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
On reconsideration, the restriction requirement between Species C1 and C2 is withdrawn.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A2, B1 in the reply filed on 14 Apr 2026 is acknowledged. These species correspond to claims 1, 3, and 14-15.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restricted species are interrelated, and additionally on the grounds that the Office has not established a prima facie serious burden with respect to the search and examination of the claims. This is not found persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that the restricted species are mutually exclusive embodiments which would require different search queries.
An aerospace structure comprising a rechargeable power source that conformally overlays an aircraft wing (species A1) and an aerospace structure comprising a rechargeable power source that is disposed inside the structural skin of the wing (species A2) are materially different structures that would require different search queries, and prior art applicable to one of these species would likely not be applicable to the other species.
An aerospace structure comprising a rechargeable power source that comprises a rechargeable battery (species B1) and an aerospace structure comprising a rechargeable power source that comprises a fuel cell (species B2) are materially different structures that would require different search queries, and prior art applicable to one of these species would likely not be applicable to the other species.
In both cases, therefore, the restricted species would present a serious search and examination burden. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs et al. (US 10,559,792) in view of Northwood et al. (US 2023/0163384).
As to claim 1, Combs et al. discloses an aerospace structure, comprising an airplane comprising an airplane wing (see e.g. battery pack 702, which is incorporated into the skin of aircraft 700, col. 12, lines 48-55 and Fig. 7. Col 1, lines 49-53 indicate that the battery pack may be incorporated into winglets, which reads on the claimed airplane wing);
and a structurally-integrated power source that is structurally-integrated with the airplane wing (see e.g. col. 11, lines 12-32 and Fig. 5, showing a structurally-integrated battery pack 500, comprising batteries that read on a power source and are included within the skin. Said skin may be incorporated into the aircraft wing as per col. 5, lines 29-42).
While Combs et al. discloses a power source that is a battery (see e.g. battery pack 500, col. 11, lines 12-32), Combs et al. does not explicitly state that this battery is a rechargeable power source.
Northwood et al., also working on the problem of power sources for aircraft, teaches the use of a rechargeable battery as a power source for an aircraft (see e.g. Northwood et al.: [0001], [0005]-[0006]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerospace structure of Combs et al. by using the rechargeable power source taught by Northwood et al. as the power source for Comb’s structure. Said artisan would have been motivated to use Northwood et al.’s rechargeable power source to allow the power source to be replenished and re-used after use rather than needing to be replaced.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs et al. (US 10,559,792) in view of Northwood et al. (US 2023/0163384) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kempf et al. (US 2021/0147062).
As to claim 3, Combs et al. in view of Northwood et al. discloses the aerospace structure of claim 1,
wherein the airplane wing is a composite wing that comprises an outer composite structural skin (see e.g. second external surface 514, Combs et al.: col. 11, lines 25-28 and Fig. 5. Note that 514 is a component of outer skin 510, and this outer skin may comprise a composite material as per col. 3, lines 29-40) and an internal composite structural material (see e.g. second internal surface 512, Combs et al.: col. 11, lines 25-28 and Fig. 5. As above, 512 is a component of outer skin 510, and this outer skin may comprise a composite material as per Combs et al.: col. 3, lines 29-40); and
wherein the structurally-integrated rechargeable power source comprises a rechargeable battery (see e.g. battery pack 500 comprises batteries included within the skin, Combs et al.: col. 11, lines 14-16 and Fig. 5) that is disposed in-between the outer composite structural skin and the internal composite structural material (see e.g. Combs et al.: col. 11, lines 24-32 and Fig. 5, showing second electrode 516, which reads on the claimed battery, disposed between second external surface 514 and second internal surface 512).
Combs et al. in view of Northwood et al. discloses an internal composite structural material that is part of the outer skin of the aircraft (see e.g. outer skin 510, Combs et al.: col. 3, lines 29-40) as set forth above, but does not specify that this material is a laminate.
Kempf et al., also working in the field of structural materials for aircraft, teaches an internal composite structural material that is used as a structural material in an aircraft (see e.g. composite laminate, Kempf et al.: [0052]). Kempf et al. further teaches that this composite laminate has a lower weight than conventional structural materials, and beneficially provides fireproofing and thermal insulation (see e.g. Kempf et al.: [0052]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to fashion the internal composite structural material of Combs et al. in view of Northwood et al. out of the internal composite structural laminate taught by Kempf et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to use Kempf et al.’s internal composite structural laminate because Kempf et al. teaches that this material is lightweight and provides a degree of fireproofing and thermal insulation.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs et al. (US 10,559,792) in view of Northwood et al. (US 2023/0163384) and Kempf et al. (US 2021/0147062).
As to claim 14, Combs et al. discloses an aerospace structure, comprising:
an airplane comprising a composite airplane wing (see e.g. battery pack 702, which is incorporated into the skin of aircraft 700, col. 12, lines 48-55 and Fig. 7. Col 1, lines 49-53 indicate that the battery pack may be incorporated into winglets, which reads on the claimed airplane wing. Additionally, the aircraft skin may be made of a composite material and thereby read on a composite airplane wing, see col. 3, lines 29-40); and a structurally-integrated power source that is structurally-integrated inside of the composite airplane wing (see e.g. col. 11, lines 12-32 and Fig. 5, showing a structurally-integrated battery pack 500, comprising batteries that read on a power source and are included within the skin. Said skin may be incorporated into the aircraft wing as per col. 5, lines 29-42);
wherein the composite airplane wing comprises an outer composite structural skin (see e.g. second external surface 514, col. 11, lines 25-28 and Fig. 5. Note that 514 is a component of outer skin 510, and this outer skin may comprise a composite material as per col. 3, lines 29-40) and an internal composite structural material (see e.g. second internal surface 512, Combs et al.: col. 11, lines 25-28 and Fig. 5. As above, 512 is a component of outer skin 510, and this outer skin may comprise a composite material as per Combs et al.: col. 3, lines 29-40); and
wherein the structurally-integrated rechargeable power source (see e.g. battery pack 500 comprises batteries included within the skin, col. 11, lines 14-16 and Fig. 5) is sandwiched in-between the outer composite structural skin and the internal composite structural material (see e.g. col. 11, lines 24-32 and Fig. 5, showing second electrode 516, which reads on the claimed battery, sandwiched between second external surface 514 and second internal surface 512).
Further regarding claim 14, while Combs et al. discloses a power source that is a battery (see e.g. battery pack 500, Combs et al.: col. 11, lines 12-32), Combs et al. does not explicitly state that this battery is a rechargeable power source.
Additionally, Combs et al. in discloses an internal composite structural material that is part of the outer skin of the aircraft (see e.g. outer skin 510, Combs et al.: col. 3, lines 29-40) as set forth above, but does not specify that this material is a laminate.
Northwood et al., also working on the problem of power sources for aircraft, teaches the use of a rechargeable battery as a power source for an aircraft (see e.g. Northwood et al.: [0001], [0005]-[0006]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerospace structure of Combs et al. by using the rechargeable power source taught by Northwood et al. as the power source for Comb’s structure. Said artisan would have been motivated to use Northwood et al.’s rechargeable power source to allow the power source to be replenished and re-used after use rather than needing to be replaced.
Combs et al. in view of Northwood et al. as applied above discloses an internal composite structural material that is part of the outer skin of the aircraft (see e.g. outer skin 510, Combs et al.: col. 3, lines 29-40) as set forth above, but does not specify that this material is a laminate.
Kempf et al., also working in the field of structural materials for aircraft, teaches an internal composite structural material that is used as a structural material in an aircraft (see e.g. composite laminate, Kempf et al.: [0052]). Kempf et al. further teaches that this composite laminate has a lower weight than conventional structural materials, and beneficially provides fireproofing and thermal insulation (see e.g. Kempf et al.: [0052]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to fashion the internal composite structural material of Combs et al. in view of Northwood et al. out of the internal composite structural laminate taught by Kempf et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to use Kempf et al.’s internal composite structural laminate because Kempf et al. teaches that this material is lightweight and provides a degree of fireproofing and thermal insulation.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs et al. (US 10,559,792) in view of Northwood et al. (US 2023/0163384) and Kempf et al. (US 2021/0147062) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Mo et al. (US 2021/0399333).
As to claim 15, Combs et al. in view of Northwood et al. and Kempf et al. teaches the aerospace structure of claim 14.
Combs et al. in view of Northwood et al. and Kempf et al. as applied above teach a structurally-integrated rechargeable power source (see e.g. structurally-integrated battery pack, Combs et al.: col. 11, lines 33-50), but do not teach a structurally-integrated rechargeable power source wherein the structurally-integrated rechargeable power source comprises a structurally-integrated rechargeable lithium-ion battery; and wherein the structurally-integrated rechargeable lithium-ion battery comprises: a first layer disposed inside of the composite airplane wing,
wherein the first layer comprises a first conductor comprising copper or a copper alloy; a second layer disposed above the first layer,
wherein the second layer comprises a first electrode comprising a Li-M-O compound; a third layer disposed above the second layer,
wherein the third layer comprises a separator membrane; a fourth layer disposed above the third layer,
wherein the fourth layer comprises a second electrode comprising graphite;
and a fifth layer disposed above the fourth layer,
wherein the fifth layer comprises a second conductor comprising copper or a copper alloy;
wherein electricity flows from the first conductor of the structurally-integrated rechargeable lithium-ion battery to the second conductor of the structurally-integrated rechargeable lithium-ion battery when a charged structurally-integrated rechargeable lithium-ion battery is connected to an electrical load.
Northwood et al., also working on the problem of power sources for aircraft, teaches the use of a structurally-integrated rechargeable power source (see e.g. battery cell 26, Northwood et al.: [0035] and Fig. 2) wherein the structurally-integrated rechargeable power source comprises a structurally-integrated rechargeable lithium-ion battery (see e.g. electrode assembly 14 of battery cell 26 is preferably a lithium-ion electrode assembly, Northwood et al. [0035]); and
wherein the structurally-integrated rechargeable lithium-ion battery comprises: a first layer disposed inside of the composite airplane wing wherein the first layer comprises a first conductor (see e.g. current collector of first cathode 30, Northwood et al.: [0035] and Fig. 2),
a second layer disposed above the first layer wherein the second layer comprises a first electrode (see e.g. cathode material, which is attached to and thereby disposed above the current collector, Northwood et al.: [0035]),
a third layer disposed above the second layer, wherein the third layer comprises a separator membrane (see e.g. first separator 36, Northwood et al.: [0035], Fig. 2);
a fourth layer disposed above the third layer wherein the fourth layer comprises a second electrode (see e.g. anode material of anode 34, Northwood et al.: [0035] and Fig. 2),
and a fifth layer disposed above the fourth layer wherein the fifth layer comprises a second conductor (see e.g. current collector of anode 34, which is attached to and thereby disposed above the anode material of anode 34, [0035] and Fig. 2),
wherein electricity flows from the first conductor of the structurally-integrated rechargeable lithium-ion battery to the second conductor of the structurally-integrated rechargeable lithium-ion battery when a charged structurally-integrated rechargeable lithium-ion battery is connected to an electrical load (see e.g. battery cell 26 is preferably a lithium-ion battery having a first conducting current collector and second conducting current collector, Northwood et al.: [0035]. As 26 is a battery, it is by definition designed to supply electricity from a first conducting current collector to a second conducting current collector when connected to an electrical load).
Northwood et al. further teaches that this structurally-integrated rechargeable lithium-ion battery is suitable for use in an electric aircraft because it provides a high energy output at a low weight (see e.g. Northwood et al.: [0035]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerospace structure of Combs et al. in view of Northwood et al. and Kempf et al. by using the structurally-integrated rechargeable power source wherein the structurally-integrated rechargeable power source comprises a structurally-integrated rechargeable lithium-ion battery; and wherein the structurally-integrated rechargeable lithium-ion battery comprises: a first layer disposed inside of the composite airplane wing; a second layer disposed above the first layer; a third layer disposed above the second layer, wherein the third layer comprises a separator membrane; a fourth layer disposed above the third layer,
wherein the fourth layer comprises a second electrode
and a fifth layer disposed above the fourth layer,
wherein the fifth layer comprises a second conductor;
wherein electricity flows from the first conductor of the structurally-integrated rechargeable lithium-ion battery to the second conductor of the structurally-integrated rechargeable lithium-ion battery when a charged structurally-integrated rechargeable lithium-ion battery is connected to an electrical load taught by Northwood et al. as the power source. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a modification because Northwood et al. teaches that this power source provides a high energy output at a low weight.
Further regarding claim 15, Combs et al. in view of Northwood et al. and Kempf et al. as applied above teaches a first layer comprising a first conductor and a fifth layer comprising a second conductor (see e.g. the cathode and anode current collectors read on the first conductor and second conductor, Northwood et al.: [0035]), but does not teach that these first and second conductors comprise copper or a copper alloy.
Additionally, Combs et al. in view of Northwood et al. and Kempf et al. teaches a first electrode but does not teach a first electrode comprising a Li-M-O compound.
Combs et al. in view of Northwood et al. and Kempf et al. teaches a fourth layer but does not teach that the fourth layer comprises a second electrode comprising graphite.
Mo et al., also working in the field of lithium-ion batteries, teaches that it is conventional for a power source to have cathode and anode current collectors that comprise copper (see e.g. Mo: [0127]-[0128]). Mo et al. additionally teaches that it is conventional for a first electrode to comprise a Li-M-O compound (see e.g. a cathode comprising lithium metal oxide reads on the claimed first electrode that comprises Li-M-O, Mo: [0128]). Mo et al. additionally teaches that it is conventional for a second electrode to comprise graphite (see e.g. an anode comprising graphite reads on the claimed second electrode that comprises graphite, Mo: [0127]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerospace structure of Combs et al. in view of Northwood et al. and Kempf et al. by selecting copper as the first and second conductor materials, Li-M-O as the first electrode, and graphite as the fourth electrode. Said artisan would have found it obvious to select these materials because Mo et al. teaches that they are all conventional materials for a lithium-ion battery, and the use of such materials would therefore fail to produce any new benefit that would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Linde et al. (US 2022/0190410) teaches a structural composite laminate for an aircraft part that comprises a fuel cell and a battery (see Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights