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 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 3, 5-10, 14 and 16-20 are 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.
Claim 3 recites “wherein components of the hybrid power drive comprise one or more engines, one or more generators…” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the engines and generators of claim 3 relate to the “a combustion engine” and the “an electricity generating machine” as previously recited in claim 1? I.e., are they the same or different elements of the claims?
Claim 5 recites “the hybrid power drive comprises one or more hydrogen fuel cell module(s)”. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “fuel cell module(s)” relates to the previously recited “a combustion engine”? I.e., are they meant to be the same claim element or different claim elements?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the electric power drive" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “a battery” and “additional batteries”. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how these limitations relate to the previously recited “one or more batteries” as recited in claim 4. I.e., are they the same or different limitations?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the hydrogen fuel cell power drive" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14 and 16 recite “turbogenerator fumes” and “turbogenerator exhaust”, respectively. However, how does the term “turbogenerator” apply to the previously recited “combustion engine” of claim 1? I.e., is the “combustion engine” of claim 1 a “turbogenerator” or is the “turbogenerator” meant to be some separate element?
Claim 17 recites “wherein components of the hybrid power drive are positioned…” However, it is indefinite and unclear as to what comprises the “components”? I.e., claim 17 has previously set forth several elements of the “hybrid power drive” such as the engines, generators, batteries and motors. Are these elements equivalent to the “components” OR are the “components” some other claim element which is part of the hybrid power drive?
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(s) 1, 3, 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0270399 (Currier et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0229532 (SHAPERY).
Regarding Claims 1, 3 and 4, Currier et al. teaches: Claim 1 - an aircraft (300 or 400) having unobstructed cabin door access, the aircraft (300 or 400) comprising: a hybrid power drive (101) comprising a combustion engine (105) connected to an electricity generating machine (121); a weight distribution of the hybrid power drive (101) comprising an aft bias (embodiments of aircrafts (300) and (400) have the hybrid power drive located rearwardly of wings as seen in Figures 3 and 4); a wing (shown in at least Figures 3 and 4); (Figures 1A-19); Claim 3 - wherein components of the hybrid power drive (101) comprise one or more engines (105), one or more generators (121), one or more batteries (described in at least paragraph [0045]), and one or more electric motors (such as (310) and (410)), (Figures 1A-19); Claim 4 – wherein components of the hybrid power drive (101) comprise one or more batteries (described in at least paragraph [0045]) and one or more electric motors (such as (310) and (410)), (Figures 1A-19).
Currier et al. does not teach: the wing being forward swept, and a cabin door positioned forward of the forward swept wing such that access into a fuselage of the aircraft via the cabin door is unobstructed by the forward swept wing (Claim 1). However, SHAPERY teaches: Claim 1 – an aircraft (1) having a forward swept wing (2) and a cabin door (seen in at least Figures 2A and 2B) positioned forward of the forward swept wing (2) such that access into a fuselage of the aircraft (1) via the cabin door is unobstructed by the forward swept wing (2), (Figures 1-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft of Currier et al. to have the wing being forward swept, and a cabin door positioned forward of the forward swept wing such that access into a fuselage of the aircraft via the cabin door is unobstructed by the forward swept wing (Claim 1) as taught by SHAPERY for the purposes of providing a wing which is well known and easy to find and manufacture.
Regarding Claim 17, Currier et al. teaches: Claim 17 - an aircraft (300 or 400) having unobstructed cabin door access, the aircraft (300 or 400) comprising: a hybrid power drive (101) comprising one or more engines (105), one or more generators (121), one or more batteries (described in at least paragraph [0045]), and one or more electric motors (such as (310) and (410)), wherein components of the hybrid power drive (101) are positioned throughout the aircraft (300 or 400) to provide a weight distribution having an aft bias (embodiments of aircrafts (300) and (400) have the hybrid power drive located rearwardly of wings as seen in Figures 3 and 4); a wing (shown in at least Figures 3 and 4), (Figures 1A-19).
Currier et al. does not teach: the wing being forward swept, and a cabin door positioned forward of the forward swept wing such that access into a fuselage of the aircraft via the cabin door is unobstructed by the forward swept wing (Claim 17). However, SHAPERY teaches: Claim 17 – an aircraft (1) having a forward swept wing (2) and a cabin door (seen in at least Figures 2A and 2B) positioned forward of the forward swept wing (2) such that access into a fuselage of the aircraft (1) via the cabin door is unobstructed by the forward swept wing (2), (Figures 1-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft of Currier et al. to have the wing being forward swept, and a cabin door positioned forward of the forward swept wing such that access into a fuselage of the aircraft via the cabin door is unobstructed by the forward swept wing (Claim 17) as taught by SHAPERY for the purposes of providing a wing which is well known and easy to find and manufacture.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0270399 (Currier et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0229532 (SHAPERY), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0144421 (Rimanelli et al.).
Regarding Claim 2, Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY teaches the aircraft as described above, but does not teach: a V-tail empennage (Claim 2). However, Rimanelli et al. teaches: Claim 2 – an aircraft (10) having a V-tail empennage (15), (Figures 1-22C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft of Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY to have a V-tail empennage (Claim 2) as taught by Rimanelli et al. as it represents the simple substitution of one known element (the V-tail empennage of Rimanelli et al.) for another (the tail empennage of Currier et al.) to obtain the predictable result of using a tail empennage which is easy to find and manufacture.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0270399 (Currier et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0229532 (SHAPERY), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,568,633 (Dunn).
Regarding Claims 5 and 10, Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY teaches the aircraft as described above, but does not teach: wherein the hybrid power drive comprises one or more hydrogen fuel cell module(s) (Claim 5); and wherein the weight distribution of the hydrogen fuel cell power drive comprises: a hydrogen fuel tank, power batteries, and hydrogen fuel cell modules located aft of passenger seats in an aft portion of the fuselage; and one or more electric motors and additional batteries or fuel cell modules and power electronics located forward of pilot seats in a nose portion of the aircraft (Claim 10). However, Dunn teaches: Claim 5 - an aircraft (10) including a hybrid power drive which comprises one or more hydrogen fuel cell module(s) (100), (Figures 1-6); Claim 10 – a hydrogen fuel tank (300), power batteries (413), and hydrogen fuel cell modules (100) located aft of seats in an aft portion of a fuselage; and one or more electric motors (200) and additional batteries (520) or fuel cell modules and power electronics (620) located forward of seats in a nose portion of the aircraft, (Figures 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft of Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY to have wherein the hybrid power drive comprises one or more hydrogen fuel cell module(s) (Claim 5); and wherein the weight distribution of the hydrogen fuel cell power drive comprises: a hydrogen fuel tank, power batteries, and hydrogen fuel cell modules located aft of passenger seats in an aft portion of the fuselage; and one or more electric motors and additional batteries or fuel cell modules and power electronics located forward of pilot seats in a nose portion of the aircraft (Claim 10) as taught by Dunn as it represents the simple substitution of one known element (the fuel cell module of Dunn) for another (the combustion engine of Currier et al.) to obtain the predictable result of using an energy generating means which is easy to find and manufacture and equally distributing weight of the fuel cell modules for balance of weight within the aircraft.
Regarding Claims 7 and 19, Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY teaches the aircraft as described above, in addition to Currier et al. teaching: Claims 7 and 19 - an aircraft (10) having the engine(s) (105), and the generator(s) (121), being located aft of passenger seats in an aft portion of a fuselage, (Figures 1A-19). Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY does not teach: the electric motor(s) and the battery(ies) being located forward of pilot seats in a nose portion of the aircraft (Claims 7 and 19). However, Dunn teaches: Claims 7 and 19 – an aircraft (10) having an electric motor(s) (200) and battery(ies) (520) being located forward of pilot seats in a nose portion of the aircraft (10), (Figures 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft of Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY to have the electric motor(s) and the battery(ies) being located forward of pilot seats in a nose portion of the aircraft (Claims 7 and 19) as taught by Dunn for the purposes of using a well-known configuration/construction of having one of the electric motors being in the nose of the aircraft.
Claim(s) 6, 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0270399 (Currier et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0229532 (SHAPERY), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,492,020 (Gudmundsson et al.) and U.S. Patent No. 6,568,633 (Dunn).
Regarding Claims 6 and 18, Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY teaches the aircraft as described above, in addition to Currier et al. teaching: Claims 6 and 18 - an aircraft (10) having an engine(s) (105), and the generator(s) (121), being located aft of passenger seats in an aft portion of a fuselage, (Figures 1A-19). Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY does not teach:
(A) The battery(ies) being located aft of passenger seats in an aft portion of the fuselage (Claims 6 and 18).
(B) The electric motor(s) being located forward of pilot seats in a nose portion of the aircraft (Claims 6 and 18).
In regards to (A), Gudmundsson et al. teaches: Claims 6 and 18 – an aircraft (100-1) having battery(ies) (600) being located aft of passenger seats in an aft portion of a fuselage, (Figures 1A-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft of Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY to have the battery(ies) being located aft of passenger seats in an aft portion of the fuselage (Claims 6 and 18) as taught by Gudmundsson et al. for the purposes of providing an ideal weight distribution for batteries located within an aircraft.
In regards to (B), Dunn teaches: Claims 6 and 18 – an aircraft (10) having an electric motor(s) (200) located forward of pilot seats in a nose portion of the aircraft (10), (Figures 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft of Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY to have the electric motor(s) being located forward of pilot seats in a nose portion of the aircraft (Claims 6 and 18) as taught by Dunn for the purposes of using a well-known configuration/construction of having one of the electric motors being in the nose of the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 9, Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY teaches the aircraft as described above, but does not teach:
(A) A battery located aft of passenger seats in an aft portion of the fuselage (Claim 9).
(B) The electric motor(s) and additional batteries and power electronics located forward of pilot seats in a nose portion of the aircraft (Claim 9).
In regards to (A), Gudmundsson et al. teaches: Claim 9 – an aircraft (100-1) having a battery (600) located aft of passenger seats in an aft portion of a fuselage, (Figures 1A-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft of Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY to have a battery located aft of passenger seats in an aft portion of the fuselage (Claim 9) as taught by Gudmundsson et al. for the purposes of providing an ideal weight distribution for batteries located within an aircraft.
In regards to (B), Dunn teaches: Claim 9 – an aircraft (10) having an electric motor(s) (200), additional batteries (520), and power electronics (620) located forward of pilot seats in a nose portion of the aircraft (10), (Figures 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft of Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY to have the electric motor(s) and additional batteries and power electronics located forward of pilot seats in a nose portion of the aircraft (Claim 9) as taught by Dunn for the purposes of using a well-known configuration/construction of having one of the electric motors being in the nose of the aircraft.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0270399 (Currier et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0229532 (SHAPERY), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0132212 (Mendoza et al.).
Regarding Claim 11, Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY teaches the aircraft as described above, but does not teach: an inlet disposed on a side of the fuselage (Claim 11). However, Mendoza et al. teaches: Claim 11 – an aircraft (300) including an inlet (AA) disposed on a side of the fuselage, (Annotated Figure 8 Below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft of Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY to have an inlet disposed on a side of the fuselage (Claim 11) as taught by Mendoza et al. for the purposes of providing adequate cooling to the hybrid power supply of Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY.
PNG
media_image1.png
397
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0270399 (Currier et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0229532 (SHAPERY), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0099948 (CHIABRANDO et al.).
Regarding Claims 12 and 14-16, Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY teaches the aircraft as described above, but does not teach: an inlet disposed on an underside of the fuselage (Claim 12); single or dual aft underbody exhaust arrangements for exhausting turbogenerator fumes (Claim 14); single or dual aft underbody exhaust ports for releasing heat from a radiator (Claim 15); and an aft central outlet for exhausting one or more of a turbogenerator exhaust or a cooling radiator outflow (Claim 16). However, CHIABRANDO et al. teaches: Claim 12 – an internal combustion engine (10) including an inlet (12/13) disposed on an underside of a fuselage, (Figure 1); Claims 14 and 15 - single or dual aft underbody exhaust arrangements (32) for exhausting turbogenerator fumes/releasing heat from a radiator of the engine (30), (Figure 5); Claim 16 - an aft central outlet (32) for exhausting one or more of a turbogenerator exhaust or a cooling radiator outflow, (Figures 1-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft of Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY to have an inlet disposed on an underside of the fuselage (Claim 12); single or dual aft underbody exhaust arrangements for exhausting turbogenerator fumes (Claim 14); single or dual aft underbody exhaust ports for releasing heat from a radiator (Claim 15); and an aft central outlet for exhausting one or more of a turbogenerator exhaust or a cooling radiator outflow (Claim 16) as taught by CHIABRANDO et al. for the purposes of being able to efficiently cool the internal combustion engine of Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0270399 (Currier et al.) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0229532 (SHAPERY), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,116,405 (Bacchi et al.).
Regarding Claim 13, Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY teaches the aircraft as described above, but does not teach: an inlet on top of the fuselage (Claim 13). However, Bacchi et al. teaches: Claim 13 – an aircraft (20) including an inlet (84/90) disposed on a side of the fuselage, (Figures 1-10g). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aircraft of Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY to have an inlet on top of the fuselage (Claim 13) as taught by Bacchi et al. for the purposes of providing adequate cooling to the hybrid power supply of Currier et al. as modified by SHAPERY.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 271467. 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.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642