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 . The examiner also notes that the applicant appears to be a Pro Se applicant (working without the aide of an attorney), and located in another country. The examiner noting that they do not have the ability to call international phone numbers. As such, should the inventor need assistance in responding to this Non-Final Rejection, the examiner recommends that applicant both: 1. Fills out the Email Authorization Form PTO/SB/439: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf ; and 2. After submitting said form contacts the examiner, Joshua Rodden, at joshua.rodden@uspto.gov for assistance.
I.e., applicant is welcome to contact the examiner to discuss amendment prior to filing so that further issues can be avoided.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1, Last paragraph, Line 2, the phrase “(fossil) fuels)” requires correction.
Page 13, Line 6, replace “1o1” with “101”.
Page 13, Line 7, replace “battery 102.” With “battery 110.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 11 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is remined that each individual claim should be in the form of a SINGLE sentence which uses commas (,) as typical thought breaks, semicolons (;) as typical paragraph breaks, and a SINGLE period (.) located at the end of each claim. I.e., periods (.) should not be located in the middle of claims. An example of this, is that the phrase “propellors.” in line 16 of claim 1 should be replaced with “propellors;.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are 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 examiner notes that the claims 1-20 appear to be replete with 112 issues, and that the examiner has done their best to point out the issues at hand; but that additional 112 issues may be present.
Claim 1, Line 3 recites “for being powered by a propeller electric motor.” However, the examiner notes that the phrase “for” in this instance appears to imply that the “a propeller electric motor” is only the intended use of the “propulsion system” and not actually being recited as part of the claimed invention. However, claims 1-20 go on to recite the “a propeller electric motor” in detail as part of the “propulsion system.” Thus, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the applicant means to recite the “a propeller electric motor” as part of the claimed invention? For purposes of examination, the examiner has assumed that the “a propeller electric motor” is being claimed as part of the claimed invention. Clarification within the claims is required.
Claim 1 recites “one or more propellers… arranged for being powered by a propeller electric motor”. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether applicant is stating that a single “a propeller electric motor” is being recited as powering more than one of the “one or more propellers” OR whether applicant means for the claims to recite that each of the “one or more propellers” is powered by a respective one of the “a propeller electric motor”? Clarification is required.
Claim 1, Lines 4-5 recite “the propeller electric motor is arranged for using electric energy from an electric energy supply system.” However, the examiner notes that the phrase “for” in this instance appears to imply that the “an electric energy supply system” is only the intended use of the “propulsion system” and not actually being recited as part of the claimed invention. However, claims 1-20 go on to recite the “an electric energy supply system” in detail as part of the “propulsion system.” Thus, it is indefinite and unclear as to whether the applicant means to recite the “an electric energy supply system” as part of the claimed invention? For purposes of examination, the examiner has assumed that the “an electric energy supply system” is being claimed as part of the claimed invention. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites “a jet engine generator…” and then later recites “an electric jet engine generator…” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how these two recited elements relate to one another as they appear to perform the same function? I.e., are they meant to be the same claim element or different claims elements?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the electric accumulator" in Line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “antecedent basis” meaning that any a new claim limitation is first introduced within a claim, it should be preceded by one of “a”, “an” or nothing, with each subsequent reference to that term preceded by one of “the” or “said.” In this instance, as line 14 of claim 1 is the first time the “accumulator” has been introduced, it would be recited as "an electric accumulator"; with each subsequent reference to the “accumulator” then being "the electric accumulator".
Claim 1, Line 14 recites “the electric accumulator.” However, claim 1 previously recited the limitation “an electric energy supply system” earlier in the claims. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “accumulator” relates to the “energy supply system” as previously recited? I.e., are these recitations the same or different components? Clarification is required.
Claim 1, Line 17 recites “an energy management system” in line 17. However, claim 1 previously recited the limitation “a control unit” earlier in the claims. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “an energy management system” relates to the “a control unit” as previously recited? I.e., are these recitations the same or different components? Clarification is required.
