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 § 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 2 and 6 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “wherein the hydrogen storage housing is the fairing of the second part” contradicts the earlier limitation “wherein the propulsion module comprises a first part and a second part, each of which comprise a respective fairing … the second part comprises a hydrogen storage housing of the hydrogen storage system for storing a reusable hydrogen storage unit” of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1, 5-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wankewycz ‘152 (US 20210269152 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wankewycz ‘152 (US 20210269152 A1) discloses an aircraft propulsion module
comprising
a hydrogen storage system (Wankewycz ‘152, figure 3, item 25-2),
at least one electrochemical converter connected to the hydrogen storage system (Wankewycz ‘152, figure 3, item 25-1), wherein the at least one electrochemical converter is adapted to convert hydrogen supplied from the hydrogen storage system into electric energy (Wankewycz ‘152, ¶73, hydrogen from
storage is used by fuel cell), and
at least one electric motor electrically connected to the at least one electrochemical converter
(Wankewycz ‘152, figure 3, item 27-1), wherein the electric motor is adapted to generate thrust (Wankewycz, figure 3, item 27, motor drives propeller to generate thrust);
wherein the propulsion module comprises a first part and a second part, each of which comprise a respective fairing;
the first part and the second part are separable from each other (Wankewycz ‘152, ¶73, hydrogen storage can be removed);
the first part comprises at least one electrochemical converter and at least one electric motor
(Wankewycz ‘152, figure 3, items 25-1 and 27-1); and
the second part comprises a hydrogen storage housing of the hydrogen storage system for storing a reusable hydrogen storage unit (Wankewycz ‘152, figure 3, item 25-2).
Regarding claim 5, Wankewycz ‘152 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 ‘152, figure 3, item 22-2).
Regarding claim 6, Wankewycz ‘152 discloses the aircraft propulsion module according to claim 1, wherein the hydrogen storage housing is the fairing of the second part (Wankewycz ‘152, figure 3, item 25-2).
Regarding claim 8, Wankewycz discloses an aircraft, comprising at least one aircraft propulsion module according to claim 1 (Wankewycz ‘152, ¶10).
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;
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.
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 discloses the aircraft propulsion module according to claim 1,
wherein the hydrogen storage housing is the fairing of the second part (Wankewycz ‘626, figure 3, aft part of nacelle housing hydrogen tank is an aft fairing).
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).
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 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
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