The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of 2/19/2026 have been entered and considered. Upon entering amendment, claims 1, 2, 4, 8 have been amended, and claims 10-12 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-12 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the term “dissimilar” is not indefinite because par [0033] of the specification states “elements or supply paths of the propulsion architecture are known as dissimilar when they meet their hardware or software characteristics are different.” (Remarks, pg.5) The examiner respectfully disagrees, because “It is not proper to read limitations appearing in the specification into the claim when these limitations are not recited in the claim” (emphasis added). See in re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2s 1671, 1674 (Fed.Cir. 1994); Intervet America Inc. v. Kee-Vet Lab. Inc., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed.Cir. 1989). That is, the applicant is relying on particular limitations appearing in par [0033] of the specification, which are not presently claimed. Moreover, with respect to dissimilar, par [0032] of applicant’s disclosure states that providing “as much difference as possible… that one wishes to make…”. This indicates that “dissimilar” is subjective as it is determined by a user’s own personal preference (how much difference they “wish” to make). Different readers, users, etc. would have different preferences and, as such, the claim would necessitate a clear-cut objective standard for determining what the applicant intends by “dissimilar”. This standard is necessary to inform the reader as to when components are sufficiently “dissimilar” as opposed to merely different in an insubstantial way. Therefore, the examiner believes the 112b rejection with respect to “dissimilar” should remain upheld.
The applicant then argues, with respect to the Barraco reference, that “differences in efficiency or performance over time- arising, for example, because one contactor is closed more frequently than another-do not render the contactors dissimilar, as defined by the Specification.” (Remarks, pg.6). The examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously discussed, it is not proper to bring limitations appearing in the specification into the claim when these limitations are not explicitly recited in the claim. “Dissimilar” may entail different things for different readers including wear and tear and differences in efficiency or performance over time whereas it appears the applicant intends for a particular standard that is not explicitly recited in the claim. Applicant is strongly encouraged to amend the claims accordingly. The applicant then argues “…such circumstances do not establish dissimilarity as claimed.” (Remarks, pg.6). The examiner respectfully disagrees, because the claim does not require a particular objective standard to determine what is intended by “dissimilarity”.
Then, the applicant states that “Barraco does not disclose the at least two energy sources… of one of the at least two energy supply paths being each dissimilar, respectively, from the at least two energy sources… of the at least one other of the at least two energy supply paths.” (Remarks, pgs.6-7, bridging paragraph). The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that claim 1 recites “at least two energy sources” of one path and “at least one energy source” of the other path, which contradicts applicant’s quotation of the claim resulting in a great deal of confusion- does the applicant intend two energy sources for each supply path or one energy source for each energy supply path?
Furthermore, the applicant’s intended benefit of “enables an electric or hybrid propulsion architecture that is tolerant to random failures and robust against system failures” (Remarks, pg.7) is directed towards unclaimed subject matter. The applicant then states “Furthermore, Barraco is completely silent as to ‘including at least one electric motor supplied from at least two energy sources of the propulsion architecture through at least two energy supply paths’” (Remarks, pg.7). However, applicant does not provide any argument or analysis as to why Barraco does not teach “including at least one electric including at least one electric motor supplied from at least two energy sources of the propulsion architecture through at least two energy supply paths”. MPEP 2145 states “If a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case.” See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc). The applicant did not address the examiner’s concern that the sources are not positively claimed; that the claim is directed to propulsion lines that do not include the sources (see non-final, dated 12/29/2025, pg.4).
The applicant is strongly encouraged to positively recite the structure that applicant intends to be read into the claim (i.e., the sources and corresponding connections to the supply paths) and to further distinctly and structurally define “dissimilar”.
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 1-12 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 1 recites “wherein the at least two energy sources…of one of the at least two energy supply paths are each dissimilar, respectively, from the at least one energy source… of the at least one other of the at least two energy supply path.” The narrative language above fails to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim as required by MPEP 2173.05(g), and is thus indefinite. The claim does not explicitly define what is intended by the term “dissimilar”, which is a subjective term and thus fails to provide an objective standard for determining the scope of the claim. The claim does not specify the nature, extent, or degree of dissimilarity required that would inform the reader as to when the components are sufficiently “dissimilar” as opposed to merely different in an insubstantial way. Furthermore, the claim is an apparatus claim and as such should be structurally distinguished- structural requirements cannot be imparted from “dissimilar”. Par [0032] of applicant’s disclosure states that dissimilar is providing “as much difference as possible… that one wishes to make…”. This indicates that “dissimilar” is subjective as it is determined by a user’s own personal preference (how much difference they “wish” to make). Different readers, users, etc. would have different preferences and, as such, the claim would necessitate a clear-cut objective standard for determining what the applicant intends by “dissimilar”. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood (see rejections below).
Claim 1, lines 2-4, recites that “… each propulsion line including at least one electric motor supplied from at least two energy sources of the propulsion architecture through at least two energy supply paths…” That is, the claim appears to suggest each energy supply path has a corresponding energy source. However, the last wherein clause recites “wherein the at least two energy sources…of one of the at least two energy supply paths…” This appears to be incongruent with lines 2-4 of the claim, because the wherein clause attributes two energy sources to one energy supply path. It is unclear whether applicant intends “at least two energy sources” of one of the at least two energy supply paths or “at least one energy source” of one of the at least two energy supply paths. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood, namely that it is “wherein the at least one energy source, the at least one energy inverter… of one of the at least two energy supply paths are each dissimilar, respectively, from the at least one energy source…of the at least one other of the at least two energy supply paths.” The applicant is strongly encouraged to amend the claim to positively claim the energy sources, and to clarify the number of sources that are connected to each energy supply path.
Claims 2-12 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the at least one energy source". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “…of the at least two energy supply path” at the end of the claim. “path” should be “paths”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by English Machine Translation of Barraco et al. (FR 3095422).
Regarding Claim 1,
Barraco teaches an aircraft electric or hybrid propulsion architecture (see for e.g., fig.2, item 1) including at least two propulsion lines (2a, 3a, C1, 2b, 3b, C3, etc.), each propulsion line including at least one electric motor (pars [45, 50]; each propulsion line includes at least one electric motor included in each of C1, C3) supplied from at least two energy sources (items 2, 3. Note: the sources are not positively claimed-the claim is directed to propulsion lines that do not include the sources) of the propulsion architecture through at least two energy supply paths (at least one electric motor of C1 is supplied from at least two sources 2, 3 through energy supply paths 2a, 3a and at least one electric motor of C3 is supplied from at least two sources 2, 3 through paths 2b, 3b. Note: The claim does not prohibit the motors from sharing sources), each energy supply path including at least one energy inverter (20a, 20b, 30a, 30b) and one electrical protection (each energy supply path has one electrical protection 10) delivering a DC voltage for a HVDC bus (4, 5), each HVDC bus distributing this DC voltage to the at least one electric motor through at least one additional energy inverter and at least one additional electrical protection (see for e.g., fig.2, par [50]; Barraco teaches C1 and C3 each includes at least one additional inverter and that each HVDC bus 4, 5 distributes DC voltage to at least one electric motor through at least one additional inverter corresponding to the motor of C1 and corresponding to the motor of C3 and at least one additional protection 10 for each respective motor),
wherein the at least one energy source, the at least one energy inverter, the at least one electrical protection and the HVDC bus of one of the at least two energy supply paths are each dissimilar, respectively, from the at least one energy source, from the at least one energy inverter, from the at least one electrical protection and from the HVDC bus of at least one other of the at least two energy supply paths (pars [28, 50, 57, 64] and related discussion; Barraco teaches that in an initial state, contactor 100 is closed and the top and bottom halves of the system are connected. Barraco further teaches that a fault could occur in the elements (i.e., faulty source 2, faulty inverter 20a, short circuit on one of the HVDC buses) causing contactor 100 to open to prevent the fault from propagating to the whole network 1. Therefore, when there is a fault originating in the top half of the system, 100 is open and the bottom half continues to provide power to motor C3. A fault in the top half of the system causes accelerated wear on the components and can also induce faults in other connected components, for e.g., components 2, 20, 10, and one of the HVDC buses that has a short circuit, which over time makes them dissimilar in efficiency and performance, respectively, from the healthy unfaulted components (i.e., source 3, 30a or 30b, 10) and from one of the HVDC buses that does not have a short circuit of the other energy supply path. Differences in usage of the sources may result in one source being more worn than the other such one source can become faulty before the other resulting in dissimilarity. Furthermore, when contactor 10 of supply path that includes inverter 20a opens because of a fault in inverter 20a, that contactor is functionally dissimilar than the contactor 10 of the energy supply path 3a that remains closed and functioning normally. The HVDC busses 4,5 are dissimilar in that a short circuit/fault on one bus makes one dissimilar over time through wear and tear than another bus that did not experience a fault and HVDC bus 4 is also shown as having a substantially different arrangement than that of HVDC bus 5).
Examiner Note: the broad language of the claim does not positively recite the “at least two energy sources” and does not require the at least two energy sources supplying power to one motor to be different from the two sources supplying power to another motor. Thus, the at least two sources can be used for each motor. The claim should be amended to positively claim the energy sources and to distinctly and structurally define “dissimilar”.
Regarding Claim 2,
Barraco teaches the claimed subject in claim 1 and further teaches wherein each of the electric motors of the at least two propulsion lines are dissimilar (pars [29-30, 50] and related discussion; Barraco teaches disconnecting a “faulty electrical load” that includes the electric motor. Thus, when the electric motor of load C1 is faulty and disconnected while the electric motor of load C3 is being supplied power and functioning normally, over time the faulty electric motor of C1 is “dissimilar” in efficiency and performance as opposed to a normally functioning electric motor of C3).
Regarding Claim 3,
Barraco teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and teaches further including an electrical bus protection (see for e.g., fig.2, item 100, pars [60, 63] and related discussion) set up between two dissimilar HVDC busses (see fig.2, items 4, 5, pars [60, 63-64] and related discussion; 100 is set up between two dissimilar HVDC busses 4, 5 noting that a fault/a short circuit on one bus makes one dissimilar over time through accelerated wear than another bus that did not experience a fault. HVDC bus 4 is also shown as having a substantially different arrangement to that of HVDC bus 5).
Regarding Claim 9,
Barraco teaches an electric or hybrid aircraft (pars [17, 24, 45, 56]) including an electric or hybrid propulsion architecture as claimed in claim 1 (Barraco, see rejection of claim 1; Barraco teaches the claimed architecture of claim 1 corresponding to an electric or hybrid propulsion architecture).
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) 4, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English Machine Translation of Barraco et al. (FR 3095422) in view of Atteia et al. (2022/0021215 A1).
Regarding Claim 4,
Barraco teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 3 and further teaches wherein the electrical bus protection comprises a controlled elementary electrical protection on each of the two HVDC buses (4, 5, pars [60, 61]; each contactor/controlled elementary electrical protection of 100 is on each HVDC bus 4, 5).
Barraco does not explicitly disclose a non-controlled elementary electrical protection in series with the controlled elementary electrical protection to form a “series assembly”.
Atteia (fig.2), however, teaches it is known in the art to connect a non-controlled elementary electrical protection (circuit breaker 142, par [46]) in series with the controlled elementary electrical protection (controlled contactor 144, par [46]) to form a “series assembly” (see fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified each of Barraco’s controlled elementary electrical protection (i.e., each contactor in 100) to be in series with a non-controlled elementary electrical protection (i.e., a circuit breaker) to form a series assembly. The motivation would have been to add a redundant form of protection that opens automatically during unsafe conditions and that does not require the delays associated with waiting for a control signal to handle the controlled protection.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 4 and further teaches wherein the controlled elementary electrical protection comprises a contactor (Barraco, pars [60, 61] and Atteia, fig.2, controlled contactor 144, par [46], see also rejection of claim 4; Barraco teaches each controlled elementary electrical protection of 100 is a contactor and Atteia teaches controlled contactor 144).
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 4 and further teaches wherein the non-controlled elementary electrical protection comprises a circuit breaker (see rejection of claim 4, Atteia, fig.2, circuit breaker 142, par [46]).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English Machine Translation of Barraco et al. (FR 3095422) in view of Toothman et al. (2015/0097422 A1).
Regarding Claim 5,
Barraco teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches the architecture being configured with three HVDC buses (pars [50-51]; “the number of distribution buses can be higher, and, at most equal to the number of rectifiers”- Barraco teaches the number of rectifiers are 4 and thus Barraco teaches the obviousness of having at least three HVDC buses), wherein at least one of HVDC bus is partially or completely dissimilar from the two others (pars [50-51, 60, 63-64] and related discussion; a fault/short circuit in one of the HVDC busses makes one partially or completely dissimilar over time through accelerated wear than the other two buses that did not experience a fault. HVDC bus 4 is also shown as having a substantially different arrangement to that of HVDC bus 5 and the third not shown HVDC bus).
While Barraco’s architecture in Fig.2 starting from 2a to the HVDC buses and down to 3B suggests that the architecture is “configured to” be applied to a ring energy distribution network; Barraco, however, does not explicitly disclose a ring energy distribution network.
Toothman (fig.2), however, teaches it is known in the art to configure an architecture with three HVDC buses (34, 36, 52, pars [12-13]) to be applied to a ring energy distribution network (74, par [20]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Barraco to that of Toothman. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps in Barraco and to further illustrate the capability of applying Barraco’s architecture in a well-known and well-desired network in the ring distribution network that would ensure fault tolerance and reliability.
Regarding Claim 6,
Barraco teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches the architecture being configured with four HVDC buses (pars [50-51]; “the number of distribution buses can be higher, and, at most equal to the number of rectifiers”- Barraco teaches the number of rectifiers are 4 and thus Barraco teaches the obviousness of having four HVDC buses), wherein at least one HVDC bus is partially or completely dissimilar from the three others (pars [50-51, 60, 63-64] and related discussion; a fault/short circuit in one HVDC bus makes one partially or completely dissimilar over time through accelerated wear than the other three buses that did not experience a fault. HVDC bus 4 is also shown as having a substantially different arrangement to that of HVDC bus 5 and the other two not shown HVDC buses).
While Barraco’s architecture in Fig.2 starting from 2a to the HVDC buses and down to 3B suggests that the architecture is “configured to” be applied to a ring energy distribution network; Barraco, however, does not explicitly disclose a ring energy distribution network.
Toothman (fig.2), however, teaches it is known in the art to configure an architecture with four HVDC buses (34, 36, 50, 52, pars [12-13]) to be applied to a ring energy distribution network (74, par [20]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Barraco to that of Toothman. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps in Barraco and to further illustrate the capability of applying Barraco’s architecture in a well-known and well-desired network in the ring distribution network that would ensure fault tolerance and reliability.
Claim(s) 7-8, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English Machine Translation of Barraco et al. (FR 3095422) in view of Toothman et al. (2015/0097422 A1) in further view of Atteia et al. (2022/0021215 A1).
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 5 and further teaches wherein two adjacent HVDC buses of the energy distribution network are connected to one another by two electrical bus protections (Barraco, fig.2, pars [60-61]; the two electrical bus protections/contactors of 100 connect the HVDC buses to one another).
The combination does not explicitly disclose a series assembly of two electrical bus protections.
Atteia (fig.2), however, teaches it is known in the art to connect a non-controlled elementary electrical bus protection (circuit breaker 142, par [46]) in series with a contactor (controlled contactor 144, par [46]) to form a “series assembly” (see fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified each of Barraco’s contactors in 100 to each be in series with a non-controlled elementary electrical protection (i.e., a circuit breaker) to form a series assembly of two electrical bus protections. The motivation would have been to add a redundant form of protection that opens automatically during unsafe conditions and that does not require the delays associated with waiting for a control signal to handle the controlled protection.
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 7 and the combination further teaches wherein each of said two electrical bus protections comprises two dissimilar elementary electrical protections (Barraco, fig.2, pars [pars 60-61] and Atteia, fig.2, par [46]; Barraco in view of Atteia teaches each electrical bus protection has a contactor in series with a circuit breaker-two dissimilar electrical protections).
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 8 and further teaches wherein one of the two dissimilar elementary electrical protection is a controlled elementary protection (Barraco, fig.2, pars [pars 60-61] and Atteia, fig.2, par [46], see rejection of claims 7-8; the combination teaches a controlled elementary protection read on by the contactor) and the other one of two dissimilar elementary electrical protection is a non-controlled elementary protection (Barraco, fig.2, pars [pars 60-61] and Atteia, fig.2, par [46], see rejection of claims 7-8; the combination, particularly Atteia, teaches a non-controlled elementary protection read on by the circuit breaker).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836