Joseph Morris (Moylan) and Gerard G. Grass, US Patent # 5,740,987. The JM2G concept was presented to Sikorsky Helicopters & Boeing, who acquired McDonald Douglas Helicopter Systems (MDHS). Mr. Moylan & Mr. Grass were told by Sikorsky that they (Sikorsky) believed the rotor system would work. Time passed & tests were conducted & behold Sikorsky filed for a patent after "redesigning" the four fasteners that held the JM2G rotor system to the airframe. Mr Moylan & Mr. Gerard received nothing, but the "run around" & "speak to our legal dep". There is an article in the Patent regulations that gives contractors patent infringement rights if it is found to be needed for a government contract. That is something I'm certain the industry does not want known. At any rate, the filing date proves ownership of the design to Mr. Moylan & Mr. Gerard, but big industry can out spend & out wait small entities from the private sector. It would be more cost efficient if industry would license or out right buy the patent rights. Instead, they'll waste money & time trying to find a way around the designers. Most of us in the private sector understand about acquisition costs & we are reasonable. There are those of us who want to see the advancement of rotor wing flight. Another example is DARPA, who last year was willing to throw $90,000 "bones" to an academy/research organization to figure out a new design for something. Most of us would have asked for much less than that as a "one time" licensing fee had the BAA request been along the lines of lets say my patent, but I'm just using that as an example. I cannot remember what the BAA request was for, but you get the idea. I have 7 more rotor systems drawn up and 3 of the 7 are ready for the patent office, but maintenance fees start adding up. That's another way big industry can stick it to you. So, inventers beware. On the "flip side" the industry cannot prevent you from selling your idea to others in the industry. If any fuss should arise....lets go to court & see whose patent filing date is older. I'm still going to build my design. Hide & watch. A tech magazine posted an article with a split axial tilt mast rotor system....without permission from the inventors.
NO ONE IS SAYING THAT MDHS (BOEING) & SIKORSKY PRODUCE POOR AIRCRAFT, IT'S JUST THAT THEIR BUSINESS ETIQUETTE IS "OFF BEARING" AT TIMES. THEY NEED TO TREAT INDEPENDENTS IN A FAIR BUSINESS MANNER.
Every significant change in our Nation was brought about by someone who thought outside the norm. The ones who tinker in their basements and garages. Look at Bill Gates. You think the college he attended gave him his software design? Compare Samuel Langley & Wright Brothers. Langley had the big government money that ended up in a river. The Wrights tinkered in their bicycle shop. Take for granted a serious thinker who is mechanically inclined & see what
happens.
From Joe's former web site. Red texts are my interjections pending tracking down info. Posted with permission of Joe Moylan:
A MUST SEE. Redstone Arsenal.
Date of this publication 3-13-2000. Studies for proposed air vehicles, the interesting part is that they have several parameters for taking into account of mast tilt angles and mast tilt functions. The funny part is that if variable mast tilting is NOT unique to us, then why the studies in 2000? After we disclosed to GaTech, Sikorsky, MDHS?
ADS10CSP.pdf.......(Working on finding this PDF..patients..sorry.)
From Popular Mechanics March 1996
http://books.google.com/books?id=L2UEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=tech+update+march+1996+on+the+level+copter&source=bl&ots=QBZBiyjIRn&sig=1Cj9SzpPg6Nx_v4oBBTMyrMdrtQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vNJ-UNqDL4fO2AWtwYGADw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=tech%20update%20march%201996%20on%20the%20level%20copter&f=false
And, we have an update for the carter guys. This image appears to be one of the latest with their concept and patent pending application/10/782353 of their mast tilt configuration.
Image here
Before we get started with all of this gizmo talk. Let me make 2 points very loud and clear. Our patent provides for 2 primary aspects.
1. Is to tilt a rotor assembly, either for a helicopter, gyrocopter, autogyro, etc. Totally independant of any transmissions or fuselages. That means we tilt a shaft with all of its connecting swashplates, rotor head, rotorblades, etc all as a unit, relative to a helicopter body.
2. Our Device constitutes a mounting structure. That mounting structure as laid out per Col 4, line 44, Col 5 line 8 in the Patent as also in the claim section. "a rotor disc control plate is constructed of material having sufficient strength and having dimensions sufficient to support the mass of the helicopter....".
Does this mean that we are limited to the use of slide rods? absolutely NOT. In fact, we now have designs for several entirely different configurations and different helicopter platforms.
Please see our US Patent. 5,740,987 The technology(patent) is available for licensing or sale.
What is the role of the USPTO?
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) administers the patent and trademark laws as they relate to the granting of patents for utility inventions, designs and plants and the issuing of trademark registrations. The USPTO examines applications for patents to determine if the applicants are entitled to patents and grants the patents when they are so entitled. It examines applications for trademark registration to determine if the applicants are entitled to register their trademarks and issues trademark registrations. The USPTO publishes issued patents, approved trademark registrations and various publications concerning patents and trademarks; records assignments of patents and trademarks; and maintains search rooms and a national network of Patent and Trademark Depository Libraries for the use by the public to study issued patents, registered trademarks, and pending trademark applications and records relating to both patents and trademarks. It also supplies copies of records and other papers.
US Patent Classifications
Class 244.
Sub Class 17.25 Lifting rotor having lift direction varying means This subclass is indented under subclass 17.11. Gyroplanes in which the direction of lift of the impeller is variable, either by a cyclic pitch control of the impeller thereby tilting the virtual axis of the impeller or by tilting the real axis of the impeller.
SEE OR SEARCH CLASS:
416, Fluid Reaction Surfaces (i.e., Impellers), subclasses 98+ and 148 for impellers, per se, having a tiltable axis or cyclic pitch control. 17.27, Lifting rotor supports, e.g., pylons. This subclass is indented under subclass 17.11. Gyroplanes including means to position or support the rotating wing on the aircraft.
SEE OR SEARCH CLASS:
416, Fluid Reaction Surfaces (i.e., Impellers), subclasses 121 , 149+ and 246 for a shiftable or adjustable impeller support.
Now, with regard to the USPTO Classifications on Class 416/146R, what does that say to do?
SEE OR SEARCH CLASS:
60, Power Plants, subclasses 495+ for a motor operated by the buoyancy of a fluid or by the vertical component of tides or waves.
74, Machine Element or Mechanism, for the combination with a named impeller* which is recited as a nominal load, i.e., no detail of the impeller or its relationship with the gearing or transmission is recited.
244, Aeronautics, for the combination of impellers* and aircraft structure where more aircraft details are recited than is necessary to mount the impellers.
277, Seal for a Joint or Juncture, for the combination of a sealing means between relatively moving parts, one of which may be an impeller* shaft, where no specific details are recited of the impeller or other fluid reaction surface mounted on the shaft.
366, Agitating, appropriate subclasses for (1) the combination of an agitating impeller* and a confining means (e.g., mixing chamber, etc.), (2) the combination of an agitating impeller and means functionally related to confining means for a fluid being agitated (e.g., structure which scrapes chamber walls; support specialized for use in or on a mixing chamber or closure therefore feed or discharge means to point of agitation; etc.), or (3) am impeller per se which is disclosed solely for agitating viscous or particulate solids, such as dough or sand.
384, Bearings, for the combination of a broadly recited impeller* and a bearing element supporting the impeller shaft. The recitation of a "blade" impeller is considered to be a detail sufficient to exclude a claim from Class 384 and classify it in Class 416.
415, Rotary Kinetic Fluid Motors or Pumps, for a fluid reaction surface (impeller*) and a means for guiding a fluid to, around or from the surface. The relationship between Classes 415 and 416 is that of combination - subcombination respectively. However, patents in Class 415, subclass 182.1 and 208.1 through 232, which claim a nominally recited casing and particular runner structure have been cross referenced to Class 416. For a complete search of runner or impeller structure, other appropriate subclasses in Class 415 should be considered. A patent including claimed means for confining, guiding or directing the fluid to or from an impeller* will be classified in Class 415. A waterfall has been determined to be directed fluid and an impeller claimed in combination therewith is classified in Class 415.
So what happened here? Was the MDHS Application filed in such an obscure manner that the examiners had no choice but to classify it under 416? OR was the classification requested? Or is there another reason we dont know about?
Moving Onward.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has even foreseen a potential problem with Drafting claims in a patent. Especially once you've shown someone your information and technical writings. Thus, it is especially easy to draft anything to avoid a RED FLAG. Take a look.
From - USPTO MPEP 2000 - 2001.5
Information of Privity and/or Materiality
MPEP2000
Under the rule, information is not material unless it comes within the definition of 37 CFR 1.56(b)(1) or (2). If information is not material, there is no duty to disclose the information to the Office. Thus, it is theoretically possible for applicants to draft claims and a specification to avoid a prima facie case of obviousness over a reference and then to be able to withhold the reference from the examiner. The Office believes that most applicants will wish to submit the information, however, even though they may not be required to do so, to strengthen the patent and avoid the risks of an incorrect judgment on their part on materiality or that it may be held that there was an intent to deceive the Office.
(Side Notes:)
Carter Copters is now starting to become a leading contender with mast tilting. Mast tilt technology works if you understand the physics involved.
Nov 25-2005
LET ME SHOW THE MAJORS, HOW THE LITTLE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY THE MOST HONEST I'VE SEEN TO DATE! (Information retreived from USPTO Public Database)
IDS Carter Copters#1
IDS Carter Copters#2
The Attorneys and Guys at Carter have done their jobs. They DISCLOSED to the PTO, that WILL be applicable and may have the possibility of being vital to the outcome of their Patent Application. For pro or con. Clearly, there is NO VIOLATION, of the duty of disclosure here on Carters Team. Although we can not say the same of MDHS/BOEING.
To track the status of the Carter Patent Application click here:
USPTO/Carter Application
And we've managed to be added to a blogger. MarkEarnest.net
(End Side notes:)
We seem to be finding the bread crumbs to the hand...So far we've managed to find their parts...the expandable bushing bolts...Here
Compare the release pins of theirs in patent Fig 3 to that one in the link above.
Also scroll to the bottom of this page to view a side by side photo of our patent designs.
McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems i.e. Boeing, used our proprietary information (A 4 armed rotor disc control plate) presented during a face to face meeting (read page 4 par 1 and page 8 par 1) and then 2 years later applied for a patent on their own "Removable Helicopter Mast".
(Which is in our original report to them during our face to face meeting)
which uses the same 4 armed mounting plate and disconnect pins. Simply put, they stole our Proprietary Information for their own greed by direct and deliberate FRAUD, then gave the standard "sorry wont work" routine to have us go away.
For a quick view to bypass the writings, click on the JM2G History and scroll to the bottom of the page for a side by side view.
The image below is of this sites log files...Note the Interesting IP and the terms Edit Data...is it not strange how this shows up on the patent comp's page? Also it is very targeted terms. The Patent Numbers of both patents are used. Something more strange is that this ip belongs to cyveillance.com
(Continuing)
The only problem is that their(MDHS/Boeing) mounting plate Is Our Property by US Patent. Which means, that regardless of their design, tilting or not, their mast base meets the claims in the US Patent we filed and therefor should have been DENIED.
Some however may state the following: 35 USC 101 Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title
I would agree with this. However, this is referring to (to my understanding) "published" patents, in which, the PTO examiner would "reference" and "cite" to the prospective Patentee. OR the patentee would have searched for himself the prior art, thus making the referenced patent known to the examiner...Now, how can they claim an improvement upon our patent when there are no references made by the examiner or the patentee in this case? They dont!
Then, in order for a patent to be issued, the following must be met: 35 USC 102
A person shall be entitled to a patent UNLESS: -
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b)the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
(c)he has abandoned the invention, or
(d)the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor's certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor's certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or ......
Thus, the invention was known by MDHS Two Years prior to their filing of an application before the PTO to belong to US.
Secondly, the Invention was Caused to be patented and in the hands of our Patent Attorney and Filed Dec 1 1995. They Filed Dec 1997.
Look at the Search Field Classes on each patent. (More is explained in the JM2G history link).
Sec. 103. - Conditions for patent ability; non-obvious subject matter 35 USC 103
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter "as a whole" would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patent ability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Then moving on to the office actions for processing applications and confidentiality, the following is useful:
Sec. 122. - Confidential status of applications; publication of patent applications
(a) Confidentiality. - 35 USC 122
Except as provided in subsection (b), applications for patents shall be kept in confidence by the Patent and Trademark Office and no information concerning the same given without authority of the applicant or owner unless necessary to carry out the provisions of an Act of Congress or in such special circumstances as may be determined by the Director.
(cont'd)
(B)
(i)
If an applicant makes a request upon filing, certifying that the invention disclosed in the application has not and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires publication of applications 18 months after filing, the application shall not be published as provided in paragraph (1).
This paragraph would have been important for the office(PTO) to reference our patent had we been published after the 18month time frame. This would have made OUR Patent available for view after 18 months in which it would have provided a means for MDHS to view. This 18 mo. time frame would have been June of 1997. 6 Months prior to MDHS Filing.
Since, however, no citings were made with regard to our patent it is conceivable that we were held under confidential status up to the date of issuance. This places the date of public notification of 4-21-1998.
Now, after noting the above, the next section is the "oath of applicant".
Sec. 115. - Oath of applicant
The applicant shall make an oath that he believes himself to be the original and first inventor of the process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or improvement thereof, for which he solicits a patent; and shall state of what country he is a citizen........
It is odd at the very least, to know that an oath must be made on a Federal Document, in which, "one" must claim by signature to be the original and first inventor. But, 2 YEARS AFTER information was disclosed to them?
Care to hear of our theory? About how a different named individual than whom we met with managed to come up with an idea, have it go through legal and then filing the Application before the PTO and not once get shot down internally?
I'd ask that you folks pay attention to dates. There was an IFW Scan performed on the MDHS Patent Application 4 years prior to the service even being started by the PTO. How did this happen?
Our Property Description:
Both of the patented designs (JM2G's & MDHS's) areusing a 4 armed (mounting/Control)plate, with arms extending radially outward from the center...
The center has a center hole for the Main Rotor Mast to come up through..
The arms of the Mounting plate have arm tube bores
The plate(s) Are/is the primary structural attachment...on both patents.
In Both patents, regardless of any tiling, a focal point must be both created and maintained. By the nature of their(MDHS) design, which is even stated in their own patent claims that the centerlines of the arms perpendicularly intersects the mast centerline. We clearly stated this in our patent claims two years prior....and, that focal point must be maintained "irrespective" of any tilting...
MDHS Patent Claim #7: The helicopter mast recited in claim 6 wherein: said mast has an axial mast centerline: and said aligned pair center lines lie in a plane which intersects said mast center line at a PERPENDICULAR ANGLE.
Thus, a focal point is created and must be maintained irrespective of ANY tilt. A direct read on our claim 2 B..(I): maintaining a focal point irrespective of the tilting of the upper rotor shaft:
(I) the focal point being locatable at an intersection of the means for attachment to the means for translating rotational motion to rotational motion and the means for translating rotational motion to rotational motion.
Their "quick release" mechanism will not be so quick release if it were not using the same four (4) armed plate design that we presented two years prior would it? Therefore, it would be safe to say that without using our plate, their whole quick release design would seem to be out the window.
The beauty of the Patent Office is the right to prohibit anyone from Making, Using or Selling. Seems to me that both designs would not work worth a damn without the mounting plate.
If patent law comes down to the claims of the patent? And if you have already given someone your information and drawings, then they would be able to completely fashion an application that would not get flagged. However, we claimed the following: A "Rotor Disc Control Plate" comprising at least 3 arms, but the preferred method having 4 arms, a mast center hole and arm cylindrical arm tube bores, a means for attachment, 1,(E,(V)c))...the means for attachment to the means for translating rotational motion to rotational motion is located at a locus where the longitudinal axis of the arm tubes intersects the first vertical axis. (See anything wrong here)?
Control is also derived of a secure "primary" attachment mounting point is it not? Is this not exactly what they are using...?
So if you read our report, JM2G operation and then go through the pages you will see the same design that we presented to them.
Now, some have asked me about the Patent Office examination of them...well, Their design never referenced our patent, Period. And if it was examined, it was never flagged and their patent was never rejected. What is really "ODD" about that, is to look at their patents field of search...244/17.27...compare that with our patent class of 244/17.25 and 244/17.27...Under normal conditions, we should have been a major red flag to them...We were never referenced. PTO problems?
They're using OUR 4 armed rotor disc control plate, as a quick release mount for the rapid removal of storage and shipping, of which by the way, the Government was soliciting contracts during the early 90's for rapid stevedore systems...
Now! our design when originally presented to MDHS/Boeing, was also a quick release design by pins. Once again, go read our report, its ALL IN THERE. Just a thought. Also, their quick release mount? Does it not seem the least bit strange to you that our system being removed and re installed in less than an hour would be a "quick release" system?
Now then:
The information on this site is to show the following four things:
1.) US Patent Information that belongs to the individuals, Gerard Grass and Joseph Moylan: And that they were the first to invent.
2.) That McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems, i.e. BOEING, Had (in our opinion)Stolen our private/secret information from us.
3.) To answer the questions that some investors have asked us.."why don't you take this to the big companies"? hahaaah...look around.
4.) To Answer the question "if this is so good, why is no one else doing it."? please see question #3.
This information is only show a record.
Aero article
The Sleazy B?
Mismanagement - Osprey this technology goes back to the 50's and they still cant get it to work. Many have asked how many men will die due to corporate greed when the politicians want the program dead...I'd have to agree with them.
The more Proof the better. Here it is The Lockheed Docs.
Boeing/Lockheed Docs
Go Take a Look at POGO. That is the Project on Government Oversight. at POGO and do a search for BOEING. if you find nothing there, then take a look at this file. Federal Contractor Misconduct Database 7 pages all on Boeing.
The link below is back because a few have requested it.
There's a long history on Boeing:
Boeing Engineer that's been screwed?
Boeingsux.com
Do a search on this one for Boeing, good information.
Ripoffreport.com
<AHREF="HTTP: content b3861044.htm? 03_49 magazine www.businessweek.comBoeinggate?
So rather than try to steal it? Why not just license or purchase it outright? Then they can have two patents and really go to town with the industry.
Joe's sketches:
No comments:
Post a Comment