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 1/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 10, 14, 17 have been amended. Claims 4 and 13 have been cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-20 remain pending in the application. Examiner appreciates the thorough explanation of the invention and amendments provided in the applicant’s response.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reason(s):
In response to applicant's argument regarding independent claims 1 and 10 that the electric motor found in the combination of Landers and Kejha is “not provided for at least the sole propulsion system for take-off, landings, taxiing, and low speed flight operations. In Landers, the electric engine has independent propulsion use in emergency partial take-offs and landings and jet/turbine failure but not all ‘low-speed’ flight operations”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Per MPEP 2114, “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does … a claim containing a ‘recitation with respect in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers et al. (US 20210347490 A1) in view of Kejha (US 20080184906 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Landers teaches a hybrid propelled aircraft (Figures 1A, 2-6. ¶ [0020-0022]), comprising: a fuselage (Figure 1A) having a nose end and an aft end (Figure 1A); a tail section at the aft end (Figure 1A); a right wing extending outward from a right side of the fuselage (Figure 1A); a left wing extending outward from a left side of the fuselage (Figures 1A); an electric motor-generator-propeller propulsion system (elements 110A-B, ¶ [0020-0022]) comprising: one or more electrical storage unit(s) connected to the motor-generator for powering the motor-generator for driving the propeller (Figure 2, ¶ [0022-0027]), wherein the one or more electrical storage unit(s) is configured to absorb and release electrical energy (Figure 2, ¶ [0022-0027]), and operate in a generator mode charges the one or more electrical storage unit(s) (¶ [000034-0036]); and at least one wave engine disposed at the aft end of the fuselage for operation of the hybrid propelled aircraft at least in the air after takeoff and before landing (¶ [0023, 0032]). Landers fail to specifically teach a propeller rotatably connected to the fuselage for pulling or pushing propulsion operation of the hybrid propelled aircraft for takeoffs, landing, ground taxiing, and low-speed flying operation; a motor-generator connected to the propeller for driving the propeller for propelling the hybrid propelled aircraft; and wherein in a motor mode the motor-generator drives the propeller. However, Landers teaches the use of an electric motor-generator propulsion system is connected to the fuselage (Figure 1A; elements 110A-B connected to fuselage of aircraft100) for pulling or pushing propulsion operation of the hybrid propelled aircraft for takeoffs, landing, and ground taxiing (¶ [0020, 0025-0027]); in addition to the electric motor-generators having the capability of “feathering blades” to reduce drag, or increasing the speed of rotation of the motor to increase drag and reduce speed as a form of regenerative charging (¶ [0034]), and that the motor-generator may operate as a “wind-driven generator” ¶ [0036]). More, Kejha teaches an analogous hybrid aircraft comprising an electric generator propulsion system comprising a propeller (element 6, ¶ [0045]) for pulling or pushing propulsion operation of the hybrid propelled aircraft for takeoffs, landing, ground taxiing (¶ [0046]) and low-speed flying operations (intended use); a motor-generator connected to the propeller for driving the propeller and propelling the aircraft (¶ [0045-0048]); and an electrical storage unit connected to the motor-generator for power the motor-generator for driving the propeller (¶ [0048-0053]); wherein the electrical storage unit is configured to absorb and release electrical energy (¶ [0048-0053]); wherein in a motor mode (¶ [0045]), the motor-generator drives the propeller, and in a generator mode charges the one or more electrical storage unit (¶ [0051-0052]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate Kejha’s motor-generator-propeller system as the electric motor-generator propulsion system in Landers, in order to allow the propeller to be driven as a “wind driven generator” to charge the electrical storage units when not being used to propel the aircraft.
Regarding claim 2, Landers in view of Kejha teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the propeller is capable of being folded out of use when the one or more wave engine(s) are being operated (¶ [0044] of Landers).
Regarding claim 3, Landers in view of Kejha teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the propeller is capable of being windmilled when not in use to propel the hybrid aircraft to turn the motor-generator to charge the one or more electrical storage unit(s) (¶ [0051-0052] of Kejha. ¶ [0034-0036] of Landers).
Regarding claim 5, Landers in view of Kejha teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the one wave engine is used for high speed flying operations (Intended use claim. ¶ [0023, 0032-0034, 0043-0044] of Landers).
Regarding claim 6, Landers in view of Kejha teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein the propeller is capable of being connected to the nose of the fuselage for pulling operation of the hybrid propelled aircraft. However, Kejha teaches an embodiment wherein the propeller is capable of being connected to the nose of the fuselage for pulling operation of the hybrid aircraft (¶ [0060], Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the propeller on Landers in view of Kejha arranged on the nose of the fuselage for pulling operation of the hybrid aircraft as taught in Kejha, in order to allow the propeller to be the first point of contact in the airstream to facilitate wind generation mode and increased drag during regenerative charging mode, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI
Regarding claim 7, Landers in view of Kejha teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the propeller is capable of being connected to the aft end of the fuselage for pushing operation of the hybrid propelled aircraft (Figure 1A of Landers. Figure 4 of Kejha).
Regarding claim 9, Landers in view of Kejha teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach the at least one wave engine is disposed within the interior of the fuselage. However, Kejha teaches wherein at least one of the engines is disposed within the fuselage (Figures 1 and 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the wave engine of Landers in view of Kejha, in order to remove exterior drag and promote aerodynamic efficiency, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers et al. (US 20210347490 A1) in view of Kejha (US 20080184906 A1), in further view of Maqbool (US 20180058319 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Landers in view of Kejha teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein two wave engines are disposed at the aft end of the fuselage and include the two wave engines being cross-connected and operated in anti-phase mode. However, Landers in view of Kejha teaches the wave engine is disposed at the end of the fuselage (Figure 1A). More, Maqbool teaches an analogous aircraft comprising two wave engines (Figure 2A, ¶ [0021]) cross-connected and operating in anti-phase mode (Figure 2A, ¶ [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to duplicate the wave engine of Landers in view of Kejha and arrange the wave engines in a cross-connection such that they operate in anti-phase mode, in order to reduce noise and vibrations generated by the engines, since it has been held that mere duplication of working parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Claim(s) 10-12, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers et al. (US 20210347490 A1) in view of Kejha (US 20080184906 A1), in further view of Ouellette (US 20060000943 A1); Hereinafter “The combination of Landers”.
Regarding claim 10, Landers teaches a hybrid propelled aircraft (Figures 1A, 2-6. ¶ [0020-0022]), comprising: a fuselage have a nose and aft end (Figure 1A); a tail section at the aft end (Figure 1A); a right wing extending outward from a right side of the fuselage (Figure 1A); a left wing extending outward from a left side of the fuselage (Figure 1A); an electric motor-generator-propeller propulsion system (elements 110A-B, ¶ [0020-0022]) comprising: one or more electrical storage unit(s) connected to the motor-generator for powering the motor-generator for driving the propeller (Figure 2, ¶ [0022-0027]), wherein the one or more electrical storage unit(s) is configured to absorb and release electrical energy (Figure 2, ¶ [0022-0027]), and operate in a generator mode charges the one or more electrical storage unit(s) (¶ [0034-0036]); and at least one wave engine for operation of the hybrid propelled aircraft in the air after takeoff and before landing (¶ [0023, 0032]). Landers fails to specifically teach a propeller rotatably connected to the fuselage for pulling or pushing propulsion operation of the hybrid propelled aircraft for takeoffs, landing, ground taxiing, and low-speed flying operation; and a motor-generator connected to the propeller for driving the propeller for propelling the hybrid propelled aircraft; and wherein the motor-generator operates in a motor mode to drive the propeller. However, Landers teaches the use of an electric motor-generator propulsion system is connected to the fuselage (Figure 1A; elements 110A-B connected to fuselage of aircraft100) for pulling or pushing propulsion operation of the hybrid propelled aircraft for takeoffs, landing, ground taxiing (¶ [0020, 0025-0027]), and low-speed flying operation (intended use); in addition to the electric motor-generators having the capability of “feathering blades” to reduce drag, or increasing the speed of rotation of the motor to increase drag and reduce speed as a form of regenerative charging (¶ [0034]), and that the motor-generator may operate as a “wind-driven generator” ¶ [0036]). More, Kejha teaches an analogous hybrid aircraft comprising an electric generator propulsion system comprising a propeller (element 6, ¶ [0045]) for pulling or pushing propulsion operation of the hybrid propelled aircraft for takeoffs, landing, ground taxiing (¶ [0046]), and low-speed flying operation (intended use); a motor-generator connected to the propeller for driving the propeller and propelling the aircraft (¶ [0045-0048]); and an electrical storage unit connected to the motor-generator for power the motor-generator for driving the propeller (¶ [0048-0053]); wherein the electrical storage unit is configured to absorb and release electrical energy (¶ [0048-0053]); wherein in a motor mode (¶ [0045]), the motor-generator drives the propeller, and in a generator mode charges the one or more electrical storage unit (¶ [0051-0052]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate Kejha’s motor-generator-propeller system as the electric motor-generator propulsion system in Landers, in order to allow the propeller to be driven as a “wind driven generator” to allow for the propeller to charge the electrical storage units when not being used to propel the aircraft.
