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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 23, 2025 has been entered.
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) 1-2, 6, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akhmejanov (US 2013/0181095 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Akhmejanov discloses a contained gas recirculation system comprising:
a sealed container (Fig. 8, and at least Para. [0017] & [0020]) within a vehicle (Para. [0001], “[t]he invention relates to the aviation and can be used in order to create lifting vehicle as well as load lifting devices”);
a circulation system (Fig. 8, main superchargers 2) with an intake and an exhaust affixed to an interior of the sealed container (see arrows in fig. 8), comprising a [driving] motor (driving motor 4) operatively coupled to a gas moving element configured to circulate gas within the sealed container (as shown in fig. 8, the driving motor 4 is coupled to the main superchargers 2 via a drive shaft 5. Furthermore, Para. [0030], discloses “Main superchargers of a central flow 2 serve to provide steady movement of a working medium in separating tubiform elements 11 with required velocity”);
an exhaust stream emitted from the exhaust of the circulation system (exhaust stream comes out of the medium 10, as illustrated by the arrows in fig. 8);
a thrust corridor within the sealed container, positioned adjacent to the exhaust of the circulation system configured to channel the exhaust stream (similar to the instant application the thrust corridor can be shown in annotated fig. 1 below); and
a return corridor within the sealed container, positioned adjacent to the intake of the circulation system configured to channel an intake stream into the intake of the circulation system (similar to the instant application the return corridor can be shown in annotated fig. 1 below);
wherein the exhaust stream transforms into the intake stream after traveling a sufficient distance within the sealed container (Fig. 8, following the arrows of circulation path).
While Akhmejanov does not disclose that the driving motor is electric, it is notoriously well
known in the art that electric motors are used to impart rotational motion. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an electric motor for the purposes of providing rotational motion via a drive shaft (Akhmejanov: Para. [0024]) as this amounts to applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving motor in Akhmejanov such that it was an electrical motor, in order to improve the overall efficiency of the system.
PNG
media_image1.png
475
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1: Annotated image of Akhmejanov’s fig. 8
Regarding claim 2, Akhmejanov discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the gas moving element is an electric turbine and the electric motor is operative to drive the electric turbine (as shown in fig. 8, the driving motor 4 [i.e., as modified above, the electric motor] is operative to drive the main superchargers 2 [i.e., the electric turbine]).
Regarding claim 6, Akhmejanov discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the gas moving element is an electric propeller and the electric motor is operative to drive the [electric] propeller (as shown in fig. 8, the driving motor [i.e., as modified above, the electric motor] is operative to drive the main superchargers 2 [i.e., the propeller]), but is silent regarding the propeller being an electric propeller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the propeller of Akhmejanov such that it was an electric propeller, in order to improve the overall efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 10, Akhmejanov discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the sealed container contains a breathable atmosphere (Para. [0026], “[i]n order optimally to maintain working temperatures of medium it is stipulated joint usage of the system to maintain the required working temperature of medium 10 and unit to connect outdoor environment 9. Via the unit to connect outdoor environment 9 the air from the atmosphere enters the device, the air serves as a working medium as well as cooling agent”).
Regarding claim 11, Akhmejanov discloses the invention in claim 1, but is silent regarding the sealed container dimensioned to further contain at least one person.
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to increase the size of the sealed container in Akhmejanov, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Akhmejanov to scale the sealed container such that it was dimensioned to contain at least one person, since "mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.” In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 12, Akhmejanov discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the circulation system further comprises walls affixed to the interior of the sealed container, wherein the walls guide the exhaust stream and an intake stream in navigating the interior of the sealed container (as shown in fig. 8, frame 1 and partition 15 guide the exhaust stream and intake stream).
Claims 3-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akhmejanov as applied to claim 2 and 6 above, and further in view of Geery (US 7,303,166 B2).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Akhmejanov discloses the invention in claims 2 and 6, respectively,
but does not appear to specifically disclose where the electric motor is powered by a solar charging unit.
However, Geery is in the field of solar-assisted, electrically powered airship (Abstract) and teaches where the electric motor is powered by a solar charging unit (Col. 5, lines 38-40, regarding the motor 50 may be powered by a light-weight solar array 10, which has positive and negative leads 13 and 14, respectively, that connect to the motor 50 in concert with the energy source 45; as shown in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the invention of Akhmejanov such that electric motor was powered by a solar charging unit as taught by Geery, since it is well known in the art that solar energy is clean and more environmentally friendly as opposed to other fuel sources.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Akhmejanov as modified discloses the invention in claims 3 and 7,
respectively, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the solar charging unit is positioned on an outside of the sealed container and electronically wired to the electric motor.
However, Geery is in the field of solar-assisted, electrically powered airship (Abstract) and teaches wherein the solar charging unit is positioned on an outside of the sealed container and electronically wired to the electric motor (Col. 5, lines 38-43, regarding the motor 50 may be powered by a light-weight solar array 10, which has positive and negative leads 13 and 14, respectively, that connect to the motor 50 in concert with the energy source 45. The solar array 10 may be located either inside or outside of the exterior shell 2; as shown in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Akhmejanov such that the solar charging unit was positioned on the outside of the sealed container and electronically wired to the electric motor as taught by Geery, in order to directly power the motor from the solar panel. Furthermore, positioning the solar panel outside of the sealed container would allow for more direct sunlight which would produce more power.
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Akhmejanov as modified discloses the invention in claims 3 and 7,
respectively, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the solar charging unit is positioning on an inside of the sealed container and electronically wired to the electric motor wherein at least a portion of the sealed container is transparent and configured to provide the solar charging unit with solar power emanating from an outside of the sealed container.
However, Geery is in the field of solar-assisted, electrically powered airship (Abstract) and teaches wherein the solar charging unit is positioning on an inside of the sealed container and electronically wired to the electric motor (as shown in Fig. 3, the solar charging unit is inside of the exterior shell 2 of the airship 300 and is connected to the motor via the positive and negative leads 13 and 14) wherein at least a portion of the sealed container is transparent and configured to provide the solar charging unit with solar power emanating from an outside of the sealed container (Col. 5, lines 38-55, regarding the solar array 10 may be located either inside or outside of exterior shell 2. If the solar array 10 is located on the inside of exterior shell 2, then the exterior shell 2 should be comprised of a clear or translucent material that allows sunlight to penetrate the airship 200 and be collected by solar array 10; as shown in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Akhmejanov such that the solar charging unit was positioned inside of the sealed container as taught by Geery, in order for the solar array to act as a ballast to main the lateral orientation of the airship during flight (Geery: Col. 6, lines 64-67 and Col. 7, lines 1-2). Furthermore, positioning the solar charging unit on the inside of the sealed container would minimize the air turbulence on the outside of the vessel since it wouldn’t be attached outside of the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 6) that “Akhmejanov fails to disclose a sealed container within a vehicle: Akhmejanov’s system is integrated into aircraft wing structures, which one of skill in the art would interpret to mean external to a sealed vehicle container.” Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that Akhmejanov discloses a sealed container within a vehicle, as set forth above in claim 1. Applicant has asserted that the sealed vehicle container is external to the container, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain what the sealed vehicle container is external to. The system itself is a sealed vehicle container, and the elements inside of the sealed vehicle container are not external to the container.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA ALEKSIC whose telephone number is (571)272-1659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm ET.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/N.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/Richard Green/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647