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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kopeschka et al. (US 20200271061).
With respect to claims 1, 8-10 Kopeschka teaches aircraft an aircraft comprising a turbine engine comprising an electrical supply circuit of a turbine engine (see Fig. 1-4: for example 306) comprising a high-voltage DC circuit (see bus 360) powered by a high-voltage DC source (see 348), connected to at least one DC/AC converter (356) of the electrical supply circuit, the at least one DC/AC inverter being respectively connected to at least one rotary electrical machine (see for example generator/motor) of the turbine engine, the at least one rotary electrical machine being respectively coupled to at least one propeller of the turbine engine (see in Fig. 3-4: see for example 102) so as to rotate the at least one propeller (driven by motor 306/406) by the rotation of the at least one propeller, the electrical supply circuit comprising at least one voltage step-up stage (358, see for example paragraph 0017) connected between the high-voltage source and the at least one DC/AC converter, the at least one voltage step-up stage (358 see voltage conversion paragraph 0030) being capable of raising the voltage provided to the at least one rotary electrical machine when said rotary electrical machine rotates the at least one propeller, wherein the aircraft further comprises a full authority digital engine control (paragraph 0021-28, see engine controller may be embodied as a FADEC arrangement): adapted to detect (see 334 and control algorithms paragraph 0037-38: see step 506, 509 and 510) a power requirement greater than the power that the turbine engine is able to deliver (paragraph 0044)), adapted to control the activation of the voltage step-up stage so that it delivers a high voltage to the rotary electrical machine for a transient period (paragraph 0048), when a power requirement greater than the power that the turbine engine is able to deliver is detected, and adapted to control the end (for example step 506 to begin sink operations) of the activation of the voltage step-up stage at the end of the transition period.
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopeschka et al. (US 20200271061)
With respect to claim 2 Kopeschka teaches the use of a DC converter however does not teach the converter is a boost type. Boost type converters are a well-known type of converter for interconnection with a bus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kopeschka to include the use of a boost type converter for the benefit of stabilizing the bus voltage efficiently.
With respect to claim 3 Kopeschka teaches the use of a DC converter however does not teach the converter is a boost type. Interlaced type converters are a well-known type of converter for interconnection with a bus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kopeschka to include the use of a interlaced type converter for the benefit of increased power capability.
With respect to claim 4 Kopeschka teaches the use of a DC converter however does not teach the converter is a boost type. DAB type converters are a well-known type of converter for interconnection with a bus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kopeschka to include the use of a DAB type converter for the benefit of bidirectional power flow and high stabilizing power.
With respect to claim 5 Kopeschka teaches the use of a DC converter however does not teach the converter is a boost type. Quasi- Z type converters are a well-known type of converter for interconnection with a bus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kopeschka to include the use of a Quasi- Z type converter for the benefit of stabilizing the bus voltage with a variable supply input and wide voltage gain.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopeschka et al. (US 20200271061) in view of Dalal (US 20220025820)
With respect to claim 6 Kopeschka teaches the aircraft however does not teach the system
comprising a low-voltage DC circuit connected to the high-voltage DC circuit by means of a converter of the electrical supply circuit. Dalal teaches a low-voltage DC circuit (see loads connected via 376 for example) connected to the high-voltage DC circuit by means of a converter of the electrical supply circuit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kopeschka to include the use of a low voltage Dc circuit for the benefit of interconnecting loads with differing power requirements.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopeschka et al. (US 20200271061) in view of Azari (US 20180115246)
With respect to claim 7 Kopeschka teaches the voltage step-up stage however does not teach the connection of contactor. Azari teaches the know use of a contactor (37) connected in parallel to the voltage step-up stage (boost). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kopeschka to include a parallel contactor for the benefit of increased efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Fin whose telephone number is (571)272-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30.
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 571-272-7429. 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.
MICHAEL FIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/MICHAEL R. FIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights