Is Sikorsky Attempting to Inhibit Others from Developing Electric Rotorcraft?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NonSAC,
And again, thank you for the invaluable support.
The US Patent Office's acceptance of the Internet as a means of broadcasting information should help with the objective of keeping the fundamentals of 'electric powered rotary-wing aircraft' in the public domain.
I will be making reference to 'non-patent literature documents', which prceed this patent application, not to previous patents or patent applications. Therefore it is difficult to decide upon whether to use the terse '3rd Party Submission' or the more expansive 'Protest'.
I also assume, wrightly or wrongly, that a person cannot submit both; one within 60 days and then the other one at a later date. Perhaps I should select one of them and then another very interested person might select the other.
Dave
And again, thank you for the invaluable support.
The US Patent Office's acceptance of the Internet as a means of broadcasting information should help with the objective of keeping the fundamentals of 'electric powered rotary-wing aircraft' in the public domain.
I will be making reference to 'non-patent literature documents', which prceed this patent application, not to previous patents or patent applications. Therefore it is difficult to decide upon whether to use the terse '3rd Party Submission' or the more expansive 'Protest'.
I also assume, wrightly or wrongly, that a person cannot submit both; one within 60 days and then the other one at a later date. Perhaps I should select one of them and then another very interested person might select the other.
Dave
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It now appears that the 'Protest' must be filed before the publication of the non-provisional 'Patent Application'. That removes the 'Protest' from the choices.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ct Upon Housatonic
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the Protest window closes upon publication.
The 1.99 rule has some limitations as well, including that the references be patents or publications, that no explanation be provided, a limit of no more than ten references in the submission, and that the submission be made within 60 days of the publication of the application.
The 1.99 rule has some limitations as well, including that the references be patents or publications, that no explanation be provided, a limit of no more than ten references in the submission, and that the submission be made within 60 days of the publication of the application.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to all for the support; and particular thanks to NonSAC. The 'Disclosure Statement by 3rd Party Submission' has been sent to the applicants lawyer and to the US Patent Office.
Every one of the 16 Claims and the Embodiments have been countered by references to the previous conceptualizations, publications and implementations that openly preceded this brazen Patent Application.
A final (perhaps
) question.
The Korean Intellectual Property office only shows their acknowledgment of the International Application PCT/US2008/076962. Is there a way, or a reason, to pursue this application further?
Dave
Every one of the 16 Claims and the Embodiments have been countered by references to the previous conceptualizations, publications and implementations that openly preceded this brazen Patent Application.
A final (perhaps
) question. The Korean Intellectual Property office only shows their acknowledgment of the International Application PCT/US2008/076962. Is there a way, or a reason, to pursue this application further?
Dave
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ct Upon Housatonic
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, not sure. This would take some digging - a quick search found a document whereby WIPO recently discussed changing the rules to allow both applicant and third party art submissions, so I believe the likely answer to be 'very little.'
I can tell you this about the application.
(1) International applications simply reserve the right to extend protection in other countries, an applicant does not receive an 'international patent' extending the right to exclude to multiple countries on the basis of a single applicaiton. The laws and requirements are still, at this point of globalization, very local in this regard.
(2) The international application can be monitored at least two ways.
A. The application can be monitored through Public PAIR out on the USPTO website.
B. The application can be monitored through the WIPO website.
(3) You can expect to see an International Search Report published by KIPO, and possibly a patentability report as well - though I think this is optional and requires that the applicant pay an additional fee, I am not certain. The applicant may also change the claims in view of the art you provided and any action taken by the US examiner in the US applicaiton, these would show up in PAIR and on WIPO as Article 19 or 34 amendments. These claims are clearly way too broad at this point, but SAC may not bother changing them at this point, preferring instead to leave it to the examiners to drive country specific claims adjustments.
Good luck; I am glad to see some effort to keep SAC honest as to the extent of their technical contributions to the field.
I can tell you this about the application.
(1) International applications simply reserve the right to extend protection in other countries, an applicant does not receive an 'international patent' extending the right to exclude to multiple countries on the basis of a single applicaiton. The laws and requirements are still, at this point of globalization, very local in this regard.
(2) The international application can be monitored at least two ways.
A. The application can be monitored through Public PAIR out on the USPTO website.
B. The application can be monitored through the WIPO website.
(3) You can expect to see an International Search Report published by KIPO, and possibly a patentability report as well - though I think this is optional and requires that the applicant pay an additional fee, I am not certain. The applicant may also change the claims in view of the art you provided and any action taken by the US examiner in the US applicaiton, these would show up in PAIR and on WIPO as Article 19 or 34 amendments. These claims are clearly way too broad at this point, but SAC may not bother changing them at this point, preferring instead to leave it to the examiners to drive country specific claims adjustments.
Good luck; I am glad to see some effort to keep SAC honest as to the extent of their technical contributions to the field.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ct Upon Housatonic
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
The ten rNPL references you submitted to the USPTO to consider in the examination of this application were made of record on July 17, 2009. They are visible out in PAIR, and accessible from the USPTO's website.
It will be interesting to see if they are used by the examiner in the subsequent office actions.
It's also good to see the process work.
Cheers!
The ten rNPL references you submitted to the USPTO to consider in the examination of this application were made of record on July 17, 2009. They are visible out in PAIR, and accessible from the USPTO's website.
It will be interesting to see if they are used by the examiner in the subsequent office actions.
It's also good to see the process work.
Cheers!
Last edited by NonSAC; 15th Aug 2009 at 01:20.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NonSAC,
Yes. It might give some clarification on the US Patent Office's position as to the Internet as an 'electronic publisher' and disseminator of 'prior art'.
It has been an interesting and educational experience, in large part due to your guidance.
It appears that a self-produced patent application will cost less than $1,000.00.
Should any part of this sweeping patent application be accepted, it might create a desire to submit a patent application for a Teleportation Machine. The single claim will cover the transportation of; anything, over any distance, in any direction, through any time warp, and into any parallel universe. Of course, the accompanying image will be that of a blank box; perhaps with a drawing of Schroedinger's cat on it.
Dave
It will be interesting to see if they are used by the examiner in the subsequent office actions.
It has been an interesting and educational experience, in large part due to your guidance.
____________________________________
It appears that a self-produced patent application will cost less than $1,000.00.
Should any part of this sweeping patent application be accepted, it might create a desire to submit a patent application for a Teleportation Machine. The single claim will cover the transportation of; anything, over any distance, in any direction, through any time warp, and into any parallel universe. Of course, the accompanying image will be that of a blank box; perhaps with a drawing of Schroedinger's cat on it.
Dave
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Value of a patent...
Dave,
As I'm sure you're well aware, the value of any patent ultimately is not even worth the paper it's printed on. The strength of any patent is only as good as the skills of the IP attorney that you hire to defend it in court.
Large companies like Sikorsky, tend to have lots of IP attorneys on retainer with nothing to do, so they have them file lots of patent applications with lots of speculative claims, since it doesn't really cost them anything.
On the other hand, for a small guy like you to litigate a patent infringement case in court, against a wealthy corporation like Sikorsky, would cost millions. Sikorsky knows this, and would drag out the legal process for years, in order to bankrupt you.
After reading Sikorsky's electrical rotor patent application, I was kind of surprised at how general the scope of their claims was. I can't honestly believe that the USPTO examiner would approve any of those claims. But I guess that they just decided to toss all of it against the wall and see what stuck.
Honestly, if push came to shove, I think you have a solid IP case against Sikorsky. But unfortunately, the financial damages you would recoup would be nothing, since you have not incurred any demonstrable financial injuries due to Sikorsky's IP infringement.
As I'm sure you're well aware, the value of any patent ultimately is not even worth the paper it's printed on. The strength of any patent is only as good as the skills of the IP attorney that you hire to defend it in court.
Large companies like Sikorsky, tend to have lots of IP attorneys on retainer with nothing to do, so they have them file lots of patent applications with lots of speculative claims, since it doesn't really cost them anything.
On the other hand, for a small guy like you to litigate a patent infringement case in court, against a wealthy corporation like Sikorsky, would cost millions. Sikorsky knows this, and would drag out the legal process for years, in order to bankrupt you.
After reading Sikorsky's electrical rotor patent application, I was kind of surprised at how general the scope of their claims was. I can't honestly believe that the USPTO examiner would approve any of those claims. But I guess that they just decided to toss all of it against the wall and see what stuck.
Honestly, if push came to shove, I think you have a solid IP case against Sikorsky. But unfortunately, the financial damages you would recoup would be nothing, since you have not incurred any demonstrable financial injuries due to Sikorsky's IP infringement.
The only joy you might feel from the whole affair would be, as the Germans say, "Scheudenfraud". Or as we say in America, "Stickin' it to the man!".
Best of luck to you.
Terry
Best of luck to you.
Terry
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ct Upon Housatonic
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
Shortly after this discussion WIPO published a search report addressing the related international application. The international search report is available at http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/images1/PC...9/09079049.pdf.
Of note is that the search report identifies an 'X' type reference, that is one that, in the view of the searcher, makes the identified claims unpatentable in view of the prior art. The reference is a patent application publication to Leonard Clark and H. Peter Greene, published as US 2004-0200924. The KIPO searcher believes that this reference reads on all 15 claims appearing in the international application, making them unpatentable in some WIPO countries under existing local law.
Sikorsky, in keeping with its duty of disclosure in prosecution of the related US application, has duly disclosed the international search report and the references it identifies individually, to the USPTO.
It will be interesting to see if the USPTO examiner applies the reference in an initial, non-final rejection.
- Cheers
Shortly after this discussion WIPO published a search report addressing the related international application. The international search report is available at http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/images1/PC...9/09079049.pdf.
Of note is that the search report identifies an 'X' type reference, that is one that, in the view of the searcher, makes the identified claims unpatentable in view of the prior art. The reference is a patent application publication to Leonard Clark and H. Peter Greene, published as US 2004-0200924. The KIPO searcher believes that this reference reads on all 15 claims appearing in the international application, making them unpatentable in some WIPO countries under existing local law.
Sikorsky, in keeping with its duty of disclosure in prosecution of the related US application, has duly disclosed the international search report and the references it identifies individually, to the USPTO.
It will be interesting to see if the USPTO examiner applies the reference in an initial, non-final rejection.
- Cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NonSAC
Thank you for the link to the International Application Report and your clarification of it.
You have answered my previous naive curiosity as to what caused the lawyer for Sikorsky to submit this additional information in the 'Information Disclosure Statement By Applicant' dated 09-14-2009.
Seasons greetings to you and to all.
Dave
Thank you for the link to the International Application Report and your clarification of it.
You have answered my previous naive curiosity as to what caused the lawyer for Sikorsky to submit this additional information in the 'Information Disclosure Statement By Applicant' dated 09-14-2009.
Seasons greetings to you and to all.
Dave
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Electric rotor drive with servo flaps
Dave,
Here's a fairly large electrically driven rotor with TE servo flaps (from Boeing):
The electric drive system in that Ames 40 ft. tunnel is at least a couple hundred HP.
Here's a fairly large electrically driven rotor with TE servo flaps (from Boeing):
The electric drive system in that Ames 40 ft. tunnel is at least a couple hundred HP.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi riff raff,
Thanks for the picture. It certainly looks like electric controls, and eventually electric drives, will be part of rotorcraft's future.
The trailing flap and the blade tip are of a different color than the rest of the blade. Maybe, or maybe not, they are considering something at the tip also. Boeing and Ames produced a report entitled 'Wind Tunnel Test of a Model Rotor with a Free-tip' many years ago.
Dave
Thanks for the picture. It certainly looks like electric controls, and eventually electric drives, will be part of rotorcraft's future.
The trailing flap and the blade tip are of a different color than the rest of the blade. Maybe, or maybe not, they are considering something at the tip also. Boeing and Ames produced a report entitled 'Wind Tunnel Test of a Model Rotor with a Free-tip' many years ago.
Dave
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The abstract in Sikorsky's patent application states "A rotary-wing aircraft with an electric motor mounted along an axis of rotation to drive a rotor system about the axis of rotation" In addition, claim 11 states "The aircraft recited in claim 8, further comprising a servo system mounted within said rotor system to pitch a rotor blade mounted to a rotor hub."
US patent 4,720,059, issued January 19, 1988 to Hoyt Stearns, states the use of a motor that is mounted along the same axis of rotation as the rotor that it drives. It also states "... individual electric pitch control motors are mounted for individually adjusting the pitch of each of the blades."
I wonder if the examiner will uncover this previous patent?
US patent 4,720,059, issued January 19, 1988 to Hoyt Stearns, states the use of a motor that is mounted along the same axis of rotation as the rotor that it drives. It also states "... individual electric pitch control motors are mounted for individually adjusting the pitch of each of the blades."
I wonder if the examiner will uncover this previous patent?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ct Upon Housatonic
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
I expect the examiner will use what he considers the 'best reference' or 'references' to reject the claims he deems unpatenable in Sikorsky's application. Whether that includes US 4,720,059 depends on what the examiner uncovers in the search, prior art dates, and whether a single reference encompasses the claimed subject matter or there is a need to need to combine multiple references.
As a preliminary matter, the examiner will only reject claims; the abstract may garner objection(s) if violative of the rules or possibly limit the scope of the claims if written so as to narrow the claim breadth during subsequent litigation. Hence a common technique is to write the abstract to mirror broadest independent claim, as reflected here by the abstract being essentially claim 1 verbatum.
In the Sikorsky application claim 11 depends from claim 8, so its coverage is limited by the limitations recited in both claim 8 and claim 11. Claim 8, though independent, appears to be claim 1 with the added limitation that the motor be incorporated in the hub. So for US 4,720,059 to anticipate claim 11 it would need to teach both the limitation that an electric motor driving the rotor about an axis of rotation be incorproated in the hub and that it include a servo system to pitch a rotor blade, thereby teaching each limitation of claim 8 and 11.
Looking at the motor (see element 30 in Fig, 1 in US 4,720,059) it does not appear to me that it teaches an 'electric motor mounted at least partially within a hub,' though the drawing is tough and one could argue that the motor shaft extends into the hub in Fig. 1 thereby teaching the limitation. I don't find this argument persuasive, and accordingly see a claim 11 rejection solely on US 4,720,059 unlikely.
The examiner could, however, find another reference which teaches the the claim 8 limitations, combine it with US 4,720,059's teaching of the 'servo system to pitch the blade', and reject claim 11 as obvious in view of the combined references. These sort of rejections are extremely fashionable at the PTO due to recent judicial interpretations of the governing patentability statute, and are commonly applied in the mechanical arts.
Indeed, it appears that the PTO is permitted to provide successively thinner justifications for reference combinations - seemingly irrespective of the field from which it was drawn.
It will be interesting to see the first action on the Sikorsky application.
- Cheers
I expect the examiner will use what he considers the 'best reference' or 'references' to reject the claims he deems unpatenable in Sikorsky's application. Whether that includes US 4,720,059 depends on what the examiner uncovers in the search, prior art dates, and whether a single reference encompasses the claimed subject matter or there is a need to need to combine multiple references.
As a preliminary matter, the examiner will only reject claims; the abstract may garner objection(s) if violative of the rules or possibly limit the scope of the claims if written so as to narrow the claim breadth during subsequent litigation. Hence a common technique is to write the abstract to mirror broadest independent claim, as reflected here by the abstract being essentially claim 1 verbatum.
In the Sikorsky application claim 11 depends from claim 8, so its coverage is limited by the limitations recited in both claim 8 and claim 11. Claim 8, though independent, appears to be claim 1 with the added limitation that the motor be incorporated in the hub. So for US 4,720,059 to anticipate claim 11 it would need to teach both the limitation that an electric motor driving the rotor about an axis of rotation be incorproated in the hub and that it include a servo system to pitch a rotor blade, thereby teaching each limitation of claim 8 and 11.
Looking at the motor (see element 30 in Fig, 1 in US 4,720,059) it does not appear to me that it teaches an 'electric motor mounted at least partially within a hub,' though the drawing is tough and one could argue that the motor shaft extends into the hub in Fig. 1 thereby teaching the limitation. I don't find this argument persuasive, and accordingly see a claim 11 rejection solely on US 4,720,059 unlikely.
The examiner could, however, find another reference which teaches the the claim 8 limitations, combine it with US 4,720,059's teaching of the 'servo system to pitch the blade', and reject claim 11 as obvious in view of the combined references. These sort of rejections are extremely fashionable at the PTO due to recent judicial interpretations of the governing patentability statute, and are commonly applied in the mechanical arts.
Indeed, it appears that the PTO is permitted to provide successively thinner justifications for reference combinations - seemingly irrespective of the field from which it was drawn.
It will be interesting to see the first action on the Sikorsky application.
- Cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NonSAC,
As always, your remarks are appreciated and educational.
As you state, Hoyt Stearns' patent will probably have no effect on Sikorsky's claim 8 and its dependent claims. By the same reasoning, this should also apply to claim 13 and its dependent claims.
IMHO, it still appears that my 'Information Disclosure Statement By 3rd Party Submission' counters every single claim; with the exception of the minor claims 10 and 14 [overrunning clutch between drive and rotor], and these two claims are totally obvious to all in the rotorcraft industry.
Yes.
It will also be interesting to see if the Internet is deemed to be a means of public disclosure.
Dave
As always, your remarks are appreciated and educational.
As you state, Hoyt Stearns' patent will probably have no effect on Sikorsky's claim 8 and its dependent claims. By the same reasoning, this should also apply to claim 13 and its dependent claims.
IMHO, it still appears that my 'Information Disclosure Statement By 3rd Party Submission' counters every single claim; with the exception of the minor claims 10 and 14 [overrunning clutch between drive and rotor], and these two claims are totally obvious to all in the rotorcraft industry.
It will be interesting to see the first action on the Sikorsky application.
It will also be interesting to see if the Internet is deemed to be a means of public disclosure.
Dave
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 30th Dec 2009 at 22:12.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patent examiners are clueless....
Dave,
Based on my recent experiences with US patent examiners, I would not expect them to do a thorough job.
As an example, I filed for a US patent early in 2006. It had 32 claims. I finally got a response late in 2007 and the examiner initially rejected 29 of the 32 claims, mostly based on what he stated was "obviousness to one skilled in the art" taking into account bits and pieces of 3 or 4 different patents. What was particularly frustrating was that the examiner's references had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter contained in my application. Most of his objections were just fill-in-the-blank boiler plate responses. The logic and examples the examiner cited were, frankly, rather bizarre and incoherent. Regardless, I had to submit a costly response outlining where and why he was wrong.
I received another office action from the examiner a few months later, agreeing with most of my objections. So now he was going to allow 26 of my 32 claims, but he also had some additional objections to the remaining claims. At this point, I decided to give up and accept the 26 of 32 claims the examiner was going to allow. Mostly for financial reasons.
To make a long story short, the guys working as examiners at the US patent office are apparently not "the cream of the crop". For the most part, they're likely just federal office drones doing just enough not to get fired. Sad but true. And to make it worse, my patent attorney charges over $300/hr. to file responses to the sloppy paperwork these patent examiners generate.
That's my sad story, just so you don't feel alone.
Regards,
riff_raff
Based on my recent experiences with US patent examiners, I would not expect them to do a thorough job.
As an example, I filed for a US patent early in 2006. It had 32 claims. I finally got a response late in 2007 and the examiner initially rejected 29 of the 32 claims, mostly based on what he stated was "obviousness to one skilled in the art" taking into account bits and pieces of 3 or 4 different patents. What was particularly frustrating was that the examiner's references had absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter contained in my application. Most of his objections were just fill-in-the-blank boiler plate responses. The logic and examples the examiner cited were, frankly, rather bizarre and incoherent. Regardless, I had to submit a costly response outlining where and why he was wrong.
I received another office action from the examiner a few months later, agreeing with most of my objections. So now he was going to allow 26 of my 32 claims, but he also had some additional objections to the remaining claims. At this point, I decided to give up and accept the 26 of 32 claims the examiner was going to allow. Mostly for financial reasons.
To make a long story short, the guys working as examiners at the US patent office are apparently not "the cream of the crop". For the most part, they're likely just federal office drones doing just enough not to get fired. Sad but true. And to make it worse, my patent attorney charges over $300/hr. to file responses to the sloppy paperwork these patent examiners generate.
That's my sad story, just so you don't feel alone.
Regards,
riff_raff
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
riff_raff
It is a sad situation. I agree with your comments about government employees. In addition, the low cost of the actual filing of a Patent Application will resulted in approximately 300,000 new US Patent Applications in 2009. These employees may not have the time to properly process these applications, even if they are consciences individuals.
It has been reported that the Congress is unable to revise the patent situation in the US due to resistance from the drug industry in general, plus United Technologies and 3M specifically. Why would large companies want it changed when they can be granted nebulous patents? They can then use these patents as the crowbar to pry open the Court's door and then use their financial resources as the mallet to knockout the financially handicapped opponent.
Occasionally we read about a 'small guy' winning against a large corporation. However, it is probably the rarity of this event that gave cause for the article.
Happy New Year,
Dave
It is a sad situation. I agree with your comments about government employees. In addition, the low cost of the actual filing of a Patent Application will resulted in approximately 300,000 new US Patent Applications in 2009. These employees may not have the time to properly process these applications, even if they are consciences individuals.
It has been reported that the Congress is unable to revise the patent situation in the US due to resistance from the drug industry in general, plus United Technologies and 3M specifically. Why would large companies want it changed when they can be granted nebulous patents? They can then use these patents as the crowbar to pry open the Court's door and then use their financial resources as the mallet to knockout the financially handicapped opponent.
Occasionally we read about a 'small guy' winning against a large corporation. However, it is probably the rarity of this event that gave cause for the article.
Happy New Year,
Dave
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US Patent Office gave a 'non-final' rejection of all 16 claims in Sikorsky's Patent Application filed Jan/23/2008; as previously mentioned by nonSAC.
My July/14/2009 3rd-party Submission to this Patent Application included a hard-copy of a Sept/28/2006 Internet web page; which was also linked to on a PPRuNe posting. This particular page says, "One axial flux electric motor (disk motor) located in each rotor". This page also has 2 drawings showing the electric motor as being completely within the rotor hub.
As required, a duplicate of this 3rd-party Submission was sent directly to Sikorsky's lawyer.
Two weeks ago Sikorsky's lawyer submitted an Amendment to the original Patent Application. It retains the original 16 rejected claims, plus 7 new claims.
The original claims in Sikorsky's Patent Application are on an electric motor and a rotor mounted on a common axis of rotation and to an electric motor mounted at least partially within the rotor hub or within the rotor shaft. The new claims are narrowed to, "... wherein said electric motor is mounted completely within said rotor hub."
The lawyer's new claims in the Amendment are for all intent and purposes identical to that in the 3rd-party submission, which was previously mailed to him.
.
My July/14/2009 3rd-party Submission to this Patent Application included a hard-copy of a Sept/28/2006 Internet web page; which was also linked to on a PPRuNe posting. This particular page says, "One axial flux electric motor (disk motor) located in each rotor". This page also has 2 drawings showing the electric motor as being completely within the rotor hub.
As required, a duplicate of this 3rd-party Submission was sent directly to Sikorsky's lawyer.
Two weeks ago Sikorsky's lawyer submitted an Amendment to the original Patent Application. It retains the original 16 rejected claims, plus 7 new claims.
The original claims in Sikorsky's Patent Application are on an electric motor and a rotor mounted on a common axis of rotation and to an electric motor mounted at least partially within the rotor hub or within the rotor shaft. The new claims are narrowed to, "... wherein said electric motor is mounted completely within said rotor hub."
The lawyer's new claims in the Amendment are for all intent and purposes identical to that in the 3rd-party submission, which was previously mailed to him.
____________________________
Sikorsky Innovations
Progressive Innovations; by engineers developing better products?
~ or ~
Regressive Innovations; by lawyers impeding others from developing better products?
~ or ~
Regressive Innovations; by lawyers impeding others from developing better products?
.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Nov/19/2010 the US Patent Office rendered a 'Final Action'.
ALL 23 CLAIMS HAVE BEEN REJECTED.
It appears that this rejection was strongly based on the fact that the ideas, which Sikorsky was attempting to patent, were previously known and obvious.
ALL 23 CLAIMS HAVE BEEN REJECTED.
It appears that this rejection was strongly based on the fact that the ideas, which Sikorsky was attempting to patent, were previously known and obvious.