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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-20 are 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.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “in each flight step of the VTOL aerial vehicle” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether this is “the current flight step”, “the determined flight step”, or something else.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the determined flight step” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear if this is referring to each flight step or not.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
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) 13-15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gentry US 9,376,208 or Kawai US 2020/0148374 in view of Swann US 2022/0042465 and Resnick US 2021/0316874.
Regarding claim 13, Gentry or Kawai discloses a powertrain control method of a vertical take-off and landing aerial vehicle, see Gentry figs. 1-2 showing a power system of a VTOL aircraft; Kawai, figs. 1 & 3 showing a VTOL aircraft and power assembly, comprising: determining, by a controller, a current flight step of the vertical take-off and landing aerial vehicle, see Gentry, col. 13, lines 21-44; Kawai para. [0095] for example, fig. 5 step s14, s18, s26, s30. Neither Gentry nor Kawai are relied upon to teach sequentially performing, by the controller, an engine driving mode determination step, an engine driving amount calculation step, a required engine torque determination step, and a required generator torque determination step for the determined flight step in order to drive an engine, operating by the controller, a generator according to driving of the engine and charging a battery with power generated by the generator.
Swann teaches determining, by a controller, a current flight step of an aircraft, see para. [0075] stating the controller determines an electric energy requirement in order to carry out a required aircraft maneuver, and sequentially performing by the controller, an engine driving mode determination step, an engine driving amount calculation step, a required engine torque determination step and a required generator torque determination step for the determined flight step in order to drive an engine, see para. [0077] stating that the a charge rate profile is determined which determines the gas turbine power level, the generator power level during the second descent mode thus when a maneuver is determined, the controller determines what power level to drive the engine (engine driving mode determination step), the amount of charge rate necessary for the engine to deliver (engine driving amount calculation step), the power level of the engine necessary to achieve the calculation step (the required engine torque determination step), the power level of the generator (the required generator torque determination step for the determined flight step in order to drive the engine, see para. [0078], the gas turbine engine and the generator power is controlled to achieve the target charge rate profile and charge requirement, the algorithm includes system limits such as maximum torque and power of the generator and engine, see para. [0087], a torque is controlled to motor generator 28, para. [0038]; and operating, by the controller, a generator according to driving of the engine and charging a battery with power generated by the generator, see para. [0078] where the generator and power are controlled to maintain the power and predetermined limits to achieve the charge rate profile and overall charge requirement. The control logic allows for engine operation with minimal fuel burn and cost relative to noise and emissions. Id.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to provide the control logic of Swann, into either the control apparatuses of Gentry or Kawai before each flight step, in order to provide a means to minimize fuel burn, cost, noise and emissions. Id.
Gentry or Kawai, in view of Swann, is not relied upon to teach wherein the driving of the engine and the generator is controlled based on required power of a motor and a state of charge (SOC) of the battery in each flight step of the vertical take-off and landing aerial vehicle such that the SOC of the battery is constantly maintained at a predetermined level or higher. Both Gentry and Kawai teach motors and internal combustion engines with generators. See Kawai, engine 16, generator 20, motor 24, battery 22; Gentry engine 122, generator 132, battery 118, motor 106.
Resnick teaches a controller that throttles a setpoint of the internal combustion engine throughout a flight in order to reduce power consumption by the electric motor, maintain a state of charge of the battery, operate the internal combustion engine near a peak operating efficiency, and thus extend the range of the aerial vehicle. See para. [0030]. Resnick teaches the controller can retrieve a current battery state of charge and set a positive charge based throttle setpoint delta if the current state of charge is less than a target charge and a negative charge based throttle setpoint delta if the current state of charge is more than the target state of charge. See para. [0110].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to provide a set point of the engine and the generator of Gentry or Kawai, in view of Swann, based on the state of charge of the battery and the electric motor power consumption throughout the entire flight of the aerial vehicle to maintain the batteries at the target charge level, as taught by Resnick, in order to extend a range of the aerial vehicle. See para. [0030]. The Examiner notes that since the claimed predetermined level is not specified, the predetermined level can be interpreted as a very low state of charge well below the target charge level of Resnick.
Regarding claim 14, Gentry or Kawai, in view of Swann and Resnick, discloses when an engine driving mode is determined to be engine part load or engine full load for the determined flight step, see para. [0073], the controller determines a minimum engine operating condition, i.e. part load, target torque of the engine and target RPM are calculated, see para. [0077] the power levels (target torque and speed) are calculated based on charge profiles, and approval of injection of fuel to the engine and an engine torque command are determined, para. [0073] the engine is operated at minimum rotational speed to provide desired thrust, paras. [0077]-[0078], the engine power levels are determined and operated, thus the amount of fuel injection and torque command must be determined, the generator is driven according to driving of the engine and the battery is charged with power generated by the generator, see para. [0078] the engine and generator powers are maintained to allow for charging of the battery.
Regarding claim 15, Kawai, in view of Swann and Resnick, discloses when the current flight step is determined to be a take-off preparation step, the engine driving mode determination step, the engine drive mode determination step, the engine driving amount calculation step, the required engine torque determination step, and the required generator torque determination step are sequentially performed, and then a step of determining take-off standby or not is performed. Swann teaches the control logic for determining how much power is required for the particular flight maneuver where Kawai teaches a program at s14 that determined whether take-off is possible and if no, the takeoff is aborted. See para. [0051].
Regarding claim 19, Gentry, in view of Swann and Resnick,, discloses when the current flight step is determined to be a cruising step approaching a destination, the engine driving mode determination step, the engine driving amount calculation step, the required engine torque determination step, and the required generator torque determination step are sequentially performed, and then a step of determining landing standby or not is performed. Gentry teaches that the controller determines whether to use the engine for charging at cruise based on altitudes, see col. 9, lines 8-34, and the UAV may be operating at any flight condition such as take off, cruise, landing, etc., see col. 13, lines 13-20. Additionally, Swann teaches that the gas turbine engine’s are operated at higher power levels to provide a safety margin in the even of an aborted landing, where Swann teaches the determinations steps in claim 13 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18, 20 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 and pending resolution of the issues above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach “when there is a catalyst heating request signal in the engine driving mode determination step, the engine driving mode is determined to be engine idle and a catalyst is heated to a predetermined temperature or greater before take off. Pang US 2015/0143811 teaches a catalyst should be heated upon engine start up but does not teach the engine idle and heating prior to take off, see para. [0021]. Jang US 2019/0118793 teaches catalyst heating of an engine while in the idle condition but does not teach the heating prior to take off. It appears that the engine allows for the vehicle (car) to be driven prior to the catalyst being heated.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest “when an SOC of the battery is equal to or less than a reference value, a battery discharge limit is equal to or less than a reference value, or catalyst heating is being continuously performed in the step of determining take-off standby or not, a take-off standby request signal is transmitted… such that the VTOL vehicle is maintained in a take-off standby state”. Pang and Jang appear to be the closest prior art for the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest that “when the current flight step is determined to be a cruising step or a take off preparation step and there is an oxygen sensor diagnosis request signal for engine self-diagnosis, the engine driving mode is determined to be engine passive run, and engine self-diagnosis for analyzing a detected signal of an oxygen sensor is performed. Pang also teaches oxygen sensors but does not teach the accompanying engine driving mode or diagnosis steps.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest “when an SOC of the batter is equal to or less than a reference value, a battery discharge limit is equal to or less than a reference value, RPM of the engine is equal to or less than a reference value, or no fuel is injected in the step of determining landing standby or not, a landing standby request signal is transmitted… such that the VTOL vehicle is maintained in a landing standby state.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD LUTHER SUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3765. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571)272-7118. 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.
/GERALD L SUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights