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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/31/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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) 1-2 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argus (US 2019/0263519 A1) in view of Chantriaux et al. (US 2014/0248168 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Argus teaches a method of controlling a hybrid power unit, the method comprising:
receiving, at a local controller, a target total thrust value (“wherein the controller is configured such that the speed control signal for each electric motor controls each respective electric motor to provide a maneuvering thrust for the hybrid aircraft according to the flight control signal.”, Claim 9);
converting, at the local controller, the target total thrust value into a target speed for a propeller (“There is also a controller for providing speed control signals to the electric motor driven rotors and a throttle control signal for controlling the throttle of the internal combustion engine, based on a flight control signal.”, Abstract);
transmitting, by the local controller, the target speed to a motor speed controller for a primary electric motor (“The method comprises receiving a remote control signal at 400, then adapting the control signal so that it becomes one or more speed control signals and a throttle control signal at 410. The speed control signal is received at an electric motor at 420, a throttle control signal is received at an internal combustion engine at 430.”, Para. [0127]);
receiving, at the local controller, a module current set point based at least in part on a state of charge of a battery (As shown in Fig. 6; further describes the control philosophy as being based on slowing discharge: “In an embodiment, the maneuvering control is superimposed over the contribution of lift for each electric motor driven rotor signal, for each electric motor 60, in the speed control signals 150/350. The lift contribution of the electric motor driven rotors 72 will be considerably less than that in a standard multi-rotor drone because of the significant contribution to the overall lift by the rotors 24. The electrical power drain from running the motors 60 is therefore significantly lower, allowing a slower discharge of the battery 46. This in turn allows a longer endurance time of the aircraft 10 in comparison to a same weight for weight comparable standard multi-rotor drone.”, Paras. [0116]-[0117]);
determining, at the local controller, a throttle set point based in part on the target speed of the propeller and the module current set point (As shown in Fig. 7; Further described using throttle control signals to control speeds of the rotors: “A control signal is also received at 620, for controlling the speed of each electric motor 60 of each rotor 72 at 630…FIG. 7 illustrates receiving a throttle servo control signal 700 which is used to control the throttle of an internal combustion engine (ICE) in accordance with the throttle servo control signal 710. Electric power is then generated from the ICE 720 and this is used to power the electric motor (EM) 730. The EM then drives the lift rotors 24 of the hybrid aircraft 740.”, Paras. [0134]-[0136]); and
adjusting, at the local controller, a throttle set point of an internal-combustion engine of the hybrid power unit based at least in part on the target speed for the propeller and the module current set point (As described above in Paras. [0134]-[0136]).
Argus does not expressly disclose receiving, at the motor speed controller, a sensor value for a current speed for the propeller; generating, at the motor speed controller, a signal to a primary electric motor to selectively output torque to a rotor and regeneratively brake the rotor according to the target speed for the propeller.
However, in an analogous rotor control art, Chantriaux teaches:
receiving, at the motor speed controller, a sensor value for a current speed for the propeller (“The control unit UG is preferably associated with a means for the continuous control, of the integrity of each electric motor element Ee1, Ee2, . . . , Een. The means of control may, for example, consist of a set of sensors integrated in an intrinsic manner into each electric motor element and, for example, configured to detect the rotation and the angle of the rotor, the supply of electricity to the stator, the torque and/or the generated power; etc.”, P{ara. [0085]);
generating, at the motor speed controller, a signal to a primary electric motor to selectively output torque to a rotor (“The control unit UG controls the operating point of the distributed electric motor unit GEMD as a function of the power requirement of the aircraft. In particular, the control unit UG can cause the torque or the speed of rotation of each electric motor element Ee1, Ee2, . . . , Een to vary as a function of the power requirement of the aircraft. For example, in the event of the failure of electric motor elements, and if no other reserve electric motor element is available, the control unit UG can emit a set point in order to increase the torque or the speed of rotation of those electric motor elements that are still in service, in order to enable the distributed electric motor unit GEMD to continue to transmit sufficient power to the rotating shaft Rp1, Rp2, Rp, RAC, H.”, Para. [0089]) and regeneratively brake the rotor according to the target speed for the propeller (“In normal operation, each moving rotor Rt is thus capable of cooperating with a freewheel R1 in such a way as to be connected to the rotating shaft Rp1, Rp2, Rp, RAC, H, in order to transmit the mechanical, power to it. On the other hand, in the event of the failure of an electric motor element Ee1, Ee2, . . . , Een, the freewheel R1 disconnects the rotor Rt from the rotating shaft Rp1, Rp2, Rp, RAC, H. This is particularly advantageous in the case of a short circuit in a winding of the stator St that is capable of bringing about the very violent inductive braking of the rotor.”, Para. [0066]; “In the case of a helicopter, during the autorotation phase, the distributed electric motor unit GEMD can function as a generator, In the case of a helicopter, during the autorotation phase, the distributed electric motor unit GEMD can function as a generator, thereby permitting the batteries and/or superconductors to be recharged while regulating the speed of rotation of the one or more main rotors Rp1, Rp2, Rp.”, Para. [0091]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Argus further including receiving, at the motor speed controller, a sensor value for a current speed for the propeller; generating, at the motor speed controller, a signal to a primary electric motor to selectively output torque to a rotor and regeneratively brake the rotor according to the target speed for the propeller, as taught by Chantriaux, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that “In the event of the failure of one or a plurality of initially active electric motor elements Ee1, Ee2, . . . , Een, the control unit UG is thus configured to emit a set point enabling the power delivered jointly by all of the said elements to be reconfigured in real time… the control unit UG instantaneously brings into service other reserve electric motor elements (for example: Ee7 and Ee8) in order to enable the distributed electric motor unit GEMD to continue to transmit sufficient power to the rotating shaft”, as discussed by Chantriaux. Para. [0085].
Regarding claim 2, Argus teaches further comprising: generating a final throttle set point signal based at least in part on the throttle set point (“The effort set point for overall thrust (as a proportion of full thrust) is used to determine the thrust control signal 180 provided to control the speed of the internal combustion engine 40.”, Para. [0121]; and sending the final throttle set point signal directly or indirectly to a throttle actuator (“Referring to FIG. 5, there is illustrated a flow chart for operating a hybrid aircraft 10 in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. The method comprises receiving a remote control signal at 400, then adapting the control signal so that it becomes one or more speed control signals and a throttle control signal at 410. The speed control signal is received at an electric motor at 420, a throttle control signal is received at an internal combustion engine at 430. The speed control signal is then used to drive the independent rotors at 440, and the throttle control signal is used to drive the set of at least two rotors at 450.”, Para. [0127]).
Regarding claim 4, Chantriaux teaches wherein the module current set point is based at least in part on a second module current set point from a second local controller (“An electronic control unit is preferably associated with a means for the continuous control of the integrity of each electric motor element, in such a way that, in the event of the failure of one or a plurality of initially active electric motor elements, the electronic control unit will emit a set point, intended for the other undamaged electric motor elements, enabling the power delivered by each of the said undamaged electric motor elements to be reconfigured in a linear fashion in real time by modifying the variable "Ki" in such a way that the distributed electric motor unit continues to transmit to the rotating shaft a level of power that is sufficient for the propulsion and/or the lifting of the said aircraft.”, Para. [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Argus wherein the module current set point is based at least in part on a second module current set point from a second local controller, as further taught by Chantriaux, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that “In the event of the failure of one or a plurality of initially active electric motor elements Ee1, Ee2, . . . , Een, the control unit UG is thus configured to emit a set point enabling the power delivered jointly by all of the said elements to be reconfigured in real time… the control unit UG instantaneously brings into service other reserve electric motor elements (for example: Ee7 and Ee8) in order to enable the distributed electric motor unit GEMD to continue to transmit sufficient power to the rotating shaft”, as discussed by Chantriaux. Para. [0085].
Regarding claim 5, Chantriaux teaches further comprising, detecting, via one or more sensors, a condition of the primary electric motor or a secondary internal-combustion engine; generating a signal in response to the detected condition (note, a condition of the primary electric motor is selected as the secondary internal combustion engine is optional); and disengaging clutch in response to the detected condition (“in the event of the failure of an electric motor element Ee1, Ee2, . . . , Een, the freewheel R1 disconnects the rotor Rt from the rotating shaft Rp1, Rp2, Rp, RAC, H. This is particularly advantageous in the case of a short circuit in a winding of the stator St that is capable of bringing about the very violent inductive braking of the rotor”, Para. [0066]; “The control unit UG is preferably associated with a means for the continuous control, of the integrity of each electric motor element Ee1, Ee2, . . . , Een. The means of control may, for example, consist of a set of sensors integrated in an intrinsic manner into each electric motor element and, for example, configured to detect the rotation and the angle of the rotor, the supply of electricity to the stator, the torque and/or the generated power; etc. In the event of the failure of one or a plurality of initially active electric motor elements Ee1, Ee2, . . . , Een, the control unit UG is thus configured to emit a set point enabling the power delivered jointly by all of the said elements to be reconfigured in real time.”, Para. [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Argus further comprising, detecting, via one or more sensors, a condition of the primary electric motor or a secondary internal-combustion engine; generating a signal in response to the detected condition; and disengaging clutch in response to the detected condition, as further taught by Chantriaux, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that “In the event of the failure of one or a plurality of initially active electric motor elements Ee1, Ee2, . . . , Een, the control unit UG is thus configured to emit a set point enabling the power delivered jointly by all of the said elements to be reconfigured in real time… the control unit UG instantaneously brings into service other reserve electric motor elements (for example: Ee7 and Ee8) in order to enable the distributed electric motor unit GEMD to continue to transmit sufficient power to the rotating shaft”, as discussed by Chantriaux. Para. [0085].
Regarding claim 6, Argus teaches wherein the condition is a failure of the secondary internal-combustion engine (Note, a condition of the primary electric motor is selected above in the claim 5 rejection as the secondary internal combustion engine is optional; Argus discloses: “There is also provided a feedback signal 190 from the internal combustion engine 40 that feeds back into the logic module 140 so as to continuously update the speed of the internal combustion engine 40. In order to ensure safe operation of the hybrid aircraft 10, there is provided a fail signal 200 which is used to safely land the hybrid aircraft 10 in the event that power fails or another event occurs which prevents the hybrid aircraft 10 from operating in accordance with an embodiment. In a rotor 24 failure event, the lift from rotors 72 is preferably capable of providing sufficient lift to safely land the aircraft 10.”, Para. [0111]; “In an embodiment, the system has a failure detector, which sends a failure signal to the flight control system in the event of a failure. In that case a failure of the internal combustion engine or the electric motors may be compensated for by the other(s).”, Para. [0130]; “In a preferred embodiment, as shown in FIG. 14, which is based on the embodiment of FIG. 11, there is an optional battery 1230 within the circuitry 930, which can be used to provide power to the lift ESCs 1200, 1210 instantaneously, during initial start up, when more power is required than the ICE can provide due to ramping up of the ICE. Battery 1230 can also provide a backup in case of the failure of the ICE.”, Para. [0145]).
Chantriaux teaches that electrical energy generation unit may be an internal combustion engine (“A propulsion device for an aircraft according to claim 22, in which the electrical energy generation unit is composed of one of the following: a thermo-chemical generator, a thermoelectric generator, a radio isotopic generator, fuel cells, a turbo shaft engine, or an internal combustion engine equipped with an internal generator or driving an external generator.”, Claim 24)
Argus as modified by Chantriaux does not expressly disclose a secondary internal combustion engine.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Argus as modified by Chantriaux to include a secondary internal combustion engine, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device, such as providing a second internal combustion engine as a safety redundancy in the case of one of the internal combustion engines failing, involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 7, Chantriaux teaches further comprising: detecting a condition via one or more sensors; and in response to detected condition, adjusting a control throttle position according to a propeller speed (“in the event of the failure of an electric motor element Ee1, Ee2, . . . , Een, the freewheel R1 disconnects the rotor Rt from the rotating shaft Rp1, Rp2, Rp, RAC, H. This is particularly advantageous in the case of a short circuit in a winding of the stator St that is capable of bringing about the very violent inductive braking of the rotor”, Para. [0066]; “The control unit UG is preferably associated with a means for the continuous control, of the integrity of each electric motor element Ee1, Ee2, . . . , Een. The means of control may, for example, consist of a set of sensors integrated in an intrinsic manner into each electric motor element and, for example, configured to detect the rotation and the angle of the rotor, the supply of electricity to the stator, the torque and/or the generated power; etc. In the event of the failure of one or a plurality of initially active electric motor elements Ee1, Ee2, . . . , Een, the control unit UG is thus configured to emit a set point enabling the power delivered jointly by all of the said elements to be reconfigured in real time.”, Para. [0085]; note, propellers are connected to the rotating shafts and motors of the rotors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Argus further comprising: detecting a condition via one or more sensors; and in response to detected condition, adjusting a control throttle position according to a propeller speed, as further taught by Chantriaux, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that “In the event of the failure of one or a plurality of initially active electric motor elements Ee1, Ee2, . . . , Een, the control unit UG is thus configured to emit a set point enabling the power delivered jointly by all of the said elements to be reconfigured in real time… the control unit UG instantaneously brings into service other reserve electric motor elements (for example: Ee7 and Ee8) in order to enable the distributed electric motor unit GEMD to continue to transmit sufficient power to the rotating shaft”, as discussed by Chantriaux. Para. [0085].
Regarding claim 8, Argus teaches an aerial vehicle including a plurality of hybrid modules (“Hybrid Aircraft”, Title), wherein each module of the plurality of hybrid modules comprises an electric motor “A hybrid aircraft comprises at least three independent electric motors each arranged to drive a respective rotor”, Abstract), an internal-combustion engine (“an internal combustion engine arranged to drive at least two rotor”, Abstract), and a local controller configured to perform the method of claim 1, wherein for each hybrid module, the local controller communicates with local controllers of other hybrid modules on the aerial vehicle (“There is also a controller for providing speed control signals to the electric motor driven rotors and a throttle control signal for controlling the throttle of the internal combustion engine, based on a flight control signal.”, Abstract).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Argus (US 2019/0263519 A1) in view of Chantriaux et al. (US 2014/0248168 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hersey (US 2,455,251).
Regarding claim 3, Argus teaches further comprising estimating, at the local controller, a secondary thrust output from an output based at least in part on a rotation speed of an internal- combustion engine (“The effort set point for overall thrust (as a proportion of full thrust) is used to determine the thrust control signal 180 provided to control the speed of the internal combustion engine 40.”, Para. [0121]).
Argus as modified by Chantriaux does not expressly disclose a shroud.
However, in an analogous propeller hub art, Hersey teaches a shroud engine providing additional thrust (Fig. 1, “cowl” 15 with “air outlet flaps” 17; “col. 3, regarding the longitudinal thrust of the fan 18 is biased by biasing springs 34; figs. 1 and 2; Examiner notes that the suction from the fan 18 will inherently tend to draw air in through the inlet 16, across the engine 13, and out through the outlet 17 thereby creating additional thrust).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Argus as modified by Chantriaux to further include a shroud, as taught by Hersey, with a reasonable expectation for success, in order to ensure that the engine is
properly cooled using power generated via the motor and/or engine (as shown in fig. 1 of Hersey).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647