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 § 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 7 is 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. Dependent claim 7 recites “ at least one of the flow regulator is configured to fluidly decouple the second air source from the internal compartment during the first mode; or the flow regulator is configured to fluidly decouple the first air source from the internal compartment during the second mode ” (emphasis added). These recitations render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the two options of how the flow regulator is to be operated are recited alternatively , i.e. A or B, inclusively, i.e. A and B, or both, i.e. A and/or B. 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. Claim(s) 1 , 2-8, 13, 14, and 17 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220407135 A1 to Zagrodnik et al. ( Zagrodnik ) . In reference to independent claim 1, Zagrodnik discloses: A system for an aircraft (10) , comprising: an aircraft structure (20) comprising an internal compartment; an electrical power storage (200) housed within the internal compartment (see Fig. 5B) ; and an air system ( air inlet 16 , air channel 21 of the battery pack , air outlet 17 ) configured to direct pressurized air into the internal compartment ( see [0051], [0105]) , the air system including a plurality of air sources ( multiple air inlet openings 16 in fluid communication with the air channel 21 , see [0059]) and a flow regulator (18) , and the flow regulator (18) configured to fluidly couple each of the plurality of air sources (16) to the internal compartment (see Fig. 2) . In reference to dependent claim 2, Zagrodnik further discloses: the electrical power storage comprises a battery (battery cells 200, see Fig. 5B) . In reference to dependent claim 3 , Zagrodnik further discloses: the air system is configured to direct the pressurized air into the internal compartment to flush off-gassing from the battery out of the internal compartment (see [0085]) . In reference to dependent claim 4, Zagrodnik further discloses: the air system is configured to direct the pressurized air into the internal compartment to condition an environment surrounding the electrical power storage (see [0105] -[ 0109]). In reference to dependent claim s 5 and 6 , Zagrodnik further discloses: the plurality of air sources include a first air source (16) and a second air source (40) ; the flow regulator (18) is configured to concurrently fluidly couple the first air source and the second air source to the internal compartment ; the flow regulator is configured to fluidly couple the first air source to the internal compartment during a first mode (see [0115]) ; and the flow regulator is configured to fluidly couple the second air source to the internal compartment during a second mode (see [0117]-[0118]) . In reference to dependent claim 7, Zagrodnik further discloses: at least one of the flow regulator is configured to fluidly decouple the second air source from the internal compartment during the first mode; or the flow regulator is configured to fluidly decouple the first air source from the internal compartment during the second mode (see [0118]). In reference to dependent claim 8, Zagrodnik further discloses: the aircraft structure includes an outlet (17) to an ambient external environment fluidly coupled to the internal compartment (see Figs 2-4) . In reference to dependent claim s 1 3 and 14 , Zagrodnik further discloses: a pneumatic system comprising a pneumatic actuator; one of the plurality of air sources comprising an outlet from the pneumatic system ; and an air port fluidly coupled with an ambient environment external to the aircraft; one of the plurality of air sources comprising the air port (see Figs. 3-4) . In reference to dependent claim 16, Zagrodnik further discloses: a propulsor rotor (122) ; and an electric motor configured to drive rotation of the propulsor rotor, the electric motor electrically coupled to the electric power storage (see [0064]) . In reference to dependent claim s 17 and 18 , Zagrodnik further discloses: an aircraft airframe; the aircraft structure configured as part of and/or housed within the aircraft airframe ; an aircraft propulsion system; the aircraft structure configured as part of and/or housed within the aircraft propulsion system (see Figs. 3-4) . Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210031934 A1 to Becker et al. (Becker) . In reference to independent claim 19, Becker discloses: A system for an aircraft (10) , comprising: an aircraft airframe (20) including an aircraft cabin (110) and a battery compartment (103) located outside of the aircraft cabin (see Fig. 4) ; a battery (102) housed within the battery compartment; and an air system (122) configured to direct air from within the aircraft cabin into the battery compartment (see [0039]) . 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. 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) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagrodnik . In reference to dependent claims 9-12, Zagrodnik is silent regarding the various alternative air sources. However, it would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from different air sources for the air system in order to recover and reuse air from different areas of the aircraft. Claim (s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagrodnik in view of Becker . In reference to dependent claim 15, Zagrodnik is silent regarding check valves fluidly coupled with and between of the plurality of air sources and the flow regulator or the flow regulator and the internal compartment. Becker teaches check valves that can be integrated within the cabin pressurization system to perform venting (see [0039]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added check valves to the system of Zagrodnik in order to prevent return flow into the cabin as taught by Becker. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130175001 A1 to Cheong (Cheong) in view of US 11728532 B1 to Lohe . In reference to independent claim 20, Cheong discloses: A system for an aircraft, comprising: an internal combustion engine (150) comprising a compressed air bleed (198 and 200); and an aircraft sub-system (202, 204) operated using bleed air received from the compressed air bleed (see [0021]). Cheong is silent regarding an aircraft structure comprising a battery compartment (battery packs); a battery housed within the battery compartment; and a flow circuit fluidly coupling an outlet of the aircraft sub-system to an inlet of the battery compartment, the flow circuit configured to direct air exhausted from the aircraft sub-system through the outlet into the battery compartment through the inlet. Lohe teaches an aircraft having a de-icing system ( 116 ) and a battery pack temperature control system ( 124 ), in which the battery pack temperature control system (124) is thermally coupled to the de-icing system ( 116 ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the subsystems of Cheong with the battery pack temperature control system of Lohe in order to enhance aircraft efficiency by utilizing waste heat from sub-systems like the de-icing system of Lohe . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Ngoc T Nguyen whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7176 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Steve McAllister can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6785 . 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. /NGOC T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799