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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a calculator in claims 18 and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The calculator is interpreted as comprising a processor as described in Paragraph 0102.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 -17 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.
With respect to claim 1, the applicant claims a calculator as a component of the electrical energy source but it is not clear to the examiner whether said calculator is performing the steps of the methos or if the steps are performed by a different element. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as the calculator is the element performing the steps of the method claim similar to claims 18 and 19 and in view of Paragraph 0106 of the specification as filed.
Claims 2-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies recited above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) (claims 1, 18, and 19) recite(s) acquiring at least one parameter of the electrical energy source, calculating a main consumption time period as a function of the at least one parameter, and displaying a main display of main symbols indicating the main consumption time period.
The limitations of acquiring at least one parameter of the electrical energy source, and calculating a main consumption time period as a function of the at least one parameter, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a calculator”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a calculator configured to implement the steps” language, “acquiring and calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally observing a parameter of a power source, a state of charge of a battery for example, and mentally estimating or calculating a consumption time period based on the observed parameter. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element “a calculator” to perform the steps. The calculator, as recited above, is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The Claims recite the additional elements of an electrical energy source comprising a storage device, a sensor, and a calculator, displaying a main display of main symbols indicating the main consumption time period, and an aircraft carrying the electrical energy source (claim 19). Regarding these limitations, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Specifically, the additional element of an electrical energy source comprising a storage device, a sensor, and a calculator is insignificant extra solution activity, i.e. a device that is being acted upon for data gathering. The displaying a main display of main symbols indicating the main consumption time period step on the driver display console is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the main consumption time period result from the calculating step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 19 discloses an aircraft carrying the electrical energy source. Said limitation is not indicative of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because it generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e. linking the abstract idea to the field of an electrical aircraft. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a calculator to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of an electrical energy source comprising a storage device, a sensor, and a calculator, and an aircraft carrying the electrical energy source are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites the conventional use of an aircraft with a power source (Paragraphs 0004-0017). Furthermore, the additional limitation of displaying a main display of main symbols indicating the main consumption time period is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2-3 further describe the parameters and that falls under the mental process. Claims 4-17 recites additional steps that can be performed in the human mind and that also falls under the mental process. Claim 7 recites the additional element of an aircraft which has been evaluated and discussed above with respect to claim 19. Therefore, dependent claims 2-17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferrier US 11,509,154 B1 (hence Ferrier).
In re claims 1 and 18, Ferrier discloses a system for establishing a primary function display in an electrical vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (eVTOL) (Abstract) and teaches the following:
A method for monitoring an energy level of an electrical energy source, the electrical energy source being capable of delivering a reference electrical power for a predetermined reference time period for a predetermined reference charge level (Fig.6 and Col.13, lines 45-52 “a graph illustrates an SOC of an embodiment of an energy source 104 as a function of time”, and Fig.7, and Col.14, lines “a graph illustrates the power of the energy source 104 as a function of time”), and comprising:
at least one electrical energy storage device (Fig.1, #104, and Col.4, lines 61-66 “Energy source”, “Battery”);
at least one sensor (Fig.1, #108, and Col.10, lines 27-29);
and a calculator (Fig.1, #116, and Col.6, lines 62-63 “a controller”), wherein the method comprises the following steps:
acquiring at least one parameter of the electrical energy source via the sensor(s) (Col.10, lines 27-29 “SOC of an energy source 104”);
calculating a main consumption time period wherein the electrical energy source is able to supply an electric current carrying the reference electrical power, as a function of the parameter(s) of the electrical energy source (Fig.6 and Col.13, lines 45-52 “a graph illustrates an SOC of an embodiment of an energy source 104 as a function of time”, and “comparing an electrical parameter to a curve representing a projected evolution over time of an energy source 104”);
and displaying a main display of main symbols indicating the main consumption time period (Fig.1, #120, Col.5, lines 50-51, Fig.8A-Fig.8B, and Col.14, lines 34-49 “Hover time remaining may be, without limitation, displayed in minutes”)
In re claim 2, Ferrier teaches the following:
wherein the parameter(s) is/are chosen from a charge level, a temperature, and a level of ageing of the electrical energy source, and an electrical intensity and an electrical voltage of an electric current flowing in the electrical energy source, an internal resistance of the electrical energy source, an impedance of the electrical energy source, and a residual amount of the electrical energy source (Col.10, lines 27-29 “SOC of an energy source 104”)
In re claim 3, Ferrier teaches the following:
wherein, when the electrical energy source comprises at least two electrical energy storage devices, the parameter(s) comprise(s) one or more parameters relating to each of the storage devices (Col.9, lines 35-36, “an energy source consists of a plurality of battery cells”)
In re claim 4, Ferrier teaches the following:
wherein the method comprises estimating at least one additional consumption time period wherein the electrical energy source is able to supply an electric current carrying an additional electrical power different to the reference electrical power, as a function of the parameter(s) of the electrical energy source and the additional electrical power, and displaying an additional display of additional symbols indicating the additional consumption time period (Col.11, line 51 – Col.12, line 14 “ a first number representing power-production capability of an electrical source and a second number representing a projected power-consumption need of electrically powered aircraft”)
In re claim 5, Ferrier teaches the following:
wherein, during acquiring, a plurality of parameters of the electrical energy source are acquired, and the method comprises identifying a most penalizing parameter from among the acquired parameters, the main consumption time period being calculated for the most penalizing parameter during calculating (Col.11, lines 20-50 “temperature” and “turbulence”)
In re claim 6, Ferrier teaches the following:
wherein identifying a most penalizing parameter among the acquired parameters comprises the following sub-steps: comparing the acquired parameters with respective thresholds, and estimating the most penalizing parameter as being the parameter exceeding with the greatest deviation in value or percentage the threshold corresponding thereto or the parameter having the smallest deviation in value or percentage from the threshold if none of the thresholds is exceeded (Col.9, line 64 – Col.10, line 5 “compare one or more sampled values of an electrical parameter to curve; where values tend to be more than a threshold amount off of the projected curve”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrier in view of Mazzei et al US 2023/0202321 A1 (hence Mazzei).
In re claim 19, Ferrier discloses the claimed invention as discussed above including an aircraft including a lift rotor rotated by the power plant via a mechanical transmission system (Fig.9, and Col.2, lines 35-36 “a vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft is one that can hover, take off, and land vertically”), the power plant comprising at least one electric machine (Col.2, lines 44-48 “Rotor-based flight, as described herein, is where the aircraft generated lift and propulsion by way of one or more powered rotors coupled with an engine, such as a “quad copter,” multi-rotor helicopter, or other vehicle that maintains its lift primarily using downward thrusting propulsors”) and the electrical energy source electrically connected to the electric machine via an electrical connection system, the electrical energy source comprising at least one electrical energy storage device (Fig.1, #104, and Col.4, lines 61-66 “Energy source”, “Battery”) and at least one sensor (Fig.1, #108, and Col.10, lines 27-29), the electrical energy source being capable of delivering a reference electrical power for a predetermined reference time period for a predetermined reference charge level, wherein the electrical energy source comprises a calculator configured to implement the method according to claim 1 (see mapping of claim 1 above)
However, Ferrier doesn’t explicitly teach a hybrid power plant
Nevertheless, Mazzei discloses a system and method of providing battery displays for an electric rotorcraft and teaches the following:
a hybrid power plant (Paragraph 0041 “Aircraft 100 may be a purely mechanical aircraft, a purely electrical aircraft, or a hybrid electric aircraft, by way of illustrative example”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Ferrier reference to include a hybrid power plant, as taught by Mazzei, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Mazzei teaches that providing battery displays for an electric rotorcraft would work equally well with a purely mechanical aircraft, a purely electrical aircraft, or a hybrid electric aircraft (Mazzei, Paragraph 0041).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dyrla US 9,157,375 B2 discloses a method and a device for optimizing the utilization of an engine, in particular an engine of an aircraft of the rotorcraft type.
Deng et al US 2021/0349154 A1 discloses a terminal apparatus, and a method and a device for determining a battery state of charge (SOC).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669