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 .
Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 14-18 are currently being examined.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/07/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16: “plurality of engines” should read as -- plurality of gas-turbine engines --. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5, 7-11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carl et al. 6023134 in view of Dalal 20220025820.
Regarding independent claim 1, Carl discloses in Fig. 2, a method comprising:
pressurizing, by a plurality of engine driven hydraulic pumps (9B” and 9C” described in col 3 lines 56-60) respectively attached to a plurality of gas-turbine engines (1A” and 1B” which are described as “turbine jet engines”, i.e., gas turbine engines, in col 7 lines 55-62; 1A” and 1B” respectively drive and are attached to 9B” and 9C” per col 3 lines 56-59) of an aircraft (col 3 lines 60-66 describe an air-craft), hydraulic fluid (9B” and 9C” are hydraulic pumps which pressurize hydraulic fluid);
generating, by a hydraulic motor (labeled in annotated Fig. 2 which is part of an emergency power generator CSMG 6” and uses hydraulic power from the main or central hydraulic system 10B” per col 4 lines 15-19) disposed within a fuselage of the aircraft (col 21 lines 46-55 describes a fuselage of the air-craft, and col 20 lines 60-67 to col 21 lines 1-6 describes the conventional system in Fig. 2 as requiring hydraulic conduits from the central hydraulic system 10B” arranged in the central landing gear bay outboard to the two engine driven pumps 9B” and 9C” which one of ordinary skill in the art understands a central landing gear bay is within the fuselage) and using combined pressurized hydraulic fluid received from the plurality of engine driven hydraulic pumps (10B” receives the pressurized hydraulic fluid from 9B” and 9C” as seen in Fig. 2), rotational mechanical energy (the pressurized hydraulic fluid drives rotation of hydraulic motor of 6” in annotated Fig. 2, i.e., generates rotational mechanical energy); and
generating, by an electrical generator (labeled in annotated Fig. 2) disposed within the fuselage of the aircraft (in annotated Fig. 2, the electrical generator as connected via a shaft to the hydraulic motor as part of central hydraulic system 10B” is within the fuselage) and using the rotational mechanical energy, electrical energy (the hydraulic motor drives the electrical generator via a shaft shown between them in annotated Fig. 2 and the electrical generator generates electrical energy per col 4 lines 15-19 which describes “the emergency or safety bus (3E") is provided with power from an emergency power generator CSMG (6"), which produces the electrical power using hydraulic power from the main or central hydraulic system (10B")”).
PNG
media_image1.png
723
984
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Carl is silent regarding consuming, by a load of the aircraft, over 150 kilowatts (kW) of the electrical energy.
Dalal teaches a propulsion system for an aircraft including at least two aircraft engines per [0002]. Dalal teaches a first load, a second load, and a third load, which can be high-power demand aircraft systems per [0013] and per [0033] an operational phase of the aircraft 10 operates with the first load 382a requiring 100 kW, the second load requiring 600 kW and the third load requiring 100 kW. Per [0038] the electrical system 300 can include DC-AC inverters 378 configured to provide AC power to one or more loads 382a, 382b, 382c on the aircraft, which requires AC power. A total load of loads 382a, 382b, 382c consumes over 150 kW of electrical energy as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of Carl consuming, by a load, over 150 kW of the electrical energy as taught by Dalal as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, in this case having various safety-critical energy systems, i.e., a load using the electrical energy, of Carl, consume over 150 kW of the electrical energy as taught by Dalal as a known usage amount that may be required during operation of an aircraft, to predictably operate the safety-critical energy systems of the aircraft.
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. . . . [W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." KSR at 1395-66 (citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
Regarding independent claim 9, Carl discloses a method comprising:
pressurizing, by a plurality of engine driven hydraulic pumps (9B” and 9C” described in col 3 lines 56-60) respectively attached to a plurality of engines (1A” and 1B” which are described as “turbine jet engines” in col 7 lines 55-62; 1A” and 1B” respectively drive and are attached to 9B” and 9C” per col 3 lines 56-59), hydraulic fluid (9B” and 9C” are hydraulic pumps which pressurize hydraulic fluid);
generating, by a hydraulic motor (labeled in annotated Fig. 2 which is part of an emergency power generator CSMG 6” and uses hydraulic power from the main or central hydraulic system 10B” per col 4 lines 15-19) and using combined pressurized hydraulic fluid received from the plurality of engine driven hydraulic pumps (10B” receives the pressurized hydraulic fluid from 9B” and 9C” as seen in Fig. 2), rotational mechanical energy (the pressurized hydraulic fluid drives rotation of hydraulic motor of 6” in annotated Fig. 2, i.e., generates rotational mechanical energy); and
generating, by an electrical generator (labeled in annotated Fig. 2) and using the rotational mechanical energy, alternating current (AC) electrical energy (the hydraulic motor drives the electrical generator via a shaft shown between them in annotated Fig. 2 and the electrical generator generates electrical energy per col 4 lines 15-19 which describes “the emergency or safety bus (3E") is provided with power from an emergency power generator CSMG (6"), which produces the electrical power using hydraulic power from the main or central hydraulic system (10B"),” and as shown in Fig. 2 and as described in col 1 lines 31-43, the electrical energy is AC alternating current electrical energy).
Carl is silent regarding consuming, by a load, over 150 kW of the AC electrical energy.
Dalal teaches a propulsion system for an aircraft including at least two aircraft engines per [0002]. Dalal teaches a first load, a second load, and a third load, which can be high-power demand aircraft systems per [0013] and per [0033] an operational phase of the aircraft 10 operates with the first load 382a requiring 100 kW, the second load requiring 600 kW and the third load requiring 100 kW. Per [0038] the electrical system 300 can include DC-AC inverters 378 configured to provide AC power to one or more loads 382a, 382b, 382c on the aircraft, which requires AC power. A total load of loads 382a, 382b, 382c consumes over 150 kW of the AC electrical energy as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of Carl consuming, by a load, over 150 kW of the AC electrical energy as taught by Dalal as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, in this case having various safety-critical energy systems, i.e., a load using the AC electrical energy, of Carl, consume over 150 kW of the AC electrical energy as taught by Dalal as a known usage amount that may be required during operation of an aircraft, to predictably operate the safety-critical energy systems of the aircraft.
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. . . . [W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." KSR at 1395-66 (citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
Regarding claim 2, Carl in view of Dalal teaches all that is claimed above and Carl further teaches carrying, by a hydraulic distribution network (as shown in Fig. 2, conduits from the hydraulic pumps 9B” and 9C” form a hydraulic distribution network to carry hydraulic fluid to central hydraulic system 10B”), the hydraulic fluid between the hydraulic pumps and the fuselage (the hydraulic distribution system extends from hydraulic pump 9B” at engine 1A” and hydraulic pump 9C” at engine 1B” to central hydraulic distribution system 10B” in fuselage).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Carl in view of Dalal teaches all that is claimed above and Carl further teaches one or more of:
receiving, by a hydraulic accumulator, the pressurized hydraulic fluid from the plurality of hydraulic pumps;
providing, by the hydraulic accumulator, the pressurized hydraulic fluid to the hydraulic motor;
storing, by a hydraulic reservoir, un-pressurized hydraulic fluid received from the hydraulic motor (col 8 lines 13-18 describes an engine driven main hydraulic pump that sucks hydraulic fluid out of a storage tank, i.e., a hydraulic reservoir, or a return flow system, i.e., unpressurized hydraulic fluid returned from the hydraulic motor, and pressurizes and pumps the fluid into the hydraulic supply lines of the hydraulic conduit system 10 of the vehicle; for example, hydraulic reservoir 10T is shown in Fig. 4A connected to hydraulic motor 15 to receive un-pressurized hydraulic fluid from 15 since pressure of the hydraulic fluid drops after driving the hydraulic motor to produce mechanical shaft energy to drive the electric generator); and
returning, by the hydraulic reservoir, the un-pressurized hydraulic fluid to the plurality of hydraulic pumps (col 8 lines 13-18 describe the engine driven hydraulic pump sucks hydraulic fluid out of the hydraulic reservoir, i.e., un-pressurized hydraulic fluid is returned to the plurality of hydraulic pumps by the hydraulic reservoir).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Carl in view of Dalal teaches all that is claimed above and Carl further teaches combining the hydraulic fluid pressurized by the plurality of engine driven hydraulic pumps to generate the combined pressurized hydraulic fluid (as shown in Fig. 2, respective conduits carrying pressurized hydraulic fluid from hydraulic pumps 9B” and 9C” join together to generate the combined pressurized hydraulic fluid to central hydraulic system 10B”).
Regarding claim 5, Carl in view of Dalal teaches all that is claimed above and Carl further teaches wherein generating the electrical energy comprises generating alternating current (AC) electrical energy (the hydraulic motor drives the electrical generator via a shaft shown between them in annotated Fig. 2 and the electrical generator generates electrical energy per col 4 lines 15-19 which describes “the emergency or safety bus (3E") is provided with power from an emergency power generator CSMG (6"), which produces the electrical power using hydraulic power from the main or central hydraulic system (10B"),” and as shown in Fig. 2 and as described in col 1 lines 31-43, the electrical energy is AC alternating current electrical energy), the method further comprising operating, by the load, using the AC electrical energy (col 1 lines 19-31 describe power consuming devices of various safety-critical energy systems, i.e., loads using the AC electrical energy, such as electrical or electronic systems including the electrical power management system and a computer system for navigation, communication, and/or control of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 7, Carl in view of Dalal teaches all that is claimed above and Carl further teaches propelling, by one or more of the plurality of gas-turbine engines, the aircraft (col 3 lines 56-66 describes hydraulic systems comprising an electric motor driven pump when the air-craft is on the ground when engines of the air-craft are not operating, which implies the engines operate when the air-craft is in flight to propel the air-craft; in addition col 20 lines 1-2 describe “during flight” and col 21 line 16 describes “flight phases”).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Carl in view of Dalal teaches all that is claimed above but is silent as discussed so far regarding
determining a target generation level; and
controlling, based on the target generation level, a rotational speed of the hydraulic motor.
In Figs. 4-4A and as described in col 8 lines 42-64, Carl teaches a hydraulic motor/pump unit 15 which drives or is driven by electric machine 20 which includes a generator/motor such as an electrical wild frequency generator that also functions as a regulated motor 20, and electrical partial system 13 includes a variable speed constant frequency (VSCF) motor power control electronic circuit, embodied as an electronic control unit 22, which is electrically connected to the electrical machine 20.
Carl teaches with reference to Figs. 4-4A and 6:
determining a target generation level (col 8 line 4 describes nominal operating power conditions, i.e., target power generation level); and
controlling, based on the target generation level, a rotational speed of the hydraulic motor (per col 8 lines 56-64 the respective rotatably supported machine elements of the hydraulic and electrical machines 15 and 20 are mechanically and rotatably coupled together by the shaft 14 in such a manner, with such matched rotational speeds, that the operating efficiencies or power conversion operating rates of the two partial systems 12 and 13 are optimized and tuned to one another as needed for the respective nominal operating power conditions; per col 15 lines 8-18 hydraulic partial system 12 and the electrical partial system 13 are mechanically connected together through the shaft 14, which preferably has an adjustable transmission ratio such that the hydraulic motor rotational speed of the hydraulic machine 15 can be matched, i.e. stepped up or stepped down, as necessary relative to the drive rotational speed of the electrical machine 20, in order to provide operation with the best possible partial efficiencies within the two partial systems 12 and 13, namely within the two machines 15 and 20, while operating at the nominal power level).
By replacing the CSMG device 6” with the bi-directional power conversion system 40 in Fig. 6, the advantage is achieved that the power conversion system 40 can selectively operate as the primary hydraulic pump or as an emergency generator depending upon the selected operating mode (col 18 lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Carl Fig. 2 to replace the CSMG device 6” with the bi-directional power conversion system of Figs. 4A and 6 to selectively operate the power conversion system as the primary hydraulic pump or as an emergency generator depending upon the selected operating mode. Upon this replacement, Carl then teaches determining a target generation level; and controlling, based on the target generation level, a rotational speed of the hydraulic motor as claimed, in order to provide operation with the best possible partial efficiencies within the two partial systems of the hydraulic machine 15 and electrical machine 20.
Regarding claim 15, Carl in view of Dalal teaches all that is claimed above and Carl further discloses transferring, by hydraulic lines of the hydraulic distribution network, energy from respective mounting locations on the aircraft of each of the gas-turbine engines to the fuselage as pressurized hydraulic fluid to mitigate electromagnetic interference without requiring external shielded electrical cables (as shown in annotated Fig. 2, hydraulic lines extend from hydraulic pumps 9B” and 9C” respectively of each of the gas-turbine engines 1A”, 1B” and transfer energy from each of the gas turbine engines as pressurized hydraulic fluid to the hydraulic motor at the CSMG in the fuselage as described in col 3 lines 56-66 and col 4 lines 15-19; the hydraulic lines do not require external shielded electrical cables and mitigate electromagnetic interference by using hydraulic fluid and energy versus electrical cables and energy, but Carl is silent regarding the plurality of gas-turbine engines are mounted on wings of the aircraft.
Dalal teaches in Fig. 1 a plurality of gas-turbine engines 102, 104 are mounted on wings 20 of an aircraft 10.
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. . . [W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." KSR at 1395-66 (citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Carl to have the plurality of gas-turbine engines mounted on wings of the aircraft as taught by Dalal as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, in this case combining gas-turbine engines of an aircraft of Carl with mounting positions on the aircraft taught by Dalal as a conventional arrangement known in the prior art and predictably have the gas-turbine engines provide propulsion to the aircraft at those mounting positions.
With the gas-turbine engines of Carl mounted on wings of the aircraft in view of Dalal, Carl in view of Dalal therefore teaches transferring, by hydraulic lines of the hydraulic distribution network, energy from the wings to the fuselage as pressurized hydraulic fluid to mitigate electromagnetic interference without requiring external shielded electrical cables.
Regarding claim 16, Carl in view of Dalal teaches all that is claimed above and teaches transferring the hydraulic fluid from the plurality of engines isolates the generated electrical energy from electromagnetic interference to which the wings are exposed (by having hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic lines extending from the gas-turbine engines located on the wings to the hydraulic motor connected to the electric generator of the CSMG in annotated Fig. 2 of Carl which is located in the fuselage, electrical energy generated by the electric generator of the CSMG is isolated from electromagnetic interference to which the wings are exposed).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carl et al. 6023134 in view of Dalal 20220025820 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NPL Tooley et al. Aircraft Communications and Navigation Systems March 2024.
Regarding claim 17, Carl in view of Dalal teaches all that is claimed above and Dalal but is silent as discussed so far regarding consuming the over 150 kW of the electrical energy comprises: consuming, by a radio transmitter of the aircraft, the over 150 kW of the electrical energy.
Carl col 1 lines 25-31 does disclose safety-critical energy systems include both the hydraulic operating systems for controlling the vehicle, such as steering and braking systems, and various electrical or electronic systems including the electrical power management system and a computer system for navigation, communication, and/or control of the vehicle.
Dalal teaches flight critical systems include communication systems and navigation systems per [0037].
Tooley teaches radio transmitters are used in aircraft communications and navigation systems and are used along with one or more antennas for implementing the vital link between the aircraft, ground stations, other aircraft and satellites (Chapter 3 first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Carl in view of Dalal to include a radio transmitter as part of communication and/or navigation systems of the aircraft as taught by Tooley such that consuming the over 150 kW of the electrical energy comprises: consuming, by the radio transmitter as part of communication and/or navigation systems of the aircraft, the over 150 kW of the electrical energy because the radio transmitter provides a vital link between the aircraft, ground stations, other aircraft and satellites.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carl et al. 6023134 in view of Dalal 20220025820 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gagne et al. 20120248242 A1.
Regarding claim 18, Carl in view of Dalal teaches all that is claimed above and Dalal but is silent as discussed so far regarding consuming the over 150 kW of the electrical energy comprises: consuming, by a directed energy device of the aircraft, the over 150 kW of the electrical energy.
Gagne teaches a multi-engine military turboprop aircraft 10 per [0012]. Aircraft 10 includes an airborne electrical power system 22 configured to provide electrical power for a system 24 which includes a directed energy weapon system and other aircraft electrical loads per [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Carl in view of Dalal to include a directed energy device of the aircraft as taught by Gagne to be used as a military weapon, and as modified Carl in view of Dalal and further in view of Gagne teaches consuming the over 150 kW of the electrical energy comprises: consuming, by the directed energy device of the aircraft, the over 150 kW of the electrical energy as the directed energy device is another electrical load contributing to the total load of the aircraft over 150 kW as necessary for military purposes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues regarding amended claims 1 and 9 which include limitations from now cancelled claims 6 and 13 that it would not be obvious to modify Carl in view of Dalal such that a load consumes over 150 kW because it would defeat the intended purpose of Carl’s emergency safety system. Applicant assumes Carl’s gas turbine engines, generators, hydraulic pumps and CSMG are not sized for large loads. However, Carl is silent regarding what power the gas turbine engines and generators in Fig. 2 are sized for, and as modified in view of Dalal, one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously size Carl’s generators 2A”, 2B” which are driven by respective gas turbine engines 1A”, 1B” accordingly to handle high electrical loads taught by Dalal and accordingly size the CSMG to handle the size of system loads both hydraulically and electrically, as the CSMG is bi-directional, in various scenarios requiring backup energy. For example, Dalal teaches in [0033] each engine is sized at 1 MW to provide maximum electric power extraction of 800 kW electrical power from all generators and 200 kW propeller power during cruise condition from the engine. In addition, Carl discloses in col 4 lines 14-19 that even in one of the emergency scenarios in which main generators (2A" and 2B") fail, CSMG 6” produces electrical power using hydraulic power from the main hydraulic system 10B” which receives the pressurized hydraulic fluid from hydraulic pumps 9B” and 9C” which are driven by respective gas turbine engines in Fig. 2. Critical hydraulic systems would not be starved for hydraulic fluid as Applicant argues and Applicant does not cite anything from Carl for supporting this argument. As Carl’s gas turbine engines and generators are sized to accommodate the large loads as taught by Dalal, the hydraulic system would also obviously be sized accordingly to support hydraulic loads of the aircraft.
Applicant does not argue the dependent claims.
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 ALYSON JOAN HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2359. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/A.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /GERALD L SUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights