DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “to be” is not a positive limitation inasmuch as the term is in future tense and implies a change in condition in the future. This does not serve to limit the structure in the present tense. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: (thereon, thereof). Appropriate correction is required.
The above are only examples of such informalities. The Applicant is required to review the entire claims and correct all such informalities.
Reference of prior art
Qu. (US 20190106210, UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES WITH TILTING PROPELLERS, AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS).
McCullough et al. (US 20180002009, Aircraft Propulsion Assembly).
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.
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu in view of McCullough.
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Qu discloses:
An unmanned aerial vehicle (item 100), comprising:
a body (item 110); and
two motor assemblies mounted on the body,
wherein at least one of the two motor assemblies includes a rotary actuator mounted on the body (item 120), a motor mount mounted on an output shaft of the rotary actuator (items 122, 126), and a brushless direct current (BLDC) motor mounted on the motor mount (¶ 0042) and configured such that a rotary blade is mounted thereon (item 163),
wherein the rotary actuator is mounted on the body such that a rotation axis (A2) thereof forms a zero angle (fig. 3A) or an acute angle with a yaw axis of the body (figs. 4, 5), and
However Qu fails to teach as disclosed by McCullough: wherein the motor mount is configured to be tilted such that a rotation axis (Al) of the BLDC motor forms an acute angle with respect to the rotation axis (A2) of the rotary actuator (fig. 7C, items 378, 386, 380).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Lee teachings of the motor mount is configured to be tilted such that a rotation axis (Al) of the BLDC motor forms an acute angle with respect to the rotation axis (A2) of the rotary actuator into the Qu, to obtain the thrust vector by rotating the propeller assembly without the tilting unnecessary components to reduce the torque on the body.
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Qu, as modified above, discloses: The unmanned aerial vehicle of Claim 7, wherein an angle at which the rotation axis (A2) of the rotary actuator is tilted with respect to the yaw axis is set to be equal to an angle at which the rotation axis (A1) of the BLDC motor is tilted with respect to the rotation axis (A2) of the rotary actuator (Qu ¶ 0032 and fig. 2).
Re claim 9 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Qu, as modified above, discloses: The unmanned aerial vehicle of Claim 7, wherein the rotation axis (A2) of the rotary actuator is tilted at different angles with respect to the yaw axis in each of the two motor assemblies (Qu ¶ 0036 and fig. 5, item 120a, 120b depict the limitation).
Re claims 10 and 12 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Qu, as modified above, discloses: The unmanned aerial vehicle of Claim 7, wherein the rotation axis (A1) of the BLDC motor and the rotation axis (A2) of the rotary actuator intersect on a coupling plane of the motor mount and the BLDC motor (McCullough fig. 7C, items 378, 386, 380, 372).
Re claim 11 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Qu, as modified above, discloses: A motor assembly for rotating a rotary blade of an unmanned aerial vehicle, comprising a rotary actuator;
a motor mount mounted on an output shaft of the rotary actuator; and
a BLDC motor mounted on the motor mount,
wherein the motor mount is configured such that a rotation axis (A1) of the BLDC motor is configured to be tilted so as to form an acute angle with respect to a rotation axis (A2) of the rotary actuator.
(Claim 11 is similar in scope to Claim 7; therefore, Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during office hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 571-272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights