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 .
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the applicant used the term ‘independently mounted’. This term has a special definition defined in ¶47 of the specification of the application: “… the thermal engine 30 and the electric machine 32 are still independently supported; e.g., not connected to the airframe structure 30 through one another.”
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 14-16, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detweiler (US 20240034479 A1) in view of Seefluth (DE 3629867 A1) and Laude (US 9022318 B2) or alternatively over Detweiler (US 20240034479 A1) in view of Seefluth (DE 3629867 A1), Laude (US 9022318 B2), and LaTulipe (US 20200298988 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Detweiler (US 20240034479 A1) discloses an aircraft system, comprising:
a propulsor rotor (Detweiler, figure 1, item 208);
a geartrain (Detweiler, figure 2a, item 222) including a power output (Detweiler, figure 2a, item 228, shaft connects power to an output), a first power input (Detweiler, figure 2a, item 224, shaft connects power to a first input) and a second power input (Detweiler, figure 2a, item 226, shaft connects power to a second input), the power output coupled to the propulsor rotor (Detweiler, figure 2a, input power is transmitted via transmission to the shaft driving the propeller), the propulsor rotor is rotatable about a rotational axis (Detweiler, figure 1, item 208, rotors rotates about an axis);
a thermal engine configured to drive rotation of the propulsor rotor through the geartrain, the thermal engine coupled to the first power input (Detweiler, figure 1, item 204);
a drivetrain (Detweiler, figure 1, item 226)
an electric machine configured to drive rotation of the propulsor rotor (Detweiler, figure 1, item 206); and
the drivetrain including a first driveshaft, wherein the drivetrain is coupled to the second power input and the electric machine (Detweiler, figure 2a, item 226), the first driveshaft extending axially along and radially outboard of the thermal engine (Detweiler, figure 2a, items 226 and 204b);
wherein the thermal engine is located axially between the geartrain and the electric machine along the rotational axis (Detweiler, figure 1, items 204 and 206, ¶65, engine shown located axially behind transmission; NOTE that figure 1 is generic to subsequent embodiments with a series or parallel configuration, see ¶43), except:
a second driveshaft and an angle drive coupling the first driveshaft to the second driveshaft, the first driveshaft coupled to and extending axially between the second power input and second driveshaft, the second driveshaft coupled to the electric machine; and
wherein the thermal engine includes an exhaust duct at an aft end of the thermal engine; and
at least a portion of the electric machine is disposed aft of the exhaust duct.
Alternatively, Detweiler also teaches an electric machine located axially behind the thermal engine along the rotational axis (Detweiler, figure 1, items 204 and 206, ¶65, engine located axially behind transmission).
It would have been obvious to combine these separate embodiments of Detweiler, such that the thermal engine is located between the transmission and the electric machine in order to reduce the diameter of the nacelle required to house them, thereby reducing parasitic drag.
Seefluth (DE 3629867 A1) teaches a first driveshaft (Seefluth, figure 2, item 4a) and a second driveshaft (Seefluth, figure 2, item 26a),
the first driveshaft coupled to and extending axially between the second power input and the second driveshaft (Seefluth, figure 2, items 4, 4a, and 26a, first driveshaft axially between second power input and second driveshaft), and the second driveshaft angularly offset from the first driveshaft (Seefluth, figure 2, items 4a and 26a, driveshafts have an angle with respect to each other and an angle drive connects them together); and the second driveshaft coupled to and between the first driveshaft and a machine (Seefluth, abstract, gearbox connects two engines to drive one rotor).
Detweiler and Seefluth are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft engine transmissions. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the drivetrain of Detweiler with the angled drivetrain of Seefluth with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide more spacing and clearance between two motors/engines driving the rotor.
Laude (US 9022318 B2) teaches an aircraft system including a thermal engine and an electric engine, wherein the thermal engine includes an exhaust duct at an aft end of the thermal engine (Laude, figure 3, item 1, engine including exhaust duct at its aft end); and
at least a portion of the electric machine is disposed aft of the exhaust duct (Laude, figure 3, item 51, electric machine aft of the exhaust duct).
Detweiler as modified by Seefluth and Laude are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft powertrains. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Detweiler as modified by Seefluth with the exhaust duct and electric machine aft of the exhaust duct of Laude with a reasonable expectation of success in order to direct exhaust gasses to produce additional thrust.
Alternatively, LaTulipe (US 20200298988 A1) teaches a thermal engine (LaTulipe, figure 6, item 502) located axially between a geartrain (LaTulipe, figure 6, item 512) and an electric machine (LaTulipe, figure 6, item 506) along a rotational axis (LaTuilpe, figure 6, item 114).
Detweiler as modified by Seefluth and Laude and LaTulipe are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of hybrid aircraft engine transmissions. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement of the thermal engine, the geartrain, and the electric machine of Detweiler as modified by Seefluth and Laude with arrangement of the thermal engine between the geartrain and electric machine of LaTulipe with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce the diameter of the nacelle required to house them, thereby reducing parasitic drag.
Regarding claim 2, Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, and LaTulipe teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the second driveshaft is angularly offset from the first driveshaft by an acute angle (Seefluth, figure 2, items 4a and 26a, driveshafts have a slight angle with respect to each other).
Regarding claim 3, Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, and LaTulipe teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the second driveshaft is angularly offset from the first driveshaft by a right angle (Seefluth, figure 6, items 60a and 62a, driveshaft offset at a right angle).
Regarding claim 4, Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, and LaTulipe teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the drivetrain further includes an angle drive coupled to and between the first driveshaft and the second driveshaft (Seefluth, figure 6, items 61, bevel gear).
Regarding claim 14, Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, and LaTulipe teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the electric machine is configurable as an electric motor during a motor mode of operation to drive rotation of the propulsor rotor through the drivetrain and the geartrain (Detweiler, ¶45, electric motor may be used to provide torque to the propulsor); and
the electric machine is further configurable as an electric generator during a generator mode of operation where the thermal engine is configured to power the electric machine through the geartrain and the drivetrain (Detweiler, ¶33 and ¶45, electric motor may be used to generate power from the thermal engine).
Regarding claim 15, Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, and LaTulipe teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the thermal engine is configured as a gas turbine engine (Detweiler, figure 2a, item 204, ¶45, combustions engine is optionally a gas turbine engine).
Regarding claim 16, Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, and LaTulipe teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the propulsor rotor comprises a propeller rotor (Detweiler, figure 2a, item 208).
Regarding claim 22, Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, and LaTulipe teaches aircraft system of claim 1, further comprising:
an airframe structure (Laude, figure 3, item 50);
the electric machine is at least partially housed within the airframe structure (Laude, figure 3, item 51); and
the thermal engine is cantilevered from the airframe structure (Laude, figure 3, item 64, engine cantilevered from airframe structure).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detweiler (US 20240034479 A1) in view of Seefluth (DE 3629867 A1), Laude (US 9022318 B2), and LaTulipe (US 20200298988 A1) or alternatively over Detweiler (US 20240034479 A1) in view of Seefluth (DE 3629867 A1), Laude (US 9022318 B2), and LaTulipe (US 20200298988 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Winter (US 20090139243 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, and LaTulipe teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, further comprising:
an airframe structure (Detweiler, figure 1, item 100 aircraft including wing);
the thermal engine and the electric machine independently mounted to the airframe structure (Detweiler, figures 1 and 2, items 204 and 206, engine and motors are arranged independently in airframe).
Alternatively, Winter (US 20090139243 A1) teaches a thermal engine and an electric machine independently mounted to the aircraft wing (Winter, figure 2, items 12 and 66, accessory components to engine including electrical starter/generators are mounted separately).
Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, and LaTulipe and Winter are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft engine transmissions. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electric machine and thermal engine of Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, and LaTulipe with the independently mounted electric machine and thermal engine of Winter with a reasonable expectation of increase structural redundancy.
Regarding claim 7, Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, LaTulipe, and Winter teaches the aircraft system of claim 6, wherein the airframe structure is configured as an aircraft wing (Detweiler, figure 1, item 100 aircraft including wing).
Regarding claim 21, Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, and LaTulipe teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, except:
further comprising:
a nacelle housing the geartrain and the thermal engine;
wherein the electric machine is disposed outside of the nacelle.
Winter (US 20090139243 A1) teaches an aircraft system including:
a nacelle housing the geartrain and the thermal engine (Winter, figure 1, item 34);
wherein the electric machine is disposed outside of the nacelle (Winter, figure 1, item 66).
Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, and LaTulipe and Winter are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of hybrid aircraft engine transmissions. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft system of Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, and LaTulipe with the nacelle and electric machine located outside of the nacelle of Winter with a reasonable expectation of success in order to direct airflow through the engine and to protect the engine.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detweiler (US 20240034479 A1) in view of Seefluth (DE 3629867 A1), Laude (US 9022318 B2), LaTulipe (US 20200298988 A1), and Winter (US 20090139243 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Cronin (US 4476395 A).
Regarding claim 8, Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, LaTulipe, and Winter teaches the aircraft system of claim 7, wherein the electric machine is housed at a leading edge of the aircraft wing (Detweiler, figure 1, items 206, motor located at leading edge of wing), except:
wherein the electric machine is housed within the aircraft wing.
Cronin (US 4476395 A) teaches an electric machine housed within an aircraft wing (Cronin fig 13 item 152) in a wing (Cronin, col 8, lines 20-23).
Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, LaTulipe, and Winter and Cronin are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft powertrains. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electric machine of Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, LaTulipe, and Winter to be located in the wing as in Cronin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to save space inside of nacelle or pylon structures that the electrical machine might otherwise be placed in.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detweiler (US 20240034479 A1) in view of Seefluth (DE 3629867 A1), Laude (US 9022318 B2), LaTulipe (US 20200298988 A1), and Winter (US 20090139243 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Cronin (US 4476395 A).
Regarding claim 9, Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, LaTulipe, and Winter teaches the aircraft system of claim 6, wherein the thermal engine is disposed outside of the airframe structure (Detweiler, figure 1, item 204, thermal engine outside of the wing structure); except:
the electric machine is at least partially housed within the airframe structure (Cronin fig 13 item 152, col 8, lines 20-23, electric machine is housed inside of wing).
Cronin (US 4476395 A) teaches an electric machine which is at least partially housed within the airframe structure (Cronin fig 13 item 152, Cronin, col 8, lines 20-23, electric machine housed within an airframe structure which may be a wing).
Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, LaTulipe, and Winter and Cronin are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft powertrains. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electric machine of Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, LaTulipe, and Winter to be located in the wing as in Cronin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to save space inside of nacelle or pylon structures that the electrical machine might otherwise be placed in.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detweiler (US 20240034479 A1) in view of Seefluth (DE 3629867 A1), Laude (US 9022318 B2), LaTulipe (US 20200298988 A1), and Winter (US 20090139243 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Newton (US 5687561 A).
Regarding claim 10, Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, LaTulipe, and Winter teaches the aircraft system of claim 6, except:
wherein the electric machine is vertically below the airframe structure.
Newton (US 5687561 A) teaches an electrical machine located vertically below the airframe structure (Newton, figure 1, item, 30, machine below wing).
Newton teaches an electrical machine which is outside of the airframe structure (Newton, figure 1, item, 30, machine outside of wing)
Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, LaTulipe, and Winter and Newton are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft powertrains. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the location of the electrical machine of Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, LaTulipe, and Winter with the electrical machine located outside of the airframe structure of Newton with a reasonable expectation of success in order to save space as compared with other locations of the machine including in the nacelle, thereby reduce the required nacelle size, or in the wing, thereby increasing the available space in the wing for fuel.
Regarding claim 11, Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, LaTulipe, and Winter teaches the aircraft system of claim 6, except:
wherein the electric machine is outside of the airframe structure.
Newton (US 5687561 A) teaches an electrical machine which is outside of the airframe structure (Newton, figure 1, item, 30, machine outside of wing)
Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, LaTulipe, and Winter and Newton are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft propulsion transmissions. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the location of the electrical machine of Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, LaTulipe, and Winter with the electrical machine located outside of the airframe structure of Newton with a reasonable expectation of success in order to save space as compared with other locations of the machine including in the nacelle, thereby reducing the required nacelle size, or in the wing, thereby increasing the available space in the wing for fuel.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detweiler (US 20240034479 A1) in view of Seefluth (DE 3629867 A1), Laude (US 9022318 B2), LaTulipe (US 20200298988 A1), and Winter (US 20090139243 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kupratis (US 11168617 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, LaTulipe, and Winter teaches the aircraft system of claim 6, except:
further comprising a nacelle at least partially housing the thermal engine and the electric machine.
Kupratis (US 11168617 B2) teaches a nacelle (Kupratis, fig 1, item 18) at least partially housing a thermal engine (Kupratis, fig 1, item 20, gas turbine engine) and an electric machine (Kupratis, fig 1, item 174).
Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, LaTulipe, and Winter and Kupratis are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft propulsion transmissions. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the location of the invention of Detweiler as modified by Seefluth, Laude, LaTulipe, and Winter with the nacelle housing the thermal engine and electrical machine of Kupratis with a reasonable expectation of success in order to save space as compared with other locations of the machine including in the pylon, thereby reducing the required pylon size and drag produced by the pylon, or in the wing, thereby increasing the available space in the wing for fuel.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Detweiler (US 20240034479 A1) in view of Cronin (US 4476395 A), Laude (US 9022318 B2), and Pantalone (US 20140096501 A1)or in the alternative rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detweiler (US 20240034479 A1) in view of Winter (US 20090139243 A1), Cronin (US 4476395 A), Laude (US 9022318 B2) and Pantalone (US 20140096501 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Detweiler (US 20240034479 A1) discloses an aircraft system, comprising:
a propulsor rotor (Detweiler, figure 1, item 208);
a thermal engine configured to drive rotation of the propulsor rotor through a first power input (Detweiler, figure 1, item 204);
an electric machine configured to drive rotation of the propulsor rotor through a second power input (Detweiler, figure 1, item 206); and
an aircraft wing (Detweiler, figure 1, item 100 aircraft including wing), the thermal engine and the electric machine independently mounted to the aircraft wing (Detweiler, figures 1 and 2, items 204 and 206, engine and motors are arranged independently in airframe and attached to wing), wherein the thermal engine is disposed outside of the aircraft wing (Detweiler, figure 1, item 204, engine is shown ahead of aircraft wing); except:
the thermal engine including an exhaust duct at an aft end of the thermal engine;
the electric machine is at least partially housed within the aircraft wing;
wherein the exhaust duct is axially between the thermal engine and at least a portion of the electric machine, and the exhaust duct is angularly offset from a rotational axis of the thermal engine.
Alternatively, Winter (US 20090139243 A1) teaches a thermal engine and an electric machine independently mounted to the aircraft wing (Winter, figure 2, items 12 and 66, accessory components to engine including electrical starter/generators are mounted separately).
Detweiler and Winter are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft engine transmissions. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electric machine and thermal engine of Detweiler with the independently mounted electric machine and thermal engine of Winter with a reasonable expectation of increase structural redundancy.
Cronin (US 4476395 A) teaches an electric machine housed within an aircraft wing (Cronin fig 13 item 152) in a wing (Cronin, col 8, lines 20-23).
Detweiler as modified by Winter and Cronin are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft powertrains. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electric machine of Detweiler as modified by Winter to be located in the wing as in Cronin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to save space inside of nacelle or pylon structures.
Laude (US 9022318 B2) teaches an aircraft system including a thermal engine and an electric engine, wherein the thermal engine includes an exhaust duct at an aft end of the thermal engine (Laude, figure 3, item 1, engine including exhaust duct at its aft end); and
at least a portion of the electric machine is disposed aft of the exhaust duct (Laude, figure 3, item 51, electric machine aft of the exhaust duct).
Detweiler as modified by Winter and Cronin and Laude are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft powertrains. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Detweiler as modified by Winter and Cronin with the exhaust duct and electric machine aft of the exhaust duct of Laude with a reasonable expectation of success in order to direct exhaust gasses to produce additional thrust.
Pantalone (US 20140096501 A1) teaches an exhaust duct is angularly offset from a rotational axis of the thermal engine (Pantalone, figure 11, exhaust duct angles engine exhaust away from aircraft structures and is at an offset angle from the thermal engine rotational axis).
Detweiler as modified by Winter Cronin and Laude and Pantalone are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft engines and associated structures. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Detweiler as modified by Winter, Cronin, and Laude with the exhaust duct facing an offset angle with respect the thermal engine of Pantalone with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce heating of the aircraft by the thermal engine exhaust.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detweiler (US 20240034479 A1) in view of Winter (US 20090139243 A1), Cronin (US 4476395 A), and Laude (US 9022318 B2), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Seefluth (DE 3629867 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Detweiler as modified by Winter, Cronin, and Laude teaches the aircraft system of claim 17, further comprising:
a geartrain (Detweiler, figure 2a, item 222) including a power output (Detweiler, figure 2a, item 228, shaft connects power to an output), a first power input (Detweiler, figure 2a, item 224, shaft connects power to a first input) and a second power input (Detweiler, figure 2a, item 226, shaft connects power to a second input), the power output coupled to the propulsor rotor, and the first power input coupled to the thermal engine (Detweiler, figure 2a, input from the thermal engine is transmitted via transmission to the shaft driving the propeller); and
a drivetrain including a first driveshaft, wherein the drivetrain is coupled to the second power input and the electric machine (Detweiler, figure 2a, item 226), except:
a second driveshaft and an angle drive coupling the first driveshaft to the second driveshaft, the first driveshaft coupled to the second power input, the second driveshaft coupled to the electric machine.
Seefluth (DE 3629867 A1) teaches a first driveshaft (Seefluth, figure 2, item 4a) and a second driveshaft (Seefluth, figure 2, item 26a), and an angle drive (Seefluth, figure 2, items 4a and 26a, driveshafts have an angle with respect to each other and a drive connects them together); and the second driveshaft coupled to and between the first driveshaft and a machine (Seefluth, abstract, gearbox connects two engines to drive one rotor).
Detweiler as modified by Winter, Cronin, and Laude and Seefluth are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft powertrains. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the drivetrain of Detweiler as modified by Winter, Cronin, and Laude with the angled drivetrain of Seefluth with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide more spacing and clearance between two motors/engines driving the rotor.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detweiler (US 20240034479 A1) in view of Cronin (US 4476395 A).
Regarding claim 20, Detweiler (US 20240034479 A1) discloses an aircraft system, comprising:
a propulsor rotor (Detweiler, figure 1, item 208);
a geartrain (Detweiler, figure 2a, item 222) including a power output (Detweiler, figure 2a, item 228, shaft connects power to an output), a first power input (Detweiler, figure 2a, item 224, shaft connects power to a first input) and a second power input (Detweiler, figure 2a, item 226, shaft connects power to a second input), the power output coupled to the propulsor rotor (Detweiler, figure 2a, input power is transmitted via transmission to the shaft driving the propeller), the propulsor rotor is rotatable about a rotational axis (Detweiler, figure 1, item 208, rotors rotates about an axis);
a thermal engine configured to drive rotation of the propulsor rotor through the geartrain, the thermal engine coupled to the first power input (Detweiler, figure 1, item 204);
a drivetrain (Detweiler, figure 1, item 226) including a first driveshaft (Detweiler, figure 1, item 226) and, the first driveshaft extending axially along and radially outboard of the thermal engine (Detweiler, figure 1, items 226 and 204a, first driveshaft extends radially outboard of the thermal engine), and;
an electric machine configured to drive rotation of the propulsor rotor (Detweiler, figure 1, item 206); and
an aircraft wing (Detweiler, figure 1, item 100 aircraft including wing), the thermal engine disposed outside of the aircraft wing (Detweiler, figure 1, item 204, engine is shown ahead of aircraft wing), except:
a second driveshaft, the first driveshaft coupled to and between the second power input and the second driveshaft; the second driveshaft angularly offset from the first driveshaft
the electric machine at least partially housed within the aircraft wing.
Seefluth (DE 3629867 A1) teaches a first driveshaft (Seefluth, figure 2, item 4a) and a second driveshaft (Seefluth, figure 2, item 26a),
the first driveshaft coupled to and extending axially between the second power input and the second driveshaft (Seefluth, figure 2, items 4, 4a, and 26a, first driveshaft axially between second power input and second driveshaft), and the second driveshaft angularly offset from the first driveshaft (Seefluth, figure 2, items 4a and 26a, driveshafts have an angle with respect to each other and an angle drive connects them together).
Detweiler and Seefluth are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft engine transmissions. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the drivetrain of Detweiler with the angled drivetrain of Seefluth with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide more spacing and clearance between two motors/engines driving the rotor.
Cronin (US 4476395 A) teaches an electric machine at least partially housed within an aircraft wing (Cronin fig 13 item 152) in a wing (Cronin, col 8, lines 18-20).
Detweiler as modified by Seefluth and Cronin are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft powertrains. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electric machine of Detweiler as modified by Seefluth to be located in the wing as in Cronin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to save space inside of nacelle or pylon structures.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Detweiler (US 20240034479 A1) in view of Seefluth (DE 3629867 A1) and Laude (US 9022318 B2) or alternatively over Detweiler (US 20240034479 A1) in view of Seefluth (DE 3629867 A1), Laude (US 9022318 B2), and LaTulipe (US 20200298988 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pantalone (US 20140096501 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Detweiler as modifed by Seefluth, Laude, and LaTuilpe teaches the aircraft system of claim 1, except:
wherein the exhaust duct is angularly offset from the rotational axis.
Pantalone (US 20140096501 A1) teaches an exhaust duct is angularly offset from a rotational axis of the thermal engine (Pantalone, figure 11, exhaust duct angles engine exhaust away from aircraft structures and is at an offset angle from the thermal engine rotational axis).
Detweiler as modifed by Seefluth, Laude, and LaTuilpe and Pantalone are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft engines and associated structures. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Detweiler as modifed by Seefluth, Laude, and LaTuilpe with the exhaust duct facing an offset angle with respect the thermal engine of Pantalone with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce heating of the aircraft by the thermal engine exhaust.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
The prior art fails to teach the claimed invention of claim 1 because the prior art as a whole was not considered and because Laude does not disclose/teach an electric machine suitable for driving a rotation of a propulsion rotor.
Regarding the argument that the prior art should be considered as a whole per MPEP 2141.02 (VI), the prior art has been considered for what it teaches and all of applicant’s arguments. Nowhere does it appear that the teachings of the prior art teach away from the combination as articulated in the rejection above.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Detweiler is used to teach an electric machine which can drive the propulsion rotor whereas Laude is used to teach the relative locations of the exhaust duct and the electric machine, not the electric machine itself. Whether or not the electrical machine of Laude is intended for use as a generator or the like, Laude does in fact teach a location for such an electric machine. One of ordinary skill would also note that an electric motor and a generator are similar in structure.
The prior art fails to teach the claimed subject matter of claim 17 because the references are not combinable to meet the claim (namely because Cronin is directed towards an electric machine with a different purpose and there is no teaching in Cronin that this electric machine can be used to drive a propeller) and because the prior art fails to teach the angularly offset exhaust duct
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Detweiler is used to teach an electric machine which can drive the propulsion rotor whereas Cronin is used to teach the housing electric machine in the wing, not the electric machine itself. Whether or not the electrical machine of Cronin is intended for use as a generator or the like, Cronin does in fact teach a placement for such an electric machine. One of ordinary skill would also note that an electric motor and a generator are similar in structure.
Regarding the angularly offset exhaust duct, a new rejection based on Pantalone has been provided to meet this newly added limitation.
The prior art fails to teach the claimed subject matter of claim 20 because the references are not combinable to meet the claim (namely because Detwiler fails to disclose/teach a first driveshaft extending axially along and radially outboard of the thermal engine.
Detweiler figure 2 does teach a first driveshaft extending axially along and radially outboard of the thermal engine (the first driveshaft extends axially parallel to the thermal engine and is radially offset from this engine) hence the claimed scope of this limitation is met.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hield (US 5694765 A) teaches a hydraulic drive system located in the pylons
Winter (US 20090139243 A1) teaches a propulsor rotor which is rotatable about a rotational axis (Winter, figure 1, item 20); and the thermal engine is located axially between the geartrain and the electric machine along the rotational axis (Winter, figure 2, item 60); the thermal engine and electric machine are independently mounted
LaTulipe (US 20200298988 A1) discloses an aircraft system including a geartrain, thermal engine, and electric machine wherein the thermal engine is located between the geartrain and electric machine (LaTuilipe, figure 12, items 1006 and 1002, ¶48, optional design wherein the electric motor and heat engine may be moved such that the heat engine is located between the propeller and the electric motor).
Lacko (US 20210163142 A1) teaches a heat engine and electric machine mounted independently to the airframe.
Hefner (US 20200017211 A1) teaches motors mounted in the leading edge of the wing
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642