DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The amendment filed 5 September 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
[0034] is amended from “two electric taxi systems are mounted within each of the two nose landing gear wheels” to “electric taxi systems are mounted within each one of the two nose landing gear wheels”. This is a broader recitation of the feature, and thus, new matter for including a larger scope of invention.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claims 7-10 and 28, 29, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “WheelTug System, Savings & Business Overview” (hereafter “WheelTug”, previously provided in parent application) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereafter, “AAPA”) and “Measures for Improving Fuel Efficiency by Implementing Electric Taxi System” (hereafter “Švragulja”, previously provided in parent application).
Regarding independent claim 34, and claims 7, 8, 28, and 29:
WheelTug discloses driving an aircraft, having at least two main engines (as seen in e.g. Figs 7, 13, 16, and 58; note, the specific claimed features of the engines are inherent to commercial turbofans as depicted by WheelTug, including casings, rotors/fans, and turbine blade clearance gaps), with a pilot-controlled electric nose wheel drive system (pages 2, 4, 7, 35, and 64) to a warm up location, then activating the engines while (optionally) still using the electric drive system to a takeoff location a distance away for warm-up (as seen in page 5; note: the specific distance is not claimed, and the engines must be warmed prior to takeoff to ensure proper operation during take-off, as noted by Fig 12), and further landing the aircraft, activating the taxi system, and driving to a parked location (as seen in page 5).
WheelTug indicates savings with regard to idle settings (page 12), but does not specifically disclose turning on the engines to idle at the warm up location, or reducing the engine setting to idle at landing for a cool down period, then shutting off the engines.
(Note: idle is disclosed by applicant as a setting that does not produce vortices, page 12, lines 12-23; further, idle is the lowest engine setting, i.e. zero setting, and thus would be, as best understood, a setting for optimal cool down as described in page 13, lines 16-28; further, “optimal clearance” of the rotor is an inherent design feature of engines, implicit in the background discussion of applicant’s disclosure, pages 1-3, whereby the problem to be solved relates to the inability to maintain such clearance).
Švragulja teaches using an electric taxiing system and turning the engines on to idle to warm up (page 57) to “provide better fuel and time savings” (page 62), and further an engine cool down period by reducing to idle before the engines are shut off for electric-only taxiing, as “necessary” in taxi-in operations (page 57).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified WheelTug to using idle as taught by Švragulja for the predictable advantage of providing better fuel savings, since higher settings would require more fuel consumption, and to avoid unnecessary excess thrust caused by higher engine settings, and further since engine idle for cool down is a “necessary” in-taxi operation.
WheelTug discloses (inherently, as the lack of a clearance would cause damage to the engine) a clearance between the turbine blade and the shroud, but does not specifically claim an “optimum” clearance.
AAPA indicates that the tip clearance varies dependent on the specified manufacturer’s engines (page 11, lines 6-7), and that it is “important” to minimize the clearance to affect engine performance, specifically as it affects engine parameters (page 2, lines 9-11).
In the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantage obtained by having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified WheelTug to use an “optimum” clearance for the predictable advantage of “minimizing” the clearance to affect engine performance, specifically efficiency (e.g. “specific fuel consumption”), as the reduction of the gap would render greater airflow-turbine interaction (more “work” generated by the rotating components).
WheelTug discloses “required” engine warm-up and cool-down (Fig 12), but does not specifically disclose inactivating the taxi system at the aircraft thrust location. However one of ordinary skill would recognize that the taxi system would not be necessary for further use at that point, as the aircraft prepares for take-off (wheel taxi drives being insufficient for take-off speeds and useless in the air).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have further modified WheelTug to inactivate the taxi system for the predictable advantage of inactivating unnecessary equipment, and saving electricity/power thereby.
WheelTug discloses the operation of the electric drive and engines individually or concurrently, depending on location, with a warm up time of 6 minutes (360 seconds) (pages 5 and 12), thus providing “steady, even warming” and cooling (the applicant’s disclosure indicates a period no less than 150 seconds, or 2.5 minutes, as a “typical” measure, thus the six minutes, 360 seconds, or the split thereof, three minutes or 180 seconds, of WheelTug is clearly adequate to provide such).
Regarding claims 9 and 10:
The discussion above regarding claim 27 is relied upon.
WheelTug as modified renders an “optimal” clearance distance, but does not disclose the distance as less than 0.5%, or more specifically 0.1% or 0.2%, of the blade length of the rotor.
As noted prior, it is important to “minimize” the clearance as much as possible for engine performance. One of ordinary skill would recognize this as a result effective variable by which the clearance distance affects engine performance.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified WheelTug to use a clearance of less than 0.5%, or 0.1% or 0.2$, of the blade length, in order to improve the efficiency (“specific fuel consumption”) of the engine by reducing aerodynamic blade losses between the blade tip and the shroud, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 35:
WheelTug as modified controlling the beginning of warm-up and provides data relating to engine type (at least based on the aircraft used), optimum clearance (via modification above), distance between airport and parking and thrust location (e.g. page 5, comparing conventional to electric taxi use), and ground speed of the aircraft (at least based on the electric motor capabilities and aircraft used), but does not disclose automatically controlling when to begin warm-up.
In the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantage obtained by having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have automated the start to ensure the appropriate timing for warm-up prior to take-off (e.g. prevent delays due to pilot error/forgetting, etc.), and since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments generally reiterate previous remarks, particularly regarding the proposed solution provided by the invention. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to the prior responses thereto.
Further, it is noted that the inherency provided above refers to the features present in the engine, e.g. rotors, shrouds, etc. This necessarily provides a clearance, however the specific distance of that clearance is not provided, and is not stated to be provided via the inherency of the components. The inherent clearance distance is then modified via the AAPA as noted above to adjust the clearance to the specific “optimal” clearance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deonandan (previously provided) provides further evidence that the “low” throttle setting for taxiing is a result effective variable, e.g. “We assume that in the baseline case, all engines are used to taxi-out, and that the throttle setting is 7% of maximum thrust. In reality, throttle settings vary from aircraft to aircraft, and even during the taxi phase of a single flight.” (starting bottom page 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached on 571-270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619