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 § 102
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, 5 – 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boll (DE 102023104760).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Boll discloses a power conversion system incorporated in a flight vehicle (10), the power conversion system comprising a module (1) having a semiconductor element stored therein (inherently disclosed as the power conversion system requires to be controlled), wherein an energy storage (2) is disposed above the module in a vertical direction (Fig. 3 – liquid hydrogen H2 tank is placed on top), the energy storage storing a solid or liquid energy source containing a neutron attenuating material (claim 3 of Boll), and wherein at least either the module or the energy storage is provided with a movable mechanism (adjusting device 4) that moves to shift in position according to a tilt of the flight vehicle.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Boll discloses an adjustment mechanism (motor of the adjusting device 4) that adjusts a barycenter of the energy storage and causes the energy storage to tilt at various angles.
Regarding claim 7, Boll inherently discloses that a neutron attenuating material reduces intensity of neutrons carrying an energy of 1 MeV < E < 20 MeV – Boll discloses that the neutrons are generated by cosmic radiation (K) which would typically fall within that range.
Regarding claim 8, Boll discloses that the energy storage is provided as a fuel tank (H2).
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) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boll ‘760 in view of Huang (CN 110304259).
Regarding claim 3, Boll fails to explicitly teach a shock-absorber is disposed between the energy storage and the module. However, Huang discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle with a hybrid power system which has a damping device with a shock absorption structure (10). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to include a shock absorber as taught by Huang in between the energy storage and the module of Boll in order to prevent damage to the structure.
Regarding claim 4, Boll as modified by Huang discloses that the shock-absorber has a ventilation function 13 (Huang).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boll ‘760.
Regarding claim 9, Boll does not teach that the semiconductor element is disposed such that a plane thereof with a largest area is parallel to a vertical direction. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to position the semiconductor element as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3 – 10 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALENTINA XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)272-9853. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6:30 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. 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.
/VALENTINA XAVIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642