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 . Claims 11-20 of the amended claim set received 12/23/2024 are pending. Claims 1-10 have been canceled.
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group A, claim(s) 11-13, drawn to an integrated hydrogen-electric engine.
Group B, claim(s) 14-16, drawn to an integrated hydrogen-electric engine.
Group C, claim(s) 17-18, drawn to an integrated hydrogen-electric engine.
Group D, claim(s) 19-20, drawn to an integrated hydrogen-electric engine.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups A, B, C, and D lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of,
“an air compressor system; a hydrogen fuel source; a fuel cell; an elongated shaft connected to the air compressor system and/or a propulsor; and a motor assembly disposed in electrical communication with the fuel cell,”
this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Miftakhov (US 2021/0151783). Mirftakhov discloses in Fig. 1, an air compressor system 12b; a hydrogen fuel source 20; a fuel cell 26; an elongated shaft 10 connected to the air compressor system 12b and/or a propulsor; and a motor assembly 28 disposed in electrical communication with the fuel cell 26 (read e.g., para. 0027).
During a telephone conversation with attorney Norman Soloway on 10/17/2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of group A, claims 11-13. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miftakhov (US 2021/0151783).
Regarding Claim 11, Miftakhov discloses in Fig. 1, an integrated hydrogen-electric engine 1 comprising: an air compressor system 12b; a hydrogen fuel source 20; a fuel cell 26; an elongated shaft 10 connected to the air compressor system 12b and/or a propulsor 14; and a motor assembly 28 disposed in electrical communication with the fuel cell (read, e.g., para. 0027), wherein the air compressor system 12b includes a plurality of electrically driven compressors 16 configured to run in series, wherein the plurality of electrically driven compressors 16 are connected via valves 17.
Regarding Claim 12, Miftakhov discloses in Fig. 1, wherein the valves 17 comprise pressure balancing valves (the valves regulate, i.e. balance, the pressure as read at para. 0028).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miftakhov (US 2021/0151783) in view of Pandey (US 2013/0131951).
Regarding Claim 13, Miftakhov discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. Miftakhov discloses the plurality of valves 17 are bypass valves to regulate the pressure and flow of the air received downstream of the compressor (read para. 0028). Miftakhov does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to control operation of the valves.
Pandey discloses in Fig. 1, an air compressor system 32 comprising a plurality of compressors (stages 34) configured to run in series and an elongated shaft 28 connected to the air compressor system 32 and a bypass valve 42 to regulate the pressure and flow of the air received downstream of the compressor (read para. 0014). Pandey teaches a controller 44 configured to control the operation of the valve 42 (read para. 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time filing to have modified Miftakhov to include a controller configured to control operation of the valves as taught by Pandey in order to control the operation of the compressor bypass valves, e.g., such that undesired vibrations within the compressor and compressor stall is avoided (Pandey para. 0017).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Mackin (US 2022/0297844) also appears to be a §102 reference over claim 11.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)272-8140. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached on (571) 272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741