Dave,
Fairly cool stuff. The Europeans appear to be focused on solving all the electric motor substitution problems first while allowing the battery industry to solve the power density issue independently - a sensible strategy IMO.
It'll be interesting to see how Sikorsky pursues the rejections in US 12/018,217. They bought their ticket, I'd expect them to finish the ride by responding to the rejections in some manner - though they'll have to pay for someone to write the response.
Whether the argue the rejections, amend the claims, or both depends on how bad the art uncovered by the examiner affects their plans for protecting the technology. Sikorsky's response without extension fees is due 10/2; last day to respond without abandonment is 1/2/2011, so we'll have to wait until then to see.
It's interesting to compare the search report prepared by the Korean Patent Office in the related International Application to that done by the US examiner - the US examiner found a bunch more art. Perhaps Sikorsky will revisit the practice of selecting the KPO as the ISA going forward, and use the USPTO or EPO going forward? Not sure, but my guess is that they were interested in saving some coin.
I'd be curious to see what an EPO examiner would uncover in a search on a related European filing.
Cheers!