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 with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 7-22 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 7, 8, and 12 has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims filed 11/17/2025.
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) 1-4, 11, 14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rabbi et al. (US 20210107664).
1. Rabbi et al. teach:
An electric drive 1000 for an aircraft 10 comprising:
an electric machine (fig 4), having a stator 200, a rotor 300, a shaft 405 and a rotor blade 320, wherein the rotor blade is attached to the shaft (via Nacelle 390, fig 4) and the rotor comprises magnets 350;
a duct 100;
a plurality of vanes 235; and
an annular hub 230 surrounding the stator;
wherein the rotor blade, the shaft, and the magnets are thermally conductively connected (fig 4) so that the rotor blade forms a heat sink for the magnets,
the electric machine is located within the duct (fig 4),
the stator is connected to the duct by the plurality of vanes (fig 5),
the plurality of vanes are arranged in an airflow (via cooling ducts 500) generated by the rotor blade while the rotor is rotating (the rotor blades generate force that moves the aircraft the flow of air passing through the cooling ducts is generated by that force),
the plurality of vanes are connected to the stator by means of an annular hub surrounding the stator (figs 4 & 5), and
the annular hub is thermally connected to the plurality of vanes and the stator (figs 4 & 5).
2. Rabbi et al. teach:
The electric drive according to claim 1, wherein the rotor is positioned concentrically within the stator about a rotation axis (figs 4 & 5).
3. Rabbi et al. teach:
The electric drive according to claim 2, wherein the magnets are mounted externally on an iron core 19 in an annular arrangement (figs 4 & 5 and para 0125).
4. Rabbi et al. teach:
The electric drive according to claim 3, wherein the iron core is formed of laminated steel sheets (para 0125).
11. Rabbi et al. teach:
The electric drive according claim 1, wherein the shaft is formed as a hollow shaft (figs 4 & 5).
14. Rabbi et al. teach:
The electric drive according to claim 1, wherein the shaft is connected to the rotor of the electric machine in a material-locking manner (figs 4 & 5).
15. Rabbi et al. teach:
The electric drive according to claim 1, wherein the electric machine is an AC synchronous machine (since it is a permanent magnet machine, MPEP 2112).
16. Rabbi et al. teach:
The electric drive according to claim 1, further comprising an aircraft 10, wherein the electric drive according to claim 1 is mounted to the aircraft (FIG 26).
17. Rabbi et al. teach:
The electric drive according to claim 16, further comprising a wing 15 connected to the aircraft, wherein the electric drive is pivotably connected to a wing 15 of the aircraft (FIG 26).
18. Rabbi et al. teach:
An electric drive 1000 for an aircraft 10 comprising:
an electric machine (fig 4) having a stator 200, a rotor 300, a shaft 405, and a rotor blade 320;
a duct 100;
a plurality of vanes 235; and
an annular hub 230;
wherein the electric machine is located within the duct (fig 4), the stator is connected to the duct by the plurality of vanes (fig 5),
the plurality of vanes are arranged in an airflow (via cooling ducts 500) generated by the rotor blade while the rotor is rotating (the rotor blades generate force that moves the aircraft the flow of air passing through the cooling ducts is generated by that force),
the plurality of vanes are connected to the stator by means of the annular hub surrounding the stator (figs 4 & 5), and
the annular hub is thermally connected to the plurality of vanes and the stator (figs 4 & 5).
19. Rabbi et al. teach:
The electric drive of claim 18, wherein the rotor is positioned concentrically within the stator about a rotation axis (figs 4 & 5).
20. (New) The electric drive of claim 18, wherein the vanes and the annular hub are machined in a single piece.
21. Rabbi et al. teach:
The electric drive of claim 18, wherein the shaft is formed as a hollow shaft (figs 4 & 5).
22. Rabbi et al. teach:
The electric drive according to claim 18, further comprising an aircraft 10, wherein the electric drive according to claim 18 is mounted to the aircraft (FIG 26).
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabbi et al. in view of Colmagro et al. (US 20200377222).
9. Rabbi et al. has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not teach that the vanes each include at least one heat pipe.
Colmagro et al. teach that the vanes each include at least one heat pipe (para 0037) to evacuate the heat from the motor (abstract) which improves the longevity of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Rabbi et al. so that the vanes each include at least one heat pipe, as taught by Colmagro et al. so as to improve the longevity of the electric machine.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabbi et al. in view of Zhang et al. (CN 110768415).
7. Rabbi et al. has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not teach that a heat transfer coefficient provided by a contact resistance between the stator and the hub, the heat conductivity of the hub material, the heat conductivity of the vane material and the surfaces of the vanes within the airflow generated by the ducted fan is above 100 W/(m2 * K), and preferably above 200 W/(m2*K).
Zhang et al. teach that the heat conductivity of the hub material (since it is made from aluminum, para 0031), the heat conductivity of the vane material and the surfaces of the vanes within the airflow generated by the ducted fan is above 100 W/(m2 * K) (since it is made from aluminum, para 0031), and preferably above 200 W/(m2*K) (Heat conductivity of Aluminum is 237 W/m2*K is well known) to evacuate the heat from the motor (abstract) which improves the longevity of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Rabbi et al. so that a heat transfer coefficient provided by a contact resistance between the stator and the hub, the heat conductivity of the hub material, the heat conductivity of the vane material and the surfaces of the vanes within the airflow generated by the ducted fan is above 100 W/(m2 * K), and preferably above 200 W/(m2*K), as taught by Zhang et al. so as to improve the longevity of the electric machine.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabbi et al. in view of Haran (US 20200007007).
10. Rabbi et al. has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not teach that the magnets are arranged in a Halbach array arrangement.
Haran teaches that the magnets 50 are arranged in a Halbach array (Fig 3B) arrangement to reduce the weight of the rotor (para 00552nd sentence) which improves the versatility of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Rabbi et al. so that the magnets are arranged in a Halbach array arrangement, as taught by Haran so as to improve the versatility of the electric machine.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabbi et al. in view of Yi et al. (US 20110116947).
12. Rabbi et al. has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not teach that the shaft is connected to the rotor of the electric machine by means of a press fit or by welding, preferably frictional welding.
Yi et al. teach that the shaft 82 is connected to the rotor 86 of the electric machine by means of a press fit (para 0050) or by welding (para 0050), preferably frictional welding to stably secure the rotor on the shaft which improves the longevity of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Rabbi et al. so that the shaft is connected to the rotor of the electric machine by means of a press fit or by welding, preferably frictional welding, as taught by Yi et al. so as to improve the longevity of the electric machine.
Claim(s) 8 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabbi et al. in view of Hussain (US 7396208).
8. Rabbi et al. has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not teach that the vanes and a hub are machined in a single piece.
Hussain teaches that the rotor blades 10 are connected to the shaft (fig 4) by a disk (of Rabbi et al.) and the rotor blades, the disk and the shaft are machined in a single piece (col 3 4th para) to stably secure the rotor blades on the shaft which improves the longevity of the motor. Since this method is used to improve the longevity of the motor, the person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the same method so that the vanes and a hub are machined in a single place.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Rabbi et al. so that the vanes and a hub are machined in a single piece, as taught by Hussain so as to improve the longevity of the electric machine.
13. Rabbi et al. teach that the rotor blades are connected to the shaft by a disk (annotated fig below); but does not teach that the rotor blades, the disk and the shaft are machined in a single piece.
PNG
media_image1.png
709
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hussain teaches that the rotor blades 10 are connected to the shaft (fig 4) by a disk (of Rabbi et al. et al.) and the rotor blades, the disk and the shaft are machined in a single piece (col 3 4th para) to stably secure the rotor blades on the shaft which improves the longevity of the motor.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Rabbi et al. so that the rotor blades are connected to the shaft by a disk and the rotor blades, the disk and the shaft are machined in a single piece, as taught by Hussain so as to improve the longevity of the electric machine.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabbi et al. in view of Hennig (EP 3667875).
17. Rabbi et al. has been discussed above, re claim 16; but does not teach that the at least one electric drive is pivotably connected to a wing of the aircraft.
Hennig teaches that t the at least one electric drive 108 is pivotably connected to a wing 104 of the aircraft 100 to improve the versatility of the aircraft (figs 1a & 1b).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Rabbi et al. so that the at least one electric drive is pivotably connected to a wing of the aircraft, as taught by Hennig so as to improve the versatility of the aircraft.
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 TERRANCE L KENERLY whose telephone number is (571)270-7851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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 Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834