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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Rejections removed in view of amendments. For examination purpose, “a mathematical model” will be considered as any well-known in the art equation/formula/relationship since applicant in response filed 04/02/2026 states “PHOSITA would readily understand the bounds of the “mathematical model” limitation without needing the exact equations spelled out in the specification”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaux et al. (US 2022/0119121 A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2019/025691 A1), Brotherton-Ratcliffe et al. (US 2012/0056040 A1) and Campbell (US 2020/0031233 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Lacaux discloses a method and a dual-motor propulsion system of an electric aircraft (e.g. Abstract & [0027, 0028, 0098, 0099]), comprising:
a flight component (e.g. Fig. 1: propeller 32) attached to the electric aircraft, wherein the flight component is configured to maneuver the electric aircraft through a fluid medium (e.g. in the air);
a first motor (e.g. Fig. 9A: 30a) and a second motor (e.g. Fig. 9A: 30b) arranged in a vertically stacked configuration, the first motor configured to receive a first current from the first inverter and the second motor configured to receive a second current from the second inverter (e.g. Fig. 9A: 31 & [0029, 0092]),
the shaft is configured to extend through the first motor and the second motor in the vertically stacked configuration (e.g. Figs. 9A-9C); and
a flight controller (e.g. Fig. 1: EPC 12 & [0036, 0037]) communicatively connected to the plurality of sensors, wherein the flight controller is configured to selectively instruct a particular inverter to control a particular motor to provide motive power to the flight component based on the states of the plurality of motors and the flight parameters (e.g. [0087-0097]: ASC mode when one of the motors is failed).
Lacaux fails to disclose, but Brotherton-Ratcliffe teaches both encoder and encoderless motor are common alternative in the art (e.g. [0272]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lacaux with the teachings Brotherton-Ratcliffe to determine rotor position by detecting back-emf (i.e. encoderless). The modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art according to KSR since it is merely simple substitutions of one known motor with another.
In addition, Lacaux fails to disclose, but Suzuki teaches a first current sensor coupled to a first output of the first inverter and a second current sensor coupled to a second output of a second inverter (e.g. Fig. 24: A1a-A4b & [0203, 0204]); wherein the flight controller is configured to utilize the first current of the first motor to determine a reduced output (e.g. [0210, 0214]: failure of any one of the rotors) and selectively instruct the second inverter to control the second motor to provide an additional motive power to the flight component based on the reduced output of the first motor (e.g. [0004]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Lacaux with the teachings of Suzuki to maintain normal operation of an aircraft by compensating power/torque/rotation loss due to abnormality of one of the rotors by increasing power/torque/rotation of other rotors.
Lacaux, Brotherton-Ratcliffe and Suzuki in combination discloses the first encoderless motor, and determination of reduced output based on the first current (e.g. Suzuki: [0210,0214]), determination of rotor position or a rotor velocity based on the first current (e.g. Brotherton-Ratcliffe: [0272]) except “apply the first current to a mathematical model of the first encoderless motor to calculate a rotor velocity, and determine a reduced output by applying the calculated rotor velocity to a torque-versus-speed operation envelope to identify a reduced torque output of the first encoderless motor”.
However, Campbell teaches apply the first current to a mathematical model of the first motor to calculate a rotor velocity(e.g. Fig. 5: 506, 508), and determine a reduced output by applying the calculated rotor velocity to a torque-versus-speed operation envelope (e.g. Fig. 3 & [0038, 0045, 0049-0058]: eqn 3-8) to identify a reduced torque output of the first motor (Fig. 5: 520, 524 & [0036, 0064, 0085]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize well-known mathematical model as taught by Campbell to determine output of a motor. The modification of Lacaux with Campbell is merely applying a well-known mathematical model as taught by Campbell in a well-known motor parameter determination method as disclosed by Lacaux. It is merely simple substitutions of one known parameter determination with another according to KSR.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Suzuki teaches at least one flight-parameter sensor configured to detect flight parameters associated with the electric aircraft, wherein the flight parameters include an altitude associated with the electric aircraft, the flight controller configured to instruct the second inverter to provide the additional motive power to the flight component based on the altitude (e.g. Fig. 4: 55 & [0104, 0105, 0119]) and the reduced output (e.g. [0004, 0210, 0214]).
In addition, Brotherton-Ratcliffe teaches the flight parameters include an altitude associated with the electric aircraft (e.g. [0229]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Lacaux discloses at least one flight-parameter sensor configured to detect flight parameters associated with the electric aircraft, wherein the flight-parameter include a velocity associated with the electric aircraft (e.g. Lacaux: [0037]: speed of propeller associated with the aircraft), the flight controller configured to instruct the second inverter to provide the additional motive power to the flight component based on the velocity (e.g. [0037]) and the reduced output (e.g. Suzuki: [0004, 0210, 0214]).
In addition, Brotherton-Ratcliffe teaches the flight parameters include a velocity associated with the electric aircraft (e.g. [0230-0232]).
Regarding claim 4, Lacaux discloses the flight controller is configured to selectively instruct the first inverter based on a failure datum (e.g. [0087-0097]: ASC mode when one of the motors is failed), and Suzuki further teaches first inverter to control the first motor to provide no motive power to the flight component when abnormality associated with the first motor is detected or when the motor is not being used (e.g. [0230, 0250, 0258]).
Regarding claim 5, Lacaux discloses the reduced output of the first motor corresponds to an inoperable motor (e.g. [0087-0097]: when one of the motors is failed).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Lacaux discloses the failure datum corresponds to the reduced torque output of the first motor (e.g. [0087-0097]: one of the motors is failed implies reduced torque output of that failed motor).
Regarding claim 7, Brotherton-Ratcliffe teaches at least one flight-parameter sensor configured to detect flight parameters associated with the electric aircraft includes two or more inertial measurement units (IMUs) (e.g. [0054]).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki teaches the flight controller is configured to selectively instruct a second inverter to control the second motor to provide the additional motive power to the flight component to compensate for the reduced output of the first motor (e.g. [0004, 0210, 0214]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 11-13, 15-16 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272-2060. 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.
/KAWING CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights