DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BECKER et al. (US 2020/0277062 A1) in view of SENNOUN (US 10,774,741 B2).
Regarding claim 1, BECKER discloses a hybrid rotor drive system comprising: an gas turbine engine (104), and a first output shaft (@ 109a); an electric motor (106) including a second output shaft (@ 109b); and a gear box (107) including a first input interface (109a), a second input interface (109b), a speed reducer that reduces speed of rotational force input from the first input interface and the second input interface, and an output interface (@ 111) that outputs the rotational force, which has been reduced in speed by the speed reducer, to a rotor (105), wherein: the first output shaft of the gas turbine engine is mechanically connected to the first input interface; and the second output shaft of the electric motor is mechanically connected to the second input interface.
BECKER does not show the engine being a gas turbine engine including a compressor, a combustor and a turbine, and the first output shaft mechanically connecting the compressor to the turbine.
SENNOUN teaches a hybrid drive system comprising: a gas turbine engine (16) including a compressor (22), a combustor (26), a turbine (30), and a first output shaft (36) that mechanically connects the compressor (22) to the turbine (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention for the gas turbine engine of BECKER to include a compressor, a combustor and a turbine, and the first output shaft mechanically connecting the compressor to the turbine as taught by SENNOUN, since those components are essential and well known elements of a typical gas turbine engine.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of BECKER-SENNOUN discloses an inverter (see paragraph [0030] of BECKER) that supplies electric power to the electric motor; and processing circuitry (133, 121) configured to control the gas turbine engine and the inverter, wherein: the processing circuitry sets an amount of fuel supplied to the gas turbine engine such that output of the gas turbine engine becomes constant; and the processing circuitry controls the inverter such that a rotational frequency of the rotor becomes constant.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of BECKER-SENNOUN discloses forced induction equipment (see paragraph [0026] of BECKER) driven by energy generated by the gas turbine engine; and a compressed air passage through which compressed air generated by the forced induction equipment is guided to the compressor of the gas turbine engine.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of BECKER-SENNOUN discloses a clutch that cuts off rotational force of the first output shaft of the gas turbine engine which is input to the first input interface of the gear box (see paragraph [0025] of BECKER).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of BECKER-SENNOUN discloses a hybrid rotorcraft comprising: a main rotor; a gas turbine engine including a compressor, a combustor, a turbine, and a first output shaft that mechanically connects the compressor to the turbine; an electric motor including a second output shaft; and a gear box including a first input interface, a second input interface, a speed reducer that reduces speed of rotational force input from the first input interface and the second input interface, and an output interface that outputs the rotational force, which has been reduced in speed by the speed reducer, to the main rotor, wherein: the first output shaft of the gas turbine engine is mechanically connected to the first input interface; and the second output shaft of the electric motor is mechanically connected to the second input interface.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BECKER et al. (US 2020/0277062 A1) in view of SENNOUN (US 10,774,741 B2) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10 above, and further in view of IMEL et al. (US 2022/0135240 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of BECKER-SENNOUN discloses an inverter (see paragraph [0030] of BECKER) that supplies electric power to the electric motor; and processing circuitry (121) configured to control the inverter.
The combination of BECKER-SENNOUN does not disclose the processing circuitry receives a start command, which requests start of the gas turbine engine, during stop of the gas turbine engine, the processing circuitry controls the inverter to make the electric motor drive the gas turbine engine.
IMEL teaches a hybrid rotor drive system having an electric motor (102) and a thermal engine (104) connected to a gearbox (112), and processing circuitry (110) that receives a start command (see paragraph 0018), which requests start of the gas turbine engine, during stop of the gas turbine engine, the processing circuitry controls the inverter to make the electric motor drive the gas turbine engine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention the use the electric motor of the hybrid rotor drive system disclosed by BECKER-SENNOUN to start the thermal engine of the hybrid rotor drive system as taught by IMEL as using the electric motor of the hybrid system would reduce weight and complexity of the aircraft, as taught by IMEL in paragraph [0002].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BECKER et al. (US 2020/0277062 A1) in view of SENNOUN (US 10,774,741 B2) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10 above, and further in view of VONDRELL et al. (US 10,837,304).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of BECKER-SENNOUN discloses the first output shaft of the gas turbine engine and the second output shaft of the electric motor, but does not disclose them located on the same rotation axis.
VONDRELL teaches a hybrid rotor drive system wherein the first output shaft (24) of the gas turbine engine (22) and the second output shaft (rotor) of the electric motor are arrange in either an offset parallel layout (Fig. 7) or in a coaxial layout Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention the modify the hybrid rotor drive system disclosed by the combination of BECKER-SENNOUN such that the first output shaft of the gas turbine engine and the second output shaft of the electric motor are located on a same rotation axis, as taught by VONDRELL to accommodate vary design needs related to packaging and weight distribution. Since the art teaches both layouts, which one to use is a matter of design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, and 7 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK D. KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7951. The examiner can normally be reached Telework: From 5:30am-1:30pm EST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/DEREK D KNIGHT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights