DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
In the communication dated February 25, 2026, claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 13 are currently amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 25, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The 112 rejection is withdrawn.
The applicant argus that Solodovnik does not teach that the active voltage controller 22 determines whether the battery 18 is discharging at a rate greater than the maximum discharge rate or is charging at a rate greater than a maximum charge rate determined by the difference between a current limit of the battery and a moving time-average current value (pages 11-12 of applicant remarks).
Solodovnik teaches increasing or decreasing the charging rate by comparing the maximum charge rate to a detected current. For clarity that the detected current can be a time-averaged current in a comparison, Yugo et a. US20030146756A1 is newly cited, as detailed further below.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts et al. US10233768B1 in view of Yugo et a. US20030146756A1 and Solodovnik et al. EP3703220B1.
Regarding claim 1. Watts discloses an electric propulsion power system (FIG. 1) comprising:
a DC bus (16);
at least one power plant (12) providing power to the bus (16);
at least one load (18) drawing power from the bus (16);
a battery unit (17) coupled to the bus (16) and being configured to provide power to the bus in a discharge mode and draw power from the bus in a charge mode (column 2; lines 38-46);
a control system (13/14) operating a quasi-load following supervisory control scheme (column 3, lines 45-52 – “system adjusts the power control module load output) for controlling the amount of power that the at least one power plant provides to the bus (column 3, lines 43-49 ECU and PCM maintain the turbine engine at its optimal operating point by regulating the power output from the generator – thus providing adjustment to the load output), the amount of power that the battery unit provides to the bus and the amount of power that the battery unit draws from the bus in response to the at least one load drawing power from the bus over time (column 3, lines 34-49 – as the system load increases, more power is required, the ECU and PCM control the power output of the generator).
Watts does not explicitly teach a voltage sensor for measuring voltage on the bus; a current sensor for continuously measuring instantaneous current provided to the battery unit from the bus and provided from the battery unit to the bus over time; and said control system calculating a moving time-average current value over a predetermined time window using the instantaneous current measurements, determining a delta current value as the difference between a current charge/discharge limit of the battery unit and the moving time-average current value and determining if additional power from the at least one power plant to the DC bus will be provided and a rate of current in the discharge mode or the charge mode based on the delta current value.
Yugo discloses a voltage sensor (2) for measuring voltage on the bus (second current sensor detects the current with detecting the voltage produced – claim 8);
a current sensor (1) for continuously measuring instantaneous current provided to the battery unit from the bus and provided from the battery unit to the bus over time (¶22 – current sensor outputs an average current during a time period; ¶23 – first current sensor 1 detects seven times continuously); and
said control system calculating a moving time-average current value over a predetermined time window using the instantaneous current measurements (¶23 – outputs average current).
Yugo teaches determining a delta current value as the difference between a current charge/discharge limit of the battery unit and the moving time-average current value (¶51 – the value of the second current sensor 2 is compared with the average of the first current sensor and determines the difference)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the time averaged current, as taught by Yugo, in order to reduce error due to time periods that are incapable of having a current detected and provide greater accuracy in the current (¶4)
Yugo does not explicitly teach determining if additional power from the at least one power plant to the DC bus will be provided and a rate of current in the discharge mode or the charge mode based on the delta current value.
Solodovnik teaches increasing or decreasing the battery charge rate by comparing a detected battery current against a maximum rate, thus, determining if additional power from the at least one power plant to the DC bus will be provided and a rate of current in the discharge mode or the charge mode based on the delta current value (FIG. 3 106 and 110; ¶38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide further control of the power using the detected voltage and current in order to provide more battery power to reduce the fuel consumption in a n aircraft (Solodovnik; ¶45).
Regarding claim 2. Watts does not explicitly teach that the control system determines that additional power is required if the delta current value is positive and determines the additional power is the delta current value minus the measured bus voltage.
Solodovnik discloses that the control system determines that additional power is required if the delta current value is positive (¶38 “Then the active voltage controller 22 determines whether the battery current is greater than the maximum discharge rate or not”) and determines the additional power is the delta current value minus the measured bus voltage (FIG 3 at 114; ¶40 – if the battery SOC is not less than the minimum SOC reserve then the controller determines whether the increase the power drawn from the battery.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide further control of the power using the detected voltage and current in order to provide more battery power to reduce the fuel consumption in a n aircraft (Solodovnik; ¶45).
Regarding claim 3. Watts discloses that the control system (13/14) determines the power provided to the bus (16) from the at least one power plant (12) as the additional power plus the current power setting (column 3, lines 34-52 the ECU and PCM regulates the power output from the generator).
Regarding claim 4. Watts discloses that the control system (13/14) includes a power control module (PCM) (13) and an engine control unit (ECU) (14), said PCM (13) provides an additional power signal to the ECU (14) and the ECU (14) adds the additional power to the current power setting (column 3, lines 34-52 the ECU and PCM regulates the power output from the generator).
Regarding claim 7. Watts discloses the at least one load is a plurality of loads (FIG. 1 at 23).
Watts does not explicitly disclose that the at least one power plant is a plurality of power plants and the at least one load is a plurality of loads.
Solodovnik discloses that the at least one power plant is a plurality of power plants (¶1 – one or more electric generators).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide further control of the power using the detected voltage and current in order to provide more battery power to reduce the fuel consumption in a n aircraft (Solodovnik; ¶45).
Regarding claim 8. Watts discloses that the power system is on an aircraft (column 2, lines 24-28), the at least one load is a plurality of electric aircraft propulsors (FIG. 1 at 23) and the at least one power plant is a turbo-alternator (column 2, lines 60-63).
Regarding claim 9. Watts discloses an electric propulsion power system on an aircraft (FIG. 1) (column 2, lines 24-28), said system comprising:
a DC bus (16);
a turbo-alternator providing power to the bus (column 2, lines 60-63);
a plurality of electric aircraft propulsors drawing power from the bus (FIG. 1 at 23);
a battery unit (17) coupled to the bus and being configured to provide power to the bus in a discharge mode and draw power from the bus in a charge mode (column 2; lines 38-46);
an electronic control unit (ECU) (14) setting an amount of fuel provided to the turbo-alternator (column 2, lines 60-63); and
a power control module (PCM) (13) operating a quasi-load following supervisory control scheme (column 3, lines 45-52 – “system adjusts the power control module load output) for controlling the amount of power that the turbo-alternator provides to the bus (column 3, lines 43-49 ECU and PCM maintain the turbine engine at its optimal operating point by regulating the power output from the generator), the amount of power that the battery unit provides to the bus and the amount of power that the battery unit draws from the bus in response to the turbo-alternator drawing power from the bus over time (column 3, lines 34-49 – as the system load increases, more power is required, the ECU and PCM control the power output of the generator).
Watts does not explicitly teach a voltage sensor for measuring voltage on the bus; a current sensor for continuously measuring instantaneous current provided to the battery unit from the bus and provided from the battery unit to the bus over time;; and said PCM calculating a moving time-average current value over a predetermined time window using the instantaneous current measurements, determining a delta current value as the difference between a current charge/discharge limit of the battery unit and the moving time-average current value and determining if additional power from the at least one power plant to the DC bus will be provided and a rate of current in the discharge mode or the charge mode based on the delta current value.
Yugo discloses a voltage sensor (2) for measuring voltage on the bus (second current sensor detects the current with detecting the voltage produced – claim 8);
a current sensor (1) for continuously measuring instantaneous current provided to the battery unit from the bus and provided from the battery unit to the bus over time (¶22 – current sensor outputs an average current during a time period; ¶23 – first current sensor 1 detects seven times continuously); and said control system calculating a moving time-average current value over a predetermined time window using the instantaneous current measurements (¶23 – outputs average current).
said PCM calculating a moving time-average current value over a predetermined time window using the instantaneous current measurements (¶35 – average value S of the current values detected by the sensor over a period of time),
determining a delta current value as the difference between a current charge/discharge limit of the battery unit and the moving time-average current value (¶51 – the value of the second current sensor 2 is compared with the average of the first current sensor and determines the difference)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the time averaged current, as taught by Yugo, in order to reduce error due to time periods that are incapable of having a current detected and provide greater accuracy in the current (¶4)
Yugo does not explicitly disclose and determining if additional power from the at least one power plant to the DC bus will be provided and a rate of current in the discharge mode or the charge mode based on the delta current value.
Solodovnik teaches increasing or decreasing the battery charge rate by comparing a detected battery current against a maximum rate, thus, determining if additional power from the at least one power plant to the DC bus will be provided and a rate of current in the discharge mode or the charge mode based on the delta current value (FIG. 3 106 and 110; ¶38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide further control of the power using the detected voltage and current in order to provide more battery power to reduce the fuel consumption in a n aircraft (Solodovnik; ¶45).
Regarding claim 10. Watts does not explicitly disclose that the PCM determines that additional power is required if the delta current value is positive and determines the additional power is the delta current value minus the measured bus voltage.
Solodovnik discloses that the PCM determines that additional power is required if the delta current value is positive (¶38 “Then the active voltage controller 22 determines whether the battery current is greater than the maximum discharge rate or not”) and determines the additional power is the delta current value minus the measured bus voltage (FIG 3 at 114; ¶40 – if the battery SOC is not less than the minimum SOC reserve then the controller determines whether the increase the power drawn from the battery.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide further control of the power using the detected voltage and current in order to provide more battery power to reduce the fuel consumption in a n aircraft (Solodovnik; ¶45).
Regarding claim 11. Watts discloses that the control system (13) determines the power provided to the bus (16) from the at least one power plant (12) as the additional power plus the current power setting (column 3, lines 34-52 the ECU and PCM regulates the power output from the generator).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts et al. US10233768B1 in view of Yugo et a. US20030146756A1 and Solodovnik et al. EP3703220B1 and further in view of Hom et al. US20190260216A1.
Regarding claim 5. Watts does not explicitly disclose the battery unit includes a battery management system (BSM) that controls the charge/discharge rate of the battery unit.
Hom discloses that the battery unit (212) includes a battery management system (BSM) (220) that controls the charge/discharge rate of the battery unit (¶34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the battery unit with a management since it was known in the art that batteries generally include a management system in order to control the charging of the battery.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts et al. US10233768B1 in view of Yugo et a. US20030146756A1 and Solodovnik et al. EP3703220B1 and further in view of Chang US20070111044A1.
Regarding claim 6. Watts does not explicitly disclose that if the bus voltage is below a predetermined upper limit, then the at least one power plant is enabled, and if the bus voltage is above the upper limit the at least one power plant is disabled.
Chang discloses that if the bus voltage is below a predetermined upper limit, then the at least one power plant is enabled (¶74 – controller determines whether the charge is less than a maximum voltage and charging occurs), and if the bus voltage is above the upper limit the at least one power plant is disabled (¶75 – is the voltage is more than a maximum voltage the charge operation is stopped).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide charging only within a particular range to the system of Watts in order to avoid overcharging which would damage the electrical system.
Regarding claim 12. Watts does not explicitly disclose that if the bus voltage is below a predetermined upper limit, then the turbo-alternator is enabled, and if the bus voltage is above the upper limit the turbo-alternator is disabled.
Chang discloses that if the bus voltage is below a predetermined upper limit, then the turbo-alternator is enabled (¶74 – controller determines whether the charge is less than a maximum voltage and charging occurs), and if the bus voltage is above the upper limit the turbo-alternator is disabled (¶75 – is the voltage is more than a maximum voltage the charge operation is stopped).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide charging only within a particular range to the system of Watts in order to avoid overcharging which would damage the electrical system.
Claims 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solodovnik et al. EP3703220B1 in view of Yugo et a. US20030146756A1.
Regarding claim 13. Solodovnik discloses a method (FIG. 3) for operating a quasi-load following supervisory control algorithm in an electric propulsion power system (¶17) that controls the amount of power provided by a power plant to a DC bus (20) and causes a battery unit (18) to discharge to provide power to the bus (20) and to charge to remove power from the bus in response to one or more loads (28/30) drawing power from the bus over time (¶28), said method comprising:
measuring voltage on the bus (¶28 – The HVDC bus voltage is compared against the battery voltage thus, the bus voltage is sensed);
measuring instantaneous current provided to the battery unit from the bus and provided from the battery unit to the bus over time(¶38 – voltage controller 22 measures the battery current and determines whether the current is greater than the max discharge rate and either charging or discharging the battery);
determining a delta current value as the difference between a current charge/discharge limit of the battery unit and the moving time-average current value (FIG. 3 at 108 and 112; ¶38); and
determining if additional power from the power plant to the DC bus will be provided and a rate of current in the discharge mode or the charge mode based on the delta current value (FIG. 3 106 and 110; ¶38).
Solodovnik does not explicitly teach continuously measuring instantaneous current provided to the battery unit from the bus and provided from the battery unit to the bus over time; calculating a moving time-average current value over a predetermined time window using the instantaneous current measurements.
Yugo teaches continuously measuring instantaneous current provided to the battery unit from the bus and provided from the battery unit to the bus over time (¶22 – current sensor outputs an average current during a time period; ¶23 – first current sensor 1 detects seven times continuously);
calculating a moving time-average current value over a predetermined time window using the instantaneous current measurements (¶23 – outputs average current).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the time averaged current, as taught by Yugo, in order to reduce error due to time periods that are incapable of having a current detected and provide greater accuracy in the current (¶4)
Regarding claim 14. Solodovnik discloses that determining that additional power is required if the delta current value is positive (¶38 “Then the active voltage controller 22 determines whether the battery current is greater than the maximum discharge rate or not”) and determining that the additional power is the delta current value minus the measured bus voltage (FIG 3 at 114; ¶40 – if the battery SOC is not less than the minimum SOC reserve then the controller determines whether the increase the power drawn from the battery).
Regarding claim 15. Solodovnik discloses that determining the power provided to the bus from the power plant as the additional power plus the current power setting (¶31 – generator voltage is changed depending on the generator loading providing the AC bus voltage with a variable frequency, power converter converts the AC bus power to HVDC bus power; ¶44 – more power is drawn from the electric generator 14.
Regarding claim 17. Solodovnik discloses that the power system is on an aircraft, the one or more loads is a plurality of electric aircraft propulsors (24) and the power plant is a turbo-alternator (¶18 – aircraft having a gas turbine engine generator, or a turbo-alternator).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solodovnik et al. EP3703220B1 in view of Yugo et a. US20030146756A1 and further in view of Chang US20070111044A1.
Regarding claim 16. Solodovnik does not explicitly disclose if the bus voltage is below a predetermined upper limit, then the power plant is enabled, and if the bus voltage is above the upper limit the power plant is disabled.
Chang discloses that if the bus voltage is below a predetermined upper limit, then the at least one power plant is enabled (¶74 – controller determines whether the charge is less than a maximum voltage and charging occurs), and if the bus voltage is above the upper limit the at least one power plant is disabled (¶75 – is the voltage is more than a maximum voltage the charge operation is stopped).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide charging only within a particular range to the system of Solodovnik in order to avoid overcharging which would damage the electrical system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA JEPPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/PAMELA J JEPPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights