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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 35 is to an inverter which is shown in figure 22 and Claim 38 is to a noise reduction chamber as shown in figures 39-47 and are not part of the elected species A of figures 1-5 of 10/15/2024 which was made without traverse. As such claims 35 and 38a are withdrawn from examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the battery enclosure of the aircraft separate from the fuselage of Claim 36 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-8, 10-11, 21, 24-25, 31-33, 36, and 37 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.
For Claim 1, 2-4, 6, 36, and 37, each of the claims attempts to define structural limitation of the an aircraft such as the propulsion system, powerplant, batteries, etc. but they are not part of the claimed “A device configured to removably attach to an aircraft”. As such it is not clear if those limitation are required by the claims. The Examiner suggest Claim 1 being “an aircraft” and then further defining the parts of the aircraft, i.e. the propulsion system, the device, etc. Claims 5, 7-8, 10-11, 21, 24-25, and 31-33 are indefinite as being dependent on Claim 1.
Claim 36 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.
For Claim 36, the claim is to “the device is configured to be attached by the mounting hardware within a battery enclosure of the aircraft separate from a fuselage of the aircraft such that the electrical connectors passing outside the enclosure are within the aircraft”. It is unclear how this structure is configured as the battery enclosure is not shown or described in the specification with relation to the mounting hardware, electrical connectors and fuselage. As such the claim is indefinite.
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)(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(s) 1-6, 8, 10, 21, 24, and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tamada (US PgPub #2020/0164992).
For Claim 1, the figures of Tamada ‘992 disclose a device (2-1) configured to removably attach to an aircraft (2-101) and serve as an energy source for the aircraft, the device comprising: an enclosure (2-2); an engine (2-5); an electric generator (2-4); at least one fuel tank (2-22) configured to provide fuel to the engine; and electrical connectors (2-3) for outputting power to a propulsion system of the aircraft, wherein the power is generated by the electric generator and output, via the electrical connectors, to at least one electrical component (2-107) of the aircraft, mounting hardware (3, 2-3, SP) configured to attach the device to the aircraft, the mounting hardware being at a different position on the device than the electrical connectors {paragraph [0075] of Tamada ‘992 discloses that “Power generated by the power generator 5 is supplied to the control unit 107 of the flying body 100 via a cable (not shown). The cable may pass through the connecting portions 3”, as such it is clear that the cable may pass thru the mechanical connection or may not which would mean at a different position.} wherein the engine, the electric generator, and the fuel tank are each housed within the enclosure, wherein the propulsion system of the aircraft is not within the enclosure of the energy source, wherein the electric generator is configured to generate the power within the enclosure as the engine rotates a shaft (2-6) connected to the electric generator, wherein the engine is configured to rotate the shaft within the enclosure by burning the fuel from the fuel tank within the enclosure, and wherein the power is configured to be output to the propulsion system of the aircraft via the electrical connectors which pass from inside the enclosure to outside the enclosure.
For Claim 2, the figures of Tamada ‘992 disclose that the energy source is a first energy source, the propulsion system of the aircraft comprises a lift motor (2-105), the aircraft comprises a second energy source (2-108) separate from the first energy source, and a powerplant of the aircraft is flyable and configured to provide power the lift propulsion motor using the second energy source with or without the use of the first energy source.
For Claim 3, the figures of Tamada ‘992 disclose that the propulsion system (2-102) is located elsewhere on the aircraft than a location where the energy source is mounted to the aircraft.
For Claim 4, the figures of Tamada ‘992 disclose that the power generated by the electric generator propulsion system passes through the wiring of the aircraft before being provided to the propulsion system of the aircraft, wherein the wiring of the aircraft is not within the enclosure of the energy source.
For Claim 5, the figures of Tamada ‘992 disclose that the electrical component (2-107) is connected to the propulsion motors (2-105 and 2-106) of the aircraft.
For Claim 6, the figures of Tamada ‘992 disclose that the energy source is configured to power a same propulsive motor that is fed by batteries (2-108) of the aircraft, wherein the batteries are not housed within the enclosure of the energy source.
For Claim 8, the figures of Tamada ‘992 disclose that the electrical connectors (2-3) are removably connectable to a corresponding electrical connector of the aircraft.
For Claim 10, the figures of Tamada ‘992 disclose that the engine is a turbine.
For Claim 21, paragraph [0110] of Tamada ‘992 discloses that the energy source is configured to attach to a wing of an aircraft.
For Claim 24, the figures of Tamada ‘992 disclose mounting hardware that is configured to permit non-destructive removal of the energy source from the aircraft.
For Claim 31, the figures of Tamada ‘992 disclose that the is no fluid connectors configured to connect the device to the aircraft.
For Claim 32, the figures of Tamada ‘992 disclose that no fuel is received at the device from the aircraft.
For Claim 33, the figures of Tamada ‘992 disclose that the device is only configured to output energy in the form of electric power to the aircraft via the electrical connectors.
For Claim 37, the figures of Tamada ‘992 disclose a device (2-1) configured to removably attach to an aircraft (2-101) and serve as an energy source for the aircraft, the device comprising: an engine (2-5); an electric generator (2-4); at least one fuel tank (2-22) configured to provide fuel to the engine; an enclosure (2-2) housing one or more components including the engine, the electric generator, and the at least one fuel tank, wherein a propulsion system of the aircraft is not within the enclosure of the energy source; an air inlet (2-c) configured to intake air to the enclosure; an air outlet configured to exhaust the air after flowing through the enclosure; and electrical connectors (2-3) for outputting power to the propulsion system of the aircraft, wherein the power is generated by the electric generator and output, via the electrical connectors, to at least one electrical component (2-107) of the aircraft, wherein the air inlet and the air outlet are fluidly connected by an air flow path during operation of the device, the one or more components being configured to block the airflow path to the outlet while the device is not operating; wherein the electric generator is configured to generate the power within the enclosure as the engine rotates a shaft (2-6) connected to the electric generator, wherein the engine is configured to rotate the shaft within the enclosure by burning the fuel from the fuel tank within the enclosure, and wherein the power is configured to be output to the propulsion system of the aircraft via the electrical connectors which pass from inside the enclosure to outside the enclosure.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamada (US PgPub #2020/0164992).
For Claim 7, while Tamada ‘992 is silent about the power output being AC or DC, the Examiner takes Official Notice that AC or DC are the only two options for electrical output and therefore would be obvious as a power output. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tamada ‘992 with the power source providing either AC or DC power as those are the only two power output types.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamada (US PgPub #2020/0164992) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
For Claim 11, while Tamada ‘992 discloses a fuel tank in the enclosure, it is silent about a first and second fuel tank on opposite sides of the enclosure. However, the AAPA teaches that it is well known in the art to provide a plurality of fuel tanks for a system as well as to have them on opposite sides of each other in order to maintain weight balance and distribution. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tamada ‘992 with the known two fuel tanks on opposite sides of a system as taught by AAPA. The motivation to do so would be to provide a balanced system.
For Claim 25, while Tamada ‘992 discloses the ability to remove the energy source, it is silent about permitting destructive removal of the aircraft. However, the AAPA teaches that the only two options are non-destructive or destructive removal of the energy source. As such it would be obvious to use one or the other. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tamada ‘992 with the known destructive removal of the energy source as taught by AAPA. The motivation to do so would be to remove the energy source.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 34 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the first argument on pages 9-10, that the 112 rejection is not proper the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner holds that it is not clear if the aircraft structure is required in the claim and the claims are to a device configured to be attached to the aircraft but not the aircraft itself.
With respect to the second argument on Pages 10-11 that Tamada ‘992 does not disclose the newly amended claim language about the separate mounting hardware and the electrical connectors, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0075] of Tamada ‘992 clearly teaches that electrical cables are used to connect the device to the aircraft and that the “may” got through the mounting hardware which inherently means that they may not go through the hardware as claimed.
With respect to the new claims, Claim 34 is allowable if added to dependent Claim 34 and if it overcame the 112 rejection. Claims 35 and 38 are withdrawn as to be claiming a non-elected species. Claim 36 is rejected under 112 and Claim 37 is rejected as being anticipated by Tamada ‘992.
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 PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 8/7/2026
Prosecution Insights