SUNLIGHT AEROSPACE INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 21, 2020

2020001624 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2020)

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.
15/075,098 03/18/2016 SERGEY V. FROLOV SP030 1072
54698 7590 09/21/2020
MOSER TABOADA
1030 BROAD STREET
SUITE 203
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
HUTCHENS, CHRISTOPHER D.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2020 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SERGEY V. FROLOV, MICHAEL CYRUS,
ALLAN J. BRUCE and JOHN P. MOUSSOURIS
__________

Appeal 2020-001624
Application 15/075,098
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–22, and 25–28, which constitute all the
claims before us for review.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “SUNLIGHT
PHOTONICS INC.” Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 29 is withdrawn from consideration. Id. at 19.
Appeal 2020-001624
Application 15/075,098

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to methods “for close formation flight, and
in particular for flight control for organizing and maintaining close formation
flight.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 1 and 22 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
added bracketed notations, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of operating aircraft for flight in a close
formation, comprising:
[(a)] establishing a communication link between a first
aircraft and a second aircraft;
[(b)] assigning to at least one of the first aircraft or the
second aircraft, via the communication link, initial positions
relative to one another in the close formation;
[(c)] providing flight control input for aligning the first
and second aircraft in their respective initial positions;
[(d)] taking airflow measurements at the second aircraft
for identifying a position of at least one vortex generated by at
least one wingtip of the first aircraft from the airflow
measurements taken at the second aircraft, wherein the first
aircraft leads the second aircraft in the close formation; and
[(e)] providing at least one flight control input to adjust
a relative position between the first aircraft and the second
aircraft based on the identified position of the at least one
vortex.
(Appeal Br. 13, Claims App.)
Appeal 2020-001624
Application 15/075,098

3
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 4–22, 25, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Whitehead et al. (US 2014/0214243
A1, pub. July 31, 2014) (“Whitehead”).
II. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Whitehead and Pillai et al. (US 9,104,201 B1, iss. Aug. 11, 2015)
(“Pillai”).
OPINION
Anticipation by Whitehead
A determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) requires that we compare the claim to the prior art reference and
make factual findings that “each and every limitation is found either
expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference.” Celeritas Techs.
Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also
In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We make factual
findings as to whether steps (d) and (e) of independent claim 1 are found in
Whitehead, which are the only limitations argued by Appellant.
Appellant argues that Whitehead fails to disclose step (d) of “taking
airflow measurements at the second aircraft for identifying a position of at
least one vortex generated by at least one wingtip of the first aircraft from
the airflow measurements taken at the second aircraft, wherein the first
aircraft leads the second aircraft in the close formation” and step (e) of
“providing at least one flight control input to adjust a relative position
between the first aircraft and the second aircraft based on the identified
position of the at least one vortex.” See Appeal Br. 6. We are not
persuaded.
Appeal 2020-001624
Application 15/075,098

4
Whitehead is directed to an apparatus for controlling the formation of
a trailing aircraft relative to a vortex generated by a leading aircraft.
Whitehead, Abstract. Whitehead’s apparatus includes a position module
configured to determine a position of the vortex, a position of the trailing
aircraft relative to the vortex, and a desired position of the trailing aircraft
relative to the vortex. Id. ¶ 44 (cited Ans. 4). The positions determined by
the position module are based directly or indirectly on the leading aircraft
data, trailing aircraft data, and an estimate of wind conditions. Id. The
position module includes a wind estimation module that estimates “the wind
conditions based on a relationship between the velocity of the trailing
aircraft 20 relative to the airmass in body frame, the inertial velocity of the
trailing aircraft, and the velocity of the airmass” (id. ¶ 47), and the estimated
wind conditions such as a wind velocity vector are used by the vortex
position module to determine the position of the vortex generated by the
leading aircraft. Id. ¶ 48; see also id., Fig 4 (cited Ans. 4).
Step (d) of claim 1 requires taking airflow measurements at the
second aircraft for identifying a position of at least one vortex generated by
at least one wingtip of the first aircraft. Appellant’s Specification discloses
that the claimed “airflow measurements at the second aircraft, for sensing a
first vortex generated by a wingtip of the first aircraft . . . may include at
least one of airflow velocity vector, airflow speed, airflow direction, air
pressure, air temperature, or an aircraft angle of attack at the second
aircraft.” Spec. ¶ 170 (cited Appeal Br. 4). As such, Whitehead’s
description of estimating wind conditions based on the velocity of the
trailing aircraft for determining the position of the vortex generated by the
leading aircraft, anticipates step (d) of claim 1.
Appeal 2020-001624
Application 15/075,098

5
We are not persuaded that Whitehead’s disclosure is limited to
“airflow measurements taken by the lead aircraft and non-airflow
measurements taken by a second aircraft are used to identify a position of a
vortex.” Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4–5. As discussed, Whitehead
describes using estimated wind conditions (e.g., the velocity of the trailing
aircraft) to determine the position of the vortex. See also Whitehead ¶ 47
(measured angle of attack of trailing aircraft); cf. Spec. ¶ 170 (“aircraft angle
of attack at the second aircraft”).
Further, Whitehead discloses that “[t]he desired aircraft position
module 220 is configured to determine a position of the trailing aircraft 20
relative to the vortex 30 that will achieve a desired aerodynamic and
operational benefit from the updraft 40 generated by the vortex 30.” Id.
¶ 49. And, “[t]he desired aircraft position module 220 generates a desired
aircraft position 222 representing the desired position determined by the
desired aircraft position module.” Id. According to Whitehead, “the desired
aircraft position module 220 generates the desired aircraft position 222
based on the vortex position 212 and input from a pilot controlling the flight
of the trailing aircraft 20.” Id. (“For example, the pilot may be alerted to the
vortex position 212, and manually enter the desired aircraft position 222 in
the form of position commands or coordinates.”). The performance of step
(e) in claim 1 does not require any computer implementation, and, as such,
may be performed manually by a pilot. Whitehead’s pilot provides a flight
control input in the form of coordinates to adjust a relative position between
the first aircraft and the second aircraft based on the identified vortex
position, as required by step (e) of claim 1.
Appeal 2020-001624
Application 15/075,098

6
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as
anticipated by Whitehead, and independent claim 22, which is disputed by
relying on the arguments presented for claim 1. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 8.
For the same reasons, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4–21, 25, 26,
and 28 as anticipated by Whitehead, which are argued based on their
dependency on the independent claims. See id.
Obviousness over Whitehead & Pillai
Appellant’s argument contesting the rejection of dependent claim 27
as unpatentable over Whitehead and Pillai fails to apprise us of error,
because Appellant merely asserts that the steps of the claim are not taught by
the prior art. See Appeal Br. 11. Appellant has failed to dispute the
Examiner’s findings with any particularity by pointing out specific errors or
distinctions over Whitehead and Pillai. In the absence of a more detailed
explanation, we are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is affirmed.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–22,
25, 26, 28
102(a)(1) Whitehead 1, 2, 4–22,
25, 26, 28

27 103 Whitehead, Pillai 27
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–22,
25–28

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED