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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that:
“As stated in the Office Action, "Stock fails to disclose a plug connector that is
connectable to a mating plug connector, wherein the control system is configured to: scan an identification on the plug connector; select one configuration of the at least two different configurations based on the identification; and operate the electric motor using the selected one configuration." See, Office Action, p. 3. It follows that Stock does not teach or disclose a control system configured to "select one configuration of the at least two different configurations based on the identification," where each of the at least two different configurations includes "values for one or more operating parameters for the electric drive unit," and where the one or more operating parameters include "a direction of rotation, a maximum power, a maximum acceleration, a parameter of a feedback controller, a parameter of an adjustable surface, or any combination thereof," as recited by independent claim 1.”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this instance, as discussed in the rejection to claim 1 above, the combination of Stock, Peters, and Shultz, as a whole, discloses “a plug connector that is connectable to a mating plug connector (see Peters, paragraph [0001]), wherein the control system is configured to: scan an identification on the plug connector (see Shultz, column 6 lines 21-25); select one configuration of the at least two different configurations based on the identification (see Peters, paragraph [0002]); and operate the electric motor using the selected one configuration (see paragraph [0001])." Therefore, it follows that the combination of Stock, Peters, and Shultz, as a whole, teaches or discloses a control system configured to "select one configuration of the at least two different configurations based on the identification (see Peters, paragraph [0002])", where each of the at least two different configurations includes "values for one or more operating parameters for the electric drive unit (see Stock, paragraph [0004])", and where the one or more operating parameters include "a direction of rotation, a maximum power, a maximum acceleration, a parameter of a feedback controller, a parameter of an adjustable surface, or any combination thereof (see Peters, paragraph [0003] disclosing a direction of rotation)" as recited by independent claim 1.
Applicant further asserts that:
“Accordingly, Peters does not teach or disclose a control system configured to "select one configuration of the at least two different configurations based on the identification," where each of the at least two different configurations includes "values for one or more operating parameters for the electric drive unit," and where the one or more operating parameters include "a direction of rotation, a maximum power, a maximum acceleration, a parameter of a feedback controller, a parameter of an adjustable surface, or any combination thereof," as recited by independent claim 1.”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this instance, as discussed in the rejection to claim 1 above, the combination of Stock, Peters, and Shultz, as a whole, discloses a control system configured to "select one configuration of the at least two different configurations based on the identification” (see Peters, paragraph [0002]), where each of the at least two different configurations includes "values for one or more operating parameters for the electric drive unit" (see Stock, paragraph [0004]), and where the one or more operating parameters include "a direction of rotation, a maximum power, a maximum acceleration, a parameter of a feedback controller, a parameter of an adjustable surface, or any combination thereof" (see Peters, paragraph [0003] disclosing a direction of rotation) as recited by independent claim 1.
Applicant further asserts that:
“Accordingly, Schultz does not teach or disclose a control system configured to "select one configuration of the at least two different configurations based on the identification," where each of the at least two different configurations includes "values for one or more operating parameters for the electric drive unit," and where the one or more operating parameters include "a direction of rotation, a maximum power, a maximum acceleration, a parameter of a feedback controller, a parameter of an adjustable surface, or any combination thereof," as recited by independent claim 1.
The examiner, however, disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this instance, as discussed in the rejection to claim 1 above, the combination of Stock, Peters, and Shultz, as a whole, discloses a control system configured to "select one configuration of the at least two different configurations based on the identification” (see Peters, paragraph [0002]), where each of the at least two different configurations includes "values for one or more operating parameters for the electric drive unit" (see Stock, paragraph [0004]), and where the one or more operating parameters include "a direction of rotation, a maximum power, a maximum acceleration, a parameter of a feedback controller, a parameter of an adjustable surface, or any combination thereof" (see Peters, paragraph [0003] disclosing a direction of rotation) as recited by independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 4-12, they are discussed for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
Regarding independent claims 13-14, dependent claims 15-16, they are discussed for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner contends that the rejections to claims are proper.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 6-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stock (US
20140368149, submitted by applicant) and in view of Peters (CA 2292228, submitted by applicant) and
Shultz (US 11799280).
As to claim 1, Stock discloses an electric drive unit (Para 0008) for an aircraft (Col 1, lines 32-35
of Shultz), the electric drive unit comprising: an electric motor (Para 0011); a control system having a
memory in which at least two different configurations are stored (Para 0029), and wherein each of the at least two different configurations comprises values for one or more operating parameters for the electric drive unit (Para 0004).
Stock fails to disclose a plug connector that is connectable to a mating plug connector, wherein
the control system is configured to: scan an identification on the plug connector; select one
configuration of the at least two different configurations based on the identification; and operate the
electric motor using the selected one configuration; and wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise a direction of rotation, a maximum power, a maximum acceleration, a parameter of a feedback controller, a parameter of an adjustable surface, or any combination thereof.
Peters, however, discloses a plug connector that is connectable to a mating plug connector (Para
0001), wherein the control system is configured to: select one configuration of the at least two different
configurations based on the identification (Para 0002); and operate the electric motor using the selected
one configuration (Para 0001), and wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise a direction of rotation (Para 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the drive unit of Stock with a plug connector that is connectable to a mating plug connector, wherein the control system is configured to: select one
configuration of the at least two different configurations based on the identification; and operate the
electric motor using the selected one configuration, and wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise a direction of rotation, as disclosed by Peters, to provide the drive unit with
different functionalities that change based on varying plug connector configurations.
Shultz, however, discloses scan an identification on the plug connector (Col 6, lines 21- 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the drive unit of Stock with scan an identification
on the plug connector, as disclosed by Shultz, to detect plug configurations for the selection of an
operation.
As to claim 6, the combination of Stock, Peters, and Shultz discloses the electric drive unit of
claim 1, wherein the plug connector is configured to supply the mating plug connector with a current
(Para 0003 of Peters).
As to claim 7, the combination of Stock, Peters, and Shultz discloses the electric drive unit of
claim 1, wherein the plug connector has a plurality of contacts that are contactable by counter contacts
of the mating plug connector (Para 0001 of Peters).
As to claim 8, the combination of Stock, Peters, and Shultz discloses the electric drive unit of
claim 7, wherein the control system is configured to select the one configuration of the at least two configurations based on voltages applied to the plurality of contacts of the plug connector (Para 0001 of
Peters), based on data transmitted via the plurality of contacts (Para 0001 of Peters).
As to claim 9, the combination of Stock, Peters, and Shultz discloses the electric drive unit of
claim 1, further comprising the mating plug connector (Para 0001 of Peters).
As to claim 10, the combination of Stock, Peters, and Shultz discloses the electric drive unit of
claim 9, wherein the mating plug connector indicates a mounting position (Para 0001 of Peters).
As to claim 11, the combination of Stock, Peters, and Shultz discloses the electric drive unit of
claim 9, wherein the mating plug connector has electrically connected counter contacts (Para 0005 of
Peters).
As to claim 12, the combination of Stock, Peters, and Shultz discloses the electric drive unit of
claim 9, wherein the mating plug connector for entering an identification to the plug connector is
coupled to an input device (Col 6, lines 34-42 of Shultz).
As to claim 14, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to claim 1 as set forth above.
The combination of Stock, Peters, and Shultz further teaches an aircraft (Col 1, lines 32-35 of
Shultz).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stock, Peters, Shultz and in
view of Oka (US 2019/0256129, submitted by applicant).
As to claim 4, the combination of Stock, Peters, and Shultz discloses the electric drive unit of
claim 1.
Stock fails to disclose an inverter, wherein the control system is further configured to adjust the
inverter according to the selected one configuration.
Oka, however, discloses an inverter (120; Para 0118), wherein the control system is further
configured to adjust the inverter according to the selected one configuration (Para 0118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the drive unit of Stock with an inverter, wherein
the control system is further configured to adjust the inverter according to the selected one
configuration, as disclosed by Oka, to properly adjust the inverter for proper operation of the
configuration.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stock, Peters, Shultz and in
view of Sons (US 2025/0192699).
As to claim 5, the combination of Stock, Peters, and Shultz discloses the electric drive unit of
claim 1, and the at least two configurations comprise different values (Para 0004 of Stock).
Stock fails to disclose a plurality of parallel and independently energizable strands with wire
windings.
Sons, however, discloses a plurality of parallel and independently energizable strands with wire
windings (Fig. 1; Para 0042).
PNG
media_image1.png
339
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 13 and 15-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stock, Peters,
Shultz and in view of Hashimoto (US 2024/0043141)
As to claim 13, the combination of Stock, Peters, and Shultz discloses a system comprising: an
electric drive unit for an aircraft (Col 1, lines 32-35 of Shultz) comprising: an electric motor (Para 0011 of Stock); a control system having a memory in which at least two different configurations are stored (Para
0029 of Stock); and a plug connector that is connectable to a mating plug connector (Para 0001 of
Peters), wherein the control system is configured to: scan an identification on the plug connector (Col 6,
lines 21- 25 of Shultz); select one configuration of the at least two different configurations based on the
identification (Para 0002 of Peters); and operate the electric motor using the selected one configuration
(Para 0001 of Peters); and wherein each of the at least two different configurations comprises values for one or more operating parameters for the electric drive unit (Para 0004 of Stock), and wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise a direction of rotation (Para 0003 of Peters).
Modified Stock fails to disclose a plurality of electric drive units of identical construction.
Hashimoto, however, discloses a plurality of electric drive units (Para 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system of Stock with a plurality of electric drive
units, as disclosed by Hashimoto, in order to drive multiple motors.
However, those skilled in the art would recognize that the above limitations do not involve any
inventive concept. They would merely depend on how one decides to design the drive units.
Furthermore, the instant specification fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from the fact
that a plurality of electric drive units is of identical construction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify system of Stock, such that a plurality of
electric drive units is of identical construction, in order to simplify the manufacturing of the drive units.
As to claim 15, the combination of Stock, Peters, and Shultz discloses the aircraft of claim 14,
mating plug connectors (Para 0001 of Peters), and the corresponding mating plug connectors including
the mating plug connector (Para 0001 of Peters).
Modified Stock fails to disclose a plurality of additional electric drive units of identical
construction as the electric drive unit, wherein the electric drive unit and the plurality of additional
electric drive units.
Hashimoto, however, discloses a plurality of additional electric drive units (Para 0022), wherein
the electric drive unit and the plurality of additional electric drive units (Para 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system of Stock with a plurality of electric drive
units, as disclosed by Hashimoto, in order to drive multiple motors.
However, those skilled in the art would recognize that the above limitations do not involve any
inventive concept. They would merely depend on how one decides to design the drive units.
Furthermore, the instant specification fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from the fact
that a plurality of electric drive units is of identical construction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the system of Stock, such that a plurality of
electric drive units is of identical construction, in order to simplify the manufacturing of the drive units.
As to claim 16, the combination of Stock, Peters, and Shultz discloses the aircraft of claim 14,
wherein the mating plug connector for entering an identification to the plug connector is electrically
connected to an input device (Col 6, lines 34-42 of Shultz).
Modified Stock fails to discloses a cockpit of the aircraft.
Hashimoto, however, discloses a cockpit of the aircraft (Para 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have disposed the input device as taught by Shultz in the cockpit
of the aircraft as taught by Hashimoto, to provide more convenience to the pilots.
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 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 ETHAN N VO whose telephone number is (571)270-7593. The examiner can
normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am - 5pm.
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,
Christopher M Koehler can be reached on 571 272 3560. 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.
/ETHAN NGUYEN VO/
Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834