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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 regarding claims 1-20 and 31-45 have been fully considered but the amendment required a new reference, Moon, as shown below.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 regarding claims 21-30 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Dalal does not explicitly disclose “the controller is configured to cause the electric machine to vary a percentage of power converted from the power shaft to the first electric power by the electric machine.” As now required by claim 21, and previously required in claim 7. Applicant specifically argues that the system of Dalal only outputs electrical power and does not vary how much power is converted into electrical power. However, paragraph 0047 of Dalal states “Management of electrical power from HP 34 and LP 36 spool of each engine and management of electric power split between electric hybrid propulsion 100 and secondary systems can help to improve full flight performance while achieving greater fuel efficiency.” This references each the power from each spool, which is akin to the shaft, the secondary systems, which is akin to the fist electrical power, and the power to the propulsion 100, which is akin the remaining power. Thus Dalal, when combined with Vondrell, does disclose this limitation.
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 1-6, 11, 12, 14-16, 19, 20, 31-41, 44 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vondrell et al. (“Vondrell”; US 2018/0163558), in view of Moon et al. (“Moon”; US 2021/0387723).
Regarding claim 1: Vondrell discloses a hybrid powertrain system comprising:
an engine (18); and
an electric machine (14) having a power shaft (72) therein, wherein the electric machine further comprises an electrical input/output (81), wherein:
the power shaft is configured to mechanically attach to and provide mechanical power to a propulsion device (70);
an output of the engine is configured to rotate the power shaft (via 24, 16);
the engine and the electric machine are configured to operate in a first mode in which the electric machine is controlled to convert a variable amount of power from the power shaft's rotation by the engine into first electrical power while the power shaft is further configured to output any remaining mechanical power of the power shaft to the propulsion device (Fig. 5, paragraph 0042: “The third EM power may be delivered to a power sink through the electrical line 81, while a remaining amount of the third GTE power may be utilized to drive the propulsor 12.”); and
the engine and the electric machine are configured to operate in a second mode in which the engine drives the power shaft, wherein substantially all power output by the hybrid powertrain system is converted into second electrical power by the electric machine (the configuration in Fig. 6 and the above response to arguments).
Vondrell does not explicitly disclose the first mode being for horizontal flight, and the second mode being for vertical flight.
However, Moon discloses a horizontal flight mode wherein the engine (10), directly powers the propulsor (82) and generator (20) to generator power (paragraph 0110), akin to the claimed horizontal flight mode, and
a vertical flight mode wherein the engine (10) powers the generator (20), which provides electricity to the motor (80) to drive the propulsor (81, paragraph 0107), akin to the claimed vertical flight mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second modes of Vondrell to be the horizontal and vertical modes disclosed by Moon in order to efficiently distribute and use energy (paragraph 0111).
Regarding claim 2: Vondrell discloses the first electrical power is configured to be output to an electric propulsion device of an aircraft (as the first electric power in Fig. 5, “EM POWER” powers the propulsion device).
Regarding claim 3: Vondrell discloses the electric propulsion device of the aircraft comprises at least one battery (paragraph 0043) and at least one electric motor (14) used for electric propulsion of the aircraft, wherein the at least one battery and the at least one electric motor are mounted to the aircraft (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 4: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, Vondrell further discloses in the horizontal flight mode, the electric machine is controlled to convert power from the power shaft into the first electric power (paragraph 0042, the first electric machine converts a portion, which is between 0% and 100%, to electric power).
Vondrell does not explicitly disclose the electric machine is controlled to convert no power from the power shaft into the first electric power.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electric machine to convert no power to electric power in order to allow for more power to be directly supplied to the propulsor.
Regarding claim 5: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, Vondrell further discloses in the vertical flight mode, the electric machine is controlled to convert power available on the power shaft into the second electric power (paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 6: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, Vondrell further discloses in the horizontal flight mode, the electric machine is controlled to convert somewhere between 0% and 100% of the power on the power shaft into the first electric power (paragraph 0042: “the electric machine 14 is operating to convert a portion of the mechanical power applied to the driveshaft 72 by the output shaft 24 (across the one-way clutch 16) to electrical power”, “a portion” is between 0% and 100%).
Regarding claim 12: Vondrell discloses the first electrical power is output to at least one of an electric motor or one or more batteries (paragraph 0043 – batteries).
Regarding claim 14: Vondrell discloses a method comprising:
controlling an engine (18) and an electric machine (14) having a power shaft (72) therein to operate in a first mode comprising:
driving the power shaft by the engine, wherein an output of the engine (GTE Power) is configured to rotate the power shaft (Fig. 5); and
outputting first electrical power (EM Power) from the electric machine through an electrical input/output (81) of the electric machine based on the rotating of the power shaft by the engine; and
controlling the engine and the electric machine to operate in a second mode comprising driving the power shaft by the engine (GTE Power) wherein substantially all mechanical power available on the power shaft is output to the electric machine, and wherein the substantially all mechanical power available on the power shaft output to the electric machine is converted into second electrical power (the configuration in Fig. 6 and the above response to arguments).
Regarding claim 15: Vondrell discloses the first electrical power is output to drive an electric propulsion motor of the aircraft or output to a propulsion battery of an aircraft, wherein the propulsion battery is used to power the electric propulsion motor (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 16: Vondrell discloses the power shaft is configured to mechanically attach to and provide mechanical power to a propulsion device (70). Regarding claim 19: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, Vondrell further discloses, during the horizontal flight mode, a first portion of rotational power applied to the power shaft by the engine is converted to electrical power by the electric machine and a second portion of the rotational power is supplied to a propulsion device via the power shaft (as shown by the EM Power arrows in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, Vondrell further discloses engaging a clutch (16) during both the horizontal flight mode and vertical flight mode, wherein the clutch is configured to releasably engage the output of the engine to the power shaft (as it’s a one-way clutch, it will disengage if the rotation direction is not correct).
Regarding claim 31: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, Vondrell further discloses the substantially all power output by the hybrid powertrain system as the second electrical power during the vertical flight mode (such as the ratio of power provided to 80B vs 74A) but does not explicitly disclose the second electrical power the comprises 90% or more of the mechanical power available on the power shaft.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have the second electrical power be in the claimed range in order to design an efficient system.
Regarding claim 32: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, Vondrell further discloses the substantially all power output by the hybrid powertrain system as the second electrical power during the vertical flight mode, but does not explicitly disclose the second electrical power the comprises 95% or more of the mechanical power available on the power shaft.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have the second electrical power be in the claimed range in order to design an efficient system.
Regarding claim 33: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, Vondrell further discloses the substantially all power output by the hybrid powertrain system as the second electrical power during the vertical flight mode, but does not explicitly disclose the second electrical power the comprises 98% or more of the mechanical power available on the power shaft.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have the second electrical power be in the claimed range in order to design an efficient system.
Regarding claim 34: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, Vondrell further discloses the substantially all power output by the hybrid powertrain system as the second electrical power during the vertical flight mode, but does not explicitly disclose the second electrical power the comprises 99% or more of the mechanical power available on the power shaft.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have the second electrical power be in the claimed range in order to design an efficient system.
Regarding claim 35: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, Vondrell further discloses the substantially all power output by the hybrid powertrain system as the second electrical power during the vertical flight mode, but does not explicitly disclose the second electrical power the comprises 100% of the mechanical power available on the power shaft.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have the second electrical power be in the claimed range in order to design an efficient system.
Regarding claim 36: Vondrell discloses a hybrid powertrain system comprising: an engine (18); and
an electric machine (14) having a power shaft (72) therein, wherein the electric machine further comprises an electrical input/output (81), wherein:
the power shaft is configured to mechanically attach to and provide mechanical power to a propulsion device (70);
an output of the engine is configured to rotate the power shaft (via 24, 16);
the engine and the electric machine are configured to operate in a first mode in which the electric machine is controlled to convert a variable amount of power from the power shaft’s rotation by the engine into first electrical power while the power shaft is further configured to output any remaining mechanical power of the power shaft to the propulsion device (Fig. 5, paragraph 0042: “The third EM power may be delivered to a power sink through the electrical line 81, while a remaining amount of the third GTE power may be utilized to drive the propulsor 12.”); and
the engine and the electric machine are configured to operate in a second mode in which the engine drives the power shaft, wherein substantially all power output by the hybrid powertrain system is converted into second electrical power by the electric machine (the configuration in Fig. 6), and wherein the mechanical power of the power shaft output to the electric machine is converted into second electrical power (EM Power, at a level to power 80B).
Regarding claim 37: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, Vondrell further discloses the substantially all power output by the hybrid powertrain system as the second electrical power during the vertical flight mode (such as the ratio of power provided to 80B vs 74A), but does not explicitly disclose the second electrical power the comprises 90% or more of the mechanical power available on the power shaft.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have the second electrical power be in the claimed range in order to design an efficient system.
Regarding claim 38: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, Vondrell further discloses the substantially all power output by the hybrid powertrain system as the second electrical power during the vertical flight mode, but does not explicitly disclose the second electrical power the comprises 95% or more of the mechanical power available on the power shaft.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have the second electrical power be in the claimed range in order to design an efficient system.
Regarding claim 39: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, Vondrell further discloses the substantially all power output by the hybrid powertrain system as the second electrical power during the vertical flight mode, but does not explicitly disclose the second electrical power the comprises 98% or more of the mechanical power available on the power shaft.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have the second electrical power be in the claimed range in order to design an efficient system.
Regarding claim 40: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, Vondrell further discloses the substantially all power output by the hybrid powertrain system as the second electrical power during the vertical flight mode, but does not explicitly disclose the second electrical power the comprises 99% or more of the mechanical power available on the power shaft.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have the second electrical power be in the claimed range in order to design an efficient system.
Regarding claim 41: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, Vondrell further discloses the substantially all power output by the hybrid powertrain system as the second electrical power during the vertical flight mode, but does not explicitly disclose the second electrical power the comprises 100% of the mechanical power available on the power shaft.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are discovered in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have the second electrical power be in the claimed range in order to design an efficient system.
Regarding claim 44: Vondrell discloses the second electrical power is generated, but does not explicitly disclose the power generated in the vertical flight mode and is output to one or more vertical propulsion devices.
However, Moon discloses the power generated in the vertical flight mode and is output to one or more vertical propulsion devices (81, Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second electrical power of Vondrell to be output to a vertical propulsion device, as disclosed by Moon, in order to allow for vertical propulsion.
Regarding claim 45: Vondrell discloses the propulsion device comprises a horizontal propulsion device (Fig. 1).
Claims 7, 8, 11, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vondrell and Moon, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Dalal (US 2018/0291807).
Regarding claim 7: Vondrell discloses a percentage of power converted from the power shaft to the first electric power by the electric machine, but does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to cause the electric machine to vary a percentage of power converted from the power shaft to the first electric power by the electric machine.
However, Dalal discloses a controller (320, Fig. 3) configured to cause the electric machine to vary a percentage of power converted from the power shaft to the first electric power by the electric machine (paragraph 0047: the controllers allocate the power among the propulsion systems and secondary aircraft systems).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the power converted of Vondrell to vary a percentage of its distribution in order to improve full flight performance while achieving greater fuel efficiency (paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 8: Vondrell discloses a first desired amount of the mechanical power to the propulsion mechanism (GTE power) and to output a second desired amount of the first electric power (EM Power) from the electric machine, but does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to control the engine and the electric machine to output a first desired amount of the mechanical power to the propulsion mechanism and to output a second desired amount of the first electric power from the electric machine.
However, Dalal discloses a controller (320) configured to control the engine and the electric machine to output a first desired amount of the mechanical power to the propulsion mechanism and to output a second desired amount of the first electric power from the electric machine (paragraph 0048: the controllers control the distribution and allocation of the mechanical and electric power of the system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mechanical and electric power of Vondrell to be controlled in order to meet the needs of the various components on the aircraft.
Regarding claim 11: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, but does not explicitly disclose in the vertical flight mode, substantially no mechanical power is output from the engine to the propulsion device.
However, Dalal discloses no mechanical power is output from the engine to the propulsion device (Fig. 3: Engine 102 only powers generator 350, which powers motor 394).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vertical flight mode to output substantially no mechanical power from the engine to propulsion device, as disclosed by Dalal, in order to better control over the electrical output (paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 43: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, but does not explicitly disclose in the vertical flight mode, the power shaft does not rotate the propulsion device.
However, Dalal discloses in the second mode, the power shaft does not rotate the propulsion device (Fig. 3: power shaft from engine 102 only powers generator 350, which powers motor 394).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vertical flight mode so the power shaft does not rotate the propulsion device, as disclosed by Dalal, in order to better control over the electrical output (paragraph 0034).
Claims 9, 10, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vondrell and Moon, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, further in view of Larsen (US 5,045,027).
Regarding claim 9: Vondrell discloses the power shaft, but does not explicitly disclose a flywheel connected to at least one of the power shaft or the output of the engine.
However, Larsen discloses a flywheel (21) connected to at least one of the power shaft (24) or the output of the engine (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the power shaft and engine of Vondrell to include the flywheel of Larsen in order to better store mechanical energy.
Regarding claim 10: Vondrell modified by Larsen discloses a flywheel connected to a power shaft, Vondrell does not explicitly disclose a spring coupling.
However, Larsen further discloses a spring coupling (22) connected to the flywheel, wherein the spring coupling is configured to reduce vibration (inherent) transmitted from the flywheel to the power shaft (column 4, line 64 – column 5, line 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the flywheel to include the spring coupling in order to reduce vibrations.
Regarding claim 17: Vondrell discloses the power shaft, but does not explicitly disclose a flywheel connected to at least one of the power shaft or the output of the engine.
However, Larsen discloses a flywheel (21) connected to at least one of the power shaft (24) or the output of the engine (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the power shaft and engine of Vondrell to include the flywheel of Larsen in order to better store mechanical energy.
Regarding claim 18: Vondrell modified by Larsen discloses a flywheel connected to a power shaft, Vondrell does not explicitly disclose a spring coupling.
However, Larsen further discloses a spring coupling (22) connected to the flywheel, wherein the spring coupling is configured to reduce vibration (inherent) transmitted from the flywheel to the power shaft (column 4, line 64 – column 5, line 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the flywheel to include the spring coupling in order to reduce vibrations.
Claims 13 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vondrell and Moon as applied to claims 1 and 36 above, further in view of Lamarre et al. (“Lamarre”; US 2016/0245163).
Regarding claim 13: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, Vondrell further discloses a power shaft and an output of the engine wherein the substantially all power output by the hybrid powertrain system during the vertical flight mode does not include power consumed by the cooling system (as the configuration in Fig. 3, which is akin to the second mode, does not show any electrical power from the electric machine being output, for example, Fig. 5 teaches the opposite - electrical power being output to accessories, such as a cooling system), but does not explicitly disclose at least one of the power shaft or the output of the engine further supplies rotational power to a cooling system of the hybrid powertrain system.
However, Lamarre discloses disclose at least one of the power shaft (unlabeled, but clearly running down the center of the engine in Fig. 1) or the output of the engine further supplies rotational power to a cooling system (72) of the hybrid powertrain system (paragraph 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the output of Vondrell to include the cooling system of Lamarre in order to provide cooling for the engine.
Regarding claim 42: Vondrell modified by Moon disclosed the horizontal and vertical flight modes, Vondrell further discloses a power shaft and an output of the engine wherein the substantially all power output by the hybrid powertrain system during the second mode does not include power consumed by the cooling system (as the configuration in Fig. 3, which is akin to the vertical flight mode, does not show any electrical power from the electric machine being output, for example, Fig. 5 teaches the opposite - electrical power being output to accessories, such as a cooling system), but does not explicitly disclose at least one of the power shaft or the output of the engine further supplies rotational power to a cooling system of the hybrid powertrain system.
However, Lamarre discloses disclose at least one of the power shaft (unlabeled, but clearly running down the center of the engine in Fig. 1) or the output of the engine further supplies rotational power to a cooling system (72) of the hybrid powertrain system (paragraph 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the output of Vondrell to include the cooling system of Lamarre in order to provide cooling for the engine.
Claims 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vondrell, in view of Suntharalingam et al. (“Suntharalingam”; US 2014/0010652) and Dalal.
Regarding claim 21: Vondrell discloses a hybrid powertrain system comprising:
an engine (18);
an electric machine (14) having a power shaft (72) therein;
a clutch (16) configured to releasably engage an output of the engine to the power shaft of the electric machine, wherein:
the electric machine further comprises an electrical output (EM Power); and
the power shaft is configured to mechanically attach to and provide mechanical power to a propulsion device (GTE Power); and
a controller configured to control the engine, the electric machine, and the clutch to implement one or more power output modes (the various modes depicted in Fig. 3-6).
Vondrell does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to actively control engagement or disengagement of the clutch and a controller configured to cause the electric machine to vary a percentage of power converted from the power shaft to the first electric power by the electric machine.
However, Suntharalingam discloses the controller is configured to actively control engagement or disengagement of the clutch (paragraph 0085).
And, Dalal discloses a controller (320, Fig. 3) configured to cause the electric machine to vary a percentage of power converted from the power shaft to the first electric power by the electric machine (paragraph 0047: the controllers allocate the power among the propulsion systems and secondary aircraft systems).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the clutch of Vondrell to be actively controlled, as disclosed by Suntharalingam, in order to better control the system based on the operating mode of the powertrain (paragraph 0085) and to modify the power converted of Vondrell to vary a percentage of its distribution in order to improve full flight performance while achieving greater fuel efficiency (paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 22: Vondrell discloses the electric machine further comprises an electrical input (EM Power in Fig. 3 and 4), and wherein, in a mode of the one or more power output modes, the electric machine is configured to receive power via the electrical input from an electric energy storage device to drive the power shaft (paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 23: Vondrell discloses during the mode, the clutch is disengaged such that the output of the engine does not rotate the power shaft (Fig. 4, as shown by the ‘X’ over the EM Power line leading from 14 to 18, paragraph 0040: the clutch decoupled the shaft).
Regarding claim 24: Vondrell discloses during the mode, the clutch is engaged such that the output of the engine rotates the power shaft (Fig. 3, paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 25: Vondrell discloses the electric machine further comprises an electrical input (81), and wherein the one or more power output modes comprise at least:
a first mode in which the electric machine outputs first electrical power through the electrical output based on rotation of the power shaft, wherein the power shaft is rotated by the engine while the clutch is engaged to couple the output of the engine and the power shaft (Fig. 5, paragraph 0042); and
a second mode in which both the engine and the electric machine drive the power shaft, wherein the electric machine drives the power shaft based on second electrical power received via the electrical input and the clutch is engaged to couple the output of the engine and the power shaft (Fig. 3, paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 26: Vondrell discloses in a mode of the one or more power output modes:
the clutch is engaged and the engine rotates the power shaft (Fig. 5, GTE Power);
the electric machine is configured to receive power via the power shaft and convert a first portion of rotational power of the power shaft to electrical power that is output via the electrical output (shown by EM Power arrows in Fig. 5); and
a second portion of the rotational power of the power shaft is applied to the propulsion device as the mechanical power (paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 27: Vondrell discloses in a mode of the one or more power output modes:
the clutch is engaged and the engine rotates the power shaft (Fig. 3);
the power shaft is configured to rotate within the electric machine without the electric machine converting rotational power of the power shaft to electrical power (paragraph 0038: the electric machine is operating as a motor, and thus, not converting rotational power to electric power); and
the rotational power of the power shaft is applied to the propulsion device as the mechanical power (paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 28: Vondrell discloses the electric machine is controllable such that little or no electrical power is output by the electric machine despite rotation of the power shaft (in Fig. 3 the electric machine is operated as a motor, paragraph 0038). Regarding claim 29: Vondrell discloses while the electric machine outputs power via the electrical input/output upon the rotation of the power shaft by the engine, the electric machine is configured to convert only a portion of the rotational energy provided by the power shaft into electrical power that is output at the electrical input/output (paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 30: Vondrell discloses the power shaft is configured to be driven by the electric machine and the engine simultaneously while the clutch is engaged to connect the output of the engine to the power shaft (Fig. 3, paragraph 0038).
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 SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, T.C. Patel can be reached at 571 272 2098. 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834