DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submission
The preliminary amendment filed on August 12, 2025 has been entered.
Claims Subject to Examination
Amended patent claims 1-19 (claims 2 and 4-19 amended by virtue of dependency) and new reissue claims 20-28 are subject to examination.
Claim Construction in Examination
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
Examiner’s Claim Construction
The following claim limitations are construed by the examiner to aid in examination:
Claim Limitation:
motor controller for controlling the rotational speed and direction of rotation of each thrust producing element (claims 1, 20 and 25)
Examiner’s Construction:
a conventional, well-known motor controller that is capable of controlling the rotational speed and direction of an electric motor
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “controller” is a generic placeholder for electronic structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The disclosure describes a respective motor controller 24 for each of the electric motors 14. The motor controllers 24 are represented by generic black boxes in the drawings. The structure of the motor controllers 24 is not explained in the specification or shown in the drawings. It is presumed that a conventional, well-known motor controller is utilized.
Claim Limitation:
control system adapted to vary the amount of rotational energy absorbed by individual motors when the individual motors are operated in a generator mode and are driven by rotation of the thrust producing elements connected to the individual motors (claim 6)
Examiner’s Construction:
a computer-implemented control system having a processor that executes special programming (a control algorithm) to perform the claimed function
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “control system” is a generic placeholder for computer-controlled electronic structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The disclosure describes a computer-implemented control system (see Fig. 6) that includes motor controllers 24, which are controlled by processors 27 in response to inputs from sensor packages 28. The disclosure further describes a regenerative braking system (presumably implemented by the control system of Fig. 6) that varies the rotational speed of the motors, operating in an electrical generator mode, to control the amount of power each motor is absorbing from the propeller and to use that power to charge the battery system.
Since the control system is computer-implemented (i.e., it relies upon a computer processor to execute its functions), the control system necessarily relies upon special computer programming (a control algorithm) to perform the claimed function. However, the required control algorithm is not disclosed.
Claim Limitation:
control system adapted to reverse the rotation of a first thrust control element in a first quadrant, vary the rotation of a second thrust control element in the first quadrant, when all thrust control elements are not operating in a quadrant opposite the first quadrant (claim 7)
Examiner’s Construction:
a computer-implemented control system having a processor that executes special programming (a control algorithm) to perform the claimed function
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “control system” is a generic placeholder for computer-controlled electronic structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The disclosure describes a computer-implemented control system (see Fig. 6) that includes motor controllers 24, which are controlled by processors 27 in response to inputs from sensor packages 28. The disclosure further states that, in the event of a failure of two motors in the same quadrant during operation, a motor in the opposite quadrant is reversed and the other motor in that quadrant is modulated.
Since the control system is computer-implemented (i.e., it relies upon a computer processor to execute its functions), the control system necessarily relies upon special computer programming (a control algorithm) to perform the claimed function. However, the required control algorithm is not disclosed.
Claim Limitation:
battery energy level monitor for determining the energy level in the battery configured to take a first measurement of the voltage in the battery at an initial epoch under a substantially no-load condition, relate the voltage measurement to a value of potential energy stored in the battery at the initial epoch, take a second measurement of voltage in the battery and a measurement of current flow into or out of the battery at a subsequent epoch, integrate the second measurement of voltage and the current flow measurement with respect to time, determine an energy change from the integration, and relate the energy change to the initial energy level to calculate the energy level of the battery at the subsequent epoch (claim 9)
Examiner’s Construction:
a computer-implemented control system having a processor that executes special programming (a control algorithm) to perform the claimed function by executing the control algorithm steps listed in the claim
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “control system” is a generic placeholder for computer-controlled electronic structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs.
The disclosure describes a computer-implemented control system (see Fig. 6) that includes motor controllers 24, which are controlled by processors 27 in response to inputs from sensor packages 28. The disclosure further states that battery energy monitoring may be incorporated into the control system (for execution by its processors).
Since the control system is computer-implemented (i.e., it relies upon a computer processor to execute its functions), the control system necessarily relies upon special computer programming (a control algorithm) to perform the claimed function. Since claim 9 sets forth the specific control algorithm steps that define the control algorithm for battery monitoring, the claim recites sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked.
Claim Limitation:
control system adapted to increase rotational speed of some of the thrust producing elements to make a yaw turn whereby the vehicle turns substantially around the yaw axis but does not turn substantially around the pitch or roll axis (claim 10)
Examiner’s Construction:
a computer-implemented control system having a processor that executes special programming (a control algorithm) to perform the claimed function
Examiner’s Explanation:
The term “control system” is a generic placeholder for computer-controlled electronic structure and is modified by functional language defining the function it performs. The claims do not recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Thus, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked.
The disclosure describes a computer-implemented control system (see Fig. 6) that includes motor controllers 24, which are controlled by processors 27 in response to inputs from sensor packages 28. The disclosure further states that, in order to conduct a turn of the vehicle around the yaw axis in horizontal flight or near horizontal flight, the rotational speed of the propellers driven by certain of the motors is increased or decreased relative to the propellers driven by other motors.
Since the control system is computer-implemented (i.e., it relies upon a computer processor to execute its functions), the control system necessarily relies upon special computer programming (a control algorithm) to perform the claimed function. However, the required control algorithm is not disclosed.
Original Disclosure – Definition
The instant application seeks reissue of US Patent No. 9,346,542 B2, which issued from US Application No. 14/046,729. The “original disclosure” is the disclosure of Application No. 14/046,729 as filed on October 4, 2013. Any subject matter added to the disclosure (including the claims) during the examination of the instant proceeding or during the earlier-concluded examination of Application No. 14/046,729 does not constitute a part of the “original disclosure”.
Prohibition of New Matter
35 USC 132(a) states, in part, that “No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.”
35 USC 251(a) states, in part, that “No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.”
Objection to Amendment – New Matter
The amendment filed on August 12, 2025 is objected to under 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a) because it improperly introduces new matter for the following reasons.
Claim 1 is amended to require “said thrust producing elements are oriented relative to the one or more at least two wings such that each thrust producing element of said thrust producing elements can provide thrust for vertical or near vertical flight and for horizontal or near horizontal flight” (ll. 7-10). Claims 8 and 16 depend from claim 1 and require “one or more of the thrust producing elements are adapted for hover and one or more of the thrust producing elements are adapted for forward flight.” However, the original disclosure fails to provide support for thrust producing elements as defined in claim 1 (oriented such that they can provide thrust for vertical or near vertical flight and horizontal or near horizontal flight), wherein one of the thrust producing elements are adapted for hover and one of the thrust producing elements are adapted for forward flight (as encompassed by claims 8 and 16). In order to meet the requirement of claim 1, each of the thrust producing elements must be adapted for both hover and for forward flight.
New claim 20 requires “said thrust producing elements are capable of providing all the thrust needed for vertical or near vertical flight and for horizontal or near horizontal flight” (ll. 7-9). Claim 21 depends from claim 20 and requires “said thrust producing elements provide all the thrust required for vertical or near vertical flight and for horizontal or near horizontal flight”. Due to the inclusion of claim 21 (setting forth a narrowed scope compared to claim 20), it is clear that claim 20 does not limit the invention to thrust producing elements that provide all the thrust needed for vertical or near vertical flight and for horizontal or near horizontal flight (only that they are capable of doing so). However, the original disclosure does not provide support for a vehicle in which some of the required thrust is provided by some other thrust producer such that the claimed thrust producing elements do not provide all the thrust required for vertical or near vertical flight and for horizontal or near horizontal flight.
New claim 25 requires “said thrust producing elements are capable of providing all the thrust required for vertical or near vertical flight and for horizontal or near horizontal flight” (ll. 7-9). Claim 26 depends from claim 25 and requires “said thrust producing elements provide all the thrust required for vertical or near vertical flight and for horizontal or near horizontal flight”. Due to the inclusion of claim 26 (setting forth a narrowed scope compared to claim 25), it is clear that claim 25 does not limit the invention to thrust producing elements that provide all the thrust required for vertical or near vertical flight and for horizontal or near horizontal flight (only that they are capable of doing so). However, the original disclosure does not provide support for a vehicle in which some of the required thrust is provided by some other thrust producer such that the claimed thrust producing elements do not provide all the thrust required for vertical or near vertical flight and for horizontal or near horizontal flight.
Claims 21 and 26 each require “said thrust producing elements provide all the thrust required for vertical or near vertical flight and for horizontal or near horizontal flight by varying an angle of attack of the fuselage.” However, the original disclosure does not provide support for the thrust producing elements functioning to provide all the required thrust “by varying an angle of attack of the fuselage”.
Claims 22 and 27 each require “the wings are stacked and spaced apart from each other along the central longitudinal axis when the vehicle is oriented for horizontal flight and when the vehicle is oriented for vertical flight.” However, the original disclosure does not provide support for the wings being stacked and spaced apart from each other along the central longitudinal axis “when the vehicle is oriented for vertical flight”.
For these reasons, the amendment filed on August 12, 2025 violates the prohibition of new matter under both 35 USC 132(a) and 35 USC 251(a).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in response to this Office action.
Objection to Amendment – Formalities
The claim amendments filed on August 12, 2025 are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2), (d) and (g). All amendments must show changes relative to the patent claims, which are in effect as of the date of filing of the reissue application. Matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in single brackets, and matter to be added must be underlined.
The amendment to claim 3 is improper because the use of double brackets is not permitted in reissue applications.
Applicant is required to place the amendments into compliance with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) in response to this Office action.
The claim amendments filed on August 12, 2025 are objected to because:
In claim 6, “adapted vary” (l. 3) should read “adapted to vary”.
In claim 9, “integration,” (l. 12) should read “integration, and”.
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The reissue declaration filed on August 12, 2025 is defective because it fails to specifically and properly identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application, i.e., an error that can properly serve as the basis for reissue. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP 1414-1414.01. The declaration is defective because:
It states that the patent has defects “by reason of other errors”, but it fails to explain such other errors. Rather, the declaration identifies an error in the claims. Thus, the box should be checked indicating that the patent has defects “by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had the right to claim in the patent”.
The error statement is general in nature. While claim 1 is referred to, no specific error (no specific word, phrase, etc.) in claim 1 is identified. Any error in the original patent claims must be identified by reference to at least one specific claim and the specific claim language wherein lies the error. It is not sufficient to merely state that applicant seeks to narrow the scope of a patent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS.—The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.—The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
GROUND 1: Claims 8, 16 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. See the explanation above. Claims 23, 24 and 28 are included in the rejection because of their dependencies.
GROUND 2: Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon a defective reissue oath/declaration. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect(s) in the reissue oath/declaration is explained above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
GROUND 3: Claims 8, 16 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because these claims recite new matter. See the explanation above. Claims 23, 24 and 28 are included in the rejection because of their dependencies.
GROUND 4: Claims 6, 7, 10, 14, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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.
The written description requirement serves both to satisfy applicant’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could theoretically construct his/her own version of the claimed invention. Rather, applicant bears the burden of setting forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions. It is not sufficient to merely outline desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve. Rather, the specification must explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. While subject matter that is conventional or well known in the art need not be described in detail, the specification must provide a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims which cause the claimed invention to achieve the desired results.
With respect to claims 6, 7 and 10, see the explanation in the Examiner’s Claim Construction above. Since applicant’s control system is computer-implemented (i.e., it relies upon a computer processor to execute its functions), the control system necessarily relies upon special computer programming (a control algorithm) to perform the claimed functions. However, the required control algorithm(s) is not disclosed. Thus, the specification fails to explain how the invention defined by claims 6, 7 and 10 is structured and how it functions in order to perform the claimed functions and achieve the desired results. Accordingly, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 14, 15 and 18, since applicant’s control system is computer-implemented (i.e., it relies upon a computer processor to execute its functions), the control system necessarily relies upon special computer programming (a control algorithm) to perform the claimed method steps. However, the required control algorithm(s) is not disclosed. Thus, the specification fails to explain how the invention defined by claims 6, 7 and 10 is structured and how it functions in order to perform the claimed method steps and achieve the desired results. Accordingly, the disclosure fails to set forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
GROUND 5: Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claims 1, 20 and 25, the recitation “one or more at least two wings” (l. 3) is indefinite because “one or more” is broader than and, thus, contradicted by “at least two”.
In claims 1, 20 and 25, the recitation “the wings are stacked” (l. 4) is indefinite because it fails to accurately characterize the invention as described in the specification and as shown in the drawings. The wings 3, 4 shown in applicant’s Fig. 1 cannot be accurately characterized as being “stacked”. The same is true of the wings 3, 4 as they are shown in applicant’s Fig. 3.
In claims 1, 20 and 25, the recitation “three or more thrust producing elements mounted in a fixed non-articulating relationship to the one or more at least two wings” (ll. 6-7) is indefinite because it is unclear whether this requires (i) three or more thrust producing elements in total, or (ii) three or more thrust producing elements for each of the at least two wings (thus, six or more thrust producing elements in total).
In claims 1, 20 and 25, the recitation “a flight control system having a motor controller for controlling the rotational speed and direction of rotation of each thrust producing element” (claim 1, ll. 13-14; claims 20 and 25, ll. 12-13) is indefinite because it is unclear whether this requires (i) just one motor controller that functions to control each of the thrust producing elements, or (ii) a respective motor controller for each of the thrust producing elements.
In claim 3, the terms “the vertical or near vertical take-off” (l. 2) and “the horizontal or near horizontal take-off” (l. 3) lack proper antecedent basis. Note that claim 1 recites “flight”, not “take-off”.
With respect to claims 6, 7 and 10, see the explanation in the Examiner’s Claim Construction above. Since the claim limitations invoke 35 USC 112(f), applicant’s specification must identify the corresponding structure (including the required control algorithm(s)). However, applicant’s specification fails to do so. Since the corresponding structure is not identified, the claims are indefinite.
Claim 1 is amended to require “said thrust producing elements are oriented relative to the one or more at least two wings such that each thrust producing element of said thrust producing elements can provide thrust for vertical or near vertical flight and for horizontal or near horizontal flight” (ll. 7-10). Claims 8 and 16 depend from claim 1 and require “one or more of the thrust producing elements are adapted for hover and one or more of the thrust producing elements are adapted for forward flight.” The limitations of claims 8 and 16 contradict the requirements of claim 1. In order to meet the requirement of claim 1, each of the thrust producing elements must be adapted for both hover and for forward flight.
In claim 11, the recitation “comprising one or more wings, three or more thrust producing elements mounted in a fixed non-articulating relationship to the one or more wings, and a plurality of electric motors for driving the thrust producing elements” (ll. 2-4) is indefinite because it duplicates subject matter previously recited in claim 1 while, in some cases, contradicting claim 1 by setting forth the subject matter more broadly.
In claim 13, the preamble “The aerial vehicle according to claim 11” is indefinite because it is inconsistent with claim 11. Claim 11 is directed to a method.
In claim 17, the recitation “providing a battery for providing power to the motors” (l. 1) is indefinite because it duplicates subject matter previously recited in claim 1 while contradicting claim 1 by setting forth the subject matter more broadly.
Claims 21 and 26 each require “said thrust producing elements provide all the thrust required for vertical or near vertical flight and for horizontal or near horizontal flight by varying an angle of attack of the fuselage.” This subject matter is indefinite because it fails to accurately characterize the invention as described in the specification and as shown in the drawings. The specification does not describe the thrust producing elements as functioning to provide all the required thrust “by varying an angle of attack of the fuselage”.
In claims 22 and 27, the recitation “the wings are stacked” (ll. 1-2) is indefinite. See the explanation above.
Pre-AIA – First to Invent
The present reissue application contains claims to a claimed invention having an effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013. Accordingly, this application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Bevirt”
US Publication No. 2011/0042508 A1
“Bevirt et al.”
US Publication No. 2011/0042509 A1
“Ciolkosz”
US Patent No. 2,929,580
“Lind”
US Publication No. 2012/0104763 A1
“Moller”
US Patent No. 5,115,996
“Ollendiek”
DE Publication No. 24 33 951 A1 (with translation)
“Sinha et al.”
US Publication No. 2012/0286102 A1
“Vander Lind”
US Publication No. 2011/0260462 A1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
GROUND 6: Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 10-13, 16, 18 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vander Lind in view of Bevirt and Bevirt et al.
With respect to claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11-13, 16 and 20-28, Vander Lind discloses an aerial vehicle 350 comprising: a fuselage1 354 located on a central longitudinal axis of the vehicle 350; two wings 352, 353 extending perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis, wherein the wings 352, 353 are stacked (or vertically offset) and spaced from each other along the central longitudinal axis when the vehicle is oriented for horizontal flight; and four thrust producing propellers driven by electric motors/generators 351 and mounted in a fixed non-articulating relationship to the wings 352, 353 and the fuselage 354, wherein the thrust producing propellers and motors/generators 351 are oriented relative to the wings 352, 353 such that they provide all the thrust required for vertical or near vertical flight and for horizontal or near horizontal flight. See Figs. 1-2 and 3B; ¶¶ 0021, 0024-0025, 0031, 0035. A similar vehicle is shown in Fig. 3A and described in ¶¶ 0028-0030. Figs. 3A-4A (see ¶¶ 0028-0033) show the vehicle oriented for horizontal or nearly horizontal flight. Figs. 5A-6 (see ¶¶ 0036-0043) show the vehicle oriented for vertical or nearly vertical take-off/flight. The electric motors are powered by on-board batteries (not shown). See ¶ 0026. The vehicle can have stacked wings. See ¶ 0032.
Vander Lind also refers to a system that maintains static aerodynamic balance at all moments of transition between flight modes, with the system designed such that the vehicle undergoes dynamic maneuvers to transition between flight modes. See ¶¶ 0024, 0038-0039. The skilled artisan would appreciate that such a system requires some type of controller. However, Vander Lind fails to disclose a flight control system having a motor controller for controlling the rotational speed and direction of rotation of each propeller and/or its electric motor/generator to thereby alter the orientation of the vehicle by differentially varying the thrust produced by the propellers.
Bevirt teaches an aerial vehicle 10 comprising: stacked wings 11, 12; four thrust producing propellers driven by electric motors 13-16 and mounted in a fixed non-articulating relationship to the wings 11, 12, wherein the thrust producing propellers and motors 13-16 are oriented relative to the wings 11, 12 such that they provide all the thrust required for vertical or near vertical flight and for horizontal or near horizontal flight; and an electronics package 20 including (i) sensors for sensing vehicle conditions, (ii) batteries for powering the electric motors, and (iii) a flight control system having a motor controller for controlling the rotational speed and direction of rotation of each propeller and/or its electric motor to thereby alter the orientation of the vehicle by differentially varying the thrust produced by the propellers. See Figs. 1 and 3-5; ¶¶ 0020-0036.
Bevirt et al. teaches an aerial vehicle 100 comprising: stacked wings 102, 103 that are spaced from each other along a central longitudinal axis when the vehicle is oriented for horizontal flight; six thrust producing fans/propellers 110-115 driven by electric motors and mounted in a fixed non-articulating relationship to the wings 102, 103, wherein the thrust producing fans/propellers 110-115 and motors are oriented relative to the wings 11, 12 such that they provide all the thrust required for vertical or near vertical flight and for horizontal or near horizontal flight; batteries (not shown) for powering the electric motors; and a flight control system (not shown) including (i) a sensor package for sensing vehicle conditions, and (ii) a flight control system having a motor controller for controlling the rotational speed and direction of rotation of each fan/propeller and/or its electric motor to thereby alter the orientation of the vehicle by differentially varying the thrust produced by the fans/propellers. See Figs. 1-9; ¶¶ 0027-0035, 0037-0042, 0045-0048, 0050-0052.
From the teachings of Bevirt and Bevirt et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Vander Lind by providing a flight control system having a motor controller for controlling the rotational speed and direction of rotation of each propeller and/or its electric motor/generator to thereby alter the orientation of the vehicle by differentially varying the thrust produced by the propellers. Such a flight control system achieves Vander Lind’s goal of maintaining static aerodynamic balance at all moments of transition between flight modes such that the vehicle undergoes dynamic maneuvers to transition between flight modes. Further, such a flight control system provides for active and accurately control of the vehicle in both the vertical and horizontal flight modes.
With respect to claims 10 and 18, see ¶¶ 0025, 0027, 0030, 0032, 0035 and 0039 of Bevirt. Likewise, see ¶¶ 0038 and 0041of Bevirt et al.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to the claimed invention but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
Ciolkosz teaches an aerial vehicle comprising: front and rear wings 217, 220 that are longitudinally spaced and vertically offset; two thrust producing units 215 on the front wings 217; two thrust producing units 216 on the rear wings 220; and a fuselage 200 having a facet 209 at an angle, whereby the vehicle is oriented with the facet 209 close to and parallel to the ground for vertical or near vertical take-off. See Figs. 14-16.
Lind teaches an aerial vehicle very similar to that of Vander Lind.
Moller teaches an aerial vehicle comprising: front wings (or wing-like members) 47; rear wings (or wing-like members) 26, 27 longitudinally spaced and vertically offset from the front wings; two thrust producing units 12, 14 on the front wings; and two thrust producing units 16, 18 on the rear wings.
Ollendiek teaches an aerial vehicle comprising: front wings 2, 3 spaced from a rear wing 8; and four propellers 4 mounted on the front wings 2, 3.
Sinha et al. teaches an aerial vehicle very similar to that of Bevirt.
Claims Not Rejected on Prior Art
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17 and 19 are not rejected based upon prior art. Claims 2, 3, 9, 17 and 19 are considered to recite allowable subject matter but are not currently allowable due to the rejections and objections set forth in this Office action. Claims 6, 7, 14 and 15 do not recite allowable subject matter in their current form due to the rejections and objections set forth in this Office action.
Specification
The specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See MPEP 608.01(o). The specification fails to describe the number of thrust producing elements as being 3, 4, 6, 10 or 12 (claims 4 and 12).
The abstract is objected to because legal terminology, such as “means”, should not appear in the abstract.
The specification is objected to because:
At col. 1, ll. 31-32, “a fixed, elongated rectilinear wing spaced apart from each end of the cockpit” is inaccurate. Applicant’s vehicle has two wings, not one wing. Further, the wings are not spaced apart from the cockpit.
At col. 1, l. 36, the singular “axis” is inconsistent with the plural “propellers”.
At col. 1, ll. 45-47, “an elongated rectilinear wing extending perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis and fixed to each end of the fuselage” is inaccurate. Applicant’s vehicle has two wings, not one wing.
At col. 1, l. 48, the singular “axis” is inconsistent with the plural “propellers”.
At col. 4, ll. 37-38, “Wings 3 and 4 are spaced apart from the front and rear of the cockpit 1” is inaccurate. Further, this description contradicts the later description at col. 4, ll. 44-46 and 49-51.
At col. 5, ll. 64-65, “The fuselage 20 includes struts 5 (FIG. 3) and a skin covering the struts” is inaccurate. As shown in Fig. 3, the outer struts 5 are outside of the skinned fuselage 20.
At col. 6, ll. 22-29, “In FIG. 6, to facilitate an understanding of the control system, the motors 14 rotating in the direction of arrows A (FIG. 1) are labeled A1-A4, motors A1-A2 being on one wing 4 and motors A3-A4 being mounted on the other wing 3, and motors 14 rotating in the direction of arrows B are labeled B1-B4, motors B1-B2 being mounted on wing 4 and motors B3-B4 being mounted on wing 3” is inaccurate because reference characters A1-A4 and B1-B4 do not appear “In FIG. 6”.
At col. 6, ll. 29-31, “The batteries 13 and motor controllers 24 connected to the motors A2-A4 and B1-B4 are also labeled A1-A4 and B1-B4, respectively” is inaccurate because the batteries are not labeled A1-A4 and B1-B4. Instead, Fig. 6 designates the batteries as POD 1 to POD 8.
At col. 6, ll. 31-32, “The batteries 13 are in turn connected to three power supply type ‘OR’ gates 25” is inaccurate. Fig. 6 does not show the batteries 13 connected to the “OR” gates 25.
At col. 6, l. 38, “processor 17” should read “processor 27”.
At col. 8, ll. 30-34, “Referring to FIG. 8, in another embodiment of the present invention, the control system is identical to that described herein with respect to FIG. 7 except that a back-up joystick 44 and a back-up throttle 46 are provided with the associated wiring changes to accommodate them” is inaccurate. Fig. 8 also differs from Fig. 7 because Fig. 8 illustrates “SLAVE” and “MASTER” processors.
At col. 9, ll. 26-28, “As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, when at rest, the vehicle preferably sits on the ground with the wings inclined at approximately 45° with respect to the ground” is inaccurate. Neither Fig. 1 nor Fig. 3 shows the wings inclined at approximately 45° with respect to the ground.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features listed below must be shown in the drawings or canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The thrust producing elements being 3, 4, 6, 10 or 12 in number (claims 4 and 12).
The thrust producing elements being turbines or ducted fans (claims 5 and 13).
One or more of the thrust producing elements are adapted for hover and one or more of the thrust producing elements are adapted for forward flight (claims 8 and 16).
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 1 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(q) because reference number 8 lacks a lead line.
Fig. 4 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.84(q) because the two lead lines for the upper, central occurrence of reference number 4 are not directed to the wing. It appears that this occurrence of reference number 4 should be changed to 14.
In Figs. 6 and 7, boxes 28 should be labeled with the text “SENSOR PACKAGES” (or “SENSORS”) rather than the text “SENSOR”. See col. 6, ll. 38-39 and 51.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for response is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Amendments
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification, claims or drawings must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Failure to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g) will generally result in a notification to applicant that an amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive. Such an amendment after final rejection will not be entered.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Disclosure Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the patent for which reissue is sought is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this merged proceeding should be directed:
By Patent Center2: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail3 to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/Laura Davison/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 The term “fuselage” is broadly defined as the main or central body portion of an aircraft.
2 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).
3 Mail Stop REISSUE should only be used for the initial filing of reissue applications, and should not be used for any subsequently filed correspondence in reissue applications. See MPEP 1410.
Prosecution Insights