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 § 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 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.
Claim(s) 10-12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hucker US 20150191238 A1 in view of Cheng et al. (Performance assessment of multi-stage thermoelectric generators) and Haden et al. US 9,878,795 B2.
Re claim 10, Hucker teach a method, comprising: receiving heat energy caused by aerodynamic friction on an aircraft structure in high-speed flight and characterized by: storing the heat energy (para 11) caused by the aerodynamic friction on the aircraft structure (para 11 lines 2-4) for later use for heating the aircraft structure (paras 9, 11), wherein storing the heat energy includes storing the heat energy as heat, wherein storing the heat energy caused by the aerodynamic friction on the aircraft structure as the heat includes storing the heat energy caused by the aerodynamic friction on the aircraft structure as the heat in a phase change material (paras 9-11, 36, 54), using the stored heat energy for preventing ice formation or deicing the aircraft structure; and using the stored heat caused by the aerodynamic friction on the aircraft structure for preventing the ice formation or deicing the aircraft structure, wherein the stored heat is applied to at least one of a leading edge of a wing, a fuselage, or a control surface to prevent or remove ice buildup during descent or landing (paras 9-11, 36, 54, noting two storage methods).
Hucker fail to explicitly teach converting the heat energy caused by the aerodynamic friction on the aircraft structure into electrical energy.
Cheng et al. teach wherein storing the heat energy caused by the aerodynamic friction on the aircraft structure includes converting the heat energy caused by the aerodynamic friction on the aircraft structure into electrical energy (fig 1a, wherein storing the heat energy caused by the aerodynamic friction on the aircraft structure includes converting the heat energy caused by the aerodynamic friction on the aircraft structure into the electrical energy (Introduction section page 1598) and powering one or more electrical systems with the electrical energy (Introduction section page 1598, fig 1a) using aerodynamic heat for electrical needs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include converting the heat energy caused by the aerodynamic friction on the aircraft structure into electrical energy as taught by Cheng et al. in the Hucker invention in order to advantageously allow for high electrical load demands to be met with an available heat source due to flight (Introduction section page 1598).
Hucker , as modified, fail to explicitly teach an electrical storage device.
Haden et al. teach preventing ice formation or deicing the aircraft structure (col 1, fig 8,)
and storing the electrical energy in an electrical storage device (103)
wherein storing the heat energy caused by the aerodynamic friction on the aircraft (in the instant combination noting the primary reference provides the powered charging circuit to privde electricity to the 103 of Haden) structure includes converting the heat energy caused by the aerodynamic friction on the aircraft structure into the electrical energy and powering one or more electrical systems with the electrical energy (col 4, ) for preventing the ice formation or deicing the aircraft structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include and storing the electrical energy in an electrical storage device, as taught by Haden et al. in the Hucker, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for improvement in flight performance during many conditions (para 3).
Re claim 11, Hucker teach wherein storing the heat energy as the heat includes storing the heat energy in an aircraft fluid (noting in the instant combination, if the fluid is in the aircraft system it is considered aircraft fluid).
Re claim 12, Hucker teach wherein the aircraft fluid includes at least one of aircraft fuel, aircraft hydraulic fluid, aircraft coolant, aircraft refrigerant, or aircraft oil, or a dedicated energy storage fluid (see the rejection of claims 10 and 11).
Re claim 15, Cheng et al. teach teach wherein the one or more electrical systems include aircraft avionics and/or pumps (Introduction section see the rejection of 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the avionics as taught by Cheng et al. in the Hucker, as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for high electrical load demands to be met with an available heat source due to flight (Introduction section page 1598).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that prior art fails to teach an “the aerodynamic friction into electrical energy”. However, the scope of the independent claim has been changed in the latest reply and therefore the examiner is now relying on Cheng et al. to teach the recited “the aerodynamic friction into electrical energy” (see detailed rejection above). Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the combinations with Wang and/or details of Wang in claim(s) 10-12 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Wang and combinations of Wang applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues the claims dependent on the independent claim(s) are allowable based upon their dependence from an independent claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 10 have been addressed above. Thus, the rejections are proper and remain.
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 GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763