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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/20/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the radiator and radiator cover of Claim 1 and the liquid cooling source and the rectifier of Claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
For Claim 1, the claim defines “a radiator configured to cool a motor driving the lift propeller”, “wherein a radiator cover for air inflow is provided in front of or above the radiator, and the radiator cover is opened by pressure of inflowing air when a speed of the lift propeller is greater than or equal to a preset speed”. USC 112a/1st defines that the disclosure can be made or used by one of ordinary skill in the art using only what is disclosed plus what is known to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), and since no description of the actual mechanism for the claimed radiator cover is provided it must be known or obvious to a POSITA for the mechanism to be enabled. Therefore this language is taken to be Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
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) 1, 3, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weekes (US PgPub #2019/0127056) in view of Mattikalli (US PgPub #2023/0192304), Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Song (US PgPub #2024/0322337).
For Claim 1, figures 1 and 8 of Weekes ‘056 disclose an aircraft with a multi-power source electric propulsion system, the aircraft comprising: a fuselage (110); a power turbine (810) accommodated in the fuselage and having a power shaft; a generator (825) accommodated in the fuselage and connected to one end of the power shaft; a forward propeller (845) for forward flight; a lift propeller (860) for vertical takeoff and landing and configured to receive power from the generator; a battery package (815) configured to supply power to the lift and forward propellers; and a controller (830 and 855) accommodated in the fuselage, wherein the controller is configured to control a power distribution to the generator, the battery package, and the forward propeller and the lift propeller.
While Weekes ‘056 discloses the power turbine, generator and propeller connected to a power shaft it does not teach the generator at one end and the forward propeller at the other end. However, figure 9 of Mattikalli ‘304 teaches a forward propeller (20) at one end of the shaft and an generator (12) at another end of the shaft with the turbine (14) in the middle. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weekes ‘056 with the specific location of the propeller, generator, and turbine of Mattikalli ‘305. The motivation to do so would be to have the generator closer to the other electrical parts.
While Weekes ‘056 discloses an engine cooling system (865) it is silent about a radiator and a radiator cover that is opened by pressure of inflowing air when a speed of the lift propeller is greater or equal to a preset speed. However, the AAPA teaches that it is well known in the art to have a radiator and radiator cover as they are ancillary or conventional features as known by a POSITA per the claim interpretation. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weekes ‘056 with the well-known radiator and radiator cover as taught by AAPA. The motivation to do so would be to control the temperature as desired.
While figure 7 and paragraph [0067] of Weekes ‘056 discloses that the battery package (815) is configured to allow the aircraft to take-off and land using only the battery package, it is silent about the specific location of the battery package. However, the figures of Song ‘337 teach that it is well known in the art to place battery packages (600) in the bottom of the aircraft. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weekes ‘056 with the battery location at a bottom of the aircraft as taught by Song ‘337. The motivation to do so would be to keep the center of gravity lower in the aircraft.
For Claim 3, figures 1 and 8 of Weekes ‘056 disclose a gearbox (840) disposed between the forward propeller and the power turbine.
For Claims 6-7, while Weekes ‘056 discloses a fuel tank and a heat exchanger that can cool various parts of the system, it is silent about a specific cooling source, a rectifier, and a circulation path. However, the AAPA teaches that it is well-known in the art to have a cooling source, a rectifier, and a circulation path as they are ancillary or conventional features. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weekes ‘056 with the well-known cooling source, rectifier, and circulation path as taught by AAPA. The motivation to do so would be to cool known hot parts of the system.
For Claim 8, while Weekes ‘056 discloses a battery package (815) configured to supply power to the lift and forward propellers, it is silent about a hydrogen fuel cell package configured to supply power to the forward propeller. However, the figures and paragraph [0029] of Mattikalli ‘304 discloses using fuel cells to provide power to the system. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weekes ‘056 with the fuel cell of Mattikalli ‘304. The motivation to do so would be to provide additional power from another source.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weekes (US PgPub #2019/0127056) in view of Mattikalli (US PgPub #2023/0192304), Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Song (US PgPub #2024/0322337) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US PgPub #2018/0127104).
For Claim 2, while paragraphs [0089-0090] of Weekes ‘056 disclose controlling the pitch angle of the propeller to adjust thrust, it is silent about varying the pitch with respect to the speed of the propeller based on a desired thrust vs power generation need. However, the figures and paragraphs [0138-0149] of Kobayashi ‘104 teach decreasing the pitch angle of the propellers so as to windmill which would increase the speed of the propeller when in power generation mode while maintaining needed thrust. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weekes ‘056 with the reduction in pitch angle of the propellers so as to increase power generation of Kobayashi ‘104. The motivation to do so is to generate power when less thrust is needed during cruise.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weekes (US PgPub #2019/0127056) in view of Mattikalli (US PgPub #2023/0192304), Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Song (US PgPub #2024/0322337) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morrison (US PgPub #2020/0391876).
For Claims 9-10, while Weekes ‘056 discloses a battery package (815) and a heat exchanger (867) configured to control heat management of the system based on flight conditions, it is silent about a hydrogen fuel cell heat exchanger and the position of the fuel cell heat exchanger, battery package, and fuel cell. However, figures 16 and 22 of Morrison ‘876 teach a battery package disposed at a bottom of the aircraft, a hydrogen fuel cell heat exchanger (57) configured to control heat management of the hydrogen fuel cell package (18), wherein the hydrogen fuel cell heat exchanger is disposed at the rear of the aircraft to be adjacent to the hydrogen fuel cell package. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Weekes ‘056 with the hydrogen fuel cell heat exchanger and locations of them as taught by Morrison ‘876. The motivation to do so would be to provide equipment they is temperature controlled and is placed away from the cargo areas to maximize cargo spaces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-14, filed 3/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of AAPA per the claim interpretation as stated above with respect to the new limitation with respect to the opening of the radiator cover.
Applicant’s arguments, see 15-17, filed 3/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Song ‘337. Song ‘337 teaches the placement of batteries at a bottom of the aircraft. While the Applicant argues that the references do not teach the battery package allowing takeoff and landing using only the battery package, however, the Applicant points out that paragraph [0067] that it is known to power vertical flight with batteries alone.
With respect to the arguments on pages 17-22 that the references for the dependent claims do not teach the newly amended claims, the Examiner agrees, however, the Examiner has responded to the previous arguments about the rejection of Claim 1 and has rejected Claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited disclose covers that open based on preset conditions to allow airflow into a thermal management system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 5/5/2026
Prosecution Insights