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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention II in the reply filed on 7/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not be a search burden. This is not found persuasive because the claims require different and distinct structural limitations that would require different text/class searching.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “locking mechanism” in claims 52-53.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. “Locking mechanism” has been described in the specification so any thing that can stop and hold the propeller as seeing as an equivalent of a “locking mechanism”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 39 recites the limitation "the blade" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Duffy (US PgPub #2022/0161926).
For Claims 38, 42-43, the figures and paragraph [0120] of Duffy ‘926 disclose a lift apparatus for a vertical take off and landing aircraft, comprising: a lift propeller (112); an engine (200) configured to rotate the lift propeller; a support structure (330) configured to support the engine and the lift propeller; and a controller (802) configured to control the engine during forward flight of the aircraft in a cruise configuration; wherein: the controller is configured to position the lift propeller in a stationary position at a predetermined clocking angle defined by a first reference axis (122) of the lift propeller and a second reference axis (123); and wherein: the first reference axis comprises one of a longitudinal axis of a blade of the lift propeller; the second reference axis comprises one of a longitudinal axis of the aircraft or a longitudinal axis of the support structure; and the pretermined angle is 5 degrees.
For Claim 39, the figures and paragraph [0120] of Duffy ‘926 disclose that the lift propeller comprises a two-blades propeller, and the first reference axis comprises the longitudinal axis of the blade of the lift propeller.
For Claim 44, the figures and paragraph [0120] of Duffy ‘926 disclose a VTOL aircraft (100).
For Claim 52, the figures and paragraph [0120] of Duffy ‘926 disclose that the lift propeller comprises a locking mechanism (322) configured to lock the lift propeller at the predetermined clocking angle when operating in the cruise configuration.
For Claim 53, the figures and paragraph [0120] of Duffy ‘926 disclose that the locking mechanism is configured to adjust the predetermined clocking angle.
For Claim 54, the figures and paragraph [0120] of Duffy ‘926 disclose that the lift propeller comprises at least three propeller blades.
For Claim 55, the figures and paragraph [0120] of Duffy ‘926 disclose that the predetermined clocking angle is in a direction of rotation of the lift propeller.
For Claim 56, the figures and paragraph [0120] of Duffy ‘926 disclose that the lift propeller is configured to be stowed in the predetermined clocking angle by the controller.
Claim(s) 38, 42-43, and 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wiegman (US PgPub #2023/0027852).
For Claims 38, 42-43, and 57 the figures and paragraph [0026] of Wiegman ‘852 disclose a lift apparatus for a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, comprising: a lift propeller (104); an engine (216) configured to rotate the lift propeller; a support structure configured to support the engine and the lift propeller; and a controller (200) configured to control the engine during forward flight of the aircraft in a cruise configuration; wherein: the controller is configured to position the lift propeller in a stationary position at a predetermined clocking angle defined by a first reference axis of the lift propeller and a second reference axis; and wherein: the first reference axis comprises one of a longitudinal axis of a blade of the lift propeller; the second reference axis comprises one of a longitudinal axis of the aircraft or a longitudinal axis of the support structure; and the pretermined angle is greater or less than -10 or +10 degrees.
Claim(s) 38 and 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Long (US Patent #12122503).
For Claims 38, 42-43, the figures, claim 13, column 5, line 61 thru column 6, line 4, and columns 13-14 of Duffy ‘926 disclose a lift apparatus for a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, comprising: a lift propeller (101 and 301); an engine configured to rotate the lift propeller; a support structure (106) configured to support the engine and the lift propeller; and a controller (802) configured to control the engine during forward flight of the aircraft in a cruise configuration; wherein: the controller is configured to position the lift propeller in a stationary position at a predetermined clocking angle defined by a first reference axis (122) of the lift propeller and a second reference axis (123); and wherein: the first reference axis comprises a line bisecting two longitudinal axes of two blades of the lift propeller; the second reference axis comprises one of a longitudinal axis of the aircraft or a longitudinal axis of the support structure; and the pretermined angle is 10 degrees.
For Claim 40, the figures, claim 13, and columns 13-14 of Duffy ‘926 disclose that the lift propeller comprises a four-bladed propeller, and the first reference axis comprises the line bisecting tow longitudinal axes of the two blades of the lift propeller.
For Claim 41, the figures, claim 13, and columns 13-14 of Duffy ‘926 disclose that the two blades of the lift propeller comprise tow adjacent blades of the lift propeller.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. Each of the additional references disclose aircraft with lift propellers that can be locked at an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft or a longitudinal axis of a support structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 Michener can be reached at 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 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 8/6/2026
Prosecution Insights