CTNF 18/774,374 CTNF 89607 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file. Claims 1 – 9 are entitled to a priority date of September 29, 2023. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (DE 102015214266 A) . With regards to Claim 1: Maier discloses a transmission system (Figures 1 – 4) provided with a mechanical device (flywheel 15) connected to a power plant (electric drive unit 17) , the power plant comprising an electric machine (motor 16) that can operate in a motor mode for setting the mechanical device in motion and in an electrical power generation mode by being set in motion by the mechanical device (Paragraph 33: “In an operating state of the torque transmission device 1, it is arranged, as explained in more detail below, in a torque/force flow between the dual-mass flywheel 15 and the gearbox 18 or the electric motor 16 which is rotatably connected to a gearbox shaft 21 by means of a belt drive 20 of the electric drive unit 1” – i.e., although Figures 3 and 4 depict a torque transmission between the flywheel 15 and the transmission gearbox 18, Maier envisions that the flow could be between the flywheel 15 and the motor 16, allowing for a scenario in which the motor receives torque from the flywheel) , the electric machine being kinematically connected to the mechanical device by a bi-directional connection device, the connection device comprising a first shaft (shaft 8) kinematically connected to the electric machine and a second shaft (shaft 7) kinematically connected to the mechanical device, the second shaft being able to rotate about an axis of rotation in a first direction of rotation (axis of rotation coinciding with shaft 22) , the connection device comprising a free-wheel (free wheel 6) interposed between the first shaft and the second shaft to only transmit engine torque from the first shaft to the second shaft when one of the motor mode and power generation mode is activated (see Figure 3, torque flow is form flywheel 15 to shaft 7, free wheel 6, shaft 8, to motor 16 as per embodiment envisioned in Paragraph 33) , wherein the bi-directional connection device comprises a coupler (coupling elements 4, 5) provided with a fusible section (see stop 14 which can couple and decouple as per Figures 3, 4, acting as a “fusible” section – alternatively, the toothed sections 24, 25 of clutch 3 could be considered the fusible section given their separation during certain modes) , the coupler being constrained to rotate with the second shaft about the axis of rotation (see Figures 3, 4) , the connection device comprising a dog clutch connection (claw coupling 11) that can only transmit engine torque from the coupler to the first shaft when the other of the motor mode and power generation mode is activated. As per Figures 3 and 4, the freewheel is used to transmit torque during a power generation mode and the dog clutch during a motor mode, i.e. the opposite of what is recited. However, reversing the movement to the opposite direction in each of the modes taught by Maier would yield the recited movement. As per MPEP 2144 and In re Gazda , a mere reversal of movement is an obvious modification, and in the case of Maier, would not yield any unexpected results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Maier by arranging the free wheel to be used only during the “motor” mode and the dog clutch to be used only during “generation” mode since such a modification would yield predictable unexpected results of directing torque flow between the flywheel and the motor as desired. With regards to Claim 6: The Maier modification of Claim 1 teaches the connection device comprises an actuator (see Paragraphs 40, 45, 48 of Maier, teaching that axial actuation occurs for the claw coupling 11) configured to move the coupler in translation from a predetermined coupled position allowing the dog clutch connection to transmit engine torque from the coupler to the first shaft to a predetermined uncoupled position inhibiting the dog clutch connection (see transition of claw coupling 11 in Figure 3 when disengaged to position in Figure 4 when engaged). With regards to Claim 7: The Maier modification of Claim 1 teaches the power plant comprises at least one heat engine (internal combustion engine 19) kinematically connected to the mechanical device (via shaft 22) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maier (DE 102015214266 A) in view of Mariotto et al. (hereafter “Mariotto” – US 9447734) . With regards to Claim 8: The Maier modification of Claim 1 does not explicitly teach that the transmission system is part of an aircraft, instead simply teaching a “motor vehicle” (see Paragraph 1 of Maier). Mariotto (Figure 1) teaches a hybrid power plant and transmission of an aircraft (see abstract) including an electric machine (10), a mechanical device (3), a first shaft (21), a freewheel (25), and a dog clutch (29, see Figure 10, part of clutch 25) – in other words, many of the same components used in Maier. Given the teachings of Mariotto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Maier by implementing the transmission of Maier in an aircraft as shown in Mariotto in order to yield the predictable result of directing torque to a rotor for flight. With regards to Claim 9: The Maier modification of Claim 8 teaches the mechanical device comprises a gearbox (gearbox 3 of Mariotto) , the gearbox setting at least one lift and/or propulsion rotor in motion (rotor 2 of Mariotto) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 2 – 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Additional References Please see attached PTO-892 form for additional references which are made of record but not relied upon for the current grounds of rejection. Waide (US 2009/0224096) – see Figures 1 – 5, dog clutch 420, 430 used in hybrid air craft power plant. Inquiries Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAERT DOUNIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2146. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs: 10a - 4:30p. 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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached on (571) 270-7878. 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. /Laert Dounis/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 Thursday, April 9, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/774,374 Page 2 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/774,374 Page 3 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/774,374 Page 4 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/774,374 Page 5 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/774,374 Page 6 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/774,374 Page 7 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/774,374 Page 8 Art Unit: 3746
Prosecution Insights