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 .
Status of the Claims
This Final action is in response to the applicant’s amendment/response of May 12, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 22, 2026, May 12, 2026, and August 17, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the objections to the drawings/claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections to the drawings/claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. With respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 and 15-20 under 35 USC §101, limitations within the claims have been amended and amendments overcome the rejection of claims 1-7 and 15-20 under 35 USC §101. However, the amendments to claims do not overcome the rejection of claims 8-14 under 35 USC §101.
Specifically, applicant argues:
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to non- statutory subject matter. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. Nevertheless, for the sole purpose of expediting allowance and without commenting on the propriety of the Office's rejections, Applicant herein amends independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as shown above. Specifically, as discussed in the interview, these claims have been amended to recite "controlling flight of the electric aircraft based on the flight component command," or substantially similar subject matter, rendering moot the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and all claims depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-20 under § 101 rejection.
The Examiner’s Response
The Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that “"controlling flight of the electric aircraft based on the flight component command," or substantially similar subject matter, rendering moot the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and all claims depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 101”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner submits that the ‘controlling flight of the electric aircraft based at least in part on the flight component command’ in claim 8 is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Applicant’s specification states, paragraphs [0049-0050], “As used in this disclosure a "semi autonomous mode" is a mode that automatically adjusts and/or controls a portion and/or section of aircraft. For example, and without limitation, semi-autonomous mode may denote that a pilot will control the propulsors, wherein flight controller 604 will control the ailerons and/or rudders. As used in this disclosure "non-autonomous mode" is a mode that denotes a pilot will control aircraft and/or maneuvers of aircraft in its entirety.”, wherein a pilot operates the aircraft manually does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the rejection of such claims under 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained herein.
The Examiner notes that the receiving, determining, and generating steps in claim 8 are recited as being performed by a controller, whereas the controlling step is not. Amending claim 8 to specify that the controlling step is also performed by the controller may be sufficient to overcome the 101 rejection.
The Examiner notes that the rejection has been modified reflecting the amendments most recently submitted by Applicant.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Villanueva and LAI.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“battery system” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 8 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 8 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The independent claim (claim 8) recites the limitations of “determining based at least in part on the sensor data, one or more electrical characteristics associated with the battery pack” and “generating based at least in part on the one or more electrical characteristics, and while the electric aircraft is in-flight, a flight component command”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation, as drafted, can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, otherwise considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at (observing) the data and determines the one or more electrical characteristics associated with the battery pack and makes a decision on the control of the aircraft. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, the claim encompasses a user (person) simply determining based at least in part on the sensor data, one or more electrical characteristics associated with the battery pack; and generating based at least in part on the one or more electrical characteristics, and while the electric aircraft is in-flight, a flight component command in his/her mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a battery pack, a sensor, or a controller does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 8 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recites additional elements of “provide electrical power to an electric aircraft”, “generating sensor data associated with a battery pack”, “receiving the sensor data from the sensor”, “controlling flight of the electric aircraft based at least in part on the flight component command”, a battery pack, a sensor, and a controller. The providing and “generating sensor data” steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere pre-solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving/gathering data) and amount to no more than data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The ‘controlling flight of the electric aircraft based at least in part on the flight component command’ is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Applicant’s specification states, paragraphs [0049-0050], “As used in this disclosure a "semi autonomous mode" is a mode that automatically adjusts and/or controls a portion and/or section of aircraft. For example, and without limitation, semi-autonomous mode may denote that a pilot will control the propulsors, wherein flight controller 604 will control the ailerons and/or rudders. As used in this disclosure "non-autonomous mode" is a mode that denotes a pilot will control aircraft and/or maneuvers of aircraft in its entirety.”, wherein a pilot operates the aircraft manually does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The battery pack and sensor are claimed generically and operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “a controller”, the Examiner submits the limitations are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “a controller” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The component(s) merely automate(s) the aforementioned step(s) and thus do/does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The claim(s) does/do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the battery pack”, “the sensor”, and “the controller” amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 8 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 8 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner additionally notes claims 9-14 depend from claim 8.
Dependent claims 9-14 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Each of the claimed limitations either expand upon or add either 1) new mental process, 2) a new additional element, 3) previously presented mental process, and/or 4) a previously presented additional element.
As such, claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villanueva et al., US 2021/0162884 A1, hereinafter referred to as Villanueva, in view of LAI et al., US 2019/0101935 A1, hereinafter referred to as LAI, respectively.
As to claim 1, Villanueva teaches a system, comprising:
a battery pack configured to provide electrical power to an electric aircraft (see at least paragraph 31 regarding a battery pack 110. See also at least paragraph 60 regarding the battery pack functions to store energy for powering vehicle operations during use);
a sensor configured to generate sensor data associated with the battery pack (see at least paragraph 108 regarding the battery electronics can include one or more sensors. The sensors of the battery electronics function to measure parameters of the battery pack during operation); and
one or more controllers, at least one of the one or more controllers communicatively connected to the sensor, the one or more controllers configured to perform operations comprising (see at least paragraphs 107-108):
receiving the sensor data from the sensor (see at least paragraphs 107-108 regarding the battery electronics can include one or more sensors. The sensors of the battery electronics function to measure parameters of the battery pack during operation. See also at least paragraphs 142-143 regarding determining the instantaneous temperature of the battery pack. Block S200 functions to determine the temperature of the battery pack for use in adjusting the temperature of the battery pack (e.g., towards a set point temperature as determined in accordance with one or more variations of Block S100, downward to avoid the risk or occurrence of a thermal event, etc.). Block S200 can include directly measuring the instantaneous temperature of the battery pack (e.g., with a temperature sensor), inferring or estimating the temperature of the battery pack (e.g., based on the output of another sensor that is not a temperature sensor, in accordance with a thermal model of the battery pack, etc.), calculating the temperature of the battery pack (e.g., based on the output power of the battery pack), and/or otherwise suitably determining the temperature);
determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, one or more electrical characteristics associated with the battery pack (see at least paragraphs 107-108 regarding the sensors can measure the electrically-related parameters of the battery pack (e.g., current flow through the battery pack, voltage of the battery pack, charge state of the battery pack, etc.), thermal parameters of the battery pack (e.g., temperature at any suitable point in the battery pack, temperature outside the battery pack, temperature change rate at any suitable point in or around the battery pack, etc.), flow rate of the working fluid through the battery pack (e.g., through the heat sink), and/or any other suitable parameters).
Villanueva does not explicitly teach generating a flight component command, while the electric aircraft is in-flight, based at least in part on the one or more electrical characteristics; or controlling flight of the electric aircraft based at least in part on the flight component command.
However, LAI teaches generating a flight component command, while the electric aircraft is in-flight, based at least in part on the one or more electrical characteristics (see at least paragraphs 68-70. See also at least paragraphs 85-92 regarding parameters relating to a voltage 403 of the battery may be sensed or sampled. Any parameter related to the voltage may be sensed or sampled. For example, an actual voltage of the battery or a voltage drop of the battery may be sensed or sampled. The processing may involve evaluating the parameters in any appropriate way to determine one or more restrictions to impose. In some instances, each of the received or sensed parameters 403, 405, 407 may be processed into an intermediate output for further processing. The intermediate output may comprise a coefficient that is unit-less. The processing into an intermediate output (e.g. coefficient) may provide a convenient way to process a plurality of different sensed parameters each with potentially different measuring units. A correspondence between a voltage of a battery and a voltage coefficient … the correspondence illustrated by FIG. 7 may signify that a restriction may apply, or may be more likely to be imposed on the UAV once the voltage drop of the battery is nearing a threshold value. See also at least paragraphs 98-117 regarding the parameter regarding the operation of the vehicle may be processed. For example, parameters regarding one or more batteries may be processed. A restriction may be imposed on the vehicle based on the processing of the parameter); and controlling flight of the electric aircraft based at least in part on the flight component command (see at least paragraphs 55-58. See also at least paragraphs 98-117 regarding the restriction imposed on the vehicle may force the vehicle to perform a task. The task may be forcing a return or forcing a landing of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of LAI which teaches generating a flight component command, while the electric aircraft is in-flight, based at least in part on the one or more electrical characteristics; and controlling flight of the electric aircraft based at least in part on the flight component command with the system of Villanueva as both systems are directed to a system and method for controlling flight of the aerial vehicle based on the sensor data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of generating a flight component command, while the electric aircraft is in-flight, based at least in part on the one or more electrical characteristics; and controlling flight of the electric aircraft based at least in part on the flight component command and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Villanueva.
As to claim 2, Villanueva teaches wherein the sensor data comprises data indicating one or more of charge, current, voltage, resistance, cell failure, battery failure, presence of a gas, humidity, or temperature (see at least paragraph 108 regarding the sensors can measure the electrically-related parameters of the battery pack (e.g., current flow through the battery pack, voltage of the battery pack, charge state of the battery pack, etc.), thermal parameters of the battery pack (e.g., temperature at any suitable point in the battery pack, temperature outside the battery pack, temperature change rate at any suitable point in or around the battery pack, etc.), flow rate of the working fluid through the battery pack (e.g., through the heat sink), and/or any other suitable parameters).
As to claim 3, Villanueva teaches wherein the generating the flight component command comprises generating the flight component command automatically in response to receiving the sensor data (see at least paragraphs 142-147 regarding block S200 can also be performed during vehicle operation (e.g., flight, driving, traversing water, etc.); for example, Block S200 can include monitoring the temperature and/or temperature-related data to determine the thermal state of the battery pack during use. Block S200 can include detecting a thermal event. Detecting a thermal event can include determining that the temperature and/or temperature rise rate has exceeded a threshold value, based on a temperature or temperature change rate measurement. Block S200 can optionally include controlling the vehicle based on the temperature, which can include: continuing the trip plan execution if the temperature is within a predetermined temperature range (e.g., below absolute battery max, within threshold deviation from expected temperature profile, no current thermal event, etc.), in response to the temperature exceeding a threshold: reducing/cutting power draw from a battery pack, executing an emergency landing, dynamically adjusting the trip plan during the trip, and/or otherwise controlling the vehicle).
As to claim 4, Villanueva teaches wherein the receiving the sensor data comprises receiving the sensor data at a first controller from the sensor via a second controller (see at least paragraphs 31-33. See also at least paragraph 107 regarding the system can include battery electronics 112, such as a battery management system (BMS). The battery electronics can be coupled to one or more battery packs (e.g., with a 1:1, 1:N, or N:1 battery electronics to battery pack relationship). The battery electronics function to monitor the state of the battery pack. The state of the battery pack can include: state of charge (SoC), state of health (SoH), state of power (SoP), state of safety (SoS), temperature (e.g., of the pack, of a cell, of a cell array, of the working fluid, a temperature distribution of cells, etc.), and/or any other suitable characteristics. The battery electronics can also function to report the state of the battery pack to other components of the battery thermal management system. See also at least FIG. 17 and paragraphs 142-143 regarding determining the instantaneous temperature of the battery pack. Block S200 functions to determine the temperature of the battery pack for use in adjusting the temperature of the battery pack (e.g., towards a set point temperature as determined in accordance with one or more variations of Block S100, downward to avoid the risk or occurrence of a thermal event, etc.). Block S200 can include directly measuring the instantaneous temperature of the battery pack (e.g., with a temperature sensor), inferring or estimating the temperature of the battery pack (e.g., based on the output of another sensor that is not a temperature sensor, in accordance with a thermal model of the battery pack, etc.), calculating the temperature of the battery pack (e.g., based on the output power of the battery pack), and/or otherwise suitably determining the temperature).
As to claim 5, Villanueva teaches wherein the generating the flight component command comprises generating the flight component command at the first controller based at least in part on the sensor data received from the sensor via the second controller (see at least paragraphs 31-33. See also at least paragraph 113 regarding the controller functions to execute command instructions based on input data to control elements of the battery thermal management system. See also at least FIG. 17 and paragraphs 142-143 regarding determining the instantaneous temperature of the battery pack. Block S200 functions to determine the temperature of the battery pack for use in adjusting the temperature of the battery pack (e.g., towards a set point temperature as determined in accordance with one or more variations of Block S100, downward to avoid the risk or occurrence of a thermal event, etc.). Block S200 can include directly measuring the instantaneous temperature of the battery pack (e.g., with a temperature sensor), inferring or estimating the temperature of the battery pack (e.g., based on the output of another sensor that is not a temperature sensor, in accordance with a thermal model of the battery pack, etc.), calculating the temperature of the battery pack (e.g., based on the output power of the battery pack), and/or otherwise suitably determining the temperature).
As to claim 6, Villanueva teaches wherein the flight component command comprises a command to adjust charging of the battery pack (see at least paragraph 107 regarding the battery electronics can also function to control the charge and/or discharge of the battery pack (e.g., based on commands from a vehicle operator or computerized vehicle operation system)).
As to claim 7, Villanueva teaches wherein the operations further comprise, based at least in part on the sensor data, changing a flight plan for the electric aircraft (see at least paragraph 147 regarding controlling the vehicle based on the temperature, which can include: continuing the trip plan execution if the temperature is within a predetermined temperature range (e.g., below absolute battery max, within threshold deviation from expected temperature profile, no current thermal event, etc.), in response to the temperature exceeding a threshold: reducing/cutting power draw from a battery pack, executing an emergency landing, dynamically adjusting the trip plan during the trip, and/or otherwise controlling the vehicle).
As to claim 8, Examiner notes claim 8 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 9, Villanueva teaches wherein the receiving the sensor data from the sensor comprises receiving, at the controller, the sensor data from a battery pack controller communicatively connected to the sensor (see at least paragraphs 31-33. See also at least paragraph 107 regarding the system can include battery electronics 112, such as a battery management system (BMS). The battery electronics can be coupled to one or more battery packs (e.g., with a 1:1, 1:N, or N:1 battery electronics to battery pack relationship). The battery electronics function to monitor the state of the battery pack. The state of the battery pack can include: state of charge (SoC), state of health (SoH), state of power (SoP), state of safety (SoS), temperature (e.g., of the pack, of a cell, of a cell array, of the working fluid, a temperature distribution of cells, etc.), and/or any other suitable characteristics. The battery electronics can also function to report the state of the battery pack to other components of the battery thermal management system. See also at least FIG. 17 and paragraphs 142-143 regarding determining the instantaneous temperature of the battery pack. Block S200 functions to determine the temperature of the battery pack for use in adjusting the temperature of the battery pack (e.g., towards a set point temperature as determined in accordance with one or more variations of Block S100, downward to avoid the risk or occurrence of a thermal event, etc.). Block S200 can include directly measuring the instantaneous temperature of the battery pack (e.g., with a temperature sensor), inferring or estimating the temperature of the battery pack (e.g., based on the output of another sensor that is not a temperature sensor, in accordance with a thermal model of the battery pack, etc.), calculating the temperature of the battery pack (e.g., based on the output power of the battery pack), and/or otherwise suitably determining the temperature).
As to claim 11, Villanueva teaches updating, based at least in part on the sensor data, a trajectory of the electric aircraft (see at least paragraph 147 regarding controlling the vehicle based on the temperature, which can include: continuing the trip plan execution if the temperature is within a predetermined temperature range (e.g., below absolute battery max, within threshold deviation from expected temperature profile, no current thermal event, etc.), in response to the temperature exceeding a threshold: reducing/cutting power draw from a battery pack, executing an emergency landing, dynamically adjusting the trip plan during the trip, and/or otherwise controlling the vehicle).
As to claim 12, Villanueva teaches wherein the flight component command comprises a command to control one or more of: a control surface of the electric aircraft, a propulsor of the electric aircraft, or a flight component motor (see at least paragraphs 54 and 147 regarding managing the thermal state of the battery pack during vehicle operation in accordance with dynamic mission objectives. For example, the technology can automatically respond to a change in mission objective from “proceed to destination” (e.g., nominal operation) to “emergency landing” by ceasing active circulation of the working fluid through the circulation subsystem to reserve battery pack energy for propulsion and control operations. In another example, the technology can automatically respond to a change in the flight profile (e.g., distance remaining until destination, time remaining until destination, electrical discharge or power requirements of the remaining flight profile, etc.) by adjusting the flow rate of the circulating working fluid to redistribute the heat within the battery pack among the thermal mass of the pack in accordance with a new desired temperature distribution (e.g., determined dynamically based on the new flight profile). Controlling the vehicle based on the temperature, which can include: continuing the trip plan execution if the temperature is within a predetermined temperature range (e.g., below absolute battery max, within threshold deviation from expected temperature profile, no current thermal event, etc.), in response to the temperature exceeding a threshold: reducing/cutting power draw from a battery pack, executing an emergency landing, dynamically adjusting the trip plan during the trip, and/or otherwise controlling the vehicle).
As to claim 14, Villanueva teaches transmitting, to a remote system, information generated based at least in part on the sensor data (see at least paragraphs 142-146 regarding notifying a user, pilot, remote server, third party of thermal event and/or a current temperature).
As to claim 15, Examiner notes claim 15 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 16, Villanueva teaches wherein the receiving the battery system data comprises receiving the battery system data at the flight controller from a battery pack controller communicatively connected to the battery system (see at least paragraphs 31-33. See also at least paragraph 107 regarding the system can include battery electronics 112, such as a battery management system (BMS). The battery electronics can be coupled to one or more battery packs (e.g., with a 1:1, 1:N, or N:1 battery electronics to battery pack relationship). The battery electronics function to monitor the state of the battery pack. The state of the battery pack can include: state of charge (SoC), state of health (SoH), state of power (SoP), state of safety (SoS), temperature (e.g., of the pack, of a cell, of a cell array, of the working fluid, a temperature distribution of cells, etc.), and/or any other suitable characteristics. The battery electronics can also function to report the state of the battery pack to other components of the battery thermal management system. See also at least FIG. 17 and paragraphs 142-143 regarding determining the instantaneous temperature of the battery pack. Block S200 functions to determine the temperature of the battery pack for use in adjusting the temperature of the battery pack (e.g., towards a set point temperature as determined in accordance with one or more variations of Block S100, downward to avoid the risk or occurrence of a thermal event, etc.). Block S200 can include directly measuring the instantaneous temperature of the battery pack (e.g., with a temperature sensor), inferring or estimating the temperature of the battery pack (e.g., based on the output of another sensor that is not a temperature sensor, in accordance with a thermal model of the battery pack, etc.), calculating the temperature of the battery pack (e.g., based on the output power of the battery pack), and/or otherwise suitably determining the temperature).
As to claim 17, Villanueva teaches wherein the battery system data comprises data indicating one or more of charge, current, voltage, resistance, cell failure, battery failure, presence of a gas, humidity, or temperature (see at least paragraph 108 regarding the sensors can measure the electrically-related parameters of the battery pack (e.g., current flow through the battery pack, voltage of the battery pack, charge state of the battery pack, etc.), thermal parameters of the battery pack (e.g., temperature at any suitable point in the battery pack, temperature outside the battery pack, temperature change rate at any suitable point in or around the battery pack, etc.), flow rate of the working fluid through the battery pack (e.g., through the heat sink), and/or any other suitable parameters).
As to claim 18, Villanueva teaches wherein the flight component command comprises a command to control one or more of: a control surface of the electric aircraft, a propulsor of the electric aircraft, or a flight component motor (see at least paragraphs 54 and 147 regarding managing the thermal state of the battery pack during vehicle operation in accordance with dynamic mission objectives. For example, the technology can automatically respond to a change in mission objective from “proceed to destination” (e.g., nominal operation) to “emergency landing” by ceasing active circulation of the working fluid through the circulation subsystem to reserve battery pack energy for propulsion and control operations. In another example, the technology can automatically respond to a change in the flight profile (e.g., distance remaining until destination, time remaining until destination, electrical discharge or power requirements of the remaining flight profile, etc.) by adjusting the flow rate of the circulating working fluid to redistribute the heat within the battery pack among the thermal mass of the pack in accordance with a new desired temperature distribution (e.g., determined dynamically based on the new flight profile). Controlling the vehicle based on the temperature, which can include: continuing the trip plan execution if the temperature is within a predetermined temperature range (e.g., below absolute battery max, within threshold deviation from expected temperature profile, no current thermal event, etc.), in response to the temperature exceeding a threshold: reducing/cutting power draw from a battery pack, executing an emergency landing, dynamically adjusting the trip plan during the trip, and/or otherwise controlling the vehicle).
As to claim 19, Villanueva does not explicitly teach generating one or more of visual output, audible output, or haptic output based at least in part on the battery system data.
However, such matter is taught by LAI (see at least paragraphs 68-70. See also at least paragraphs 85-92. See also at least paragraphs 98-117 regarding the restriction imposed on the vehicle may force the vehicle to perform a task. … In some instances, the task may be providing a warning signal. The warning signal may be a visual, auditory, or haptic warning signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of LAI which teaches generating one or more of visual output, audible output, or haptic output based at least in part on the battery system data with the system of Villanueva as both systems are directed to a system and method for controlling flight of the aerial vehicle based on the sensor data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of generating one or more of visual output, audible output, or haptic output based at least in part on the battery system data and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Villanueva.
As to claim 20, Villanueva teaches wherein the battery system comprises one or more of a voltmeter, an ammeter, an ohmmeter, a thermocouple, a thermistor, a thermometer, or an infrared sensor (see at least paragraph 108 regarding any suitable sensor type or modality can be utilized to measure the aforementioned parameters (e.g., a current probe, a shunt, a thermocouple, a thermistor, etc.). The battery electronics can include a communication module (wired or wireless) configured to communicatively connect to the on-board pump, vehicle controller, extravehicular infrastructure (e.g., off-board pump, battery charger, off-board cooling system, etc.), and/or any other suitable vehicle component/endpoint).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villanueva et al., US 2021/0162884 A1, hereinafter referred to as Villanueva, in view of LAI et al., US 2019/0101935 A1, hereinafter referred to as LAI, and further in view of MOON et al., US 2022/0163978 A1, hereinafter referred to as MOON, respectively.
As to claim 10, Villanueva, as modified by LAI, does not explicitly teach wherein the flight component command comprises a command to modify one or more of: a pitch of the electric aircraft, a roll of the electric aircraft, a yaw of the electric aircraft, a throttle of the electric aircraft, a heading of the electric aircraft, or a trim of the electric aircraft.
However, such matter is taught by MOON (see at least paragraphs 60-80 regarding the battery management system 60 may be determined to be abnormal when various electrical signal values output under control of the battery management system 60 are abnormal, when a problem occurs with output of the engine 10, or when the engine control device 30 is not capable of normally controlling the engine 10. When the engine 10 is stopped, the generator 20 may not produce power and the battery may not be charged. When a problem occurs with the battery management system 60, even if the battery is not abnormal, power may not be normally output. In any case, because the lift propeller 111 and the thrust propeller 112 may not be capable of being operated normally, it is difficult to fly normally, and thus emergency landing needs to be attempted. The flight control system 90 may control the posture of the aircraft 1 and may set a flight route. The posture of the aircraft 1 may be controlled by controlling the aileron 91, the elevator 92, the rudder 93, etc. A first control operation S1 may be an operation to reset a destination. The aircraft 1 may receive power using the emergency battery 72, but since there is a limit to the amount of electricity, the destination may be reset to the closest and safest landing site if possible. … In a second control operation S2, control may be performed to maintain lift and to minimize air resistance in flight. In more detail, the aircraft 1 may glide using inertia of the aircraft 1 or the wind, but the glide flight may be unstable, and thus the lift propeller 111 may be operated to maintain lift. In addition, the thrust propeller 112 may reduce resistance by changing a pitch angle to be parallel to a flight direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of MOON which teaches wherein the flight component command comprises a command to modify one or more of: a pitch of the electric aircraft, a roll of the electric aircraft, a yaw of the electric aircraft, a throttle of the electric aircraft, a heading of the electric aircraft, or a trim of the electric aircraft with the system of Villanueva, as modified by LAI, as both systems are directed to a system and method for controlling flight of the aerial vehicle based on the sensor data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having wherein the flight component command comprises a command to modify one or more of: a pitch of the electric aircraft, a roll of the electric aircraft, a yaw of the electric aircraft, a throttle of the electric aircraft, a heading of the electric aircraft, or a trim of the electric aircraft and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Villanueva as modified by LAI.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villanueva et al., US 2021/0162884 A1, hereinafter referred to as Villanueva, in view of LAI et al., US 2019/0101935 A1, hereinafter referred to as LAI, and further in view of MENG, WO 2023025200 A1, hereinafter referred to as MENG, respectively.
As to claim 13, Villanueva, as modified by LAI, does not explicitly teach presenting, on a display of the electric aircraft, information generated based at least in part on the sensor data.
However, such matter is taught by MENG (see at least paragraphs 66-71 regarding the drone sends its current flight status (e.g., drone operation status and environmental conditions) to a remote control device. The remote control device displays the drone's current flight status on its display screen or a coupled display screen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of MENG which teaches presenting, on a display of the electric aircraft, information generated based at least in part on the sensor data with the system of Villanueva, as modified by LAI, as both systems are directed to a system and method for controlling flight of the aerial vehicle based on the sensor data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of presenting, on a display of the electric aircraft, information generated based at least in part on the sensor data and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Villanueva as modified by LAI.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KYLE S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-3151. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Anne M ANTONUCCI can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/K.S.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights