DETAILED ACTION
This non-final action is in reply to the Application filed 30 June 2025.
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 .
Priority
Claims 1-12 are pending having a filing date of 20 June 2025 claiming domestic benefit / national stage of PCT/CN2023/142971, filed 28 December 2023, and foreign priority to Chinese Application Number CN 202211736045.6, filed 30 December 2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 30 June 2025 complies with 37 C.F.R. 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the 1449 form is enclosed herewith.
Drawings
The drawings, filed 30 June 2025, are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 11 recites “undesirable torque”. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the recitation in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Number 3,989,206 to Gregory.
As per claim 1, Gregory discloses [a] system for adjusting forces acting on a rotating body using aerodynamic means (see at least Gregory, Abstract, Fig. 1), comprising:
an aerodynamic component comprising at least one support component (see at least Gregory, Fig. 1, showing remotely piloted aircraft 24, attached to one end of arm 18 <interpreted as at least one support component>),
the at least one support component comprising at least one aerodynamic driving device (see at least Gregory, Figure 1, showing piloted aircraft 24, including the aerodynamic driving device shown at the extreme right of figure 2 at one end of the piloted aircraft 24);
a state sensing system configured to obtain a motion state of the system (see at least Gregory, Fig. 4, showing velocity sensor 24); and
a control unit (see at least Gregory, Fig. 1, showing remote control center 35, col. 3, ln. 52-56 disclosing that the velocity of the aircraft is sensed by velocity sensor 46 (FIG. 4) which is coupled to transmitter 47. An r-f signal, modulated with the velocity information, is transmitted from transmitter 47 on aircraft 24 to a receiver 48 located in remote control center 35),
the aerodynamic component and the state sensing system being respectively electrically connected to the control unit (see at least Gregory, col. 3, ln. 52-56 disclosing that the velocity of the aircraft is sensed by velocity sensor 46 (FIG. 4) which is coupled to transmitter 47. An r-f signal, modulated with the velocity information, is transmitted from transmitter 47 on aircraft 24 to a receiver 48 located in remote control center 35), and
the control unit configured to control the aerodynamic component to reach a desired state according to information obtained by the state sensing system (see at least Gregory, col. 3, ln. 60-65 disclosing that any means for sensing the speed of the aircraft may be used which will transmit an indication of the speed to the remote control center to prevent launching before the aircraft has reached flying speed and to prevent structural damage to the launching device or the aircraft caused by too high a speed).
As per claim 5, Gregory further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the support component comprises a support body (see at least Gregory, Fig. 1, showing are 18 <interpreted as the support body> ), and
the at least one aerodynamic driving device is mounted on the support body (see at least Gregory, col. 3, ln. 7-7, disclosing that he aircraft 24 is attached to the arm 18 utilizing a three point attachment such as shown in FIG. 2).
As per claim 6, Gregory further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the support body is configured to selectively rotate about a rotation center (see at least Gregory, col. 2, ln. 62-65, disclosing, with regard to Fig. 1, that arm 18 is attached to axle 16 by bearing 17 such that arm 18 rotates with respect to the axle. Cross member 20 is attached to the end of the axle 16 so as to rotate with respect to the axle).
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 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 non-obviousness.
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.
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 2, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0339596 to Baxter et al. (hereafter Baxter).
As per claim 2, Gregory disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, the difference between Gregory and the claimed invention is that Gregory does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Baxter, a comparable system where it was known to:
wherein the at least one support component further comprises an attitude adjustment device with at least one degree of freedom (see at least Baxter, [0061] disclosing that FIGS. 2A-3D depict example articulations of the tail section 110 of the aircraft 100, illustrating how the articulations can be used to control the attitude (e.g., pitch and yaw) and/or direction of flight of the aircraft 10; [0062] disclosing that FIGS. 2A-2D illustrate the tail section 110 rotating about a first rotation axis. The first rotation axis may be substantially parallel to a yaw axis (e.g., the yaw axis 121 in FIG. 1) of the aircraft 100, or otherwise configured to impart a yaw moment on the aircraft 100. FIGS. 2A and 2C, which may represent the aircraft 100 while in wing-borne flight, illustrate how rotation of the tail section 110 about the first axis of rotation causes the angle of attack of the vertical stabilizer 114 to change in a manner that produces a yaw moment on the aircraft 100 (e.g., in a manner similar to that of a rudder). Additionally, the articulation of the tail section 110 changes the direction of the thrust vector 200 of the propulsion system such that the thrust vector is offset from (e.g., does not pass through and/or intersect) the center of mass 202 of the aircraft 100),
the aerodynamic driving device is arranged on the attitude adjustment device (see at least Baxter, [0061] ; [0063]), and
the attitude adjustment device is configured to adjust an attitude of the at least one aerodynamic driving device (see at least Baxter, [0061] ; [0063]).
Gregory and Baxter are analogous art to claim 2, because they are in the same field of rotating systems. Gregory relates to a structure for revolving the remotely piloted aircraft about a fixed axis in a plane (see Gregory, col. 1, ln. 15-20). Baxter relates to aircraft with an articulatable tail section for controlling attitude and/or direction of flight of an aircraft (see Baxter, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, as disclosed in Gregory, to provide the benefit of having the at least one support component further comprise an attitude adjustment device with at least one degree of freedom, having the aerodynamic driving device be arranged on the attitude adjustment device and having the attitude adjustment device be configured to adjust an attitude of the at least one aerodynamic driving device, as disclosed in Baxter, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 7, Gregory disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, the difference between Gregory and the claimed invention is that Gregory does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Baxter, a comparable system where it was known to:
wherein the at least one aerodynamic driving device is configured to selectively reciprocating along a radial direction relative to a rotation center (see at least Baxter, [0061]; [0063] ... Tail section 110 rotating about a first rotation axis. The first rotation axis ... Parallel to the yaw axis (e.g., the yaw axis 121 in Fig. 1) <interpreted as along a radial direction relative to a rotation center, since the rotation about the yaw axis will radially displace the tail about the rotation center>).
Gregory and Baxter are analogous art to claim 7, because they are in the same field of rotating systems. Gregory relates to a structure for revolving the remotely piloted aircraft about a fixed axis in a plane (see Gregory, col. 1, ln. 15-20). Baxter relates to aircraft with an articulatable tail section for controlling attitude and/or direction of flight of an aircraft (see Baxter, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, as disclosed in Gregory, to provide the benefit of having the at least one aerodynamic driving device be configured to selectively reciprocating along a radial direction relative to a rotation center, as disclosed in Baxter, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 8, Gregory disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, the difference between Gregory and the claimed invention is that Gregory does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Baxter, a comparable system where it was known to:
wherein the at least one aerodynamic driving device is configured to selectively swing about a rotation center (see at least Baxter, [0061]; [0063] ... Tail section 110 rotating about a first rotation axis. The first rotation axis ... Parallel to the yaw axis (e.g., the yaw axis 121 in Fig. 1) <interpreted as selectively swinging about a rotation center, since the rotation about the yaw axis will radially displace the tail about the rotation center>).
Gregory and Baxter are analogous art to claim 8, because they are in the same field of rotating systems. Gregory relates to a structure for revolving the remotely piloted aircraft about a fixed axis in a plane (see Gregory, col. 1, ln. 15-20). Baxter relates to aircraft with an articulatable tail section for controlling attitude and/or direction of flight of an aircraft (see Baxter, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, as disclosed in Gregory, to provide the benefit of having the at least one aerodynamic driving device be configured to selectively swing about a rotation center, as disclosed in Baxter, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0080556 to Root et al. (hereafter Root).
As per claim 9, Gregory discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, the difference between Gregory and the claimed invention is that Gregory does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Root, a comparable system where it was known to have:
wherein the state sensing system further comprises an environmental information sensing system (see at least Root, [0064] disclosing hatchway 330 enables weather-sensing device 336 to deploy for access to the ambient environment for obtaining weather-related measurements (e.g., temperature, barometric pressure, wind direction and velocity, etc.). The weather-sensing device is actually a collection of conventional devices that are typically used for obtaining the aforementioned weather-related measurements. Readings from weather-sensing device 336 are communicated, via an appropriate interface/equipment, to other components of AUOS 100, a remote station, one or more of the supported UAVs 226 ),
the environmental information sensing system is electrically connected to the control unit (see at least Root, [0064] disclosing that Readings from weather-sensing device 336 are communicated, via an appropriate interface/equipment, to other components of AUOS 100, a remote station, one or more of the supported UAVs 226 <interpreted as electrically connected to the control unit>), and
the environmental information sensing system is configured to obtain environmental information of the system (see at least Root, [0064]).
Gregory and Root are analogous art to claim 9, because they are in the same field of rotating systems with unmanned aerial vehicle operations. Gregory relates to a structure for revolving the remotely piloted aircraft about a fixed axis in a plane (see Gregory, col. 1, ln. 15-20). Root relates to autonomous operations of unmanned aerial vehicles (see at least Root, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, as disclosed in Gregory, to provide the benefit of having the state sensing system further comprise an environmental information sensing system, having the environmental information sensing system be electrically connected to the control unit, and having the environmental information sensing system be configured to obtain environmental information of the system, as disclosed in Root, with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory in view of Baxter and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0216631 to Huhnd et al. (hereafter Huhnd).
As per claim 10, Gregory discloses [a] method for adjusting a force on a rotating body (see at least Gregory, Figure 1, showing piloted aircraft 24, including the aerodynamic driving device shown at the extreme right of figure 2 at one end of the piloted aircraft 24), the method comprising,
rotating the system about a rotation axis (see at least Gregory, col. 2, ln. 53-65, disclosing that the rotating launching device for a remotely piloted aircraft according to the invention is shown generally at 10 in FIG. 1. It is shown attached to a truck 12, but obviously other mobile vehicles may be utilized or, the rotating launching structure may be affixed to the ground in a stationary position. The launching device consists of a tripod-like base 14 having a plurality of legs supported by the truck 12. An axle 16 has one end supported in the upper portion in the base structure 14. Arm 18 is attached to axle 16 by bearing 17 such that arm 18 rotates with respect to the axle) ... . But, the difference between Gregory and the claimed invention is that Gregory does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Huhnd, comparable methods where it was known to have:
(1) obtaining state information of a force and/or torque of the system on a force monitoring point in response to the system (see at least Huhnd, Abstract, disclosing a force measuring system measures forces on a rotating body that includes, as well as a position sensing unit for detecting the rotation of the rotating body and an evaluation unit, which is connected to the force measuring device and the position sensing unit. The evaluation unit is configured for recording a force value measured by the force measuring device depending on the detected position of the rotating body. The force measuring system allows the forces and torques on a rotating body to be determined precisely and as flexibly as possible, independently of the prevailing rotation speed of the rotating body ; [0048] disclosing that FIG. 4 shows a block-based representation of a method for measuring the forces of a rotating body. This essentially comprises the steps of rotation 302 of the rotating body, sensing 304 of the position of the rotating body, measuring 306 of a force on the rotating body by means of a force measuring device, and assigning 308 of the detected position to the measured force. The method can also include the step of triggering 310 the measurement of a force when a predefined position has been reached; claim 1);
(2) performing a force analysis on the state information to obtain dynamic information for adjustment (see at least Huhnd, Abstract; [0044] disclosing that the goal of the combination of the force measuring device 8, the position sensing unit 14 and the evaluation unit 10 is to determine a force F, which lies, for example, on the plane of rotation in y-z extension. The force measuring system is designed to be able to detect a dependency between the current angle .phi. and the recorded force or torques entirely independently of the relevant speed of rotation. Preferably, the evaluation unit 10 is designed to record and evaluate measurements for pre-defined angle position increments );
(3) sending the dynamic information to an aerodynamic component to allow the aerodynamic component to reach a desired attitude and generate the desired force and/or torque (see at least Huhnd, [0004] disclosing that measured forces are transmitted telemetrically via a pairing having a rotating and a fixed coil or, alternatively, via one or more slip rings of a fixed device; [0041]) ... . But, the difference between the combination of Gregory and Huhnd and the claimed invention is that neither Gregory nor Huhnd explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Baxter, comparable methods where it was known to have:
(4) adjusting an undesirable torque on at least a part of the system in response to the system being in the rotating state (as cited for claim 2, see at least Baxter,[0061]; [0063] ).
Gregory, Baxter and Huhnd are analogous art to claim 10, because they are in the same field of rotating systems. Gregory relates to a structure for revolving the remotely piloted aircraft about a fixed axis in a plane (see Gregory, col. 1, ln. 15-20). Baxter relates to aircraft with an articulatable tail section for controlling attitude and/or direction of flight of an aircraft (see Baxter, [0002]). Huhnd relates to a force measuring system for measuring forces and torques on a rotating body (see Huhnd, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, as disclosed in Gregory, to provide the benefit of (1) obtaining state information of a force and/or torque of the system on a force monitoring point in response to the system, (2) performing a force analysis on the state information to obtain dynamic information for adjustment, and (3) sending the dynamic information to an aerodynamic component to allow the aerodynamic component to reach a desired attitude and generate the desired force and/or torque, as disclosed in Huhnd, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would further have been obvious to modify the method, as disclosed in Gregory as modified by Huhnd, to provide the benefit of (4) adjusting an undesirable torque on at least a part of the system in response to the system being in the rotating state, as disclosed in Baxter with a reasonable expectation of success. The results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 11, the combination of Gregory, Baxter and Huhnd discloses all the limitations of claim 10, as shown above. Gregory further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the aerodynamic component has a driving force (see at least Gregory, Figure 1, showing piloted aircraft 24, including the aerodynamic driving device shown at the extreme right of figure 2 at one end of the piloted aircraft 24 <interpreted as providing the driving force>) ... . Baxter further discloses the following limitations:
the aerodynamic component is configured to adjust undesirable torque of the at least a part of the system in response to the system being the rotating state (see at least Baxter, [0061] disclosing that FIGS. 2A-3D depict example articulations of the tail section 110 of the aircraft 100, illustrating how the articulations can be used to control the attitude (e.g., pitch and yaw) and/or direction of flight of the aircraft 10; [0062] disclosing that FIGS. 2A-2D illustrate the tail section 110 rotating about a first rotation axis. The first rotation axis may be substantially parallel to a yaw axis (e.g., the yaw axis 121 in FIG. 1) of the aircraft 100, or otherwise configured to impart a yaw moment on the aircraft 100. FIGS. 2A and 2C, which may represent the aircraft 100 while in wing-borne flight, illustrate how rotation of the tail section 110 about the first axis of rotation causes the angle of attack of the vertical stabilizer 114 to change in a manner that produces a yaw moment on the aircraft 100 (e.g., in a manner similar to that of a rudder). Additionally, the articulation of the tail section 110 changes the direction of the thrust vector 200 of the propulsion system such that the thrust vector is offset from (e.g., does not pass through and/or intersect) the center of mass 202 of the aircraft 100), and
provide the driving force to enable the system to rapidly reach a desired acceleration speed in response to the system being in an accelerated rotating state (see at least Baxter, [0061] ; [0063]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregory, Baxter and Huhnd as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2009/0224097 to Kariv.
As per claim 12, the combination Gregory, Baxter and Huhnd discloses all of the limitations of claim 10, as shown above. Huhnd further discloses the following limitation:
performing a force analysis on the state information (see at least Huhnd, Abstract, [0044] ) .. (1) ... . Baxter further discloses the following limitations:
sending the braking information to the aerodynamic component to allow the aerodynamic component to reach the desired attitude and generate the desired force and/or torque (see at least Baxter, Fig. 2a-d; [0064];Fig. 3a-d; [0067]);
offsetting the undesirable torque of the at least a part of the system in the rotating state (see at least Baxter, Fig. 2a-d; [0064];Fig. 3a-d; [0067]), and ... (2) ... . . But, neither Gregory, Baxter nor Huhnd explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Kariv:
(1) obtaining required braking information in response to the system needing to decelerate (see at least Kariv, [0058] disclosing with regard to Fig. 3, the landing mode operation of system 10 is based, inter alia, on braking and damping the movement of structure 25, from the time, as said, that UAV 15 connects with elastic means 30. This connection drives structure 25--as said, to rotational movement around axis means 45 (in the direction of the arrow numbered 61); [0064] disclosing that a springy means (that is not illustrated), that is integrated with an axis means 45 designed for propelling structure 25 for the launching mode--while also serving as well to damp the motion of the structure when the system is in its (UAV) landing mode. This might be achieved, for example, by a springy means of a type of a leaves springs array that are cocked (sprung) for a launching or during a landing stage ); ... and
(2) providing a braking force to decelerate the system (see at least Kariv, [0058]; [0059] disclosing that a braking and damping means (that is not illustrated) that is integrative with axis means 45 in such a manner that when at the landing mode--this means brakes and damps the movement of structure 25 around the axis means 45. Such a braking and damping means might be based, for example, on a viscous damper)
Gregory, Baxter, Huhnd and Kariv are analogous art to claim 12, because they are in the same field of rotating systems. Gregory relates to a structure for revolving the remotely piloted aircraft about a fixed axis in a plane (see Gregory, col. 1, ln. 15-20). Baxter relates to aircraft with an articulatable tail section for controlling attitude and/or direction of flight of an aircraft (see Baxter, [0002]). Huhnd relates to a force measuring system for measuring forces and torques on a rotating body (see Huhnd, [0002]). Kariv relates to systems for launching Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (herein after UAV) from a mobile or stationary platform wherein this platform has relatively small dimensions (see Kariv, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, as disclosed in Gregory, as modified by Baxter and Huhnd, to provide the benefit of (1) obtaining required braking information in response to the system needing to decelerate, and (2) providing a braking force to decelerate the system, as disclosed in Kariv, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of utilizing the system for landings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4;30 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/PATRICK M BRADY/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights