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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-25 of US application 19/254,793 were filed on 6/30/25.
On 8/27/25, applicant filed a preliminary amendment. Claims 1-25 were cancelled. Claims 26-46 were newly added. Claims 26-46 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 38, “further comprising: compute, using a second bearing history data” should be “further comprising: computing, using a second bearing history data”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 26-27, 32, and 45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 7, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. US 12377975 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Pending Claim (from current application)
Patented Claim (from US 12377975 B2)
Explanation
26. (New) An aircraft comprising:
a wing;
a blade;
a blade pitch actuator; and
a control system configured to:
compute, using bearing history data, a first pitch of the blade; and
command the blade pitch actuator to move the blade to the computed first pitch.
1. A VTOL aircraft comprising:
a wing;
a proprotor carried by the wing, and comprising a first proprotor blade;
a first proprotor blade pitch actuator; and
an electronic flight control system configured to compute, using pitch axis bearing history data, a first pitch of the first proprotor blade, and wherein the electronic flight control system is configured to command the first proprotor blade pitch actuator to move the proprotor blade to the computed first pitch.
The patented claim is a narrower version of the pending claim. The parts of the patented claim that show this are bolded. So every limitation that shows up in the pending claim also shows up in the patented claim.
27. (New) The aircraft of claim 26, wherein the bearing history data comprises time data of an amount of time the blade has spent in a pitch angle range.
2. The aircraft of claim 1 wherein the bearing history data comprises a measurement of time the proprotor blade has been within a first pitch angle range.
Besides minor differences in wording, the claims are reciting identical limitations: the bearing history data comprises data indicating how long the blade has spent in a pitch angle range. Minor aesthetic changes in language which do not correspond to any different meaning do not result in patentable distinctness.
32. (New) The aircraft of claim 26, wherein the aircraft is at least one of: an electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft or a tiltrotor aircraft.
7. The aircraft of claim 1 wherein the aircraft is an electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft.
Or
9. The aircraft of claim 1 wherein the aircraft is a tiltrotor aircraft.
Either one of patented claims 7 or 9 read on all the limitations of pending claim 32 since either one of patented claims 7 or 9 is a more specific version of pending claim 32.
45. (New) A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions for commanding a blade pitch of aircraft, the instructions comprising:
determining, using bearing history data, a first pitch of the blade; and
commanding the blade pitch actuator to move the blade to the determined first pitch.
1. A VTOL aircraft comprising:
a wing;
a proprotor carried by the wing, and comprising a first proprotor blade;
a first proprotor blade pitch actuator; and
an electronic flight control system configured to compute, using pitch axis bearing history data, a first pitch of the first proprotor blade, and wherein the electronic flight control system is configured to command the first proprotor blade pitch actuator to move the proprotor blade to the computed first pitch.
The patented claim reads on the pending claim notwithstanding the aesthetic differences in the preamble because an electronic flight control system that performs computations of course comprises a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions and because the patented claim does recite said flight control system commanding a blade pitch of an aircraft. Furthermore, the actual functions performed (which are bolded in the patented claim) are the same between the two claim sets, with the functions recited in the patented claim being slightly narrower.
Examiner’s suggestions to help applicant overcome the double-patenting rejection: applicant can overcome the rejection by amending claims 26 and 45 as follows:
26. (Currently Amended) An aircraft comprising:
a wing;
a blade;
a blade pitch actuator; and
a control system configured to reduce pitch axis bearing degradation by:
computing, using bearing history data, a first pitch of the blade; and
commanding the blade pitch actuator to move the blade to the computed first pitch.
45. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions for commanding a blade pitch of aircraft while reducing pitch axis bearing degradation, the instructions comprising:
determining, using bearing history data, a first pitch of the blade; and
commanding the blade pitch actuator to move the blade to the determined first pitch.
In effect, this would cause claims 26 and 45 to recite the same features that claim 36 recites which have resulted in claim 36 and its dependents overcoming the double-patenting.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“control system” configured to perform various data processing and control functions in claims 26, 38-30, 33, 35, 38, and 46
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification reveals that this control system may be implemented in the form of one or more processors executing software (See at least paragraphs [0046] and [0051] in the specification). This is adequate structure to perform the claimed functions, so no 112(b) rejections are given and no further action is required by applicant with respect to the above 112(f) interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 46, the claim recites the limitation, “compute, using bearing history data, a first pitch angle range of the blade;” (emphasis added).
However, the specification never discloses computation of a range. The ranges are presumed to exist, and the specification does disclose measuring the time that blades have spent in various ranges (See at least [0033] in the specification). However, in such portions of the specification, the existence of the ranges is presumed and predetermined; the ranges are not “computed” by the control system per se.
None of the originally presented claims nor any of the materials in the present case or the parent case resolve this deficiency. Accordingly, claim 46 is rejected under 112(a) for lacking written description.
Examiner’s suggestion to help applicant overcome the 112(a) rejection: applicant can overcome the rejection by amending claim 46 as follows:
46. (Currently Amended) An aircraft comprising:
a wing;
a blade;
a blade pitch actuator; and
a control system configured to reduce pitch axis bearing degradation by:
computing, using bearing history data, a first pitch
commanding the blade pitch actuator to move the blade within [[the]] a first pitch angle range based on the computed first pitch.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-35, 38-41, and 45-46 are objected to for containing allowable subject matter but would be allowable if rewritten to resolve the claim objections and rejections indicated in prior sections of this office action. Moreover, claims 36-37 and 42-44 are allowed over the prior art of record, since those claims currently have no pending objections or rejections.
The closest prior art of record is Foskey et al. (US 20200391860 A1) in view Dowie et al. (US 20160298691 A1), hereinafter referred to as Foskey and Dowie, respectively. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 26, 36, and 45, Foskey discloses An aircraft (Foskey discloses that the aircraft is a VTOL aircraft [See at least Foskey, 0047]) comprising:
a wing (See at least Fig. 1A in Foskey: Foskey discloses a wing 102 [See at least Foskey, 0031]);
a blade (See at least Fig. 1A in Foskey: Foskey discloses that Each proprotor assembly 105a, 105b includes a plurality of proprotor blades 106 [See at least Foskey, 0032]);
a blade pitch actuator (Foskey discloses that The pitch and sweep of proprotor blades 106a may also be actively controlled to minimize aircraft vibration or flutter, such as by introducing a dampening force to counter the vibration or flutter [See at least Foskey, 0044]).
However, none of the prior are of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the aircraft further comprising a control system configured to:
compute, using bearing history data, a first pitch of the blade; and
command the blade pitch actuator to move the blade to the computed first pitch. (emphasis added).
Foskey comes somewhat close, since it teaches calculating pitches of a rotor blade to minimize turbulence (See at least [Foskey, 0044]). However, Foskey is silent as to using the bearing history of a pitch axis bearing to do this. In fact, Foskey is silent as to the existence of pitch axis bearings on the aircraft at all.
Conversely, Dowie does teach collecting data on the history of a pitch axis bearing of an aircraft (See at least [Dowie, 0040]). However, Dowie does not teach or suggest controlling a pitch of the rotor blade on the basis of this pitch axis bearing data. Instead, Dowie simply uses the data to determine the level of wear and tear of the bearing (See at least [Dowie, 0040]). That is nowhere near as specific as the claimed invention.
The other prior art of record fail to remedy the issues of Foskey and Dowie.
For at least the above stated reasons, claims 26, 36, and 45 contain allowable subject matter.
Regarding claims 27-35 and 37-44, these claims also contain allowable subject matter at least by virtue of their dependence from claims 26 and 36, respectively.
Regarding claim 46, Foskey discloses An aircraft (Foskey discloses that the aircraft is a VTOL aircraft [See at least Foskey, 0047]) comprising:
a wing (See at least Fig. 1A in Foskey: Foskey discloses a wing 102 [See at least Foskey, 0031]);
a blade (See at least Fig. 1A in Foskey: Foskey discloses that Each proprotor assembly 105a, 105b includes a plurality of proprotor blades 106 [See at least Foskey, 0032]);
a blade pitch actuator (Foskey discloses that The pitch and sweep of proprotor blades 106a may also be actively controlled to minimize aircraft vibration or flutter, such as by introducing a dampening force to counter the vibration or flutter [See at least Foskey, 0044]).
However, none of the prior are of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the aircraft further comprising a control system configured to:
compute, using bearing history data, a first pitch angle range of the blade; and
command the blade pitch actuator to move the blade within the first pitch angle range. (emphasis added).
Foskey comes somewhat close, since it teaches calculating pitches of a rotor blade to minimize turbulence (See at least [Foskey, 0044]). However, Foskey is silent as to using the bearing history of a pitch axis bearing to do this. In fact, Foskey is silent as to the existence of pitch axis bearings on the aircraft at all.
Conversely, Dowie does teach collecting data on the history of a pitch axis bearing of an aircraft (See at least [Dowie, 0040]). However, Dowie does not teach or suggest controlling a pitch of the rotor blade on the basis of this pitch axis bearing data. Instead, Dowie simply uses the data to determine the level of wear and tear of the bearing (See at least [Dowie, 0040]). That is nowhere near as specific as the claimed invention.
The other prior art of record fail to remedy the issues of Foskey and Dowie.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 46 contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEEM T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571) 272-1516. 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.
/NAEEM TASLIM ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights