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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment(s) filed 10/21/2025 has been entered. Claim 12 has been newly added. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application. Examiner appreciates the thorough explanation of the invention and amendments provided in the applicant’s response.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant asserts on page 9 of Applicant’s remarks, “Claim 1 recites that the two high-voltage electrical machines are “mounted on the turbomachine and mechanically coupled to a shaft of said turbomachine”. While the Office Action asserts that the high-voltage electrical machines are mechanically coupled to a shaft of the turbomachine “via the shaft between 8, 7, and 31,” the high-voltage electrical machines are not mounted to the turbomachine as recited in Claim 1. That is, in all configurations disclosed by Hopdjanian there is always the BTP 8 coupled to the turbomachine 6 on one hand, and the same BTP 8 coupled to the high-voltage electric machine 31 on the other hand.”
Examiner asserts that Applicant’s assertion above actually strengthens Examiner’s position, as they are admitting the electric machines 31 are mechanically coupled to turbomachine 6 via BTP 8.
More, Examiner asserts that Applicant failed to claim high-voltage machines “directly coupled to the turbomachine”. As such, Examiner’s rejection satisfies the limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding the limitation “mounted to”, Examiner would like to advise that this limitation is very broad. Merely claiming a structure is “mounted to” another structure does not preclude other structural components from being arranged between them. For example, a tire is mounted to a frame of a passenger vehicle. However, persons of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the tire is directly and annularly affixed to a wheel, whereby the wheel is affixed to a hub via lugs and lug nuts, and the hub, is connected to an axle via bearings, where the axle connects to the engine via the differential/driveshaft, and connects to the frame of the passenger vehicle via the suspension.
Given the reasons listed above, Examiner asserts that the cited rejection satisfies the claimed limitation inasmuch as applicant has claimed, and the rejection is maintained.
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, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hopdjanian et al. (US 20120025032 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hopdjanian teaches a hybrid electrical architecture for an aircraft, said architecture comprising a turbomachine (element 6) and a reduction gear (element 8) configured to drive in rotation at least one propulsion member (element 3) of said aircraft, said architecture further comprising, a low-voltage electrical network (element 16, ¶ [0206]) comprising a low-voltage electrical energy storage device (element 12) and at least one low-voltage electrical machine (elements 7, 30, as explained in ¶ [0207]) electrically connected to a first electrical bus (element 35) configured to supply electrical energy to loads on the aircraft (elements 40, 41, 53), and, a high-voltage electrical network (elements 34 and 37 as explained in ¶ [0207]) comprising two high-voltage electrical machines (elements 31 and 32) electrically connected to a second electrical bus (element 36, see Figure 4 for two electrical machines 31 connected to 36), said second electrical bus being electrically connected to the first electrical bus via an electrical converter of said high-voltage electrical network (element 38, ¶ [0148]) and a first contactor of said low-voltage electrical network (elements 24 and 51), wherein the two high-voltage electrical machines are mounted on the turbomachine and are each mechanically coupled to a shaft of said turbomachine (connected via the shaft between 8, 7, and 31), and said at least one low-voltage electrical machine (elements 7, 30) is mounted on the reduction gear or on the turbomachine and is mechanically coupled to said reduction gear or to a shaft of said turbomachine (via the shaft between 6, 7, 30).
Regarding claim 9, Hopdjanian teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the two high-voltage electrical machines are electrically connected to the second electrical bus via second contactors and said at least one low-voltage electrical machine is electrically connected to the first electrical bus via at least one third contactor (Figure 5, elements 39, 24, 51).
Regarding claim 10, Hopdjanian teaches an aircraft comprising a turbomachine configured to drive a propulsion member in rotation and a hybrid electrical architecture according to claim 1 (abstract, ¶ [0003]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopdjanian et al. (US 20120025032 A1) in view of Lepretre et al. (US 20250223048 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hopdjanian in view of Lepretre teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein a first of the two high-voltage machines is mounted on a low-pressure body of the turbomachine and mechanically coupled to a shaft of said low-pressure body, a second of the two high-voltage electrical machines is mounted on a high-pressure body of the turbomachine and mechanically coupled to a shaft of said high-pressure body, and a first low voltage electrical machine is mechanically coupled to the reduction gear. However, Hopdjanian teaches that the high voltage electrical machines (elements 31 and 32) are mounted to the turbomachine, and that a low voltage electrical machine (elements 7 and 30) is mounted to the turbomachine. More, use of two high-voltage machines, the first mounted on a low-pressure body of the turbomachine and mechanically coupled to a shaft of said low-pressure body, the second of the two high-voltage electrical machines mounted on a high-pressure body of the turbomachine and mechanically coupled to a shaft of said high-pressure body, and a first low voltage electrical machine is mechanically coupled to the reduction gear is well known in the art as is evidenced by ¶ [0016-0020] of Lepretre who specifically teaches a plurality of electric machines capable of operating in both a high-voltage regime and a low-voltage regime, whereby the electric machines are mounted to high-pressure and low-pressure shafts and operatively connected via gearing with the appropriate shaft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the high and low pressure electrical regimes of Lepretre into the turbine of Hopdjanian, in order to provide Hopdjanian’s system with the ability of converting mechanical work into electrical energy as well as the ability to convert electrical energy into mechanical work (as taught by Lepretre).
Regarding claim 3, Hopdjanian in view of Lepretre teaches the invention in claim 2, wherein the high-voltage network further comprises a high-voltage electrical energy storage device connected to the second electrical bus (element 15. ¶ [0100] of Hopdjanian).
Regarding claim 4, Hopdjanian in view of Lepretre teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein a first of the two high-voltage electrical machines (elements 31 and 32 of Hopdjanian) is mounted on a low-pressure body of the turbomachine and mechanically coupled to a shaft of said low-pressure body (as noted in the cited response to claim 2), a second of the two high-voltage electrical machines (elements 31 and 32 of Hopdjanian) is mounted on a high-pressure body of the turbomachine and mechanically coupled to a shaft of said high-pressure body (as noted in the cited response to claim 2), and a first low-voltage electrical machine (elements 7 and 30) is also mounted on the high-pressure body of the turbomachine and mechanically coupled to a shaft of said high-pressure body (as noted in the cited response to claim 2).
Regarding claim 6, Hopdjanian in view of Lepretre teaches the invention in claim 4, wherein a second low-voltage electrical machine (elements 7 and 30) is mounted on the low-pressure body of the turbomachine and coupled to a shaft of said low-pressure body (as noted in the cited response to claim 2).
Regarding claim 8, Hopdjanian in view of Lepretre teaches the invention in claim 6, wherein the first low-voltage electrical machine and the second low-voltage electrical machine are respectively mechanically coupled to movement take-offs of the high-pressure body of the turbomachine and of the low-pressure body of the turbomachine, which are distinct from movement take-offs of said high-pressure body and of said low-pressure body to which the first of the two high-voltage electrical machines and the second of the two high-voltage electrical machines are coupled (This mechanically holds per ¶ [0019-0020] of Lepretre as the electric machine connected to the low-pressure shaft may actuate as a motor thereby causing a movement take-off inasmuch as applicant has claimed via driving the low pressure gearing and shaft. More, the electric machine connected to the high pressure shaft may actuate as a motor thereby causing a movement take-off inasmuch as applicant has claimed via driving the high pressure gearing and shaft).
Regarding claim 11, Hopdjanian in view of Lepretre teaches the invention in claim 3, wherein the high-voltage electrical energy storage device connected to the second electrical bus via an electrical protection device (¶ [0098-0100] of Hopdjanian).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopdjanian et al. (US 20120025032 A1) in view of Lepretre et al. (US 20250223048 A1), in further view of IEEE (Operating modes and converter options of DWPMS for hybrid electric vehicles NPL).
Regarding claim 5, Hopdjanian in view of Lepretre teaches the invention in claim 4, but fails to specifically teach wherein the second of the two high-voltage electrical machines and the first low-voltage electrical machine are separate windings of a dual-winding electrical machine. However, use of dual winding motor generators were well known in the art prior to the effective filing date for generative and motive output use in hybrid electric vehicles sharing a mechanical shaft as evidenced by IEEE. More, ¶ [0017-0020] of Lepretre specifically teaches that the motor generators in the system are used drive mechanical output and provide generated electricity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to suggest that the motor generators found in Hopdjanian in view of Lepretre comprised dual-windings, in order to operate in a power generation mode, motor mode, or simultaneous mode where the motor generator can generate power and operate as a motor simultaneously (as taught by IEEE). Further, Examiner takes official notice that galvanic isolation is used to protect against electrical shocks, or to isolate high-voltage components when two electrical circuits need to communicate (see Wikipedia galvanic isolation for extrinsic supporting evidence). As such, it would have been obvious to incorporate galvanic isolation into the high voltage dual winding system of Hopdjanian in view of Lepretre, in order to prevent electrical shocks whilst isolating high-voltage components.
Regarding claim 7, Hopdjanian in view of Lepretre teaches the invention in claim 6, but fails to specifically teach wherein the first of the two high-voltage electrical machines and the second low-voltage electrical machine are separate windings of a dual-winding electrical machine. However, use of dual winding motor generators were well known in the art prior to the effective filing date for generative and motive output use in hybrid electric vehicles sharing a mechanical shaft as evidenced by IEEE. More, ¶ [0017-0020] of Lepretre specifically teaches that the motor generators in the system are used drive mechanical output and provide generated electricity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to suggest that the motor generators found in Hopdjanian in view of Lepretre comprised dual-windings, in order to operate in a power generation mode, motor mode, or simultaneous mode where the motor generator can generate power and operate as a motor simultaneously (as taught by IEEE). Further, Examiner takes official notice that galvanic isolation is used to protect against electrical shocks, or to isolate high-voltage components when two electrical circuits need to communicate (see Wikipedia galvanic isolation for extrinsic supporting evidence). As such, it would have been obvious to incorporate galvanic isolation into the high voltage dual winding system of Hopdjanian in view of Lepretre, in order to prevent electrical shocks whilst isolating high-voltage components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is allowed.
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 JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3099. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Wednesdays: 0500-1300, Tuesdays 0500-1400, Thursdays and Fridays by appointment only..
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644