DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 18/122,969 filed on April 1, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are still pending, with claim 1 being currently amended, and claim 16 being newly added.
Status of Objections and Non-Prior Art Rejections
I. 35 USC § 112(f) Interpretations
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are sufficient such that claim 1 is no longer interpreted under 112(f).
II. Objections to Drawings
The objections to the drawings are maintained. The drawings should be revised to provide symbols or short descriptions of the steps or elements represented by the blank boxes.
Drawings
Figures 6-9 are objected to because the drawings lack legends which are deemed to be necessary, or the provided legends in the drawings are illegible. According to 37 CFR 1.84(o), suitable legends may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing.
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.
Response to Arguments
On pages 5-6 of the remarks filed April 1, 2026, Applicant argues:
Nestel does not disclose Applicant's solid state converter controller operatively connected to a battery charging unit controller by a communication channel, and configured to communicate a control signal to the battery charging unit controller for controlling the battery charging unit. To the contrary, Nestel discloses the provision of a separate load sharing controller 206 that receives feedback from the solid state converter 212 and a current transducer 204, and which controls the battery charger 216.
In all of the examples of Nestel the solid state converter 212 sends a feedback signal to the load sharing controller 206 via communication line 232, and the current transducer 204 sends a feedback signal to the load sharing controller 206 via communication line 230. The load sharing controller 206 then determines the available power for charging and sends a control signal to the battery charger 216 via communication line 234.
Therefore, in Nestel the solid state converter 212 is not operatively connected to the battery charging unit 216, and the solid state converter 212 does not communicate a control signal to the battery charging unit 216, as claimed by Applicant. Actually, the solid state converter 212 of Nestel does not even generate a control signal - it only generates a feedback signal indicative of the aircraft power ("aircraft power feedback signal" [0031]).
According to Applicant's disclosure, configuring the solid state converter to communicate a control signal to the battery charging unit advantageously does away with the need for additional power controllers to determine how much power can be diverted to the battery charging unit. In particular, compared to Nestel, the claimed ground support equipment does not require a separate load sharing controller in communication with a solid state converter and a battery charging unit.
Accordingly, the claimed invention provides the technical effect of providing a ground support equipment with fewer components, which makes the system simpler, lower cost, and more reliable. The objective technical problem is therefore: how to provide a ground support equipment with simplified, lower cost, and more reliable power control of an aircraft and a battery charging unit. Nestel contains no disclosure or suggestion of using the solid state converter 212 itself to generate a control signal for the battery charger 216. Indeed, in Nestel the solid state converter 212 is not capable of generating this control signal because it only knows the level of power being requested by the aircraft - it does not know the maximum power available from the power source because it is not connected to the current transducer 204. In Nestel the load sharing controller 206 is presented as an essential feature, so there is no teaching that would lead the skilled person away from the arrangement in Nestel.
In addition, Nestel does not disclose that the solid state converter has a controller that is capable of determining the available power for battery charging, or capable of generating a control signal. Therefore, the skilled person would not consider using the solid state converter for this purpose. Accordingly, Claim 1 is inventive over Nestel, and the rejection should be withdrawn in view of amended Claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner has updated the rejections below in view of the claim amendments, but notes that Examiner already considered 208 and 212 together as the “solid state converter” (see annotated fig. 2 below). Examiner considers such an interpretation reasonable as Applicant’s specification also includes a controller as apart of the “solid state converter” (par [0007], “As the solid state converter includes a controller for monitoring the power drawn by the aircraft”). Controller 208 is indeed connected to the battery charger 216 via a communication channel 234 (par. 32) for controlling the draw of power by the battery charging unit.
Though, Applicant argues that their invention obviates the need for a load sharing controller, the claims do not presently exclude the variant of the load sharing controller being the controller of the “solid state converter”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the ground support equipment does not include a […] a separate load sharing controller”. It is unclear what this means since it is not specified what the claimed “load sharing controller” is separate to. Therefore, it is unclear if the claim is excluding the presence of any “load sharing controller” or only “load sharing controllers” in a particular configuration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nestel US PGPUB 2020/0346551.
Regarding claim 1, Nestel discloses ground support equipment for powering an aircraft on the ground [pars. 22-23; fig. 1], the ground support equipment comprising:
a solid state converter configured to power an aircraft on the ground from an airport power source having a pre-determined maximum power [fig. 2, solid state converter 212/208 (the solid state converter in combination with the controller 208) powers aircraft 214 from source 202; pars. 24-25];
a battery charging unit comprising a battery charging unit controller, and configured to charge an external battery from the airport power source [fig. 2, charging unit 216 controls charging of batteries 218 (external to source 202; see fig. 1, 100 is external to 106; par. 26), also charger 220 charges batteries of 222; pars. 24 & 33];
wherein the solid state converter, comprises a solid state converter controller operatively connected to the battery charging unit controller by a communication channel, and is configured to measure an instantaneous power drawn by the aircraft [pars. 32, 48 & 59; Examiner is considering 212/208 together as the solid state converter, 208 is a controller which is connected via a channel 234 to 216, 212 provides feedback to controller 208 regarding aircraft power draw]; and
wherein the solid state converter controller is configured to communicate a control signal to the battery charging unit controller for controlling the battery charging unit, the control signal being indicative of a maximum power available for the battery charging unit based on the difference between the pre-determined maximum power of the airport power source and the instantaneous power drawn by the aircraft [fig. 2; 212/208 (the solid state converter in combination with the controller 208) generate a control signal which determines how much power is available for battery charging based on the aircraft power draw and the maximum output power (par. 26); par. 7, 27 & 48].
Regarding claim 3, Nestel discloses wherein the battery charging unit comprises a plurality of charging modules configured to receive power from the airport power source [fig. 4, battery charger can be modified to also charge the externa GSEs 222 instead of 2 separate chargers, thus the battery charger has a plurality of outputs to charge a plurality of devices 222, which Examiner is interpreting as a plurality of charging modules; par. 56, otherwise the relied on elements of fig. 4 are the same as fig. 2, thus the rejection remains one of anticipation].
Regarding claim 4, Nestel discloses wherein the plurality of charging modules are connected in parallel [fig. 4].
Regarding claim 6, Nestel discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of charging modules is configured to convert an AC input to a DC output [fig. 4, AC power is fed through power feed 202, and used to charge DC devices (batteries 218 and 222), thus at least one module of 216 converts AC to DC; pars. 56-57].
Regarding claim 7, Nestel discloses comprising a common rectifier configured to convert an AC input to a DC output to provide a DC bus for providing power to the battery charging unit [par. 35 & 57; 216 converts AC to DC which is then provided to 222 “and/or” 218; thus a common DC rectified source, furthermore DC is output on a bus to multiple 222’s (thus common DC bus and common DC rectified source)].
Regarding claim 8, Nestel discloses wherein the DC bus is configured to provide power to each of the plurality of charging modules [fig. 4; pars. 35 & 57, the DC bus provides power to a plurality of outputs charging multiple 222’s].
Regarding claim 9, Nestel discloses wherein the solid state converter is configured to provide a 400 Hz output [par. 30].
Regarding claim 10, Nestel discloses wherein the solid state converter is configured to receive power from an AC power source [par. 30].
Regarding claim 13, Nestel discloses wherein the battery charging unit is configured to provide a DC power output [figs. 2 & 4; pars. 24, 32, 37 & 57].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nestel US PGPUB 2020/0346551 in view of Perisic et al. US PGPUB 2012/0126755.
Regarding claim 2, Nestel discloses wherein the solid state converter is configured to receive a user input [pars. 29-30; 212/208 (the solid state converter in combination with the controller 208) receive user input via HMI 210].
Nestel does not explicitly disclose user input setting the pre-determined maximum power.
However, Perisic discloses an electric vehicle charging system [par. 25], thus in the same field as the invention, wherein user input sets the pre-determined maximum power [par. 24; the maximum amount of power drawable from the grid is selected by the user].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nestel to further include user input setting the pre-determined maximum power for the purpose of allowing a user to control the draw of power according to the time-cost of power, as taught by Perisic (par. 24).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nestel US PGPUB 2020/0346551 in view of Perisic et al. US PGPUB 2012/0126755, and further In view of Qarish et al. US PGPUB 2023/0023933.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nestel and Perisic does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of charging modules are configured to provide a 30kW output.
However, Qarish discloses an aircraft charging system wherein at least one of the plurality of charging modules are configured to provide a 30kW output [fig. 3; pars. 13-14 & 62-63; the charging module 10 of the ground supply equipment provides an output of 90 kW or greater to a battery 20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nestel to further include wherein at least one of the plurality of charging modules are configured to provide a 30kW output since such sources are common and allow fast and easy recharge, as taught by Qarish (pars. 13-14).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nestel US PGPUB 2020/0346551.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Nestel does not explicitly disclose wherein the solid state converter is configured to provide up to 180 kW output power or wherein the battery charging unit is configured to provide an output power of 120kW.
However, Admitted Prior Art discloses using a wattage of up to 400 kW for charging large batteries such as in electric vehicles, and thus the converters must be able to handle such a wattage as well. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nestel to further include wherein the solid state converter is configured to provide up to 180 kW output power and wherein the battery charging unit is configured to provide an output power of 120kW for the purpose of allowing rapid charging, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
NB: Examiner took Official Notice with respect to the above limitation of claims 11 and 12 in the Non-Final Rejection mailed January 9, 2026. Applicant did not traverse or did not adequately traverse. Thus, the limitation is being treated as taught by admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nestel US PGPUB 2020/0346551 in view of Xia et al. US PGPUB 2013/0020989.
Regarding claim 14, Nestel discloses comprising a solid state converter configured to provide power to the aircraft [fig. 2, solid state converter 212/208 (the solid state converter in combination with the controller 208) powers aircraft 214 from source 202; pars. 24-25].
Nestel does not explicitly disclose a plurality of converters.
However, Xia discloses an electric vehicle charging system comprising a plurality of converters [fig. 1-3; a plurality of DC/DC converters are used and can be connected in parallel to combine DC outputs for one load, depending on the load demand; par. 35 & 52].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nestel to further include a plurality of converters for the purpose of connecting multiple converters to one load to increase the output as needed for demand, as taught by Xia (pars. 35 & 52).
Regarding claim 15, Nestel discloses a solid state converter [pars. 24-25].
Nestel does not explicitly disclose a plurality of converters or wherein the plurality of converters are connected in parallel.
However, Xia as applied in claim 14 discloses the plurality of converters and wherein the plurality of converters are connected in parallel [figs. 1-3; pars. 35 & 52].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 16, the following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the ground support equipment does not include a current transducer or a separate load sharing controller” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 1, from which claim 16 depends.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights