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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wankewycz ‘626 (US 12162626 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Wankewycz ‘626 (US 12162626 B2) discloses an aircraft propulsion module
comprising
a hydrogen storage system (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, item 15),
at least one electrochemical converter connected to the hydrogen storage system (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, item 14), wherein the at least one electrochemical converter is adapted to convert hydrogen
supplied from the hydrogen storage system into electric energy (Wankewycz ‘626, col 17 lines 52-62, hydrogen from storage is used by fuel cell), and
at least one electric motor electrically connected to the at least one electrochemical converter (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, item 20), wherein the electric motor is adapted to generate thrust (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, item 20, motor drives propeller to generate thrust);
wherein the propulsion module comprises a first part (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, item 14, forward part) and a second part (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, item 15, aft part), each of which comprise a respective fairing (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, see callout below, nacelle with skin enclosing propulsion module with a forward section enclosing the first part and an aft section enclosing the second part);
the first part comprises at least one electrochemical converter and at least one electric motor (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, items 14 and 20); and
the second part comprises a hydrogen storage housing of the hydrogen storage system for storing a reusable hydrogen storage unit (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, item 15), except:
the first part and the second part are separable from each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
402
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the first and second part separable in order to allow the first and second part to be inspected, repaired or replaced, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Regarding claim 5, Wankewycz ‘626 discloses the aircraft propulsion module according to claim 1,
wherein the hydrogen storage housing is adapted to attach the aircraft propulsion module to a wing of an aircraft (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, items 2 and 13).
Regarding claim 6, Wankewycz ‘626 (US 12162626 B2) discloses an aircraft propulsion module
comprising
a hydrogen storage system (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, item 15),
at least one electrochemical converter connected to the hydrogen storage system (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, item 14), wherein the at least one electrochemical converter is adapted to convert hydrogen supplied from the hydrogen storage system into electric energy (Wankewycz ‘626, col 17 lines 52-62, hydrogen from storage is used by fuel cell), and
at least one electric motor electrically connected to the at least one electrochemical converter (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, item 20), wherein the electric motor is adapted to generate thrust (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, item 20, motor drives propeller to generate thrust);
wherein the propulsion module comprises a first part (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, item 14, forward part) and a second part (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, item 15, aft part), each of which comprise a respective fairing (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, see callout below, nacelle with skin enclosing propulsion module with a forward section enclosing the first part and an aft section enclosing the second part);
the first part comprises at least one electrochemical converter and at least one electric motor (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, items 14 and 20); and
the fairing of the second part is a hydrogen storage housing of the hydrogen storage system for storing a reusable hydrogen storage unit (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, aft part of nacelle housing hydrogen tank is an aft fairing), except:
the first part and the second part are separable from each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
402
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the first and second part separable in order to allow the first and second part to be inspected, repaired or replaced, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Regarding claim 7, Wankewycz ‘626 discloses the aircraft propulsion module according to claim 1,
wherein the hydrogen storage system comprises at least one piping network (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, items 7, 22, and 16) adapted to refill the hydrogen storage unit when the hydrogen storage unit is positioned in the hydrogen storage housing (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, item 7, refueling interface).
Regarding claim 8, Wankewycz ‘626 discloses an aircraft, comprising at least one aircraft propulsion module according to claim 1 (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 2, item 1).
Regarding claim 9, Wankewycz ‘626 discloses the aircraft according to claim 8, wherein the hydrogen storage unit, when positioned in the hydrogen storage housing, is connectable to at least one piping network of the aircraft (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, items 7, 22, and 16), the at least one piping network being adapted to supply hydrogen from the hydrogen storage unit to at least one electrochemical converter of the aircraft (Wankewycz ‘626, col 17 lines 52-62).
Regarding claim 10, Wankewycz ‘626 discloses the aircraft according to claim 8,wherein the hydrogen storage unit, when positioned in the hydrogen storage housing, is connectable to at least one piping network of the aircraft (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, items 7, 22, and 16), the at least one piping network being adapted to refill the hydrogen storage unit with hydrogen from an external source (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, item 7, refueling interface).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wankewycz ‘626 (US 12162626 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomas (US 11420761 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Wankewycz ‘626 discloses the aircraft propulsion module according to claim 1, except:
wherein the first part comprises a frame to which the at least one electrochemical converter, the at least one electric motor and the second part, in particular its hydrogen storage housing, are attached.
Thomas (US 11420761 B2) teaches a structure including a first part comprising a frame (Thomas, figure 3, item 152) to which the at least one electrochemical converter (Thomas, figure 3, item 202), the at least one electric motor (Thomas, figure 3, item 204) and the second part, in particular its hydrogen storage housing (Thomas, figure 3, item 212), are attached.
Wankewycz ‘626 and Thomas are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft hybrid propulsion systems. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wankewycz ‘626 with the frame attaching the electrochemical converter, electric motor, and hydrogen storage of Thomas with a reasonable expectation of success in order to hold the elements of the propulsion system together.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wankewycz ‘626 (US 12162626 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bracken (US 6491255 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Wankewycz ‘626 discloses the aircraft propulsion module according to claim 1, except:
wherein the hydrogen storage housing comprises a core and a cap, one end of the core being an open end for inserting the hydrogen storage unit and the other end comprising a hole allowing a head of the hydrogen storage unit to be accessed.
Bracken (US 6491255 B1) teaches a storage housing comprising a core (Bracken, figure 2, item 24) and a cap (Bracken, figure 2, item 23), one end of the core being an open end (Bracken, figure 2, item 25) for inserting the fuel storage unit (Bracken, figure 2, item 25) and the other end comprising a hole allowing a head of the hydrogen storage unit to be accessed (Bracken, figure 2, item 30).
Wankewycz ‘626 and Bracken are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft fuel tanks. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wankewycz ‘626 with the fuel storage housing including a core and cap of Bracken with a reasonable expectation of success in order to protect the hydrogen storage from damage.
Regarding claim 4, Wankewycz ‘626 as modified by Bracken teaches the aircraft propulsion module according to claim 3, wherein the cap comprises holes (Bracken, figure 3, items 26 and 27).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7 of applicant’s reply, filed 09/21/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 2 and 6 under 35 USC § 112(b) and the rejections of claims 1, 5-6, and 8 under 35 USC § 102(a)(2) with respect to Wankewycz ‘152 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
With respect to claim 1, Wankewycz ‘626 discloses a unitary fairing and that it would not have been obvious to make the fairing of Wankewycz ‘626 separable to improve maintainability because Wankewycz ‘626 does not hint or suggest such a maintenance need and describes the pod as unitary, meaning that making the fairing separable would constitute hindsight.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here the reason for making the first and second parts, including a forward part of the fairing and an aft part of the fairing, separable is so that the first or second parts or subcomponents therein may be accessed such that they can be inspected, repaired or replaced. While Wankewycz ‘626 teaches that the pods may be removed from the wing for maintenance, this does not preclude such separability. Hence this rejection is maintained.
With respect to claim 5, Wankewycz ‘626 fails to disclose a “hydrogen storage housing … adapted to attach the aircraft propulsion module to a wing of the aircraft” because neither the wing (item 2) nor the lock/unlock mechanism (item 13) is the hydrogen storage housing (which is the pod item 6)
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Wankewycz ‘626 meets the claim. The limitation “” merely requires that the hydrogen storage housing be adapted to attach the module to an aircraft wing, but does not require a specific attachment arrangement between the housing and the module. As the hydrogen storage housing (which includes the second part of the overall module) attaches the module (the components contained within the second part and the overall fairing structure) to the wing via the lock/unlock mechanism, Wankewycz ‘626 meets the requirements of the claim.
With respect to claim 6, Wankewycz ‘626 only discloses a unitary nacelle and that an aft part of the nacelle is not a fairing of the second part
This has been addressed above by the rejections of claims 1 and 6, but is repeated here (note the addition of more claim mapping and annotated figures that clarify but do not change the basis of the rejection). In Wankewycz ‘626, the nacelle has front and aft parts which can be considered as parts of the first and second part respectively, however there is no distinction between these parts in Wankewycz ‘626. Per the rejections above, it would have been obvious to make the first and second parts separable. The resulting invention would then have a front and an aft fairing structure associated with the first and second parts respectively, thereby meeting the claim scope of claim 6 (and claim 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 5106035 A teaches a hybrid propulsion system
US 5402968 A teaches a hydrogen storage housing comprising a core (figure 2, item 12) and a cap (figure 2, item 22)
US 6550717 B2 teaches a hydrogen fueled aircraft using hydrogen tanks in booms and nacelles
US 9678515 B2 teaches a cylindrical hydrogen tank inserted into a front of an aircraft and with a piping network
US 11034442 B2 teaches a nacelle with a compartment including a door that can contain fuel tank (figures 8a-f)
US 11420757 B2 teaches a hybrid propulsion system with fuel cells and a motor
US 11525544 B2 teaches a hybrid propulsion system with fuel cells fed by removable hydrogen cylinders
US 20130306797 A1 teaches an engine fed by a hydrogen tank in a nacelle
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights