DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 11, 13-16, and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ivans (US PgPub #2022/0242584).
For Claim 1, figures 2-3b, 12-13 and paragraph [0048] of Ivans ‘584 disclose an aircraft, comprising: at least one battery pack (526); a fuselage (512), comprising: an inner structural wall (520 and 554) enclosing an interior space of the fuselage; and an outer fairing wall (528); wherein the at least one battery pack is disposed between the inner structural wall and the outer fairing wall.
For Claim 3, figures 2-3b, 12-13 and paragraph [0048] of Ivans ‘584 disclose that the battery system comprises at least two battery packs, and wherein, with respect to a longitudinal axis (LA) of the aircraft, on either side of the fuselage, at least one of the battery packs is disposed between the inner structural wall of the fuselage and the outer fairing wall of the fuselage.
For Claim 4, figures 2-3b, 12-13 and paragraph [0048] of Ivans ‘584 disclose that the battery system comprises a plurality of battery packs being divided into two groups of battery packs, and wherein, with respect to a longitudinal axis (LA) of the aircraft, on either side of the fuselage, one of the two groups of battery packs is disposed between the inner structural wall of the fuselage and the outer fairing wall of the fuselage.
For Claim 11, figures 2-3b, 12-13 and paragraph [0048] of Ivans ‘584 disclose a plurality of battery packs, wherein each of the plurality of battery packs comprises a plurality of individual battery modules, and wherein each of the battery packs is a virtual battery pack, which is obtained by electrically connecting a predetermined on the plurality of individual battery modules.
For Claim 13, figures 2-3b, 12-13 and paragraph [0048] of Ivans ‘584 disclose a plurality of individual battery modules, wherein each of the plurality of individual battery modules is individually secured to the fuselage of the aircraft at a mounting position.
For Claim 14, figures 2-3b, 12-13 and paragraph [0048] of Ivans ‘584 disclose that the fuselage is provided with a number of mounting positions, each for interchangeably holding one of the battery modules, the number of mounting positions being larger than the number of battery modules such that, in a mounted state of all battery modules, at least one of the mounting positions could be vacant.
For Claim 15, figures 2-3b and 12-13 of Ivans ‘584 disclose that the aircraft is of the electrical propulsion type.
For Claim 16, figures 2-3b and 12-13 of Ivans ‘584 disclose that the aircraft is an electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft.
For Claim 19, figures 2-3b, 12-13 and paragraph [0048] of Ivans ‘584 disclose an aircraft, comprising a fuselage (512), at least a pair of wings and a battery system for providing power to electrical systems of the aircraft, wherein the battery system comprises a plurality of battery packs, each battery pack of the plurality of battery packs comprises a plurality of individual battery modules (526), which are coupled to one another, the plurality of battery packs disposed between an inner structural wall (520 and 554) enclosing an interior space of the fuselage, and an outer fairing wall (528) of the fuselage, and at least a portion of the interior space of the fuselage defines a passenger compartment (522), wherein the plurality of battery packs are arranged on both lateral sides of the passenger compartment and substantially along a longitudinal length of the passenger compartment.
For Claim 20, figures 2-3b, 12-13 and paragraph [0048] of Ivans ‘584 disclose an aircraft, comprising a fuselage (512), at least a pair of wings and a battery system for providing power to electrical systems of the aircraft, wherein the battery system comprises a plurality of battery packs, each battery pack of the plurality of battery packs comprises a plurality of individual battery modules (526), which are coupled to one another, the plurality of battery packs disposed between an inner structural wall (520 and 554) enclosing an interior space of the fuselage, and an outer fairing wall (528) of the fuselage, and each battery pack comprises a virtual battery pack, wherein the virtual battery pack comprises electrically connecting at least a first individual battery module and a second individual battery module, wherein the first individual battery module is enclosed in a first housing and the second individual battery module is enclosed in a second housing separate from the first housing.
For Claim 21, figures 2-4, 12-13 and paragraph [0048] of Ivans ‘584 disclose an aircraft, comprising a fuselage (512), at least a pair of wings and a battery system for providing power to electrical systems of the aircraft, wherein the battery system comprises a plurality of battery packs, each battery pack of the plurality of battery packs comprises a plurality of individual battery modules (526), which are coupled to one another, the plurality of battery packs disposed between an inner structural wall (520 and 554) enclosing an interior space of the fuselage, and an outer fairing wall (528) of the fuselage, the outer fairing wall of the fuselage has a convex shape relative to a longitudinal axis of the aircraft, each battery pack is positioned between the inner structural wall that encloses the interior space of the fuselage, and the outer fairing wall of the fuselage to substantially conform to the convex shape relative to a longitudinal axis of the aircraft of the outer fairing wall of the fuselage such that no side of each battery pack is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft.
For Claim 22, figures 2-3b and 12-13 of Ivans ‘584 disclose that the outer fairing wall (528) can be moved to provide an opening to allow access to the battery pack from outside the aircraft.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivans (US PgPub #2022/0242584) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hewes (US Patent #3411131).
For Claim 2, while figures 2-3b and 12-13 of Ivans ‘584 disclose an outer fairing wall (528) in combination with an outer wall (524) of the fuselage (512) enclosing an interior space which is defined by at a bottom portion thereof, a bottom plate (548) at which a plurality of aircraft seats are mounted, the bottom plate limiting the interior space of the fuselage downwards and defining a bottom plane parallel to a wing plane of the aircraft, and wherein the at least one battery pack in a direction orthogonal to the bottom plane is at least partially disposed at a height above the bottom plate and the interior space if formed within the fuselage, it is silent about the outer fairing wall enclosing the interior space and the entire fuselage having separate walls. However, the figures of Hewes ‘131 teach that the fuselage (4) is made up of an inner wall (12) and an outer wall (14) with a space between them so as to place equipment in. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ivans ‘584 with the fuselage construction of Hewes ‘131. The motivation to do so would be to provide a fuselage with space provided within to allow for equipment to be place within the entire aircraft.
Claim(s) 5, 8, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivans (US PgPub #2022/0242584) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang (US PgPub #2018/0273198).
For Claim 5, while Ivans ‘584 teaches being able to access and remove the batteries, it is silent about a rack mounting mechanism, figures 1-10 and paragraph [0040] of Chang ‘198 disclose, and the fuselage is provided with a rack mounting mechanism comprising a number of mounting brackets (120), each for exchangeable mounting one of the battery modules to the aircraft. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ivans ‘584 with the mounting brackets of Chang ‘198. The motivation to do so would be to provide a system that allows the batteries to be attached and removed easily to allow for changing of the batteries if they are bad or are drained.
For Claim 8, while Ivans ‘584 teaches being able to access and remove the batteries, it is silent about the specifics about a rack mounting mechanism and how it connects to the battery. However, figures 1-3 of Chang ‘198 disclose that the rack mounting mechanism comprises a mounting frame associated to the fuselage, and at least one of the batter modules (110) further comprises at least one slider portions (outer case) slidably engaging at least one complementary slider seating provided at the mounting frame of the rack mounting mechanism, to allow a sliding motion of the battery module along a direction of extension of the mounting frame of the rack mounting mechanism. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ivans ‘584 with the rack mounting of Chang ‘198. The motivation to do so would be to provide a system that allows the batteries to be attached and removed easily to allow for changing of the batteries if they are bad or are drained.
For Claim 9, while Ivans ‘584 teaches being able to access and remove the batteries, it is silent about a rack. However, figures 1-3 of Chang ‘198 disclose that the rack mounting mechanism comprises a mounting frame associated to the fuselage, and at least one of the batter modules (110) further comprises at least blind connector (215) configured to fix in place the at least one battery module at the rack mounting mechanism. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ivans ‘584 with the rack mounting of Chang ‘198. The motivation to do so would be to provide a system that allows the batteries to be attached and removed easily to allow for changing of the batteries if they are bad or are drained.
For Claim 12, while Ivans ‘584 teaches batteries, it is silent about them being connected in series. However, figures 1-10 and paragraph [0040 and 0044] of Chang ‘198 disclose that the battery modules of each of the battery packs are electrically connected in series by the nus bars facing towards an outside of the aircraft. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ivans ‘584 with the battery connection of Chang ‘198. The motivation to do so is to provide the batteries in series to provide greater voltage to the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 are allowed.
Claims 6-7 and 10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the first argument on pages 13-15 that Ivans ‘584 does not disclose the newly amended claim language, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ivans ‘584 clearly discloses that the inner wall (520) extends down to the floor with the wall of the battery section (554) which encloses an interior space of the fuselage and that an outer fairing wall (528) along with the inner wall (520 and 554) create a space for a battery pack.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 2/2/2026