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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Broadly, Applicant contends that the instant amendments overcome the applied prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 11 to further recite “a load configured to operate using electrical energy sourced from the electrical generator,” which was previously found in now-cancelled claims 7 and 14. This subject matter is disclosed by Carl, as indicated in the corresponding rejections found in the Final Rejection (mailed 06/09/2026). Instant claims 1 and 11 further recite “wherein an amount of electrical energy sourced by the load from the electrical generator is greater than an amount of electrical energy the hydraulic motor and electrical generator combination could generate from flow from a single hydraulic pump of the plurality of hydraulic pumps” (emphasis by Examiner).
Applicant alleges that this further amendment is novel over the applied prior art (Remarks, p. 8, “Novel Addressing of Heavy Loads”). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a first point of discussion, Examiner would like to discuss the “constant speed motor generator” of Carl, FIG 1. As disclosed in col. 2, ll. 16-18, CSMG 6’ provides electrical power to an alternating current (AC) bus for “critical or essential” devices. An alternating current bus would be understood by those of ordinary skill as having a corresponding operational frequency (e.g., 60 Hz). As may be reasonably inferred from the “constant speed” portion of the CSMG, the “constant speed” must correspond to the operational frequency of the AC bus. Thus, the amount of hydraulic fluid input (i.e., “flow”) to the motor of CSMG 6’ must be sufficient to enable the CSMG to output power at the operational frequency.
Turning then to the hydraulic pumps 9A’-9D’, Carl discloses that a combined output of hydraulic pumps 9B’ and 9C’ provides the requisite hydraulic power (Carl, col. 2, ll. 45-48) to drive the constant speed motor generator (CSMG 6’). Stated another way, both of pumps 9B’ and 9C’ must be operated in order to output sufficient hydraulic flow for the CSMG to operate at the inherently disclosed operational frequency of its corresponding AC bus. Thus, it may be reasonably inferred that a single hydraulic pump selected from pumps 9B’ and 9C’ would not provide sufficient hydraulic power to drive CSMG 6’, i.e., an amount of electric energy sourced by the load from the electrical generator is greater than an amount of electrical energy the hydraulic motor and electrical generator combination could generate from flow from a single one of pumps 9B’ and 9C’.
Applicant then asserts that “Carl provides no teaching or suggestion to scale an electrical load so large that it necessitates the combined hydraulic output of multiple engine-drive pumps simultaneously.” Examiner also respectfully disagrees with this assertion for the same reasons discussed above. Carl explicitly discloses that hydraulic system 10B’ “is hydraulically pressurized by two pumps…respectively connected to and driven by the two engines….” Since turbine 7’ is provided to add hydraulic power “in the emergency situation of a multiple failure of…engine-driven hydraulic pumps,” it may be reasonably inferred that the hydraulic system 10B’ is intended to provide sufficient power for driving CSMG 6’ during non-emergent situations. Thus, Carl anticipates a load “so large that it necessitates the combined hydraulic output of multiple engine-driven pumps simultaneously” despite Applicant’s assertion to the contrary.
Applicant’s final substantive assertion with respect to the pending rejection is that Durocher fails to remedy the deficiencies of Carl. As shown above, Carl is not deficient with respect to the amended limitations of claims 1 and 11. As such, Durocher need not remedy the alleged deficiencies.
Applicant concludes the Remarks by asserting that new claims 21 and 22 are not disclosed by the applied prior art and “would have provided no apparent reason for modification to arrive at the claimed features.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. New claims 21 and 22 recite dependency from claim 8. Claim 8 was rejected under §103 as unpatentable over Carl in view of Durocher, wherein the subject matter of claim 8 was addressed specifically through the application of case law relating to routine optimization. Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious…to modify Carl to utilize a generator dimensioned to provide an output of 150 kw for the purposes of satisfying an aircraft having electrical loads of 150kw or less.” Applicant has not provided any rebuttal of this rejection and, thus, Examiner finds that the rejection of claim 8 remains proper.
Having established a rejection for claim 8, the only subject matter added by claims 21 and 22 amounts to an intended use of the power generated by the generator of Carl. Claim 21 recites the intended use of “a radio transmitter” as the load, while claim 22 recites the intended use of “a directed energy device” as the load. It does not appear that disclosure as filed provides enablement for an aircraft that carries a radio transmitter or a directed energy device configured to “source” 150kw of electrical power. The only references to a radio transmitter or a directed energy device are found in instant paragraphs [0016] and [0045]. While these paragraphs disclose that the electrical load may be either of the recited devices, they do not disclose or otherwise suggest that these devices consume 150kW of electrical power to operate.
However, even if the originally filed disclosure were to provide enablement of the scope discussed above, the implementation of such high-power-consumption radios is already known in the art. As evidenced (via the Wayback Machine) by Nuclear Companion (cited in the accompanying 892), the U.S. military has utilized 200 kW radio transmitters on aircraft (specifically TACAMO) since at least 1972. These radio transmitters were accompanied by dual trailing-wire antennas, i.e., “directed energy devices.” Applicant’s present Remarks hint at an argument where the “critical or essential AC bus” of Carl would be clearly intended for lower-power devices and not the type of devices designed to consume power in excess of 150 kW. Notably, however, the U.S. military used the 200 kW radio transmitters to transmit emergency action messages. Examiner believes that the disclosure of Carl is general enough that the “critical or essential AC bus” therein may be reasonably interpreted as a system for powering emergency broadcast systems such as the system carried by TACAMO.
In view of the above, Examiner finds that the applied prior art, modified as necessary in view of the amendments, discloses each and every limitation of the claims as amended.
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) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,023,134 (“Carl”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,378,916 (“Durocher”).
Regarding claim 1, Carl discloses:
An aircraft (col. 1, ll. 46-47), comprising:
a plurality of gas-turbine engines (1A’-1D’; col. 1, ll. 46-47 disclose these as engines on an aircraft; col. 7, ll. 61-63 indicate that these engines are “turbine jet engines” which would be understood by those of ordinary skill to be “gas-turbine engines”) mounted external to a fuselage of the aircraft (inherent; as least some portion of the engines must be located externally on the fuselage as the engines would not function for the intended purpose of enabling flight if they were fully contained within the fuselage), each gas-turbine engine of the plurality of gas-turbine engines including a respective hydraulic pump (9A’-9D’; col. 2, ll. 23-24) of a plurality of hydraulic pumps (Id.);
a hydraulic motor (6’) disposed within the aircraft (inherent; those of ordinary skill would not interpret Carl as placing the CSMG, and thus its associated motor, externally with respect to the aircraft body);
a hydraulic distribution network (10A, 10B, 10C) configured to carry hydraulic fluid between the hydraulic motor and the plurality of hydraulic pumps (col. 2, ll. 18-25), wherein the hydraulic distribution network combine[s] hydraulic fluid from the plurality of hydraulic pumps into a combined stream that drives the hydraulic motor (col. 2, ll. 18-25 provide that energy for driving the hydraulic motor “can be extracted from any one of the three hydraulic systems” and that the hydraulic systems are provided with hydraulic power via the hydraulic pumps 9A’-9D’; moreover, FIG 1 explicitly shows that hydraulic fluid from at least pumps 9B’ and 9C’ is combined before delivery to the hydraulic motor);
an electric generator (G of CSMG) disposed within the aircraft (inherent; inherent; those of ordinary skill would not interpret Carl as placing the CSMG, and thus its associated generator, externally with respect to the aircraft body) and configured to be driven by the hydraulic motor (as shown); and
a load configured to operate using electrical energy sourced from the electrical generator (col. 2, ll. 9-13), wherein an amount of electrical energy sourced by the load from the electrical generator is greater than an amount of electrical energy the hydraulic motor and electrical generator combination could generate from flow from a single hydraulic pump of the plurality of hydraulic pumps (see the discussion in the Response to Arguments section, above).
Carl does not explicitly disclose that the relevant elements of FIG 1 are disposed within a fuselage of the aircraft. Durocher discloses a similar system wherein the hydraulic motor and the electrical generator are disposed specifically within the fuselage of the aircraft (FIG 6). Durocher does not explicitly disclose why the elements are placed within the fuselage, but Examiner notes that FIG 5 of Durocher depicts an alternative embodiment wherein the motor and generator are disposed within a wing of the aircraft. As such, Examiner concludes that the particular placement of the motor and generator is a matter of routine design choice. Thus, the difference between Carl and the instant claims may be reasonably characterized as a rearrangement of parts based on routine design choice.
The courts have previously held that rearrangement of parts is obvious when the rearrangement would not have modified operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950). The courts have also held that particular placement of an element is obvious when it is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975). Those of ordinary skill would appreciate that the system of Carl would function identically regardless of whether the CSMG were placed within a wing of the aircraft or within the fuselage of the aircraft. Moreover, Durocher evidences the fact that the particular placement is a matter of design choice.
Thus, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Carl by placing the motor and generator of the CSMG within the fuselage of the aircraft because the particular placement of these elements would not modify their operation and, moreover, the specific placement of the elements is nothing more than a matter of obvious design choice, evidenced by the differing embodiments of Durocher.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Carl and Durocher (“the first combination”) discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the plurality of gas-turbine engines being mounted on the wings of the aircraft (inherent to Carl, as one of ordinary skill would not seek to place four gas-turbine engines on the fuselage of an aircraft; explicitly disclosed by Durocher in FIG 6), and wherein the hydraulic distribution network comprises: hydraulic lines (Carl, 10A’-10C’) configured to transport hydraulic fluid (inherent to a hydraulic system) to and from the fuselage and the plurality of hydraulic pumps on the wings (inherent to the configuration of Carl, as the wing-mounted gas-turbine engines would need to transport hydraulic fluid from the pump connected to each of the turbines into the fuselage where the CSMG is located).
Regarding claim 3, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 2 and further discloses the hydraulic lines comprising a separate set of hydraulic lines running from between each hydraulic pump of the plurality of hydraulic pumps to the fuselage (see FIG 1 of Carl, where hydraulic systems 10A’-10C’ represent separate hydraulic lines running from a respective hydraulic pump to the hydraulic motor; while system 10B’ joins two hydraulic pumps together, it is also evident that they have separate portions which run from the hydraulic pump and the combined line).
Regarding claim 4, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 2 and further discloses the hydraulic lines comprising shared sets of hydraulic lines running between multiple hydraulic pumps of the plurality of hydraulic pumps to the fuselage (as seen in FIG 1 of Carl, pumps 9B’ and 9C’ share a portion of their hydraulic line connected to the CSMG).
Regarding claim 5, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the hydraulic distribution network further comprising one or both of:
a hydraulic reservoir that stores hydraulic fluid receive [sic] un-pressurized hydraulic fluid from the hydraulic motor and returns un-pressurized hydraulic fluid to the plurality of hydraulic pumps (Carl, col. 8, ll. 11-18; “hydraulic source 9…sucks hydraulic fluid out of a storage tank or a return flow system, and pressurizes and pumps the fluid into the hydraulic supply lines).
Regarding claim 6, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses an AC electrical bus (Carl, FIG 1:3E’) and wherein the electrical generator is configured to output AC electrical energy onto the AC electrical bus (col. 2, ll. 9-13), and wherein the load operates using AC electrical energy sourced from the AC electrical bus (inherent to Carl).
Regarding claim 8, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 6, but does not specifically disclose the amount of power generated by the generator or the amount of power sourced by the load.
Those of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize and appreciate that the amount of power which may be output by the generator is a function of the dimensioning of the generator. Moreover, as generators are heavy components of an aircraft, those of ordinary skill would seek to provide a generator that is dimensioned to provide the necessary power output without being too large. Thus, the dimensioning and design of the generator (and thus its designed power output) are transparently a matter of routine optimization.
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Here, the prior art unambiguously discloses the general conditions of the claim. Carl discloses the provision of a generator configured to output power to AC loads of the aircraft, which may include the propulsion systems of the aircraft, presenting a very broad range of power required to be output by the generator and utilized by one or more loads of the aircraft. Thus, the sole difference between the first combination and claim 8 is the specific wattage output by the generator.
In view of the above, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Carl to utilize a generator dimensioned to provide an output equal to or greater than 150 kw for the purposes of satisfying an aircraft having corresponding electrical loads.
Regarding claim 9, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses each hydraulic pump being configured to operate utilizing mechanical energy sourced via rotation of a host gas-turbine engine of the plurality of gas-turbine engines (Carl, FIG 1; col. 2, ll. 43-48).
Regarding claim 10, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and Carl further discloses, in an alternative embodiment (FIG 8A), that the hydraulic motor and associated electrical generator may comprise a plurality of hydraulic motors and a plurality of electrical generators, respectively (40A-40C). As indicated in FIGS 7A-C, each of the power conversion systems 40 includes a hydraulic motor 15 and an electric machine 20, which is operable as a generator, as discussed in col. 19, ll. 17-24. Carl elaborates on the benefits of this configuration in col. 19, ll. 49-67. Thus, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify the embodiment of FIGS 1-3 in the manner taught by Carl, for the purposes and benefits explicitly disclosed by Carl.
Regarding claims 11-13 and 15-17, Applicant merely adjusts the scope of the subject matter recited by claims 1, 5-8, and 10 (as elaborated upon in the previous Office Action). As shown above, the first combination discloses the limitations of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 10. Examiner therefore finds that the rejections of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 10 apply, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 11-17.
Regarding claims 18-20, Applicant recites: isolation or mitigation of electromagnetic interference without the need for external shielded electrical cables (claim 18); isolation of electromagnetic interference to which the wings are exposed (claim 19); and isolation of electromagnetic interference in general (claim 20). These effects are obtained from transferring the “energy…as pressurized hydraulic fluid” from the wings to the fuselage (claim 18) or “transferring the hydraulic fluid from the plurality of engines” (claims 19 and 20). Turning to the Specification as filed, paragraph [0023] appears to suggest that electromagnetic isolate is an inherent result of “utilizing hydraulic pumps 110 to extract the mechanical energy from gas-turbine engines 106 outside of the fuselage 102, and converting the energy…into electrical energy within the fuselage 102….”
The result of the combined references, as discussed in the rejection of claim 2 above, results in the gas-turbine engines being mounted on the wings of an aircraft and utilizing associated hydraulic pumps driven by the engines to pressurize hydraulic fluid before delivering it to the fuselage of the aircraft for conversion into electrical power. As the isolation of electromagnetic interference is an inherent result of this configuration, Examiner finds that the first combination inherently discloses the limitations of claims 18-20.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,023,134 (“Carl”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,378,916 (“Durocher”), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of “Tupolev Tu-142MR: Inside Soviet Union’s TACAMO” (“Nuclear Companion”).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Carl in view of Durocher discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 8, but Carl does not explicitly disclose either a radio transmitter that sources the over 150 kW or a directed energy device that sources the over 150 kW.
Nuclear Companion discloses an aircraft configured to carry a 200 kW radio transmitter and accompanying antenna (“directed energy device(s)”). While the reference is not clear whether the 200 kW is an amount of power consumed, or a measurement of the output radio signal, both interpretations of the reference would result in a radio transmitter and its antenna consuming an amount of power in excess of 200 kW. Nuclear Companion elaborates that the radio transmitter is provided on the aircraft for the purposes of issues emergency action messages.
Examiner therefore finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Carl to further include a radio transmitter and/or radio antenna configured to consume 150 kW or more electrical power for the purposes of outputting radio frequency, emergency action signals over a wide area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
