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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 19/095,926 filed on 03/31/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Jeffrey Chalhoub.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“624”,
“716”,
“800b”,
“816b”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“524”,
“608”,
“700a”,
“740”.
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. 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 Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a sensing device” in claims 1, 5, 9-10, 14, 16, and 20,
“Still referring to FIG. 3, sensing device 300 may be suitable for use as sensing device 212 as disclosed with reference to FIG. 2 hereinabove. Sensing device 300 may include a humidity sensor 304. Humidity, as used in this disclosure, is the property of a gaseous medium (almost always air) to hold water in the form of vapor. An amount of water vapor contained within a parcel of air can vary significantly. Water vapor is generally invisible to the human eye and may be damaging to electrical components. There are three primary measurements of humidity, absolute, relative, specific humidity. “Absolute humidity,” for the purposes of this disclosure, describes the water content of air and is expressed in either grams per cubic meters or grams per kilogram. “Relative humidity,” for the purposes of this disclosure, is expressed as a percentage, indicating a present state of absolute humidity relative to a maximum humidity given the same temperature. “Specific humidity,” for the purposes of this disclosure, is the ratio of water vapor mass to total moist air parcel mass, where parcel is a given portion of a gaseous medium. Humidity sensor 304 may be a psychrometer. Humidity sensor 304 may be a hygrometer. Humidity sensor 304 may be configured to act as or include a humidistat. A “humidistat,” for the purposes of this disclosure, is a humidity-triggered switch, often used to control another electronic device. Humidity sensor 304 may use capacitance to measure relative humidity and include in itself, or as an external component, include a device to convert relative humidity measurements to absolute humidity measurements. “Capacitance,” for the purposes of this disclosure, is the ability of a system to store an electric charge, in this case the system is a parcel of air which may be near, adjacent to, or above a battery cell. With continued reference to FIG. 3, sensing device 300 may include multimeter 308. Multimeter 308 may be configured to measure voltage across a component, electrical current through a component, and resistance of a component. Multimeter 308 may include separate sensors to measure each of the previously disclosed electrical characteristics such as voltmeter, ammeter, and ohmmeter, respectively. Sensing device 300 may include a sensor or plurality thereof that may detect voltage and direct the charging of individual battery cells according to charge level; detection may be performed using any suitable component, set of components, and/or mechanism for direct or indirect measurement and/or detection of voltage levels, including without limitation comparators, analog to digital converters, any form of voltmeter, or the like. Sensing device 300 and/or a control circuit incorporated therein and/or communicatively connected thereto may be configured to adjust charge to one or more battery cells as a function of a charge level and/or a detected parameter. For instance, and without limitation, sensing device 300 may be configured to determine that a charge level of a battery cell is high based on a detected voltage level of that battery cell or portion of the battery pack. Sensing device 300 may alternatively or additionally detect a charge reduction event, defined for purposes of this disclosure as any temporary or permanent state of a battery cell requiring reduction or cessation of charging; a charge reduction event may include a cell being fully charged and/or a cell undergoing a physical and/or electrical process that makes continued charging at a current voltage and/or current level inadvisable due to a risk that the cell will be damaged, will overheat, or the like. Detection of a charge reduction event may include detection of a temperature, of the cell above a threshold level, detection of a voltage and/or resistance level above or below a threshold, or the like. Sensing device 300 may include digital sensors, analog sensors, or a combination thereof. Sensing device 300 may include digital-to-analog converters (DAC), analog-to-digital converters (ADC, A/D, A-to-D), a combination thereof, or other signal conditioning components used in transmission of a first plurality of battery pack data to a destination over wireless or wired connection. With continued reference to FIG. 3, sensing device 300 may include thermocouples, thermistors, thermometers, passive infrared sensors, resistance temperature sensors (RTD’s), semiconductor based integrated circuits (IC), a combination thereof or another undisclosed sensor type, alone or in combination. Temperature, for the purposes of this disclosure, and as would be appreciated by someone of ordinary skill in the art, is a measure of the heat energy of a system. Temperature, as measured by any number or combinations of sensors present within sensing device 300, may be measured in Fahrenheit (° F.), Celsius (° C.), Kelvin (° K), or another scale alone or in combination. The temperature measured by sensors may comprise electrical signals which are transmitted to their appropriate destination wireless or through a wired connection.” (Detailed Description – 36th-38th paragraphs, FIG. 3)
“a computing device” in claims 1, 5, 8, and 10,
“Referring now to FIG. 2, an exemplary embodiment of a system 200 for energy tracking in an electric vehicle is illustrated. System 200 may include computing device 204. Computing device 204 may include any computing device as described in this disclosure, including without limitation a microcontroller, microprocessor, digital signal processor (DSP) and/or system on a chip (SoC) as described in this disclosure. Computing device 204 may include, be included in, and/or communicate with a mobile device such as a mobile telephone or smartphone. Computing device 204 may include a single computing device operating independently, or may include two or more computing devices operating in concert, in parallel, sequentially or the like; two or more computing devices may be included together in a single computing device or in two or more computing devices. Computing device 204 may interface or communicate with one or more additional devices as described below in further detail via a network interface device. Network interface device may be utilized for connecting computing device 204 to one or more of a variety of networks, and one or more devices. Examples of a network interface device include, but are not limited to, a network interface card (e.g., a mobile network interface card, a LAN card), a modem, and any combination thereof. Examples of a network include, but are not limited to, a wide area network (e.g., the Internet, an enterprise network), a local area network (e.g., a network associated with an office, a building, a campus or other relatively small geographic space), a telephone network, a data network associated with a telephone/voice provider (e.g., a mobile communications provider data and/or voice network), a direct connection between two computing devices, and any combinations thereof. A network may employ a wired and/or a wireless mode of communication. In general, any network topology may be used. Information (e.g., data, software etc.) may be communicated to and/or from a computer and/or a computing device. Computing device may include but is not limited to, for example, a computing device or cluster of computing devices in a first location and a second computing device or cluster of computing devices in a second location. Computing device 204 may include one or more computing devices dedicated to data storage, security, distribution of traffic for load balancing, and the like. Computing device 204 may distribute one or more computing tasks as described below across a plurality of computing devices of computing device, which may operate in parallel, in series, redundantly, or in any other manner used for distribution of tasks or memory between computing devices. Computing device 204 may be implemented using a “shared nothing” architecture in which data is cached at the worker, in an embodiment, this may enable scalability of system 200 and/or computing device 204. In some embodiments, computing device 204 may include a flight controller as described below in FIG. 3.” (Detailed Description – 29th paragraph, FIG. 2)
“a plurality of components” in claims 2-4, 11-13, and 17-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 2-4, 11-13, and 17-19 are 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 limitation “a plurality of components configured to receive power from the battery pack” in claim 2, for instance, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of receiving “power from the battery pack, wherein the energy costs are associated with a consumption of power by each component of the plurality of components during a flight adhering to the current flight plan”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to receive. The use of “power from the battery pack, wherein the energy costs are associated with a consumption of power by each component of the plurality of components during a flight adhering to the current flight plan” is not adequate structure for performing the receiving function because it does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
As the Applicant has invoked 112(f) properly but the specification does not provide a clear linking statement as to what the structural equivalents are, the Applicant’s claim limitations will be afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-4, 11-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of, for example, receiving power from the battery pack in claim 2. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabii (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0348744 A1) in view of Venkataramana (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0256856 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Rabii teaches:
An electric aircraft system, comprising:, (See (Rabii: Summary – 3rd-4th paragraphs))
a battery pack including a plurality of battery modules; a sensing device configured to: detect a battery parameter of each battery module of the plurality of battery modules; and generate battery data as a function of the battery parameters; and a computing device communicatively connected to the sensing device and configured to: receive the battery data from the sensing device; determine a remaining battery life for the battery pack as a function of the battery data and a current flight plan;, (See (Rabii: Detailed Description – 19th-26th, 55th-64th, 68th-75th, and 82nd-86th paragraphs, FIG. 2))
Rabii does not teach but Venkataramana teaches:
and determine an energy saving flight plan as a function of the battery data by correlating flight parameters to energy costs associated with the current flight plan., (See (Venkataramana: Brief Summary – 4th-9th and 12th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 30th, 34th-41st, 58th-66th, 69th-73rd, and 76th-83rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rabii with these above aforementioned teachings from Venkataramana in order to create an efficient system and method for energy tracking in an electric aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rabii’s system for managing application execution by in-flight processing systems to protect health and capacity of multi-cell battery packs with Venkataramana’s flight planning operations using connected data in order to determine an energy saving flight plan as a function of battery data by correlating flight parameters to energy costs associated with a current flight plan. Combining Rabii and Venkataramana would thus provide an efficient “a method, apparatus, system, and computer program product for determining an aircraft flight plan using connected data.” (Venkataramana: Technical Field – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 2:
Rabii in view of Venkataramana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Rabii further teaches:
The electric aircraft system of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of components configured to receive power from the battery pack,, (See (Rabii: Brief Description of the Drawings – 6th paragraph and Detailed Description – 15th-26th, 56th-57th, 69th, and 73rd paragraphs))
Rabii does not teach but Venkataramana teaches:
[…] wherein the energy costs are associated with a consumption of power by each component of the plurality of components during a flight adhering to the current flight plan., (See (Venkataramana: Brief Summary – 4th-9th and 12th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 30th, 34th-41st, 58th-66th, 69th-73rd, and 76th-83rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rabii with these above aforementioned teachings from Venkataramana in order to create an efficient system and method for energy tracking in an electric aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rabii’s system for managing application execution by in-flight processing systems to protect health and capacity of multi-cell battery packs with Venkataramana’s flight planning operations using connected data in order to determine an energy saving flight plan as a function of battery data by correlating flight parameters to energy costs associated with a current flight plan. Combining Rabii and Venkataramana would thus provide an efficient “a method, apparatus, system, and computer program product for determining an aircraft flight plan using connected data.” (Venkataramana: Technical Field – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 3:
Rabii in view of Venkataramana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Rabii further teaches:
The electric aircraft system of claim 2, wherein the energy saving flight plan reduces the consumption of power by at least one component of the plurality of components during a flight adhering to the energy saving flight plan compared with the flight adhering to the current flight plan., (See (Rabii: Detailed Description – 26th, 69th, 73rd, and 88th-91st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 4:
Rabii in view of Venkataramana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Rabii further teaches:
The electric aircraft system of claim 2, wherein the energy saving flight plan includes reducing speeds, dropping off cargo, shutting off at least one component of the plurality of components, or decreasing altitude., (See (Rabii: Detailed Description – 26th, 69th, and 73rd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 6:
Rabii in view of Venkataramana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Rabii does not teach but Venkataramana teaches:
The electric aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the flight parameters include cargo weight, flight speeds, flight maneuvers, an original flight path, or altitudes associated with an original flight plan., (See (Venkataramana: Brief Summary – 8th paragraph and Detailed Description – 31st, 35th, 53rd, 66th, and 74th-76th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rabii with these above aforementioned teachings from Venkataramana in order to create an efficient system and method for energy tracking in an electric aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rabii’s system for managing application execution by in-flight processing systems to protect health and capacity of multi-cell battery packs with Venkataramana’s flight planning operations using connected data in order to determine an energy saving flight plan as a function of battery data by correlating flight parameters to energy costs associated with a current flight plan. Combining Rabii and Venkataramana would thus provide an efficient “a method, apparatus, system, and computer program product for determining an aircraft flight plan using connected data.” (Venkataramana: Technical Field – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 7:
Rabii in view of Venkataramana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Rabii further teaches:
The electric aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the battery data includes a ratio of a current energy amount of the battery pack to a total energy capacity of the battery pack., (See (Rabii: Detailed Description – 19th-26th, 55th-64th, 67th-68th, and 82nd-86th paragraphs, FIG. 2))
Regarding Claim 8:
Rabii in view of Venkataramana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Rabii does not teach but Venkataramana teaches:
The electric aircraft system of claim 1, further comprising a display having graphical user interface, wherein the computing device is further configured to provide the energy saving flight plan to the graphical user interface., (See (Venkataramana: Brief Summary – 10th paragraph and Detailed Description – 51st and 60th-61st paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rabii with these above aforementioned teachings from Venkataramana in order to create an efficient system and method for energy tracking in an electric aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rabii’s system for managing application execution by in-flight processing systems to protect health and capacity of multi-cell battery packs with Venkataramana’s flight planning operations using connected data in order to determine an energy saving flight plan as a function of battery data by correlating flight parameters to energy costs associated with a current flight plan. Combining Rabii and Venkataramana would thus provide an efficient “a method, apparatus, system, and computer program product for determining an aircraft flight plan using connected data.” (Venkataramana: Technical Field – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 9:
Rabii in view of Venkataramana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Rabii further teaches:
The electric aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the sensing device includes a pack monitoring unit (PMU)., (See (Rabii: Detailed Description – 22nd-25th paragraphs, FIG. 2))
Regarding Claim 10:
Rabii teaches:
A method of energy tracking in an electric aircraft, comprising:, (See (Rabii: Summary – 3rd-4th paragraphs))
sensing, through a sensing device of the electric aircraft, a battery parameter of each battery module of a plurality of battery modules; generating, through the sensing device, battery data as a function of the battery parameters; receiving, at a computing device of the electric aircraft, the battery data from the sensing device; determining, by the computing device, a remaining battery life for the plurality of battery modules as a function of the battery data and a current flight plan;, (See (Rabii: Detailed Description – 19th-26th, 55th-64th, 68th-75th, and 82nd-86th paragraphs, FIG. 2))
Rabii does not teach but Venkataramana teaches:
and determining, by the computing device, an energy saving flight plan as a function of the battery data by correlating flight parameters to energy costs associated with the current flight plan., (See (Venkataramana: Brief Summary – 4th-9th and 12th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 30th, 34th-41st, 58th-66th, 69th-73rd, and 76th-83rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rabii with these above aforementioned teachings from Venkataramana in order to create an efficient system and method for energy tracking in an electric aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rabii’s system for managing application execution by in-flight processing systems to protect health and capacity of multi-cell battery packs with Venkataramana’s flight planning operations using connected data in order to determine an energy saving flight plan as a function of battery data by correlating flight parameters to energy costs associated with a current flight plan. Combining Rabii and Venkataramana would thus provide an efficient “a method, apparatus, system, and computer program product for determining an aircraft flight plan using connected data.” (Venkataramana: Technical Field – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 11:
Rabii in view of Venkataramana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Rabii further teaches:
[…] wherein each component of the plurality of components is configured to receive power from at least one battery module of the plurality of battery modules during a flight adhering to the current flight plan., (See (Rabii: Brief Description of the Drawings – 6th paragraph and Detailed Description – 15th-26th, 56th-57th, 69th, and 73rd paragraphs))
Rabii does not teach but Venkataramana teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein the energy costs are associated with a consumption of power by each component of a plurality of components of the electric aircraft,, (See (Venkataramana: Brief Summary – 4th-9th and 12th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 30th, 34th-41st, 58th-66th, 69th-73rd, and 76th-83rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rabii with these above aforementioned teachings from Venkataramana in order to create an efficient system and method for energy tracking in an electric aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rabii’s system for managing application execution by in-flight processing systems to protect health and capacity of multi-cell battery packs with Venkataramana’s flight planning operations using connected data in order to determine an energy saving flight plan as a function of battery data by correlating flight parameters to energy costs associated with a current flight plan. Combining Rabii and Venkataramana would thus provide an efficient “a method, apparatus, system, and computer program product for determining an aircraft flight plan using connected data.” (Venkataramana: Technical Field – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 12:
Rabii in view of Venkataramana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. Rabii further teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein the energy saving flight plan reduces the consumption of power by at least one component of the plurality of components during a flight adhering to the energy saving flight plan compared with the flight adhering to the current flight plan., (See (Rabii: Detailed Description – 26th, 69th, 73rd, and 88th-91st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 13:
Rabii in view of Venkataramana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 11. Rabii further teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein the energy saving flight plan includes reducing speeds, dropping off cargo, shutting off at least one component of the plurality of components, or decreasing altitude., (See (Rabii: Detailed Description – 26th, 69th, and 73rd paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 15:
Rabii in view of Venkataramana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Rabii does not teach but Venkataramana teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein the flight parameters include cargo weight and flight speeds, flight maneuvers, a flight path, and altitudes associated with an original flight plan., (See (Venkataramana: Brief Summary – 8th paragraph and Detailed Description – 31st, 35th, 53rd, 66th, and 74th-76th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rabii with these above aforementioned teachings from Venkataramana in order to create an efficient system and method for energy tracking in an electric aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rabii’s system for managing application execution by in-flight processing systems to protect health and capacity of multi-cell battery packs with Venkataramana’s flight planning operations using connected data in order to determine an energy saving flight plan as a function of battery data by correlating flight parameters to energy costs associated with a current flight plan. Combining Rabii and Venkataramana would thus provide an efficient “a method, apparatus, system, and computer program product for determining an aircraft flight plan using connected data.” (Venkataramana: Technical Field – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 16:
Rabii teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that when executed by an electronic processor, cause the electronic processor to:, (See (Rabii: Summary – 3rd-4th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 93rd-95th paragraphs))
receiving, from a sensing device, battery data generated as a function of a plurality of battery parameters detected for each battery module of a plurality of battery modules associated with an electric aircraft; determining a remaining battery life for the plurality of battery modules as a function of the battery data and a current flight plan;, (See (Rabii: Detailed Description – 19th-26th, 55th-64th, 68th-75th, and 82nd-86th paragraphs, FIG. 2))
Rabii does not teach but Venkataramana teaches:
and determining an energy saving flight plan as a function of the battery data by correlating flight parameters to energy costs associated with the current flight plan., (See (Venkataramana: Brief Summary – 4th-9th and 12th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 30th, 34th-41st, 58th-66th, 69th-73rd, and 76th-83rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rabii with these above aforementioned teachings from Venkataramana in order to create an efficient system and method for energy tracking in an electric aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rabii’s system for managing application execution by in-flight processing systems to protect health and capacity of multi-cell battery packs with Venkataramana’s flight planning operations using connected data in order to determine an energy saving flight plan as a function of battery data by correlating flight parameters to energy costs associated with a current flight plan. Combining Rabii and Venkataramana would thus provide an efficient “a method, apparatus, system, and computer program product for determining an aircraft flight plan using connected data.” (Venkataramana: Technical Field – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 17:
Rabii in view of Venkataramana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Rabii further teaches:
[…] wherein each component of the plurality of components is configured to receive power from at least one battery module of the plurality of battery modules during a flight adhering to the current flight plan., (See (Rabii: Brief Description of the Drawings – 6th paragraph and Detailed Description – 15th-26th, 56th-57th, 69th, and 73rd paragraphs))
Rabii does not teach but Venkataramana teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the energy costs are associated with a consumption of power by each component of a plurality of components of the electric aircraft,, (See (Venkataramana: Brief Summary – 4th-9th and 12th-13th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 30th, 34th-41st, 58th-66th, 69th-73rd, and 76th-83rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rabii with these above aforementioned teachings from Venkataramana in order to create an efficient system and method for energy tracking in an electric aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rabii’s system for managing application execution by in-flight processing systems to protect health and capacity of multi-cell battery packs with Venkataramana’s flight planning operations using connected data in order to determine an energy saving flight plan as a function of battery data by correlating flight parameters to energy costs associated with a current flight plan. Combining Rabii and Venkataramana would thus provide an efficient “a method, apparatus, system, and computer program product for determining an aircraft flight plan using connected data.” (Venkataramana: Technical Field – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 18:
Rabii in view of Venkataramana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Rabii further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the energy saving flight plan reduces the consumption of power by at least one component of the plurality of components during a flight adhering to the energy saving flight plan compared with the flight adhering to the current flight plan., (See (Rabii: Detailed Description – 26th, 69th, 73rd, and 88th-91st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 19:
Rabii in view of Venkataramana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 17. Rabii further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the energy saving flight plan includes reducing speeds, dropping off cargo, shutting off at least one component of the plurality of components, or decreasing altitude., (See (Rabii: Detailed Description – 26th, 69th, and 73rd paragraphs))
Claims 5, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabii (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0348744 A1) in view of Venkataramana (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0256856 A1) in further view of Tsutsui (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0288356 A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
Rabii in view of Venkataramana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Rabii further teaches:
The electric aircraft system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is further configured to: receive additional battery data from the sensing device generated from battery parameters detected during a flight adhering to the energy saving flight plan,, (See (Rabii: Detailed Description – 19th-26th, 55th-64th, 68th-75th, and 82nd-86th paragraphs, FIG. 2))
Rabii does not teach but Venkataramana teaches:
[…] and determine an updated energy saving flight plan as a function of the energy anomaly and the energy saving flight plan., (See (Venkataramana: Detailed Description – 36th, 65th, and 83rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rabii with these above aforementioned teachings from Venkataramana in order to create an efficient system and method for energy tracking in an electric aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rabii’s system for managing application execution by in-flight processing systems to protect health and capacity of multi-cell battery packs with Venkataramana’s flight planning operations using connected data in order to determine an energy saving flight plan as a function of battery data by correlating flight parameters to energy costs associated with a current flight plan. Combining Rabii and Venkataramana would thus provide an efficient “a method, apparatus, system, and computer program product for determining an aircraft flight plan using connected data.” (Venkataramana: Technical Field – 2nd paragraph)
Rabii in view of Venkataramana does not teach but Tsutsui teaches:
[…] determine an energy anomaly of the battery pack as a function of the additional battery data, […], (See (Tsutsui: Summary of the Invention – 8th-9th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rabii in view of Venkataramana with these above aforementioned teachings from Tsutsui in order to create a safe system and method for energy tracking in an electric aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rabii’s system for managing application execution by in-flight processing systems to protect health and capacity of multi-cell battery packs with Tsutsui’s abnormality detection device and method for a battery pack in order to determine an energy anomaly of a battery pack as a function of battery data. Combining Rabii and Tsutsui would thus provide “an abnormality detection device and an abnormality detection method for a battery pack capable of improving detection accuracy of thermal runaway while suppressing an increase in manufacturing cost.” (Tsutsui: Background Art – 7th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 14:
Rabii in view of Venkataramana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Rabii further teaches:
The method of claim 10, further comprising: receiving additional battery data from the sensing device generated from a plurality of battery parameters detected during a flight adhering to the energy saving flight plan,, (See (Rabii: Detailed Description – 19th-26th, 55th-64th, 68th-75th, and 82nd-86th paragraphs, FIG. 2))
Rabii does not teach but Venkataramana teaches:
[…] and determining an updated energy saving flight plan as a function of the energy anomaly and the energy saving flight plan., (See (Venkataramana: Detailed Description – 36th, 65th, and 83rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rabii with these above aforementioned teachings from Venkataramana in order to create an efficient system and method for energy tracking in an electric aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rabii’s system for managing application execution by in-flight processing systems to protect health and capacity of multi-cell battery packs with Venkataramana’s flight planning operations using connected data in order to determine an energy saving flight plan as a function of battery data by correlating flight parameters to energy costs associated with a current flight plan. Combining Rabii and Venkataramana would thus provide an efficient “a method, apparatus, system, and computer program product for determining an aircraft flight plan using connected data.” (Venkataramana: Technical Field – 2nd paragraph)
Rabii in view of Venkataramana does not teach but Tsutsui teaches:
[…] determining an energy anomaly of the plurality of battery modules as a function of the additional battery data, […], (See (Tsutsui: Summary of the Invention – 8th-9th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rabii in view of Venkataramana with these above aforementioned teachings from Tsutsui in order to create a safe system and method for energy tracking in an electric aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rabii’s system for managing application execution by in-flight processing systems to protect health and capacity of multi-cell battery packs with Tsutsui’s abnormality detection device and method for a battery pack in order to determine an energy anomaly of a battery pack as a function of battery data. Combining Rabii and Tsutsui would thus provide “an abnormality detection device and an abnormality detection method for a battery pack capable of improving detection accuracy of thermal runaway while suppressing an increase in manufacturing cost.” (Tsutsui: Background Art – 7th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 20:
Rabii in view of Venkataramana, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Rabii further teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the executable instructions further cause the electronic processor to: receive additional battery data from the sensing device generated from battery parameters detected during a flight adhering to the energy saving flight plan,, (See (Rabii: Detailed Description – 19th-26th, 55th-64th, 68th-75th, and 82nd-86th paragraphs, FIG. 2))
Rabii does not teach but Venkataramana teaches:
[…] and determine an updated energy saving flight plan as a function of the energy anomaly and the energy saving flight plan., (See (Venkataramana: Detailed Description – 36th, 65th, and 83rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rabii with these above aforementioned teachings from Venkataramana in order to create an efficient system and method for energy tracking in an electric aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rabii’s system for managing application execution by in-flight processing systems to protect health and capacity of multi-cell battery packs with Venkataramana’s flight planning operations using connected data in order to determine an energy saving flight plan as a function of battery data by correlating flight parameters to energy costs associated with a current flight plan. Combining Rabii and Venkataramana would thus provide an efficient “a method, apparatus, system, and computer program product for determining an aircraft flight plan using connected data.” (Venkataramana: Technical Field – 2nd paragraph)
Rabii in view of Venkataramana does not teach but Tsutsui teaches:
[…] determine an energy anomaly of the plurality of battery modules as a function of the additional battery data, […], (See (Tsutsui: Summary of the Invention – 8th-9th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rabii in view of Venkataramana with these above aforementioned teachings from Tsutsui in order to create a safe system and method for energy tracking in an electric aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rabii’s system for managing application execution by in-flight processing systems to protect health and capacity of multi-cell battery packs with Tsutsui’s abnormality detection device and method for a battery pack in order to determine an energy anomaly of a battery pack as a function of battery data. Combining Rabii and Tsutsui would thus provide “an abnormality detection device and an abnormality detection method for a battery pack capable of improving detection accuracy of thermal runaway while suppressing an increase in manufacturing cost.” (Tsutsui: Background Art – 7th paragraph)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights