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 .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 1/24/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 7 the limitation “the first or the second electric machine” is believed to be in error for --the first electric machine or the second electric machine--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15: it is unclear what “the first engine is started by that of the first or of the second electric machine coupled to the gas generator only when the second engine is stopped” is intended to describe, and is unclear what “started by that of the first or of the second electric machine” is referring to.
Claim 15: in “the first engine is started by that of the first or of the second electric machine coupled to the gas generator only when the second engine is stopped, or by the first and/or the second electric machine when the second engine has been previously started”, it is unclear what the limitation “only when the second engine is stopped, or by the first and/or the second electric machine when the second engine has been previously started” describes and how defines the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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) 1-6, 8-11, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poumarede 20170184032 in view of Bedrine 20110049891.
Regarding claim 1, Poumarede teaches:
A propulsion assembly for a hybrid aircraft (100, abstract), in particular a multi-engine helicopter (“an aircraft having a plurality of turbine engines” “helicopter” [0001]), comprising:
- at least a first engine (inter alia, GT1) and a second engine (inter alia, GT2) each having a gas generator and a turbine driven in rotation by a gas stream generated by the gas generator (“The engine also has a gas generator comprising in particular a compressor, a combustion chamber, and a high pressure (HP) turbine” [0002], and the engine as described above is known in the art to drive the high pressure compressor by using a gas stream generated by the combustion in the gas generator),
- a main rotor coupled to the free turbine (“a turbine engine with a free turbine includes a power turbine or “free” turbine that, in a helicopter, drives the rotors of the helicopter” [0001]) of the first and second engines (“The main gearbox MGB is driven by the turbine engines GT1 and GT2” [0062])
- the first engine comprising a first electric machine and a second electric machine of lower power than the first electric machine (“It is also specified that one of the two machines M1A or M1B is of dimensions enabling it to supply the required performance in the event of emergency starting, while the other machine need only be of dimensions enabling it to supply the performance required for normal starting” [0092]), one of the first or of the second electric machine being able to be coupled to the gas generator and to set the gas generator in rotation during a start phase of the engine (“The machine M1A is both a generator and a starter“ [0091]), and being further able to be coupled in order to generate electrical energy (“The machine M1A is both a generator and a starter“ [0091]) after the start phase, the other of the first or of the second electric machine being coupled to the gas generator only (“M1B may possibly be mechanically connected to the gas generator of the engine via a freewheel” [0091]).
Poumarede teaches that “the starter rotary machine included in the assistance device is also a generator actuated by the engine when it is active” [0046], but does not explicitly teach a free turbine, and being further able to be coupled to the free turbine [in order to generate electrical energy after the start phase].
However, Bedrine teaches a helicopter with the engine including a gas generator, a free turbine, and a reversible electric machine (abstract), and:
a free turbine (abstract)
electric machine being able to be coupled to the gas generator (“a reversible electric machine for coupling to the gas generator” abstract) and to set the gas generator in rotation during a start phase of the engine (“the reversible electric machine configured to set the gas generator into rotation during a stage of starting the turbine engine” abstract), and being further able to be coupled to the free turbine in order to generate electrical energy after the start phase (“to generate electricity, the reversible electric machine is also configured to be coupled to the free turbine after the turbine engine has started”, abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Poumarede with Bedrine's structure discussed above in order to provide a helicopter engine a reversible electric machine capable of starting the gas generator and also of generating electricity by connecting to the free turbine, as taught by Bedrine (abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Poumarede in view of Bedrine teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Poumarede in view of Bedrine, as discussed so far, is silent about:
The propulsion assembly according to claim1, wherein the first electric machine is coupled to a shaft of the gas generator via first deactivatable coupling means configured to be activated during the start phase, and to be deactivated after the start phase.
However, Bedrine teaches:
the electric machine (“reversible electric machine”, abstract) is coupled to a shaft of the gas generator (“the reversible electric machine is coupled to a shaft of the gas generator” [0025]) via first deactivatable coupling means (“via first deactivatable coupling means” [0025]) configured to be activated during the start phase, and to be deactivated after the start phase (“[0019] The invention achieves this object by the fact that, in order to generate electricity, the reversible electric machine is also designed to be coupled to the free turbine after the turbine engine has started.” [0019] and “Advantageously, the reversible electric machine is coupled to a shaft of the gas generator via first deactivatable coupling means, said reversible machine is coupled to a shaft of the free turbine via second deactivatable coupling means, and the first and second coupling means are configured so as not to be activated simultaneously” [0025])
Regarding claim 3, Poumarede in view of Bedrine teaches the invention as discussed for claim 2. Poumarede in view of Bedrine, as discussed so far, is silent about:
the first electric machine is coupled to a shaft of the free turbine by being in direct engagement therewith.
However, Bedrine teaches:
the first electric machine is coupled to a shaft of the free turbine by being in direct engagement therewith. (“the reversible electric machine is also designed to be coupled to the free turbine after the turbine engine has started.” [0019])
Regarding claim 4, Poumarede in view of Bedrine teaches the invention as discussed for claim 2.
Poumarede in view of Bedrine, as discussed so far, is silent about:
The propulsion assembly
However, Bedrine teaches:
the first electric machine (“[0019] The invention achieves this object by the fact that, in order to generate electricity, the reversible electric machine is also designed to be coupled to the free turbine after the turbine engine has started.” [0019] and “Advantageously, the reversible electric machine is coupled to a shaft of the gas generator via first deactivatable coupling means, said reversible machine is coupled to a shaft of the free turbine via second deactivatable coupling means, and the first and second coupling means are configured so as not to be activated simultaneously” [0025])
Regarding claim 5, Poumarede in view of Bedrine teaches the invention as discussed for claim 4.
Poumarede in view of Bedrine, as discussed so far, is silent about:
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.
However, Bedrine teaches:
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 (“Advantageously, the reversible electric machine is coupled to a shaft of the gas generator via first deactivatable coupling means, said reversible machine is coupled to a shaft of the free turbine via second deactivatable coupling means, and the first and second coupling means are configured so as not to be activated simultaneously” [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Poumarede in view of Bedrine teaches the invention as discussed for claim 4.
Poumarede in view of Bedrine, as discussed so far, is silent about:
wherein the first deactivatable coupling means
However, Bedrine teaches:
the first deactivatable coupling means (“the first coupling means comprise a first stepdown gear having a first stepdown coefficient, while the second coupling means comprise a second stepdown gear having a second stepdown coefficient, and in that the ratio of the first and second stepdown coefficients is less than a first limit value” [0041]).
Regarding claim 8, Poumarede in view of Bedrine teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Poumarede further teaches:
The propulsion assembly according to any one of claim 1, where the scone electric machine is coupled to the gas generator only, via a free wheel (“the machine M1B is a starter only. M1B may possibly be mechanically connected to the gas generator of the engine via a freewheel” [0091])
Regarding claim 9, Poumarede in view of Bedrine teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Poumarede further teaches:
The propulsion assembly according to claim 1, wherein the second engine comprises a third electric machine (inter alia, M2A, or GS2, analogous to M1A, GS1 discussed for the first engine and seen in Figs. 1-4) able to drive the gas generator of the second engine during a start phase, and to be driven by said gas generator after the start phase in order to generate electrical energy (“Each engine GT1 and GT2 has a respective rotary machine GS1 and GS2 suitable for operating as a starter and as a generator and mechanically connected to the gas generator of the corresponding engine” [0065], where the claimed “third electric machine” is part of the second engine).
Regarding claim 10, Poumarede in view of Bedrine teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Poumarede further 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 (“free-turbine turbine engines for an aircraft having a plurality of turbine engines. The aircraft may in particular be a helicopter” [0001]).
