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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the motor of claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6 line 2, “…area so as to be separated from each other.” should read “…area separated from each other Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nissen et al. (US 2020/0172235).
Regarding claim 1, Nissen et al. ‘235 teaches (figures 1-5) a moving object/aircraft (10) comprising:
equipment/engine (24) and generator (38) belonging to a first group (clearly shown in the figure below) (Para 0024);
equipment/electronics of electrical bus (44) belonging to a second group (clearly shown in the figure below) (Para 0026); and
equipment/battery (46) belonging to a third group (clearly shown in the figure below) (Para 0026), wherein
the equipment belonging to the first group is disposed in a first area, the equipment belonging to the second group is disposed in a second area, the second area being located forward of the first area in a traveling direction of the moving object (clearly shown in the figure below),
the equipment belonging to the third group is disposed in a third area, the third area being located forward of the second area in the traveling direction (clearly seen in the figure below),
the equipment belonging to the first group includes an engine (24) and a power generator (38) driven by the engine (24) (Para 0024),
the equipment belonging to the third group includes a battery (26) (Para 0026), and
the equipment belonging to the second group includes an electric power device/electronics of electrical bus (44) configured to supply electric power from the power generator (38) to the battery (46) (Para 0026-0027).
PNG
media_image1.png
726
906
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Nissen et al. ‘235 teaches (figures 1-5) the moving object wherein the first area includes a pair of engines (24s) and a pair of power generators (38s) (clearly seen in figure 5).
Regarding claim 8, Nissen et al. ‘235 teaches (figures 1-5) the moving object wherein the equipment belonging to the third group further includes a power distribution device/wires configured to distribute electric power output from the battery and the electric power output from the power generator (battery is connected via wiring directly or indirectly to generator; battery is charged using electric power output from generator and battery supplies electric power to motor).
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.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nissen et al. (US 2020/0172235) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heironimus (US 2021/0061477).
Regarding claim 2, Nissen et al. ‘235 teaches (figures 1-5) the moving object further comprising:
a passenger compartment located forward of the third area in the travelling direction (clearly shown in the figure above) (Para 0023; fuselage (12) comprises passenger compartment, thus at least a portion of the fuselage/passenger compartment is located forward of the third area),
a fourth area being located between the passenger compartment and the third area (clearly shown in the figure above)
but it is silent about the moving object wherein an air conditioner configured to perform air conditioning of the passenger compartment using heat generated from the battery is disposed in a fourth area.
Heironimus ‘477 teaches (figures 1-3) an electric aircraft (200) comprising a cabin thermal management system/air conditioner (220) located between battery pack (210) and the cabin (205) and in thermal communication with the battery pack (210) to serve as a heat source for the cabin (205) (clearly seen in figure 2) (Para 0026, 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nissen et al. ‘235 to incorporate the teachings of Heironimus ‘477 to configure the moving object wherein an air conditioner configured to perform air conditioning of the passenger compartment using heat generated from the battery is disposed in a fourth area (air conditioner is between passenger compartment and the battery).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would place air conditioner in between passenger compartment and battery, and utilizes battery as a heat source.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nissen et al. (US 2020/0172235) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Combs et al. (US 2020/0017228).
Regarding claim 3, Nissen et al. ‘235 teaches (figures 1-5) the moving object of claim 1 but it is silent about the moving object wherein the equipment belonging to second group includes an inverter configured to drive a motor configured to generate thrust for the moving object.
Nissen et al. ‘235 further teaches battery provides additional capability for increased power and electrical bus (44) include electronics necessary to condition power, switch between power outputs, dissipate power, and/or otherwise selectively direct electrical power to system (Para 0027).
Combs et al. ‘228 teaches (figure 5A) power flow diagram (500A) comprising battery pack (504A), inverter (514A) and electric motor (502A) powering propeller (506A) (Para 0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nissen et al. ‘235 to incorporate the teachings of Combs et al. ‘228 to configure the moving object wherein the equipment belonging to second group includes an inverter configured to drive a motor configured to generate thrust for the moving object.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to use battery charge to power motor.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nissen et al. (US 2020/0172235) and Combs et al. (US 2020/0017228) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Niergarth et al. (US 2018/0050810).
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Nissen et al. ‘235 teaches (figures 1-5) the moving object of claim 1 but it is silent about the moving object wherein the equipment belonging to the second group includes a radiator configured to cool the motor, and
the equipment belonging to the second group includes a duct through which outside air is supplied to the radiator.
Niergarth et al. ‘810 teaches (figure 11) cooling electric motor (334) using heat exchanger/radiator (408, 412) wherein outside airflow (402) is supplied to the heat exchanger/radiator (408, 412) through nacelle/duct (314) (Para 0076, 0082; heat exchanger/radiator (408, 412) is positioned closest to the motor where the source of outside air is present).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Nissen et al. ‘235 to incorporate the teachings of Niergarth et al. ‘810 to configure the moving object wherein the equipment belonging to the second group includes a radiator configured to cool the motor, and
the equipment belonging to the second group includes a duct through which outside air is supplied to the radiator (second area is a closest place to position radiator as proprotor gearbox (42) is positioned in front of the motor (40); radiator is within a duct).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would cool motor and increase its performance.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nissen et al. (US 2020/0172235).
Regarding claim 6, Nissen et al. ‘235 teaches (figures 1-5) the moving object of claim 1 but it is silent about the moving object wherein a plurality of the electric power devices are arranged in the second area separated from each other.
However, since there are six electric motors (40s), the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art for each motor to have its own dedicated power device for the purpose of safety.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nissen et al. ‘235 to configure the moving object wherein a plurality of the electric power devices are arranged in the second area separated from each other.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance overall safety and enhance performances of motors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights