Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the papers filed May 12, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has not provided enough details in their specification related to algorithms or calculations to provide a showing of possession for the method claimed. Generally, the specification repeats the language of the claims and does not provide any details of how the invention takes inputs and creates an output as a function of the inputs. Below are a few of the steps and an explanation of how the written description is lacking:
In reference to claims 1 and 17,
“determining a mechanical power requirement” – The specification states that this may be carried out in a conventional manner, for example as a function of the mass of the rotorcraft, its forward speed, its vertical speed and the values of the collective pitch and cycle pitch controls of the main rotor blades (paragraph 45). The rotorcraft may include a device dedicated to determining this mechanical power requirement of the rotorcraft. An avionics system equipping the rotorcraft may also determine this mechanical power requirement as a function of information provided by various sensors of the rotorcraft. The calculator can also determine this mechanical power requirement from such information. (paragraph 46, 94)
The application fails to identify how the inputs are used to determine a mechanical power requirement and does not provide any algorithm or calculation using the inputs that arrive at the mechanical power requirement.
“determining a first power distribution between the at least one heat engine and the at least one electric motor as a function of the at least one first characteristic and the mechanical power requirement of the rotorcraft”.
The specification is lacking in guidance of what the claimed function is and how it manages the inputs, the at least one first characteristic and the mechanical power requirement, to arrive at a fist power distribution. The specification provides how differing first characteristics can be used as inputs, but fails to explain or show how those inputs are used in a function to arrive at the output of a first power distribution. This is exasperated by the step of “determining a flight phase of the rotorcraft”. This step is also an input into “determining a first power distribution”. Further, the step of determining a flight phase is not explained to provide a showing that applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Paragraph 68 states that the flight phase may be determined as a function of one or more second characteristics of the rotorcraft. There are zero details provided as to what the function or process is to make the determination. Further, there is not any discussion of how the flight phase is used as an input to determine power distribution.
Claim 2-3 and 18, recites that a second characteristic value is used in determining the first power distribution. The specification does provide examples of what the second characteristic values may be, but lacks any details of how this value is used during the determining power distribution step.
Claim 4, there is not description of how a state of health of a heat engine can be found using the input provided in the disclosure.
Claim 6, recites that the determination of a first power distribution takes into account the preservation of a backup electrical energy reserve, but zero details are provided how this input impacts the determining step.
Claim 7, recites that a flight plan is an input into the power determination step, but fails to provide a showing of details of how this input impacts the output.
Claim 8, details are not provided of how the instant invention determines a state of health of the electrical energy source as the first characteristic. The specification states that this relates to the age of the source, but does not state how this is found as an input.
Claim 9
Claim 13 has a similar issue to claim 1 in that the “second power distribution” is determined from a number of inputs, but a showing of how the inputs are used is lacking.
Claim 15 recties “a calculator” but the specification fails to provide details related to the issues recited above for claims 1-14. For example, algorithms and/or calcualtions are not provided to provide a showing of possession of the funcitons / control claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed toward the 112a written description rejections made final above. Simply, the claims recite multiple steps which require specific algorithms, steps, and/or calculations which are not disclosed in the instant application. The lack of these algorithms, steps and/or calculations prove that applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention. MPEP 2161.01 recites:
Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
AND
When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Please note that a prior art rejection was applied in the non-final dated 02/11/2025. Applicant rebutted the rejection stating that the reference does not determine a power requirement or a power distribution. Applicant also argued in this response that the claims in question required active determination of a flight phase as well and the use of that as an input in the calculation of the power distribution. These arguments prompted a look into HOW these functions were performed in the instant application and it was found that applicant did not have much more written description than what was in the claims. Relationships, inputs, and functions of how all of the claimed limitations work to get a result are not found in the instant application.
Specifically, applicant argues that determining a mechanical power requirement of the rotorcraft is conventionally known to a person skilled in the art. The cited paragraphs state that inputs can be input into a calculator or an avionics system, but fails to recite how the inputs are utilized to arrive at the determination. Applicant provides Botti US 20130147204 to show how the determination is conventional, but while the cited passages discuss dividing power between a generator and two internal combustion engines, they do not provide a showing that determining a mechanical power requirement is conventional or routine in the art, nor do they provide evidence that the power distribution determination is also conventional or routine. Further, this determination is not a CLAIMED feature of Botti et al.
The reference to Thomassin US20200277064 is also cited to provide that the steps are conventional. However, the passage paragraph 35 cited has a similar issue to the instant invention in that the passage recites a number of inputs, but lacks an algorithm, process, or flow chart to show how the numerous inputs are weighted or used to arrive at the claimed function. Similarly to the reference to Botti, Thomassin does not claim this process as part of their invention.
The instant invention is directed to a hybrid aircraft. The controllability and factors that are involved in the control of such a craft are substantial, and also, this technology is new in relation to hybrid automboiles. The control of aircraft involes more inputs due to the nature of the vehicle.
Applicant argues that “a second characteristic” is also known in the art, but the written description fails to provide an example of what this value could be.
In addition, and similarly, applicant has the same arguemetn for the recitiaotn of “a state of health of a heat engine”. Without an example or more details, it is not clear what applicants state of health is or how it is derived.
Applicants remaining arguments are comisurate with the arguemets addressed above. Applicants written descritpoion is short on details, algorithms, and/or processes to perfrom the claimed funcitons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON C KRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-7118. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7AM-4PM; Friday Mornings.
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.
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.
DEVON C. KRAMER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3746
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741