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 action is in response to the applicant’s filing on August 29, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 29, 2024, May 6, 2025, and November 5, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed May 6, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The legible copy of NPL, “Office Action for related Canadian Application No. 3,238,589” is unavailable.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In FIG. 6, many of the words/descriptions in the drawings are illegible/blurry.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 1, “wherein generating …” should read “wherein the generating …”.
Claim 4, line 1, “wherein receiving …” should read “wherein the receiving …”.
Claim 5, line 1, “wherein generating …” should read “wherein the generating …”.
Claim 9, line 1, “wherein receiving …” should read “wherein the receiving …”.
Claim 16, line 1, “wherein receiving …” should read “wherein the receiving …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 1, 8, and 15 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claims are directed toward a machine and a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Are the claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are 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 claims (claims 1, 8, and 15) recite the limitation of “generating a flight component command, while the electric aircraft is in-flight, based at least in part on the sensor data”. 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 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 generating a flight component command, while the electric aircraft is in-flight, based at least in part on the sensor data in his/her mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a system (claim 1), a battery pack (claims 1 and 8), a sensor (claims 1 and 8), one or more controllers/controller (claims 1 and 8), a flight controller (claim 15), a processor (claim 15), a memory (claim 15), or a battery system (claim 15) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 do 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”, “generate/generating sensor data associated with the battery pack” (claims 1 and 8), “receiving the sensor data from the sensor” (claims 1 and 8), “receiving battery system data” (claim 15), “transmitting the flight component command to a flight component of the electric aircraft”, a system (claim 1), a battery pack (claims 1 and 8), a sensor (claims 1 and 8), one or more controllers/controller (claims 1 and 8), a flight controller (claim 15), a processor (claim 15), a memory (claim 15), and a battery system (claim 15). 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 steps are 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 transmitting step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The battery pack in claims 1 and 8, sensor in claims 1 and 8, and battery system in claim 15 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 system” in claim 1, “one or more controllers/controller” in claims 1 and 8, “a flight controller” in claim 15, “a processor” in claim 15, “a memory” in claim 15, 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 system”, “one or more controllers/controller”, “a flight controller”, “a processor”, “a memory” are 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: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do 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 system”, “the battery pack”, “the sensor”, “the one or more controllers/controller”, “the flight controller”, “the processor”, “the memory”, and “the battery system” 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 claims 1, 8, and 15 are: (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 claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner additionally notes claims 2-7 depend from claim 1, claims 9-14 depend from claim 8, and claims 16-20 depend from claim 15.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, in claim 11, the additional limitations of “updating, based at least in part on the sensor data, a trajectory of the electric aircraft” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, using a similar analysis applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above. As a further example, in claim 13, the “presenting, on a display of the electric aircraft, information generated based at least in part on the sensor data” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Villanueva et al., US 2021/0162884 A1, hereinafter referred to as Villanueva.
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 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);
generating a flight component command, while the electric aircraft is in-flight, based at least in part on the sensor data (see at least paragraphs 54 and 81. 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 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); and
transmitting the flight component command to a flight component of the electric aircraft (see at least paragraphs 54 and 81. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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) 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 MOON et al., US 2022/0163978 A1, hereinafter referred to as MOON, respectively.
As to claim 10, Villanueva 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 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.
Claim(s) 13 and 1