DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-16 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on *** and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are currently written in a manner where it is unclear what the exact scope of the claims is. The claims as currently written are directed towards an air supply apparatus, however the claims also specify the structure and functionality of an aircraft and a fuel cell stack, and both of these elements are outside of the standard scope of what an air supply apparatus would contain. As such it is not clear if the aircraft and fuel cell stack are required elements of the claim or not. The examiner believes that given how the claims are currently written the aircraft and fuel cell are required elements and the claim will be examined in this manner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Balan (PGPub #2025/0058885).
Regarding claim 1, Balan teaches an air supply apparatus for an aerial mobility vehicle (100), which includes a fuel cell stack (2703), the air supply apparatus comprising: an air compressor (2706) mounted in the aerial mobility vehicle (100, and 111 as seen in figure 1, and 2700, and 2706 as seen in figure 27) and configured to compress air introduced into the aerial mobility vehicle (2706 as seen in figure 27, and Paragraphs 245, and 249); and an air chamber (2714) provided in the aerial mobility vehicle (2700, and 2714 as seen in figure 27) and connecting the air compressor and the fuel cell stack (2703, 2706, and 2714 as seen in figure 27, and Paragraph 249), wherein the air chamber defines a conditioning space for conditioning the air having passed through the air compressor (Paragraph 249).
Regarding claim 2, Balan teaches the air supply apparatus of claim 1, wherein the aerial mobility vehicle includes: an aerial mobility vehicle main body (111); a driving fan mounted in the aerial mobility vehicle main body (111 and the fan as seen in figure 1) and configured to generate a propulsive force for the aerial mobility vehicle main body (Paragraph 107, driven fans will inherently generate propulsion); and a drive motor (2704) provided rearward of the driving fan (111 and the fan as seen in figure 1, and 2700, and 2704 as seen in figure 27) and connected to the driving fan to provide driving power for rotating the driving fan (Paragraph 107), and wherein the air compressor is provided at a downstream side of the drive motor (2704 and 2706 as seen in figure 27).
Regarding claim 14, Balan teaches the air supply apparatus of claim 1, including: a discharge line (2713 as seen in figure 27) directly connecting the fuel cell stack and an outside of the aerial mobility vehicle (2706, and 2713 as seen in figure 27, and Paragraph 249) and discharging discharged air and condensate water, which are discharged from the fuel cell stack, to the outside of the aerial mobility vehicle (Paragraph 249).
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.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balan (PGPub #2025/0058885) in view of Bennett (US #4,474,344).
Regarding claim 3, Balan teaches the air supply apparatus of claim 2, including: an air intake portion (2731) formed in the aerial mobility vehicle main body (2700, and 2731 as seen in figure 27) and configured to allow air to be introduced from the outside thereof into the air compressor (2706, and 2731 as seen in figure 27, and Paragraph 248); but Balan does not teach an opening/closing member mounted on the aerial mobility vehicle main body and configured to selectively open or close the air intake portion.
However, Bennett does teach an opening/closing member (20) mounted on the aerial mobility vehicle main body (10, and 20 as seen in figure 2) and configured to selectively open or close the air intake portion (Column 1, lines 43-58, and Column 6, lines 16-40). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a member on the body that can open and close the intake because Balan and Bennett are both aircraft with intakes to the propulsion system. The motivation for having a member on the body that can open and close the intake is that it allows the amount of air that is entering the system to be controlled.
Regarding claim 4, Balan as modified by Bennett teaches the air supply apparatus of claim 3, but Balan does not teach that the opening/closing member is configured to open or close the air intake portion based on a flight condition of the aerial mobility vehicle. However, Bennett does teach that the opening/closing member is configured to open or close the air intake portion based on a flight condition of the aerial mobility vehicle (Column 1, lines 43-58, and Column 6, lines 16-40). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system be open or closed based on the flight conditions because Balan and Bennett are both aircraft with intakes to the propulsion system. The motivation for having the system be open or closed based on the flight conditions is that it allows the system to help optimize the airflow for the given flight phase to help improve performance.
Regarding claim 5, Balan as modified by Bennett teaches the air supply apparatus of claim 4, but Balan does not teach that the opening/closing member is configured to close the air intake portion while the aerial mobility vehicle cruises at an altitude equal to or greater than a predetermined reference altitude, and the opening/closing member is configured to open the air intake portion while the aerial mobility vehicle takes off or lands. However, Bennett does teach that the opening/closing member is configured to close the air intake portion while the aerial mobility vehicle cruises at an altitude equal to or greater than a predetermined reference altitude (The system as seen in figure 1D, Column 1, lines 43-58, Column 3, lines 26-32, and Column 6, lines 16-40), and the opening/closing member is configured to open the air intake portion while the aerial mobility vehicle takes off or lands (The system as seen in figure 1A, Column 1, lines 43-58, Column 3, lines 26-32, and Column 6, lines 16-40). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the member be closed for cruise flight and opened for takeoff because Balan and Bennett are both aircraft with intakes to the propulsion system. The motivation for having the member be closed for cruise flight and opened for takeoff is that it allows for a greater amount of airflow through the system when there is a higher thrust requirement for the system.
Regarding claim 6, Balan as modified by Bennett teaches the air supply apparatus of claim 3, but Balan does not teach that the opening/closing member is configured to be rotatable about one end portion thereof between a first position, at which the opening/closing member closes the air intake portion, and a second position at which the opening/closing member opens the air intake portion. However, Bennett does teach that the opening/closing member is configured to be rotatable about one end portion thereof between a first position, at which the opening/closing member closes the air intake portion (20 as seen in figure 2), and a second position at which the opening/closing member opens the air intake portion (20A as seen in figure 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the member rotate between an open and closed position because Balan and Bennett are both aircraft with intakes to the propulsion system. The motivation for having the member rotate between an open and closed position is that it allows the member to be easily moved to an open position to allow air to flow through the intake.
Claims 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balan (PGPub #2025/0058885) in view of Ross et al. (PGPub #2020/0309066).
Regarding claim 3, Balan teaches the air supply apparatus of claim 2, including: an air intake portion (2731) formed in the aerial mobility vehicle main body (2700, and 2731 as seen in figure 27) and configured to allow air to be introduced from the outside thereof into the air compressor (2706, and 2731 as seen in figure 27, and Paragraph 248); but Balan does not teach an opening/closing member mounted on the aerial mobility vehicle main body and configured to selectively open or close the air intake portion.
However, Ross does teach an opening/closing member (132a) mounted on the aerial mobility vehicle main body (100 and 132a as seen in figure 2A) and configured to selectively open or close the air intake portion (132a as seen in figures 2A, and 2B, and Paragraphs 27, and 28). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a member on the body that can open and close the intake because Balan and Ross are both aircraft with intakes to the propulsion system. The motivation for having a member on the body that can open and close the intake is that it allows the amount of air that is entering the system to be controlled.
Regarding claim 7, Balan as modified by Ross teaches the air supply apparatus of claim 3, but Balan does not teach that the opening/closing member is configured to be rectilinearly movable between a first position, at which the opening/closing member closes the air intake portion, and a second position at which the opening/closing member opens the air intake portion. However, Ross does teach that the opening/closing member is configured to be rectilinearly movable (Paragraph 25, this teaches that the door can be slide rather than pivoted and sliding the door will result in rectilinear motion of the door) between a first position, at which the opening/closing member closes the air intake portion (132a as seen in figure 2A, and Paragraph 27), and a second position at which the opening/closing member opens the air intake portion (132a as seen in figure 2B, and Paragraph 28). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the member slide between an open and closed position because Balan and Ross are both aircraft with intakes to the propulsion system. The motivation for having the member slide between an open and closed position is that it allows the member to be easily moved to an open position to allow air to flow through the intake.
Claims 8, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balan (PGPub #2025/0058885) in view of Wang et al. (US #11,876,263).
Regarding claim 8, Balan teaches the air supply apparatus of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach a power transmission portion connecting the drive motor and the air compressor and configured to transmit the driving power of the drive motor to the air compressor. However, Wang does teach a power transmission portion connecting the drive motor and the air compressor and configured to transmit the driving power of the drive motor to the air compressor (12, 18, and 28 as seen in figure 1, and the Abstract). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motor transmit power to the compressor to drive the compressor because Balan and Wang are both fuel cell aircraft with compressors. The motivation for having the motor transmit power to the compressor to drive the compressor is that it allows the compressor to be driven without adding an additional driving element to the system which can help to reduce the weight and cost of the system.
Regarding claim 15, Balan teaches the air supply apparatus of claim 1, including: a discharge line (2713 as seen in figure 27) connecting the fuel cell stack and an outside of the aerial mobility vehicle (2706, and 2713 as seen in figure 27, and Paragraph 249) and discharging discharged air and condensate water, which are discharged from the fuel cell stack, to the outside of the aerial mobility vehicle (Paragraph 249). But Balan does not explicitly teach selectively discharging the air.
However, Wang does teach selectively discharging the air (108, 110, and 112 as seen in figure 1, and Column 9, lines 33-62). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the exhaust be selectively discharged because Balan and Wang are both fuel cell aircraft with compressors. The motivation for having the exhaust be selectively discharged is that it can allow the system control when the exhaust is released to all it to be done in an optimal manner.
Regarding claim 16, Balan as modified by Wang teaches the air supply apparatus of claim 15, wherein the discharged air and the condensate water are discharged along the discharge line while the aerial mobility vehicle takes off and lands (2706, and 2713 as seen in figure 27, and Paragraph 249 of Balan, the system of Balan is capable of functioning during take-off and landing).
Claims 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balan (PGPub #2025/0058885) in view of Son et al. (PGPub #2023/0030879).
Regarding claim 9, Balan teaches the air supply apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach a bypass line fiducially connecting the fuel cell stack and an upstream side of the air compressor and guiding discharged air, which is discharged from the fuel cell stack, to the upstream side of the air compressor. However, Son does teach a bypass line fiducially connecting the fuel cell stack and an upstream side of the air compressor and guiding discharged air, which is discharged from the fuel cell stack, to the upstream side of the air compressor (AC, B1, B2, and F as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 28). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a bypass line that connects discharged air from the fuel cell to the upstream side of the compressor because Balan and Son are both fuel cell systems with compressors. The motivation for having a bypass line that connects discharged air from the fuel cell to the upstream side of the compressor is that it allows the system to reuse some of the discharged gas to help improve the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 11, Balan teaches the air supply apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach a bypass line connecting the fuel cell stack and an upstream side of the air compressor and selectively guiding discharged air, which is discharged from the fuel cell stack, to the upstream side of the air compressor. However, Son does teach a bypass line connecting the fuel cell stack and an upstream side of the air compressor and selectively guiding discharged air, which is discharged from the fuel cell stack, to the upstream side of the air compressor (AC, B1, B2, and F as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 28, the valves in the bypass systems allow the system to selectively operate). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a bypass line that selectively connects discharged air from the fuel cell to the upstream side of the compressor because Balan and Son are both fuel cell systems with compressors. The motivation for having a bypass line that selectively connects discharged air from the fuel cell to the upstream side of the compressor is that it allows the system to reuse some of the discharged gas to help improve the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 12, Balan as modified by Son teaches the air supply apparatus of claim 11, wherein the discharged air flows to the upstream side of the air compressor along the bypass line while the aerial mobility vehicle cruises at an altitude equal to or greater than a predetermined reference altitude (With the bypass system of Son added to the system of Balan, the system is inherently capable of functioning when the aircraft of Balan is cruising at an altitude).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights