CTNF 19/282,273 CTNF 87770 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim contains the phrase “further comprising”, but it appears that “comprising” would be more appropriate since the claim isn’t adding any additional detains to the description of the electric power source . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 12 is 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 12 contains the phrase “an outer sheath on an opposing side of the conductor screen from the conductor screen” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not possible to ascertain the location of the outer sheath because it is unclear how the outer sheath can be on an opposing of the conductor screen from itself. As best understood, the outer sheath is the outermost of the claimed layers. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1, 2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a2 ) as being anticipated by Himmelmann et al. (hereinafter Himmelmann, US Publication Number 20170291712) . Regarding claim 1, Himmelmann discloses a propulsion system for an aircraft (Figure 1 element 10) comprising: an electric power source (Figure 1 elements 14 and 18); a propulsion assembly (Figure 1 element 16) comprising a propulsor (Figure 1 element 44), the propulsor powered by the electric power source (Figure 1); an electric power bus electrically connecting the electric power source to the propulsion assembly (Figure 1 element 40); and an inverter converter controller positioned along the electric power bus, the inverter converter controller configured to convert an electric power from the electric power source to a voltage between 800 and 20,000 volts (Figure 1 elements 36, 48 and 50). The examiner notes that the applicant has not disclosed how an inverter converter controller “configured to” convert electric power at a voltage between 800 and 20000 volts is patentably distinct and materially different from any given inverter converter controller. As such any inverter converter controller is considered to be “configured to” convert electric power at a voltage between 800 and 20000 volts. Regarding claim 2, see figure 1 elements 36, 48 and 50. Regarding claims 4 and 5, see figure 1 elements 36, 48 and 50 and Paragraph 24. The examiner notes that the claim does not require the inverter converter controller to actually change the voltage, just that it is configured to do so, as the inverter converter controller of Himmelmann is configured to control the voltage received from the power source it can be considered to be configured to increase or decrease the voltage. Regarding claim 6, see figure 1 element 40. The examiner notes that the applicant has not disclosed how an electric power bus “configured to” transfer electric power at an electrical current between 30 and 1200 amps is patentably distinct and materially different from any given electric power bus. As such any electric power bus is considered to be “configured to” transfer electric power at an electrical current between 30 and 1200 amps. Regarding claim 7, see figure 1 element 14. Regarding claim 8, see figure 1 element 18 . 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1, 2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a2 ) as being anticipated by Armstrong (US Publication Number 20180297683) . Regarding claim 1, Armstrong discloses a propulsion system for an aircraft (Figure 5 element 90) comprising: an electric power source (Figure 5 elements 98b and 142b); a propulsion assembly (Figure 5 element 122a) comprising a propulsor (Figure 5 element 109a), the propulsor powered by the electric power source (Figure 5); an electric power bus electrically connecting the electric power source to the propulsion assembly (Figure 5 element 140b); and an inverter converter controller positioned along the electric power bus, the inverter converter controller configured to convert an electric power from the electric power source to a voltage between 800 and 20,000 volts (Figure 5 element 134a and Paragraph 27). The examiner notes that the applicant has not disclosed how an inverter converter controller “configured to” convert electric power at a voltage between 800 and 20000 volts is patentably distinct and materially different from any given inverter converter controller. As such any inverter converter controller is considered to be “configured to” convert electric power at a voltage between 800 and 20000 volts. Regarding claim 2, see figure 5 element 134a. Regarding claims 4 and 5, see figure 5 elements 134a and Paragraphs 27 (transformer circuitry) and 48. Regarding claim 6, see figure 5 element 140b. The examiner notes that the applicant has not disclosed how an electric power bus “configured to” transfer electric power at an electrical current between 30 and 1200 amps is patentably distinct and materially different from any given electric power bus. As such any electric power bus is considered to be “configured to” transfer electric power at an electrical current between 30 and 1200 amps. Regarding claim 7, see figure 5 element 98b. Regarding claim 8, see figure 5 element 142b. Regarding claim 9, Armstrong discloses a propulsion system for an aircraft (Figure 5 element 90) comprising: an electric power source (Figure 5 elements 98b and 142b);a propulsion assembly (Figure 5 elements 112a and 122a) comprising: a first propulsor assembly (Figure 5 element 109a) connected to a first electric motor (Figure 5 element 106a);a second propulsor assembly (Figure 5 element 119a) connected to a second electric motor (Figure 5 element 107a); an electric power bus electrically connecting the electric power source to the propulsion assembly (Figure 5 element 140b); and an inverter converter controller positioned along the electric power bus and electrically connected to the electric power source wherein the inverter converter controller is configured to alter a voltage of an electric power received from the electric power source by at least 100% (Figure 5 element 132a). The examiner notes that the applicant has not disclosed how an inverter converter controller “configured to” alter a voltage of an electric power received from the electric machines by at least 100% is patentably distinct and materially different from any given inverter converter controller. As such any inverter converter controller is considered to be “configured to” alter a voltage of an electric power received from the electric machines by at least 100%. Regarding claim 10, see figure 5 element 134a. The examiner notes that the applicant has not disclosed how an inverter converter controller “configured to” alter a voltage of an electric power received from the electric machines by at least 100% is patentably distinct and materially different from any given inverter converter controller. As such any inverter converter controller is considered to be “configured to” alter a voltage of an electric power received from the electric machines by at least 100%. Regarding claim 11, see figure 5 element 142b and paragraph 52 . 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 13, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong . Regarding claim 13, Armstrong discloses the above propulsion system but fails to teach of the inverter converter controller increasing the voltage as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inverter converter controller increase the voltage to the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. This would provide for the predictable result of improving the efficiency of transfer the power while simultaneously reducing losses. Regarding claim 15, Armstrong discloses a method for operating a propulsion system for an aircraft comprising: generating electric power with an electric power source (Paragraphs 20 and 21); transferring the electric power through an inverter converter (Paragraph 27); transferring the electric power generated with the electric power source to a propulsion assembly through an electric power bus (Paragraphs 24 and 27); and generating thrust for the aircraft with the propulsion assembly, the propulsion assembly being powered by the electric power transferred through the electric power bus (Paragraph 24), but is silent as to but is silent as to the voltage range it provides. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inverter converter controller increase the voltage to the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. This would provide for the predictable result of improving the efficiency of transfer the power while simultaneously reducing losses. Regarding claim 17, see Figure 1 and paragraph 27. Regarding claim 18, see paragraph 27 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong as applied to claim s 9 and 15 above, and further in view of Woody et al. (hereinafter Woody, US Patent Number 5591937) . Regarding claim 12, Armstrong discloses the above propulsion system wherein the power bus includes wires (Paragraph 15), but is silent as to the composition of the wire. However, Woody discloses a cable comprising: an insulation layer (Figure elements 23 and 32) enclosing a conductor screen(Figure 2 element 35); a semi-conductive insulator screen enclosing the insulation layer (Figure 2 element 37); and an outer sheath on an opposing side of the conductor screen from the conductor screen (Figure 2 element 39). Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the propulsion system of Armstrong with the cable of Woody for the predictable result of providing high transmission rates (Woody, Column 2 lines12-16). Regarding claim 14, Armstrong discloses the above propulsion system wherein the power bus includes wires (Paragraph 15), but fails to teach of the coolant system as claimed. However, Woody teaches of a similar power bus (Figure 1 element 10) comprising a coolant system (Figure 1 element 20) having a cooling line (Figures 1 and 2 element 31), wherein at least a portion of a voltage cable extends coaxially with the cooling line (Figures 1 and 2). Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power bus of Armstrong with the coolant system of Woody for the predictable result of providing high transmission rates (Woody, Column 2 lines12-16). Regarding claim 16, Armstrong discloses the above method, but fails to teach of the electric power bus comprising a cable as claimed. However, Woody teaches of a power bus with a cable (Figure 1) wherein the cable includes a conductor (Figure 2 element 34), a conductor screen enclosing the conductor (Figure 2 element 35), an insulation layer enclosing the conductor screen (Figure 2 elements 23 and 32), an insulator screen enclosing the conductor (Figure 2 element 37), and a shield enclosing the insulator screen (Figure 2 element 38), but is silent as to the material of the shield. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the shield from a metallic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied Industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Armstrong with the modified cable of Woody for the predictable result of providing high transmission rates (Woody, Column 2 lines12-16) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Lutze et al. (hereinafter Lutze, US Publication Number 20170197730) . Regarding claim 19, Armstrong discloses the above method wherein the electric power is transferred through an inverter converter (Figure 1, Paragraph 27), but is silent as to how the voltage is changed. However, Lutze discloses a similar inverter converter that increases the voltage as claimed (Paragraph 16). Regarding claim 19, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Armstrong to have the inverter converter increase the voltage as in Lutze for the predictable result of being able to independently match the voltage of the bus (Lutze, Paragraph 16). Regarding claim 20, Armstrong discloses the above method wherein the electric power is transferred through an inverter converter (Figure 1, Paragraph 27), but is silent as to how the voltage is changed. However, Lutze discloses a similar inverter converter that decreases the voltage as claimed (Paragraph 16). Regarding claim 20, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Armstrong to have the inverter converter controller decrease the voltage as in Lutze for the predictable result of being able to independently match the voltage of the bus (Lutze, Paragraph 16) . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1, 3-6, 15, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 3, 4, 6 and 15-17 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11827369 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent are a more specific version of the claims of the instant application and therefore anticipated the current claims. The examiner notes that claim 1 of the patent contains the subject matter from claims 1 and 3 of the instant application . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1 and 3, 2, 4-6, 15 and 17-2020 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-5, 14 and 16-19 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12370908 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent are a more specific version of the claims of the instant application and therefore anticipated the current claims. The examiner notes that claim 1 of the patent contains the subject matter from claims 1 and 3 of the instant application . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A MCFALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5769. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-4. 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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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. /Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644 Application/Control Number: 19/282,273 Page 2 Art Unit: 3644 Application/Control Number: 19/282,273 Page 3 Art Unit: 3644 Application/Control Number: 19/282,273 Page 4 Art Unit: 3644 Application/Control Number: 19/282,273 Page 5 Art Unit: 3644 Application/Control Number: 19/282,273 Page 6 Art Unit: 3644 Application/Control Number: 19/282,273 Page 7 Art Unit: 3644 Application/Control Number: 19/282,273 Page 8 Art Unit: 3644 Application/Control Number: 19/282,273 Page 9 Art Unit: 3644 Application/Control Number: 19/282,273 Page 10 Art Unit: 3644 Application/Control Number: 19/282,273 Page 11 Art Unit: 3644 Application/Control Number: 19/282,273 Page 12 Art Unit: 3644 Application/Control Number: 19/282,273 Page 13 Art Unit: 3644 Application/Control Number: 19/282,273 Page 14 Art Unit: 3644 Application/Control Number: 19/282,273 Page 15 Art Unit: 3644
Prosecution Insights