DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities: “an inlet channel” should be amended to --the inlet channel-- so as to have proper dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-22 and 26-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For Claims 21-22 and 26-27, each of the claims use the language of a stagnation zone to try and define a location of an aperture. However, stagnation areas change with the movement of the aircraft as such it is not clear where this specific zone is located as such the claims are indefinite.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the downstream aperture" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1, 10, and 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto Carril (US PgPub #2023/0382553) in view of Rabbi (US PgPub #2021/0107664).
For Claim 1, the figures of Soto Carril ‘553 disclose an aircraft system, comprising: a section of a fuselage surrounding an interior portion of an aircraft; a aperture (3) defining along the section of the fuselage; an inlet scoop (4.1) at the aperture; an inlet channel (6) extending away from the inlet scoop to the interior portion of the aircraft; and a Ram Air Turbine (RAT) (7) connected to the inlet channel, wherein the RAT is fixed within the interior portion of the aircraft.
While Soto Carril ‘553 discloses a RAT that is a motor-generator, it is not specific about it being a rim driven turbine. However, the figures of Rabbi ‘664 disclose a rim driven turbine configured as a permanent magnet motor-generator, with a rotor defining blades (320), the blades define blade tips, a duct surrounding the rotor with copper windings (210) defining a stator (200), a shroud (340) integral with the blade tips, and permanent magnets (350) are mounted on the shroud. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Soto Carril ‘553 with the specific RAT motor design as taught by Rabbi ‘664. The motivation to do so would be to provide RATs that are reliable and efficient with reduced vibrations.
For Claim 10, the figures of Soto Carril ‘553 disclose an aircraft system, comprising: a fuselage surrounding an interior portion of an aircraft; wherein the fuselage defines a forward portion and an aft portion, wherein the fuselage defines a stagnation zone (door 4.1, when opened) in the forward portion and a second stagnation zone (tailcone) in the aft portion; a first aperture (3) defined at the first stagnation zone and a second aperture (end of tailcone) defined at the second stagnation zone; an inlet scoop (4.1) at the first aperture; and exhaust vent (12) at the second aperture; an inlet channel (6) extending away from the inlet scoop to the interior portion of the aircraft; a Ram Air Turbine (RAT) connected to the inlet channel; wherein the RAT is fixed within the interior portion of the aircraft; and an outlet channel extending from the RAT to the exhaust vent.
While Soto Carril ‘553 discloses a RAT that is a motor-generator, it is not specific about it being a rim driven turbine. However, the figures of Rabbi ‘664 disclose a rim driven turbine configured as a permanent magnet motor-generator, with a rotor defining blades (320), the blades define blade tips, a duct surrounding the rotor with copper windings (210) defining a stator (200), a shroud (340) integral with the blade tips, and permanent magnets (350) are mounted on the shroud. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Soto Carril ‘553 with the specific RAT motor design as taught by Rabbi ‘664. The motivation to do so would be to provide RATs that are reliable and efficient with reduced vibrations.
For Claim 19, the figures of Soto Carril ‘553 disclose that the inlet channel (6) extends away from the inlet scoop (4.1) to an interior portion of the aircraft.
For Claim 20, figure 6 of Soto Carril ‘553 discloses that the aperture is a first aperture, and a second aperture is defined at an aft location of the aircraft, and the channel connects the first aperture with the second aperture.
For Claim 21, as best understood figure 6 of Soto Carril ‘553 discloses that the downstream aperture is located at a downstream stagnation zone.
For Claim 22, as best understood figure 6 of Soto Carril ‘553 discloses that the first aperture is located at the upstream stagnation zone, and the downstream aperture is located at the downstream stagnation zone.
For Claims 23-24, the figures of Soto Carril ‘553 disclose that the system is on an aircraft.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto Carril (US PgPub #2023/0382553) in view of Rabbi (US PgPub #2021/0107664) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Terwillger (US PpPub #2020/0055610).
For Claims 8-9 and 17-18, while Soto Carril ‘553 is silent about a governor. However, figure 3 of Terwilliger ‘610 teaches that it is known to have a ram air turbine (301) that has a center shaft (206) connected to a second motor-generator (212), the shaft being controlled by the governor/controller/cutch (216 and 240A). Therefor it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Soto Carril ‘553 with the second motor-generator that is connected to the turbine with a controlled shaft in order to control the speed of rotation of the shaft between the turbine and the motor-generator as taught by Terwilliger ‘610. The motivation to do so would be to provide control of creating more electricity or to power the turbine
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soto Carril (US PgPub #2023/0382553) in view of Rabbi (US PgPub #2021/0107664) and Terwillger (US PpPub #2020/0055610).
For Claims 25 and 28, the figures of Soto Carril ‘553 disclose an aircraft with and aircraft system, comprising: a fuselage surrounding an interior portion of an aircraft; wherein the fuselage defines a forward portion and an aft portion, a first aperture (3) defined at the forward portion and a second aperture defined at the aft portion; an inlet scoop (4.1) at the first aperture; an inlet channel (6) extending away from the inlet scoop to the interior portion of the aircraft; and a Ram Air Turbine (RAT) (7) connected to the inlet channel, wherein the RAT is fixed within the interior portion of the aircraft.
While Soto Carril ‘553 discloses a RAT that is a motor-generator, it is not specific about it being a rim driven turbine. However, the figures of Rabbi ‘664 disclose a rim driven turbine configured as a permanent magnet motor-generator, with a rotor defining blades (320), the blades define blade tips, a duct surrounding the rotor with copper windings (210) defining a stator (200), a shroud (340) integral with the blade tips, and permanent magnets (350) are mounted on the shroud. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Soto Carril ‘553 with the specific RAT motor design as taught by Rabbi ‘664. The motivation to do so would be to provide RATs that are reliable and efficient with reduced vibrations.
While Soto Carril ‘553 is silent about a second motor-generator connected to the RAT by a shaft that is governed to control the speed between the RAT and the second motor-generator. However, figure 3 of Terwilliger ‘610 teaches that it is known to have a ram air turbine (301) that has a shaft (206) connected to a second motor-generator (212), the shaft being controlled by the governor/controller/cutch (216 and 240A). Therefor it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Soto Carril ‘553 with the second motor-generator that is connected to the turbine with a controlled shaft in order to control the speed of rotation of the shaft between the turbine and the motor-generator as taught by Terwilliger ‘610. The motivation to do so would be to provide control of creating more electricity or to power the turbine.
For Claim 26, as best understood figure 6 of Soto Carril ‘553 discloses the fuselage defines a second stagnation zone in the aft portion, the second aperture defined at the second stagnation zone.
For Claim 27, as best understood figure 6 of Soto Carril’ ‘553 discloses that the fuselage defines a first stagnation zone in the forward portion, and the first aperture is defined at the first stagnation zone; and the fuselage defines a second stagnation zone in the aft portion, the second aperture defined at the second stagnation zone.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the arguments that Rabbi ‘664 does no teach a ducted RAT and Soto Carril ‘553 does not teach a rim driven motor/generator, the Examiner respectfully agrees. However, Soto Carril ‘553 teaches a ducted RAT motor/generator and Rabbi ‘664 teaches a rim driven motor/generator. One of ordinary skill in the art would known that the rim driven RAT of Rabbi ‘664 could be used in the position of the RAT in the duct of Soto Carril ‘533 as it would increase efficiency.
With respect to the arguments about Official Notice, while the Applicant has not properly argued the Official Notice per MPEP 2144.03 and making that known as Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) would be proper, the Examiner has relied on Terwilliger ‘610 to teach the known governor to control rotation of the system.
With respect to the argument that Murray is not proper for Claim 25, Terwilliger ‘610 has been used to teach the center shaft coupled to the motor-generator.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 7/31/2026
