104] "Also, translational motion of a center of gravity {X.sub.G, Y.sub.G, Z.sub.G}.sup.T of the autonomous flying device 10 is described as mathematical equation 2 below in the space-fixed coordinate system. Here, m denotes the weight of the fuselage of the autonomous flying device 10, g denotes the gravitational acceleration, and T denotes the thrust generated by the main rotor 14A and the like and the sub rotor 15A and the like."), and [determine] a second thrust that is a total thrust to be generated by the at least one second rotor, based on the first thrust and a total thrust needed for flight (see Ishikawa at least [0053] "The main rotors 14 have a function of generating lift that causes the autonomous flying device 10 to float in the air. The sub rotors 15, on the other hand, mainly serve to control the orientation of the autonomous flying device 10…");
…
…
Although Ishikawa utilizes numerical thrusts in an equation, it is not explicit that Ishikawa discloses the following:
…calculate a first thrust…calculate a second thrust…
…determine a rotational speed of each of the plurality of first rotors based on the first thrust…
…determines a rotational speed of the at least one second rotor based on the second thrust…
Miyata, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…calculate a first thrust (see Miyata at least [0070] "...The control unit 110 calculates the thrust (propeller thrust) P4 necessary for causing the flight vehicle 100 to generate the acquired acceleration a, and calculates the attitude of the flight vehicle 100 necessary for obtaining the calculated thrust P4 (S103)...")…calculate a second thrust (see Miyata at least [0070] "...The control unit 110 calculates the thrust (propeller thrust) P4 necessary for causing the flight vehicle 100 to generate the acquired acceleration a, and calculates the attitude of the flight vehicle 100 necessary for obtaining the calculated thrust P4 (S103)...")…
…determine a rotational speed of each of the plurality of first rotors based on the first thrust (see Miyata at least [0070] "...Then, the control unit 110 calculates the rotational speed of the propeller that moves the flight vehicle 100 in the calculated attitude, and drives the motor at the calculated rotational speed to fly the flight vehicle 100 with the calculated thrust described above...")…
…determines a rotational speed of the at least one second rotor based on the second thrust (see Miyata at least [0070] "...Then, the control unit 110 calculates the rotational speed of the propeller that moves the flight vehicle 100 in the calculated attitude, and drives the motor at the calculated rotational speed to fly the flight vehicle 100 with the calculated thrust described above...")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control of main rotors and sub rotors as disclosed by Ishikawa with rotational speeds based on thrust such as taught by Miyata with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of providing accurate controls to a UAV (see Miyata at least [0064]).
Regarding claim 2, Ishikawa in view of Miyata teach the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to calculate (see Miyata at least [0070]) the second thrust by subtracting the first thrust from the total thrust needed for flight (see Ishikawa at least [0058] "The main rotor 14 and the like and the sub rotor 15A and the like rotate simultaneously when the autonomous flying device 10 with the above configuration flies. Thrust generated by rotation of the main rotor 14 and the like makes the ous flying device 10 float, and the sub rotor 15,A and the like rotate individually to control the position and orientation of the autonomous flying device 10 in the air. To move the autonomous flying device 10, orientation control to tilt the autonomous flying device 10 is executed by changing the rotational speeds of the sub rotor 15A and the like while rotating the main rotor 14 and the like at a predetermined speed. This orientation control will be described later." and [0108] "While the autonomous flying device 10 is hovering, the main rotor 14A and the like generate a thrust that causes the device body to float whereas the sub rotor 15A and the like rotate to make the device body stay at ar certain spot and maintain a parallel state. Thus, the output of the main rotor 14 and the like is far larger than the output of the sub rotor 15A and the like. For example, the power outputted by the main rotor 14 and the like is 3.04 W whereas the power outputted by the sub rotor 15A and the like is 0.34 W. In an example, the output distribution ratio of the main rotor 14 and the like and the sub rotor 15A and the like is 90%:10%."; a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the flying device to have a numerical representation of a total thrust, which is the combination of main rotor thrusts and sub rotor thrusts, thus allowing basic arithmetic to solve for any unknowns, i.e., if the total thrust and sub rotor thrust were known variables but the main rotor thrust was unknown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the control of main rotors and sub rotors as disclosed by Ishikawa with thrust calculations such as taught by Miyata for reasons similar to those provided above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Ishikawa in view of Miyata teach the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein a diameter of the at least one second rotor is larger than a diameter of each of the plurality of first rotors (see Ishikawa at least Fig 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 10, Ishikawa in view of Miyata teach the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1, wherein a thrust per revolution of each of the plurality of second rotors is greater than a thrust per revolution of each of the plurality of first rotors (see Ishikawa at least [0108] "While the autonomous flying device 10 is hovering, the main rotor 14A and the like generate a thrust that causes the device body to float whereas the sub rotor 15A and the like rotate to make the device body stay at ar certain spot and maintain a parallel state. Thus, the output of the main rotor 14 and the like is far larger than the output of the sub rotor 15A and the like. For example, the power outputted by the main rotor 14 and the like is 3.04 W whereas the power outputted by the sub rotor 15A and the like is 0.34 W. In an example, the output distribution ratio of the main rotor 14 and the like and the sub rotor 15A and the like is 90%:10%.").
Regarding claim 12, Ishikawa in view of Miyata teach the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1, further comprising:
a plurality of electric motors each configured to drive a respective one of the plurality of first rotors (see Ishikawa at least [0054] "…The sub rotor 15A is disposed at the front end of the sub frame 13A, and the sub rotor 15A is rotated by the motor 21A, which is disposed under it. A sub rotor 15B is disposed at the front end of a sub frame 13B, and the sub rotor 15B is rotated by a motor 21B disposed under it. A sub rotor 15C is disposed at the rear end of a sub frame 13C, and the sub rotor 15C is rotated by a motor 21C disposed under it. A sub rotor 15D is disposed at the rear end of a sub frame 13D, and the sub rotor 15D is rotated by a motor 21D disposed under it. The motors 21A, 21B, 21C, and 21D are supplied with electric power generated by the generators 16A and 16B. Inside the sub frame 13A and the like are routed cables for supplying electric power to the motor 21A."); and
an internal combustion engine to drive the at least one second rotor (see Ishikawa at least [0052] "...Thus, the main rotors 14 are rotated directly by the mechanical power generated by the engine 30, and therefore the energy loss that occurs when energy is transmitted from the engine 30 to the main rotors 14 is smaller than that of a series type."); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to control rotation of the plurality of first rotors by controlling the plurality of electric motors, and control rotation of the at least one second rotor by controlling the internal combustion engine (see Ishikawa at least [0059] "...The autonomous flying device 10 has an arithmetic control device 31 that controls its position and orientation in the air. The arithmetic control device 31 includes a CPU, a RAM, a ROM, and so on, and controls the rotation of the motor 21A and the like, which drive the sub rotor 15A and the like, based on instructions from various sensors, a camera, and an operating device that are not illustrated here. The operating device here is a so-called controller that is wirelessly connected or wired to the autonomous flying device 10 and enables a user to manipulate the position, altitude, moving direction, moving speed, and the like of the autonomous flying device 10." [0062] "...Here, as described above, the engine 30 drives the main rotors 14 as well. The engine 30 is controlled by the arithmetic control device 31." and [0065] "Using the electric power generated from the inverter 32, the drivers 24A, 24B, 24C, and 24D respectively control the amounts of current to be flowed into the motors 21A, 21B, 21C, and 21D, their rotation directions, their rotation timings, and so on. The behaviors of the drivers 24A, 24B, 24C, and 24D are controlled by the arithmetic control device 31.").
Regarding claim 13, Ishikawa in view of Miyata teach the analogous material of that in claim 1 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Miyata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishikawa et al. (US-2024/0343423; hereinafter Ishikawa23; already of record from IDS).
Regarding claim 11, Ishikawa in view of Miyata teach the unmanned aerial vehicle according to Claim 1. However, neither Ishikawa nor Miyata explicitly disclose or teach a distance from a center of the body to a rotation axis of each of the plurality of second rotors is shorter than a distance from the center of the body to a rotation axis of each of the plurality of first rotors.
Ishikawa23, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
a distance from a center of the body to a rotation axis of each of the plurality of second rotors is shorter than a distance from the center of the body to a rotation axis of each of the plurality of first rotors (see Ishikawa23 at least Fig 1, [0025]-[0026] “The main rotors 14 rotate to generate drive force that causes the airframe 19 to lift. The main rotors 14 include a main rotor 141 and a main rotor 142. In this case, for example, the main rotor 141 is a first main rotor, and the main rotor 142 is a second main rotor. The main rotor 141 is arranged on the left side of the airframe 19. The main rotor 141 is connected to the airframe 19 via a main frame 121.” [0029]-[0030] “The flight device 10 includes the sub-rotors 15. The sub-rotors 15 include a sub-rotor 151 to a sub-rotor 154. In this description, a first sub-rotor is the sub-rotor 151, a second sub-rotor is the sub-rotor 152, a third sub-rotor is the sub-rotor 153, and a fourth sub-rotor is the sub-rotor 154. The sub-rotor 151 is arranged on the front-left side of the airframe 19, is connected to the airframe 19 via a sub-frame 131, and is rotated by a motor 211 not illustrated herein.” and [0034] “In this case, the sub-frame 131 to the sub-frame 134 are formed to be longer than the main frame 121 and the main frame 122. The rotation centers of the sub-rotor 151 to the sub-rotor 154 are thereby farther away from a center portion of the airframe 19 than the rotation centers of the main rotor 141 and the main rotor 142 are. Control of the position and the attitude of the flight device 10 with the sub-rotor 151 to the sub-rotor 154 can be thereby performed more accurately.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flying device as taught by Ishikawa in view of Miyata with a dimensional layout such as taught by Ishikawa23 with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of controlling the flying device more accurately (see Ishikawa at least [0034]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the Examiner is relying upon the teachings of [0148]-[0155] of the instant specification to provide insight as to the calculation of a second coefficient. The Examiner directs attention to the teachings of the following references, with both applicability and lacking information noted:
Ishikawa: discloses the application of a first thrust to adjust the attitude of the aerial vehicle, as well as a second thrust that provides lift to the aerial vehicle. However, Ishikawa does not describe the details for calculating either of these thrusts, such as by utilizing a thrust coefficient, such as claimed.
Miyata: teaches the calculation of thrust for various rotors, but does not detail how any coefficients would be relied upon in such calculations.
Gomez Gutierrez et al. (US-2019/0033892): teaches equations for determining motor thrust (and indirectly rotor thrust), along with a relationship between a thrust coefficient for individual motors and a total thrust resulting from the individual motor thrusts and thrust coefficients; however, details pertaining to an actual numerical value of the various coefficients are not described, nor are there any explicit equations linking thrust and coefficient of one rotor to another, such as claimed.
Sargent et al. (US-2018/0257768): teaches numerical values for a range of thrust coefficients that could be applied for determining an accurate thrust during a hovering maneuver, however there is no indication as to how these coefficients are applied to calculate a thrust or similarly how they can be incorporated into equations for calculating an unknown thrust, such as claimed.
Wikipedia (NPL): teaches the significance of the number “1” in calculating thrust coefficients, which appears to indicate conditions in zero ambient pressure, i.e., a vacuum.
From this teaching, the Examiner assumes the importance of the number “1” in the equations, as claimed, is for the sake of maintaining a steady state. From this, it is assumed that a total thrust coefficient, consisting of individualized thrust coefficients, would be equal to 1. Applying this assumption to the teachings of Sargent et al. (US-2018/0257768) would lead a person of ordinary skill to choose coefficient values whose overall sum would equal 1.
Chan (US-2019/0002096): teaches a total thrust coefficient that is the sum of an upper rotor thrust coefficient and a lower rotor thrust coefficient; however, there are no explicit connections to solving for a thrust by way of applying these individualized thrust coefficients.
A person of ordinary skill in the art may assume that according to the interpretation from Wikipedia (NPL) above, that assuming a total coefficient is equal to 1, the calculation of an upper rotor coefficient may be achieved by subtracting a lower rotor coefficient from 1, or similarly, the calculation of a lower rotor coefficient may be achieved by subtracting an upper rotor coefficient from 1.
Claims 4-8 are also objected to for being dependent upon claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al. (US-2019/0373173) teaches the calculation of desired amounts of thrust for a variety of propulsion units to achieve UAV flight.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 PM.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights