Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2024-11-04)
Rejection types: 102 - Lack of Novelty, 103 - Obviousness, 112 - Written Description/Enablement

CLAIMS:
CLAIMS:

What is claimed is:

1\. A system comprising:at least one microcontroller in communication with at least one engine,
wherein the at least one microcontroller is configured to:
determine an angular position of at least one inboard propeller attached to the at least one engine;
send a signal to halt rotation of the at least one inboard propeller such
that the at least one inboard propeller is held in an attitude that provides for clearance of a propeller blade to the ground upon landing; and
wherein the at least one inboard propeller would strike the ground during rotation of the at least one inboard propeller upon landing.

2\. The system of claim 1, further comprising:an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); and
one or more inner wing panels of the UAV;
wherein the least one inboard propeller is attached to the at least one engine
disposed on the one or more inner wing panels.

3\. The system of claim 2, further comprising:one or more outer wing panels of the UAV, wherein the one or more outer wing panels are disposed on either side of the one or more inner wing
panels, and wherein the one or more outer wing panels are disposed at an upward angle to a plane formed by the one or more inner wing panels.

4\. The system of claim 3, further comprising:at least one tip propeller attached to at least one engine disposed on the one or
more outer wing panels.

5\. The system of claim 4, further comprising:

one or more landing pods of the UAV, wherein the one or more landing pods are attached to the one or more inner wing panels of the UAV to assist in landing of the UAV, wherein a distance from a center of a propeller hub to a tip of the at least one inboard propeller is greater than a height of the one or more landing pods, and wherein the at least one outboard propeller is identical to the at least one inboard propeller, and wherein the at least one outboard propeller can freely rotate when the UAV is on the ground.

6\. The system of claim 2, wherein the UAV is a high altitude long endurance aircraft.

7\. The system of claim 2, further comprising a solar array covering at least a portion of the one or more inner wing panels.

8\. The system of claim 1, further comprising:a position sensor in communication with the microcontroller, wherein the position sensor detects a position of the at least one inboard propeller, and
wherein the position sensor is a Hall-Effect rotary position sensor.

9\. The system of claim 2, wherein the at least one microcontroller is further configured to:determine an altitude of the UAV;
send the signal to halt rotation of the at least one inboard propeller if the determined altitude is below a threshold altitude; and send a signal to adjust rotation of the at least one outboard propeller while the at least one inboard propeller is held in the attitude that provides for clearance of the propeller blade to the ground.

10\. The system of claim 2, wherein the at least one microcontroller is further configured to:determine an altitude of the UAV; and

send a signal to start rotation of the at least one inboard propeller if the determined altitude is above a threshold altitude.

11\. A method comprising:determining, by at least one microcontroller in communication with at least one engine, an angular position of at least one inboard propeller connected to the at least one engine;
sending, by the at least one microcontroller, a signal to halt rotation of the at least one inboard propeller such that the at least one inboard propeller is
held in an attitude that provides for clearance of a propeller blade to a ground upon landing; and
wherein the at least one inboard propeller would strike the ground during rotation of the at least one inboard propeller upon landing.

12\. The method of claim 11, wherein the at least one engine is on an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), and wherein the at least one inboard propeller is disposed on one or more inner wing panels of the UAV.

13\. The method of claim 12, further comprising:determining, by the at least one microcontroller, an altitude of the UAV.

14\. The method of claim 13, wherein the signal to halt rotation of the at least one inboard propeller is sent if the determined altitude is below a threshold altitude.

15\. The method of claim 13, further comprising:sending, by the at least one microcontroller, a signal to adjust rotation of at least one outboard propeller connected to at least one engine while the at least one inboard propeller is held in the attitude that provides for
clearance of the propeller blade to the ground upon landing wherein the at least one outboard propeller is disposed on one or more outer wing panels,
wherein the at least one outboard propeller is identical to the at least one

inboard propeller, and wherein the at least one outboard propeller can freely rotate when the UAV is on the ground.

16\. A system comprising:at least one microcontroller in communication with at least one engine,
wherein at least one inboard propeller is attached to the at least one engine,
and wherein the at least one microcontroller is configured to:
determine an angular position of the at least one inboard propeller; and send a signal to the at least one inboard propeller such that the at least
one inboard propeller is held in an attitude that provides for clearance of a propeller blade to a surface, wherein at least a portion of the at least one inboard propeller would contact the surface during rotation of the at least one inboard propeller.

17\. The system of claim 16, further comprising: an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), wherein the UAV further comprises at least one tip propeller attached to the at least one engine of the UAV, wherein the at least one tip propeller can rotate freely without contacting the surface during rotation of the at least one tip propeller when the UAV is located on the surface.

18\. The system of claim 17, wherein the at least one microcontroller is further configured to:send a signal to the at least one tip propeller to adjust a thrust to guide the UAV in for landing while the at least one inboard propeller is
held in the attitude that provides for clearance of the propeller blade to the surface, wherein the at least one tip propeller retains lateral control of the UAV during landing.

19\. The system of claim 18, wherein the at least one microcontroller is further configured to:send a signal to the at least one tip propeller to adjust a thrust to guide the UAV for take-off while the at least one inboard propeller is in

the attitude that provides for clearance of the propeller blade to the surface, wherein the at least one tip propeller retains lateral control of the UAV during take-off; and
send a signal to the at least one inboard propeller after take-off such that the at least one inboard propeller starts rotation.

20\. The system of claim 18, further comprising:one or more landing pods to assist in the safe landing of the UAV at the surface, wherein a distance from a center of a propeller hub to a tip of the
at least one inboard propeller is greater than a height of the one or more landing pods, and wherein the distance from the center of the propeller hub to the tip of the at least one tip propeller is greater than or equal to a height from the center of the propeller hub of the at least one tip propeller to a bottom of the one or more landing pods;
one or more inner wing panels of the UAV, wherein the at least one inboard propeller is attached to the one or more inner wing panels;
one or more outer wing panels of the UAV, wherein the at least one tip propeller is attached to the one or more outer wing panels, wherein the one or more outer wing panels are disposed on either side of the one or more inner wing panels, and wherein the one or more outer wing panels are disposed at an upward angle to a plane formed by the one or more inner wing panels; and
a position sensor in communication with the microcontroller, wherein the position sensor detects a position of the at least one inboard propeller.
5 10 15 20 25 30

OFFICE ACTION:
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 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 9 recites the limitation the at least one outboard propeller in line 6.  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) 1, 8, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Firanski (US PgPub #2015/0008857).
For Claim 1, the figures of Firanski ‘857 disclose a system comprising: at least one microcontroller (804) in communication with at least one engine (800), wherein the at least one microcontroller is configured to: determine an angular position (706) of at least one inboard propeller attached to the at least one engine; send a signal (712) to halt rotation of the at least one inboard propeller such that the at least one inboard propeller is held in an attitude that provides for clearance of a propeller blade to the ground upon landing; and wherein the at least one inboard propeller would strike the ground during rotation of the at least one inboard propeller upon landing.
For Claim 8, the figures and paragraph [0030] of Firanski ‘857 disclose a position sensor (110 and 802) in communication with the microcontroller, wherein the position sensor detects a position of the at least one inboard propeller, and wherein the position is a Hall effect rotary position sensor.
For Claim 11, the figures of Firanski ‘857 disclose a method comprising: determining, by at least one microcontroller (804) in communication with at least one engine, an angular position (706) of at least one inboard propeller connected to the at least one engine; sending, by the at least one microcontroller, a signal to halt rotation of the at least one inboard propeller such that the at least one inboard propeller is held in an attitude that provides for clearance of a propeller blade to a ground upon landing; and wherein the at least one inboard propeller would strike the ground during rotation of the at least one inboard propeller upon landing.
For Claim 16, the figures of Firanski ‘857 disclose at least one microcontroller (804) in communication with at least one engine (800), wherein at least one inboard propeller is attached to the at least one engine, and wherein the at least one microcontroller is configured to determine an angular position of the at least one inboard propeller; and send a signal to the at least one inboard propeller such that they at least one inboard propeller is held in an attitude that provides for clearance of a propeller blade to a surface, wherein at least a portion of the at least one inboard propeller would contact the surface during rotation of the at least one inboard propeller.
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) 2-7, 10, 12-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firanski (US PgPub #2015/0008857) as applied to claims 1, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of Rawdon (US PgPub #2016/0144969).
For Claims 2-4 and 17, while Firanski ‘857 discloses a fuselage mounted propeller on the UAV and that the propeller system can be used on other flying aircrafts, it is silent about the UAV having inboard and outboard wing panels with propellers and engines attached to the panels.  However, figures 1A-1B of Rawdon ‘969 teach a UAV having an inner wing panel (12) having inboard propellers with engines (18) and outer wing panels (14 and 16) that disposed at an upward angle to a plane formed by the inner wing panel and having a tip propeller with engine disposed one the outer wing panel that are free to rotate without hitting the ground surface.  Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the known propeller and engine system of Firanski ‘857 on a larger UAV as taught by Rawdon ‘969.  The motivation to do so would be to provide greater thrust with larger propeller blade diameters which allowing for the propellers to be controlled to eliminate ground contract and damage to the aircraft.
For Claim 5, while Firanski ‘857 teaches a propeller that would hit the ground and paragraph [0003] discloses that it is known to not have landing gear or having landing gear that is not sufficient to clear the propeller during landing, it is silent about having landing pods.  However, the figures of Rawdon ‘969 teach having landing pods (20).  Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Firanksi ‘857 with the landing pods of Rawdon ‘969.  The motivation to do so would be to use larger landing pods for greater stability.
For Claims 6-7, while Firanski ‘857 is silent about the UAV being a high altitude long endurance aircraft having solar arrays covering the wings, figures 1A-1B and the abstract of Rawdon ‘969 teaches a high endurance UAV that has solar panels covering the wings of the UAV so as to provide power to the UAV.  Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Firanski ‘857 with the long endurance solar powered UAV of Rawdon ‘969.  The motivation to do so would be to use clean energy for a more efficient aircraft.
For Claim 10, Firanski ‘857 discloses that the microcontroller sends a signal to start rotation of the propeller when the UAV is above the ground.
For Claims 12-15, while Firanski ‘857 discloses a fuselage mounted propeller on a UAV that is controlled by a microcontroller to halt rotation of the propeller or rotate the propeller based on the height or location of the UAV, the propeller system can be used on other flying aircrafts, it is silent about the UAV having inboard and outboard wing panels with propellers and engines attached to the panels.  However, figures 1A-1B of Rawdon ‘969 teach a UAV having an inner wing panel (12) having inboard propellers with engines (18) and outer wing panels (14 and 16)  that disposed at an upward angle to a plane formed by the inner wing panel and having an outboard propeller with engine disposed one the outer wing panel, the inboard and outboard propellers being identical.  Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the known propeller and engine system of Firanski ‘857 on a larger UAV as taught by Rawdon ‘969.  The motivation to do so would be to provide greater thrust with larger propeller blade diameters which allowing for the propellers to be controlled to eliminate ground contract and damage to the aircraft.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firanski (US PgPub #2015/0008857) in view of Rawdon (US PgPub #2016/0144969) as applied to claims 2 and 17 above, and further in view of Rahrig (US Patent #10526069).
For Claims 9, 18, and 19, while the combination of Firanski ‘857 and Rawdon ‘969 teach controlling an inner propeller to halt to avoid contact of the ground, it is silent about adjusting other propellers when the inner propeller is halted.  However, figure 12 of Rahrig ‘069 teaches that it is known to halt rotation of the larger blade (200) that would hit the ground and to send a signal to rotate the smaller propeller (202) to provide thrust for takeoff and landing.  Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Firanski ‘857 and Rawdon ‘969 with the propeller control of Rahrig ‘069.  The motivation to do so would be to provide thrust for the aircraft during take off and landing while protecting the larger propeller that can be used once there is clearance to provide more efficient thrust.
For Claim 20, while Firanski ‘857 discloses a fuselage mounted propeller on the UAV and that the propeller system can be used on other flying aircrafts and teaches a propeller that would hit the ground and paragraph [0003] discloses that it is known to not have landing gear or having landing gear that is not sufficient to clear the propeller during landing, it is silent about the UAV having inboard and outboard wing panels with propellers and engines attached to the panels and having landing pods.  However, figures 1A-1B of Rawdon ‘969 teach a UAV having an inner wing panel (12) having inboard propellers with engines (18) and outer wing panels (14 and 16) that disposed at an upward angle to a plane formed by the inner wing panel and having a tip propeller with engine disposed one the outer wing panel that are free to rotate without hitting the ground surface and having landing pods (20).  Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the known propeller and engine system and landing pods of Firanski ‘857 on a larger UAV as taught by Rawdon ‘969.  The motivation to do so would be to provide greater thrust with larger propeller blade diameters which allowing for the propellers to be controlled to eliminate ground contract and damage to the aircraft and to use larger landing pods for greater stability.
Conclusion


NEXT OFFICE 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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 2/20/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent #11724793 has been reviewed and is accepted.  The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: See Applicant’s arguments filed 2/4/2025.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee.  Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion