Is Sikorsky Attempting to Inhibit Others from Developing Electric Rotorcraft?

[Rotor Rooter]

Sikorsky's patent attorney and a few of Sikorsky's current and previous employees, as the Correspondent and the inventors, have obtained a US Patent Application 20090140095 for 'ELECTRIC POWERED ROTARY-WING AIRCRAFT', dated June 4,2009.

All of the claims and embodiments in this patent application should be of common sense to practitioners of electrical and rotorcraft engineering. In fact, many of the claims are all ready used by those producing R/C electric helicopters. However, the granting of a patent on the very general and sweeping claims in this patent application could be used to severely constrain the work of others that wish to research and develop electrically driven rotorcraft.

It makes nebulous claims to items such as "an overrunning electric motor", but more significantly this Patent Application makes claims on features such as;

• The rotor system and the electric motor mounted on the same axis of rotation.
• The electric motor mounted at least partially within the rotor hub.
• The use of a slow speed motor (such as axial-flux motor) to eliminate the need for a gearbox.

These are common sense features.

In addition, all three of the above features are incorporated into one or more of the Electrotors. Also, all of these Electrotor concepts (inventions) were; published on the Internet, posted to four different forums, and even the Domain name 'Electrotor' was acquired; before US 20090140095's initial filing date of Nov. 30,2007. [The specific dates are given at the end of this posting.]

These Electrotor electric rotorcraft drives and their 'inventions' were freely placed in the public domain so that all could utilize them and build upon them.


What could or should be done to assure that these obvious and previously known ideas remain available to all companies and individuals who would wish to participate in the future of electrically driven rotorcraft?

Dave Jackson


____________________________________

Patent Application 20090140095 dates;
Publishing date; June 4, 2009
Filed date; January 23, 2008
Provisional Patent Application - Filed date; November 30, 2007

Electrotor - SloMo dates;
Initially displayed on the Internet: July 23, 2006
Posted on PPRuNe Forum: September 25, 2006
Posted on Rotary Wing Forum: September 29, 2006

Electrotor - Simplex dates;
Initially displayed on the Internet: September 10, 2007
Posted on Rotary Wing Forum: September 10, 2007
A subsiquent post on Rotary Wing Forum: October 26, 2007

Electrotor - Plus dates;
Initially displayed on the Internet: May 12, 2007
Posted on PPRuNe Forum: June 23, 2007
Posted on Rotary Wing Forum: June 24, 2007
Posted on Eng-Tips Forum: June 24, 2007

Electrotors - ALL dates;
Posted on RC Groups Forum: November 17, 2007

.

[Ron E]

Yes !

That is what patents do. But who can afford to challenge the "common sense" or the "obvious" ideas they now have patented.

I have an "over-running" motor in my electric prerotator--NO Bendix to deal with. Use it in flight if you want as well.

[Rotor Rooter]

Originally Posted by Ron E

Yes !

That is what patents do. But who can afford to challenge the "common sense" or the "obvious" ideas they now have patented.

True.

Perhaps there is some means of informing the US Patent Office of relevant information before they issue the full patent.

Dave

[Resasi]

Ron how close is your electric prerotator to working concept?

Do you have a ballpark figure for one?

Would it be 12 or 24V

Possibly in the market.

[barnstorm2]

I recall that Sikorsky was implicated by several authors as the key player in the demise of the rotordyne.


.

[Ron E]

Originally Posted by Resasi

Ron how close is your electric prerotator to working concept?

Do you have a ballpark figure for one?

Would it be 12 or 24V

Possibly in the market.

Resasi

To keep the cost down, I'm trying to use "off the shelf" parts where ever possible. But some custom-made parts and pulleys are not avoidable it seems.

It's best, cost and efficiency wise, to use 24V because the motors and controllers are more readily available. A 12v system can be made as well, but it will not be as strong in torque, but should be more than adequate, and lighter. In my opinion, this prerotator system is best used on a gyro that has electric start to help justify the weight of the on-board batteries, of about 13 pounds for the 24V system.

The 24V system will use two 12V batteries (like the 6 pound carbon fiber racing batteries I sell on my web site). They're used in series to prerotate and in parallel to start the engine and power the radio, instruments, etc. The system uses a sprag clutch on the rotor pulley so the rotor "over-runs" the electric motor, so there is no rotational drag on the rotor when the motor is not in use.

A small gasoline engine can replace the electric motor if you want more power to the rotor for in-flight use to make steeper landing approaches, shorter takeoffs and achieve higher cruise speeds, using the rudder to counter the torque. This system would be similar to the one made by Matt Pearson (SP) but with less hardware involved, no drive shaft and less weight..

Here is a link to his Super Fly in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbRgteV7Llw

A simple safety feature can be added to immediately kill the power to the rotor if the thrust engine should stop.

I expect to have a working 24V unit working in a few months, and a 12V system on the Rotor Scooter prototype. A price is unknown at this time.

Gee, I wonder if I am in violation of someone's patented electric-powered rotor system??

[Rotor Rooter]

Originally Posted by Ron E

Gee, I wonder if I am in violation of someone's patented electric-powered rotor system??

Apparantly, 'someone' might like to think that you are.

Excerpt from their patent application.
"Although a particular helicopter configuration is schematically illustrated in the disclosed non-limiting embodiments, other configurations and/or machines, such as Unmanned Air Vehicles, high speed compound rotary wing aircraft with supplemental translational thrust systems, dual contra-rotating, coaxial rotor system aircraft, tilt-rotors and tilt-wing aircraft in either manned or unmanned configurations will also benefit herefrom."

One would have thought that; first a person invents 'something', and then the person patents that "something".

Dave

[Vance]

Originally Posted by Rotor Rooter

Sikorsky's patent attorney, using a few of Sikorsky's current and previous employees as the inventors, has obtained a US Patent Application 20090140095 for 'ELECTRIC POWERED ROTARY-WING AIRCRAFT', dated June 4,2009.

All of the claims and embodiments in this patent application should be of common sense to practitioners of electrical and rotorcraft engineering. In fact, many of the claims are all ready used by those producing R/C electric helicopters. However, the granting of a patent on the very general and sweeping claims in this patent application could be used to severely constrain the work of others that wish to research and develop electrically driven rotorcraft.

It makes nebulous claims to items such as "an overrunning electric motor", but more significantly this Patent Application makes claims on features such as;

• The rotor system and the electric motor mounted on the same axis of rotation.
• The electric motor mounted at least partially within the rotor hub.
• The use of a slow speed motor (such as axial-flux motor) to eliminate the need for a gearbox.

These are common sense features.

In addition, all three of the above features are incorporated into one or more of the Electrotors. Also, all of these Electrotor concepts (inventions) were; published on the Internet, posted to four different forums, and even the Domain name 'Electrotor' was acquired; before US 20090140095's initial filing date of Nov. 30,2007. [The specific dates are given at the end of this posting.]

These Electrotor electric rotorcraft drives and their 'inventions' were freely placed in the public domain so that all could utilize them and build upon them.


What could or should be done to assure that these obvious and previously known ideas remain available to all companies and individuals who would wish to participate in the future of electrically driven rotorcraft?

Dave Jackson .

Hello Dave,

My limited experience with patents leaves me with the following opinions.

It is possible that they have not seen your information and it didn’t show up in their patent search.

If something is in the public domain then it is not at all hard to get around the patent.

Part of a patent application is how it “advances the art.” If it doesn’t then the patent is not valid.

All of this only becomes a problem if you are trying to make money, a patent does not stop an amateur from building a few that are not for profit.

Thank you, Vance

[WaspAir]

Originally Posted by Vance

All of this only becomes a problem if you are trying to make money, a patent does not stop an amateur from building a few that are not for profit.

Not quite true. Losing money (or not attempting to make money) is not a defense to infringement under the law. Non-profit infringement is still infringement and subject to 35 USC 271. It may, however, have the same effect as a real defense in practical terms, simply because the patent owner has little to gain from suing somebody who isn't making money, and is more likely to chase infringers who are viewed as true competitors. Small fry often aren't worth suing, even though they are still vulnerable to being sued.

Originally Posted by Rotor Rooter

Perhaps there is some means of informing the US Patent Office of relevant information before they issue the full patent.
Dave

Perhaps you were looking for something like this:

35 U.S.C. 301 Citation of prior art.

Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent, the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent. At the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential.

As a matter of tactics under U.S. law, many competitors will simply keep the prior art in a file until such time as the patent owner starts to make trouble, and then bring it out as a defense, rather than give it to the Patent Office while the patentee still has a chance to amend the claims. In some other countries, there is a duty to come forward with information you have to ensure that better patents are issued.

The Patent Office is pretty good in dealing with documentary evidence, but not well equipped to handle claims of prior use by others. If there were earlier R/C aircraft that are pertinent, published advertisements, manuals, and so forth (bearing dates), would be much easier to present to the Office than claims of prior use.

[Rotor Rooter]

Vance, thanks.

It is possible that they have not seen your information and it didn’t show up in their patent search.

Perhaps, but assuming that the company is Sikorsky;
~ There are numerous people in the company that know of the UniCopter Web site.
~ The primary claims are directly related to the features of the Electrotors in this web site.
~ The Provisional Patent Application was filed within a few months of the Electrotor Principal Assemblies being place in the open Internet and being linked to from postings on various rotorcraft forums.

No doubt, WaspAir has given the best reply; in that an amateur can only build for himself. However, a US patent limits others from building and/or selling the patented item in the United States; only. Considering the current economic condition, it is probably not a good time (assuming that any other time is a good one) to be restricting technological advancements and subsequent jobs in the US.

Originally Posted by WaspAir

Perhaps you were looking for something like this.

It is more than 'perhaps'. Thank you very much.

I will study your information, plus section 35 USC 102.

Unfortunately there is only so far I can go, since there is no interest on my part to obtain patents or make money from the research and development. Perhaps one of the big players in rotorcraft will realize what a patent with such a sweeping set of claims could do to the future of the industry. It will be unfortunate if a company that has done little to nothing for electric powered rotorcraft was able to obtain a stranglehold on the most basic means of delivering electrically produced power to the rotor.


Dave

[down under]

Dave, see if a newspaper or television will take it up. It would then be widely known that these concepts were already public. Bit hard to patent something that is talked about in the media.

[Rotor Rooter]

down under,

An interesting idea, however, at this point in time perhaps only the lawyer and the inventors know for sure who the Assignee is.

Dave

[Luc De Keyser]

Dave,

I am not a patent attorney. I do believe patents do serve a purpose.

Nevertheless, it should be easy to block this patent from being granted. The history and state of the patent application is attached to it. It takes a long time to get it granted. In the meantime it should suffice to sent the information you have to the person in the patent office dealing with the particular patent. The name is usually found on the latest version of the application.

Once it is granted and the patent owner is stubborn despite all the evidence, it is a matter for the courts. This is a longer process but should de facto be as simple given the evidence you have. Lawyers should only be able to delay the outcome.

For whatever this is worth.

Luc

[Rotor Rooter]

Luc,

Thanks for your comments. Information will be sent to the patent office, however, it is hoped that those that have the most to loose would present the strongest arguments.

Dave

[Ron E]

Dave,

Post exactly where and to whom to complain and I will.