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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brouwer et al. (2015/0103447).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 6, Brouwer teaches (Fig. 1) a decentralised system for controlling an electrical network of an aircraft, the system comprising a plurality of distinct cells (MECs – 44, 46, 48), each cell comprising a plurality of electrical contactors ([0054]) and each cell being connected to an electrical supply ([0043]; generators 34, 36), wherein each cell comprises at least one microcontroller ([0043]) for controlling at least one contactor, and in that the cells are interfaced with each other by a digital communication network and/or a network for exchanging physical information ([0053]).
Brouwer fails to explicitly teach the cells exchanging electrical powers through the network exchanging physical information. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that exchanging power and physical information through the same network is known in the power distribution art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cells in Brouwer’s invention exchanging electrical powers through the network exchanging physical information, since it has been known in the art to do so and it would reduce the space needed to perform the functions in Brouwer’s invention by not needing two separate mediums to exchange power and physical information.
Regarding claim 2, Brouwer teaches each cell comprises a microcontroller controlling a plurality of contactors of cell ([0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Brouwer teaches each cell comprising a microcontroller independently controlling the contactors of the cell ([0043]). Brouwer fails to explicitly teach each cell comprising as many microcontrollers as there are contactors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each cell comprising as many microcontrollers as there are contactors (i.e. have the microcontroller separated into as many microcontrollers as there are contactors), since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 4, Brouwer teaches within one and the same cell, the contactors are interfaced with each other by a digital communication network and/or a network exchanging physical information ([0053], [0054])
Regarding claim 5, Brouwer teaches the contactors exchange electrical power through the network exchanging physical information ([0046]; “power channel”).
Regarding claim 7, Brouwer teaches (Fig. 1) at least one cell is connected to an electrical supply of a primary network (34/36) of the aircraft, and at least one other cell is connected to an electrical supply of an emergency electrical network (54) of the aircraft ([0041]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed May 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Brouwer and Official Notice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRU M PARRIES whose telephone number is (571)272-8542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday from 9:00am to 6:00pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rexford Barnie, can be reached on 571-272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
DMP
7/13/2026
/DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights