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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 1-10 are missing labels, while they have reference numbers, the figures boxes also need labels. (See MPEP 608.02(b) ¶ 6.22) Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-15, 18, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harvey et al. (Pub No. US 2021/0179286 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 15, 18, & 20
Harvey teaches an aircraft (See figure 1, ref # 1) comprising a hybrid electrical propulsion system; (See paragraphs 0002-0003, 0033 & figures 1 & 2, ref # 5) the hybrid electrical propulsion system (See paragraphs 0002-0003, 0033 & figures 1 & 2, ref # 5) for an aeronautical application, (See paragraphs 0002-0003) wherein the system (See paragraphs 0035-0043) comprises: at least one mechanical load; (See figure 2, ref # 12) at least one thermal engine; (See figure 2, ref # 10) at least one electrical machine (See figure 2, ref # 28) that is operable in motor mode or generator mode; (See paragraph 0049) a power transmission device (See figure 2) comprising a first coupling device (See figure 2, ref # 50) and a second coupling device, (See figure 2, ref # 52) wherein the first coupling device (See figure 2, ref # 50) is connected via a first connecting shaft (See figure 2, ref # 24) to the at least one thermal engine (See figure 2, ref # 10) and via a second connecting shaft (See figure 2, ref # 54 & 56) to the second coupling device, (See figure 2, ref # 52) wherein the second coupling device (See figure 2, ref # 52) is further connected via a third connecting shaft (See figure 2, ref # 38) to the at least one electrical machine (See figure 2, ref # 28) and via a drive shaft (See figure 2, ref # 68) to the at least one mechanical load, (See figure 2, ref # 12) and wherein the second connecting shaft (See figure 2, ref # 54 & 56) is coupled with the drive shaft (See figure 2, ref # 68) in a driving manner; (See paragraph 0058) and a control system (See figure 2, ref # 34) comprising a control logic that is configured to provide a setpoint command to the at least one electrical machine; (See figure 2, ref # 28) wherein the first coupling device (See figure 2, ref # 50) is configured to couple the first connecting shaft (See figure 2, ref # 24) with the second connecting shaft (See figure 2, ref # 54 & 56) in a driving manner if a first speed-dependent driving condition is fulfilled; (See paragraphs 0061-0063) and wherein the second coupling device (See figure 2, ref # 52) is configured to couple the third connecting shaft (See figure 2, ref # 38) with the drive shaft (See figure 2, ref # 56/68) in a driving manner if the control logic provides the setpoint command to the at least one electrical machine (See figure 2, ref # 28) for operating the at least one electrical machine (See figure 2, ref # 28) in the motor mode and if a second speed-dependent driving condition is fulfilled. (See paragraphs 0061-0063)
Regarding claim 3
Harvey teaches wherein the first speed-dependent driving condition is fulfilled if the drive shaft (See figure 2, ref # 68) rotates with an output rotational speed that is smaller than or equal to an input rotational speed of the first connecting shaft. (See paragraph 0056 & figure 2, ref # 24)
Regarding claim 7
Harvey teaches wherein the first coupling device (See figure 2, ref # 50) comprises a freewheel or clutch. (See paragraph 0043)
Regarding claim 8
Harvey teaches wherein the second coupling device (See figure 2, ref # 50) comprises a freewheel or clutch. (See paragraph 0043)
Regarding claim 9
Harvey teaches wherein the second coupling device (See figure 2, ref # 52) is configured to couple the second connecting shaft (See figure 2, ref # 54 & 56) with the third connecting shaft (See figure 2, ref # 38) in a driving manner if the control logic (See figure 2, ref # 34) provides the setpoint command to the at least one electrical machine (See figure 2, ref # 28) for operating the at least one electrical machine (See figure 2, ref # 28) in the generation mode. (See paragraph 0049)
Regarding claim 10
Harvey teaches wherein the second coupling device (See figure 2, ref # 52) is configured to enable bi-directional torque transmission. (See paragraphs 0045-0049)
Regarding claim 11
Harvey teaches wherein the second coupling device (See figure 2, ref # 52) comprises a mechanically controlled torque limiting device, in particular a torque limiter or an overload clutch. (See paragraphs 0050-0052)
Regarding claim 12
Harvey teaches wherein the second coupling device (See figure 2, ref # 52) comprises an actively controlled clutch, (See paragraph 0049) and wherein the control logic (See figure 2, ref # 34) is configured to control the actively controlled clutch (See figure 2, ref # 52) by means of a suitable clutch command signal. (See paragraph 0049)
Regarding claim 13
Harvey teaches wherein the at least one electrical machine (See figure 2, ref # 28) is connected to an electrical energy storage unit (See figure 2, ref # 30) that is configured to supply electrical energy to the at least one electrical machine (See figure 2, ref # 28) in the motor mode. (See paragraphs 0037-0039 & 0049)
Regarding claim 14
Harvey teaches wherein the at least one electrical machine (See figure 2, ref # 28) is connected to the electrical energy storage unit (See figure 2, ref # 30) to supply electrical energy to the electrical energy storage unit (See figure 2, ref # 30) in the generation mode. (See paragraph 0049)
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (Pub No. US 2021/0179286 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steinwandel et al. (Pub No. US 2015/0285165 A1).
Regarding claim 2
Harvey does not teach wherein the second connecting shaft and the drive shaft are integrally formed as a one-piece shaft.
However, Steinwandel teaches wherein the second connecting shaft and the drive shaft (See figure 4, ref # 62) are integrally formed as a one-piece shaft. (See figure 4)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second connecting shaft and the drive shaft are integrally formed as a one-piece shaft as taught by Steinwandel in the aircraft of Harvey, since the shafts being integrally formed as a one-piece shaft is a matter of design choice. (See MPEP 2144/04 V B)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (Pub No. US 2021/0179286 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cevik et al. (Pub No. US 2024/0270398 A1).
Regarding claim 6
Harvey is silent about wherein the control system comprises a plurality of rotational speed sensors for sensing at least the input rotational speed of the first connecting shaft, the rotational speed of the third connecting shaft, and the output rotational speed of the drive shaft.
However, Cevik teaches wherein the control system comprises a plurality of rotational speed sensors for sensing at least the input rotational speed of the first connecting shaft, the rotational speed of the third connecting shaft, and the output rotational speed of the drive shaft. (See paragraphs 0032-0033, 0036 & figures 2 & 3)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a control system comprises a plurality of rotational speed sensors for sensing at least the input rotational speed of the first connecting shaft, the rotational speed of the third connecting shaft, and the output rotational speed of the drive shaft as taught by Cevik in the aircraft of Harvey, so as to control the propulsion system. (See paragraph 0036)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 16, 17, & 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4 & 19,
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “wherein the second coupling device is connected via an inner gear having an associated gear ratio to the third connecting shaft, and wherein the second speed-dependent driving condition is fulfilled if the drive shaft rotates with an output rotational speed that is smaller than or equal to a product of the associated gear ratio multiplied with a rotational speed of the third connecting shaft” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claims 4 & 19.
Regarding claim 16,
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “wherein the second coupling device is prevented from coupling the third connecting shaft with the drive shaft unless the control logic provides the setpoint command to the electrical machine for operation in motor mode” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 16.
Regarding claim 17,
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “wherein the second speed-dependent driving condition requires that a rotational speed of the third connecting shaft exceeds a rotational speed of the drive shaft before the second coupling device couples the third connecting shaft with the drive shaft” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 1 of the remarks that the amendments to the figures have been made with the objections in mind.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees as this is non-responsive to the drawing objections. The figures were objected to because they didn’t have labels. The new figures don’t have labels. (See MPEP 608.02(b) ¶ 6.22)
The Applicant argues on pages 2-7 of the remarks that the reference Harvey does not teach the limitations of claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Applicant did copy and paste claim 1 on page 3 of the remarks, the Applicant argues features that disclosed in the specification and figures but not recited in claim 1. The Applicant needs to address the limitations recited in the claims not the features disclosed but not claimed.
The Applicant argues on page 7 of the remarks argues that Harvey does not teach a control logic that governs engagement of the second coupling device such that coupling is permitted only when a setpoint command is provided to the electric machine.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Harvey teaches a control, (34) which would have control logic, that is used to control the electric machine and the actuation of the clutches (coupling devices) to control the torque provided by the motor and engage in view of the torque input from the low pressure shaft (24) and the motor (28). (See paragraphs 0041 & 0063) This meets the claim language without the setpoint command being defined further in the claims.
The Applicant argues on pages 8-10 of the remarks, regarding claim 2, that the reference Steinwandel does not teach integrally formed in a one-piece shaft second connecting shaft and drive shaft.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant discloses in all the figures and the specification that the second connecting shaft and the drive shaft are connected by a second coupling device and therefore are not actually one shaft but are two shafts. If the claim limitation has to be interpreted as a single shaft as the Applicant appears to argue, then the Applicant does not have support for this in the disclosure and this would be a 112(a) issue. However, in light of the specification and broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner interpreted integrally formed as connected to each other. The second connecting shaft is connected to the drive shaft via a second coupling device. Steinwandel discloses similar structure as the Applicant, therefore it is unclear how the Applicant’s invention meets the limitation while Steinwandel does not. Therefore without further clarification, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 2. The additional arguments against Steinwandel are directed to limitations in claim 1 that Steinwandel was not used to reject.
The Applicant argues on pages 10-12 of the remarks, regarding claim 6, that the reference Cevik does not teach a plurality of rotational speed sensors for sensing input rotational speed of the first connecting shaft, (coupled to the thermal engine) the rotational speed of the third connecting shaft, connected by a second coupling device of the electrical machine via a drive shaft) and the output rotational speed of the drive shaft.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cevik teaches (See paragraph 0036) the input and output instructions may include torque and/or speed data of the electric motor, (34) and torque and/or speed data of the thermal engine (28); the ECU (50) may also be operatively connected to the gearboxes (20, 32) via respective sensors relating to their speed, torque, power output, etc. The gearbox (20) is connected to the drive shaft for the propeller (16). Therefore Cevik does teach the limitations of claim 6. The additional arguments against Cevik are directed to limitations in claim 1 that Cevik was not used to reject.
No further arguments were made regarding claims 1-20.
Therefore the Examiner maintains the above rejections claims 1-3, 6-15 and new claims 18 & 20.
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 RODNEY ANDREW BONNETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7556. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/RODNEY A BONNETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647