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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first deactivatable coupling means” and “second first deactivatable coupling means” in claims 2-4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Additionally, the limitation “at least one of the first or second electric machines of the first engine and/or second engine being able to transmit electrical energy to the other of the first or second electric machines” is indefinite because it is unclear whether “the other of the first or second electric machines” refers to the corresponding electric machine (e.g. the first electric machine of the first engine transmits electricity to the first electric machine of the second engine) in the other engine or whether this applies to the other electric machine in the same engine (e.g. the first electric machine of the first engine transmits electricity to the second electric machine of the first engine). Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "at least" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further, “quick restart phase” appears to be a relative clause. As such is also unclear.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 13 respectively of copending Application No. 18998280 (henceforth 280) in view Poumarede (US 20170184032 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because these claims cover the same subject matter except for limitations which are obvious in light of Poumarede (US 20170184032 A1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, 280 claims a propulsion assembly for a hybrid aircraft, in particular a multi-engine helicopter, comprising:
- at least a first engine and a second engine each having a gas generator and a free turbine driven in rotation by a gas stream generated by the gas generator,
- a main rotor coupled to the free turbine of the first and second engines,
- the first and second engines each comprising a first electric machine and a second electric machine of lower power than the first electric machine, one of the first or second electric machines being able to be coupled to the gas generator and to set in rotation the gas generator during a start phase of the engine, and being further able to be coupled to the free turbine after the start phase in order to generate electrical energy, the other of the first or second electric machines being coupled to the gas generator only (280, claim 1), except:
at least one of the first or second electric machines of the first engine and/or second engine being able to transmit electrical energy to the other of the first or second electric machines.
Poumarede (US 20170184032 A1) teaches a first and second electric machine being able to transmit electrical energy to the other of the first or second electric machines (Poumarede, figure 3, item S11-S22 and CVS1-CVS2, electrical energy generated by M1A can be transmitted to the other electric machine M1B or to M2A).
280 and Poumarede are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft engine designs. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electric machines of a given engine of 280 with the electric machines being able to transmit electrical energy to the other electric machine of Poumarede with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase redundancy.
Regarding claim 2, 280 claims the propulsion assembly according to claim 1
wherein the first electric machine is coupled to a shaft of the free turbine via first deactivatable coupling means (280, claim 2), and is coupled to a shaft of the gas generator via second deactivatable coupling means,
the first and second deactivatable coupling means being configured so as not to be activated simultaneously (280, claim 4).
Regarding claim 3, 280 claims the propulsion assembly according to claim 2,
wherein the first deactivatable coupling means comprise a first free wheel the second deactivatable coupling means comprise a second free wheel, and the first and second free wheels are mounted in opposition (280, claim 5).
Regarding claim 4, 280 claims the propulsion assembly according to claim 2,
wherein the first deactivatable coupling means comprise a first reduction gear having a first reduction coefficient, while the second deactivatable coupling means comprise a second reduction gear having a second reduction coefficient, and the ratio of the first and second reduction coefficients is smaller than a first limit value (280, claim 6).
Regarding claim 5, 280 claims the propulsion assembly according to claim 1, wherein, when one of the first or second engines alone drives the main rotor, the gas generator of the other of the first or second engines is kept in a standby mode, via the first or second electric machine (280, claim 7).
Regarding claim 6, 280 claims the propulsion assembly according to claim 1, wherein the second electric machine is coupled to the gas generator only, via a free wheel (280, claim 8).
Regarding claim 7, 280 claims a hybrid aircraft comprising a propulsion assembly according to claim 1, the hybrid aircraft being a multi-engine helicopter, in particular a twin-engine helicopter (280, claim 10).
Regarding claim 8, 280 claims a method for optimizing the operation of a multi-engine aircraft using a propulsion assembly according to claim 1, wherein,
during a start phase of one of the first or second engines, the first electric machine and/or the second electric machine drive the gas generator of said first or second engine (280, claim 11) without driving the free turbine (280, claim 13), and after the start phase, the free turbine of said first or second engine drives one of the first electric machine or second electric machine in order to generate electrical energy (280, claim 11), the first electric machine or second electric machine generating electrical energy being able to transmit electrical energy to the other of the first or second electric machines coupled only to the gas generator (Poumarede, figure 3, item S11-S22 and CVS1-CVS2, electrical energy generated by M1A can be transmitted to the other electric machine M1B or to M2A).
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 7, and 13 respectively of copending Application No. 19484734 (henceforth 734). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter overlaps (see the mapping below).
Regarding claim 1, 734 claims a propulsion assembly for a hybrid aircraft, in particular a multi-engine helicopter, comprising:
- at least a first engine and a second engine each having a gas generator and a free turbine driven in rotation by a gas stream generated by the gas generator,
- a main rotor coupled to the free turbine of the first and second engines,
- the first and second engines each comprising a first electric machine and a second electric machine of lower power than the first electric machine, one of the first or second electric machines being able to be coupled to the gas generator and to set in rotation the gas generator during a start phase of the engine, and being further able to be coupled to the free turbine after the start phase in order to generate electrical energy, the other of the first or second electric machines being coupled to the gas generator only (734, claim 1), at least one of the first or second electric machines of the first engine and/or second engine being able to transmit electrical energy to the other of the first or second electric machines (734, claim 9).
Regarding claim 5, 734 claims the propulsion assembly according to claim 1, wherein, when one of the first or second engines alone drives the main rotor, the gas generator of the other of the first or second engines is kept in a standby mode, via the first or second electric machine (734, claim 7).
Regarding claim 7, 734 claims a hybrid aircraft comprising a propulsion assembly according to claim 1, the hybrid aircraft being a multi-engine helicopter, in particular a twin-engine helicopter (734, claim 13).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poumarede (US 20170184032 A1) in view of Bedrine (US 20110049891 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Poumarede (US 20170184032 A1) discloses a propulsion assembly for a hybrid aircraft, in particular a multi-engine helicopter, comprising:
- at least a first engine and a second engine (Poumarede, figure 3, items GT1 and GT2) each having a gas generator and a free turbine driven in rotation by a gas stream generated by the gas generator (Poumarede, ¶62),
- a main rotor coupled to the free turbine of the first and second engines (Poumarede, ¶1, free turbine drives rotors of helicopter),
- the first and second engines each comprising a first electric machine (Poumarede, figure 3, items M1A and M2A) and a second electric machine (Poumarede, figure 3, items M1B and M2B) of lower power than the first electric machine (Poumarede, ¶91), one of the first or second electric machines being able to be coupled to the gas generator and to set in rotation the gas generator during a start phase of the engine (Poumarede, ¶91, M2B is coupled with the gas generator for starting the engine), and being further able to be coupled to the free turbine after the start phase in order to generate electrical energy, the other of the first or second electric machines being coupled to the gas generator only (Poumarede, ¶91, M2B is coupled with the gas generator for starting the engine), at least one of the first or second electric machines of the first engine and/or second engine being able to transmit electrical energy to the other of the first or second electric machines (Poumarede, figure 3, item S11-S22 and CVS1-CVS2, electrical energy generated by M1A can be transmitted to the other electric machine M1B), except:
one of the first or second electric machines being able to be coupled to the gas generator and to set in rotation the gas generator during a start phase of the engine, and being further able to be coupled to the free turbine after the start phase in order to generate electrical energy.
Bedrine (US 20110049891 A1) teaches a first electric machine (Bedrine, figure 1, item 30) being able to be coupled to the gas generator (Bedrine, figure 1, item 18, shaft coupling electric machine to gas generator) and to set in rotation the gas generator during a start phase of the engine (Bedrine, ¶79), and being further able to be coupled to the free turbine (Bedrine, figure 1, item 16, shaft coupling electric machine to free turbine) after the start phase in order to generate electrical energy (Bedrine, ¶81).
Poumarede and Bedrine are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft engine designs. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first electric machine of Poumarede with the first electric machine which is deactivatably couplable with the gas generator for starting the gas generator and deactivatably couplable with the free turbine for generating electricity of Bedrine with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase redundancy.
Regarding claim 2, Poumarede as modified by Bedrine teaches the propulsion assembly according to claim 1
wherein the first electric machine is coupled to a shaft of the free turbine via first deactivatable coupling means, and is coupled to a shaft of the gas generator via second deactivatable coupling means,
the first and second deactivatable coupling means being configured so as not to be activated simultaneously (Bedrine, claim 14).
Regarding claim 3, Poumarede as modified by Bedrine teaches the propulsion assembly according to claim 2,
wherein the first deactivatable coupling means comprise a first free wheel the second deactivatable coupling means comprise a second free wheel, and the first and second free wheels are mounted in opposition (Bedrine, claim 16).
Regarding claim 4, Poumarede as modified by Bedrine teaches the propulsion assembly according to claim 2,
wherein the first deactivatable coupling means comprise a first reduction gear having a first reduction coefficient, while the second deactivatable coupling means comprise a second reduction gear having a second reduction coefficient, and the ratio of the first and second reduction coefficients is smaller than a first limit value (Bedrine, claim 18).
Regarding claim 5, Poumarede as modified by Bedrine teaches the propulsion assembly according to claim 1, wherein, when one of the first or second engines alone drives the main rotor, the gas generator of the other of the first or second engines is kept in a standby mode, via the first or second electric machine (Poumarede, ¶78, single engine flight with one engine kept in standby).
Regarding claim 6, Poumarede as modified by Bedrine teaches the propulsion assembly according to claim 1, wherein the second electric machine is coupled to the gas generator only, via a free wheel (Poumarede, ¶91, M2B is coupled with the gas generator for starting the engine).
Regarding claim 7, Poumarede as modified by Bedrine teaches a hybrid aircraft comprising a propulsion assembly according to claim 1, the hybrid aircraft being a multi-engine helicopter, in particular a twin-engine helicopter (Poumarede, ¶61, helicopter having two engines).
Regarding claim 8, Poumarede as modified by Bedrine teaches a method for optimizing the operation of a multi-engine aircraft using a propulsion assembly according to claim 1, wherein, during a start phase of one of the first or second engines,
the first electric machine and/or the second electric machine drive the gas generator of said first or second engine without driving the free turbine (Bedrine, figures 1-2, items 32 and 12, ¶77-¶79), and after the start phase, the free turbine of said first or second engine drives one of the first electric machine or second electric machine in order to generate electrical energy (Bedrine, figures 1-2, items 40 and 14, ¶81), the first electric machine or second electric machine generating electrical energy being able to transmit electrical energy to the other of the first or second electric machines coupled only to the gas generator (Poumarede, figure 3, item S11-S22 and CVS1-CVS2, electrical energy generated by M1A can be transmitted to the other electric machine M1B).
Regarding claim 9, Poumarede as modified by Bedrine teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein one of the first or second engines is able to operate alone, the other engine then operating in a standby mode while being driven at idle by the first or second electric machine (Poumarede, ¶78, single engine flight with the other engine kept in standby), the engine operating in the standby mode being restarted by the first electric machine at least during a quick restart phase (Poumarede, ¶9, gas generator rotated via rotary machine).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130086919 A1 teaches two engines with starter generators (fig 2 items 200a-b) which can provided power to each other
US 20220135239 A1 teaches a two engine system, where a starter generator is provided on a gas generators and another on a free turbine, that other starter generator provides power to the first one
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights