DETAILED ACTION
claims filed on 6/10/2026 has been entered.
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 § 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 9,974,209 B1), in view of Shmilovich (US 2023/0264806 A1).
Claims 1-4: Taylor discloses an impingement cooling system (FIG.40) comprising:
an electronic device casing (fuselage 20 used as electronic device casing is a source which is ESC) configured to house one or more electronic devices (electronic speed controls used as electronic devices), wherein the electronic device casing (20) is downstream (to clarify, as shown in annotated FIG.40 electronic casing or fuselage is located downstream of air flow) of a propulsion air-flow (annotated FIG.40);
a plurality of fins (10; see FIG.38) extending from the electronic device casing (20); and
PNG
media_image1.png
540
787
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Taylor discloses the claimed limitations in claims 1-4, but fails to disclose one or more fluidic oscillators coupled to the electronic device casing, wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators receive the propulsion air-flow and provide an oscillatory air-flow over the electronic device casing and the plurality of fins.
wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators is a feedback-free fluidic oscillator.
wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators is a double-feedback fluidic oscillator.
wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators comprise a feedback-free fluidic oscillator and a double-feedback fluidic oscillator.
However, Shmilovich teaches one or more fluidic oscillators (paragraph [33]: fluidic oscillators) coupled to the electronic device casing (intended use), wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators receive the propulsion air-flow and provide an oscillatory air-flow (functional language) over the electronic device casing and the plurality of fins (receiving the propulsion air-flow and provide an oscillatory air-flow over the electronic device casing and the plurality of fins are intended use for oscillators; however, Taylor already disclosed casing and fins).
wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators is a feedback-free fluidic oscillator (paragraph [33]: fluidic oscillators comprise internal structure feedback mechanism creates periodic side to side moving jet) for the purpose of promoting good quality flow and eliminating flow separation for an airfoil or other aircraft surface (paragraph [33]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Taylor to include one or more fluidic oscillators coupled to the electronic device casing, wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators receive the propulsion air-flow and provide an oscillatory air-flow over the electronic device casing and the plurality of fins wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators is a feedback-free fluidic oscillator as taught by Shmilovich in order to promote good quality flow and to eliminate flow separation for an airfoil or other aircraft surface.
Further, wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators is a double-feedback fluidic oscillator (The court held that the configuration of the claimed was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that particular configuration of the claimed was significant in order to promote good quality flow and to eliminate flow separation for an airfoil or other aircraft surface - Change of Shape: MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 5: Taylor as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a plurality of power modules (column 8 line 32: hot component is electronics, generator, ESC, etc.) are housed on an inside wall (inherent) of the electronic device casing (20).
Claim 6: Taylor as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the oscillatory air-flow (Shmilovich; fluidic oscillators create oscillatory air-flow) is configured to oscillate laterally with respect to the propulsion air-flow (annotated FIG.40).
Claim 7: Taylor as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the oscillatory air-flow (Shmilovich; fluidic oscillators create oscillatory air-flow) is configured to oscillate longitudinally with respect to the propulsion air-flow (annotated FIG.40).
Claim 8: Taylor as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein a motor (motor under propeller; column 8 line 36) is housed within the electronic device casing (20).
Claim 9: Taylor as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 8, wherein the motor (motor under propeller; column 8 line 36) is coupled to a propulsion component (column 7 line 41; propeller propels to generate air down to motor; propeller used as propulsion component).
Claim 10: Taylor as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators is 3-D printed (in product-by-process claim, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). The combination of previous references meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 10, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitations regarding “3-D printed” are drawn to method of production and not the structural aspects of the instant invention).
Claim 11: Taylor as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators (Shmilovich; fluidic oscillators) is integrally formed onto the electronic device casing (20).
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 9,974,209 B1), in view of Shmilovich (US 2023/0264806 A1), and in view of Cottrell (US 2021/0036580 A1).
Claims 12: Taylor discloses an electric motor assembly comprising: the electronics assembly (FIG.40) comprising:
an electronic device casing (20 is source to contain electronic devices) configured to house one or more electronic devices (electronic speed controls used as electronic devices), wherein the electronic device casing (20) is downstream (to clarify, as shown in annotated FIG.40 electronic casing or fuselage is located downstream of air flow) the propulsion air-flow (annotated FIG.40);
a plurality of fins (10; see FIG.38) extending from the electronic device casing (20); and
Taylor discloses the claimed limitations in claim 12, but fails to disclose a motor housing having an end face; a motor within the motor housing; a propulsion component coupled to the motor, wherein the propulsion component generates a propulsion air-flow downstream the propulsion component; an electronics assembly disposed on the end face of the motor housing,
one or more fluidic oscillators coupled to the electronic device casing,
wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators receive the propulsion air-flow and provide an oscillatory air-flow over the electronic device casing and the plurality of fins.
