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 .
Application Status
Claims 31-57 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the second action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, information disclosure statements (IDS) have been filed on 7/16/2025, 2/5/2026, and 7/8/2026 and have been reviewed by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 31-33, 36-38, 40-42, 45-48, 53, 54, 56, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita et al. (PGPub #2024/0213855) in view of Tian (US #11,932,383).
Regarding claim 31, Sugita teaches an apparatus for aircraft propulsion, comprising: a propeller (112); an electric engine (60) mounted to a support structure (13, and 20 as seen in figure 1, and 20, and 60 as seen in figure 3) and configured to rotate the propeller (Paragraph 86), the electric engine being located within an enclosure (60, and 70 as seen in figure 3); a heat transfer element (72) thermally coupled to the electric engine (Paragraph 102); an air inlet located at an upper side of the support structure (13, and 20 as seen in figure 1, and 20, and 60 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraphs 74, and 85, this teaches that the fan, which is located above the support structure can drive air to the motor enclosure which is located within the support structure, for the air to move from a position above the structure to within the structure inherently requires an air inlet on the upper side of the support structure), wherein the air inlet is configured to receive downwash from the propeller (Paragraph 85); and an air outlet (Paragraphs 85, and 150, any system that continually receives air through an air inlet must inherently have an air outlet as otherwise the air pressure would quickly build up in the system and prevent the system from functioning), wherein the air outlet is configured to exhaust at least a portion of the downwash from the heat transfer element (Paragraph 150, this teaches that the air is released to the outside after passing over the heat transfer elements). But Sugita does not teach that the air outlet is located at the upper side of the support structure, and a location of the air outlet is at a lower pressure region than a location of the air inlet.
However, Tian does teach that the air outlet is located at the upper side of the support structure (200 as seen in figures 1B, and 3), and a location of the air outlet is at a lower pressure region than a location of the air inlet (170A, and 200 as seen in figures 1B, and 3, and Claim 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the air outlet be on the upper side of the support structure at a lower pressure region than the inlet because Sugita and Tian are both aircraft cooling systems that take downwash air into the structure of the aircraft to cool elements of the propulsion system. The motivation for having the air outlet be on the upper side of the support structure at a lower pressure region than the inlet is that it helps to keep the outlet clear of debris while also having the outlet placed in a position where the downwash is weaker to help allow the exhaust to escape from the system.
Regarding claim 32, Sugita as modified by Tian teaches the apparatus for aircraft propulsion of claim 31, wherein the heat transfer element comprises air-cooling fins (72 of Sugita) that are integral to or thermally coupled to the electric engine (Paragraph 102 of Sugita).
Regarding claim 33, Sugita as modified by Tian teachers the apparatus for aircraft propulsion of claim 31, further comprising a second heat transfer element (92 of Sugita) that that is thermally coupled to the electric engine and comprises a heat exchanger (Paragraph 121 of Sugita).
Regarding claim 36, Sugita as modified by Tian teaches the apparatus for aircraft propulsion of claim 31, wherein: the electric engine comprises a motor (Paragraph 86 of Sugita); the enclosure comprises a motor enclosure enclosing the motor (60, and 70 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraph 86 of Sugita); and at least part of the heat transfer element is located external to the enclosure (70, and 72 as seen in figure 4 of Sugita).
Regarding claim 37, Sugita as modified by Tian teaches the apparatus for aircraft propulsion of claim 31, further comprising: a cooling path (104 of Sugita) configured to direct a portion of the downwash from the air inlet to the heat transfer element (72, 104, and the arrow as seen in figure 7 of Sugita).
Regarding claim 38, Sugita as modified by Tian teaches the apparatus for aircraft propulsion of claim 33, further comprising: a cooling path (104 of Sugita) configured to direct a portion of the downwash from the air inlet to the second heat transfer element (92, 104, and the arrow as seen in figure 7 of Sugita).
Regarding claim 40, Sugita as modified by Tian teaches the apparatus for aircraft propulsion of claim 31, but Sugita does not teach that the air outlet is annular to or adjacent to a hub of the electric engine. However, Tian does teach that the air outlet is annular to or adjacent to a hub of the electric engine (190, and 200 as seen in figure 1B, and 200 as seen in figure 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the outlet be adjacent to the hub of the electric engine because Sugita and Tian are both aircraft cooling systems that take downwash air into the structure of the aircraft to cool elements of the propulsion system. The motivation for having the outlet be adjacent to the hub of the electric engine is that it allows the flow path to be longer by spacing out the inlet and outlet which allows the system to cool down a larger portion of the propulsion system.
Regarding claim 41, Sugita as modified by Tian teaches the apparatus for aircraft propulsion of claim 31, but Sugita does not teach that the air outlet is located on a top face of the support structure. However, Tian does teach that the air outlet is located on a top face of the support structure (200 as seen in figures 1B, and 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the outlet be on a top face of the support structure because Sugita and Tian are both aircraft cooling systems that take downwash air into the structure of the aircraft to cool elements of the propulsion system. The motivation for having the outlet be on a top face of the support structure is that it helps to keep debris out of the flow path which can help to improve the reliability of the system.
Regarding claim 42, Sugita as modified by Tian teaches the apparatus for aircraft propulsion of claim 37, wherein the cooling path is configured to direct the portion of the downwash from the air inlet, to the heat transfer element, and then to a second heat transfer element (72, 92, 104, and the arrow as seen in figure 7 of Sugita).
Regarding claim 45, Sugita as modified by Tian teaches the apparatus for aircraft propulsion of claim 31, wherein the electric engine is directly coupled to the propeller (20, and 60 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraphs 64, and 65 of Sugita).
Regarding claim 46, Sugita as modified by Tian teaches the apparatus for aircraft propulsion of claim 31, but Sugita does not teach that the air inlet is radially offset from a hub of the electric engine. However, Tian does teach that the air inlet is radially offset from a hub of the electric engine (170A, and 190 as seen in figure 1B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the air inlet be offset from the hub of the electric motor because Sugita and Tian are both aircraft cooling systems that take downwash air into the structure of the aircraft to cool elements of the propulsion system. The motivation for having the air inlet be offset from the hub of the electric motor is that it allows the flow path to be longer by spacing out the inlet and outlet which allows the system to cool down a larger portion of the propulsion system.
Regarding claim 47, Sugita teaches a method of operating an aircraft, comprising: rotating a propeller by an electric engine in a lift configuration of the aircraft (20 as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 89), the electric engine (60) being located within an enclosure (60, and 70 as seen in figure 3) and mounted to a support structure of the aircraft (13, and 20 as seen in figure 1, and 20, and 60 as seen in figure 3); directing downwash from the propeller through an air inlet located at an upper side of the support structure (13, and 20 as seen in figure 1, and 20, and 60 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraphs 74, and 85, this teaches that the fan, which is located above the support structure can drive air to the motor enclosure which is located within the support structure, for the air to move from a position above the structure to within the structure inherently requires an air inlet on the upper side of the support structure); directing a portion of the downwash (Paragraphs 85, and 94) to a heat transfer element (72) that is thermally coupled to the electric engine (Paragraph 102); and exhausting the portion of the downwash from the heat transfer element via an air outlet (Paragraphs 85, and 150, any system that continually receives air through an air inlet must inherently have an air outlet as otherwise the air pressure would quickly build up in the system and prevent the system from functioning, and this teaches that the air is released to the outside after passing over the heat transfer elements). But does not teach that the air outlet is located at an upper side of the support structure, and at a lower pressure region than a location of the air inlet.
However, Tian does teach that the air outlet is located at an upper side of the support structure (200 as seen in figures 1B, and 3), and at a lower pressure region than a location of the air inlet (170A, and 200 as seen in figures 1B, and 3, and Claim 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the air outlet be on the upper side of the support structure at a lower pressure region than the inlet because Sugita and Tian are both aircraft cooling systems that take downwash air into the structure of the aircraft to cool elements of the propulsion system. The motivation for having the air outlet be on the upper side of the support structure at a lower pressure region than the inlet is that it helps to keep the outlet clear of debris while also having the outlet placed in a position where the downwash is weaker to help allow the exhaust to escape from the system.
Regarding claim 48, Sugita as modified by Tian teaches the method of operating an aircraft of claim 47, further comprising: cooling the electric engine by directing the portion of the downwash to the heat transfer element (72, 104, and the arrow as seen in figure 7, and Paragraph 102 of Sugita), wherein the heat transfer element comprises air-cooling fins (72 of Sugita) that are integral to or thermally coupled to the electric engine (Paragraph 102 of Sugita).
Regarding claim 53, Sugita as modified by Tian teaches the method of operating an aircraft of claim 47, but Sugita does not teach directing the downwash from the propeller through the air inlet located at the upper side of the support structure annular to or adjacent to a hub of the electric engine. However, Tian does teach directing the downwash from the propeller through the air inlet located at the upper side of the support structure annular to or adjacent to a hub of the electric engine (170A, and 190 as seen in figure 1B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inlet be adjacent to the hub of the electric engine on the upper side of the support structure because Sugita and Tian are both aircraft cooling systems that take downwash air into the structure of the aircraft to cool elements of the propulsion system. The motivation for having the inlet be adjacent to the hub of the electric engine on the upper side of the support structure is that it allows the flow path to be longer by spacing out the inlet and outlet which allows the system to cool down a larger portion of the propulsion system.
Regarding claim 54, Sugita as modified by Tian teaches the method of operating an aircraft of claim 47, but Sugita does not teach directing the downwash from the propeller through the air inlet located on a top face of the support structure. However, Tian does teach directing the downwash from the propeller through the air inlet located on a top face of the support structure (170A, and 190 as seen in figure 1B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inlet be on a top face of the support structure because Sugita and Tian are both aircraft cooling systems that take downwash air into the structure of the aircraft to cool elements of the propulsion system. The motivation for having the inlet be on a top face of the support structure is that it helps to create a direct relationship between the downwash and the inlet.
Regarding claim 56, Sugita as modified by Tian teaches the method of operating an aircraft of claim 47, wherein the aircraft is a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft (Paragraph 62 of Sugita).
Regarding claim 57, Sugita as modified by Tian teaches the method of operating an aircraft of claim 47, but Sugita does not teach that the air outlet is closer to a hub of the electric engine than the air inlet. However, Tian does teach that the air outlet is closer to a hub of the electric engine than the air inlet (170A, 190, and 200 as seen in figure 1B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the outlet be closer to the hub than the inlet because Sugita and Tian are both aircraft cooling systems that take downwash air into the structure of the aircraft to cool elements of the propulsion system. The motivation for having the outlet be closer to the hub than the inlet is that it allows the outlet to be at a lower pressure region of the downwash than the inlet which helps to drive the air from the inlet, through the cooling system and out the outlet.
Claims 34, 35, and 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita et al. (PGPub #2024/0213855) as modified by Tian (US #11,932,383) as applied to claims 33, and 47 above, and further in view of Fukazu (PGPub #2023/0192310).
Regarding claim 34, Sugita as modified by Tian teaches the apparatus for aircraft propulsion of claim 33, but does not teach that the second heat transfer element is thermally coupled to the electric engine via a fluid flow path, wherein the fluid flow path is configured to circulate a fluid within the enclosure. However, Fukazu does teach that the second heat transfer element is thermally coupled to the electric engine via a fluid flow path (46, and 74 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraphs 35, and 36), wherein the fluid flow path is configured to circulate a fluid within the enclosure (58, and 74 as seen in figure 3, as can be seen the coolant channels are located within the walls of the motor enclosure). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second heat transfer element be coupled by a fluid flow path that circulates through the enclosure because Sugita and Fukazu are both heat transfer systems for engines of VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having the second heat transfer element be coupled by a fluid flow path that circulates through the enclosure is that it helps to increase the amount of the heat transfer that can between the engine and the heat transfer elements.
Regarding claim 35, Sugita as modified by Tian and Fukazu teaches the apparatus for aircraft propulsion of claim 34, but Sugita does not teach that the fluid flow path comprises one of an oil or a coolant. However, Fukazu does teach that the fluid flow path comprises one of an oil or a coolant (Paragraph 36). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fluid flow path have a coolant because Sugita and Fukazu are both heat transfer systems for engines of VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having the fluid flow path have a coolant is that it helps to improve the cooling that can be achieved by the heat transfer system.
Regarding claim 49, Sugita as modified by Tian teaches the method of operating an aircraft of claim 47, further comprising: directing a second portion of the downwash to a second heat exchanger (92, and 75, and the arrows as seen in figure 5 of Sugita, as can be seen the flanges divide the flow into multiple portions and at least a second portion would reach the second heat exchangers) that is thermally coupled to the electric engine (Paragraph 121 of Sugita). But Sugita does not teach that the second heat exchanger is a fluid-cooled heat exchanger that is thermally coupled to the electric engine via a fluid flow path.
However, Fukazu does teach that the second heat exchanger is a fluid-cooled heat exchanger that is thermally coupled to the electric engine via a fluid flow path (46, and 74 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraphs 35, and 36). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second heat transfer element be coupled to the engine by a fluid flow path because Sugita and Fukazu are both heat transfer systems for engines of VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having the second heat transfer element be coupled to the engine by a fluid flow path is that it helps to increase the amount of the heat transfer that can between the engine and the heat transfer elements.
Regarding claim 50, Sugita as modified by Tian and Fukazu teaches the method of operating an aircraft of claim 49, but Sugita does not teach circulating a fluid in the fluid flow path within the enclosure. However, Fukazu does teach circulating a fluid in the fluid flow path within the enclosure (58, and 74 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraph 36, as can be seen the coolant channels are located within the walls of the motor enclosure). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a fluid in the flow path that circulates through the enclosure because Sugita and Fukazu are both heat transfer systems for engines of VTOL aircraft. The motivation for having a fluid in the flow path that circulates through the enclosure is that it helps to increase the amount of the heat transfer that can between the engine and the heat transfer elements.
Regarding claim 51, Sugita as modified by Tian and Fukazu teaches the method of operating an aircraft of claim 49, further comprising: directing the portion of the downwash to the heat transfer element (72, and the arrows as seen in figure 7of Sugita), and then to the second heat exchanger (92, and the arrows as seen in figure 7 of Sugita), and wherein the second heat exchanger can be a fluid-cooled heat exchanger (46, and 74 as seen in figure 3, and Paragraphs 35, and 36 of Fukazu).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita et al. (PGPub #2024/0213855) as modified by Tian (US #11,932,383) as applied to claim 38, above, and further in view of Bugatti (US #2,268,183).
Regarding claim 39, Sugita as modified by Tian teaches the apparatus for aircraft propulsion of claim 38, wherein the second heat transfer element is the final heat transfer element (92 as seen in figure 7 of Sugita); but does not teach a second air outlet, wherein the second air outlet is configured to exhaust a second portion of the downwash from the final heat transfer element.
However, Bugatti does teach a second air outlet (8 as seen in figure 2, as can be seen there is an outlet on each side of the structure), wherein the second air outlet is configured to exhaust a second portion of the downwash from the final heat transfer element (3, 8, and the arrows as seen in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second outlet that exhausts a portion of the downwash from the final heat transfer element because Sugita and Bugatti are both internal forced air cooling systems for aircraft. The motivation for having a second outlet that exhausts a portion of the downwash from the final heat transfer element is that it can help to improve the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft by distributing the outflow of heated air around the aircraft to minimize the disturbances in any one area.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita et al. (PGPub #2024/0213855) as modified by Tian (US #11,932,383), and Fukazu (PGPub #2023/0192310 as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Ahyow et al. (PGPub #2023/0174247).
Regarding claim 44, Sugita as modified by Tian, and Fukazu teaches the apparatus for aircraft propulsion of claim 34, but does not teach that the electric engine comprises a gearbox; and the enclosure comprises a gearbox enclosure enclosing the gearbox, wherein the fluid flow path is configured to circulate fluid within the gearbox enclosure. However, Ahyow does teach that the electric engine comprises a gearbox (1015); and the enclosure comprises a gearbox enclosure enclosing the gearbox (1004, 1014, and 1015 as seen in figure 1), wherein the fluid flow path is configured to circulate fluid within the gearbox enclosure (Paragraphs 27, and 34). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the engine have a gearbox in an enclosure that is cooled by the fluid flow path because Sugita and Ahyow are both electric motor cooling systems for aircraft. The motivation for having the engine have a gearbox in an enclosure that is cooled by the fluid flow path is that it allows the system to more effectively transmit bower from the motors to the rotors while also keeping the system cool.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugita et al. (PGPub #2024/0213855) as modified by Tian (US #11,932,383), and Fukazu (PGPub #2023/0192310) as applied to claim 49, above, and further in view of Bugatti (US #2,268,183).
Regarding claim 52, Sugita as modified by Tian, and Fukazu teaches the method of operating an aircraft of claim 49, but does not teach exhausting the second portion of the downwash from the fluid-cooled heat exchanger via a second air outlet. However, Bugatti does teach exhausting the second portion of the downwash from the fluid-cooled heat exchanger via a second air outlet (3, 8, and the arrows as seen in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second outlet that exhausts downwash from the fluid heat transfer element because Sugita and Bugatti are both internal forced air cooling systems for aircraft. The motivation for having a second outlet that exhausts downwash from the fluid heat transfer element is that it can help to improve the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft by distributing the outflow of heated air around the aircraft to minimize the disturbances in any one area.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 43, and 55 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
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 WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights