DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed 3/18/2026 wherein claims 17-20 are canceled, and claims 1-16 and 21 are presented for examination.
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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/9/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first electric machine and second electric machine of the first electrical power generation sub-system . . . the second electric machine and first electric machine of the second electrical power generation sub-system . . . the third electric machine and fourth electric machine of the third electrical power generation sub-system . . . the fourth electric machine and third electric machine of the fourth electrical power generation sub-system” (Claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-16 and 21 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 claims “the first electric machine and second electric machine of the first electrical power generation sub-system . . . the second electric machine and first electric machine of the second electrical power generation sub-system . . . the third electric machine and fourth electric machine of the third electrical power generation sub-system . . . the fourth electric machine and third electric machine of the fourth electrical power generation sub-system” in claim 1. Applicant’s specification describes “a first electrical power generation sub-system comprising a first electric machine mechanically coupled with the first spool of the first propulsive gas turbine engine; a second electrical power generation sub-system comprising a second electric machine mechanically coupled with the second spool of the first propulsive gas turbine engine; a third electrical power generation sub-system comprising a third electric machine mechanically coupled with the first spool of the second propulsive gas turbine engine; a fourth electrical power generation sub-system comprising a fourth electric machine mechanically coupled with the second spool of the second propulsive gas turbine engine” (Pages 1-2 of Applicant’s specification). Applicant’s specification does not describe and the drawings do not show each of the four electrical power generation sub-systems having two electric machines.
Claims 2-16 and 21 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above based on their dependency to claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463) in view of Raad (US 6,992,403) and Turner (US 2020/0392903).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Huang teaches (Figures 1-2) a twin-engine aircraft power and propulsion system (see abstract and Figures 1-2), comprising:
first and second propulsive gas turbine engines (a left gas turbine engine 10 included in the left electrical system 42 and a right gas turbine engine 10 included in the right electrical system 44; see Figures 1-2), each comprising combustion equipment (20) and a plurality of spools (28, 26) including a first spool (28) and a second spool (26);
a first electrical power generation sub-system (at 54, 48, 56, 60 within 42) comprising a first electric machine (48) mechanically coupled with (see Figure 2) the first spool (28) of the first propulsive gas turbine engine (the left side gas turbine engine 10);
a second electrical power generation sub-system (at 50, 46, 52, 58 within 42) comprising a second electric machine (46) mechanically coupled with (see Figure 2) the second spool (26) of the first propulsive gas turbine engine (the left side gas turbine engine 10);
a third electrical power generation sub-system (at 54, 48, 56, 60 within 44 - the left and right electrical systems 42, 44 may be substantially identical; see Paragraph 0015) comprising a third electric machine (48 within 44) mechanically coupled with the first spool (28) of the second propulsive gas turbine engine (the right side gas turbine engine 10 included in the right electrical system 44);
a fourth electrical power generation sub-system (at 50, 46, 52, 58 within 44 – the left and right electrical systems 42, 44 may be substantially identical; see Paragraph 0015) comprising a fourth electric machine (46 within 44) mechanically coupled with the second spool (26) of the second propulsive gas turbine engine (the right side gas turbine engine 10 included in the right electrical system 44);
wherein each of the first electric machine (48 within 42), second electric machine (46 within 42), third electric machine (48 within 44) and fourth electric machine (46 within 44) is connected with a respective dc power channel (56 to 60 and 52 to 58) via an ac-dc converter (the electrical machine may generate AC voltage which is converted to a high DC voltage. “In generating AC voltage, the electrical machines may have a separate or integrated rectifier and/or filtering circuit electrically coupled to the electrical machine to convert AC voltage into an acceptable high DC voltage”; see Paragraph 0017).
Huang does not teach a first power channel connected with a distribution side of the second electric machine and the first electric machine of the second electrical power generation sub-system, a second power channel connected with a distribution side of the second electric machine and first electric machine of the second electrical power generation sub-system, a third power channel connected with a distribution side of the third electric machine and the fourth electric machine of the third electrical power generation sub-system, a fourth power channel connected with a distribution side of the fourth electric machine and the third electric machine of the fourth electrical power generation sub-system, or a ratio, PTOT/T, equal to a combined rated power of the first to fourth electric machines divided by a combined maximum thrust rating of the first and second gas turbine engines is greater than or equal to 4.5 WN-1 and less than 15.0 WN-1.
Raad teaches (Figures 1-15) a first power channel (36) connected with a distribution side (via 110 and 120) of the second electric machine (14) and the first electric machine (12) of the first electrical power generation sub-system (AC/DC Gen#1; see Figure 1), a second power channel (32) connected with a distribution side (via 40, 42) of the second electric machine (14) and first electric machine (12) of the second electrical power generation sub-system (AC/DC Gen#2; see Figure 1), a third power channel (38) connected with a distribution side (via 124, 132) of the third electric machine (16) and the fourth electric machine (18) of the third electrical power generation sub-system (AC/DC Gen#3; see Figure 1), a fourth power channel (34) connected with a distribution side (via 44, 46) of the fourth electric machine (18) and the third electric machine (16) of the fourth electrical power generation sub-system (AC/DC Gen#4; see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang to have a first power channel connected with a distribution side of the second electric machine and the first electric machine of the second electrical power generation sub-system, a second power channel connected with a distribution side of the second electric machine and first electric machine of the second electrical power generation sub-system, a third power channel connected with a distribution side of the third electric machine and the fourth electric machine of the third electrical power generation sub-system, a fourth power channel connected with a distribution side of the fourth electric machine and the third electric machine of the fourth electrical power generation sub-system, as taught by Raad, in order to have multiple levels of redundancy in the event of a failure to any one or combination of components (see abstract of Raad). Huang in view of Raad does not teach a ratio, PTOT/T, equal to a combined rated power of the first to fourth electric machines divided by a combined maximum thrust rating of the first and second gas turbine engines is greater than or equal to 4.5 WN-1 and less than 15.0 WN-1.
Turner teaches (Figures 1-22) propulsive gas turbine engine (101, the aircraft having two engines of the same type; see Figures 1-2 and Paragraph 0072) that includes a low pressure spool (104, 108, 110), a high pressure spool (105, 107, 109), and a fan (102), wherein the propulsive gas turbine engines (101) can include electric machines rated from 250 kilowatts to 2 megawatts (see Paragraphs 0081 and 0082) and a maximum thrust from an engine being 160 kilonewtons to 550 kilonewtons (see Paragraph 0067). These values lead to a ratio, PTOT/T, that ranges from about 0.91 W/N (250 kilowatts per machine x 4 machines/550 kilonewtons per engine x 2 engines) to 25 (2000 kilonewtons per machine x 4 machines/160 kilonewtons per engine x 2 engines) and includes values 12.5 W/N (1 MW per machine x 4 machines / 160 kilonewtons per engine x 2 engines) and 7.27 (2 MW per machine x 4 machines / 550 kilonewtons per engine x 2 engines) that fall within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 4.5 WN-1 and less than 15.0 WN-1 (see Paragraphs 0067 and 0081-0082).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang in view of Raad to have the ratio, PTOT/T, equal to a combined rated power of the first to fourth electric machines divided by a combined maximum thrust rating of the first and second gas turbine engines is greater than or equal to 4.5 WN-1 and less than 15.0 WN-1, as taught by Turner, in order to provide efficient engine operation (Paragraph 0066 of Turner) and improve factors such as reduction in compressor surge (Paragraph 0135 of Turner).
Regarding Claim 3, Huang in view of Raad and Turner teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Huang in view of Raad and Turner does not teach, as discussed so far, a first bus tie operable to connect together the first and third power channels, whereby electrical power generated by the first electrical power generation sub-system can be transferred to the third electrical power sub-system and vice versa; and a second bus tie operable to connect together the second and fourth power channels, whereby electrical power generated by the second electrical power generation sub-system can be transferred to the fourth electrical power generation sub-system and vice versa.
Raad teaches (Figures 1-15) a first bus tie (50) operable to connect together the first and third power channels (36, 38), whereby electrical power generated by the first electrical power generation sub-system (12) can be transferred to the third electrical power sub-system (16) and vice versa (16 to 12); and a second bus tie (48) operable to connect together the second and fourth power channels (32, 34), whereby electrical power generated by the second electrical power generation sub-system (14) can be transferred to the fourth electrical power generation sub-system (18) and vice versa (18 to 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang in view of Raad and Turner to include a first bus tie operable to connect together the first and third power channels, whereby electrical power generated by the first electrical power generation sub-system can be transferred to the third electrical power sub-system and vice versa; and a second bus tie operable to connect together the second and fourth power channels, whereby electrical power generated by the second electrical power generation sub-system can be transferred to the fourth electrical power generation sub-system and vice versa, as taught by Raad, in order to provide redundancy during right or left engine start mode (Column 7, lines 6-24 of Raad).
Regarding Claim 4, Huang in view of Turner and Raad teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Huang in view of Turner and Raad does not teach, as discussed so far, current limiting diodes operable to limit an amount of current that can flow between the first and third power channels and to limit an amount of current that can flow between the second and fourth power channels.
Raad teaches (Figures 1-15) current limiting diodes (110, 120, 124, 132) operable to limit an amount of current (via 110, 124) that can flow between the first and third power channels (36, 38) and to limit an amount of current (via 120, 132) that can flow between the second and fourth power channels (32, 34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang in view of Turner and Raad to include current limiting diodes operable to limit an amount of current that can flow between the first and third power channels and to limit an amount of current that can flow between the second and fourth power channels, as taught by Raad, for the same reasons discussed in claim 3 above and also in order to electrically couple the starter/generators with the buses (Column 5, lines 4-48 of Raad).
Regarding Claim 5, Huang in view of Turner and Raad teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Huang in view of Turner and Raad does not teach, as discussed so far, a control system configured to selectively open and close the first and second bus ties according to a detected condition of the power and propulsion system.
Raad teaches (Figures 1-15) a control system (85) configured to selectively open and close the first and second bus ties (50, 48) according to a detected condition (via sensors 12, 14, 16, 18, 74, 76, 82, 84) of the power and propulsion system (see Figures 1 and 1a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang in view of Turner and Raad to include a control system configured to selectively open and close the first and second bus ties according to a detected condition of the power and propulsion system, as taught by Raad, in order to receive inputs from sensors and activate contactors in accordance with the inputs of the sensors (Column 3, lines 27-53 of Raad).
Regarding Claim 8, Huang in view of Raad and Turner teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Huang in view of Raad and Turner does not teach, as discussed so far, in which a ratio, P1/T, equal to a combined rated power of the first and third electric machines divided by a combined maximum thrust rating of the first and second gas turbine engines is greater than or equal to 2.0 WN-1 and less than 7.0 WN-1.
Turner teaches (Figures 1-22) propulsive gas turbine engine (101, the aircraft having two engines of the same type; see Figures 1-2 and Paragraph 0072) that includes a low pressure spool (104, 108, 110), a high pressure spool (105, 107, 109), and a fan (102), wherein the propulsive gas turbine engines (101) can include electric machines rated from 250 kilowatts to 2 megawatts (see Paragraphs 0081 and 0082) and a maximum thrust from an engine being 160 kilonewtons to 550 kilonewtons (see Paragraph 0067). These values lead to a ratio, P1/T, that ranges from about 0.45 W/N (250 kilowatts per machine x 2 machines/550 kilonewtons per engine x 2 engines) to 12.5 (2000 kilonewtons per machine x 2 machines/160 kilonewtons per engine x 2 engines) and includes values 6.25 W/N (1 MW per machine x 2 machines / 160 kilonewtons per engine x 2 engines) and 3.64 (2 MW per machine x 2 machines / 550 kilonewtons per engine x 2 engines) that fall within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 2.0 WN-1 and less than 7.0 WN-1 (see Paragraphs 0067 and 0081-0082).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang in view of Raad and Turner to have a ratio, P1/T, equal to a combined rated power of the first and third electric machines divided by a combined maximum thrust rating of the first and second gas turbine engines is greater than or equal to 2.0 WN-1 and less than 7.0 WN-1, as taught by Turner, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Huang in view of Raad and Turner teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Huang in view of Raad and Turner does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein a ratio, P2/T, equal to a combined rated power of the second and fourth electric machines divided by a combined maximum thrust rating of the first and second gas turbine engines is greater than or equal to 3.5 WN-1 and less than 10.0 WN-1.
Turner teaches (Figures 1-22) propulsive gas turbine engine (101, the aircraft having two engines of the same type; see Figures 1-2 and Paragraph 0072) that includes a low pressure spool (104, 108, 110), a high pressure spool (105, 107, 109), and a fan (102), wherein the propulsive gas turbine engines (101) can include electric machines rated from 250 kilowatts to 2 megawatts (see Paragraphs 0081 and 0082) and a maximum thrust of an engine being 160 kilonewtons to 550 kilonewtons (see Paragraph 0067). These values lead to a ratio, P2/T, that ranges from about 0.45 W/N (250 kilowatts per machine x 2 machines/550 kilonewtons per engine x 2 engines) to 12.5 (2000 kilonewtons per machine x 2 machines/160 kilonewtons per engine x 2 engines) and includes values 6.25 W/N (1 MW per machine x 2 machines / 160 kilonewtons per engine x 2 engines) and 3.64 (2 MW per machine x 2 machines / 550 kilonewtons per engine x 2 engines) that fall within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 2.0 WN-1 and less than 7.0 WN-1 (see Paragraphs 0067 and 0081-0082).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang in view of Raad and Turner to have a ratio, P1/T, equal to a combined rated power of the first and third electric machines divided by a combined maximum thrust rating of the first and second gas turbine engines is greater than or equal to 3.5 WN-1 and less than 10.0 WN-1, as taught by Turner, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, Huang in view of Raad and Turner teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Huang further teaches (Figures 1-2) an aircraft (see title, abstract, and Figure 1) comprising the power and propulsion system (see abstract and Figures 1-2) of claim 1 (discussed above).
Regarding Claim 21, Huang in view of Raad and Turner teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Huang further teaches (Figures 1-2) that the first and second propulsive gas turbine engines (a left gas turbine engine 10 included in the left electrical system 42 and a right gas turbine engine 10 included in the right electrical system 44; see Figures 1-2) do not include any reheaters, afterburners, or augmenters (see Figures 1-2).
Although Huang does not teach a maximum thrust rating, Turner teaches (Figures 1-22) that the maximum thrust rating is a dry thrust rating without using reheat or afterburner (since the engines do not include any reheaters, afterburners, or augmenters; see Figures 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang in view of Raad and Turner to have the maximum thrust rating be a dry thrust rating without the use of reheaters or afterburners, as taught by Turner, in order to provide efficient engine operation (Paragraph 0066 of Turner).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463) in view of Raad (US 6,992,403) and Turner (US 2020/0392903) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Singh et al. (US 2019/0181786).
Regarding Claim 2, Huang in view of Raad and Turner teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Huang teaches (Figures 1-2) that the left and right electrical systems (42, 44) including left and right engines may be substantially identical (see Paragraph 0015). Huang in view of Lents does not teach, as discussed so far, that each of the first to fourth electric machines comprises a first sub-machine and a second sub-machine; the first power channel is connected with a distribution side of the first sub-machine of the first electric machine and a distribution side of the first sub-machine of the second electric machine; the second power channel is connected with a distribution side of the second sub-machine of the first electric machine and a distribution side of the first sub-machine of the second electric machine; the third power channel is connected with a distribution side of the first sub-machine of the third electric machine and a distribution side of the first sub-machine of the fourth electric machine; the fourth power channel is connected with a distribution side of the second sub-machine of the third electric machine and a distribution side of the second sub-machine of the fourth electric machine.
Singh teaches (Figures 1-7) each electric machine (Gen #1, Gen #2; see Figures 3-4) of an engine (302) comprises a first sub-machine (314, 318) and a second sub-machine (312, 316), a first power channel (the connection between ACBUS-1 and ACBUS-3 via 323; see Figures 3-4) is connected with (via 323) a distribution side (ACBUS-1; see Figures 3-4) of the first sub-machine (314) of the first electric machine (Gen #1; see Figures 3-4) and a distribution side (ACBUS-3; see Figures 3-4) of the first sub-machine (318) of the second electric machine (Gen#2); a second power channel (the connection between ACBUS-2 and ACBUS-4 via 323; see Figures 3-4) is connected with a distribution side (ACBUS-2; see Figures 3-4) of the second sub-machine (312) of the first electric machine (Gen#1) and a distribution side (ACBUS-4; see Figures 3-4) of the second sub-machine (316) of the second electric machine (Gen#2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang in view of Raad and Turner to have each of the electric machines comprise a first sub-machine and a second sub-machine, the first power channel is connected with a distribution side of the first sub-machine of the first electric machine and a distribution side of the first sub-machine of the second electric machine, the second power channel is connected with a distribution side of the second sub-machine of the first electric machine and a distribution side of the first sub-machine of the second electric machine, as taught by Singh, in order to circumvent the need for autotransformers, thereby reducing the footprint of an electrical power unit (Paragraph 0089 of Singh).
As discussed above, Huang teaches (Figures 1-2) that the left and right electrical systems (42, 44) including left and right engines may be substantially identical (see Paragraph 0015).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463) in view of Raad (US 6,992,403) and Turner (US 2020/0392903) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beardsley et al. (US 2008/0072571).
Regarding Claim 6, Huang in view of Raad and Turner teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Huang in view of Raad and Turner does not teach wherein one or more of the first to fourth electric machines are embedded with a core of the respective gas turbine engine.
Beardsley teaches (Figures 1-5) at least one electric machine (44) that is embedded with a core (within 40; see Figures 2-3) of the gas turbine engine (10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang in view of Raad and Turner to have at least one of the electric machines to be embedded with a core of the gas turbine engine, as taught by Beardsley, in order to omit a rear fan casing so that aerodynamic loads, weight, and aerodynamic drag penalties can be reduced (Paragraphs 0034-0035 of Beardsley).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463) in view of Raad (US 6,992,403) and Turner (US 2020/0392903) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of White et al. (US 2016/0107588).
Regarding Claim 7, Huang in view of Raad and Turner teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Huang teaches that gas turbine engines usually power a number of different accessories such as fuel pumps, wherein a generator coupled with a gas turbine engine will convert the mechanical power of the engine into electrical energy needed to power accessories, wherein fuel is supplied to combustion equipment (Paragraphs 0004 and 0014). Huang in view of Raad and Turner does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein each of the first and second propulsive gas turbine engines further comprises an electrically powered fuel pump arranged to receive electrical power from one or more of the first to fourth power channels and to supply fuel to the combustion equipment.
White teaches (Figures 1-6) the gas turbine engines (314, 316) comprises an electrically powered fuel pump (at 310A; see Figure 1 and Paragraph 0020) arranged to receive electrical power from at least one of the power channels (306, 308, 342, 344; see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang in view of Raad and Turner to have the first and second propulsive gas turbine engines comprise an electrically powered fuel pump arranged to receive electrical power from one or more of the first to fourth power channels, as taught by White, in order to power a large number of electrically powered loads by the output of at least one generator coupled to the aircraft engine (Paragraphs 0002 and 0020 of White).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463) in view of Raad (US 6,992,403) and Turner (US 2020/0392903) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raad (US 6,992,403) and Kumar et al. (US 2020/0290742).
Regarding Claim 10, Huang in view of Raad and Turner teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Huang in view of Raad and Turner does not teach an electrical energy storage system connected with each of the first to fourth power channels, and wherein a ratio defined as a total energy storage capacity of the electrical energy system divided by a combined maximum rated thrust of the first and second propulsive gas turbine engines is greater than or equal to 0.1 WhN-1 and less than 0.5 WhN-1.
Raad teaches (Figures 1-15) an electrical energy storage system (82 and/or 84) connected with each (via 36, 38) of first to fourth power channels (DC#1, DC#2, DC#3, DC#4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang in view of Raad and Turner to include an electrical energy storage system connected with each of the first to fourth power channels, as taught by Raad, in order to provide power to the left or right starter/generators to start the right or left engines (Column 7, lines 6-24 of Raad). Huang in view of Raad and Turner does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein a ratio defined as a total energy storage capacity of the electrical energy system divided by a combined maximum rated thrust of the first and second propulsive gas turbine engines is greater than or equal to 0.1 WhN-1 and less than 0.5 WhN-1.
Kumar teaches (Figures 1-46) a plurality of energy storage capacity of at least 1,500 kWh and thrust produced by the propulsor being at least 10MW (see claim 1). Kumar additionally teaches that the capacity of energy storage units and the output of the generator are optimized for maximum efficiency over regional ranges to lower operating costs compared to conventional aircraft (Paragraph 0698 of Kumar). Therefore, the total energy storage capacity relative to the thrust produced is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the capacity of the energy storage units relative to thrust generated are optimized for maximum efficiency.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the capacity of the storage units relative to the thrust of the engines can be optimized, were taught in the prior art by Kumar, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the storage capacity as taught by Kumar in order to provide maximum efficiency over regional ranges. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 11, Huang in view of Raad, Turner, and Kumar teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Huang in view of Raad, Turner, and Kumar does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the ratio is between 0.15 and 0.50 WhN-1.
Kumar teaches (Figures 1-46) a plurality of energy storage capacity of at least 1,500 kWh and thrust produced by the propulsor being at least 10MW (see claim 1). Kumar additionally teaches that the capacity of energy storage units and the output of the generator are optimized for maximum efficiency over regional ranges to lower operating costs compared to conventional aircraft (Paragraph 0698 of Kumar). Therefore, the total energy storage capacity relative to the thrust produced is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the capacity of the energy storage units relative to thrust generated are optimized for maximum efficiency.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the capacity of the storage units relative to the thrust of the engines can be optimized, were taught in the prior art by Kumar, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the storage capacity as taught by Kumar in order to provide maximum efficiency over regional ranges. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 12, Huang in view of Raad, Turner, and Kumar teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Huang in view of Raad, Turner, and Kumar does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein a portion of the electrical energy storage system is dedicated to supplying electrical power to one or more electrical loads during engine restart attempts.
Raad teaches (Figures 1-15) wherein a portion of the electrical energy storage system (82 and/or 84) is dedicated to supplying electrical power to one or more electrical loads during engine restart attempts (Column 7, lines 6-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang in view of Raad, Turner, and Kumar to have a portion of the electrical energy storage system is dedicated to supplying electrical power to one or more electrical loads during engine restart attempts, as taught by Raad, in order to provide redundancy during right or left engine start mode (Column 7, lines 6-24 of Raad).
Regarding Claim 13, Huang in view of Raad, Turner, and Kumar teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Huang in view of Raad, Turner, and Kumar does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the one or more electrical loads comprise one or more of: one or more of the first to fourth electrical machines; and/or one or more electrically powered fuel pumps configured to supply fuel to the combustion equipment of the first and second propulsive gas turbine engines.
Raad teaches (Figures 1-15) wherein a portion of the electrical energy storage system (82 and/or 84) is dedicated to supplying electrical power to one or more electrical loads during engine restart attempts (Column 7, lines 6-24), wherein the one or more electrical loads comprise one or more of the first to fourth electrical machines (12, 14, 16, 18; see Figures 1-15 and Column 7, lines 6-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang in view of Raad, Turner, and Kumar to have a portion of the electrical energy storage system is dedicated to supplying electrical power to one or more electrical loads during engine restart attempts, wherein the one or more electrical loads comprise one or more of: one or more of the first to fourth electrical machines, as taught by Raad, in order to provide redundancy during right or left engine start mode (Column 7, lines 6-24 of Raad).
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463) in view of Raad (US 6,992,403) and Turner (US 2020/0392903), Raad (US 6,992,403), and Kumar et al. (US 2020/0290742) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Turner (US 2020/0392859).
Regarding Claim 14, Huang in view of Raad, Turner ‘903, and Kumar teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Huang in view of Raad, Turner ‘903, and Kumar does not teach wherein a portion of the electrical energy storage system is dedicated to supplying electrical power to one or more of the first to fourth electric machines to manage surge margins and/or turbine temperatures of the first and second propulsive gas turbine engines.
Turner ‘859 teaches (Figures 1-22) a portion of an energy storage system (305) being dedicated to supplying electrical power to an electrical machine (117 or 119) to manage surge margins (Paragraph 0166).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang in view of Raad, Turner ‘903, and Kumar to have a portion of the electrical energy storage system is dedicated to supplying electrical power to one or more of the first to fourth electric machines to manage surge margins, as taught by Turner ‘859, in order to mitigate the possibility of surge (Paragraph 0166 of Turner ‘903).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463) in view of Raad (US 6,992,403) and Turner (US 2020/0392903) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raad (US 6,992,403) and Bruce (US 2021/0172382).
Regarding Claim 15, Huang in view of Raad and Turner teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Huang in view of Raad and Turner does not teach one or more platform distribution lanes connected with each of the first to fourth power channels, the one or more platform power distribution lanes being IT grounded.
Raad teaches (Figures 1-15) one or more platform distribution lanes (36, 38) connected with each of the first to fourth power channels (DC#1, DC#2, DC#3, DC#4), the one or more platform distribution lanes (36, 38) being grounded (at 118).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang in view of Raad and Turner to have one or more platform distribution lanes connected with each of the first to fourth power channels, the one or more platform power distribution lanes being grounded, as taught by Raad, in order to allow the starter/generators provide power to drive the DC onboard systems and recharge batteries (Column 5, lines 4-48 of Raad). Huang in view of Raad and Turner does not teach that the distribution lanes are IT gounded.
Bruce teaches (Figures 1-10) one or more platform distribution lanes (from 305) being either a true ground or a floating neutral in an IT grounding scheme (Paragraph 0114).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang in view of Raad and Turner to have the distribution lanes be IT grounded, as taught by Bruce, since applicant has not disclosed that having the distribution lanes being IT grounded solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with either the grounding scheme as taught by Raad or the grounding scheme as taught by Bruce.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being applied in this office action.
As discussed in the body of the rejection above, Raad teaches (Figures 1-15) a first power channel (36) connected with a distribution side (via 110 and 120) of the second electric machine (14) and the first electric machine (12) of the first electrical power generation sub-system (AC/DC Gen#1; see Figure 1), a second power channel (32) connected with a distribution side (via 40, 42) of the second electric machine (14) and first electric machine (12) of the second electrical power generation sub-system (AC/DC Gen#2; see Figure 1), a third power channel (38) connected with a distribution side (via 124, 132) of the third electric machine (16) and the fourth electric machine (18) of the third electrical power generation sub-system (AC/DC Gen#3; see Figure 1), a fourth power channel (34) connected with a distribution side (via 44, 46) of the fourth electric machine (18) and the third electric machine (16) of the fourth electrical power generation sub-system (AC/DC Gen#4; see Figure 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
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.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741