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 .
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.
Election/Restriction
The election of group I., claims 1-17 without traverse in the response of 30 June 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed 30 June 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-17 are examined.
The amendments overcome claim objections and objections under 35 USC § 112.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) /(2) as being anticipated by Long (US 2020/0149427).
Regarding claim 1, Long teaches an aircraft powerplant (Fig. 1, combustion motor 30A, ¶4) comprising: an engine 30a having an output power shaft (Fig. 1, the output power shaft is shown extending to the propeller and the electric motor); a power transmission coupled to the output power shaft of the engine (¶30, the power transmission includes a capacity to decouple the electric machine such that it neither consumes or generates electric power and an ability to feather or decouple the propulsor so that it is either feathered or de-clutched from the output shaft), wherein the power transmission is configured to divide power output of the engine between a mechanical power output and an electrical power output, wherein a majority of the power output from the engine is adjustable to output to either of the mechanical power output or the electrical power output (¶30, combustion-only mode is only mechanical power output and generating mode includes only electrical power output); a propulsion mechanism 32a coupled to the mechanical power output (Fig. 1, ¶30); and a control system configured to cause the power transmission to: deliver the majority of the power output of the engine to the propulsion mechanism to generate thrust or deliver the majority of the power output of the engine as electrical power output via the electrical power output (Controller 36, ¶37, ¶38).
Regarding claim 3, Long teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Long further teaches while the engine is operating at more than 70% capacity (¶31, operation at peak power), the power transmission delivers at least 90% of the output power of the engine to the electrical power output and less than 10% of the output power of the engine to the propulsion mechanism (¶30, 100% output electrical and 0% mechanical, which is at least 90% and less than 10% to the propulsion mechanism).
Regarding claim 4, Long teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Long further teaches the engine comprises a turbine engine, a piston engine, or a rotary engine (¶4, gas turbine engine).
Regarding claim 7, Long teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Long further teaches the propulsion mechanism comprises a propeller 32A.
Regarding claim 8, Long teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Long further teaches the power transmission comprises an electric machine 26a configured to generate electrical power based on the power output from the engine allocated to the electric machine (¶30).
Regarding claim 9, Long teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Long further teaches the electric machine is configured to provide electrical power to the electrical power output (¶30), wherein the electrical power is used to drive an electric motor configured to generate thrust for an aircraft (Fig. 1, the electric machine 26 can output power to electric bus 4, which can be used to power electric machine 14A to drive propeller 16A).
Regarding claim 11, Long teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Long further teaches the power transmission is configured to adjust the split of power output from the engine such that: at a first time, at least 95% of the power output from the engine is output to the mechanical power output while 5% or less of the power output from the engine is output to the electrical power output (¶30, 100% mechanical, 0% electrical); and at a second time, at least 95% of the power output from the engine is output to the electrical power output while 5% or less of the power output from the engine is output to the mechanical power output (¶30, 0% mechanical, 100% electrical).
Regarding claim 12, Long teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Long further teaches the power transmission is configured to adjust the split of power output from the engine such that: at a first time, at least 98% of the power output from the engine is output to the mechanical power output while 2% or less of the power output from the engine is output to the electrical power output (¶30, 100% mechanical, 0% electrical); and at a second time, at least 98% of the power output from the engine is output to the electrical power output while 2% or less of the power output from the engine is output to the mechanical power output (¶30, 0% mechanical, 100% electrical).
Regarding claim 17, Long teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Long further teaches the engine comprises (¶4, gas turbine engine).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US 2020/0149427).
Regarding claim 2, Long teaches the invention as discussed above for claim 1.
Long doesn’t teach the control system is configured to cause the power transmission to selectively divide the power output of the engine between the electrical power output and the mechanical power output such that each of the electrical power output and the mechanical power output receive between 20%-80% of a total power output of the engine, wherein the total power output of the engine represents 100%.
In ¶30, long teaches a first mode where one hundred percent of the power goes to mechanical and zero percent goes to electrical, a second mode where zero percent goes to mechanical and one hundred percent goes to electrical and a third mode where some percent greater than zero goes to each of the mechanical and electrical. Thus, Long suggests the control system is configured to cause the power transmission to selectively divide the power output of the engine between the electrical power output and the mechanical power output such that each of the electrical power output and the mechanical power output receive between 0%-100% of a total power output of the engine.
In the case where the claimed ranges, in this case between 20-80%, "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art," in this case 0-100%, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), 2144.05, I.
15. Claims 5, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US 2020/0149427) in view of Vratny (Influences of voltage variations on electric power architectures for hybrid electric aircraft.)
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Long teaches the invention for claim 1. Long doesn’t teach wherein the electrical power generated by the electric machine at the electrical power output is at least 250 kilowatts (kW) of maximum power, at least 370 kW of maximum power, at least 500 kW of maximum power, or at least 1 megawatt (MW) of maximum power and the electrical power output is configured to output power at a nominal voltage of 400V, 800V, 1000V 1200V, 1500V, 2.4kV, or 3kV.
Vratny teaches electric generator requirements for hybrid electric aircraft (Introduction, high power demands in the megawatt range for the electric system and using relative high voltages between 1000 V and 3000 V to reduce mainly the transmission cable mass. Table 4: Motor shaft power, PDesign 6000 kW and Motor voltage, VMotor 1000 V.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the propulsion system of Long have a the electrical power generated by the electric machine at the electrical power output is at least 1 megawatt (MW) of maximum power (6 MW) and the electrical power output is configured to output power at a nominal voltage of 1000 V, as taught by Vratny, in order to provide the needed electrical power to fly the aircraft and to reduce the cable mass.
Regarding claim 15, Long in view of Vratny teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Long further teaches the power transmission comprises an electric machine 26A, and further wherein the electric machine is configured to output power at the nominal voltage by way of a voltage conversion device (42A).
Claims 6, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US 2020/0149427) in view of Zatorski (US 2019/0085714.)
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 16, Long doesn’t teach the propulsion mechanism comprises a bypass fan or ducted bypass fan, the engine and the power transmission are mounted within a nacelle housing of an aircraft and the power transmission comprises a planetary gearset comprising: a sun gear coupled to the output power shaft; a planet carrier coupled to an electric machine or the mechanical power output; and a ring gear coupled to the electric machine or the mechanical power output, wherein an output of the electric machine is coupled to the electrical power output.
Zatorski teaches a propulsion mechanism can be a bypass fan or ducted bypass fan (Fig. 1), the engine and the power transmission are mounted within a nacelle housing of an aircraft (Figs. 1 and 2, Fig. 1 shows a nacelle and engine and portions of the power transmission. Fig. 2 shows an electric machine coupled to the engine), and the power transmission comprises a planetary gearset comprising: a sun gear coupled to the output power shaft; a planet carrier coupled to an electric machine or the mechanical power output; and a ring gear coupled to the electric machine or the mechanical power output, wherein an output of the electric machine is coupled to the electrical power output (¶100). The bypass fan, nacelle, power transmission and planetary gearset generate power for the engine allow power to be distributed within the engine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the propulsion system of Long have a bypass fan or ducted bypass fan, the engine and the power transmission are mounted within a nacelle housing of an aircraft and the power transmission comprises a planetary gearset comprising: a sun gear coupled to the output power shaft; a planet carrier coupled to an electric machine or the mechanical power output; and a ring gear coupled to the electric machine or the mechanical power output, wherein an output of the electric machine is coupled to the electrical power output, as taught by Zatorski, in order to generate power for the engine allow power to be distributed within the engine.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US 2020/0149427) in view of Stuhlberger (US 2013/0099065).
Regarding claim 10, Long teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above and Long further teaches the propulsion mechanism is configured to generate forward thrust for the aircraft, the propulsion mechanism is configured to generate the forward thrust for a horizontal flight mode of the aircraft (¶57).
Long doesn’t teach the electric motor is configured to generate the vertical thrust for a vertical flight mode of the aircraft.
Stuhlberger teaches an aircraft with a tilt wing (Figs. 1 and 2). The propulsor are powered by an electric motor (Fig. 6). The vertically orientated propulsors allow the aircraft to take off vertically.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the propulsion system of Long have the electric motor is configured to generate the vertical thrust for a vertical flight mode of the aircraft, as taught by Stuhlberger, in order to allow the aircraft to take off vertically.
Response to Arguments
In their remarks of 30 June 2025, Applicant argues that Long doesn’t teach a power transmission coupled to the output power shaft of the engine, wherein the power transmission is configured to divide power output of the engine between a mechanical power output and an electrical power output, wherein a majority of the power output from the engine is adjustable to output to either of the mechanical power output or the electrical power output.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes Applicant has chosen to claim their power transmission functionally. The claims don’t include any structural components of the power transmission. In ¶30, Long describes a combustion-only mode where a combustion power plant provides only mechanical energy is provided to a propulsor but not electrical power. In a combustion-generating mode, the combustion power plant provides mechanical energy to both a propulsor and an electric generator and in a generating mode, power is only provided to the generator. Long teaches their system can switch between these various modes. Thus, Long performs the same functions as claimed.
Long teaches that the amount of mechanical energy output to the propulsors can be reduced or eliminated, such that only electrical energy is generated. One example for performing this function is a clutch coupled between the propulsor and the combustion power plant that allows mechanical power to be reduced or not to be transmitted to the propulsor by the power plant, which is then output to the generator to generate electrical power. Thus, the power output is divided between a mechanical power output and an electrical power output. In ¶70, Long also says a clutch can be used between the shaft to the electric motor and the combustion power plant.
Applicant argues that disconnecting a propeller from an engine doesn’t disclose a power transmission that divides power between mechanical and electrical output. Examiner disagrees. The use of clutch clearly results in the function of the power transmission as it is currently claimed. Applicant specifically says in their specification (¶44) that a clutch is a power transmission (As recited in ¶44, various aspects of a power transmission as described herein (e.g., gearing, clutches, emachines, etc.). So, arguing a clutch is not a power transmission is not persuasive.
When the clutch is engaged, there is coupling between the clutch and two shafts resulting in a power transmission. When the clutch is not engaged, there is coupling between the clutch and one of the shafts preventing power transmission. The engagement or disengagement of the clutch clearly results in a split of power between the mechanical and electrical outputs of the system as the system can switch between only generating mechanical energy or electrical energy or combinations therebetween. If there were no split, how would the three modes in described in Long be possible? Examiner notes an additional clutch can also be used between the electrical motor and power plant to add further control (see, ¶70), which could also be part of a power transmission. Further, the electrical motor in Long is an emachine and thus, per Applicant’s specification could also be considered part of a power transmission. For these additional reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
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 DAVID OLYNICK whose telephone number is (571)272-2355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am-5 pm (ET).
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 at (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 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.
/DAVID P. OLYNICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741