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 .
Application Status
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14-16, and 18 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 12/8/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 states “two or more rotors for vertical climb and descent that are disposed on each a right side and a left side of the aircraft”, the examiner believes that this should state “two or more rotors for vertical climb and descent that are disposed on each of a right side and a left side of 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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 states “wherein three of the rotors are disposed on each of the of each of the rotors”. It is not clear what exactly is being claimed here, one possible interpretation is hat it is attempting to state that there are three rotor blades on each rotor, however based on the rest of the claim language the examiner believes that this is attempting to state that there are three rotors on each side of the aircraft, and the claim will be examined in this manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14-16, and 18 are allowed.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 1 is allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, comprising: an aircraft; a propulsion propeller that propels the aircraft in an advance direction; two or more rotors for vertical climb and descent that are disposed on each a right side and a left side of the aircraft in a front-rear direction, each include a plurality of blades, and rotate in a predetermined rotation direction to generate lift; a speed sensor configured to acquire a flight speed of the aircraft during forward flight; a storage device configured to store, in advance, first data indicating a relationship between an effective lift-to-drag ratio of each of the rotors and an advance ratio, the advance ratio representing a ratio of the flight speed to a blade tip speed of each of the rotors; and a controller configured to based on the flight speed acquired by the speed sensor and the stored first data, calculate a rotational speed of each of the rotors to obtain an advance ratio at which the effective lift-to-drag ratio of the rotor is a threshold or more, calculate a pitch angle of the blade, in which lift necessary for the rotor is generated, using the calculated rotational speed of the rotor, and control the rotational speed of each of the rotors and the pitch angle of the blade of each of the rotors thereof according to the calculated rotational speed of the rotor and the calculated pitch angle of the blade.
The best prior art of record is Mikic (PGPub #2021/0001979) which does teach a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, comprising: an aircraft; a propulsion propeller that propels the aircraft in an advance direction; two or more rotors for vertical climb and descent that are disposed on each a right side and a left side of the aircraft in a front-rear direction, each include a plurality of blades, and rotate in a predetermined rotation direction to generate lift; a speed sensor configured to acquire a flight speed of the aircraft during forward flight; a storage device configured to store, in advance, first data indicating a relationship between an effective lift-to-drag ratio of each of the rotors and an advance ratio, the advance ratio representing a ratio of the flight speed to a blade tip speed of each of the rotors; but Mikic does not teach a controller configured to based on the flight speed acquired by the speed sensor and the stored first data, calculate a rotational speed of each of the rotors to obtain an advance ratio at which the effective lift-to-drag ratio of the rotor is a threshold or more, calculate a pitch angle of the blade, in which lift necessary for the rotor is generated, using the calculated rotational speed of the rotor, and control the rotational speed of each of the rotors and the pitch angle of the blade of each of the rotors thereof according to the calculated rotational speed of the rotor and the calculated pitch angle of the blade.
Another prior art of record is Wittig (US #8,764,397) which does teach a controller that can control the blade speed and pitch of a system and tries to optimize for an optimal lift/drag ration but does not teach that the controller configured to based on the flight speed acquired by the speed sensor and the stored first data, calculate a rotational speed of each of the rotors to obtain an advance ratio at which the effective lift-to-drag ratio of the rotor is a threshold or more, calculate a pitch angle of the blade, in which lift necessary for the rotor is generated, using the calculated rotational speed of the rotor, and control the rotational speed of each of the rotors and the pitch angle of the blade of each of the rotors thereof according to the calculated rotational speed of the rotor and the calculated pitch angle of the blade.
Another prior art of record is Yesilcimen (US #12,589,859) which does teach a controller that can adjust the pitch angle of a blade based on a ratio of the flight speed to blade speed but does not teach that the controller configured to based on the flight speed acquired by the speed sensor and the stored first data, calculate a rotational speed of each of the rotors to obtain an advance ratio at which the effective lift-to-drag ratio of the rotor is a threshold or more, calculate a pitch angle of the blade, in which lift necessary for the rotor is generated, using the calculated rotational speed of the rotor, and control the rotational speed of each of the rotors and the pitch angle of the blade of each of the rotors thereof according to the calculated rotational speed of the rotor and the calculated pitch angle of the blade.
Additional prior arts of record include Mikic (PGPub #2018/0290736), Hoffberg (US #12,528027), Kang (US #11,809,203), Wagner (US #6,886,776), Kroo (PGPub #2025/0091722), Asanuma (PGPub #2022/0306289), and Stobbe (PGPub #2022/0281593) which all teach aircraft with rotor systems but do not teach that the controller configured to based on the flight speed acquired by the speed sensor and the stored first data, calculate a rotational speed of each of the rotors to obtain an advance ratio at which the effective lift-to-drag ratio of the rotor is a threshold or more, calculate a pitch angle of the blade, in which lift necessary for the rotor is generated, using the calculated rotational speed of the rotor, and control the rotational speed of each of the rotors and the pitch angle of the blade of each of the rotors thereof according to the calculated rotational speed of the rotor and the calculated pitch angle of the blade.
While the prior arts do teach a controller that can adjust both the speed and blade pitch of a rotor, none of the prior arts teach that the controller makes the decision on the changes based on the specific manner and data that is required by claim 1. It would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify any of the prior arts of record to teach the untaught limitation because there is no obvious motivation for the change without the use of hindsight reconstruction.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14-16, and 18 are allowable due to their respective dependence on allowable claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights