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 .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 5/5/2025 and Election of Species completed via phone call on 8/20/2026 and emails on 8/24/2026 and 8/25/2026.
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Fig. 1 - Prior Art.
Species A - Fig 2: an integrated hydrogen-electric turbomachine assembly, the fuel cell 138 is located outside of the engine. “Compressor stators 126A, 126B, 126C and turbine stator 126D also may be configured for accommodating electrical wiring for carrying electricity generated by the FCs 138 (only one of which is shown, and not to scale) to power the electric motors. Alternatively, compressor or turbine stators 126A, 126B, 126C, 126D may be formed of electrically conductive materials for carrying electric current to the electric motors” [0088]
Species B - Fig. 3 and 4: an integrated hydrogen-electric
turbomachine assembly in accordance with a second embodiment. In other embodiments, FCs are positioned at radial locations on the outside of a central duct of the integrated hydrogen-electric engine [0095]; an inrunner motor configuration where the motor rotor is on the inside (Figs. 3 and 4) [0095]
Species C – Figs. 5-7 integrated hydrogen FC electric turbomachine assembly. “In other embodiments, FCs are positioned at radial locations on the outside of a central duct of the integrated hydrogen-electric engine” [0095]; an outrunner configuration where the motor rotor is on the outside (Figs. 5-7) [0095]
The species are independent or distinct because they show distinct characteristics and requirements and can not coexist, as described in the paragraphs above. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claims appear generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required. Pursuant to MPEP § 808.02, the inventions require searching different classes and subclasses, as set forth above. This shows each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. See MPEP § 808.02 (A). Additionally, each invention necessitates employing different search strategies, queries, and/or search terms. A search for one of the inventions is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other. See MPEP § 808.02 (C).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Shauna Bronson on 8/20/2026, followed by emails on 8/24/2026 and 8/25/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species C, Figures 5-7. Applicant stated claims 1-6 and 8-20 are believed readable thereon. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention, as presented by applicant.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the one or more compressor stators are configured for carrying an electric current, and have a passage configured to accommodate an electrical conduit within the one or more stators”. This limitation reads on non elected species “compressor or turbine stators 126A, 126B, 126C, 126D may be formed of electrically conductive materials for carrying electric current to the electric motors” [0088], therefore claim 9 reads on a non-elected species. Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
It is further noted that claim 9, including the limitations of its associated independent claim 1, appears to introduce new limitations not present in the original application 18651612.
Claim 10 recites “The electrically-powered turbomachine assembly of claim 1, wherein the one or more compressor stators have a passage configured to carry a fluid, wherein the fluid optionally comprises a thermal transfer fluid for cooling the one or more motor stators and/or for cooling air as the air is moved through the air compressor, and optionally wherein the one or more compressor stators include internal fluidics channels configured to optimize heat exchange.” These limitations reads on a non-elected species: “Fig. 2 embodiment, compressor stators 526A, 526B, 526C, and turbine stator 526D include internal passages 560A, 560B, 560C, 560D for carrying coolant air to and from the electric motors 505A, 505B, 505C, 505D” [0098] Therefore claim 10 reads on a non-elected species. Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
It is further noted that claim 10, including the limitations of its associated independent claim 1, appears to introduce new limitations not present in the original application 18651612.
Claim 16: recites “he one or more electric motors include fins”. Cooling fins are listed as element 129 on page 30, and 533 on page 31, and can be seen in Figures 2 and 4 (both figures belonging to non-elected species) and is not present in the elected figures. Therefore claim 16 reads on a non-elected species. Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
It is further noted that claim 16, including the limitations of its associated independent claim 1, appears to introduce new limitations not present in the original application 18651612.
Therefore, claims 7, 9, 10, 16 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: ”the air compressor and the turbine rotors are fixed to rotate with the electric motor rotors around the one or more electric motor stators” is believed to be in error for -- the air compressor rotors and the turbine rotors are fixed to rotate with the electric motor rotors around the one or more electric motor stators --.
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, 4, and their dependent claims, 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 the limitation “wherein the one or more electric motor stators are fixed to and arranged on a non-rotating shaft”, however it is unclear if/how “a non-rotation shaft” relates to “a central shaft” recited earlier in the claim. It is noted that the specification discloses “in the embodiment shown in Figs. 5 and 6, the central shaft is fixed, the electric motor stators are fixed to the shaft” [0104 and “In another embodiment of Aspect A one or more electric motor stators are fixed to and arranged on a non-rotating shaft, and compressor and turbine rotors are fixed to rotate with the electric motor rotors around the one or more electric motor stators” [0024], however, it is not clear if there is a relationship between the two limitations, and if any of them are represented in the Drawings as shaft 1502 (Fig. 5, [0104]).
Claim 4: in “wherein the air compressor and the turbine respectively include one or more counter-rotating rotors” it is unclear if a) the rotors of the compressor rotate counter to the rotors of the turbine, or, if b) the compressor rotors are counter rotating with respect with each other, and the turbine rotors are counter rotating with respect with each other, or something else.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
With respect to claims 13, and 14 the recitation “optionally” – was given little patentable weight, because it does not necessarily limit the invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnoitt 20210324802 in view of Kuo 20030051484.
Regarding claim 1, Bonnoitt teaches:
An electrically-powered turbomachine assembly (Abstract) comprising:
a fixed housing (Two Images below, also Figures 3, 5-10);
an air compressor (a compressor section, Abstract) including one or more compressor rotors (inter alia, compressor rotor blades 304, rotor assembly 310), and one or more compressor stators (stator assembly 320 [0044]), where one or more of the compressor stators are fixed to the housing (”The stator assembly 320 can be mechanically coupled to a stationary portion of turbofan engine 200 such that it does not rotate” [0040]);
a turbine (a turbine section, Abstract) including one or more turbine rotors (Image below), and one or more turbine stators (image below, Fig. 3), where one or more of the turbine stators are fixed to the housing (image below)
a central shaft (inter alia, 320)
one or more electric motors (an electric motor assembly, Abstract) including electric motor stators (inter alia, “coil 322 of the stator assembly 320” [0043]) and electric motor rotors (“The rotor assembly 310 can be coupled to, or integrated within, a stage of compressor rotor blades 304 and can include a plurality of magnets 312, such as a plurality of permanent magnets” [0042]),
wherein the one or more electric motor stators are fixed to and arranged on a non-rotating shaft (Fig. 4 shows 322 fixed to 320, and as discussed above, “a shaft or spool, is rotatable with at least a portion of the compressor section and the turbine section” [0020]), and the air compressor rotors (inter alia, compressor blades 304, 306) are fixed to rotate with the electric motor rotors (inter alia, magnets 312, rotor assembly 310, see Figs. 4, 5) around the one or more electric motor stators (around 320, inter alia, Figs. 4, 5).
Bonnoitt teaches the “an electric machine 246 rotatable with the turbine section” [0035], indicating “the turbine rotors are fixed to rotate with the electric motor rotors” in a similar manner as discussed above, and Bonnoitt further teaches the electric machine 246 can be connected with the High Pressure shaft [0035] and Low Pressure shaft [0036].
Bonnoitt teaches “The stator assembly 320 can be mechanically coupled to a stationary portion of turbofan engine 200 such that it does not rotate” [0040], and Bonnoitt shows a support structure crossing the air flowpath (similarly to a stator) and providing support for the inner shaft (Image below), but does not explicitly teach the central shaft “supported at least in part by the one or more compressor stators and the one or more turbine stators”.
However, Kuo teaches a turbine engine (abstract), “wherein compressor rotor blades and turbine rotor blades set around the interior circular surface of a hollow revolving shaft while compressor stator blades and turbine stator blades are set around the exterior circular surface of an inner engine case inside the hollow revolving shaft” (abstract, Figs. 1 and 2), and:
[A central shaft (inter alia, 15)] supported at least in part by the one or more compressor stators (Image below, figures 1 and 2)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bonnoitt with Kuo's teachings discussed above using stators from compressor and turbine so the “stator assembly 320 can be mechanically coupled to a stationary portion of […] engine 200 such that it does not rotate” as taught by Bonnoitt in [0040], so the central shaft is “supported at least in part by the one or more compressor stators and the one or more turbine stators” in order to couple the stator to the stationary portions of the engine to prevent rotation, as taught by Bonnoitt and so “inner engine case 15 is suspended and supported inside the hollow shaft 14, and […] the hallow shaft 14 is set at the front end of the inner engine case 15 regarding to the intake direction” as taught by Kuo [0045], making use of structures already present in the system to avoid additional structures that can interfere with the flowpath, increasing efficiency and reducing unnecessary parts and weight.
PNG
media_image1.png
829
1044
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1114
1579
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1127
1646
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Bonnoitt in view of Kuo teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Bonnoitt further teaches:
wherein the one or more electric motors are also configured to act as electrical generators (“the electric machine may be an electric generator, driven by the rotary component” [0020], and also electric generator [0035, 0036]).
Regarding claim 5, Bonnoitt in view of Kuo teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Bonnoitt further teaches:
The electrically-powered turbomachine assembly of claim 1, wherein the compressor rotors and the turbine rotors are configured independently change rotation direction or rotation speed (“the speeds of individual or ganged sets of rotors can be independently controlled to achieve the optimum aerodynamic loading distribution for each stage in the compressor. The speed schedule can be controlled to maintain this optimum loading throughout the speed range without the need of a variable vane system” [0025], “The controller 308 is configured to send electrical current to the coils 322 of each of the electrical motor assemblies in response to the received desired rotational speeds of each of the stages of compressor blades” [0049])
Regarding claim 8, Bonnoitt in view of Kuo teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Bonnoitt further teaches:
wherein the non-rotating shaft is configured as a conduit for fluid transfer and/or electrical power (Electrical power transferred to coils 322: “an electrical current from the electricity source 303, such as an energy storage device 302 or an electric machine 246, into the coils 322 of the stator assembly 320 creates a magnetic field that interacts with the magnets 312 of the rotor assembly 310 to rotate the rotor assembly 310 relative to the stator assembly 320. A person of skill would recognize that electric motor assembly 300 can operate similarly as to how a brushless electric motor operates” [0045]).
Regarding claim 17, Bonnoitt in view of Kuo teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Bonnoitt further teaches:
A vehicle propulsion system (102, 104) utilizing the electrically-powered turbomachine assembly as claimed in claim 1 (as already discussed) to provide thrust (via fan section 202).
Regarding claim 18, Bonnoitt in view of Kuo teaches the invention as discussed for claim 17.
Bonnoitt in view of Kuo is silent about:
The vehicle propulsion system of claim 17, wherein the electrically-powered turbomachine assembly includes one or more fuel cells as an electric power source.
However, Miftakhov teaches:
the electrically-powered turbomachine assembly includes one or more fuel cells as an electric power source (”concentric fuel cells arranged around the motor/compressor shaft” 26 in Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bonnoitt in view of Kuo with Miftakhov's structure discussed above, in order to provide a system where “the motor assembly is disposed in electrical communication with the fuel cell stack” Abstract.
Regarding claim 19, Bonnoitt in view of Kuo teaches the invention as discussed for claim 18.
Bonnoitt further teaches.
19. The vehicle propulsion system of claim 18, wherein the vehicle comprises an airplane (Fig. 1-2).
Claim(s) 2, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnoitt 20210324802 in view of Kuo 2003051484, Minas 20230411646 and Miftakhov 20210151783.
Regarding claim 2, Bonnoitt in view of Kuo teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Bonnoitt in view of Kuo is silent about: The electrically-powered turbomachine assembly of claim 1, further comprising one or more fuel cells arranged on an outside of the housing.
However, Minas teaches “the fuel cell stack 340 is located outside of a casing of the engine”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bonnoitt in view of Kuo with Mina's structure discussed above in order to provide easier access for maintenance and maintain the housing structural integrity.
Additionally, Miftakhov teaches: ”concentric fuel cells arranged around the motor/compressor shaft” 26 in Fig 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bonnoitt in view of Kuo and Minas with Miftakhov's structure discussed above, such that one or more fuel cells arranged on an outside of the housing, so “that air channels 26a of fuel cell stack 26 may be oriented in parallel relation with elongated shaft 10” [0032].
Regarding claim 13, Bonnoitt in view of Kuo, Minas and Miftakhov teaches the invention as discussed for claim 2.
As discussed for claim 2, Bonnoitt in view of Kuo, Minas and Miftakhov teaches:
wherein one or more fuel cells are arranged radially on an outside of the housing (as already discussed above).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnoitt 20210324802 in view of Kuo 2003051484 and Schilling 20100326050
Regarding claim 4, Bonnoitt in view of Kuo teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Bonnoitt in view of Kuo, as discussed so far, is silent about:
wherein the air compressor and the turbine respectively include one or more counter-rotating rotors.
However, Schilling, teaches a gas turbine engine with a generator (title), and:
the air compressor and the turbine respectively include one or more counter-rotating rotors (“Some fan jet engines have been designed with counter-rotating turbines that power counter-rotating fans and boosters or low pressure compressors. U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,790,133, 4,860,537, 5,307,622 and 6,732,502 disclose counter-rotating low pressure turbines (LPT) that power counter-rotating fans and booster or low pressure compressors” [0005])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bonnoitt in view of Kuo with Schilling's teachings discussed above because “Counter-rotating fans, boosters, and turbines greatly enhance the engine's fuel efficiency” as taught by Schilling [0005]
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnoitt 20210324802 in view of Kuo 2003051484 and Kesseli 20210355839
Regarding claim 6, Bonnoitt in view of Kuo teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
wherein one or more of the compressors are configured to function as turbines or one or more of the turbines are configured to function as compressors.
However, Kesseli teaches a turbo machine (title) capable of reversing the flow of energy [0004], and:
one or more of the compressors are configured to function as turbines or one or more of the turbines are configured to function as compressors (“The first turbine, with flow direction reversed, acts as a compressor, while the first compressor, with flow direction reversed, operates as a turbine” [0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bonnoitt in view of Kuo with Kesseli's teachings discussed above in order to provide a system that can “function in two operational modes: first as a power generator, and second as a heat pump” [0007].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnoitt 20210324802 in view of Kuo 2003051484, Minas 20230411646 and Miftakhov 20210151783 and Prachar US 3377803 A
Regarding claim 11, Bonnoitt in view of Kuo, Minas and Miftakhov teaches the invention as discussed for claim 2.
Bonnoitt in view of Kuo, Minas and Miftakhov is silent about:
wherein the one or more fuel cells comprise hydrogen fuel cells and the fluid comprises hydrogen and further wherein the shaft is configured to convey hydrogen in liquid form from one location along the shaft to another location and is configured to receive heat from the assembly to change the hydrogen from liquid form to gas form for use by one or more fuel cells.
However, Miftakhov teaches an integrated hydrogen-electric engine (title), and:
the one or more fuel cells comprise hydrogen fuel cells and the fluid comprises hydrogen (Abstract)
change the hydrogen from liquid form to gas form for use by one or more fuel cells (“e.g., liquid hydrogen—LH2, or cold hydrogen gas) […] becomes gasified because of heating (e.g., liquid hydrogen converts to gas) to take the heat out of the system. The hydrogen gas then get heated in the heat exchanger 24 to a working temperature of the fuel cell 26 which also takes heat out of the compressed air,” [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bonnoitt in view of Kuo, Minas and Miftakhov with Miftakhov's teachings discussed above in order to provide “take heat out of the system (providing cooling), and get hydrogen gas heated to a working temperature of the fuel cell, as taught by Miftakhov [0030].
Bonnoitt in view of Kuo, Minas and Miftakhov is silent about:
and further wherein the shaft is configured to convey hydrogen in liquid form from one location along the shaft to another location and is configured to receive heat from the assembly to
However, Prachar teaches a fuel and cooling system for a gas turbine engine (Col 1 ll. 8-10), and:
the shaft is configured to convey (hollow shaft, claim 3) hydrogen in liquid form (“cryogenic liquid fuel under pressure having a high specific heat capacity. the fuel may or may not be fed into a heat exchanger (not shown), which if it is changes the liquid fuel to its vapor form before passing it through the engine through the main supply line. If it is not passed through a heat exchanger, the liquid fuel will vaporize almost immediately upon absorption of heat from the system since the volatilization point is very low” Col 3 ll. 66- Col 4 ll. 1) from one location along the shaft to another location and is configured to receive heat from the assembly (“said shaft is hollow for containing said fuel [,hollow for containing said fuel and has a plurality of fuel exits therein in communication with the interior of said compressor, said fuel being connected to said hollow shaft at one end thereof, the rotation of said shaft centrifuging said fuel out through said exits into the interior of said compressor and against said annular means to cool the same by the absorption of heat by said cryogenic fuel […] in communication with the interior of said compressor, said fuel being connected to said hollow shaft at one end thereof, […] to cool the same by the absorption of heat by said cryogenic fuel” Claim 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bonnoitt in view of Kuo, Minas and Miftakhov with Prachar's teachings discussed above in order to provide a “shaft [that] is hollow for containing said fuel [,hollow for containing said fuel and has a plurality of fuel exits therein in communication with the interior of said compressor, said fuel being connected to said hollow shaft at one end thereof, the rotation of said shaft centrifuging said fuel out through said exits into the interior of said compressor and against said annular means to cool the same by the absorption of heat by said cryogenic fuel […] in communication with the interior of said compressor, said fuel being connected to said hollow shaft at one end thereof, […] to cool the same by the absorption of heat by said cryogenic fuel” as taught by Prachar in claim 3, cooling the system while heating up the cryogenic fuel.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnoitt 20210324802 in view of Kuo 2003051484, and Kierbel 20220411083.
Regarding claim 12, Bonnoitt in view of Kuo teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Bonnoitt in view of Kuo is silent about:
wherein the central shaft comprises a segmented shaft, wherein the shaft segments are mechanically coupled to one another.
However, Kierbel teaches: the central shaft (214) comprises a segmented shaft, wherein the shaft segments (an upstream shaft integral with the propeller 110 and a downstream shaft integral with the electric motor 108 [0083]) are mechanically coupled to one another (via clutch device 902 [0083]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bonnoitt in view of Kuo with Kierbel's structure discussed above in order to provide “a clutch device 902 fitted between the downstream shaft and the upstream shaft for the purpose of disengaging the propeller 110” as taught by Kierbel [0083].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnoitt 20210324802 in view of Kuo 2003051484, Minas 20230411646 and Miftakhov 20210151783 and Nakaniwa 20160327050.
Regarding claim 14, Bonnoitt in view of Kuo, Minas and Miftakhov teaches the invention as discussed for claim 2.
Bonnoitt in view of Kuo, Minas and Miftakhov is silent about:
wherein the fixed housing includes an annular manifold having an inlet configured to capture a flow of air from the air compressor, and wherein the annular manifold optionally has an outlet configured to deliver air to a cathode side of the one or more fuel cells.
However, Nakaniwa teaches:
the fixed housing includes an annular manifold having an inlet configured to capture a flow of air from the air compressor (A discharge scroll S serving as a space extending in an annular shape in the circumferential direction) [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bonnoitt in view of Kuo, Minas and Miftakhov with Nakaniwa’s structure discussed above such that “the discharge scroll S increases a pressure of the gas G discharged from the outlet” as taught by Nakaniwa [0045].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnoitt 20210324802 in view of Kuo 2003051484, Minas 20230411646 and Miftakhov 20210151783 and Takabe 20010007724
Regarding claim 15, Bonnoitt in view of Kuo, Minas and Miftakhov teaches the invention as discussed for claim 2.
Bonnoitt in view of Kuo, Minas and Miftakhov is silent about:
wherein an anode exhaust from the one or more fuel cells is passed to the turbine.
However, Takabe teaches an air supply device for fuel cell (title), and:
an anode exhaust from the one or more fuel cells is passed to the turbine (a burned gas obtained by burning an anode exhaust gas AG discharged from an anode of the fuel cell may be conducted to the intake side of an exhaust gas turbine 8 for driving the displacement compressor, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Bonnoitt in view of Kuo, Minas and Miftakhov with Takabe's structure discussed above in order to drive the compressor, as taught by Takabe (Abstract)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. 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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights