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 .
Application Status
Claims 16-30 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 5/6/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 26, and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 26 says “a first and a second win”, the examiner believes that this is supposed to say “a first and a second wing”. Claim 27 states “wherein the first drive unit and the second drive are”, the examiner believes that this should be “wherein the first drive unit and the second drive unit are”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Edwards et al. (PGPub #2016/0340051).
Regarding claim 16, Edwards teaches a drive system for an aircraft, the drive system comprising: a first drive unit (46, and 54) having a first power generator (54, and 56) for delivering first electrical power (Paragraph 41) and a first propulsion unit (46) connected to the first power generator to generate propulsion from the first electrical power (46a, and 56 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraph 41), and a second drive unit (46, and 54 as seen in figure 1, as can be seen there are more than one drive units) having a second power generator (54 as seen in figure 1, and 56 as seen in figure 2) for delivering second electrical power (Paragraph 41) and a second propulsion unit (46) connected to the second power generator to generate propulsion from the second electrical power (46b, and 56 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraph 41); and an interconnector (122, and 124) configured to interconnect the first propulsion unit or the first power generator with the second drive unit to supply power in the event of a fault condition of the first drive unit (Paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 17, Edwards teaches the drive system as recited in claim 16 wherein the interconnector is configured to transfer the second electrical power of the second power generator proportionally to the first propulsion unit if the fault condition of the first drive unit is a fault of the first power generator (46a, 46b, 56, 122, and 124 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraphs 25, and 45).
Regarding claim 19, Edwards teaches the drive system as recited in claim 16 wherein the interconnector is configured to interconnect the second propulsion unit or the second power generator with the first drive unit to supply power in the event of a fault condition of the second drive unit (46a, 46b, 56, 122, and 124 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 20, Edwards teaches a drive system for an aircraft, the drive system comprising: a first drive unit (46, and 54) having a first power generator (54, and 56) for delivering first electrical power (Paragraph 41) and a first propulsion unit (46) connected to the first power generator to generate propulsion from the first electrical power (46a, and 56 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraph 41), and a second drive unit (46, and 54 as seen in figure 1, as can be seen there are more than one drive units) having a second power generator (54 as seen in figure 1, and 56 as seen in figure 2) for delivering second electrical power (Paragraph 41) and a second propulsion unit (46) connected to the second power generator to generate propulsion from the second electrical power (46b, and 56 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraph 41); and an additional power generator (Paragraph 38) designed to deliver additional electrical power fed proportionally to the first and second propulsion unit during normal operation (Paragraph 38, this teaches that the storage system can provide additional power to the propulsion units during normal high thrust flight phases), and an interconnector configured to transfer the additional electrical power of the additional power generator to the first propulsion unit in the event of a fault of the first power generator (Paragraph 38, this teaches that the system can provide additional power in the event of an engine failure).
Regarding claim 23, Edwards teaches the drive system as recited in claim 16 wherein the first and second propulsion units each have an electric motor (106 as seen in figure 3) and a shaft (110 as seen in figure 3) having a propeller (50 as seen in figure 3).
Regarding claim 25, Edwards teaches an aircraft comprising: the drive system as recited in claim 16 (46, and 54 as seen in figure 1), wherein a power of the first and second drive units during a failure is greater than the first or second electrical power respectively in a respectively comparable normal operation without a failure of the first or second drive unit (Paragraph 45, this teaches that the output of the operating power units can be increased to a level above the normal operating level in the event of a failure).
Regarding claim 26, Edwards teaches the aircraft as recited in claim 25 wherein the aircraft is an airplane having a first and a second wing (40, and 44 as seen in figure 1), wherein the first drive unit is arranged on the first wing (44, 46, and 54 as seen in figure 1) and the second drive unit is arranged on the second wing (44, 46, and 54 as seen in figure 1), thus supply is distributed from one side of the aircraft to the other using the interconnector in the event of a fault condition (44, 46, and 54 as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 28, Edwards teaches a method for operating the drive system as recited in claim 16, the method comprising interconnecting the first propulsion unit or the first power generator with the second drive unit to supply power in the event of a fault condition of the first drive unit (Paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 29, Edwards teaches the method as recited in claim 28 wherein the second electrical power of the second power generator is transferred proportionally to the first propulsion unit if the fault condition of the first drive unit is a fault of the first power generator (46a, 46b, 56, 122, and 124 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraphs 25, and 45).
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.
Claims 18, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. (PGPub #2016/0340051) in view of Marius (PGPub #2022/0234470).
Regarding claim 18, Edwards teaches the drive system as recited in claim 16 but does not teach that the interconnector is configured to transfer the first electrical power of the first power generator at least proportionally to the second propulsion unit if the fault condition of the first drive unit is a fault of the first propulsion unit. However, Marius does teach that the interconnector is configured to transfer the first electrical power of the first power generator at least proportionally to the second propulsion unit if the fault condition of the first drive unit is a fault of the first propulsion unit (Paragraph 38). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system direct power from the first power generator to the second propulsion unit when there is a failure of the first propulsion unit because Edwards and Marius are both electric aircraft with a plurality of generators and propulsion units. The motivation for having the system direct power from the first power generator to the second propulsion unit when there is a failure of the first propulsion unit is that it allows the energy from the generator connected to the broken propulsion unit to be redirected to working units which helps to improve the performance and extend the range of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 27, Edwards teaches the aircraft as recited in claim 25 wherein the aircraft is an airplane having a first and a second wing (40, and 44 as seen in figure 1), but does not teach that the first drive unit and the second drive are arranged on the first wing.
However, Marius does teach that the first drive unit and the second drive are arranged on the first wing (104, and 114 as seen in figure 1A, and 201-1, 201-2, 202-Bat 1, and 202-Bat 2 as seen in figure 2, as can be seen there are three rotors on each wing and each rotor has a battery behind the rotor which results in each wing having three drive units). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first and second drive unit on the same wing because Edwards and Marius are both electric aircraft with a plurality of generators and propulsion units. The motivation for having the first and second drive unit on the same wing is that it allows each propulsion nit to have its own generator and allows each wing to have multiple propulsion units to increase the thrust of the system.
Regarding claim 30, Edwards teaches the method as recited in claim 28 but does not teach that the first electrical power of the first power generator is at least proportionally transferred to the second propulsion unit if the fault condition of the first drive unit is a fault of the first propulsion unit. However, Marius does teach that the first electrical power of the first power generator is at least proportionally transferred to the second propulsion unit if the fault condition of the first drive unit is a fault of the first propulsion unit (Paragraph 38). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system direct power from the first power generator to the second propulsion unit when there is a failure of the first propulsion unit because Edwards and Marius are both electric aircraft with a plurality of generators and propulsion units. The motivation for having the system direct power from the first power generator to the second propulsion unit when there is a failure of the first propulsion unit is that it allows the energy from the generator connected to the broken propulsion unit to be redirected to working units which helps to improve the performance and extend the range of the aircraft.
Claims 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. (PGPub #2016/0340051) in view of Morrison (PGPub #2022/0315223).
Regarding claim 21, Edwards teaches the drive system as recited in claim 16 but does not teach that the first or the second power generator are each fuel cell systems. However, Morrison does teach that the first or the second power generator are each fuel cell systems (Paragraph 52). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the power generates be fuel cells because Edwards and Morrison are both electrically powered aircraft. The motivation for having the power generates be fuel cells is that it can help to improve the efficiency of the system versus internal combustion systems.
Regarding claim 22, Edwards as modified by Morrison teaches the drive system as recited in claim 21 but Edwards does not teach that the fuel cell systems have at least two fuel cell stacks. However, Morrison does teach that the fuel cell systems have at least two fuel cell stacks (Paragraph 85). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fuel cells have at least two fuel cell stacks because Edwards and Morrison are both electrically powered aircraft. The motivation for having the fuel cells have at least two fuel cell stacks is that it helps to improve the performance of the fuel cells.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. (PGPub #2016/0340051) in view of Buono et al. (PGPub #2013/0231208).
Regarding claim 24, Edwards teaches the drive system as recited in claim 23 wherein the propulsion unit has the electric motor, the shaft and the propeller (50, 106, and 110), but does not explicitly teach that the propulsion unit is oversized with respect to the power generator.
However, Buono does teach that the propulsion unit is oversized with respect to the power generator (Paragraph 5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the propulsion units be oversized because Edwards and Buono are both electric aircraft with propulsion units. The motivation for having the propulsion units be oversized is that it allows the system to handle a greater load if an issue happens in the system.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. (PGPub #2016/0340051) in view of Solodovnik et al. (US #11,128,251).
Regarding claim 24, Edwards teaches the drive system as recited in claim 23 wherein the propulsion unit has the electric motor, the shaft and the propeller (50, 106, and 110), but does not explicitly teach that the propulsion unit is oversized with respect to the power generator.
However, Solodovnik does teach that the propulsion unit is oversized with respect to the power generator (Column 14, line 330Column 15, line 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the propulsion units be oversized because Edwards and Solodovnik are both electric aircraft with propulsion units. The motivation for having the propulsion units be oversized is that it allows the system to handle a greater load if an issue happens in the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights