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 .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 1/12/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/12/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, and their dependent claims, are 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 1 recites the limitation "one of the rotors" in wherein one of the rotors is driven by the at least one first electric motor and another one of the rotors. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "another one of the rotors" in “wherein one of the rotors is driven by the at least one first electric motor and another one of the rotors” and also in “alternatively one of the rotors is driven by one of the at least one first electric motor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1: in the limitation "one of the rotors is driven by the at least one first electric motor and another one of the rotors is driven by one of the at least one second electric motor or alternatively one of the rotors is driven by one of the at least one first electric motor and one of the at least one second electric motor”, it is unclear if “or alternatively” indicates two modes of operation of the same aircraft, or, if it indicates an alternative embodiment, or, something else.
Claim 2: in “one electric cruise motor of the at least one first electric motor and one electric cruise motor of the at least one second electric motor drives one of the at least one cruise rotor,” the limitations “and” and “drives” (which appears to indicate a single motor drives a rotor) makes it unclear if the “one of the at least one cruise rotor” is driven by only one of the cruise motors in the sentence, or by a combination of the two, or something else.
Claim 2 includes the limitations “one electric cruise motor of the at least one first electric motor” and “one electric cruise motor of the at least one second electric motor”, and later the limitations “the at least one first electric motor” and “at least one second electric motor”; it is unclear if “one electric cruise motor of the at least one first electric motor” and “the at least one first electric motor” refer to the same motor, or different motors of “at least one of the first electric motor”, or something else (and the same issues appears regarding the at least one second motor; these limitations appear multiple times in claim 2).
Claim 3: in “a number of the plurality of rotors disposed on one side of a center line of the fuselage in a left-right direction is equal to a number of the plurality of rotors disposed on another side of the center”, it is unclear if and how “center” and “center line” are related to each other, making it unclear how “a number of the plurality of rotors disposed on another side of the center” relates to “a number of the plurality of rotors disposed on one side of a center line of the fuselage in a left-right direction”.
Claim 3: recites the limitation “the rotors disposed on the one side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3: recites the limitation “the rotors disposed on the other side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3: in “a number of the rotors driven by the” it is unclear if the rotors are related to “number of the plurality of rotors disposed on one side of a center line of the fuselage in a left-right direction” and “a number of the plurality of rotors disposed on another side of the center” recited earlier in the claim.
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.
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, 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwood 20210214094 in view of Thomassin 20200277064, Fox 20210101692, Asselin 20210254556 as evidenced by Bachman 20210281210 and Chretien 20200127586.
Regarding claim 1, Harwood teaches:
A control device ([0018]) for an aircraft (Fig 1, the vehicle is an aircraft, the aircraft may comprise a fixed wing aircraft or a vertical takeoff aircraft such as a helicopter. The aircraft may be manned or unmanned [0072]), the aircraft comprising:
at least one first generator (215a [0061]) configured to be driven by a first gas turbine (“first and second AC synchronous generators 215a, 215b, which are similar to the generators 15a, 15b coupled to respective gas turbine engines (not shown)” [0061]) and generate a first electric power (abstract);
at least one first battery (222) configured to store the first electric power qenerated by the at least one first qenerator (Fig. 4, [0061-0062]);
at least one first electric motor (219a or 219c) configured to operate with the first electric power supplied from the at least one first generator and the at least one first battery (Fig. 4);
at least one second generator (215b [0061]) configured to be driven by a second gas turbine ([0061], as discussed above) and generate a second electric power (abstract);
at least one second battery configured to store the second electric power (“one or more of a battery” [0027]) qenerated by the at least one second qenerator (Fig. 4; a second battery connected to a second generator is known in the art and is further evidenced by Bachman 20210281210, where Bachman 130 and 230 represent a first battery and a second battery, connected to first stator Widing system 110 and second stator winding system 210);
at least one second electric motor (219b or 219d) configured to operate with the second electric power supplied from the at least one second generator and the at least one second battery (Fig. 4);
and a plurality of rotors (image below, and propellers 4) configured to generate thrust acting on a fuselage (the first and second directly electrically coupled motors efficiently provide propulsive thrust in view of the low losses provided by wholly AC electrical systems [0012]),
wherein one of the rotors is driven by the at least one first electric motor ([0012], Fig. 4) and another one of the rotors is driven by one of the at least one second electric motor (“AC synchronous motors 219a, 219” [0061); image below shows 4 motors driving rotors) or alternatively one of the rotors is driven by one of the at least one first electric motor and one of the at least one second electric motor,
the control device (a controller [0018], claim 1)
control the at least one first electric motor and the at least one second electric motor (“Each inverter 21a, 21b is generally a one-way DC to AC converter operable as a motor controller, and is configured to receive power from a respective DC bus 21, 21c, and provide AC current at a required frequency to a respective indirectly-coupled motor 19c, 19d via an AC connector.” [0048]), and
Harwood as evidenced by Bachman is silent about:
[the control device] comprising one or more processors that execute computer- executable instructions stored in a memory,
wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the control device to:
in a case where supply of the first electric power from the at least one first generator to the at least one first electric motor is unavailable and supply of the second electric power from the at least one second generator to the at least one second electric motor is available,
reduce thrust generated by the rotors driven by the one of the at least one first electric motor by reducinq the first electric power supplied from the at least one first battery to the at least one of the first electric motor,
However, Thomassin teaches:
[the control device (hybrid electric engine control module (ECU), Abstract; “Operating in degraded mode can include using only heat engine torque when the electric motor is not in a normal operational state (e.g., battery failure or discharge, electric motor failure). Certain embodiments can include any other suitable methods and/or portions thereof are contemplated herein. A control system for a hybrid electric aircraft powerplant as disclosed herein can include one or more modules configured to execute any embodiment of a method as disclosed herein” [0014])] comprising one or more processors that execute computer- executable instructions stored in a memory ([0092]),
wherein the one or more processors ([0077]) execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the control device to ([0091-0098])
in a case where supply of the first electric power from the at least one first generator to the at least one first electric motor is unavailable (in a heat engine system failure (e.g., engine failure), the ECU can be configured to allow only electric motor system torque [0006]; inter alia, [0071-0082]) and supply of the second electric power from the at least one second generator to the at least one second electric motor is available (“operating the hybrid electric aircraft powerplant in a degraded mode when one of the electric motor system or the heat engine system are not in a normal operational state” [0071]; “Operating in degraded mode can include using only heat engine torque when the electric motor is not in a normal operational state (e.g., battery failure or discharge, electric motor failure) [0014]),
reduce thrust generated by the rotors driven by the one of the at least one first electric motor by reducinq the first electric power supplied from the at least one first battery to the at least one of the first electric motor (“The BMS can know how much energy is left and monitor the storage/discharge. Embodiments can measure remaining battery, make calculations on impact to flight, and adjust power output of the electric motor system accordingly” [0082]; and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to preserve the energy left when feasible)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Harwood as evidenced by Bachman with Thomassin's structure discussed above in order to provide a controller “configured to be operatively connected to a hybrid electric aircraft powerplant having a heat engine system and an electric motor system to control a torque output from each of the heat engine system and the electric motor system”, as taught by Thomassin (Abstract).
Harwood in view of Thomassin as evidenced by Bachman does not explicitly teach:
drive the at least one first electric motor with the first electric power supplied solely from the at least one first battery and drive the at least one second electric motor with the second electric power supplied from the at least one second qenerator and the at least one second battery
However, Fox teaches a propulsion system for an aircraft (abstract), with motors coupled to engines via clutches (abstract, Figs. 1, 2), and:
drive the at least one first electric motor (38A) with the first electric power supplied solely from the at least one first battery (72A, Fig. 2; “the cross-connecting clutch is engaged when one of the two engines do not generate the torque required to maintain a desired phase of flight. Therefore, in the event one of the two hybrid propulsion systems become inoperable, both propellers may still be driven” [0048]; “in one alternative embodiment the first battery pack 72A and the second battery pack 72B provide the power to the propellers 20A, 20B during climb and the first engine 36A and the second engine 36B are not operating during climb” [0030]) and drive the at least one second electric motor with the second electric power supplied from the at least one second qenerator and the at least one second battery (the engines 36A, 36B receive assistance from the motors 38A, 38B when the motors 38A, 38B operate in the power mode” [0027], “the second engine 36B and the second motor 38B provide power to the second propeller 20B through torque summing when the second motor 38B is operating in the power mode” [0028], “the first battery pack 72A and the second battery pack 72B are both sized for takeoff assist to the respective engines 36A, 36B” [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Harwood in view of Thomassin as evidenced by Bachman with Fox's teachings discussed above so “in the event one of the two hybrid propulsion systems become inoperable, both propellers may still be driven” [0048] as taught by Fox.
Harwood in view of Thomassin and Fox as evidenced by Bachman does not explicitly teach increasing thrust generated by the second electric motor in a case where supply from the first generator to the first electric motor is unavailable: and increase thrust generated by the rotors driven by the one of the at least one second electric motor by increasinq the second electric power supplied from the second qenerator and the at least one second battery to the at least one second electric motor, as compared with a case where the supply of the first electric power from the at least one first generator to the at least one first electric motor is available and the supply of the second electric power from the at least one second generator to the at least one second electric motor is available.
However, one of ordinary skill would compensate for any reduction/loss of thrust in one motor by increasing thrust in the remaining thrust producing devices, this would be part of a design and engineering process completed by engineers, and also automatically implemented by any operator and pilot (it is part of emergency procedures training of pilots). Asselin teaches hybrid-electric system [0242] with multiple gas turbines and electric motors (inter alia, Fig. 8), with a control device (60, and including memory, executable instructions and processor [0126]), configured to increase thrust generated by the rotor driven by an electric motor (should an engine 14 fail, excess thrust controller 60 can increase the forward thrust generated by system 12 [0144], here Asselin teaches a failure of one of the thrust producing devices, engine 14, which causes the controller to compensate for the loss and increase thrust produced by the electric motors which are part of system 12, Fig. 8),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Harwood in view of Thomassin and Fox as evidenced by Bachman with Asselin's teachings discussed above in order to provide a controller that compensates for the reduction of thrust from one source of thrust by increasing the thrust production from other thrust devices, as compared with a case where the supply of the first electric power from the at least one first generator to the at least one first electric motor is available and the supply of the second electric power from the at least one second generator to the at least one second electric motor is available (therefore “Operating in a degraded mode can include operating the electric motor system or the heat engine system differently than in the normal mode in at least one power condition” as taught by Thomassin [0071]), in order to continue producing the required amount of thrust for a given flight condition. Increasing thrust production from remaining thrust producing devices in case of malfunction in one of the systems is known and further evidenced by Chretien “when one engine fails, the remaining valid gas turbine that was running at 50% to 70% of its maximum power must increase its power output as quickly as possible in order to compensate for the failed engine” [0020]).
PNG
media_image1.png
1066
1388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Harwood in view of Thomassin, Fox and Asselin as evidenced by Bachman and Chretien teaches the invention as discussed so far. Harwood further teaches:
The control device for the aircraft according to claim 1 wherein
a number of the plurality of rotors disposed on one side of a center line of the fuselage in a left-right direction is equal to a number of the plurality of rotors disposed on another side of the center (inter alia, Fig 1, 4),
among the rotors disposed on the one side, a number of the rotors driven by the at least one first electric motor is equal to a number of the rotors driven by the at least one second electric motor (Fig 4),
and among the rotors disposed on the other side, a number of the rotors driven by the at least one first electric motor is equal to a number of the rotors driven by the at least one second electric motor (Fig 4).
Furthermore, Thomassin also teaches the above limitations (Fig 3B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Harwood in view of Thomassin, Fox, and Asselin as evidenced by Chretien with Thomassin's structure discussed above in order to “balance torque between two powerplants on aircraft” as taught by Thomassin [0090]).
Regarding claim 4, Harwood in view of Thomassin, Fox, and Asselin as evidenced by Chretien teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Harwood further teaches:
The control device for the aircraft according to claim 1 wherein each of the plurality of rotors is a vertical rotor configured to generate thrust in a vertical direction or a horizontal rotor configured to generate thrust in a horizontal direction (Fig. 4).
Furthermore, regarding the limitation “each of the plurality of rotors is a vertical rotor configured to generate thrust in a vertical direction“, Harwood teaches the invention can be applied to a vertical takeoff aircraft [0072]; it is noted that although the limitation “each of the plurality of rotors” is not explicitly taught by Harwood in this case, it does teach thrust in the vertical direction, and furthermore, configurations where every rotor produces thrust in the vertical direction as known in the art.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harwood 20210214094 in view of Thomassin 20200277064, Fox 20210101692, Asselin 20210254556 as evidenced by Bachman and Chretien 20200127586 20210281210 and further in view of Chretien 20200127586.
Also see rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Regarding claim 2, Harwood in view of Thomassin, Fox and Asselin as evidenced by Bachman and Chretien teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Also see rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
Harwood further teaches:
The control device for the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein
the aircraft includes a fixed winq confiqured to qenerate lift (wings 3, Fig. 1),
the plurality of rotors include at least one cruise rotor (propellers 4), which is a horizontal rotor confiqured to qenerate thrust in a horizontal direction (Fig. 1),
one electric cruise motor of the at least one first electric motor and one electric cruise motor of the at least one second electric motor drives one of the at least one cruise rotor (19a-19d, Fig. 2, [0043-0049]),
Harwood in view of Thomassin, Fox, Asselin as evidenced by Bachman and Chretien, as discussed so far, is silent about:
in the case where the supply of the first electric power from the at least one first generator to the at least one first electric motor is unavailable and the supply of the second electric power from the at least one second generator to the at least one second electric motor is available, the one or more processors cause the control device to set the first electric power supplied from the at least one first battery to the one electric cruise motor of the at least one first electric motor to 0 and to increase the second electric power supplied from the second qenerator and the at least one second battery to the one electric cruise motor of the at least one second electric motor, as compared with the case where the supply of the first electric power from the at least one first qenerator to the at least one first electric motor is available and the supply of the second electric power from the at least one second qenerator to the at least one second electric motor is available, thereby reducinq thrust of the one cruise rotor drive by the one electric cruise motor of the at least one first electric motor and the one electric cruise motor of the at least one second electric motor, as compared with the case where the supply of the firstelectric power from the at least one first generator to the at least one first electric motor is available and the supply of the second electric power from the at least one second generator to the at least one second electric motor is available.
However, Chretien teaches “an electric drive train comprising: a rotor or propeller shaft (R), an electric motor assembly (GEMD) […] comprising a plurality of stacked electric motor elements (Ee1, Ee2, Ee3, Ee4)” abstract, Fig. 3a-3c, “a Rechargeable Energy Storage System, RESS” [0003], “the RESS provides a valuable failure backup in case of electric generator assembly G, or engine T failure, resulting in a considerably safer operation than conventional mechanical drive trains” [0004]. And “Transient response is another inherent problem of conventional twin engine solution: when one engine fails, the remaining valid gas turbine that was running at 50% to 70% of its maximum power must increase its power output as quickly as possible in order to compensate for the failed engine” [0020], and:
in the case where the supply of the first electric power (power provided by top engine T1 and G1, see, inter alia, Fig. 3a-3c) from the at least one first generator (G1) to the at least one first electric motor (“The four stack electric generator assembly G1 mounted on the top engine T1 feeds the top power branches b1 and b2 and subsequently the stacked electric motor elements Ee1 and Ee2 of the electric motor assembly GEMD” [0143]) is unavailable (“The top engine T1 can be shut down during cruise in view of operating at the lowest burn rate” [0146]) and the supply of the second electric power (power provided by top engine T2 and G2, see, inter alia, Fig. 3a-3c) from the at least one second generator (G2) to the at least one second electric motor is available (The two-stack electric generator assembly G2 mounted on the bottom engine T2 feeds the stacked electric motor elements Ee3 and Ee4 of the electric motor assembly GEMD [0144]), the one or more processors (controller Cont1, Cont2) cause the control device to set the first electric power supplied from the at least one first battery (first battery and second battery as already discussed, and Chretien teaches rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) that reads on a battery) to the one electric cruise motor of the at least one first electric motor to 0 (“The top engine T1 can be shut down during cruise in view of operating at the lowest burn rate” [0146], where T1 being shut down would cause the power generated by G1 to be 0) and to increase the second electric power supplied from the second qenerator and the at least one second battery (first battery and second battery as already discussed, and Chretien teaches rechargeable energy storage system (RESS) that reads on a battery) to the one electric cruise motor of the at least one second electric motor, as compared with the case where the supply of the first electric power from the at least one first qenerator to the at least one first electric motor is available and the supply of the second electric power from the at least one second qenerator to the at least one second electric motor is available thereby reducinq thrust of the one cruise rotor drive by the one electric cruise motor of the at least one first electric motor and the one electric cruise motor of the at least one second electric motor (“If required, a two-ways DC/DC converter (such as shown in FIG. 1) can be used in between the main bus B and the RESS in order to match battery and main bus voltages and/or provide more efficient battery usage (not shown, for the sake of simplicity)” [0143]),
regarding the limitation “as compared with the case where the supply of the first electric power from the at least one first generator to the at least one first electric motor is available and the supply of the second electric power from the at least one second generator to the at least one second electric motor is available”, this is recognized as intended use.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Harwood in view of Thomassin, Fox and Asselin as evidenced by Bachman and Chretien with Chretien's teachings discussed above in order to “supply the power required to maintain straight and level flight” [0146] or establish a desired flight profile, by providing adequate power to the rotor, as taught by Chretien.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive because they do not apply to the new combination of references, i.e., adding a new reference to the old combination of references, that was necessitated by applicant’s amendment. However, to the extent possible, applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections above, at the appropriate location.
Applicant Argues on page 10 of the Remarks filed on 1/12/2026:
PNG
media_image2.png
395
952
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the process of making engineering decisions involving the multiple aspects of involved in developing an aircraft requires compromises and tradeoffs. The sizing concerns regarding a piece of equipment may be acceptable if the benefits outweigh the negative aspects.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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 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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights