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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-16 recite “An aircraft” in the preamble despite previously introducing “An aircraft” in claim 1. For purposes of examination, this limitations in claims 2-16 are interpreted as “The aircraft”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “thrust in a generally vertical direction” in lines 4-5. The use of the term “generally” renders the claim indefinite because the scope of “generally” is unclear and not defined in the specification, rendering it unclear how close to the vertical direction “generally” is. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-17 fail to cure the deficiency. Claims 1-2, 7-8, 11, and 17 are further rejected for each recitation of “generally”.
Claim 1 recites “the first side of the aircraft” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that a first side of “a fuselage” is previously introduced in line 2, and it is unclear if “the first side of the aircraft” of line 3 is meant to refer to the first side of the fuselage, or intends to introduce an additional “first side of the aircraft”. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “the first side of the fuselage”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-17 fail to cure the deficiency. The recitation of “the second side of the aircraft” in claim 1, line 7, is similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Villa et al. (US 20240308655 A1), hereafter Villa.
Regarding Claim 1, Villa discloses an aircraft (200, Fig. 2) including:
a fuselage having first and second sides (left and right sides of 202, Fig. 2);
a first rotor positioned at the first side of the aircraft and including a plurality of blades (130, Fig. 2), the first rotor being moveable between a first position in which the first rotor provides thrust in a generally vertical direction (configuration of Fig. 5) and a second position in which the first rotor provides thrust in a generally horizontal direction (configuration of Fig. 2);
a second rotor positioned at the second side of the aircraft and including a plurality of blades (118, Fig. 2), the second rotor being moveable between a first position in which the second rotor provides thrust in a generally vertical direction (configuration of Fig. 5) and a second position in which the second rotor provides thrust in a generally horizontal direction (configuration of Fig. 2);
wherein the first rotor includes a first rotor plane positioned generally perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the first rotor (plane at 224, Fig. 5), said first rotor plane being coincident with a portion of a blade of the first rotor (plane 224, Fig. 5);
wherein the second rotor includes a second rotor plane positioned generally perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the second rotor (plane at 220, Fig. 5), said second rotor plane being coincident with a portion of a blade of the second rotor (plane at 220, Fig. 5); and
wherein, when the first and second rotors are in their respective first positions (Fig. 5), the first and second rotor planes are non-parallel (planes at 220 and 224 are non-parallel, Fig. 5), such that the first rotor plane does not intersect a portion of any of the blades of the second rotor and such that the second rotor plane does not intersect a portion of any of the blades of the first rotor (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 2, Villa discloses an aircraft according to claim 1 wherein:
the first rotor includes respective upper and lower rotor planes each positioned generally perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the first rotor (planes at upper and lower portions of blades of 130, Figs. 4-5), said upper rotor plane being coincident with an uppermost portion of a blade of the first rotor and said lower rotor plane being coincident with a lowermost portion of a blade of the first rotor (planes at upper and lower portions of blades of 130, Figs. 4-5); and
wherein the second rotor includes respective upper and lower rotor planes each positioned generally perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the second rotor (planes at upper and lower portions of blades of 118, Figs. 4-5), said upper rotor plane being coincident with an uppermost portion of a blade of the second rotor and said lower rotor plane being coincident with a lowermost portion of a blade of the second rotor (planes at upper and lower portions of blades of 118, Figs. 4-5).
Regarding Claim 3, Villa discloses an aircraft according to claim 2 wherein the upper rotor plane of the first rotor does not intersect a portion of any of the blades of the second rotor and such that the upper rotor plane of the second rotor does not intersect a portion of any of the blades of the first rotor (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 4, Villa discloses an aircraft according to claim 2,wherein the lower rotor plane of the first rotor does not intersect a portion of any of the blades of the second rotor and such that the lower rotor plane of the second rotor does not intersect a portion of any of the blades of the first rotor (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Villa discloses an aircraft according to claim 2, wherein the first rotor plane is coincident with the upper rotor plane or lower rotor plane of the first rotor, and wherein the second rotor plane is coincident with the upper rotor plane or lower rotor plane of the second rotor (examiner notes “the first rotor plane” may be located at any portion of the first rotor and “the second rotor plane” may be located at any portion of the second rotor).
Regarding Claim 6, Villa discloses an aircraft according to claim 1, wherein, when the first and second rotors are in their respective first positions, the first and second rotor planes do not intersect any part of the aircraft (Fig. 5 and para. [0042]).
Regarding Claim 7, Villa discloses an aircraft according to claim 1 wherein, when the first and second rotors are in their respective second positions, the first and second rotor planes are generally parallel (228 and 226, configuration of Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Villa discloses an aircraft according to claim 1 wherein each of the first rotor and second rotor are pivotably or rotatably moveable with respect to the fuselage (para. [0042] and Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 10, Villa discloses an aircraft according to claim 1 wherein the first and second rotors are moveable to a third position, the third position being between the first position and second position (examiner notes in order to move from the first to the second position, the rotors must move to a third position during the transition).
Regarding Claim 11, Villa discloses an aircraft according to claim 10 wherein:
respective thrust vectors of the first and second rotors are generally vertical when the first and second rotors are in their respective first positions (Fig. 5 and para. [0033]); and/or
wherein respective thrust vectors of the first and second rotors are generally horizontal when the first and second rotors are in their respective first positions (Fig. 2 and para. [0033]); and/or
wherein respective thrust vectors of the first and second rotors have a horizontal component and a vertical component when the first and second rotors are in their respective third positions (examiner notes in order to move from the first to the second position, the rotors must move to a third position during the transition which would include both vertical and horizontal thrust components).
Regarding Claim 12, Villa discloses an aircraft according to claim 1 wherein the first and second rotors are connected to a lifting surface (204 and 206, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Villa discloses an aircraft according to claim 12 wherein the lifting surface is an aerofoil (wings 204 and 206, Fig. 2), and optionally wherein the lifting surface includes at least one flight control surface (examiner notes this limitation is optional).
Regarding Claim 14, Villa discloses an aircraft according to claim 12 wherein the first and second rotors are pivotably or rotatably connected to the lifting surface (via 214 and 208, see Figs. 2-5).
Regarding Claim 16, Villa discloses an aircraft according to claim 1 wherein the aircraft is a tiltrotor craft (Abstract).
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) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villa (US 20240308655 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bower (US 12434830 B2).
Regarding Claim 8, Villa discloses an aircraft according to claim 7, further including moving the first rotor between its first position and second position (para. [0042]) and moving the second rotor between its first position and second position (para. [0042]), wherein the first and second rotor planes are non-parallel when the first and second rotors are in their respective first positions and gradually change to being generally parallel as the first and second rotors are moved from their respective first positions to their respective second positions (para. [0042] and Figs. 3-5).
While Villa’s first and second rotors move between the first and second positions, Villa does not specifically teach a first movement device connected to the first rotor for moving the first rotor, and a second movement device connected to the second rotor for moving the second rotor.
Bower teaches a first movement device (320, Fig. 7) and a second movement device (330, Fig. 7) for moving similar rotors (Col. 11, lines 37-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the first and second rotors of Villa with first and second movement devices as taught by Bower, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a mechanism for actively moving the rotors between positions.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villa (US 20240308655 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Foskey et al. (US 20200391860 A1), hereafter Foskey.
Regarding Claim 15, Villa discloses an aircraft according to claim 1.
While Villa discloses that the electric motor control system controls the rotation direction of the rotors (para. [0055]), Villa does not specifically disclose wherein the first rotor and second rotor rotate about their respective axes of rotation in opposite directions.
Foskey teaches a similar first and second rotor that rotate about their respective axes of rotation in opposite directions (para. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the first and second rotor of Villa to rotate in opposite directions, as taught by Foskey, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide torque balancing to the aircraft (Foskey, para. [0036]).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villa (US 20240308655 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Bower (US 12434830 B2) and Foskey et al. (US 20200391860 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Villa discloses the aircraft according to claim 3,
wherein the lower rotor plane of the first rotor does not intersect a portion of any of the blades of the second rotor and such that the lower rotor plane of the second rotor does not intersect a portion of any of the blades of the first rotor (Fig. 5, examiner notes no part of the first or second rotor planes intersect the opposite rotor);
wherein the first rotor plane is coincident with the upper rotor plane or lower rotor plane of the first rotor (examiner notes “the first rotor plane” may be located at any portion of the first rotor and “the second rotor plane” may be located at any portion of the second rotor), and wherein the second rotor plane is coincident with the upper rotor plane or lower rotor plane of the second rotor (examiner notes “the first rotor plane” may be located at any portion of the first rotor and “the second rotor plane” may be located at any portion of the second rotor);
wherein, when the first and second rotors are in their respective first positions, the first and second rotor planes do not intersect any part of the aircraft (Fig. 5 and para. [0042]);
wherein, when the first and second rotors are in their respective second positions, the first and second rotor planes are generally parallel (Fig. 3);
the aircraft further including moving the first rotor between its first position and second position and moving the second rotor between its first position and second position (para. [0042] and Figs. 3-5), such that the first and second rotor planes are non-parallel when the first and second rotors are in their respective first positions and gradually change to being generally parallel as the first and second rotors are moved from their respective first positions to their respective second positions (para. [0042] and Figs. 3-5);
wherein each of the first rotor and second rotor are pivotably or rotatably moveable with respect to the fuselage (para. [0042] and Figs. 3-4);
wherein the first and second rotors are moveable to a third position, the third position being between the first position and second position (examiner notes in order to move from the first to the second position, the rotors must move to a third position during the transition);
wherein: respective thrust vectors of the first and second rotors are generally vertical when the first and second rotors are in their respective first positions (Fig. 5 and para. [0033]); and/or
wherein respective thrust vectors of the first and second rotors are generally horizontal when the first and second rotors are in their respective first positions (Fig. 5 and para. [0033]); and/or
wherein respective thrust vectors of the first and second rotors have a horizontal component and a vertical component when the first and second rotors are in their respective third positions (examiner notes in order to move from the first to the second position, the rotors must move to a third position during the transition which would include both vertical and horizontal thrust components);
wherein the first and second rotors are connected to a lifting surface (204 and 206, Fig. 2);
wherein the lifting surface is an aerofoil (wings 204 and 206, Fig. 2), and optionally wherein the lifting surface includes at least one flight control surface (examiner notes this limitation is optional);
wherein the first and second rotors are pivotably or rotatably connected to the lifting surface (via 214 and 208, see Figs. 2-5); and
wherein the aircraft is a tiltrotor craft.
While Villa’s first and second rotors move between the first and second positions, Villa does not specifically teach a first movement device connected to the first rotor for moving the first rotor, and a second movement device connected to the second rotor for moving the second rotor; and Villa does not specifically disclose wherein the first rotor and second rotor rotate about their respective axes of rotation in opposite directions.
Bower teaches a first movement device (320, Fig. 7) and a second movement device (330, Fig. 7) for moving similar rotors (Col. 11, lines 37-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the first and second rotors of Villa with first and second movement devices as taught by Bower, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a mechanism for actively moving the rotors between positions.
Foskey teaches a similar first and second rotor that rotate about their respective axes of rotation in opposite directions (para. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the first and second rotor of modified Villa to rotate in opposite directions, as taught by Foskey, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide torque balancing to the aircraft (Foskey, para. [0036]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Karem et al. (US 20220266996 A1) teaches a tiltrotor aircraft.
Akers (US 20210122466 A1) teaches a tiltrotor aircraft with non-parallel rotor planes in a first position.
Mores et al. (US 20180208296 A1) teaches a tiltrotor aircraft with non-parallel rotor planes in a first position.
Judas et al. (US 10518875 B2) teaches a VTOL aircraft with non-parallel rotor planes.
Coburn (US 9296477 B1) teaches a VTOL aircraft with non-parallel rotor planes.
Gress (US 6719244 B1) teaches a tiltrotor aircraft with non-parallel rotor planes.
Ducan (US 5419514 A) teaches a tiltrotor aircraft with non-parallel rotor planes.
Quenzler (US 3081964 A) teaches a tiltrotor aircraft with non-parallel rotor planes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