Claim 2 recites “an energy accumulator”. However, claim 1 has already recited the “energy accumulator” throughout claim 1. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “an energy accumulator” as recited in claim 2 relates to the “energy accumulator” as recited in claim 1? I.e., are they the same or different components? Clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites “the electric energy supply system comprises… the jet engine generator… an accumulator type… etc.” However, this leaves the claims indefinite and unclear as claim 1 has previously recited several of these element as being separate elements in claim 1, then claim 3 recites that they are the same element? This is confusing and creates conflict within the claims. Clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites “an electric accumulator type of the energy accumulator…” However, this leaves the claims indefinite and unclear. Specifically, is this saying that the “an electric accumulator type” is a separate element from the previously recited “energy accumulator” as recited in claim 1, OR is this attempting to clarify the “energy accumulator” as recited in claim 1 as being a specific “type” of accumulator? Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 recites “a further type of the energy accumulator comprises…” However, the phrase “a further type” leaves claim 4 indefinite and unclear as to whether the applicant intends for there being two types of energy accumulators or a single type of accumulator. I.e., the one type of energy accumulator being what is recited in claim 1 in addition to another type of accumulator being the mechanical accumulator as recited in claim 4; or a single accumulator with the accumulator of claim 1 being the mechanical accumulator as recited in claim 4? Clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites “a further type of the energy accumulator comprises…” However, the phrase “a further type” leaves claim 5 indefinite and unclear as to whether the applicant intends for there being two types of energy accumulators or a single type of accumulator. I.e., the one type of energy accumulator being what is recited in claim 1 in addition to another type of accumulator being the pneumatic or hydraulic accumulator as recited in claim 5; or a single accumulator with the accumulator of claim 1 being the pneumatic or hydraulic accumulator as recited in claim 5? Clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the propulsion ratio" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To overcome this rejection, replace the phrase "the propulsion ratio" with "a propulsion ratio".
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the actual, desired and/or predicted flight situation" in Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To overcome this rejection, replace the phrase "the actual, desired and/or predicted flight situation " with "an actual, desired and/or predicted flight situation".
Claim 8 recites “artificial intelligence.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as what type of artificial intelligence is being used and how it is being operated within the recited system. Applicant is reminded that no new matter may be added at this point.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the blades’ pitch" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To overcome this rejection, replace the phrase "the blades’ pitch" with "a of blades of the propellers".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the energy generation mode" in Line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To overcome this rejection, replace the phrase "the energy generation mode" with "an energy generation mode".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the energy consumption mode" in Lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To overcome this rejection, replace the phrase "the energy consumption mode" with "an energy consumption mode".
Claim 10 recites “a first and/or second energy accumulator” in line 4. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how each of the “a first and/or second energy accumulator” relates to the previously recited “energy accumulator” of the previous claims? Clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites “one or more electric propellers.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “one or more electric propellers” in claim 11 relate to the “one or more propellers” as already recited in claim 1? I.e., are these recitations the same claim elements or is claim 11 intending to add additional “propellers”? Clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites “a propeller electric motor.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “propeller electric motor” in claim 11 relates to the “propeller electric motor” as already recited in claim 1? I.e., are these recitations the same claim elements or is claim 11 intending to add additional “propeller electric motor”? Clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites “one or more jet engines.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “one or more jet engines” in claim 11 relate to the “one or more jet engines” as already recited in claim 1? I.e., are these recitations the same claim elements or is claim 11 intending to add additional “jet engines”? Clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites “an electric jet engine generator.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “electric jet engine generator” in claim 11 relates to the “an electric jet engine generator” as already recited in claim 1? I.e., are these recitations the same claim elements or is claim 11 intending to add an additional “electric jet engine generator”? Clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites “a control unit.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “control unit” in claim 11 relates to the “control unit” as already recited in claim 1? I.e., are these recitations the same claim elements or is claim 11 intending to add an additional “control unit”? Clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites “an energy management system.” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “energy management system” in claim 11 relates to the “energy management system” as already recited in claim 1? I.e., are these recitations the same claim elements or is claim 11 intending to add an additional “energy management system”? Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the longitude" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To overcome this rejection, replace the phrase "the longitude" with "a longitude".
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the nearest suitable airport" in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To overcome this rejection, replace the phrase "the nearest suitable airport" with "a nearest suitable airport".
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the batteries" in Line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To overcome this rejection, replace the phrase "the batteries" with "
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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.
As best understood in view of the 112 rejections noted above, claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0309351 (Giannini) in view of EP 3650352 (Long et al.).
Regarding Claims 1-5, 7, 8 and 10, Giannini teaches: Claim 1 - a hybrid aircraft propulsion system comprising: one or more propellers (210), arranged as electric propellers (powered by electric motors (318)) comprising rotatable blades and arranged for being powered by a propeller electric motor (318), whereby the propeller electric motor (318) is arranged for using electric energy from an electric energy supply system (204, 320) for powering the propellor electric motor (318); one or more jet engines (202 – described as a jet engine in at least paragraph [0024]); a control unit (322) arranged for controlling the one or more propellers (210) and/or the one or more jet engines (202); a jet engine generator (204) associated to a jet engine (202) of the one or more jet engines (202) and arranged for being coupled to the associated jet engine (202) and arranged for converting or transferring energy generated by the jet engine (202), an electric jet engine generator (204) arranged for converting energy generated by the jet engine (202) into electric energy, whereby electric energy generated by the electric generator (204) is storing in the electric accumulator (320), is used for providing electric energy to electric systems of the aircraft and/or used for providing electric energy to the one or more electric propellers (318), an energy management system arranged for controlling the acceptance of energy by the energy accumulator (320), storage of energy in the energy accumulator (320) and release of energy from the energy accumulator (320) characterized in that, a propeller (210) of the one or more propellers (210) is arranged for being selectively using electric energy from the electric energy supply system (320), using electric energy generated by the jet engine generator (204) directly, (Figures 1A-7); Claim 2 - characterized in that the system is arranged for storing the generated electric energy in an energy accumulator (320) which is arranged for storing, converting and/or releasing energy as needed, (Figures 1A-7); Claim 3 – the electric energy supply system comprises an on-board energy supply system such as the jet engine generator (204), (Figures 1A-7); Claim 8 – wherein the control unit (322) is arranged to function automatically, (Figures 1A-7); Claim 10 - the system comprises an electrical configuration whereby a first propeller (210) of the one or more propellers (210) is electrically connected to a first and/or a second jet engine (202) of the one or more jet engines (202) and to a first and/or second energy accumulator (320), and a second propeller (210) of the one or more propellers (210) is electrically connected to the first and/or the second jet engine (202) and to the first and/or second energy accumulator (320), whereby the first propeller (210) is arranged for continued operation when the second propeller (210) or when the first or second energy accumulator (320) fails, (Figures 1A-7).
Giannini does not teach: the propeller being switched to generating electric energy (Claim 1); a further type of the energy accumulator comprises a mechanical accumulator arranged for accumulating potential energy arranged for accumulating non-electric energy generated by the jet engine (Claim 4); a further type of the energy accumulator comprises a pneumatic accumulator arranged for accumulating pneumatic energy or a hydraulic accumulator arranged for accumulating hydraulic energy generated by the jet engine (Claim 5); and the control unit is arranged for optimizing the propulsion ratio between propellers, jet engine generator, and charging of the energy accumulator appropriate for the actual, desired and/or predicted flight situation of the aircraft (Claim 7). However, Long et al. teaches: Claim 1 – one or more propellers (16A and 16B) powered by a combustion motor (8A) which is converted into electrical energy to power the one or more propellers (16A and 16B), with the propellers (16A and 16B) capable of being switched to generating electric energy (paragraph [0034]), (Figures 1-8); Claims 4 and 5 - an energy accumulator (34A) comprises a mechanical accumulator, or a pneumatic accumulator arranged for accumulating pneumatic energy or a hydraulic accumulator arranged for accumulating hydraulic energy (paragraph [0043]) arranged for accumulating potential energy arranged for accumulating non-electric energy generated by the motor (8A), (Figures 1-8); Claim 7 – a control unit (36), wherein the control unit (36) is arranged for optimizing the propulsion ratio between propellers, jet engine generator, and charging of the energy accumulator appropriate for the actual, desired and/or predicted flight situation of the aircraft (paragraph [0050] describing the different propulsion modules (12) being independently controllable with the different propulsion modules including the propellers (12A and 12B); at least paragraph [0063] describing the energy being controlled based on a projected flight situation/time), (Figures 1-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Giannini to have the propeller being switched to generating electric energy (Claim 1); a further type of the energy accumulator comprises a mechanical accumulator arranged for accumulating potential energy arranged for accumulating non-electric energy generated by the jet engine (Claim 4); a further type of the energy accumulator comprises a pneumatic accumulator arranged for accumulating pneumatic energy or a hydraulic accumulator arranged for accumulating hydraulic energy generated by the jet engine (Claim 5); and the control unit is arranged for optimizing the propulsion ratio between propellers, jet engine generator, and charging of the energy accumulator appropriate for the actual, desired and/or predicted flight situation of the aircraft (Claim 7) as taught by Long et al. for the purposes of additional energy storage options for the system of Giannini.
As best understood in view of the 112 rejections noted above, claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0309351 (Giannini) in view of EP 3650352 (Long et al.), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0375495 (Pfammatter et al.).
Regarding Claim 6, Giannini as modified by Long et al. teaches the system as described above, but does not teach: the energy supply system comprises an off-board energy supply system, whereby the aircraft is arranged for exchanging energy with said off-board energy supply system (Claim 6). However, Pfammatter et al. teaches: Claim 6 - an energy supply system comprises an off-board energy supply system, whereby an aircraft is arranged for exchanging energy with said off-board energy supply system (at least paragraph [0054] describing a location having a base capable of supplying energy to an energy accumulator/batter of the aircraft), (Figures 1-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Giannini as modified by Long et al. to have the energy supply system comprises an off-board energy supply system, whereby the aircraft is arranged for exchanging energy with said off-board energy supply system (Claim 6) as taught by Pfammatter et al. for the purposes of being able to more efficiently charge the energy accumulator of the aircraft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9, 11-20 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 271467. 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.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642