Regarding claim 11, Poumarede in view of Bedrine teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Poumarede further teaches:
A method for optimizing the operation of a multi-engine aircraft (“an aircraft having a plurality of turbine engines” [0001]) using a propulsion assembly according to claim 1, wherein, during a start phase of the first engine, the first electric machine and/or the second electric machine drive the gas generator of said first engine (“The machine M1A is both a generator and a starter“ [0091]),
Poumarede teaches that “the starter rotary machine included in the assistance device is also a generator actuated by the engine when it is active” [0046], but does not explicitly teach:
after the start phase, the free turbine of said first engine drives one of the first electric machine or of the second electric machine in order to generate electrical energy.
However, Bedrine teaches a helicopter with the engine including a gas generator, a free turbine, and a reversible electric machine (abstract), and:
after the start phase, the free turbine of said first engine drives one of the first electric machine or of the second electric machine in order to generate electrical energy (“to generate electricity, the reversible electric machine is also configured to be coupled to the free turbine after the turbine engine has started”, abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Poumarede in view of Bedrine teaches the invention as discussed for claim 11. Poumarede further teaches:
wherein, during a start phase of the first engine, the first electric machine and/or the second electric machine drive the gas generator of said first engine without driving the free turbine (“The machine M1A is both a generator and a starter“ [0091] “M1B may possibly be mechanically connected to the gas generator of the engine via a freewheel” [0091]),
Poumarede in view of Bedrine, as discussed so far, is silent about:
when the first electric machine is coupled to the shaft of the free turbine via the second deactivatable coupling means comprising the second free wheel.
However, Bedrine teaches:
the first electric machine is coupled to the shaft of the free turbine via the second deactivatable coupling means comprising the second free wheel (“The invention achieves this object by the fact that, in order to generate electricity, the reversible electric machine is also designed to be coupled to the free turbine after the turbine engine has started” [0019] and “Advantageously, the reversible electric machine is coupled to a shaft of the gas generator via first deactivatable coupling means, said reversible machine is coupled to a shaft of the free turbine via second deactivatable coupling means, and the first and second coupling means are configured so as not to be activated simultaneously” [0025])
Regarding claim 15, Poumarede in view of Bedrine teaches the invention as discussed for claim 11. Also see 112(b) rejection above.
Poumarede further teaches:
the first engine is started by that of the first or of the second electric machine coupled to the gas generator only when the second engine is stopped, or by the first and/or the second electric machine when the second engine has been previously started (“In motor mode, the electrical machine is powered by a source of electricity and it develops driving torque so as to drive rotation of the gas generator of the engine, in particular for the purpose of starting it, thus providing assistance on starting” [0004])
Poumarede in view of Bedrine, as discussed so far, is silent about:
the first electric machine
However, Bedrine teaches:
the first electric machine(“the reversible electric machine is also designed to be coupled to the free turbine after the turbine engine has started” [0019])
Claim(s) 7, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poumarede 20170184032 in view of Bedrine 20110049891 and Cossetti 20220135239.
Regarding claim 7, Poumarede in view of Bedrine teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Poumarede in view of Bedrine, as discussed so far, is silent about:
wherein, when the second engine alone drives the main rotor, the gas generator of the first engine is kept in a standby mode, via the first or the second electric machine.
However, Cossetti teaches “a system comprising at least one turboshaft engine that is also capable of being put on standby in flight […] comprises a gas generator that cooperates with an electric machine capable of operating in motor mode and in electrical energy generator mode” [0010], and:
the second engine alone drives the main rotor (“one turboshaft engine may operate normally” [0011]), the gas generator of the first engine is kept in a standby mode (“while the other turboshaft engine is put on standby” [0011]), via the first or the second electric machine (“to provide the electric machine connected with the turboshaft engine on standby with the energy necessary for it to be reactivated quickly” [0011]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Poumarede in view of Bedrine with Cossetti's teachings discussed above, such that the second engine alone drives the main rotor, the gas generator of the first engine is kept in a standby mode, via the first or the second electric machine, in order to provide “the turboshaft engine on standby with the energy necessary for it to be reactivated quickly” [0011] as taught by Cossetti.
Regarding claim 12, Poumarede in view of Bedrine teaches the invention as discussed for claim 11.
Poumarede in view of Bedrine, as discussed so far, is silent about:
the second engine is able to operate alone, the first engine then operating in a standby mode by being driven at idle by the first or the second electric machine, the first engine operating in the standby mode being restarted by the first electric machine at least during a quick restart phase.
However, Cossetti teaches a “method for controlling a power plant of a rotorcraft comprising at least two turboshaft engines“ (title), “turboshaft engine that is also capable of being put on standby in flight […] comprises a gas generator that cooperates with an electric machine capable of operating in motor mode and in electrical energy generator mode” [0010], and:
the second engine is able to operate alone (“In a twin-engine rotorcraft, one turboshaft engine may operate normally while the other turboshaft engine is put on standby” [0011]), the first engine then operating in a standby mode (“while the other turboshaft engine is put on standby” [0011]) by being driven at idle by the first or the second electric machine, the first engine operating in the standby mode being restarted by the first electric machine at least during a quick restart phase (“to provide the electric machine connected with the turboshaft engine on standby with the energy necessary for it to be reactivated quickly” [0011]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Poumarede in view of Bedrine with Cossetti's teachings discussed above, in order to provide “the turboshaft engine on standby with the energy necessary for it to be reactivated quickly” [0011] as taught by Cossetti.
Regarding claim 14, Poumarede in view of Bedrine teaches the invention as discussed for claim 11. Poumarede further teaches:
the main rotor being coupled to the free turbine of the first engine via a main coupling means, the main rotor driven by the second engine (2) rotating at a higher speed than the shaft of the free turbine of the first engine such that the main coupling means is deactivated (inter alia, “The invention lies in the field of free-turbine turbine engines for an aircraft having a plurality of turbine engines. The aircraft may in particular be a helicopter. It should be recalled that a turbine engine with a free turbine includes a power turbine or “free” turbine that, in a helicopter, drives the rotors of the helicopter via an overrunning clutch (freewheel) and a main gearbox (MGB)” [0001]).
Poumarede in view of Bedrine, as discussed so far, is silent about:
the first electric machine is coupled to the shaft of the free turbine of the first engine by being in direct engagement therewith,
However, Bedrine teaches:
the first electric machine is coupled to a shaft of the free turbine of the first engine by being in direct engagement therewith (the reversible electric machine is also designed to be coupled to the free turbine after the turbine engine has started.” [0019])
Poumarede in view of Bedrine, as discussed so far, is silent about:
the second engine is able to operate alone
the first engine then operating in a standby mode is driven at idle by the second electric machine coupled to the gas generator only, or by the first electric machine
However, Cossetti teaches a “method for controlling a power plant of a rotorcraft comprising at least two turboshaft engines“ (title), “turboshaft engine that is also capable of being put on standby in flight […] comprises a gas generator that cooperates with an electric machine capable of operating in motor mode and in electrical energy generator mode” [0010], and:
the second engine is able to operate alone (“In a twin-engine rotorcraft, one turboshaft engine may operate normally while the other turboshaft engine is put on standby” [0011]),
the first engine then operating in a standby mode is driven at idle by the second electric machine coupled to the gas generator only, or by the first electric machine (“to provide the electric machine connected with the turboshaft engine on standby with the energy necessary for it to be reactivated quickly” [0011]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Poumarede in view of Bedrine with Cossetti's teachings discussed above, in order to provide “the turboshaft engine on standby with the energy necessary for it to be reactivated quickly” [0011] as taught by Cossetti.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741