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 .
Application Status
Claims 23-53 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the second action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 6/25/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 23, 24, 28, 34, 36, 37, 40-43, 45, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (PGPub #2022/0127011) in view of Campbell (PGPub #2020/0140079), and Mikic et al. (PGPub #2020/0361601).
Regarding claim 23, Long teaches an electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising: a fuselage (110); a single wing that extends across the fuselage or a single pair of wings (120, and 125) extending from each side of the fuselage (110, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A), wherein the single wing or single pair of wings are the only wings of the aircraft (120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A); a first plurality of proprotors (1, 2, 5, and 6) mounted to the single wing or single pair of wings (1, 2, 5, 6, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 2), each of the first plurality of proprotors being tiltable between a lift configuration for providing lift for vertical take-off and landing of the aircraft and a forward propulsion configuration for providing forward propulsion to the aircraft (1, 2, 5, and 6 as seen in figures 1A, and 1B); a second plurality of proprotors (7, 8, 11, and 12) mounted to the single wing or single pair of wings (7, 8, 11, 12, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A), each of the second plurality of proprotors being tiltable between the lift configuration and the forward propulsion configuration (7, 8, 11, and 12 as seen in figures 1A, and 1B); and two booms (115, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29, this teaches that the number of booms/sets of propulsion units mounted on each wing can be any number greater than one and can be less than the three per wing shown in the figures which includes having two booms per wing) on each side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A) that are mounted to the single wing or single pair of wings (115, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A) for a total of four booms on the aircraft (Paragraphs 26 27, and 29, this teaches that the number of booms/sets of propulsion units mounted on each wing can be any number greater than one and can be less than the three per wing shown in the figures which includes having four total booms), wherein each of the four booms supports one proprotor of the first plurality of proprotors pivotably mounted to a forward end of the respective boom (1, 2, 5, 6,and 115 as seen in figures 1A, and 1B, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29) and one proprotor of the second plurality of proprotors, pivotably mounted to a rearward end of the respective boom (7, 8, 11, 12, and 115 as seen in figures 1A, and 1B) such that there is a total of four first proprotors and four second proprotors (1, 2, 5-8, 11, and 12 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29); and wherein all propulsion available for the aircraft is provided by the first plurality of proprotors and the second plurality of proprotors (1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 as seen in figure 1A). But Long does not explicitly teach that the proprotors are independently tiltable, and that a sum of disc areas of the four first proprotors and the four second proprotors is at least a total wing area of the single wing or single pair of wings and not more than 3 times the total wing area.
However, Campbell does teach that the proprotors are independently tiltable (Paragraphs 25, and 36). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the proprotors be independently tiltable because Long and Campbell are both tiltrotor aircraft with rotors mounted on booms. The motivation for having the proprotors be independently tiltable is that it allows the control system of the aircraft to more precisely control the motion of the aircraft. But Campbell does not teach that a sum of disc areas of the four first proprotors and the four second proprotors is at least a total wing area of the single wing or single pair of wings and not more than 3 times the total wing area.
However, Mikic does teach that a sum of disc areas of the four first proprotors and the four second proprotors is at least a total wing area of the single wing or single pair of wings and not more than 3 times the total wing area (Paragraph 64, and Claim 15). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the disc areas of the rotors be between 1 and 3 times the area of the wing because Long and Mikic are both VTOL aircraft with propulsion systems mounted to the wing. The motivation for having the disc areas of the rotors be between 1 and 3 times the area of the wing is that it helps to ensure that the rotors are sufficiently large enough for vertical flight and the wings are sufficiently large enough for horizontal flight.
Regarding claim 24, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 23, but Long does not explicitly teach that the sum of disc areas of the four first proprotors and the four second proprotors is at least 1.5 times the total wing area. However, Mikic does teach that the sum of disc areas of the four first proprotors and the four second proprotors is at least 1.5 times the total wing area (Paragraph 64, and Claim 15). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the disc areas of the rotors be at least 1.5 times the area of the wing because Long and Mikic are both VTOL aircraft with propulsion systems mounted to the wing. The motivation for having the disc areas of the rotors be at least 1.5 times the area of the wing is that it helps to ensure that the rotors are sufficiently large enough for vertical flight and the wings are sufficiently large enough for horizontal flight.
Regarding claim 28, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 23, wherein a maximum thrust capability of each proprotor is greater than a hover thrust requirement for the proprotor (This is an inherent feature of any VTOL aircraft because the thrust required to vertically take-off is greater than the thrust required to hover). But Long does not explicitly teach that the maximum thrust is 1.6 to 1.7 times the hover thrust requirement.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the maximum thrust be 1.6 to 1.7 times the hover thrust requirement, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having the maximum thrust be 1.6 to 1.7 times the hover thrust requirement is that it helps to ensure that the aircraft has sufficient thrust to perform all of the maneuvers and flight phases that are commanded by the system. Additionally, the examiner notes that while the maximum thrust output of the rotors is a constant, the hover thrust requirement varies based on how the aircraft is loaded and as the claim does not state how the aircraft is loaded, you could add or remove weight from a given aircraft to get to a point where the hover thrust requirement is within the desired range.
Regarding claim 34, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 23, wherein, the aircraft can have four booms (Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, this teaches that the number of booms/sets of propulsion units mounted on each wing can be any number greater than one and can be less than the three per wing shown in the figures which includes having four total booms), but Long does not teach that for each respective boom, the one proprotor of the first plurality of proprotors pivotably mounted to the forward end of the respective boom is configured to rotate in an opposite direction to the one proprotor of the second plurality of proprotors pivotably mounted to the rearward end of the respective boom.
However, Campbell does teach that for each respective boom, the one proprotor of the first plurality of proprotors pivotably mounted to the forward end of the respective boom is configured to rotate in an opposite direction to the one proprotor of the second plurality of proprotors pivotably mounted to the rearward end of the respective boom (106a, 106b, 118a, 118b, 118c, and 118d as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraph 22). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the rotors at the front and rear of a boom be counter rotating because Long and Campbell are both tiltrotor aircraft with rotors mounted on booms. The motivation for having the rotors at the front and rear of a boom be counter rotating is that it helps to balance the torques generated by the rotors and improve the stability of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 36, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 23, wherein all propulsion available for the aircraft is provided by the first plurality of proprotors and the second plurality of proprotors (1-12, and 100 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long).
Regarding claim 37, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 23, wherein the single wing or single pair of wings is a high wing configuration mounted to an upper side of the fuselage (110, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A of Long).
Regarding claim 40, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 23, wherein a height of the forward end of a bottommost boom of the four booms, relative to level ground when the aircraft is supported on the level ground, is spaced from the ground (100, and 115 as seen in figure 1A of Long, as can be seen when the aircraft is on the ground the landing gear and the bulk of the fuselage is between the boom and the ground), but Long does not explicitly teach that the height is at least six feet.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the height be at least six feet, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having the height be at least six feet is that it helps to provide adequate clearance for the occupant of the aircraft to get in and out of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 41, Long teaches an electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising: a fuselage (110); a single wing that extends across the fuselage or a single pair of wings (120, and 125) extending from each side of the fuselage (110, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A), wherein the single wing or single pair of wings are the only wings of the aircraft (120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A); a first plurality of proprotors (1, 2, 5, and 6) mounted to the single wing or single pair of wings (1, 2, 5, 6, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 2), each of the first plurality of proprotors being tiltable between a lift configuration for providing lift for vertical take-off and landing of the aircraft and a forward propulsion configuration for providing forward propulsion to the aircraft (1, 2, 5, and 6 as seen in figures 1A, and 1B); a second plurality of proprotors (7, 8, 11, and 12) mounted to the single wing or single pair of wings (7, 8, 11, 12, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A), each of the second plurality of proprotors being tiltable between the lift configuration and the forward propulsion configuration (7, 8, 11, and 12 as seen in figures 1A, and 1B); and a plurality of booms (115) mounted to the single wing or single pair of wings (115, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A), the plurality of booms comprising at least one boom on each side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A), wherein each of the plurality of booms supports one proprotor of the first plurality of proprotors pivotably mounted to a forward end of the respective boom (1, 2, 5, 6,and 115 as seen in figures 1A, and 1B) and one proprotor of the second plurality of proprotors, pivotably mounted to a rearward end of the respective boom (7, 8, 11, 12, and 115 as seen in figures 1A, and 1B); and wherein all propulsion available for the aircraft is provided by the first plurality of proprotors and the second plurality of proprotors (1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 as seen in figure 1A). But Long does not explicitly teach that that the proprotors are independently tiltable, and that a sum of disc areas of the first plurality of proprotors and the second plurality of proprotors is at least a total wing area of the single wing or single pair of wings and not more than 3 times the total wing area.
However, Campbell does teach that the proprotors are independently tiltable (Paragraphs 25, and 36). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the proprotors be independently tiltable because Long and Campbell are both tiltrotor aircraft with rotors mounted on booms. The motivation for having the proprotors be independently tiltable is that it allows the control system of the aircraft to more precisely control the motion of the aircraft. But Campbell does not teach that a sum of disc areas of the first plurality of proprotors and the second plurality of proprotors is at least a total wing area of the single wing or single pair of wings and not more than 3 times the total wing area.
However, Mikic does teach that a sum of disc areas of the first plurality of proprotors and the second plurality of proprotors is at least a total wing area of the single wing or single pair of wings and not more than 3 times the total wing area (Paragraph 64, and Claim 15). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the disc areas of the rotors be between 1 and 3 times the area of the wing because Long and Mikic are both VTOL aircraft with propulsion systems mounted to the wing. The motivation for having the disc areas of the rotors be between 1 and 3 times the area of the wing is that it helps to ensure that the rotors are sufficiently large enough for vertical flight and the wings are sufficiently large enough for horizontal flight.
Regarding claim 42, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 41, wherein the plurality of booms comprises two booms on each side of the fuselage for a total of four booms on the aircraft (Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, this teaches that the number of booms/sets of propulsion units mounted on each wing can be any number greater than one and can be less than the three per wing shown in the figures which includes having two on each side of the fuselage for a total of four booms).
Regarding claim 43, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 41, wherein the plurality of booms comprises three booms on each side of the fuselage for a total of six booms on the aircraft (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A of Long).
Regarding claim 45, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 41, but Long does not explicitly teach that the sum of disc areas of the plurality of first proprotors and the plurality of second proprotors is at least 1.5 times the total wing area. However, Mikic does teach that the sum of disc areas of the plurality of first proprotors and the plurality of second proprotors is at least 1.5 times the total wing area (Paragraph 64, and Claim 15). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the disc areas of the rotors be at least 1.5 times the area of the wing because Long and Mikic are both VTOL aircraft with propulsion systems mounted to the wing. The motivation for having the disc areas of the rotors be at least 1.5 times the area of the wing is that it helps to ensure that the rotors are sufficiently large enough for vertical flight and the wings are sufficiently large enough for horizontal flight.
Regarding claim 48, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 41, wherein a maximum thrust capability of each proprotor is greater than a hover thrust requirement for the proprotor (This is an inherent feature of any VTOL aircraft because the thrust required to vertically take-off is greater than the thrust required to hover). But Long does not explicitly teach that the maximum thrust is 1.6 to 1.7 times the hover thrust requirement.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the maximum thrust be 1.6 to 1.7 times the hover thrust requirement, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having the maximum thrust be 1.6 to 1.7 times the hover thrust requirement is that it helps to ensure that the aircraft has sufficient thrust to perform all of the maneuvers and flight phases that are commanded by the system. Additionally, the examiner notes that while the maximum thrust output of the rotors is a constant, the hover thrust requirement varies based on how the aircraft is loaded and as the claim does not state how the aircraft is loaded, you could add or remove weight from a given aircraft to get to a point where the hover thrust requirement is within the desired range.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (PGPub #2022/0127011) as modified by Campbell (PGPub #2020/0140079), and Mikic et al. (PGPub #2020/0361601) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Villa et al. (US #12,006,033).
Regarding claim 25, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 23, but does not teach a V-tail extending from the fuselage. However, Villa does teach a V-tail extending from the fuselage (202, and 216 as seen in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a V-tail extending from the fuselage because Long and Villa are both tilt rotor aircraft with the rotors mounted on booms. The motivation for having a V-tail extending from the fuselage is that it can provide a larger amount of stabilizing surface to the aircraft to improve stability.
Claims 26, 27, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (PGPub #2022/0127011) as modified by Campbell (PGPub #2020/0140079), and Mikic et al. (PGPub #2020/0361601) as applied to claims 23, and 41 above, and further in view of Bruell et al. (US #11,077,937).
Regarding claim 26, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 23, but does not explicitly teach a tip speed of blades of each proprotor during hover of the aircraft is 0.3-0.6 Mach. However, Bruell does teach a tip speed of blades of each proprotor during hover of the aircraft is 0.3-0.6 Mach (Column 16, lines 17-20, this teaches that the max tip speed in the four blade configuration is 660 fps which is equal to 0.58 Mach and the rotors can be operated at and at speed approaching the maximum speed in hover). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tip speed of the blades be between 03 and 0.6 Mach in hover because Long and Bruell are VTOL aircraft with unducted fans. The motivation for having the tip speed of the blades be between 03 and 0.6 Mach in hover is that it allows the blades to generate sufficient thrust to perform all phases of flight while also keeping the blades out of the trans-sonic region which can helps to reduce the drag on the blades.
Regarding claim 27, Long as modified by Campbell, Mikic, and Bruell teaches the aircraft of claim 26, but Long does not explicitly teach that a diameter of the blades of each proprotor is 1 to 5 meters. However, Bruell does teach that a diameter of the blades of each proprotor is 1 to 5 meters (Column 16, lines 17-20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the diameter of the blades be between 1 and 5 meters because Long and Bruell are VTOL aircraft with unducted fans. The motivation for having the diameter of the blades be between 1 and 5 meters is that it allows the blades to generate sufficient thrust for the system while not having the blades be to large which can increase weight and stress on the system.
Regarding claim 46, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 41, but does not explicitly teach that a tip speed of blades of each proprotor during hover of the aircraft is 0.3-0.6 Mach. However, Bruell does teach a tip speed of blades of each proprotor during hover of the aircraft is 0.3-0.6 Mach (Column 16, lines 17-20, this teaches that the max tip speed in the four blade configuration is 660 fps which is equal to 0.58 Mach and the rotors can be operated at and at speed approaching the maximum speed in hover). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tip speed of the blades be between 03 and 0.6 Mach in hover because Long and Bruell are VTOL aircraft with unducted fans. The motivation for having the tip speed of the blades be between 03 and 0.6 Mach in hover is that it allows the blades to generate sufficient thrust to perform all phases of flight while also keeping the blades out of the trans-sonic region which can helps to reduce the drag on the blades.
Regarding claim 47, Long as modified by Campbell, Mikic, and Bruell teaches the aircraft of claim 46, but Long does not explicitly teach that a diameter of the blades of each proprotor is 1 to 5 meters. However, Bruell does teach that a diameter of the blades of each proprotor is 1 to 5 meters (Column 16, lines 17-20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the diameter of the blades be between 1 and 5 meters because Long and Bruell are VTOL aircraft with unducted fans. The motivation for having the diameter of the blades be between 1 and 5 meters is that it allows the blades to generate sufficient thrust for the system while not having the blades be to large which can increase weight and stress on the system.
Claims 32, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (PGPub #2022/0127011) as modified by Campbell (PGPub #2020/0140079), and Mikic et al. (PGPub #2020/0361601) as applied to claims 23, and 41 above, and further in view of Peck et al. (PGPub #2023/0286650).
Regarding claim 32, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 23, wherein the two booms on each side of the fuselage comprises: a first innermost boom on a first side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, as can be seen the booms are spaced along the length of the wing to inherently create an innermost boom); a second innermost boom on a second side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, as can be seen the booms are spaced along the length of the wing to inherently create an innermost boom); a first outermost boom on the first side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, as can be seen the booms are spaced along the length of the wing to inherently create an outermost boom); and a second outermost boom on the second side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, as can be seen the booms are spaced along the length of the wing to inherently create an outermost boom); but Long does not teach that the first innermost boom is longer than the first outermost boom; and the second innermost boom is longer than the second outermost boom.
However, Peck does teach that the first innermost boom is longer than the first outermost boom (The booms as seen in figure 1, and 31 as seen in figure 2, as can be seen the inner boom extends past the ends of the outer boom); and the second innermost boom is longer than the second outermost boom (The booms as seen in figure 1, and 31 as seen in figure 2, as can be seen the inner boom extends past the ends of the outer boom). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inner booms be longer than the outer booms because Long and Peck are both tilt rotor aircraft with the rotors mounted to the ends of booms. The motivation for having the inner booms be longer than the outer booms is that it helps to space the rotors apart which can reduce interference between the rotors.
Regarding claim 51, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 41, wherein the plurality of booms comprises: a first innermost boom on a first side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, as can be seen the booms are spaced along the length of the wing to inherently create an innermost boom); a second innermost boom on a second side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, as can be seen the booms are spaced along the length of the wing to inherently create an innermost boom); a first outermost boom on the first side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, as can be seen the booms are spaced along the length of the wing to inherently create an outermost boom); and a second outermost boom on the second side of the fuselage(110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, as can be seen the booms are spaced along the length of the wing to inherently create an outermost boom); but Long does not teach that the first innermost boom is longer than the first outermost boom; and the second innermost boom is longer than the second outermost boom.
However, Peck does teach that the first innermost boom is longer than the first outermost boom (The booms as seen in figure 1, and 31 as seen in figure 2, as can be seen the inner boom extends past the ends of the outer boom); and the second innermost boom is longer than the second outermost boom (The booms as seen in figure 1, and 31 as seen in figure 2, as can be seen the inner boom extends past the ends of the outer boom). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inner booms be longer than the outer booms because Long and Peck are both tilt rotor aircraft with the rotors mounted to the ends of booms. The motivation for having the inner booms be longer than the outer booms is that it helps to space the rotors apart which can reduce interference between the rotors.
Claims 33, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (PGPub #2022/0127011) as modified by Campbell (PGPub #2020/0140079), Mikic et al. (PGPub #2020/0361601), and Peck et al. (PGPub #2023/0286650) as applied to claims 32, and 51 above, and further in view of Villa et al. (US #12,006,033).
Regarding claim 33, Long as modified by Campbell, Mikic, and Peck teaches the aircraft of claim 32, wherein: the first innermost boom and the second innermost boom are mounted to an underside of the single wing or the single pair of wings (115, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A of Long); but does not teach that the first outermost boom and the second outermost boom are mounted at a higher position than the first innermost boom and the second innermost boom.
However, Villa does teach that the first outermost boom and the second outermost boom are mounted at a higher position than the first innermost boom and the second innermost boom (The booms as seen in figure 5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the outer booms be at a higher position than the inner booms because Long and Villa are both tilt rotor aircraft with the rotors mounted on booms. The motivation for having the outer booms be at a higher position than the inner booms is that it helps to space apart the rotors to help reduce interference between the rotors.
Regarding claim 52, Long as modified by Campbell, Mikic, and Peck teaches the aircraft of claim 51, wherein: the first innermost boom and the second innermost boom are mounted to an underside of the single wing or the single pair of wings (115, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A of Long); but does not teach that the first outermost boom and the second outermost boom are mounted at a higher position than the first innermost boom and the second innermost boom.
However, Villa does teach that the first outermost boom and the second outermost boom are mounted at a higher position than the first innermost boom and the second innermost boom (The booms as seen in figure 5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the outer booms be at a higher position than the inner booms because Long and Villa are both tilt rotor aircraft with the rotors mounted on booms. The motivation for having the outer booms be at a higher position than the inner booms is that it helps to space apart the rotors to help reduce interference between the rotors.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (PGPub #2022/0127011) as modified by Campbell (PGPub #2020/0140079), and Mikic et al. (PGPub #2020/0361601) as applied to claim23 above, and further in view of Armer et al. (US #11,485,488).
Regarding claim 35, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 23, but does not teach that at least one boom of the four booms merges with at least one edge of the single wing or single pair of wings such that the at least one edge of the single wing or single pair of wings is interrupted by the at least one boom and at least a portion of an upper surface of the single wing or single pair of wings overlying the at least one boom is uninterrupted by the at least one boom. However, Armer does teach that at least one boom of the four booms merges with at least one edge of the single wing or single pair of wings such that the at least one edge of the single wing or single pair of wings is interrupted by the at least one boom and at least a portion of an upper surface of the single wing or single pair of wings overlying the at least one boom is uninterrupted by the at least one boom (62, and 72 as seen in figure 5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a boom interrupt an edge of the wing while leaving a portion of the overlying wing surface uninterrupted because Long and Armer are both VTOL aircraft with rotors mounted to the end of wing mounted booms. The motivation for having a boom interrupt an edge of the wing while leaving a portion of the overlying wing surface uninterrupted is that it helps to integrate the boom into the wing which reduces how much of the boom protrudes below the wing to reduce drag while maintaining the bulk of the wing surface to help maximize the lift generated.
Claims 38, 39, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (PGPub #2022/0127011) as modified by Campbell (PGPub #2020/0140079), and Mikic et al. (PGPub #2020/0361601) as applied to claims 23, and 41 above, and further in view of Akers et al. (PGPub #2021/0122466).
Regarding claim 38, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 23, further comprising a controller configured to control at least one of the first plurality of proprotors or the second plurality of proprotors (Paragraphs 37, and 38 of Long). But does not teach that the control system is configured to control the rotors via a control algorithm that accounts for rotor acoustics.
However, Akers does teach that the control system is configured to control the rotors via a control algorithm that accounts for rotor acoustics (Paragraph 27). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller account for the rotor acoustics because Long and Akers are both tilt rotor VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having the controller account for the rotor acoustics is that it can allow the system to try and minimize the noise generated by the system while still performing the desired flight actions.
Regarding claim 39, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 23, further comprising a controller configured to actively control a tilt of at least one proprotor of the first plurality of proprotors or the second plurality of proprotors during vertical flight or transition flight (Paragraphs 37, and 38 of Long). But does not teach that the controller actively controls the tilt of the rotors during vertical or transition flight to generate yawing moments.
However, Akers does teach that the controller actively controls the tilt of the rotors during vertical or transition flight to generate yawing moments (Paragraph 26). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller control the tilts of the rotor to generate yawing moments because Long and Akers are both tilt rotor VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having the controller control the tilts of the rotor to generate yawing moments is that it helps to provide additional control and stability to the aircraft.
Regarding claim 44, Long as modified by Campbell and Mikic teaches the aircraft of claim 41, further comprising a controller configured to control at least one of the first plurality of proprotors or the second plurality of proprotors (Paragraphs 37, and 38 of Long). But does not teach that the control system is configured to control the rotors via a control algorithm that accounts for rotor acoustics.
However, Akers does teach that the control system is configured to control the rotors via a control algorithm that accounts for rotor acoustics (Paragraph 27). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller account for the rotor acoustics because Long and Akers are both tilt rotor VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having the controller account for the rotor acoustics is that it can allow the system to try and minimize the noise generated by the system while still performing the desired flight actions.
Claims 23, 24, 28, 34, 36, 37, 40-43, 45, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (PGPub #2022/0127011) in view of Campbell (PGPub #2020/0140079).
Regarding claim 23, Long teaches an electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising: a fuselage (110); a single wing that extends across the fuselage or a single pair of wings (120, and 125) extending from each side of the fuselage (110, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A), wherein the single wing or single pair of wings are the only wings of the aircraft (120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A); a first plurality of proprotors (1, 2, 5, and 6) mounted to the single wing or single pair of wings (1, 2, 5, 6, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 2), each of the first plurality of proprotors being tiltable between a lift configuration for providing lift for vertical take-off and landing of the aircraft and a forward propulsion configuration for providing forward propulsion to the aircraft (1, 2, 5, and 6 as seen in figures 1A, and 1B); a second plurality of proprotors (7, 8, 11, and 12) mounted to the single wing or single pair of wings (7, 8, 11, 12, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A), each of the second plurality of proprotors being tiltable between the lift configuration and the forward propulsion configuration (7, 8, 11, and 12 as seen in figures 1A, and 1B); and two booms (115, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29, this teaches that the number of booms/sets of propulsion units mounted on each wing can be any number greater than one and can be less than the three per wing shown in the figures which includes having two booms per wing) on each side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A) that are mounted to the single wing or single pair of wings (115, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A) for a total of four booms on the aircraft (Paragraphs 26 27, and 29, this teaches that the number of booms/sets of propulsion units mounted on each wing can be any number greater than one and can be less than the three per wing shown in the figures which includes having four total booms), wherein each of the four booms supports one proprotor of the first plurality of proprotors pivotably mounted to a forward end of the respective boom (1, 2, 5, 6,and 115 as seen in figures 1A, and 1B, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29) and one proprotor of the second plurality of proprotors, pivotably mounted to a rearward end of the respective boom (7, 8, 11, 12, and 115 as seen in figures 1A, and 1B) such that there is a total of four first proprotors and four second proprotors (1, 2, 5-8, 11, and 12 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29); and wherein all propulsion available for the aircraft is provided by the first plurality of proprotors and the second plurality of proprotors (1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 as seen in figure 1A). But Long does not explicitly teach that the proprotors are independently tiltable, and that a sum of disc areas of the four first proprotors and the four second proprotors is at least a total wing area of the single wing or single pair of wings and not more than 3 times the total wing area.
However, Campbell does teach that the proprotors are independently tiltable (Paragraphs 25, and 36). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the proprotors be independently tiltable because Long and Campbell are both tiltrotor aircraft with rotors mounted on booms. The motivation for having the proprotors be independently tiltable is that it allows the control system of the aircraft to more precisely control the motion of the aircraft. But Campbell does not teach that a sum of disc areas of the four first proprotors and the four second proprotors is at least a total wing area of the single wing or single pair of wings and not more than 3 times the total wing area.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a sum of disc areas of the four first proprotors and the four second proprotors is at least a total wing area of the single wing or single pair of wings and not more than 3 times the total wing area, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having a sum of disc areas of the four first proprotors and the four second proprotors is at least a total wing area of the single wing or single pair of wings and not more than 3 times the total wing area is that it helps to ensure that the aircraft has sufficient thrust to perform vertical flight maneuvers while still allowing for stable forward flight processes. Additionally, the examiner notes that they believe that the figures of Long does show a wing and rotor systems that meet this claim limitation, however the exact ratio values are not explicitly disclosed and as such the figures alone cannot be used to teach this limitation.
Regarding claim 24, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 23, but Long does not explicitly teach that the sum of disc areas of the four first proprotors and the four second proprotors is at least 1.5 times the total wing area. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the sum of disc areas of the four first proprotors and the four second proprotors is at least 1.5 times the total wing area, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having the sum of disc areas of the four first proprotors and the four second proprotors is at least 1.5 times the total wing area is that it helps to ensure that the aircraft has sufficient thrust to perform vertical flight maneuvers while still allowing for stable forward flight processes. Additionally, the examiner notes that they believe that the figures of Long does show a wing and rotor systems that meet this claim limitation, however the exact ratio values are not explicitly disclosed and as such the figures alone cannot be used to teach this limitation.
Regarding claim 28, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 23, wherein a maximum thrust capability of each proprotor is greater than a hover thrust requirement for the proprotor (This is an inherent feature of any VTOL aircraft because the thrust required to vertically take-off is greater than the thrust required to hover). But Long does not explicitly teach that the maximum thrust is 1.6 to 1.7 times the hover thrust requirement.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the maximum thrust be 1.6 to 1.7 times the hover thrust requirement, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having the maximum thrust be 1.6 to 1.7 times the hover thrust requirement is that it helps to ensure that the aircraft has sufficient thrust to perform all of the maneuvers and flight phases that are commanded by the system. Additionally, the examiner notes that while the maximum thrust output of the rotors is a constant, the hover thrust requirement varies based on how the aircraft is loaded and as the claim does not state how the aircraft is loaded, you could add or remove weight from a given aircraft to get to a point where the hover thrust requirement is within the desired range.
Regarding claim 34, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 23, wherein, the aircraft can have four booms (Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, this teaches that the number of booms/sets of propulsion units mounted on each wing can be any number greater than one and can be less than the three per wing shown in the figures which includes having four total booms), but Long does not teach that for each respective boom, the one proprotor of the first plurality of proprotors pivotably mounted to the forward end of the respective boom is configured to rotate in an opposite direction to the one proprotor of the second plurality of proprotors pivotably mounted to the rearward end of the respective boom.
However, Campbell does teach that for each respective boom, the one proprotor of the first plurality of proprotors pivotably mounted to the forward end of the respective boom is configured to rotate in an opposite direction to the one proprotor of the second plurality of proprotors pivotably mounted to the rearward end of the respective boom (106a, 106b, 118a, 118b, 118c, and 118d as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraph 22). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the rotors at the front and rear of a boom be counter rotating because Long and Campbell are both tiltrotor aircraft with rotors mounted on booms. The motivation for having the rotors at the front and rear of a boom be counter rotating is that it helps to balance the torques generated by the rotors and improve the stability of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 36, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 23, wherein all propulsion available for the aircraft is provided by the first plurality of proprotors and the second plurality of proprotors (1-12, and 100 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long).
Regarding claim 37, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 23, wherein the single wing or single pair of wings is a high wing configuration mounted to an upper side of the fuselage (110, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A of Long).
Regarding claim 40, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 23, wherein a height of the forward end of a bottommost boom of the four booms, relative to level ground when the aircraft is supported on the level ground, is spaced from the ground (100, and 115 as seen in figure 1A of Long, as can be seen when the aircraft is on the ground the landing gear and the bulk of the fuselage is between the boom and the ground), but Long does not explicitly teach that the height is at least six feet.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the height be at least six feet, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having the height be at least six feet is that it helps to provide adequate clearance for the occupant of the aircraft to get in and out of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 41, Long teaches an electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising: a fuselage (110); a single wing that extends across the fuselage or a single pair of wings (120, and 125) extending from each side of the fuselage (110, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A), wherein the single wing or single pair of wings are the only wings of the aircraft (120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A); a first plurality of proprotors (1, 2, 5, and 6) mounted to the single wing or single pair of wings (1, 2, 5, 6, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 2), each of the first plurality of proprotors being tiltable between a lift configuration for providing lift for vertical take-off and landing of the aircraft and a forward propulsion configuration for providing forward propulsion to the aircraft (1, 2, 5, and 6 as seen in figures 1A, and 1B); a second plurality of proprotors (7, 8, 11, and 12) mounted to the single wing or single pair of wings (7, 8, 11, 12, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A), each of the second plurality of proprotors being tiltable between the lift configuration and the forward propulsion configuration (7, 8, 11, and 12 as seen in figures 1A, and 1B); and a plurality of booms (115) mounted to the single wing or single pair of wings (115, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A), the plurality of booms comprising at least one boom on each side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A), wherein each of the plurality of booms supports one proprotor of the first plurality of proprotors pivotably mounted to a forward end of the respective boom (1, 2, 5, 6,and 115 as seen in figures 1A, and 1B) and one proprotor of the second plurality of proprotors, pivotably mounted to a rearward end of the respective boom (7, 8, 11, 12, and 115 as seen in figures 1A, and 1B); and wherein all propulsion available for the aircraft is provided by the first plurality of proprotors and the second plurality of proprotors (1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 as seen in figure 1A). But Long does not explicitly teach that that the proprotors are independently tiltable, and that a sum of disc areas of the first plurality of proprotors and the second plurality of proprotors is at least a total wing area of the single wing or single pair of wings and not more than 3 times the total wing area.
However, Campbell does teach that the proprotors are independently tiltable (Paragraphs 25, and 36). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the proprotors be independently tiltable because Long and Campbell are both tiltrotor aircraft with rotors mounted on booms. The motivation for having the proprotors be independently tiltable is that it allows the control system of the aircraft to more precisely control the motion of the aircraft. But Campbell does not teach that a sum of disc areas of the first plurality of proprotors and the second plurality of proprotors is at least a total wing area of the single wing or single pair of wings and not more than 3 times the total wing area.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a sum of disc areas of the first plurality of proprotors and the second plurality of proprotors is at least a total wing area of the single wing or single pair of wings and not more than 3 times the total wing area, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having a sum of disc areas of the first plurality of proprotors and the second plurality of proprotors is at least a total wing area of the single wing or single pair of wings and not more than 3 times the total wing area is that it helps to ensure that the aircraft has sufficient thrust to perform vertical flight maneuvers while still allowing for stable forward flight processes. Additionally, the examiner notes that they believe that the figures of Long does show a wing and rotor systems that meet this claim limitation, however the exact ratio values are not explicitly disclosed and as such the figures alone cannot be used to teach this limitation.
Regarding claim 42, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 41, wherein the plurality of booms comprises two booms on each side of the fuselage for a total of four booms on the aircraft (Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, this teaches that the number of booms/sets of propulsion units mounted on each wing can be any number greater than one and can be less than the three per wing shown in the figures which includes having two on each side of the fuselage for a total of four booms).
Regarding claim 43, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 41, wherein the plurality of booms comprises three booms on each side of the fuselage for a total of six booms on the aircraft (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A of Long).
Regarding claim 45, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 41, but Long does not explicitly teach that the sum of disc areas of the plurality of first proprotors and the plurality of second proprotors is at least 1.5 times the total wing area. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the sum of disc areas of the plurality of first proprotors and the plurality of second proprotors is at least 1.5 times the total wing area, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having the sum of disc areas of the plurality of first proprotors and the plurality of second proprotors is at least 1.5 times the total wing area is that it helps to ensure that the aircraft has sufficient thrust to perform vertical flight maneuvers while still allowing for stable forward flight processes. Additionally, the examiner notes that they believe that the figures of Long does show a wing and rotor systems that meet this claim limitation, however the exact ratio values are not explicitly disclosed and as such the figures alone cannot be used to teach this limitation
Regarding claim 48, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 41, wherein a maximum thrust capability of each proprotor is greater than a hover thrust requirement for the proprotor (This is an inherent feature of any VTOL aircraft because the thrust required to vertically take-off is greater than the thrust required to hover). But Long does not explicitly teach that the maximum thrust is 1.6 to 1.7 times the hover thrust requirement.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the maximum thrust be 1.6 to 1.7 times the hover thrust requirement, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having the maximum thrust be 1.6 to 1.7 times the hover thrust requirement is that it helps to ensure that the aircraft has sufficient thrust to perform all of the maneuvers and flight phases that are commanded by the system. Additionally, the examiner notes that while the maximum thrust output of the rotors is a constant, the hover thrust requirement varies based on how the aircraft is loaded and as the claim does not state how the aircraft is loaded, you could add or remove weight from a given aircraft to get to a point where the hover thrust requirement is within the desired range.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (PGPub #2022/0127011) as modified by Campbell (PGPub #2020/0140079) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Villa et al. (US #12,006,033).
Regarding claim 25, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 23, but does not teach a V-tail extending from the fuselage. However, Villa does teach a V-tail extending from the fuselage (202, and 216 as seen in figure 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a V-tail extending from the fuselage because Long and Villa are both tilt rotor aircraft with the rotors mounted on booms. The motivation for having a V-tail extending from the fuselage is that it can provide a larger amount of stabilizing surface to the aircraft to improve stability.
Claims 26, 27, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (PGPub #2022/0127011) as modified by Campbell (PGPub #2020/0140079) as applied to claims 23, and 41 above, and further in view of Bruell et al. (US #11,077,937).
Regarding claim 26, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 23, but does not explicitly teach a tip speed of blades of each proprotor during hover of the aircraft is 0.3-0.6 Mach. However, Bruell does teach a tip speed of blades of each proprotor during hover of the aircraft is 0.3-0.6 Mach (Column 16, lines 17-20, this teaches that the max tip speed in the four blade configuration is 660 fps which is equal to 0.58 Mach and the rotors can be operated at and at speed approaching the maximum speed in hover). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tip speed of the blades be between 03 and 0.6 Mach in hover because Long and Bruell are VTOL aircraft with unducted fans. The motivation for having the tip speed of the blades be between 03 and 0.6 Mach in hover is that it allows the blades to generate sufficient thrust to perform all phases of flight while also keeping the blades out of the trans-sonic region which can helps to reduce the drag on the blades.
Regarding claim 27, Long as modified by Campbell, and Bruell teaches the aircraft of claim 26, but Long does not explicitly teach that a diameter of the blades of each proprotor is 1 to 5 meters. However, Bruell does teach that a diameter of the blades of each proprotor is 1 to 5 meters (Column 16, lines 17-20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the diameter of the blades be between 1 and 5 meters because Long and Bruell are VTOL aircraft with unducted fans. The motivation for having the diameter of the blades be between 1 and 5 meters is that it allows the blades to generate sufficient thrust for the system while not having the blades be to large which can increase weight and stress on the system.
Regarding claim 46, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 41, but does not explicitly teach that a tip speed of blades of each proprotor during hover of the aircraft is 0.3-0.6 Mach. However, Bruell does teach a tip speed of blades of each proprotor during hover of the aircraft is 0.3-0.6 Mach (Column 16, lines 17-20, this teaches that the max tip speed in the four blade configuration is 660 fps which is equal to 0.58 Mach and the rotors can be operated at and at speed approaching the maximum speed in hover). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tip speed of the blades be between 03 and 0.6 Mach in hover because Long and Bruell are VTOL aircraft with unducted fans. The motivation for having the tip speed of the blades be between 03 and 0.6 Mach in hover is that it allows the blades to generate sufficient thrust to perform all phases of flight while also keeping the blades out of the trans-sonic region which can helps to reduce the drag on the blades.
Regarding claim 47, Long as modified by Campbell, and Bruell teaches the aircraft of claim 46, but Long does not explicitly teach that a diameter of the blades of each proprotor is 1 to 5 meters. However, Bruell does teach that a diameter of the blades of each proprotor is 1 to 5 meters (Column 16, lines 17-20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the diameter of the blades be between 1 and 5 meters because Long and Bruell are VTOL aircraft with unducted fans. The motivation for having the diameter of the blades be between 1 and 5 meters is that it allows the blades to generate sufficient thrust for the system while not having the blades be to large which can increase weight and stress on the system.
Claims 32, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (PGPub #2022/0127011) as modified by Campbell (PGPub #2020/0140079) as applied to claims 23, and 41 above, and further in view of Peck et al. (PGPub #2023/0286650).
Regarding claim 32, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 23, wherein the two booms on each side of the fuselage comprises: a first innermost boom on a first side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, as can be seen the booms are spaced along the length of the wing to inherently create an innermost boom); a second innermost boom on a second side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, as can be seen the booms are spaced along the length of the wing to inherently create an innermost boom); a first outermost boom on the first side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, as can be seen the booms are spaced along the length of the wing to inherently create an outermost boom); and a second outermost boom on the second side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, as can be seen the booms are spaced along the length of the wing to inherently create an outermost boom); but Long does not teach that the first innermost boom is longer than the first outermost boom; and the second innermost boom is longer than the second outermost boom.
However, Peck does teach that the first innermost boom is longer than the first outermost boom (The booms as seen in figure 1, and 31 as seen in figure 2, as can be seen the inner boom extends past the ends of the outer boom); and the second innermost boom is longer than the second outermost boom (The booms as seen in figure 1, and 31 as seen in figure 2, as can be seen the inner boom extends past the ends of the outer boom). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inner booms be longer than the outer booms because Long and Peck are both tilt rotor aircraft with the rotors mounted to the ends of booms. The motivation for having the inner booms be longer than the outer booms is that it helps to space the rotors apart which can reduce interference between the rotors.
Regarding claim 51, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 41, wherein the plurality of booms comprises: a first innermost boom on a first side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, as can be seen the booms are spaced along the length of the wing to inherently create an innermost boom); a second innermost boom on a second side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, as can be seen the booms are spaced along the length of the wing to inherently create an innermost boom); a first outermost boom on the first side of the fuselage (110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, as can be seen the booms are spaced along the length of the wing to inherently create an outermost boom); and a second outermost boom on the second side of the fuselage(110, and 115 as seen in figure 1A, and Paragraphs 26 27, and 29 of Long, as can be seen the booms are spaced along the length of the wing to inherently create an outermost boom); but Long does not teach that the first innermost boom is longer than the first outermost boom; and the second innermost boom is longer than the second outermost boom.
However, Peck does teach that the first innermost boom is longer than the first outermost boom (The booms as seen in figure 1, and 31 as seen in figure 2, as can be seen the inner boom extends past the ends of the outer boom); and the second innermost boom is longer than the second outermost boom (The booms as seen in figure 1, and 31 as seen in figure 2, as can be seen the inner boom extends past the ends of the outer boom). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inner booms be longer than the outer booms because Long and Peck are both tilt rotor aircraft with the rotors mounted to the ends of booms. The motivation for having the inner booms be longer than the outer booms is that it helps to space the rotors apart which can reduce interference between the rotors.
Claims 33, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (PGPub #2022/0127011) as modified by Campbell (PGPub #2020/0140079), and Peck et al. (PGPub #2023/0286650) as applied to claims 32, and 51 above, and further in view of Villa et al. (US #12,006,033).
Regarding claim 33, Long as modified by Campbell, and Peck teaches the aircraft of claim 32, wherein: the first innermost boom and the second innermost boom are mounted to an underside of the single wing or the single pair of wings (115, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A of Long); but does not teach that the first outermost boom and the second outermost boom are mounted at a higher position than the first innermost boom and the second innermost boom.
However, Villa does teach that the first outermost boom and the second outermost boom are mounted at a higher position than the first innermost boom and the second innermost boom (The booms as seen in figure 5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the outer booms be at a higher position than the inner booms because Long and Villa are both tilt rotor aircraft with the rotors mounted on booms. The motivation for having the outer booms be at a higher position than the inner booms is that it helps to space apart the rotors to help reduce interference between the rotors.
Regarding claim 52, Long as modified by Campbell, and Peck teaches the aircraft of claim 51, wherein: the first innermost boom and the second innermost boom are mounted to an underside of the single wing or the single pair of wings (115, 120, and 125 as seen in figure 1A of Long); but does not teach that the first outermost boom and the second outermost boom are mounted at a higher position than the first innermost boom and the second innermost boom.
However, Villa does teach that the first outermost boom and the second outermost boom are mounted at a higher position than the first innermost boom and the second innermost boom (The booms as seen in figure 5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the outer booms be at a higher position than the inner booms because Long and Villa are both tilt rotor aircraft with the rotors mounted on booms. The motivation for having the outer booms be at a higher position than the inner booms is that it helps to space apart the rotors to help reduce interference between the rotors.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (PGPub #2022/0127011) as modified by Campbell (PGPub #2020/0140079) as applied to claim23 above, and further in view of Armer et al. (US #11,485,488).
Regarding claim 35, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 23, but does not teach that at least one boom of the four booms merges with at least one edge of the single wing or single pair of wings such that the at least one edge of the single wing or single pair of wings is interrupted by the at least one boom and at least a portion of an upper surface of the single wing or single pair of wings overlying the at least one boom is uninterrupted by the at least one boom. However, Armer does teach that at least one boom of the four booms merges with at least one edge of the single wing or single pair of wings such that the at least one edge of the single wing or single pair of wings is interrupted by the at least one boom and at least a portion of an upper surface of the single wing or single pair of wings overlying the at least one boom is uninterrupted by the at least one boom (62, and 72 as seen in figure 5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a boom interrupt an edge of the wing while leaving a portion of the overlying wing surface uninterrupted because Long and Armer are both VTOL aircraft with rotors mounted to the end of wing mounted booms. The motivation for having a boom interrupt an edge of the wing while leaving a portion of the overlying wing surface uninterrupted is that it helps to integrate the boom into the wing which reduces how much of the boom protrudes below the wing to reduce drag while maintaining the bulk of the wing surface to help maximize the lift generated.
Claims 38, 39, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (PGPub #2022/0127011) as modified by Campbell (PGPub #2020/0140079) as applied to claims 23, and 41 above, and further in view of Akers et al. (PGPub #2021/0122466).
Regarding claim 38, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 23, further comprising a controller configured to control at least one of the first plurality of proprotors or the second plurality of proprotors (Paragraphs 37, and 38 of Long). But does not teach that the control system is configured to control the rotors via a control algorithm that accounts for rotor acoustics.
However, Akers does teach that the control system is configured to control the rotors via a control algorithm that accounts for rotor acoustics (Paragraph 27). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller account for the rotor acoustics because Long and Akers are both tilt rotor VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having the controller account for the rotor acoustics is that it can allow the system to try and minimize the noise generated by the system while still performing the desired flight actions.
Regarding claim 39, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 23, further comprising a controller configured to actively control a tilt of at least one proprotor of the first plurality of proprotors or the second plurality of proprotors during vertical flight or transition flight (Paragraphs 37, and 38 of Long). But does not teach that the controller actively controls the tilt of the rotors during vertical or transition flight to generate yawing moments.
However, Akers does teach that the controller actively controls the tilt of the rotors during vertical or transition flight to generate yawing moments (Paragraph 26). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller control the tilts of the rotor to generate yawing moments because Long and Akers are both tilt rotor VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having the controller control the tilts of the rotor to generate yawing moments is that it helps to provide additional control and stability to the aircraft.
Regarding claim 44, Long as modified by Campbell teaches the aircraft of claim 41, further comprising a controller configured to control at least one of the first plurality of proprotors or the second plurality of proprotors (Paragraphs 37, and 38 of Long). But does not teach that the control system is configured to control the rotors via a control algorithm that accounts for rotor acoustics.
However, Akers does teach that the control system is configured to control the rotors via a control algorithm that accounts for rotor acoustics (Paragraph 27). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller account for the rotor acoustics because Long and Akers are both tilt rotor VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having the controller account for the rotor acoustics is that it can allow the system to try and minimize the noise generated by the system while still performing the desired flight actions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 53 is allowed.
Claims 29-31, 49, and 50 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
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 WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647