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 .
This non-final office action is responsive to Applicants' application filed on 10/21/24. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination and are pending for the reasons indicated herein below.
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: “supplied at at least one…” and “supplied at at least one” …. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3-4, 7-10, 13-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shi (US 20050006956 A1)
Regarding claim 1. Shi teaches an aircraft [¶40] electric power supply system [fig 1-8, elements in claims designated “second” are being interpreted to follow lower circuit 96 of fig 6 and elements in claims designated “first” are being interpreted to follow lower circuit 96 of fig 6, since 88 shown in fig 7 have the same structure] comprising: an electric power source [114, fig 7] comprising two electric output terminals configured to provide an electric output [each have a Vout];
a first electric power supply line [fig 7, line for power source 1] configured to electrically couple a first electric output terminal [output of upper 96] of the two electric output terminals to a first input of an electric load [i.e. load for 90, fig 6];
a second electric power supply line [fig 6-7, line for power source 2 of lower 96] configured to electrically couple a second electric output terminal [output of lower 96] of the two electric output terminals to a second input [i.e. load for lower 90, fig 6] of the electric load;
a first electric power controller [see 118] arranged in the first electric power supply line;
and a second electric power controller [see 102] arranged in the second electric power supply line;
wherein the first electric power controller comprises a first electric switch [left 110] of a first type [p-channel type] configured to selectively switch a supply of electric power via the first electric power supply line;
wherein the second electric power controller comprises a second electric switch [right 108 of lower 96] of a second type [N-channel type] configured to selectively switch a supply of electric power via the second electric power supply line;
and wherein the first type differs from the second type [i.e. different channels].
Regarding claim 3. Shi teaches the aircraft electric power supply system according to claim 1, wherein at least one of: one of the first and second electric switches is a solid state switch [110/108 are show to be MOSFETs]; or one of the first and second electric switches is a mechanical switch.
Regarding claim 4. Shi teaches the aircraft electric power supply system according to claim 1, further comprising: a safety controller [118] configured to control the first and second electric switches.
Regarding claim 7. Shi teaches the aircraft electric power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the electric power source is a floating electric power source [source 31 in fig 2 is not connected to earth ground, thus, follows recited limitation] configured to provide an electric power output that is symmetric with respect to a common ground.
Regarding claim 8. Shi teaches the aircraft electric power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the electric power source is a direct current (DC) electric power source [see 31, fig 2] or an alternating current (AC) electric power source.
Regarding claim 9. Shi teaches the aircraft electric power supply system according to claim 1, wherein at least one of: the first electric power controller comprises a first current limiting element [fig 2, 36] configured to limit an electric current flowing through the first electric power supply line (8a);
or the second electric power controller comprises a second current limiting element configured to limit an electric current flowing through the second electric power supply line.
Regarding claim 10. Shi teaches the aircraft electric power supply system according to claim 9, wherein the first and second current limiting [fig 7, 116] elements are of different types of current limiting elements.
Regarding claim 13. Shi teaches an aircraft comprising an aircraft electric power supply system according to claim 1 [¶40].
Regarding method claims 14-20, note that under MPEP 2112.02, the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device "inherently performs the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed Cir. 1986). Therefore the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 11-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 20050006956 A1) in view of Prasad et al. (US 20230068153 A1)
Regarding claim 11. Shi teaches the aircraft electric power supply system according to claim 9,
However, Shi does not explicitly mention a circuit wherein at least one of the first and second current limiting elements is a fuse.
Prasad teaches a circuit wherein at least one of the first and second current limiting elements is a fuse [¶38]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the features of Prasad in order to provide a faster open circuit and more decisively than any mechanical relay or semiconductor switch and can also stay safely disconnected even under catastrophic fault conditions were normal breakers fail.
Regarding claim 12. Shi as modified teaches the aircraft electric power supply system according to claim 11, wherein at least one of the current limiting elements is a pyro-fuse [¶38].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5-7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the claim objections stated above were overcome.
Examiner Note
The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan Perez whose telephone number is (571)272-8837. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. (7:30 – 5:00).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Crystal Hammond, can be reached on (571) 270-1682. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BRYAN R PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights