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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/18/2025. These drawings are accepted.
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 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).
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 take off and landing and configured to receive power from the generator; and a controller (830 and 855) accommodated in the fuselage, wherein the controller is configured to control a power distribution to the generator, 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.
For Claim 3, figures 1 and 8 of Weekes ‘056 disclose a gearbox (840) disposed between the forward propeller and the power turbine.
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) 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) 5-7 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
For Claim 5, while Weekes ‘056 discloses an engine cooling system (865) it is silent about a radiator and a radiator cover. 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. 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.
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 the 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.
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) 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, 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 14-17, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 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 Weekes ‘876.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Official Notice of Claims 5-7 on pages 17-20 that it is traverse and not proper, the Examiner has withdrawn the Official Notice as it is now rejected under Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). On page 10, and in other parts of the remarks the Applicant argues that the specific structures defined in Claims 5-7 which where given drawing objections as not being shown in the figures are ancillary or conventional features whose inclusion is unnecessary for understanding the claimed invention. Since the features of Claims 5-7 are conventional as stated by the Applicant, the Examiner is taking those features to be AAPA.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 1/23/2026