DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 34-37, 40, 43, 44, 53-56, and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reinhardt (DE 203 15 369; previously provided English translation used).
Regarding independent claims 34 and 55:
Reinhardt discloses an aircraft (claim 33) comprising:
an airframe (inherent to aircraft); and
an electric propulsion system comprising an electric propulsor comprising:
a stationary duct (3); and
an electric ring motor comprising:
a stator assembly (5) coupled to the duct; and
a fan-and-rotor assembly comprising a fan with fan blades (2) and rotor (7), the rotor position inward of the stator to provide a gap (e.g. Fig 2).
Regarding claims 35 and 36:
The discussion above regarding claim 34 is relied upon.
Reinhardt discloses the fan blades directly affixed to the rotor (e.g. Fig 2) that reduces tip clearance losses.
Regarding claim 37:
The discussion above regarding claim 34 is relied upon.
Reinhardt discloses the rotor comprising a plurality of magnets (page 4, para 11) coupled to the outer circumference thereof (for acting in cooperation with 5).
Regarding claim 40:
The discussion above regarding claim 34 is relied upon.
Reinhardt discloses fan blades (2) having a root affixed to a central hub (as seen in e.g. Fig 1).
Regarding claims 43 and 44:
The discussion above regarding claim 34 is relied upon.
Reinhardt discloses one or more bearings supporting the rotor (12), noted as an e.g. ball bearing.
However, it is further noted that the system also operates as a magnetic bearing.
Regarding claim 53:
The discussion above regarding claim 34 is relied upon.
Reinhardt discloses the ring motor providing a structural stiffness to enable a reduction in a quantity of downstream guide vanes (the motor has no downstream guide vanes).
Regarding claim 54:
The discussion above regarding claim 34 is relied upon.
Reinhardt discloses the electric ring motor is air cooled (the air flowing through the duct provides a cooling effect).
Regarding claim 56:
The discussion above regarding claim 55 is relied upon.
Reinhardt discloses an energy storage unit electrically coupled to the propulsor to supply power thereto (inherent to operating the fan system, as there must be some power source to operate the “excitation coils”).
Regarding claim 58:
The discussion above regarding claim 55 is relied upon.
Reinhardt discloses the propulsor “configured” to provide vertical thrust (as this would be a function of orientation of the propulsor).
Claim(s) 34-37, 39, 40, 42-45, 47, 51-56, 58, 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanders, Jr et al. (US 7 032 861).
Regarding independent claims 34 and 55:
Sanders, Jr. discloses an aircraft comprising:
an airframe (as seen in e.g. Fig 1a); and
an electric propulsion system comprising an electric propulsor comprising:
a stationary duct (as seen in e.g. Figs 2b, 14, 17, etc.); and
an electric ring motor comprising:
a stator assembly (e.g. 23; as also seen in Figs 14 and 17) coupled to the duct; and
a fan-and-rotor assembly comprising a fan with fan blades (e.g. 21b, A20) and rotor (21a; as also seen in Figs 14 and 17), the rotor position inward of the stator to provide a gap (e.g. Fig 2b).
Regarding claims 35 and 36:
The discussion above regarding claim 34 is relied upon.
Sanders, Jr. discloses the fan blades directly affixed to the rotor (e.g. Fig 2a) that reduces tip clearance losses.
Regarding claim 37:
The discussion above regarding claim 34 is relied upon.
Sanders, Jr. discloses the rotor comprising a plurality of magnets (col 5, line 65 – col 6, line 16) coupled to the outer circumference thereof (e.g. Fig 2a).
Regarding claim 39:
The discussion above regarding claim 34 is relied upon.
Sanders, Jr discloses variable pitch fan blades (e.g. col 6, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 40:
The discussion above regarding claim 34 is relied upon.
Sanders, Jr discloses the fan blades having a root affixed to a central hub (e.g. Fig 2b).
Regarding claim 42-44:
The discussion above regarding claim 40 is relied upon.
Sanders, Jr. discloses one or more magnetic bearings (e.g. 25) supporting the central hub and rotor (e.g. Fig 2a).
Regarding claim 45:
The discussion above regarding claim 34 is relied upon.
Sanders, Jr discloses the rotor made of a high modulus material (composite; col 9, lines 55-57).
Regarding claim 47:
The discussion above regarding claim 34 is relied upon.
Sanders, Jr. discloses a second contra-rotating fan-rotor assembly (as seen in Fig 17; col 11, lines 24-27).
Regarding claims 51 and 52:
The discussion above regarding claim 40 is relied upon.
Sanders, Jr. discloses a forward and aft aerodynamic fairing coupled to the central hub (e.g. Fig 2b, forward/top and aft/bottom bulges of the hub).
Regarding claim 53:
The discussion above regarding claim 34 is relied upon.
Sanders, Jr. discloses the ring motor providing a structural stiffness to enable a reduction in a quantity of downstream guide vanes (this being a result of the connection of the rotor to the periphery).
Regarding claim 54:
The discussion above regarding claim 34 is relied upon.
Sanders, Jr. discloses motor as air-cooled (col 18, lines 15-19).
Regarding claim 56:
The discussion above regarding claim 55 is relied upon.
Sanders, Jr. discloses energy storage coupled to the electric propulsor to supply power thereto (e.g. col 3, lines 28-31 ).
Regarding claim 58:
The discussion above regarding claim 55 is relied upon.
Sanders, Jr. discloses the propulsor configured to provide vertical thrust (e.g. Fig 4c).
Regarding claim 59:
The discussion above regarding claim 55 is relied upon.
Sanders, Jr. discloses the propulsor integrated into the airframe to ingest a boundary layer therefrom (e.g. Figs 1b, 4c, 10g).
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) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders, Jr. et al. (‘861) in view of Hamilton (US 5 205 712).
The discussion above regarding claim 40 is relied upon.
Sanders, Jr. discloses variable pitch blades, using a motor (A13) and gearing (A13a), at the periphery, but does not disclose the pitch actuation system in the central hub.
Hamilton teaches a central blade pitch actuation system in the hub (Fig 3A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Sander, Jr. to use a central pitch actuation system as taught by Hamilton for the predictable advantage of reducing the number of components required (a central system rather than multiple peripheral), and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinhardt (‘369) in view of Hamilton (US 5 205 712).
The discussion above regarding claim 34 is relied upon.
Reinhard discloses a ducted propulsion system, but does not disclose non-moving guide vanes downstream of the fan.
Hamilton teaches a ducted propulsion system having non-moving guide vanes (22) downstream of the fan.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Reinhardt to use guide vanes as taught by Hamilton for the predictable advantage of “straightening” the flow to mitigate the torque created by the rotating fan.
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinhardt (‘369) or Sanders, Jr. et al. (‘861) in view of Wobben (US 6 293 491).
The discussion above regarding claim 34 is relied upon.
Reinhardt and Sanders, Jr. disclose rotor-stator magnetic drive systems, but do not disclose polyphase windings.
Wobben teaches electric motor systems having polyphase windings, which afford a high level of efficiency and great reliability (col 2, lines 52-65).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Reinhardt or Sanders, Jr. to use polyphase windings as taught by Wobben to increase the efficiency and reliability of the electric drive system.
Claim(s) 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinhardt (‘369).
The discussion above regarding claim 55 is relied upon.
Reinhardt discloses an electric propulsion, with an electric power source (to power the magnets), but does not disclose a generator electrically coupled thereto to provide hybrid propulsion.
The examiner takes Official Notice that hybrid propulsion systems are well-known in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Reinhardt to use a hybrid propulsion system as the examiner takes Official Notice that hybrid propulsion systems are well-known in the art, to provide an extended aircraft range (fuel having a high energy density, permitting more power and longer flight).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 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, Anna Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
