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 .
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 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 10-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rago et al. (US 2004/0255590 A1), hereinafter Rago.
Regarding claim 10, Rago discloses a system, comprising:
an assembly comprising a blade (propeller 113; fig. 2 below);
a drive shaft (propeller shaft 123; fig. 2) coupled to the assembly (as shown in fig. 2), wherein the drive shaft in operation generates rotation of the propeller (para. [0038], regarding a propeller 113 is provided at the front end of the engine 110 and is coupled to the differential gearing system 20 by a propeller shaft 123, which is operatively mounted within the engine 110 and which is rotatable about the longitudinal central axis 112; fig. 2); and
an electric motor (second machine 70; fig. 2) disposed adjacent to the propeller assembly (as shown in fig. 2), wherein the electric motor is coupled to the drive shaft (para. [0039], regarding the permanent magnet rotor 72 of machine 70 is mounted on the propeller shaft 123 and is rotatable together with same; fig. 2), wherein the electric motor in operation imparts torque to at least partially rotate the drive shaft (as shown in fig. 2, see again para. [0039]), wherein the electric motor comprises one or more rotor magnets positioned about a shroud encircling the drive shaft (permanent magnet rotor 72; para. [0039], regarding the permanent magnet rotor 72 of machine 70 is mounted on the propeller shaft 123 and is rotatable together with same; fig. 2) and a stator with a gap between the one or more rotor magnets and the stator (cylindrical stator 74; para. [0039], regarding the cylindrical rotor 74 of machine 70 is secured to a stationary structure of the engine 110, and the electrical windings thereof are electrically connected to the controller 129; fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
482
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Rago discloses the invention in claim 10, and further discloses the invention comprising a turbine (turbine 119; fig. 2) coupled to the drive shaft (via turbine rotating shaft 118; fig. 2), wherein the turbine in operation imparts torque to at least partially rotate the drive shaft in conjunction with the electric motor (para. [0041], regarding the turbine power is then distributed by the differential gearing system 20 to the compressor 116, and to the propeller 113 which produces the entire amount of thrust required to fly the aircraft; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Rago discloses the invention in claim 10, and further discloses wherein the electric motor (70) in operation imparts torque to solely rotate the drive shaft to provide electric operation of the blade (para. [0040], regarding in operation the machines 64 and 70, can either or both be used as electrical starters to electrically start the engine 110).
Regarding claim 13, Rago discloses the invention in claim 10, and further discloses the invention further comprising a controller coupled to the electric motor (controller 129; fig. 2), wherein the controller in operation controls an amount of power transmitted to the electric motor (see again para. [0039]).
Regarding claim 17, Rago discloses a method, comprising:
generating rotation of a blade (113) via a drive shaft (see again paras. [0041-0042]); and
imparting torque to the drive shaft (123) via an electric motor (64, 70) to at least partially rotate the drive shaft (see again para. [0042]), wherein the electric motor comprises one or more rotor magnets (72) positioned about a shroud encircling the drive shaft (as shown in fig. 2) and a stator (74) with a gap between the one or more rotor magnets and the stator (as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Rago discloses the invention in claim 17, and further discloses the invention further comprising imparting additional torque to the drive shaft via a turbine (119) to rotate the drive shaft in conjunction with the electric motor (see again paras. [0040] and [0042]).
Regarding claim 19, Rago discloses the invention in claim 17, and further discloses the invention further comprising imparting torque to the drive shaft via the electric motor to solely rotate the drive shaft to provide electric operation of the blade (see again para. [0040]).
Regarding claim 20, Rago discloses the invention in claim 17, and further discloses the invention further comprising holding the one or more rotor magnets in position about the shroud (as shown in fig. 2).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rago et al. (US 2004/0255590 A1), hereinafter Rago.
Regarding claim 14, Rago discloses the invention in claim 10, but does not appear to specifically disclose the invention further comprising a second electric motor comprising second one or more rotor magnets positioned about a second shroud encircling the drive shaft and a second stator with a second gap between the second one or more rotor magnets and the second stator.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the configuration of the first electric motor, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. The purpose would be to ensure more available power for driving the drive shaft.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rago et al. (US 2004/0255590 A1), hereinafter Rago, in view of Merry et al. (US 2009/0120100 A1), hereinafter Merry.
Regarding claim 15, Rago as modified discloses the invention in claim 14, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the second electric motor comprises a compressive sleeve configured to hold the second one or more rotor magnets in position about the second shroud.
However, Merry is in the field of starter-generator systems for tip turbine engines (abstract) and teaches wherein the second electric motor comprises a compressive sleeve configured to hold the second one or more rotor magnets in position about the second shroud (para. [0029], regarding the starter generator rotor 118 is mounted within a sleeve 128 which could act as a tie-bolt to axially clamp the starter generator rotor 118 in the axial compressor rotor 46 stack between a first compressor rotor section 46a and a second compressor rotor section 46b; fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rago such that the second electric motor comprises a compressive sleeve configured to hold the second one or more rotor magnets in position about the second shroud as taught by Merry, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure that the rotor magnets are properly held in position during operation (see Merry, para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 16, Rago as modified discloses the invention in claim 10, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the electric motor comprises a compressive sleeve configured to hold the one or more rotor magnets in position about the shroud.
However, Merry is in the field of starter-generator systems for tip turbine engines (abstract) and teaches wherein the electric motor comprises a compressive sleeve configured to hold the one or more rotor magnets in position about the shroud (para. [0029], regarding the starter generator rotor 118 is mounted within a sleeve 128 which could act as a tie-bolt to axially clamp the starter generator rotor 118 in the axial compressor rotor 46 stack between a first compressor rotor section 46a and a second compressor rotor section 46b; fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Rago such that the electric motor comprises a compressive sleeve configured to hold the one or more rotor magnets in position about the shroud as taught by Merry, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure that the rotor magnets are properly held in position during operation (see Merry, para. [0029]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 10, 2026, have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Applicant argues that the previously filed IDS containing an untranslated copy of FR 3087822 should be considered because it contains an English abstract. Examiner disagrees. MPEP §609.04(a) states, as Applicant noted, that, “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiners in conducting searches.” In this case, Applicant has not included the “concise explanation” of relevance for the foreign patent. Therefore, the substance of the foreign patent cannot be considered in light of the non-existent explanation.
Examiner notes that the objections to the specification and rejections under §112(b) have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the application.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under §102 over Rago, Applicant argues that Rago fails to teach the rotor magnets positioned about a shroud encircling the drive shaft. Examiner disagrees. To the extent that Applicant discloses a shroud encircling the drive shaft (see paras. [0069] and [0080] and amended Figure 16), Examiner notes that the claimed shroud is not required to be positioned about and encircling a fan stage of an engine. Instead, the shroud is broadly claimed as “a shroud encircling the drive shaft” and therefore is broadly rejected by Rago, which teaches a magnet arrangement that can certainly be interpreted as a shroud, separate from the subsequently claimed compressive sleeve, capable of holding the rotor magnets in formation (otherwise the magnets would tend to fly off the driveshaft during operation).
Therefore, given the sufficiency of the rejection of claim 10 and similar claim 17, the dependent claims also remain rejected as detailed hereinabove.
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 BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