Further, Landers in view of Kejha fails to specifically teach at least one wave engine disposed at the right wing and one wave engine disposed at the left wing. However, use of pulsejet engines disposed on port and starboard wings is well known in the art as is evidenced by Figures 1-2, and ¶ [0025-0026] of Ouellette. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate wave engines on right and left wings like that of Ouellette onto Landers in view of Kejha, in order to increase thrust capabilities in a balanced fashion.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Landers teaches the invention in claim 10, wherein the propeller is capable of being folded out of use when the one or more wave engine(s) are being operated (Landers ¶ [0011]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Landers teaches the invention in claim 10, wherein the propeller is capable of being windmilled when not in use to propel the hybrid propelled aircraft to turn the motor-generator to charge the one or more electrical storage unit(s) (¶ [0051-0052] of Kejha. ¶ [0034-0036] of Landers).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Landers teaches the invention in claim 10, wherein at the one wave engine at the right wing and left wing are used for at least high speed flying operations (¶ [0033-0034, 0043-0044] of Landers).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Landers teaches the invention in claim 10, but fails to specifically teach wherein the propeller is capable of being connected to the nose of the fuselage for pulling operation of the hybrid propelled aircraft. However, Kejha teaches an embodiment wherein the propeller is capable of being connected to the nose of the fuselage for pulling operation of the hybrid aircraft (¶ [0060], Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the propeller on Landers in view of Kejha arranged on the nose of the fuselage for pulling operation of the hybrid aircraft as taught in Kejha, in order to allow the propeller to be the first point of contact in the airstream to facilitate wind generation mode and increased drag during regenerative charging mode, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Landers teaches the invention in claim 10, wherein the propeller is capable of being connected to the aft end of the fuselage for pushing operation of the hybrid propelled aircraft (Figure 1A of Landers. Figure 4 of Kejha).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers et al. (US 20210347490 A1) in view of Kejha (US 20080184906 A1), in further view of Maqbool (US 20180058319 A1) and Ouellette (US 20060000943 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Landers teaches the invention in claim 10, but fails to specifically teach wherein two wave engines are disposed at the aft end of the fuselage and include the two wave engines being cross-connected to operate in anti-phase. However, Landers in view of Kejha teaches the wave engine is disposed at the end of the fuselage (Figure 1A). More, Maqbool teaches an analogous aircraft comprising two wave engines (Figure 2A, ¶ [0021]) cross-connected and operating in anti-phase mode (Figure 2A, ¶ [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to duplicate the wave engine of Landers in view of Kejha and arrange the wave engines in a cross-connection such that they operate in anti-phase mode, in order to reduce noise and vibrations generated by the engines, since it has been held that mere duplication of working parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers et al. (US 20210347490 A1) in view of Kejha (US 20080184906 A1), in further view of Viala et al. (US 20140367510 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Landers in view of Kejha teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein an air scoop is disposed along the fuselage for channeling ram air to the motor-generator for turning the generator to charge the one or more storage unit(s). However, use of air scoops to channel ram air to a motor-generator during battery charging operations on hybrid aircraft is well known in the art as is evidenced by ¶ [125-0129] of Viala. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the air scoop of Viala into Landers in view of Kejha, in order to maximize compression upstream of the generator and complement efficiency (as taught by Viala).
Regarding claim 20, Landers in view of Kejha teaches the invention in claim 9, but fails to specifically teach wherein an air scoop is disposed along the fuselage for channeling ram air to an inlet pipe of one or more wave engines for mixing with fuel for carrying out combustion cycles of the one or more wave engines and/or to the motor-generator for turning the generator to charge the one or more storage unit(s). However, use of air scoops to channel ram air to a motor-generator during battery charging operations on hybrid aircraft is well known in the art as is evidenced by ¶ [125-0129] of Viala. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the air scoop of Viala into Landers in view of Kejha, in order to maximize compression upstream of the generator and complement efficiency (as taught by Viala).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers et al. (US 20210347490 A1) in view of Kejha (US 20080184906 A1), in further view of Ouellette (US 20060000943 A1), and Viala et al. (US 20140367510 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Landers teaches the invention in claim 10, but fails to specifically teach wherein an air scoop is disposed along the fuselage for channeling ram air to the motor-generator for turning the generator to charge the one or more storage unit(s). However, use of air scoops to channel ram air to a motor-generator during battery charging operations on hybrid aircraft is well known in the art as is evidenced by ¶ [125-0129] of Viala. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the air scoop of Viala into the combination of Landers, in order to maximize compression upstream of the generator and complement efficiency (as taught by Viala).
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
Prosecution Insights