DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed 19 May 2026. In view of this communication, claims 1-20 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed 19 May 2026, have been fully considered but are only partially persuasive.
The Applicant’s argument (pages 6-7 of the Remarks) alleges that Kubota does not disclose the amended limitations of the independent claims, requiring the heat exchanger to be located “immediately upstream of the first power module”. While this argument is persuasive, as Kubota discloses the pumps located between the heat exchanger and the power module, it further alleges that “none of the other cited references cure the above-identified deficiency”. In the interview held on 22 April 2026, the examiner explicitly pointed to two of said other cited references, Sercombe and Lamadrid, that disclose this feature. Since no argument against a combination with either of these references has been presented, despite the broad allegation above, new grounds of rejection have been presented in view of Kubota and Lamadrid.
Disclosure
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (US 2024/0076043 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Kubota”, in view of Lamadrid et al. (WO 2015/094097 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Lamadrid”.
Regarding claim 1, Kubota discloses an aircraft system [10] (fig. 1-3) comprising:
an electrified powertrain having a first power module [68a] and a second power module [68b] (fig. 3; ¶ 0019); and
a thermal management system [66] (fig. 3-7; ¶ 0043) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
494
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a thermal fluid loop [112] for conveying a thermal fluid (fig. 3; ¶ 0059-0060), wherein the first power module [68a] and the second power module [68b] are in thermal communication with the thermal fluid loop [112] (fig. 5; ¶ 0060, 0068-0069); and
a heat exchanger [74] in thermal communication with the thermal fluid loop [112] upstream of the first power module [68a] and the second power module [68b] such that the thermal fluid from the heat exchanger [74] is partitioned between the first power module [68a] and the second power module [68b] (fig. 5-7; ¶ 0061).
Kubota does not disclose the heat exchanger [74] being located immediately upstream of the first power module [68a] and the second power module [68b].
Lamadrid further discloses a thermal fluid loop [5] comprising a pump [6], a heat exchanger [8,9], and a power module [2,3,4] (fig. 1; page 7, lines 11-26), wherein the heat exchanger [8,9] is located immediately upstream of the power module [2,3,4] (fig. 1; page 9, lines 4-24).
PNG
media_image2.png
333
563
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the heat exchanger of Kubota immediately upstream of the power modules on its thermal fluid loop as taught by Lamadrid, in order to provide quick and efficient heating of the power modules (page 9, lines 14-18 of Lamadrid). Further, it has been held that merely rearranging the essential working parts of a device would be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 5, Kubota, in view of Lamadrid, discloses the aircraft system [10] as in claim 1, as stated above, wherein the first power module [68a] is one of a first group of power modules each electrically connected to a first electric machine [generators], wherein the second power module [68b] is one of a second group of power modules each electrically connected to a second electric machine [generators] (fig. 3; ¶ 0019; “aircraft 10 includes on or more batteries… and one or more generators”).
Regarding claim 6, Kubota, in view of Lamadrid, discloses the aircraft system [10] as in claim 5, as stated above. Kubota does not disclose that the first group of power modules [68a] include a first energy storage device [68a], a first inverter, and a first converter each disposed on the thermal fluid loop, and wherein the second group of power modules [68b] include a second energy storage device [68b], a second inverter, and a second converter each disposed on the thermal fluid loop.
Lamadrid further discloses the power module for a vehicle [1], comprising a first energy storage device [2], a first inverter [4], and a first converter [3] each disposed on the thermal fluid loop [5] (fig. 1; page 6, line 24 to page 7, line 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement each of the power modules of Kubota having the energy storage devices, inverters, and converters disposed on its thermal fluid loop as taught by Lamadrid, in order to provide cooling for the control components of the power modules thereby preventing damage to the system (page 1, lines 17-35 of Lamadrid).
Regarding claim 7, Kubota, in view of Lamadrid, discloses the aircraft system [10] as in claim 6, as stated above, wherein Lamadrid further discloses the first/second inverters [4] and the first/second converters [3] are in a {series} arrangement on the thermal fluid loop [5] downstream of the first energy storage device [2] (fig. 1).
Lamadrid does not disclose the components arranged in parallel.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the components in parallel rather than in series, for the purpose of providing equal cooling to both components on either branch of the fluid loop, and since it has been held that merely rearranging the essential working parts of a device would be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 9, Kubota, in view of Lamadrid, discloses the aircraft system [10] as in claim 1, as stated above, further comprising a coolant pump [108] fluidly connected to the thermal fluid loop [112] upstream of the heat exchanger [74] (fig. 3; ¶ 0058-0060).
Regarding claim 10, Kubota, in view of Lamadrid, discloses the aircraft system [10] as in claim 1, as stated above, wherein the heat exchanger [74] is a first heat exchanger [92-10], and wherein the thermal management system [66] further includes a second heat exchanger [92-11] arranged in parallel with the first heat exchanger [92-10] on the thermal fluid loop [112] (fig. 3; ¶ 0045, 0061).
Regarding claim 11, Kubota, in view of Lamadrid, discloses the aircraft system [10] as in claim 1, as stated above, further comprising a storage tank [76] and a heater [110], the heater [110] in thermal communication with the storage tank [76], and the storage tank [76] disposed on the thermal fluid loop [112] upstream of the heat exchanger [74] (fig. 3; ¶ 0056).
Regarding claim 12, Kubota, in view of Lamadrid, discloses the aircraft system [10] as in claim 1, as stated above, further comprising a storage tank [76] and a heater [110], the heater [110] in thermal communication with the storage tank [76], and the storage tank [76] disposed on the thermal fluid loop [112] downstream of the heat exchanger [72] (fig. 3; ¶ 0056; the storage tank is upstream of the chiller and downstream of the condenser).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota and Lamadrid as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Macdonald et al. (US 2020/0303789 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Macdonald”.
Regarding claim 2, Kubota, in view of Lamadrid, discloses the aircraft system [10] as in claim 1, as stated above. Kubota does not disclose a ram air duct that defines a ram air channel extending from a forward end to an aft end, wherein the heat exchanger is disposed in the ram air channel.
Macdonald discloses thermal management system [100] for an aircraft (fig. 1; ¶ 0006) comprising a ram air duct [114] that defines a ram air channel [114] extending from a forward end to an aft end, wherein the heat exchanger [112] is disposed in the ram air channel [114] (fig. 1; ¶ 0020-0021, 0027).
PNG
media_image3.png
466
586
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the thermal management system of Kubota having a ram air duct as taught by Macdonald, in order to provide passive cooling of the power modules while reducing drag and increasing aircraft efficiency (¶ 0038 of Macdonald).
Regarding claim 3, Kubota, in view of Lamadrid and Macdonald, discloses the aircraft system [10] as in claim 2, as stated above, wherein Macdonald further discloses a door [115] positioned within the ram air channel [114] forward of the heat exchanger [112], the door [115] connected to an actuator such that the door [115] is movable between an open position and a closed position within the ram air channel [114] (fig. 1; ¶ 0027).
Claim(s) 13 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmelmann et al. (US 2016/0257416 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Himmelmann”, in view of Kubota and Lamadrid.
Regarding claim 13, Himmelmann discloses an aircraft (¶ 0018) comprising:
a first hybrid-electric engine [10-1] having a first electric machine [35-1] (fig. 4; ¶ 0026, 0039-0040);
a second hybrid-electric engine [10-2] having as second electric machine [35-2] (fig. 4; ¶ 0026, 0039-0040); and
an electrified powertrain having a first power module [8-1] electrically connected to the first electric machine [35-1] and a second power module [8-2] electrically connected to the second electric machine [35-2] (fig. 4; ¶ 0039-0041).
PNG
media_image4.png
395
664
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Himmelmann does not disclose the thermal management system.
Kubota discloses a thermal management system [66] (fig. 3-7; ¶ 0043) comprising:
a thermal fluid loop [112] for conveying a thermal fluid (fig. 3; ¶ 0059-0060), wherein the first power module [68a] and the second power module [68b] are in thermal communication with the thermal fluid loop [112] (fig. 5; ¶ 0060, 0068-0069); and
a heat exchanger [74] in thermal communication with the thermal fluid loop [112] upstream of the first power module [68a] and the second power module [68b] such that the thermal fluid from the heat exchanger [74] is partitioned between the first power module [68a] and the second power module [68b] (fig. 5-7; ¶ 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the power modules of Himmelmann having thermal management systems as taught by Kubota, in order to adequately cool the heat-generating components of the aircraft while effectively utilizing waste heat of the electric components (¶ 0009-0010 of Kubota).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kubota does not disclose the heat exchanger [74] being located immediately upstream of the first power module [68a] and the second power module [68b].
Lamadrid further discloses a thermal fluid loop [5] comprising a pump [6], a heat exchanger [8,9], and a power module [2,3,4] (fig. 1; page 7, lines 11-26), wherein the heat exchanger [8,9] is located immediately upstream of the power module [2,3,4] (fig. 1; page 9, lines 4-24).
PNG
media_image2.png
333
563
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the heat exchanger of Kubota immediately upstream of the power modules on its thermal fluid loop as taught by Lamadrid, in order to provide quick and efficient heating of the power modules (page 9, lines 14-18 of Lamadrid). Further, it has been held that merely rearranging the essential working parts of a device would be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 17, Himmelmann, in view of Kubota and Lamadrid, discloses the aircraft as in claim 13, as stated above, wherein Kubota further discloses that the first power module [68a] is one of a first group of power modules each electrically connected to a first electric machine [generators], wherein the second power module [68b] is one of a second group of power modules each electrically connected to a second electric machine [generators] (fig. 3; ¶ 0019; “aircraft 10 includes on or more batteries… and one or more generators”).
Regarding claim 18, Himmelmann, in view of Kubota and Lamadrid, discloses the aircraft as in claim 17, as stated above. Kubota does not disclose that the first group of power modules [68a] include a first energy storage device [68a], a first inverter, and a first converter each disposed on the thermal fluid loop, and wherein the second group of power modules [68b] include a second energy storage device [68b], a second inverter, and a second converter each disposed on the thermal fluid loop.
Lamadrid further discloses a power module for a vehicle [1], comprising a first energy storage device [2], a first inverter [4], and a first converter [3] each disposed on the thermal fluid loop [5] (fig. 1; page 6, line 24 to page 7, line 26).
PNG
media_image2.png
333
563
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement each of the power modules of Kubota having the energy storage devices, inverters, and converters disposed on its thermal fluid loop as taught by Lamadrid, in order to provide cooling for the control components of the power modules thereby preventing damage to the system (page 1, lines 17-35 of Lamadrid).
Regarding claim 19, Himmelmann, in view of Kubota and Lamadrid, discloses the aircraft as in claim 18, as stated above, wherein Lamadrid further discloses the first/second inverters [4] and the first/second converters [3] are in a {series} arrangement on the thermal fluid loop [5] downstream of the first energy storage device [2] (fig. 1).
Lamadrid does not disclose the components arranged in parallel.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the components in parallel rather than in series, for the purpose of providing equal cooling to both components on either branch of the fluid loop, and since it has been held that merely rearranging the essential working parts of a device would be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 20, Himmelmann, in view of Kubota and Lamadrid, discloses the aircraft as in claim 13, as stated above, wherein Kubota further discloses a coolant pump [108] fluidly connected to the thermal fluid loop [112] upstream of the heat exchanger [74] (fig. 3; ¶ 0058-0060).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himmelmann, Kubota, and Lamadrid as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Macdonald.
Regarding claim 14, Himmelmann, in view of Kubota and Lamadrid, discloses the aircraft as in claim 13, as stated above. Kubota does not disclose a ram air duct that defines a ram air channel extending from a forward end to an aft end, wherein the heat exchanger is disposed in the ram air channel.
Macdonald discloses thermal management system [100] for an aircraft (fig. 1; ¶ 0006) comprising a ram air duct [114] that defines a ram air channel [114] extending from a forward end to an aft end, wherein the heat exchanger [112] is disposed in the ram air channel [114] (fig. 1; ¶ 0020-0021, 0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the thermal management system of Kubota having a ram air duct as taught by Macdonald, in order to provide passive cooling of the power modules while reducing drag and increasing aircraft efficiency (¶ 0038 of Macdonald).
PNG
media_image3.png
466
586
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Himmelmann, in view of Kubota, Lamadrid, and Macdonald, discloses the aircraft as in claim 14, as stated above, wherein Macdonald further discloses a door [115] positioned within the ram air channel [114] forward of the heat exchanger [112], the door [115] connected to an actuator such that the door [115] is movable between an open position and a closed position within the ram air channel [114] (fig. 1; ¶ 0027).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4, 8, and 16 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, the aircraft system as in claim 3, further comprising:
a coolant pump disposed on the thermal fluid loop;
a heater disposed on the thermal fluid loop; and
a thermal controller operably connected to the coolant pump, the heater, and the actuator, the thermal controller having one or more processors configured to:
determine a load requirement of one of a first electric machine and a second electric machine; and
adjust an operation of at least one of the coolant pump, the heater, or the actuator in response to determining the load requirement.
Regarding claim 8, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, the aircraft system as in claim 7, wherein the first electric machine is disposed in thermal communication on the thermal fluid loop downstream of the first inverter and the first converter, and wherein the second electric machine is disposed in thermal communication on the thermal fluid loop downstream of the second inverter and the second converter.
Regarding claim 16, and all claims dependent thereon, the prior art does not disclose, inter alia, the aircraft as in claim 15, further comprising:
a coolant pump disposed on the thermal fluid loop;
a heater disposed on the thermal fluid loop; and
a thermal controller operably connected to the coolant pump, the heater, and the actuator, the thermal controller having one or more processors configured to:
determine a load requirement of one of the first electric machine and the second electric machine; and
adjust an operation of at least one of the coolant pump, the heater, or the actuator in response to determining the load requirement.
While the prior art discloses various arrangements of pumps, heaters, controllers, converters, and inverters both upstream and downstream of one another, it does not disclose the particular arrangements of said components as recited above. There being found no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange or combine said components as claimed, the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed inventions.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Prior art:
Detweiler et al. (US 2024/0034479 A1) discloses an aircraft system and energy storage system and control system therefor.
Sercombe et al. (US 2020/0381985 A1) discloses an electric propulsion and energy storage system for an aircraft including a thermal management system.
Peace et al. (US 2020/0010208 A1) discloses an electric propulsion system for an aircraft comprising a thermal management system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 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 date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/about-ptab/new-ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/patent-trial-and-appeal-board-pro-bono-program-independent. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final replay that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Andrews whose telephone number is (571)270-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at 571-270-5112. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Michael Andrews/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights