DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the reply filed on January 22, 2026. 1-9, 11-20 are pending.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment, remarks, and statement serving as evidence establishing that the common ownership exception applies to ALECU (2023/032115) overcame the previous rejections of Claims 1-9 and 11-19 and Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are allowed.
With respect to the previous obviousness rejections applied to Claim 10, upon review the examiner additionally concludes that MARK in view of MARK-846 would not suggest to further drive the rotation of the propulsor rotor with second power system while the first power system is operated at a constant power or a constant torque setting during the testing of the second power system, as this would suggest an overall output increase (rather than maintaining demanded power).
As to Claim 20, a new ground of rejection was necessitated by Applicant’s broadening amendment removing “to provide a relatively smooth power output until the second power system is in the dormancy mode”. Specifically, it necessitated an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in view DOUGHERTY as set forth fully in the action below. The broadening of the claim led to new search and consideration uncovering DOUGHERTY, which could not have been used as an anticipatory reference in the prior action prior to Applicant’s broadening amendment (it is providing increasing power output until the second power system is in the dormancy mode). Applicant’s arguments to prior obviousness rejection of the narrower claim as obvious over Mark (2022/0297846) in view of Chapman (2022/0065174) are moot, though it is noted that a thrust setting of an engine would be considered an engine power setting.
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-20220017064-A1
“DOUGHERTY”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DOUGHERTY.
PNG
media_image1.png
898
933
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 20, Dougherty teaches a method of operation (Figures 10-11, ¶¶0102-0117) comprising:
operating a first power system [power unit(s)] of an aircraft powerplant 2 (Figure 3 or Figure 2 powerplant) to provide, in a first mode of operation [mode of operation from 10% to 20% Power Demand in Figure 10] (see Figure 10), a first quantity of power and/or torque (shown as solid line in Figure 10) to drive rotation of a propulsor rotor 12 (Figure 10; ¶¶0031-0038), the first power system comprising a heat engine (¶¶0037-0038); and
intermittently operating a second power system [energy storage system, ESS] of the aircraft powerplant during the operating of the first power system to provide a second quantity of power and/or torque (shown as dotted line in Figure 10) to further drive the rotation of the propulsor rotor (Figure 10; ¶¶0034-0035, 0039-0041) and reduce a dormancy mode of the second power system [dormancy mode is a mode in which power output of ESS is zero] (¶¶0039-0041), the second power system comprising an electric machine (¶¶0039-0041; any of the electric machine(s) as discussed at ¶0039), and
the first power system and the second power system independently operatively coupled to the propulsor rotor (¶¶0024-0025, 0034-0035, 0043-0047; independent operative coupling to provide respective powers on/off in Figure 10, ¶¶0106-0114);
operating the first power system and the second power system in a second mode of operation [mode of operation from 70% to 100% Power Demand in Figure 10] (See Figure 10), the first power system operating at a constant power setting and/or a constant torque setting [annotated “constant power setting” in Image 1] (¶¶0110-0111);
transitioning between the second mode of operation and the first mode of operation [annotated “transitioning” in Image 1] by gradually decreasing the second quantity of power and/or torque provided by the second power system and gradually increasing the first quantity of power and/or torque provided by the first power system until the second power system is in the dormancy mode (the transition between the second mode of operation and the first mode of operation occurs by, first gradually decreasing the second quantity of power and/or torque provided by the second power system and gradually increasing the first quantity of power and/or torque provided by the first power system until reaching 50% power demand, at which point the second power system enters the dormancy mode, which continues until 70% power demand and at which point the transition is complete and the second mode is entered; Figure 10, ¶¶0107-0109).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 11-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for allowance:
Prior art fails to teach or suggest, in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim 1, the testing of the second power system comprising: signaling the second power system to use the electric machine to provide a second quantity of power and/or torque to further drive the rotation of the propulsor rotor, wherein the first power system is operated at a constant power or a constant torque setting during the testing of the second power system.
Prior art fails to teach or suggest, in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim 18, the testing of the second power system comprising: signaling the second power system to provide a second quantity of power and/or torque to further drive the rotation of the propulsor rotor, wherein the first power system is operated at a constant power or a constant torque setting during the testing of the second power system.
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.
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 8:30a to 4:30p EST Monday & Tuesday and 8:00a to 2:00p Wednesday, and is OFF Thursday and 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
May 11, 2026
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights