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 Objections
Claim 11, line 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “An aircraft comprising a hybrid turboprop” should be - -The aircraft comprising the hybrid turboprop- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariotto (US 20140283519) in view of Menheere et al (US 20170211477).
Regarding claim 1, Mariotto teaches a hybrid engine for an aircraft (Figure 1; 1), comprising a gas generator (Figure 1; 5) carried by a generator shaft (The shaft coupling Figure 1; 5 to 21), a free turbine (Figure 1; 6) carried by a turbine shaft (Figure 1; 53) and driven in rotation by a gas stream (The gas stream of Figure 1; 5) generated by the gas generator (Functional language, Figure 1; 6 is driven by the gas stream from 5), the turbine shaft being engaged with a main rotor (Figure 1; 2) via a transmission unit (At least Figure 1; 3, 50, 25, 45) comprising a first free wheel (Figure 1; 50) oriented such that the main rotor cannot drive the free turbine (Functional language, Paragraph 0112, 50 prevents 3 from driving 6), a reversible electric machine (Figure 1; 10) able to be engaged with the main rotor via the transmission unit to drive the main rotor during an electric or hybrid operating mode (Paragraph 0094).
Mariotto does not disclose wherein an engine is a turboprop;
the turboprop comprising a single oil pump engaged with the transmission unit so as to be selectively driven by the turbine shaft or by the electric machine depending on the operating mode of the turboprop.
However, Menheere teaches wherein an engine for an aircraft (The aircraft of Paragraph 0035) is a turboprop (Figure 1; 10. Paragraph 0028);
the turboprop comprising a single oil pump (Figure 1; 44) engaged with a transmission unit (Figure 1; 36, 56. Paragraph 0038) so as to be selectively driven by a turbine shaft (Figure 1; 28) or by an electric machine (Figure 1; 52) depending on an operating mode of the turboprop (Paragraph 0036, 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Mariotto wherein an engine is a turboprop; the turboprop comprising a single oil pump engaged with the transmission unit so as to be selectively driven by the turbine shaft or by the electric machine depending on the operating mode of the turboprop as taught by and suggested by Menheere in order to provide improved reliability (Paragraph 0026, the modification adds a single oil pump that can be driven by a turbine shaft or generator) and because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Menheere’s use of a propeller according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case Mariotto’s hybrid engine, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case providing thrust to an aircraft, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification has the hybrid engine of Mariotto being a hybrid turboprop for a propeller airplane).
Regarding claim 3, Mariotto in view of Menheere teaches the invention as claimed.
Mariotto further discloses wherein the electric machine is able to be engaged with the main rotor via a reversible coupling (Figure 1; 25) means movable between a coupling position (The coupling position of Figure 1; 25 which connects 10 to 3. Paragraph 0107) in which the electric machine can drive the main rotor during operation in motor mode or be driven by the main rotor (The coupling position allows Figure 1; 3 to drive 10) or the free turbine during operation in generator mode, and a decoupling position (The decoupling position of Figure 1; 25 which disconnects 10 to 3, Paragraph 0107) in which the electric machine is decoupled from the main rotor.
Regarding claim 4, Mariotto in view of Menheere teaches the invention as claimed.
Mariotto further discloses wherein the reversible coupling means is a clutch (Paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 5, Mariotto in view of Menheere teaches the invention as claimed.
Mariotto further discloses a coupling shaft (Figure 1; 21, 22) having a first end (Figure 1; 22) engaged with the transmission unit, and a second end (Figure 1; 21) engaged with the generator shaft.
Regarding claim 7, Mariotto in view of Menheere teaches the invention as claimed.
Mariotto further discloses wherein the second end of the coupling shaft is engaged with the generator shaft via a safety disconnection means (Figure 1; 45) configured to allow disconnection of the coupling shaft with the generator shaft in case of partial or total blockage of the gas generator (Functional language, 45 disconnects from the coupling shaft when there is partial or total blockage of the gas generator because the blockage slows the gas generator down. Paragraph 0132).
Regarding claim 10, Mariotto in view of Menheere teaches the invention as claimed.
Mariotto further discloses wherein the generator shaft is engaged with an accessory gearbox (Figure 1; 41, Paragraph 0117) distinct from the transmission unit, the second end of the coupling shaft being engaged with the accessory gearbox.
Regarding claim 11, Mariotto in view of Menheere teaches the aircraft comprising the hybrid turboprop according to claim 1.
Mariotto does not disclose the aircraft being a propeller plane.
However, Menheere teaches the aircraft being a propeller plane (The aircraft using a turboprop engine is a propeller engine, Paragraph 0003, 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Mariotto wherein the aircraft being a propeller plane as taught by and suggested by Menheere because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Menheere’s use of a propeller according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case Mariotto’s hybrid engine, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case providing thrust to an aircraft, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (This is the same modification as claim 1).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariotto in view of Menheere as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Haillot et al (US 20140084677).
Regarding claim 9, Mariotto in view of Menheere teaches the aircraft comprising the hybrid turboprop according to claim 1.
Mariotto further discloses wherein the reversible coupling means is a first reversible coupling means (The reversible coupling means is a first reversible coupling means), the second end of the coupling shaft being engaged with the generator shaft via a free wheel (Figure 1; 45) movable between a coupling position (The coupling position of Figure 1; 45) in which the electric machine and the gas generator are coupled, and a decoupling position (The decoupling position of Figure 1; 45) in which the electric machine and the gas generator are decoupled.
Mariotto in view of Menheere does not teach a second reversible coupling means.
However, Haillot teaches wherein a freewheel is replaced with a reversible coupling means (Paragraph 0085, a centrifugal clutch is a reversible clutch).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Mariotto in view of Menheere to include teach a second reversible coupling means as taught by and suggested by Haillot because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Haillot’s use of a reversible coupling means according to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case Mariotto in view of Menheere’s hybrid turboprop, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case providing selectively coupling power transmission, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification replaces Figure 1; 45 of Mariotto with a reversible coupling means).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 6, 8 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20020145076) states in Paragraph 0029 that clutches and free wheels are interchangeable
Kaltenbach (US 20190351972) states in Paragraph 0015 that clutches and free wheels are interchangeable
Heitmann et al (US 20040211604) states in Paragraph 0010 that clutches and free wheels are interchangeable
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/EDWIN KANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights