DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the application filed on March 08, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are withdrawn.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 01, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) introduce new subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 as amended now recites “the electric motor controller is configured to receive the aircraft condition data and: based on the received aircraft condition data, determine that the flight controller is in a mode corresponding to a flight phase requiring a set amount of thrust to maintain a predetermined airspeed during the flight phase; determine a difference between a current amount of the thrust and the set amount of thrust; and based on the difference, command the electric motor to augment an amount of power produced by the gas turbine engine” (emphasis added). Applicant points to ¶0051 of the specification. However, ¶0051 does not include and Applicant has not otherwise pointed out where the new limitation “determine a difference between a current amount of the thrust and the set amount of thrust; and based on the difference, command the electric motor to augment an amount of power produced by the gas turbine engine” (emphasis added) is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed. Nowhere does the as-filed disclosure teach or suggest that the electric motor controller is configured to determine a difference, nor does it teach or suggest a difference between a current amount of the thrust and the set amount of thrust (to maintain the predetermined airspeed). It is also does not teach to augment an amount of power produced based on the difference. Notably, a trim controller to remedy a steady state offset in power does not necessarily determine a difference of thrust. This limitation is not supported by the as-filed disclosure and was added by amendment and therefore constitutes new matter.
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-20220292987-A1
“BACIC”
US-20190322382-A1
“MACKIN”
US-20180237125-A1
“LISIO”
US-20130085661-A1
“CHAN”
US-20150029046-A1
“MENA”
US-20140249694-A1
“CATHCART”
US-20160236790-A1
“KNAPP”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BACIC in view of MACKIN and LISIO.
PNG
media_image1.png
649
793
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 9, BACIC teaches a hybrid powerplant system for an aircraft 100 (e.g., including propulsion system 20 in Figure 2, ¶¶0065-0070), the aircraft having a bladed rotating component 25, the hybrid powerplant system comprising:
a hybrid electric gas turbine engine powerplant having an electric motor 24 and a gas turbine engine 26 (¶¶0066-0078), the gas turbine engine structured to generate an energy to operate the electric motor and provide mechanical power to propel the aircraft (¶¶0066-0070);
an electric motor controller [110, 120] (¶¶0077-0080) (110, 120 controls the propulsion system including an electric motor and dynamic control surfaces in Fig. 2 and is therefore an electric motor controller); and
a flight controller [140 and/or 200 and/or 220] (Fig. 2, ¶¶0077, 0082-0083, 0090, 0094, 0097) configured to communicate aircraft condition data [weather and/or flight path and/or aircraft operating data] to the electric motor controller (¶¶0082-0083, 0090, 0093-0098, 0111);
wherein the electric motor controller is configured to receive the aircraft condition data (¶¶0082-0089, 0094-0098, 0105, 0117, 0124) and based on the received aircraft condition data (¶¶0084-0091), determine that the flight controller is in a mode corresponding to a flight phase requiring a set amount of thrust to maintain a predetermined airspeed during the flight phase (¶0137-0138; required thrust and effector values are determined to maintain a speed that tracks desired trajectory). See also Figs. 7-8 and ¶¶0132-0141. However, BACIC as discussed so far fails to teach the flight controller is configured to provide a guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) control action for the aircraft.
BACIC further teaches wherein the flight controller is configured to provide a guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) control action for the aircraft (flight paths are determined and/or validated by 200; BACIC ¶0090, 0102). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system wherein the flight controller is configured to provide a guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) control action for the aircraft (e.g., determine and/or validate and/or invalidate flight path), in order to limit the amount of stored energy consumed by the aircraft prior to flight and/or provide high processing capability for flight path analysis (BACIC ¶0090). See also BACIC ¶¶0092-0103. However, BACIC fails to expressly teach the electric motor controller is configured to modulate the mechanical power provided by the gas turbine engine.
MACKIN teaches a hybrid gas turbine electric motor power plant system having an electric motor controller 208 (¶0020) configured to modulate the mechanical power provided by a gas turbine engine wherein the electric motor controller is configured to receive aircraft condition data and change a level of mechanical power provided by the gas turbine engine and an electric motor to propel the aircraft based on the aircraft condition data (¶¶0020-0036). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system wherein the electric motor controller is configured to modulate the mechanical power provided by the gas turbine engine, in order to provide desired modes of operation for the hybrid powerplant (MACKIN ¶¶0016-0018, 0021-0026) whilst accounting for weather conditions and improving performance and/or range (BACIC ¶¶0003-0007). However, BACIC in view of MACKIN as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the electric motor controller is configured to determine a difference between a current amount of the thrust and the set amount of thrust; and based on the difference, command the electric motor to augment an amount of power produced by the gas turbine engine.
MACKIN further teaches wherein the electric motor controller is configured to act upon a difference between a current amount of the thrust and a set amount of thrust (difference between desired thrust and current thrust for given desired operating mode) and based on the difference, command the electric motor to augment an amount of power produced by the gas turbine engine utilizing an autothrottle program (MACKIN ¶¶0016, 0018, 0029, 0031-0032, 0036, 0057). LISIO teaches an analogous controller (¶0038) utilizing an autothrottle program to determine a difference between a current amount of the thrust and a set amount of thrust for providing appropriate control actions accordingly (¶¶0019-0024, 0038). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electric motor controller so it is configured to determine a difference between a current amount of the thrust and the set amount of thrust; and based on the difference, command the electric motor to augment an amount of power produced by the gas turbine engine, in order to provide autopilot with smooth operation in a propellor aircraft (LISIO ¶¶0019, 0037) utilizing a smaller lighter gas turbine engine by selectively utilizing the gas turbine and a motor (MACKIN ¶¶0016-0018).
Re Claim 13, BACIC in view of MACKIN and LISIO teaches the hybrid powerplant system of claim 9, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the gas turbine engine and the electric motor are in a parallel hybrid configuration in that the gas turbine engine and the electric motor provide summative mechanical power to rotate the bladed rotating component.
BACIC further teaches hybrid architecture may be parallel driving the bladed rotating component and MACKIN teaches wherein the gas turbine engine and the electric motor are in a parallel hybrid configuration in that the gas turbine engine and the electric motor provide summative mechanical power to rotate the bladed rotating component (BACIC ¶0070, MACKIN ¶0016-0017 & Figs.2-5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system wherein the gas turbine engine and the electric motor are in a parallel hybrid configuration in that the gas turbine engine and the electric motor provide summative mechanical power to rotate the bladed rotating component, in order to provide a parallel hybrid architecture with improved performance and/or range (BACIC ¶¶0003-0007).
Re Claim 14, BACIC in view of MACKIN and LISIO teaches the hybrid powerplant system of claim 9. BACIC further teaches wherein the gas turbine engine is configured as a turboshaft engine, and wherein the mechanical power used to propel the aircraft is generated solely from the electric motor [by driving prop 25] (BACIC Fig. 1B, ¶¶0066-0070).
Re Claim 15, BACIC in view of MACKIN and LISIO teaches the hybrid powerplant system of claim 9. BACIC further teaches the electric motor is in mechanical power communication with the bladed rotating component 25; and wherein the electric motor controller is further configured to generate an command to control the propulsion system based on the aircraft condition data and target flight condition data (BACIC ¶¶0034, 0041, 0078, 0085, 0117-0121). MACKIN teaches the electric motor controller 208 is further configured to generate an electric motor command to modulate power transferred with the bladed rotating component (MACKIN ¶¶0021-0028). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system wherein the electric motor controller is further configured to generate an electric motor command to modulate power transferred with the bladed rotating component based on the aircraft condition data, target flight condition data, to control the propulsion system in accordance with the flight plan and flight phases and account for weather effects (BACIC ¶¶0041, 0078, 0085, 0117-0121; MACKIN ¶¶0021-0028).
Re Claim 16, BACIC in view of MACKIN and LISIO teaches the hybrid powerplant system of claim 9. BACIC further teaches an electric generator 27 and an energy storage device 21 (Fig. 1B), the electric generator structured to withdraw power from the gas turbine engine (BACIC ¶¶0066-0070), the electric generator in electrical communication with the energy storage device, the energy storage device in electric communication with the electric motor (BACIC Fig. 1B, ¶¶0066-0071).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BACIC in view of MACKIN and LISIO as applied above, further in view of CHAN.
Re Claim 10, BACIC in view of MACKIN and LISIO teaches the hybrid powerplant system of claim 9. BACIC further teaches which further includes the aircraft having a control surface actuator (effector) structured to generate motion in a control surface of the aircraft (BACIC ¶¶0077-0079), and wherein the mechanical power provide by the gas turbine engine to propel the aircraft is based on guidance command (BACIC ¶¶0100-0102, 0121-0122, 0127-0131). BACIC additionally further teaches flight path may be updated during flight (BACIC ¶0114). However, BACIC in view of MACKIN and LISIO as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the flight controller is configured to receive a guidance command.
CHAN teaches a flight controller consonant with that of BACIC discussed above (¶¶0007-0008, 0034) that is configured to receive a guidance command wherein the mechanical power used to propel the aircraft is based on the guidance command (Figs. 4, 6, 7; ¶0089, 0105-0117) and further teaches wherein the guidance command is at least one of a VNAV navigation mode command and an LNAV navigation mode command (¶0089). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system wherein the flight controller is configured to receive a guidance command, wherein the guidance command is at least one of a VNAV navigation mode command and an LNAV navigation mode command, and wherein the mechanical power provided by the gas turbine engine to propel the aircraft is based on the guidance command, in order to allow for dynamic adjustment to flightpath and synchronization across a network of aircraft (CHAN ¶¶0111-0114; BACIC ¶0114).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BACIC in view of MACKIN and LISIO as applied above, further in view of MENA.
Re Claim 11, BACIC in view of MACKIN and LISIO teaches the hybrid powerplant system of claim 9, but as discussed so far fails to teach an air data computer (ADC) configured to generate and send an air data signal to the electric motor controller.
MENA teaches an air data computer (ADC) configured to generate and send an air data signal to an FMS (consonant with electric motor controller in BACIC) (¶¶0027-0037). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system so it includes air data computer (ADC) configured to generate and send an air data signal to the electric motor controller, to calculate airspeed, rate of climb, altitude, and Mach number or used by the FMS 110 of the electric motor controller with an ADC thereby providing real time operational conditions (MENA ¶0004).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BACIC in view of MACKIN and LISIO as applied above, further in view of CHAN AND CATHCART.
Re Claim 12, BACIC in view of MACKIN and LISIO teaches the hybrid powerplant system of claim 9. BACIC further teaches the flight controller includes a flight management computer (FMC) 200 (¶0090) and also further teaches the computer system including an automatic flight control system (AFCS) (¶0041), the AFCS configured to generate an aircraft control surface command for the aircraft (¶¶0041, 0078, 0085, 0117-0121), the FMC and the AFCS configured to convey the aircraft condition data to the electric motor controller (Fig. 2, ¶¶0082-0083, 0090, 0093-0098, 0111), wherein the aircraft condition data includes a data from the flight management computer (weather and/or flight path) and a data from the automatic flight control system (aircraft operating parameters, ¶0121). However, BACIC in view of MACKIN and LISIO fails to teach the FMC configured to receive a guidance command.
CHAN teaches an FMC consonant with that of the flight controller of BACIC discussed above (¶¶0007-0008, 0034) that is configured to receive a guidance command (Figs. 4, 6, 7; ¶0089, 0105-0117). Additionally (though implicit in at least ¶0041 of BACIC), CATHCART teaches a remote AFCS 30 configured to wirelessly convey aircraft condition data to an engine controller [17, 40], wherein the aircraft condition data includes a data from the automatic flight control system (¶¶0043-0055). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system wherein the flight controller includes the flight management computer (FMC) and an automatic flight control system (AFCS), the FMC configured to receive a guidance command, and wherein the AFCS configured to generate the aircraft control surface command for the aircraft, the FMC and the AFCS configured to convey the aircraft condition data to the electric motor controller, wherein the aircraft condition data includes a data from the flight management computer and a data from the automatic flight control system in order to allow for dynamic adjustment to flightpath (CHAN ¶¶0111-0114; BACIC ¶0114) and in order to provide wireless remote automatic flight control over the propulsion system (CATHCART ¶¶0043-0045, 0001-0009).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 01, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s reply overcame the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), but necessitated the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth above.
Applicant’s remarks to BACIC in view of MACKIN have been considered, but are not persuasive.
The new recitation to determining a difference introduces new matter as set forth fully above. The examiner notes that power and thrust, though related, are distinct quantities known to those of ordinary skill. For example, see LISIO ¶¶0020-0022. A trim controller to remedy a steady state offset in power as set forth in Applicant’s ¶0051 does not necessarily utilize thrust, nor does it necessarily determine a difference of thrust. Upon review the examiner does not find support for the new limitation “the electric motor controller is configured to receive the aircraft condition data and: … determine a difference between a current amount of the thrust and the set amount of thrust; and based on the difference, command the electric motor to augment an amount of power produced by the gas turbine engine” (emphasis added)
BACIC in view of MACKIN and LISIO renders obvious the new claim limitations directed to functionality set forth in Claim 9. It is noted that the rejections are based on the combined teachings of the prior art. BACIC determines that the flight controller is in a mode corresponding to a flight phase requiring a set amount of thrust to maintain a predetermined airspeed during the flight phase (¶0137-0138; determines required thrust and effector values to maintain speed that tracks desired trajectory). As to determining the difference in thrust as claimed, the limitation would have been obvious in view of the prior art teachings, referring to MACKIN and LISIO, as set forth fully above. While not clear to the examiner exactly what “specific integration” Applicant refers to at page 10 of the arguments, the combined teachings of the prior art meet the limitations of Claim 9 as set forth fully in the rejections. Applicant’s arguments to the dependent claims are unpersuasive for like reasons.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON H DUGER whose telephone number is (313) 446-6536. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30a to 4:30p Monday through Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phutthiwat Wongwian, can be reached on (571) 270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JASON H DUGER
PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 3741
PHONE (313) 446 6536
FAX (571) 270 9083
DATE
January 10, 2026
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741