However, Cottrell teaches a motor housing (212) having an end face (any position in 212); a motor (110) within the motor housing (212); a propulsion component (208) coupled to the motor (110), wherein the propulsion component (208) generates a propulsion air-flow downstream (air flow of 226) the propulsion component (208); an electronics assembly (236) disposed on the end face of the motor housing (paragraph [25]: 236 may be located in any position in the housing 212) for the purpose of providing simple uncomplex cooling system with passive movement decreasing weight for aircraft and provide simple high performance device with less complexity (paragraph [22]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Taylor to include a motor housing having an end face; a motor within the motor housing; a propulsion component coupled to the motor, wherein the propulsion component generates a propulsion air-flow downstream the propulsion component; an electronics assembly disposed on the end face of the motor housing as taught by Cottrell in order to provide simple uncomplex cooling system with passive movement decreasing weight for aircraft and provide simple high performance device with less complexity (paragraph [22]).
PNG
media_image2.png
481
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, Shmilovich teaches one or more fluidic oscillators (paragraph [33]: fluidic oscillators) coupled to the electronic device casing (intended use), wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators (paragraph [33]: fluidic oscillators) receive the propulsion air-flow and provide an oscillatory air-flow over the electronic device casing and the plurality of fins (to clarify, Taylor already disclosed casing and fins; receiving the propulsion air-flow and provide an oscillatory air-flow over the electronic device casing and the plurality of fins are intended use for oscillators) for the purpose of promoting good quality flow and eliminating flow separation for an airfoil or other aircraft surface (paragraph [33]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Taylor to include one or more fluidic oscillators coupled to the electronic device casing, wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators receive the propulsion air-flow and provide an oscillatory air-flow over the electronic device casing and the plurality of fins wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators is a feedback-free fluidic oscillator as taught by Shmilovich in order to promote good quality flow and to eliminate flow separation for an airfoil or other aircraft surface.
Claim 13: Taylor as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 12, wherein the propulsion component is a propeller (see column 7 line 41).
Claim 14: Taylor as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 12, wherein the one or more electronic devices is a power module (column 8 line 32: hot component is electronics, generator, ESC, etc.).
Claim 15: Taylor as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 12, wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators (Shmilovich; paragraph [33]: fluidic oscillators) act as one of the plurality of fins (10; see FIG.38).
Claims 16: Taylor discloses an eVTOL system (FIG.40) comprising:
wherein the at least one propeller (see column 7 line 41) generates a propulsion air-flow (annotated FIG.40) downstream the at least one propeller (to clarify, propulsion air flow is downstream of propeller, because propulsion air flow generated by the propellers); and
an electronic device casing (20 is source to contain electronic devices) configured to house one or more electronic devices (electronic speed controls used as electronic devices), wherein the electronic device casing (20) is downstream the propulsion air-flow (annotated FIG.40);
a plurality of fins (10; see FIG.38) extending from the electronic device casing (20);
Taylor discloses the claimed limitations in claim 12, but fails to disclose a motor housing having an end face; a motor within the motor housing; at least one propeller mechanically coupled to the motor, an electronics assembly disposed on the end face of the motor housing, and
one or more fluidic oscillators coupled to the electronic device casing, wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators are configured to receive the propulsion air-flow and provide an oscillatory air-flow over the electronic device casing and the plurality of fins.
However, Cottrell teaches a motor housing (212) having an end face (any position in 212); a motor (110) within the motor housing (212); at least one propeller (blade tips 208 used as propeller) mechanically coupled to the motor (110), an electronics assembly (236) disposed on the end face of the motor housing (212) for the purpose of providing simple uncomplex cooling system with passive movement decreasing weight for aircraft and provide simple high performance device with less complexity (paragraph [22]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Taylor to include a motor housing having an end face; a motor within the motor housing; at least one propeller mechanically coupled to the motor, an electronics assembly disposed on the end face of the motor housing as taught by Cottrell in order to provide simple uncomplex cooling system with passive movement decreasing weight for aircraft and provide simple high performance device with less complexity (paragraph [22]).
Further, Shmilovich teaches one or more fluidic oscillators (paragraph [33]: fluidic oscillators) coupled to the electronic device casing (intended use), wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators (paragraph [33]: fluidic oscillators) are configured to receive the propulsion air-flow (intended use) and provide an oscillatory air-flow over the electronic device casing and the plurality of fins (to clarify, Taylor already disclosed casing and fins; receiving the propulsion air-flow and provide an oscillatory air-flow over the electronic device casing and the plurality of fins are intended use for oscillators) for the purpose of promoting good quality flow and eliminating flow separation for an airfoil or other aircraft surface (paragraph [33]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Taylor to include one or more fluidic oscillators coupled to the electronic device casing, wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators are configured to receive the propulsion air-flow and provide an oscillatory air-flow over the electronic device casing and the plurality of fins as taught by Shmilovich in order to promote good quality flow and to eliminate flow separation for an airfoil or other aircraft surface.
Claim 17: Taylor as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators (Shmilovich; paragraph [33]: fluidic oscillators) are coupled between each set of the plurality of fins (10; see FIG.38).
Claim 18: Taylor as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the eVTOL system is capable of carrying a load of at least 25 pounds (intended use; to clarify, unmanned aerial vehicle in FIG.36 is capable of carrying loads depending on design requirements) (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the apparatus of Taylor to include a load of at least 25 pounds as a design requirement and desire need, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art - Optimum value: MPEP 2144.05 II-B).
Claims 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 9,974,209 B1), in view of Shmilovich (US 2023/0264806 A1), in view of Cottrell (US 2021/0036580 A1), and in view of Giannini (US 2017/0203839 A1).
Claim 19: Taylor as modified further fails to disclose wherein the eVTOL system is controlled through a user controller.
However, Giannini teaches a user controller (paragraph [64]: remove autopilot, remotely controlled 100) for the purpose of remotely operating the UAV for safety no need for crew (paragraph [64]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the invention of Taylor to include a user controller as taught by Giannini in order to remotely operate the UAV for safety no need for crew.
Claim 20: Taylor as modified further fails to disclose wherein the eVTOL system is autonomous.
However, Giannini teaches the eVTOL system (100) is autonomous (paragraph [64]) for the purpose of remotely operating the UAV for safety no need for crew (paragraph [64]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the invention of Taylor to include the eVTOL system is autonomous as taught by Giannini in order to remotely operate the UAV for safety no need for crew.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument on pages 1-5 relating to claims 1, 12, 16: arguments regarding limitations “one or more fluidic oscillators coupled to the electronic device casing, wherein the one or more fluidic oscillators receive the propulsion air-flow and provide an oscillatory air-flow over the electronic device casing and the plurality of fins. For at least the reasons below, the cited combination neither teaches nor renders obvious this limitation, and the Office has not established a rational basis for combining the references as proposed. Taylor neither discloses nor suggests imparting any oscillation to that air-flow, and the Office concedes that Taylor “fails to disclose one or more fluidic oscillators”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because: Taylor invention relates to heat sink comprises heat exchanger and electronic device with fins used in aerial vehicle, and Shmilovich invention relates to high efficiency aircraft flow control actuators. As indicated in the office action Shmilovich is only used to teach what Taylor lacks which is fluidic oscillation as taught by Shmilovich in paragraph [33] in order promote good quality flow. Shmilovich does not replace neither substitute any other limitations.
“Shmilovich, by contrast, is not concerned with cooling at all. Shmilovich’s actuators are supplied with pressurized air from a dedicated source (for example, an auxiliary power unit, engine bleed, or compressor) and direct air jets over an aerodynamic surface to keep the external flow attached. Nothing in Shmilovich concerns heat transfer, electronics, or the cooling of any component. The proffered motivation thus fails to connect Shmilovich’s teachings to any problem recognized in Taylor”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because: Taylor discloses the cooling system with fins, Shmilovich is not used to teach heat transfer process. Further, heat transfer is not claimed. Shmilovich is not used to recognize any problem in Taylor only to teach the limitations that Taylor lacks. Note that, Shmilovich and Taylor used to teach the claimed limitations.
“The Office dismisses the foregoing language as “intended use” on the ground that Taylor “already disclosed casing and fins.” Respectfully, that is not the correct inquiry. Neither Taylor (which has no oscillator) nor Shmilovich is shown to be capable of receiving the propulsion air-flow and providing an oscillatory air-flow over the casing and fins. The functional language is therefore limiting, and it is not met”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because: apparatus claims only consider structural limitations. Shmilovich teaches oscillators which Taylor lacks. Oscillators of Shmilovich can be coupled to an electronic casing, therefore they are intended use for an electronic casing. Further the function of Oscillators is to provide Oscillatory air flow.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI whose telephone number is (313)446-6612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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, Len Tran can be reached on (571) 272-1184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights