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 .
This is in response to the correspondence received on 10/14/2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/14/2025 has been entered.
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, 14 and their dependent claims, 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.
Claim 1: in ” an alternating-current motor powered exclusively by electrical energy, wherein the one or more propellers are i) driven in rotation only by the alternating-current motor during powered operation”, the limitation “driven in rotation only by the alternating current motor during powered operation” is a negative limitation and constitutes new matter.
Additionally, the limitation “an alternating-current motor powered exclusively by electrical energy” is a negative limitation and constitutes new matter.
Claims 1 and 14: in “each alternating-current motor driving the one or more propellers of the lift-increase propulsion unit is only powered electrically by the DC/AC converter that electrically connects said intermediate stage to the lift-increase propulsion unit”, the limitation “only powered electrically by the DC/AC converter” is a negative limitation and constitutes new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moxon 20160355272 (Moxon’272) in view of Moxon 20150144742 (Moxon’742) and Himmelmann 20180265206 and Swann 11260983
Regarding claim 1, Moxon’272 teaches:
A propulsion system (100) for a non-rotary-wing aircraft (Fig 2) comprising:
an alternating-current generator (“Each motor generator 116 comprises an AC motor generator, such as a synchronous or asynchronous motor“ [0037], “Different numbers of motor generators could be provided” [0049]),
at least one wingtip propulsion unit (134, [0043]) comprising an alternating-current motor (“Each propulsor 134 is driven by an electric motor 138, which is provided with electrical power from the motor generators 116 “, [0043], and it is noted that 116 is an AC motor generator, therefore providing alternating current to motor 138), having a direction of rotation that opposes formation of wingtip vortices (“By rotating the propellers in a clockwise direction as viewed from downstream of the propulsor 134 on the port wing 34, and in an opposite direction on the starboard wing, the wingtip vortex can be at least partly cancelled, thereby reducing the wake vortex.” Moxon [0043),
at least one lift-increase propulsion unit (inter alia, 100a, 100b), comprising one or more propellers (132), and an alternating-current motor powered exclusively by electrical energy (“Each motor generator 116 comprises an AC motor generator, such as a synchronous or asynchronous motor“ [0037]; it is noted that 116 is a motor generator, and therefore when converting electrical energy into mechanical energy, it is powered by electrical energy; regarding the limitation “exclusively”, see 112(a) rejection above, and Moxon’272 teaches that propulsors 100 is capable of being powered exclusively by electrical energy if a gas turbine is inoperative, inter alia, “in the event of a failure of the gas turbine `engine 10 of one of the propulsor arrangements, power can be transferred from one propulsor arrangement 100a, 100b to the other electrically. For example, where the left propulsor arrangement 100a gas turbine engine 10 fails in flight, the motor generators 116 of the right propulsor arrangement 100b would be operated in a generator mode, while the motor generators 116 of the left propulsor arrangement 100a would be operated in a motor mode” [0041]), wherein the one or more propellers are (i) driven in rotation only by the alternating-current motor during powered operation (regarding the limitation “only by the alternating-current motor”, see 112(a) rejection above, and Moxon’272 teaches that propulsors 100 is capable of being powered ”only by the alternating-current motor during powered operation” if a gas turbine is inoperative, inter alia, “in the event of a failure of the gas turbine engine 10 of one of the propulsor arrangements, power can be transferred from one propulsor arrangement 100a, 100b to the other electrically. For example, where the left propulsor arrangement 100a gas turbine engine 10 fails in flight, the motor generators 116 of the right propulsor arrangement 100b would be operated in a generator mode, while the motor generators 116 of the left propulsor arrangement 100a would be operated in a motor mode” [0041])
a first AC power supply circuit (inter alia, electrical interconnector 140 [0043]), that electrically connects the generator (116 [0043]) to the wingtip propulsion unit (inter alia, electrical interconnector 140 [0043]), and
wherein the first AC power supply circuit is configured to deliver an AC current produced by the generator (116 comprises an AC motor generator [0037], [0043]), to the wingtip propulsion unit, without intermediate conversion of this alternating current into direct current ([0043]),
Moxon’272 teaches distinct electrical systems for powering the wingtip propulsion units (via the first AC power supply as discussed above) and the lift-increase propulsion units, Moxon’272 is silent about the second AC power supply circuit as claimed. Moxon,272 already teaches the one or more propellers are (i) driven in rotation only by the alternating-current motor during powered operation, as already discussed above.
However, Moxon’742 teaches powering the propulsors, which are equivalent to the claimed lift-increase propulsion unit (Abstract, Fig. 2, 4), teaching lift-increase propulsion unit (46), propellers (50), alternating-current motor (Each propulsor 46 comprises an electric motor (not shown) housed within a nacelle 48 [0035]); and, to remove any doubt, Moxon’742 also teaches “the one or more propellers are (i) driven in rotation only by the alternating-current motor during powered operation” (“Each propulsor 46 comprises an electric motor (not shown) housed within a nacelle 48, and a propeller 50 driven by the motor“ [0035]), and:
a second AC power supply circuit (inter alia, superconductor [0022]), that electrically connects the generator to the lift-increase propulsion unit (Each electrically driven propulsor may comprise a propeller. Each electrically driven propulsor may be electrically coupled to the respective generator by a superconductor [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Moxon’272 with Moxon’742's teachings discussed above in order, in order to provide electrically powered propulsors because they continue to receive electrical power in case of failure of one of the internal combustion engines [0042], avoid excessive yaw in case of an engine failure ([0020-0021, 0042]), as taught by Moxon’742.
Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742' is silent about the elements within second power supply as claimed.
However, Himmelmann teaches a system with an AC direct power connection (114) and a second circuit, a DC bus 115 which permits the inclusion of an energy storage device ([0017]) and:
o an intermediate DC distribution stage (115),
o one or more electric batteries (112) connected to said intermediate DC distribution stage (Fig 1)
o an AC/DC converter (Bi-directional inverter-rectifiers 108 and 109 are bi-directional rectifiers and inverters insomuch as they can transmit and rectify power in either direction [0014]), that electrically connects the generator (106) to said intermediate DC distribution stage (Fig 1), and
o a DC/AC converter (Bi-directional inverter-rectifiers 108 and 109), that electrically connects said intermediate stage to the lift-increase propulsion unit (Fig 1, where, inter alia, 111 is part of a lift-increase propulsion unit),
and wherein the intermediate DC distribution stage is electrically connected in series between the DC/AC converter and the AC/DC converter (Fig. 1 shows 115 betwe4en 109 and 108), and each alternating-current motor (induction propulsion motor 111 [0016]) driving the one or more propellers (110) of the lift-increase propulsion unit (inter alia, 100) is only powered electrically by the DC/AC converter that electrically connects said intermediate stage to the lift-increase propulsion unit (Fig. 1 shows 109 connected to a single motor 111).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742' with Himmelmann's structure discussed above in order to have a second power supply circuit to provide electrical power to “an electric propulsion motor is configured to receive the electric power and be selectively driven at an operational speed independent of a rotational speed of the power shaft” as taught by Himmelmann (abstract), and allows for power to be provided by the DC circuit, from the energy storage device, if the gas turbine engine is not operating [0021].
Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742 and Himmelmann is silent about:
(ii) configured, during non-powered operation, to rotate in response to airflow so as to back-drive the alternating-current motor to recover mechanical energy as electrical energy,
However, Swann teaches an electrically-assisted propulsion control system, with a propulsive fan 220 attached to a motor/generator 224 (Col 10 ll. 59), and:
(ii) configured, during non-powered operation, to rotate in response to airflow so as to back-drive the alternating-current motor to recover mechanical energy as electrical energy (In the descent phase of flight, the engine 210 is in its unlit or idle state. The fan 222 of the propulsive fan 220 (if present) is being driven (“windmilling”) by air-flow resulting from the forward motion of the aircraft, and as a result is causing the generator 224 to generate electrical energy which is used to charge the energy storage unit 200. Additionally or alternatively, the co-located fan 212 of the engine 210 can be used in a “wind-milling” capacity to charge the energy storage unit 200 with electrical energy generated by the generator 214/217” (Col 12, ll. 33-49)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742 and Himmelmann with Swann's teachings discussed above because his would advantageously allow aircraft speed to be regulated in support of steeper descents without the need to configure the aerofoils of the aircraft wing into a high-drag high-noise configuration” (Col 12, ll. 33-49).
Regarding claim 2, Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742, Himmelmann and Swann teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Moxon’272 further teaches:
further comprising a turboprop ([0002]; inter alia, 10, 9, 1-4, 106b, 130b).
Regarding claim 3, Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742, Himmelmann and Swann teaches the invention as discussed above.
Moxon’272 further teaches:
The propulsion system according to any preceding claim 1,
- wherein the first AC power supply circuit and the second AC power supply circuit (as discussed above for claim 1) are connected to one another by an AC distribution stage, common to these two power supply circuits (Moxon’272 teaches “propulsor arrangements 100 are electrically interconnected by an interconnector 140” [0041], multiple circuits, i.e., 140 connecting to 134 and 142, that are interconnected to a common distribution stage, inter alia, 140), the AC distribution stage itself being connected to the generator (Fig 3).
Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742, Himmelmann and Swann, as discussed so far, is silent about:
the AC/DC converter allowing both a transfer of electric power from the AC distribution stage to the intermediate DC distribution stage as claimed.
However, Himmelmann teaches:
the AC/DC converter (as discussed, Bi-directional inverter-rectifiers 108 and 109) of the second AC power supply circuit (as discussed for claim 1) being connected between the AC distribution stage (113) and the intermediate DC distribution stage (115) (Fig 1),
- and wherein the AC/DC converter (Bi-directional inverter-rectifiers 108 and 109) is reversible (Bi-directional inverter-rectifiers 108 and 109 are bi-directional rectifiers and inverters insomuch as they can transmit and rectify power in either direction [0014]), said converter allowing both a transfer of electric power from the AC distribution stage to the intermediate DC distribution stage, and from the intermediate DC distribution stage to the AC distribution stage ([0014] and Fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742, Himmelmann and Swann teaches the invention as discussed above.
Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742, Himmelmann and Swann, as discussed so far, is silent about:
the DC/AC converter of the second AC power supply circuit is reversible, said converter allowing both a transfer of electric power from the intermediate DC distribution stage to the lift-increase propulsion unit, and from the lift-increase propulsion unit to the intermediate DC distribution stage.
However, Himmelmann teaches:
Propulsion system (inter alia, 111) according to any preceding claim, wherein the DC/AC converter of the second power supply circuit is reversible (Bi- bi-directional inverter-rectifier 108 and 109 are directional rectifiers and inverters in so much as they can transmit and rectify power in either direction [0014]), said converter allowing both a transfer of electric power from the intermediate DC distribution stage to the lift-increase propulsion unit, and from the lift-increase propulsion unit (as discussed above for claim 1) to the intermediate DC distribution stage (they can transmit and rectify power in either direction [0014]).
Regarding claim 9, Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742, Himmelmann and Swann teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Moxon’272 further teaches:
A non-rotary-wing aircraft (Fig 2) comprising:
- a fuselage, a left wing that extends to the left of the fuselage and a right wing that extends to the right of the fuselage (Fig 2),
- a first propulsion system (inter alia, 100a) and a second propulsion system (inter alia, 100b), each in accordance with any of the preceding claims (as discussed for claim 1)
- the wingtip propulsion units (as discussed) of the first and second propulsion systems being located respectively at the tip of the left wing and at the tip of the right wing (Fig. 2), or inversely,
Moxon’742 teaches:
- the lift-increase propulsion units (as discussed) being located between the fuselage of the aircraft and the wingtip propulsion units (Fig 2, 4).
Regarding claim 10, Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742, Himmelmann and Swann teaches the invention as discussed for claim 9. Moxon’272 further teaches:
Aircraft (Fig 2) according to the preceding claim, wherein:
- the first propulsion system comprises at least two lift-increase propulsion units (Fig 2 shows 100a and 100b with multiple propulsion units), one located on the left and the other located on the right of the fuselage (Moxon teaches in [0041]: “The interconnector 140 is an electrical connector which electrically couples the motor generators 116 of the left propulsor arrangement 100a, with the motor generators 116 of the right propulsor arrangement 100b. Consequently, in the event of a failure of the gas turbine engine 10 of one of the propulsor arrangements, power can be transferred from one propulsor arrangement 100a, 100b to the other electrically. For example, where the left propulsor arrangement 100a gas turbine engine 10 fails in flight, the motor generators 116 of the right propulsor arrangement 100b would be operated in a generator mode, while the motor generators 116 of the left propulsor arrangement 100a would be operated in a motor mode. Consequently, the propulsors 130a-c of the left propulsor arrangement 100a would continue to operate in OEI conditions” – The first propulsion system can therefore be “defined” as comprising a mix of elements from 100a and 100b, in other words, the first propulsion system can be defined as comprising, inter alia, 100a’s elements 130a and 130b plus 100b’s element 130c),
these two lift-increase propulsion units being both electrically connected to the intermediate DC distribution stage (DC distribution stage discussed for claim 1) of the first propulsion system (the DC distribution system, as discussed for claim 1, would be present on each of 100a and 100b),
the second propulsion system comprises at least two lift- increase propulsion units (similar to the discussion above for the first propulsion system), one located on the left and the other located on the right of the fuselage (for the same reasons discussed above, the second propulsion system can be defined as comprising, inter alia, 100b’s elements 130a and 130b plus 100a’s element 130c),
these two lift-increase propulsion units being both electrically connected to the intermediate DC distribution stage of the second propulsion system (the DC distribution system, as discussed for claim 1, would be present on each of 100a and 100b).
Regarding claim 11, Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742, Himmelmann and Swann teaches the invention as discussed for claim 9. Moxon’272 further teaches:
wherein the first propulsion system and the second propulsion system each comprise a turboprop (turboprop: [0002]; inter alia, 10, 9, 1-4, 106b, 130b, and the first and second propulsions systems have similar structure as seen in Fig. 2, one system on the left wing and the other system on the right wing),
the turboprop of the first propulsion system (left wing, Fig. 2), which drives the generator of the first propulsion system, is located on the left of the fuselage (Fig. 2 shows 2 propulsion systems as discussed above, one on the left wing and one on the right wing) while the wingtip propulsion unit of the first propulsion system is located at the tip of the right wing of the aircraft (Moxon’272 teaches in [0041]: “The interconnector 140 is an electrical connector which electrically couples the motor generators 116 of the left propulsor arrangement 100a, with the motor generators 116 of the right propulsor arrangement 100b. Consequently, in the event of a failure of the gas turbine engine 10 of one of the propulsor arrangements, power can be transferred from one propulsor arrangement 100a, 100b to the other electrically. For example, where the left propulsor arrangement 100a gas turbine engine 10 fails in flight, the motor generators 116 of the right propulsor arrangement 100b would be operated in a generator mode, while the motor generators 116 of the left propulsor arrangement 100a would be operated in a motor mode. Consequently, the propulsors 130a-c of the left propulsor arrangement 100a would continue to operate in OEI conditions” and “ Since the tip propulsors 134 are powered by electrical power provided by the interconnector 140, electrical power can continue to be provided during OEI operation“ [0044] – The first propulsion system can therefore be “defined” as comprising a mix of elements from 100a and 100b, in other words, the first propulsion system can be defined as comprising, inter alia, 100a’s elements 130a and 130b plus 100b’s elements 130c and 134 - located on the right wing), and
the turboprop of the second propulsion system (right wing, Fig. 2), which drives the generator of the second propulsion system, is located on the right of the fuselage, while the wingtip propulsion unit of the second propulsion system is located at the tip of the left wing of the aircraft (for the same reasons mentioned above for the first propulsion system, the second propulsion system can therefore be “defined” as comprising a mix of elements from 100a and 100b, in other words, the first propulsion system can be defined as comprising, inter alia, 100b’s elements 130a and 130b plus 100a’s elements 130c and 134 - located on the left wing).
Regarding claim 12, Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742, Himmelmann and Swann teaches the invention as discussed for claims to any 9 to 11. Moxon’272 further teaches:
each wingtip propulsion unit and each lift-increase propulsion unit is electrically connected to the generator of the first propulsion system and to the generator of the second propulsion system so as to be electrically powered indifferently either by one or by the other of the two generators (Moxon [0041-0044]).
Regarding claim 13, Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742, Himmelmann and Swann teaches the invention as discussed for claims to any 2. As discussed, Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742, Himmelmann and Swann teaches the alternating-current generator is driven by the turboprop, and all mechanical power produced by the turboprop and transmitted to the wingtip propulsion unit and to the lift-increase propulsion unit is converted into electrical energy by the alternating current generator (as discussed for claim 1, power to Moxon’272 134 is powered by 116, driven by 10; mechanical power is produced by the gas turbine is only transmitted to 134 after being converted into electrical energy by 116).
Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742, Himmelmann and Swann, as discussed so far, is silent about all the power transmitted to the lift-increase propulsion being converted into electrical energy as claimed.
However, Himmelman teaches all mechanical power produced by the turboprop and transmitted to the lift-increase propulsion unit is converted into electrical energy (all lift-increasing propulsion units are electrically powered as seen in Moxon’742 Fig. 2, 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742, Himmelmann and Swann with Moxon’742 teachings as discussed above and use electric motors instead gearboxes 122 and associated elements from Moxon’272 in order to reduce mechanical complexity and for the same reasons discussed earlier.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moxon 20160355272 (Moxon’272) in view of Moxon 20150144742 (Moxon’742) and Himmelmann 20180265206
Regarding claim 14, Moxon’272 teaches:
A propulsion system for a non-rotary-wing aircraft (Fig. 2), comprising:
a turboprop (a turboprop [0002].),
an alternating-current generator, driven by the turboprop (“Each motor generator 116 comprises an AC motor generator, such as a synchronous or asynchronous motor. “ [0037], “Different numbers of motor generators could be provided” [0049]; 10 drives the generator, Fig. 3),
at least one wingtip propulsion unit (134, [0043]) comprising an alternating-current motor (“Each propulsor 134 is driven by an electric motor 138, which is provided with electrical power from the motor generators 116 “, [0043], and it is noted that 116 is an AC motor generator, therefore providing alternating current to motor 138), having a direction of rotation that opposes the formation of wingtip vortices (“By rotating the propellers in a clockwise direction as viewed from downstream of the propulsor 134 on the port wing 34, and in an opposite direction on the starboard wing, the wingtip vortex can be at least partly cancelled, thereby reducing the wake vortex.” Moxon [0043),
at least one lift-increase propulsion unit (inter alia, 100a, 100b) powered exclusively by electrical energy (“Each motor generator 116 comprises an AC motor generator, such as a synchronous or asynchronous motor“ [0037]; it is noted that 116 is a motor generator, and therefore when converting electrical energy into mechanical energy, it is powered by electrical energy; regarding the limitation “exclusively”, see 112(a) rejection above, and Moxon’272 teaches that propulsors 100 is capable of being powered exclusively by electrical energy if a gas turbine is inoperative, inter alia, “in the event of a failure of the gas turbine `engine 10 of one of the propulsor arrangements, power can be transferred from one propulsor arrangement 100a, 100b to the other electrically. For example, where the left propulsor arrangement 100a gas turbine engine 10 fails in flight, the motor generators 116 of the right propulsor arrangement 100b would be operated in a generator mode, while the motor generators 116 of the left propulsor arrangement 100a would be operated in a motor mode” [0041]), comprising an alternating-current motor (Each propulsor 134 is driven by an electric motor 138 [0043]),
a first AC power supply circuit (inter alia, electrical interconnector 140 [0043]), that electrically connects the generator (116 [0043]) to the wingtip propulsion unit (inter alia, electrical interconnector 140 [0043]),
wherein the first AC power supply circuit is configured to deliver an AC current produced by the generator (116 comprises an AC motor generator [0037], [0043]), to the wingtip propulsion unit, without intermediate conversion of this alternating current into direct current ([0043]).
Moxon’272 teaches distinct electrical systems for powering the wingtip propulsion units (via the first AC power supply as discussed above) and the lift-increase propulsion units, Moxon’272 is silent about the second AC power supply circuit as claimed. Moxon,272 already teaches at least one lift-increase propulsion unit powered exclusively by electrical energy, as discussed above.
However, Moxon’742 teaches powering the propulsors, which are equivalent to the claimed lift-increase propulsion unit (Abstract, Fig. 2, 4), teaching lift-increase propulsion unit (46), propellers (50), alternating-current motor (Each propulsor 46 comprises an electric motor (not shown) housed within a nacelle 48 [0035]); and, to remove any doubt, Moxon’742 also teaches the “at least one lift-increase propulsion unit powered exclusively by electrical energy, as discussed above” (“propulsor 46 comprises an electric motor (not shown) housed within a nacelle 48, and a propeller 50 driven by the motor“ [0035]), and:
a second AC power supply circuit (inter alia, superconductor [0022]), that electrically connects the generator to the lift-increase propulsion unit (Each electrically driven propulsor may comprise a propeller. Each electrically driven propulsor may be electrically coupled to the respective generator by a superconductor [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Moxon’272 with Moxon’742's teachings discussed above in order to provide a system where “An electrical energy storage device such as a capacitor, chemical battery or hydrogen fuel cell (not shown) might also be included, which could be charged by the internal combustion engine, and provide power to the propulsors for a short period on engine failure or to improve performance for short duration flight segments such as e.g. takeoff or climb” [0037].
Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742 is silent about the second power supply elements as claimed.
However, Himmelmann teaches a system with an AC direct power connection (114) and a second circuit, a DC bus 115 which permits the inclusion of an energy storage device ([0017]) and:
wherein the second power supply circuit comprises:
an intermediate DC distribution stage (115),
one or more electric batteries (112) connected to said intermediate DC distribution stage (Fig 1),
an AC/DC converter (Bi-directional inverter-rectifiers 108 and 109 are bi-directional rectifiers and inverters insomuch as they can transmit and rectify power in either direction [0014]), that electrically connects the generator to said intermediate DC distribution stage (Fig 1), and
a DC/AC converter (Bi-directional inverter-rectifiers 108 and 109), that electrically connects said intermediate stage to the lift-increase propulsion unit (Fig 1, where, inter alia, 111 is part of a lift-increase propulsion unit),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742' with Himmelmann's structure discussed above in order to have a second power supply circuit to provide electrical power to “an electric propulsion motor is configured to receive the electric power and be selectively driven at an operational speed independent of a rotational speed of the power shaft” as taught by Himmelmann (abstract).
Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742', Himmelmann teaches the the alternating-current generator is driven by the turboprop, and all mechanical power produced by the turboprop and transmitted to the wingtip propulsion unit and to the lift-increase propulsion unit is converted into electrical energy by the alternating current generator (as discussed for claim 1, power to Moxon’272 134 is powered by 116, driven by 10; mechanical power is produced by the gas turbine is only transmitted to 134 after being converted into electrical energy by 116)
and wherein the intermediate DC distribution stage is electrically connected in series between the DC/AC converter and the AC/DC converter (Fig. 1 shows 115 betwe4en 109 and 108), and each alternating-current motor (induction propulsion motor 111 [0016]) driving the one or more propellers (110) of the lift-increase propulsion unit (inter alia, 100) is only powered electrically by the DC/AC converter that electrically connects said intermediate stage to the lift-increase propulsion unit (Fig. 1 shows 109 connected to a single motor 111).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742' with Himmelmann's structure discussed above in order to have a second power supply circuit to provide electrical power to “an electric propulsion motor is configured to receive the electric power and be selectively driven at an operational speed independent of a rotational speed of the power shaft” as taught by Himmelmann (abstract), and allows for power to be provided by the DC circuit, from the energy storage device, if the gas turbine engine is not operating [0021].
Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742', Himmelmann, as discussed so far, is silent about all the power transmitted to the lift-increase propulsion being converted into electrical energy as claimed.
However, Himmelman teaches all mechanical power produced by the turboprop and transmitted to the lift-increase propulsion unit is converted into electrical energy (all lift-increasing propulsion units are electrically powered as seen in Moxon’742 Fig. 2, 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742', Himmelmann with Moxon’742 teachings as discussed above and use electric motors instead gearboxes 122 and associated elements from Moxon’272 in order to reduce mechanical complexity and for the same reasons discussed earlier.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moxon 20160355272 (Moxon’272) in view of Moxon 2050144742 (Moxon’742), Himmelmann 20180265206, Swann 11260983 (from now on referred to as Swann’983) and Swann 20160304211 (Swann’211).
Regarding claim 5, Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742', Himmelmann and Swann’983 teaches the invention as discussed above for claim 1. Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742', Himmelmann and Swann’983 is silent about:
further comprising an electronic control unit that comprises at least one processor and one memory, the control unit being programmed to, during a flight of the aircraft comprising a take-off phase, a cruising phase and a landing phase, control the motor of the lift-increase propulsion unit in such a way that this propulsion unit:
delivers a mechanical propulsion power in the take-off or landing phase,
but remains off during most of the cruising phase
However, Swann’211 teaches:
comprising an electronic control unit (controller, Abstract) that comprises at least one processor and one memory,
the control unit being programmed to, during a flight of the aircraft comprising, inter alia, a take-off phase, a cruising phase and a landing phase, control the motor of the lift-increase propulsion unit (a controller for varying the supply of power to the electric motor selectively from the generator and/or energy store in dependence on one or more property of a vapour trail resulting from the engine exhaust flow. [0012, 0114], a controller selectively varies the supply of power to the electric motor from the generator and/or energy store in dependence on one or more property of a vapour trail resulting from the engine exhaust flow. The controller may also control the supply of power to the energy store for charging - Abstract) in such a way that this propulsion unit:
-delivers a mechanical propulsion power in the take-off or landing phase, - but remains off during most of the cruising phase (The energy storage unit may be required to deliver energy to the propulsive fan(s) at certain points of the flight as standard (for example during take-off, climb-out, top-of-climb, step-climbs) in order to supplement the power being delivered by the one or more engine. [0114] – examiner notes that that the energy storage delivering energy to the propulsive fan at the specific flight phases listed above, is equivalent to the claimed “lift-increase propulsion unit” being in operation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742', Himmelmann and Swann’983 with Swann’211's teachings discussed above, such that “a controller selectively varies the supply of power to the electric motor from the generator and/or energy store in dependence on one or more property of a vapour trail resulting from the engine exhaust flow. The controller may also control the supply of power to the energy store for charging” as taught by Swann’211 (Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742', Himmelmann, Swann’983 with Swann’211 teaches the invention as discussed for claim 5. Moxon’272 further teaches:
Propulsion system according to the preceding claim, wherein the control unit of the propulsion system is further programmed to, during most of the flight of the aircraft, control the motor of the wingtip propulsion unit to deliver a mechanical propulsion power (“The system may comprise a tip propulsor controller configured to control thrust generated by the tip propulsor in accordance with a yaw demand. Advantageously, the tip propulsor can be used to provide yaw control” [0015]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moxon 20160355272 (Moxon’272) in view of Moxon 2050144742 (Moxon’742) and Himmelmann 20180265206, Swann 11260983 and Kanerva 20130336818.
Regarding claim 7, Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742, Himmelmann teaches the invention as discussed above. Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742, Himmelmann, is silent about:
Propulsion system according to any preceding claim, wherein the lift-increase propulsion unit comprises a fixed-pitch propeller.
However, Kanerva teaches:
a fixed-pitch propeller (Both the first propeller and the second propeller may have fixed pitch [0079]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742, Himmelmann and Swann with Kanerva 's structure discussed above in order to provide the propulsion system with a fixed-pitch propeller to reduce weight and complexity.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moxon 20160355272 (Moxon’272) in view of Moxon 2050144742 (Moxon’742) Himmelmann 20180265206, Swann 11260983 and Edwards 20160340051.
Regarding claim 8, Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742', Himmelmann and Swann teaches the invention as discussed above. Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742', Himmelmann, and Swann is silent about: Propulsion system according to any preceding claim, wherein the wingtip propulsion unit comprises a variable-pitch propeller.
However, Edwards teaches a propulsion system according to any preceding claim, wherein the wingtip propulsion unit comprises a variable-pitch propeller ([0013-0014])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Moxon’272 in view of Moxon’742', Himmelmann and Swann with Edwards' structure discussed above in order to provide a variable pitch propeller that can be adjusted to fine pitch because “With the propeller pitch at fine pitch, the inventors have found during experiments that the load applied to the drive motor is approximately 10% of the maximum load when the propeller is in coarse pitch” as taught by Edwards [0014].
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments dated 9/10/2025 have been considered, but they are not persuasive. However, to the extent possible, applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections above, at the appropriate location.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
325
961
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: one of ordinary skill would interpret any electric motor to comprise a shaft that mechanically drives a device, often via gearboxes in order to match the desired rotation speed etc. Moxon’272 teaches powered by electrical power via motor generators 116 and also via gas turbine 10. [0041] The propulsor arrangements 100 are electrically interconnected by an interconnector 140. The interconnector 140 is an electrical connector which electrically couples the motor generators 116 of the left propulsor arrangement 100a, with the motor generators 116 of the right propulsor arrangement 100b. Consequently, in the event of a failure of the gas turbine engine 10 of one of the propulsor arrangements, power can be transferred from one propulsor arrangement 100a, 100b to the other electrically.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
164
645
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: the argument that Moxon’272 teaches away from replacing the mechanical shafts with all-electric drives, based on the paraphrased interpretation of Moxon’272 paragraph 6 above, does not appear to be supported when the full section of Moxon’272 is taken into account “Another alternative solution is to transfer power from one or more gas turbines to a plurality of remotely sited fans or propellers via electrical generators and an electrical transmission network. Such arrangements are described for example in Gohardani, A. S. ‘A synergistic glance at the prospects of distributed propulsion technology and the electric aircraft concept for future unmanned air vehicles and commercial/military aviation’, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Volume 57, February 2013. However, such arrangements introduce inefficiencies in view of the requirement to convert mechanical power to electrical power, and back again. These disadvantages may be partly overcome using superconducting generators, motors and cables. However, these technologies are relatively immature, and can be expected to add additional weight and cost” (Moxon’272 [0006]). Moxon points to the level maturity of the technology of superconducting generators, motors and cables, and points to tradeoffs regarding weight and cost, but that should not be interpreted as “motivates away”, one of ordinary skill in the art would take many positives and negatives aspects of any decision and make compromises and sacrifices when considering any engineering decision.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
599
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: Moxon ‘742 is used for the teachings of the placement of the components as claimed are discussed above, and the modification addresses the missing limitations and does not substitute Moxon’272’s motor as argued above; the motor is taught by Moxon’272. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would understand how to easily translate such electrical connections to a motor independent of it’s physical location in a nacelle, wing or anywhere else.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
437
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: Himmelmann provides evidence of known power electronics applies to electrical circuits to power an electric motor in an aircraft, an applicable art that applies to the present application and solves the same problem of directing electrical power from a source to a device, and would have been known and obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art to apply these teachings.Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
522
644
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: In the same manner discussed above, all references mentioned above are related and relevant to the present application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the knowledge of these teachings.
A determination of obviousness does not require the claimed invention to be expressly suggested by any one or all of the references. See e.g., In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Supreme Court instructs us that “when the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious,” the key is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Applicant does not provide evidence or persuasive argument showing that the proposed combination is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions. Moreover, in the instant case doing so would provide the additional advantage of redundancy and safety, as mentioned by applicant, and it is know in the art that multiple layers or redundancy and safety are desirable.
It has been held that “[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP § 2145 (X)(A). In the instant case, the rejections ake into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art prior to the claimed invention being made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure.
In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). MPEP 2144 (V).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. 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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741