Yehuda SHAFIRDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 2, 20222021003817 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 16/491,168 09/05/2019 Yehuda SHAFIR C225-P1534-US 1041 85275 7590 03/02/2022 A.C. Entis-IP Ltd. 6 Raoul Wallenberg Street Ramat Hachayal Tel Aviv, 69719 ISRAEL EXAMINER BADAWI, MEDHAT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3642 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ellen.boer@entis-ip.com mail@entis-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YEHUDA SHAFIR Appeal 2021-003817 Application 16/491,168 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3-19. Claim 2 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) light aircraft, and, more particularly, to controlling the tilt-wing of the aircraft to provide a relatively short takeoff hover period for the aircraft. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 5. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the inventor, Yehuda SHAFIR, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-003817 Application 16/491,168 2 Claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) light aircraft comprising: a tilt-wing comprising port and starboard wings rotatable to a tilt-angle ω; a power train having: an electric motor coupled to a rotor for providing the aircraft with rotor thrust (RT) for flight mounted to each of the port and starboard wings; a battery configured to store electric energy to power the electric motors; an electric generator; and a combustion engine selectively switchable to drive the generator to produce electric energy for storage in the battery or to provide electrical power directly to the electric motor; and a controller configured to autonomously control the tilt- wing and power train to provide a VTOL takeoff having a relatively short takeoff hover period of a duration less than or equal to about 7 seconds, by controlling the tilt-wing to reduce ω from about 82° to about 20° and reduce the RT from about 120% of a loaded weight of the aircraft to about 50% of the loaded weight of the aircraft during the VTOL takeoff hover period duration. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 4, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 2. Claims 1 and 3-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appeal 2021-003817 Application 16/491,168 3 3. Claims 1, 3-6, 11, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fredericks (US 2016/0244158 A1, published Aug. 25, 2016) and Page (US 2012/0248259 A1, published Oct. 4, 2012). 4. Claims 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fredericks, Page, and Bevirt (US 2015/0266571 A1, published Sept. 24, 2015). 5. Claims 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fredericks. ANALYSIS A. Written Description The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, and 17 as lacking written description support because “[t]he specification does not disclose with sufficient specificity what is consider[ed] autonomous.” Ans. 3. According to the Examiner, “there are various levels of autonomy” and the term “autonomously” as used in the claims “could be interpreted in various ways since it is unknown to what level of autonomous control is occurring.” Id. We disagree. At the outset, we note that the originally-filed claims recite “a controller configured to autonomously control the tilt-wing and power train.” Moreover, the Specification repeatedly references the manner and level of autonomous control, as exemplified in the following passages: A controller 47 controls the powertrain and a pivot drive (not shown) coupled to wing pivot 30 to control rotation of the wing pivot about a lateral, pitch axis 52 of SafeTilt aircraft 20 and thereby a tilt angle, “ω,” of tilt-wing 23 and rotors 34 relative to a longitudinal, roll axis 51, of the aircraft. [Spec. ¶ 17]. Fig. 3A shows two graphs 101 and 102 comprising graph lines that show flight parameters as a function of time during VTOL Appeal 2021-003817 Application 16/491,168 4 takeoff of SafeTilt under control of controller 47 in accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure. [Spec. ¶ 21]. [A] SafeTilt aircraft in accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure controlled during takeoff by its controller, provides advantageous security for VTOL takeoff. [Spec. ¶ 22]. A flow diagram 150 shown in Fig 3B illustrates a procedure by which controller 47 controls SafeTilt 20 to takeoff in a manner for which parameters shown in graphs 101 and 102 exhibit time dependence substantially as shown in the graphs. [Spec. ¶ 23]. In a block 152 at a time t =0 controller 47 initiates takeoff by controlling the wing pivot drive to rotate wing pivot 30 and thereby overhead tilt-wing 23 and AoA to a tilt angle co equal to about 82° controlling the SafeTilt aircraft power train to generate rotor thrust RT equal to about 120%W, in symbols RT =120%W. [Spec. ¶ 24]. A flow diagram 250 shown in Fig. 4B-4C illustrates a procedure by which controller 47 controls SafeTilt 20 to land in manner for which parameters graphed in graphs 201 and 202 exhibit time dependence substantially as shown in the graphs. [Spec. ¶ 27]. In a block 252 at a time t = 0 the pilot has controlled SafeTilt 20 to prepare for landing under control of controller 47, in accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure. . . . Shortly thereafter, optionally at a time t = 0.25 in a block 254, control of the SafeTilt aircraft for landing is transferred to controller 47, and the controller allows electric motors 31 to spool to offset loss of lift due to aircraft deceleration and controls aircraft pitch 0 to increase at rate d0/dt = 15°/s. [Spec. ¶ 28]. Those passages clearly support that the aircraft’s power train and tilt-wing are under the autonomous control of controller 47 during vertical takeoff and landing where generation of rotor thrust is critical. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, and 17 as lacking written Appeal 2021-003817 Application 16/491,168 5 description support. And as for the Examiner’s assertion that “in paragraph 0028 of the instant application a pilot is present in the aircraft to control the SafeTilt 20-which is controlled by the controller 47,” we are not persuaded for the simple reason that many modern aircraft have a pilot present while the aircraft is under autonomous control. See Ans. 4. B. Indefiniteness 1. “relatively” The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3-19 as being indefinite for including the term, “relatively.” Final Act. 5. Appellant does not argue the merits of this rejection, and, instead, proposes to delete the term “relatively” from claims 1 and 17. See Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. Although modifying the takeoff hover period as being “relatively short” may on its own appear indefinite, the claim language goes on to specify that this means a duration of 7 seconds or less. In our view, that additional definition provides concrete boundaries around the relative shortness of the period. Nonetheless, because Appellant does not expressly contest that the term “relatively” is indefinite, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the claims on this basis. 2. “loaded weight of the aircraft” The Examiner also takes issue with the phrase “loaded weight of the aircraft” as recited in claims 1, 5, and 18. Final Act. 5. According to the Examiner, “[i]t is unclear what is the value of ‘the loaded weight of the aircraft’ recited in the claims.” Id. In that regard, the Examiner explains: it is well known in the art that aircraft loaded weight of any aircraft could have various load values that lie in a range between a partially loaded aircraft weight to a maximum aircraft takeoff weight, therefore, loaded weight of the aircraft Appeal 2021-003817 Application 16/491,168 6 is not actually disclosed and thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable and indefinite, since the limitations in the claims include a specific percentage of rotor thrust is related and proportional to the unidentified value of the loaded weight of the aircraft. Ans. 4 (emphasis added). Appellant responds that one skilled in the art would readily understand that the term “loaded weight” means “a weight which is needed to calculate takeoff parameters.” Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. We agree with Appellant that the loaded weight is a value to be calculated based on the actual payload of the aircraft. That the load value may differ depending on whether the aircraft is partially or fully loaded, as the Examiner asserts, does not render the term indefinite so long as one skilled in the art would know how to calculate such a value based on the actual payload of the aircraft. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, and 18 as being indefinite for reciting the term “loaded weight.” C. Obviousness 1. Claims 1, 3-6, 11, and 16-19 (Obvious Over Fredericks and Page) We start with independent claims 1 and 17 which the Examiner rejects as unpatentable over Fredericks and Page. See Final Act. 6-7, 9. The Examiner finds that Fredericks discloses all the limitations of the independent claims, except the limitation reciting that the takeoff hover period has “a duration less than or equal to about 7 seconds.” Id. at 7. For that missing limitation, the Examiner turns to Page and concludes it would have been obvious “to add the Page teachings of a duration less than or equal to about 7 seconds into the Fredericks [VTOL aircraft] . . . to ensure a smooth transition from VTOL mode to cruise mode.” Id. (citing Page ¶ 60). Appeal 2021-003817 Application 16/491,168 7 The Examiner errs in finding that Page discloses the takeoff hover period as claimed. Nowhere do we discern that Page supports a takeoff hover period of 7 seconds or less. Rather, as Appellant correctly notes, Page’s takeoff hover period is actually on the order of 20-30 seconds. See Appeal Br. 13-14. The Examiner’s interpretation of the takeoff hover period depicted in Page’s Figure 9 as “the period starting from hover position until the aircraft reaches the fixed wing flight mode position” is plainly wrong and entirely inconsistent with Appellant’s definition of the claimed “takeoff hover period.” Ans. 6. More specifically, according to Appellant’s Specification, the takeoff hover period is the time “during which thrust provided by rotation of rotors 34 comprised in the powertrain of SafeTilt is relatively high,” which occurs from the point when “controller 47 initiates takeoff by . . . controlling the SafeTilt aircraft power train to generate rotor thrust RT equal to about 120%W” to the point when “controller 47 rapidly decreases thrust RT from about 80%W to about 50%W” and begins the transition to conventional flight mode. Spec. ¶¶ 22, 24, Fig. 3A. In other words, the takeoff hover period as described and claimed by Appellant includes the period when the aircraft’s power train generates relatively high rotor thrust to takeoff, climb, and hover above the ground, and not simply the period when it transitions from the rotor thrust flight mode to the fixed wing flight mode as the Examiner seems to think. When the proper definition of takeoff hover period is applied to Page, one skilled in the art would understand from Page’s Figure 9 that the takeoff hover period encompasses positions A through C, which is the period where the aircraft takes off, climbs, and hovers in a rotor flight mode. Indeed, Page Appeal 2021-003817 Application 16/491,168 8 expressly describes the aircraft’s flight between positions A and C in terms of “takeoff,” “hovering,” and “thrust for rotor flight”: At initiation position A, the aircraft is shown with the engines and propellers oriented in opposite directions as shown in FIGS. 5-8. The aircraft may be on the ground G1 awaiting take off or may be hovering or flying in rotor flight mode above the ground G2. Between positions A and B, the aircraft preferably climbs to approximately 500 ft above ground level. At both positions A and B, the wings are rotating about the fuselage of the aircraft and acting as a rotor to provide thrust for rotor flight. At throttle down position B, the aircraft is preferably throttled down from a climb to hover while in rotor flight mode. Between throttle down position B and pitch-over position C, the aircraft preferably begins a pitch-over maneuver which transitions the attitude of the aircraft from a vertical orientation to a fixed wing orientation. Page ¶ 60. That description by Page coincides with Appellant’s definition of “takeoff hover period” as found in the Specification and recited by the claims. And because, according to Page, the rotor flight mode entails a climb of “approximately 500 ft above ground level” at a rate of climb (ROC) between 1000 and 1500 feet per minute, one skilled in the art would understand Page’s takeoff hover period as occurring over a period of 20 to 30 seconds, which far exceeds the claimed duration of “7 seconds” or less for the takeoff hover period. See Page ¶¶ 60, 73, 93. Thus, because the Examiner misreads Page’s takeoff hover period as encompassing something different than what is claimed, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 17 as unpatentable over Fredericks and Page. Nor do we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3-6, 11, 16, 18, and 19, which are rejected on the same basis as the independent claims. Appeal 2021-003817 Application 16/491,168 9 2. Claims 7-10 (Obvious Over Fredericks, Page, and Bevirt) The Examiner rejects claims 7-10, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, as being unpatentable over Fredericks, Page, and the additional teaching of Bevirt. See Final Act. 10-11. The Examiner does not rely on Bevirt to remedy the deficiency discussed above with respect to claim 1. See id. Thus, for the same reason as claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 7-10. 3. Claims 12-15 (Obvious Over Fredericks) The Examiner rejects dependent claims 12-15 as being unpatentable over Fredericks alone. Final Act. 11-12. But nowhere does the Examiner explain where Fredericks discloses or otherwise suggests the claim limitation of a takeoff hover period of 7 seconds or less, which is incorporated into claims 12-15 as a result of their dependency from claim 1. See id. Indeed, when addressing claim 1, the Examiner concedes that Fredericks “fails to teach” that particular limitation. And because the Examiner does not rely on any other reference to account for Fredericks’ failure, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-15. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 17 112(a) Written Description 1, 4, 17 1, 3-19 112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 3-19 1, 3-6, 11, 16-19 103 Fredericks, Page 1, 3-6, 11, 16-19 7-10 103 Fredericks, Page, Bevirt 7-10 12-15 103 Fredericks 12-15 Overall Outcome 1, 3-19 Appeal 2021-003817 Application 16/491,168 10 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation