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 .
Pursuant to communications filed on 02/12/2025, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits wherein claims 1-15 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/15/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
1)-. In order to make the claims for US compliance, it is advisable to avoid using numbers in parentheses in US patent claims to ensure maximum clarity and avoid potential issues with claim construction. This is because parentheses in US claims can sometimes introduce ambiguity regarding the scope of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
2)-. Claims 1 and 10 recites the phrase “each powertrain unit comprises a propulsion unit powered by an energy storage unit”, wherein the word “comprises” should be changed to “comprising” that is grammatically stronger in patent claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
3)-. Claims 1 and 10 recites the phrase “control the operation of the auxiliary power supply” / “controlling the operation of the auxiliary power supply”, wherein the article “The” should be removed to fix the antecedent basis issue, as such, rewrite the phrase as “control operation of the auxiliary power supply” / “controlling operation of the auxiliary power supply”.
Appropriate correction is required.
4)-. Claims 1 and 10 recites the phrase “identify / identifying a malfunctioning unit from the group of propulsion units and energy storage units”, wherein the phrases should be rewritten as “identify / identifying a malfunctioning unit from the group consisting of propulsion units and energy storage units”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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. In the instant case:
1)-. Claim 1 recites the Conditional Phrase "when connected": The final clause ends with “when connected”. This introduces a conditional structural relationship. It is slightly ambiguous whether the turbogenerator supplies power only when the rectifier is connected, or when the auxiliary power supply as a whole is connected by the switches. To improve definiteness, this should explicitly state what is being connected (e.g., "when connected to the system via the at least one set of reconfiguration switches").
Appropriate correction is required.
2)-. Claim 10 is directed to an improper hybrid claim (apparatus vs. method): The claim blends a system (apparatus) with a method. It starts as an apparatus claim: ''A method for redistributing power in an aircraft with a system comprising...” but then changes to describing a series of software/processor steps "configured to perform the steps of monitoring... identifying ... controlling".
The issue is that under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), a claim must clearly define whether it is protecting an apparatus or a process. Mixing these two formats renders the exact metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. It is suggested to the applicant that one way to fix the issue is to separate the claim into distinct, independent sets of claims: one for the "System ... " and a separate one for the "Method ...”.
Appropriate correction is required.
3)-. Claim 10 mentions a malfunctioning unit "from the group of propulsion units and energy storage units," but the reference letters "(A-D)" do not have an antecedent basis earlier in the claim. Hence, the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
4)-. Claim 10 states "controlling at least one set of reconfiguration switches," but it fails to clarify if these switches are a single unified set or multiple distinct sets. Hence the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
5)-. Claim 10 recites the Conditional Phrase "when connected": The final clause ends with “when connected”. This introduces a conditional structural relationship. It is slightly ambiguous whether the turbogenerator supplies power only when the rectifier is connected, or when the auxiliary power supply as a whole is connected by the switches. To improve definiteness, this should explicitly state what is being connected (e.g., "when connected to the system via the at least one set of reconfiguration switches").
Appropriate correction is required.
6)-. Claim 15, as presented, is an independent claim directed to “An aircraft comprising a system….”. However, the claim language fails to follow the USPTO guidelines because it is presented in a narrative form containing just a preamble or a single paragraph. In other words, the claim language is lacking the transitional phrase “comprising:” that links the preamble of the claim to the specific structural aircraft elements set forth in the body of the claim which define what the invention itself actually is. As such, the claim should be written in a proper form such as for example:
An aircraft comprising:
a system for redistributing power ….
Appropriate correction is required.
7)-. Claim 15 recites an improper mixing of statutory classes: The final clause, "the auxiliary power supplies are connectable to the interconnecting DC bus based on control signals provided by the MCU”, borders on method-step language. Under MPEP 2173.05(p), product claims must focus on the capabilities of the system rather than how an external actor or controller behaves in real- time. It is suggested to amend the claim to: "the auxiliary power supplies are configured to selectively connect to the interconnecting DC bus in response to control signals from the MCU."
Appropriate correction is required.
8)-. Claim 15 states an improper phrase wherein the DC bus is created by "activating interconnecting switches”, but this feature lacks the antecedent basis or explicit structural reference of who or what activates them. If the MCU is responsible for this as well, it should be explicitly stated, such as for example, "an interconnecting network comprising interconnecting switches configured to be activated by the MCU ... “). This lack of clarity makes the claim confusing and indefinite. In other words, define the role of the MCU explicitly regarding all control-dependent actions (who activates the interconnecting switches).
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
1)-. In the instant case, claim 13 appears to be an independent claim directed to a computer program, and at the end, the claim further refers back to claim 10. However, claim 13 fails to further limit the computer program, and fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
2)-. In the instant case, claim 14 appears to be an independent claim and further refers back to claim 13. However, claim 14 fails to further limit the computer-readable storage medium, and fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
3)-. In the instant case, claim 15 recites the phrase “An aircraft comprising a system according to claim 7 for…”. Claim 15 appears to be an independent apparatus claim (an aircraft) – However, claim 15 refers back to claim 7, but claim 7 is completely devoid about an aircraft, hence claim 15 is indefinite due to an improper dependency.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
1)-. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed as a “computer program” that is reasonably interpreted as a software, and software claims are not patentable. Based on the provided claim language, the claimed “computer program” is not supported by hardware such as tangible computer storage medium or execution engine, which would enable one skill in the art to construe that the apparatus is built from tangible product to carry out any functionality being conveyed from the claim. Thus, the “computer program” is software per se and therefore is not being embodied in a manner as to be executable. Therefore, Applicant is suggested to amend claim 13 to recite for example, A computer program product for ……, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having program code embodied therewith, the program code comprising the programming instructions for…...”.
Appropriate correction is required.
2)-. Claim 14, this claim is directed to a computer-readable storage medium. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. Transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Therefore, Applicant should amend the claim 14 to recite for example, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium…...”.
Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent, because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure.
Allowable Subject Matter
It appears claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections, the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action, however, further search and consideration may be required upon the submission of claim amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaime Figueroa whose telephone number is (571)270-7620. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Wade Miles can be reached on 571-270-7777. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAIME FIGUEROA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights