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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered.
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 1-10 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.
For Claim 1, “fast aircraft dynamics model” is used which is indefinite as it is not clear what is considered “fast”. Claims 2-10 are indefinite as being dependent on Claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US PgPub #2020/0148373) in view of Wittmaak (US Patent #11932387).
For Claim 1, figure 5 and paragraphs [0031, 0036, 0044, 0046, 0048, and 0056] of Long ‘373 discloses a hybrid electrical propulsion (HEP) propulsion and attitude control system (2D) included in an aircraft, the HEP propulsion and attitude control system comprising: a propulsion system configured to generate thrust for operation of the aircraft, the propulsion system comprising at least one propulsor (16A) and at least one electric motor (14A); an electrical system (4A-C) configured to deliver a first amount of power to the at least one electric motor to increase or decrease thrust form at least one propulsor so as to adjust the thrust and a second amount of power to a plurality of electrical loads (50); and a HEP controller (35) in signal communications with the electrical system and the propulsion system, the HEP controller configured to determine at least one attitude goal of the aircraft, and control the electrical system to adjust the thrust to achieve the at least one attitude goal.
While Long ‘373 discloses the HEP controller (35) that is used to control level flight or attitude, it is not specific about generating a goal data based on an attitude goal and imputing that into a dynamics model and controlling the motor based on the response data and attitude control data that is fed into a model predictive control algorithm. However, figure 5 and column 14, lines 1-35 of Wittmaak ‘387 teach using sensors to generate data based on the desire attitude and imputing that data into a dynamics model or controller and controlling the motor based on the response data (318 and 322) and attitude control data (324) that is fed into a model predictive control algorithm (316) and outputting (314) a response to maintain autonomous control of the aircraft. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Long ‘373 with the sensed input control of Wittmaak ‘387. The motivation to do so is to maintain controlled autonomous flight.
For Claim 2, figure 5 of Long ‘373 discloses that the one propulsor includes a first (16A) and a second (16B) propulsor, and wherein the HEP controller (35) is coupled to and configured to control the first and second propulsor.
For Claim 3, paragraph [0041] of Long ‘373 discloses that the HEP controller is configured to send a first signal to the first propulsor and a second signal to the second propulsor based on the at least one attitude goal.
For Claim 4, figure 1 of Long ‘373 discloses that the HEP propulsion and attitude control system is implemented as a parallel-hybrid system (24A-B).
For Claim 5, figure 1 of Long ‘373 discloses that the parallel hybrid system includes a gas turbine engine (8) and a battery system (34) , and wherein the parallel-hybrid system couples the first and second propulsor to both the gas turbine engine and the battery system.
For Claim 6, figure 5 and paragraph [0055] of Long ‘373 disclose that the HEP propulsion and attitude control system is implemented as a series-hybrid system.
For Claim 7, figure 5 and paragraph [0030] of Long ‘373 disclose that the series hybrid system includes a gas turbine engine (30), a battery system (34) and at least one electrical motor (26), and wherein the series-hybrid system decoupled the first and second propulsors from the turbo-generator and is configured to drive the first and second propulsors using the electric motor.
For Claim 8, paragraph [0055] of Long ‘373 discloses that the series-hybrid system further includes a motor-generator, and wherein one or both of the battery system and the motor-generator are configured to power the electrical motor.
For Claim 9, figure 5 of Long ‘373 discloses at least one voltage conversion unit (44) in signal communication with the electrical system and the propulsion system.
For Claim 10, paragraph [0031] of Long ‘373 discloses that the at least one attitude goal includes at yaw control.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the argument that Wittmaak ‘387 does not teach “outputting aircraft response data and attitude control data from the aircraft dynamics model, feeding the attitude control data to a model predictive control algorithm to optimize attitude controls”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 5 of Wittmaak ‘387 clearly teaches outputting aircraft response data (318 and 322) and attitude control data (324) from the aircraft dynamics model, feeding the attitude control data to a model predictive control algorithm (316) to optimize attitude controls (314). The signal from the optimized attitude controls (314) is then sent to the controllers/actuators (320) which then sends signals to the various propulsion assemblies (322) to change or divert thrust form a propulsor if needed to adjust the thrust to achieve a desired controlled flight or attitude goal
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 1/9/2025