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 .
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.
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) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostdiek et al. US 20240190574 A1 in view of GALZIN et al. US 2022/0185485 Al.
Re claim 19, Ostdiek et al. teach an aircraft comprising: a cabin (100) adapted to receive one or more persons (fig 1); a rotary airfoil device (72, 62, 230); an electric engine (400, 236a); a battery (para 22) powering the electric engine; a transmission (246) coupling the electric engine to the rotary airfoil device (fig 8); a lubricant subsystem having a lubricant circuit and a lubricant pump (280) operable to circulate a lubricant in the lubricant circuit (para 37), the lubricant circuit connected in heat exchange relationship with the transmission (paras 54, 50-54, fig 8)
Ostdiek et al. fail to explicitly teach a pressurized air subsystem.
GALZIN et al. teach a pressurized air subsystem having a pressurized air line operable to deliver pressurized air from a pressurized air source to the cabin (10, para 55); a lubricant heat exchanger (20) connecting pressurized air line in heat exchange relationship with the lubricant circuit to reduce pressure drops by combining subsystems for cooling (paras 1-10, 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a pressurized air subsystem as taught by GALZIN et al. in the Ostdiek et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for reduced drag and improved fuel performance in flight.
Re claim 20, Ostdiek et al. teach wherein the lubricant circuit is further connected in heat exchange relationship with at least one of the battery and the electric engine (para 37, fig 8, noting 262B is downstream of 262A and thus in in a heat exchange relationship during operation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 11-14, 21-23 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ostdiek et al. and Cronin fails to teach an “a lubricant heat exchanger connecting pressurized air line in heat exchange relationship with the lubricant circuit”. However, the scope of claim 19 has been changed in the latest reply and therefore the examiner is now relying on GALZIN et al. to teach the recited “a lubricant heat exchanger connecting pressurized air line in heat exchange relationship with the lubricant circuit” (see detailed rejection above). Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that issues arise since claim 19 depends from claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 19 does not depend from claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20180038243 A1, US 20170159490 A1, US 20160131036 A1, US 20160061056 A1.
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.
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 2/25/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights