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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 8-9, and 11-14 have been amended. Claims1-7 and 10 are cancelled. Claims15-17 are new. Claims 8-9, 11-17 remain pending in the application. Examiner appreciates the thorough explanation of the invention and amendments provided in the applicant’s response. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 6/16/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8-9, 1-17 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.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claim 8: “wherein the motor power unit is spaced along the motor axis from the motor; and wherein the motor output shaft is oriented relative to the propeller shaft such that the motor axis is non-parallel to the propeller axis.” Examiner asserts Figure 1 satisfies the limitation, “wherein the motor power unit is spaced along the motor axis from the motor”, but fails to satisfy “wherein the motor output shaft is oriented relative to the propeller shaft such that the motor axis is non-parallel to the propeller axis.” More, Examiner asserts Figure 2 fails to satisfy the limitation “wherein the motor power unit is spaced along the motor axis from the motor”, but satisfies the limitation “wherein the motor output shaft is oriented relative to the propeller shaft such that the motor axis is non-parallel to the propeller axis.”
Claim 14: “locating the motor power unit so that it is spaced along the motor axis from the motor; and orientating the motor output shaft relative to the propeller shaft such that the motor axis is non-parallel to the propeller axis.” Examiner asserts Figure 1 satisfies the limitation, “locating the motor power unit so that it is spaced along the motor axis from the motor”, but fails to satisfy “orientating the motor output shaft relative to the propeller shaft such that the motor axis is non-parallel to the propeller axis.” More, Examiner asserts Figure 2 fails to satisfy the limitation “locating the motor power unit so that it is spaced along the motor axis from the motor”, but satisfies the limitation “orientating the motor output shaft relative to the propeller shaft such that the motor axis is non-parallel to the propeller axis.”
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 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) 8, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allias et al. (US 20230017954 A1) in view of Seminel (US 20210094694 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Allias teaches a fully-electric aeronautical propulsion system, comprising: a propeller (201) mounted to a propeller shaft (221) defining a propeller axis; an electric motor (203) comprising a motor output shaft defining a motor axis (228); wherein the motor output shaft and propeller shaft are connected by a linkage such that, in use, driving the motor output shaft for rotation drives rotation of the propeller via the propeller shaft and linkage (as depicted in Figure 3); and wherein the motor output shaft (element 228) is oriented relative to the propeller shaft (221) such that the motor axis (228) is non-parallel to the propeller axis (as depicted in Figure 3). Allias fails to specifically teach a motor power unit configured to receive power from a power source and provide a motor drive signal to the motor. However, ¶ [0026] of Allias teaches that the electric motors are powered by one or more fuel cells. More, Examiner takes Official Notice that motor controllers are well known in the art to receive power from a power source and provide motor drive signals (see Wikipedia Motor Controller or ¶ [0033-0035] of Seminel for extrinsic supporting evidence). Thus, it would have been obvious to suggest that the drive motors found in Allias and powered by fuel cells comprised a motor controller, in order to regulate power to and from the motor and the motor’s power source. More, Allias fails to specifically teach the motor power unit spaced along the motor axis from the motor. However, Seminel teaches an embodiment in Figure 2 wherein the motor power unit is spaced along the motor axis downstream from the motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to arrange the motor controller along the motor axis in the space above the motor(s) found in Figure 3 of Allias, in order to locate the motor controller downstream of the propeller such that the downstream fluid may cool the motor controller and motors and mitigate over-heating.
Regarding claim 11, Allias in view of Seminel teaches the invention in claim 8, wherein the linkage includes a gearbox and wherein the motor power unit is mounted next to the gearbox (Figure 2 of Allias, and see cited response to claim 8 comprising location of motor controller).
Regarding claim 12, Allias in view of Seminel teaches an aircraft comprising the fully-electric aeronautical propulsion system of claim 8 (Figure 1 of Allias and the cited response provided in claim 8).
Regarding claim 14, Allias teaches a8 method of manufacturing a fully-electric aeronautical propulsion system, comprising: mounting a propeller (201) on a propeller shaft (221), the propeller shaft defining a propeller axis (221 inasmuch as applicant has claimed); providing an electric motor (203) comprising a motor output shaft (228), the motor output shaft defining a motor axis (228 inasmuch as applicant has claimed); connecting the motor output shaft and propeller shaft by a linkage such that, in use, driving the motor output shaft for rotation drives rotation of the propeller via the propeller shaft and linkage (as depicted in Figure 3); and orientating the motor output shaft relative to the propeller shaft (221) such that the motor axis (228) is non-parallel to the propeller axis (as depicted in Figure 3). Allias fails to specifically teach providing a motor power unit configured receive power from a power source and provide a motor drive signal to the motor; and locating the motor power unit so that it is spaced along the motor axis from the motor. However, ¶ [0026] of Allias teaches that the electric motors are powered by one or more fuel cells. More, Examiner takes Official Notice that motor controllers are well known in the art to receive power from a power source and provide motor drive signals (see Wikipedia Motor Controller or ¶ [0033-0035] of Seminel for extrinsic supporting evidence). Thus, it would have been obvious to suggest that the drive motors found in Allias and powered by fuel cells comprised a motor controller, in order to regulate power to and from the motor and the motor’s power source. More, Allias fails to specifically teach the motor power unit spaced along the motor axis from the motor. However, Seminel teaches an embodiment in Figure 2 wherein the motor power unit is spaced along the motor axis downstream from the motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to arrange the motor controller along the motor axis in the space above the motor(s) found in Figure 3 of Allias, in order to locate the motor controller downstream of the propeller such that the downstream fluid may cool the motor controller and motors and mitigate over-heating.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allias et al. (US 20230017954 A1) in view of Seminel (US 20210094694 A1), in further view of Tasker et al. (US 20230160357 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Allias in view of Seminel teaches the invention in claim 8, but fails to specifically teach wherein the motor (208) is an axial flux motor. However, use of axial motors in propulsion systems is well known in the art as is evidenced by ¶ [0007-0011] of Tasker. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to specify that the motors in Allias’ propulsion system were axial flux motors, in order to provide compact and lightweight motors capable of operating in conjunction with the gearbox found in Figure 3 of Allias.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allias et al. (US 20230017954 A1) in view of Seminel (US 20210094694 A1), in further view of Ross et al. (US 20220324558 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Allias in view of Seminel teaches the invention in claim 12, but fails to specifically teach wherein the aircraft is a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft. However, Ross teaches an analogous electric VTOL (eVTOL) aircraft (¶ [0073]) that comprises an electric propulsion system comprising a gearbox, electric motor, and driveshaft system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate Allias electric propulsion system into Ross’ eVTOL aircraft, in order to provide more electric motors to increase more power output for the aircraft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3099. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Wednesdays: 0500-1300, Tuesdays 0500-1400, Thursdays and Fridays by appointment only..
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644