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
Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/06/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I/Species D/Species AA in the reply filed on 5/06/2025 is acknowledged.
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) 1, 9-14, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostdiek et al. US 20240190574 A1 in view of Cronin et al. 4,487,034.
Re claim 1, Ostdiek et al. teach an aircraft comprising: a cabin adapted to receive one or more persons (fig 1); a rotary airfoil device (72, 62, 230); an electric engine (400, 236a); a battery powering the electric engine (para 22); 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, the lubricant circuit connected in heat exchange relationship with the transmission (paras 65-66);
a coolant subsystem having a coolant circuit and a coolant pump (284) operable to circulate a coolant in the coolant circuit, the coolant circuit connected in heat exchange relationship with at least one of the electric engine and the battery (paras 67-68).
Ostdiek et al. fail to explicitly teach a pressurized air line.
Cronin et al. teach and a pressurized air subsystem having a pressurized air line operable to deliver pressurized air from a pressurized air source to the cabin (26 to 18), the pressurized air line connected in heat exchange relationship (via 38) with at least one of the coolant circuit and the lubricant circuit to provide pressurized air to the cabin.
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 line as taught by Cronin et al. in the Ostdiek et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for refrigerant cooled cabin air.
Re claim 9, Ostdiek et al. teach further comprising a lubricant heat exchanger connecting the pressurized air line in heat exchange relationship with the lubricant circuit (para 56, fig 8).
Re claim 10, Ostdiek et al. teach further comprising a coolant heat exchanger connecting the pressurized air line in heat exchange relationship with the coolant circuit (para 56, fig 8).
Re claim 11, Cronin et al. teach wherein the pressurized air source includes an air compressor fluidly connecting a ram air inlet (fig 3, see the rejection of claim 1).
Re claim 12, Ostdiek et al. teach a heat pump having a refrigerant circuit fluidly connecting, in sequence, a compressor, a condenser, an expansion valve, and an evaporator, the evaporator connected in heat exchange relationship with the coolant circuit (para 69).
Re claim 13, Ostdiek et al., as modified, teach the pressurized air line is further connected in heat exchange relationship with the condenser (since both systems are thermally connected in the instant combination).
Re claim 14, Cronin et al. teach wherein the pressurized air line is a hot line, the pressurized air subsystem further has a cold line fluidly connected in parallel to the hot line, the heat pump further has a second evaporator, the cold line being in heat exchange relationship with the second evaporator (noting 28 and 38 and multiple lines in between, and hot or cold are functional limitations and do not change the structure of the line) to provide pressurized air to the cabin.
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 line as taught by Cronin et al. in the Ostdiek et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for refrigerant cooled cabin air.
Re claim 19, Ostdiek et al. teach an aircraft comprising: a cabin adapted to receive one or more persons (see rejection of claim 1); a rotary airfoil device (230); an electric engine (236); a battery powering the electric engine (para 22); a transmission (241, 246, and shafts) coupling the electric engine to the rotary airfoil device (para 39); a lubricant subsystem having a lubricant circuit (para 37), the lubricant circuit connected in heat exchange relationship with the transmission (para 37);
Another embodiment teach and a lubricant pump operable to circulate a lubricant in the lubricant circuit (paras 54, 50-54) to independently power the cooling circuit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine embodiments in the Ostdiek et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for cooling in multiple modes.
Ostdiek et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach a pressurized air line.
Cronin et al. teach and a pressurized air subsystem having a pressurized air line operable to deliver pressurized air from a pressurized air source to the cabin, the pressurized air line connected in heat exchange relationship with the lubricant circuit (noting, 26 to 18, and 38; see the rejection of claim 1) to provide pressurized air to the cabin.
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 line as taught by Cronin et al. in the Ostdiek et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for refrigerant cooled cabin air.
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).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostdiek et al. US 20240190574 A1 in view of Cronin et al. 4,487,034 and Manohar US 12049297 B2.
Re claim 5, Ostdiek et al. teach a converter connecting the battery to the electric engine, wherein the coolant circuit is further connected in heat exchange relationship with the converter (figs, para 22).
Additionally, Manohar teach a converter (17, 26) connecting the battery to the electric engine, wherein the coolant circuit is further connected in heat exchange relationship with the converter (fig 5 secondary reference, also noting that from the primary reference the close connecting and proximity of all the parts create a thermal connection, which when cooled by ram air from ram air naturally provides “the coolant circuit is further connected in heat exchange relationship with the converter”) to provide battery power to an engine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a converter as taught by Manohar in the Ostdiek et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for inverting of energy to mechanical energy.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostdiek et al. US 20240190574 A1 in view of Cronin et al. 4,487,034 and Suciu et al. US 8978351 B2.
Re claim 6, Ostdiek et al. , as modified, fail to explicitly teach gear details.
Suciu et al. teach wherein the transmission (110) has gearing (“gear ratio”), the lubricant circuit in heat exchange relationship with the gearing (noting in the instant combination the thermal connected pieces are naturally thermally connected by linkage) to provide gear drives.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include gear details as taught by Suciu et al. in the Ostdiek et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a transmission to drive various components.
Re claim 7, Suciu et al. teach wherein the lubricant pump is drivingly coupled to the gearing (fig 11 noting transmission driving multiple accessories and pumps) to provide gear drives.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include gear details as taught by Suciu et al. in the Ostdiek et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a transmission to drive various components.
Re claim 8, Suciu et al. teach wherein the coolant pump is drivingly coupled to the gearing (fig 11 noting transmission driving multiple accessories and pumps) to provide gear drives.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include gear details as taught by Suciu et al. in the Ostdiek et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a transmission to drive various components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210300544 A1, US 2019/0203735 Al.
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