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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a system without significantly more. The claim recites: “determine a first estimated outlet temperature value for a high-pressure turbine of the gas turbine engine; determine an estimated work (WHPT) of the high-pressure turbine; determine an estimated inlet temperature value for the high-pressure turbine using the estimated work (WHPT); and determine the ITT by calculating a second estimated outlet temperature value using the estimated inlet temperature value, the second estimated outlet temperature value different than the first estimated outlet temperature value.” This limitation falls into the “Mental Processes” and the “Mathematical Concepts” groups within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical concepts, relationships, formulas or equations, or calculations. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g. pen and paper, a slide rule or a calculator) to help them complete the recited steps, the use of physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation because here merely use the computer to perform the otherwise mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements (e.g. an engine control system including a processor in communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements (e.g. a high-pressure turbine of the gas turbine engine) does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because it is merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of determining an indicated turbine temperature (ITT) are performed.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 2-7, the limitations falls into the “Mental Processes” and the “Mathematical Concepts” groups within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical concepts, relationships, formulas or equations, or calculations. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g. pen and paper, a slide rule or a calculator) to help them complete the recited steps, the use of physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation because here merely use the computer to perform the otherwise mental process. The claims do not offer something that can be considered to be a significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a system without significantly more. The claim recites: “determining a first estimated turbine outlet temperature value; determining an estimated compressor temperature increase value; determining an estimated turbine inlet temperature value using the first estimated outlet temperature value and the estimated compressor temperature increase value; applying a relationship constant for the turbine inlet and the turbine outlet to the estimated turbine inlet temperature value to calculate the ITT for the gas turbine engine; and comparing the ITT to a predetermined ITT threshold value to identify that a high-temperature condition of the gas turbine engine is present or absent.” This limitation falls into the “Mental Processes” and the “Mathematical Concepts” groups within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical concepts, relationships, formulas or equations, or calculations. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g. pen and paper, a slide rule or a calculator) to help them complete the recited steps, the use of physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation because here merely use the computer to perform the otherwise mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional (e.g. compressor) does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because it is merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of determining an indicated turbine temperature (ITT) are performed.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim 9-14, the limitations falls into the “Mental Processes” and the “Mathematical Concepts” groups within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical concepts, relationships, formulas or equations, or calculations. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g. pen and paper, a slide rule or a calculator) to help them complete the recited steps, the use of physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation because here merely use the computer to perform the otherwise mental process. The claims do not offer something that can be considered to be a significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coultier (US 2021/0285356) (hereinafter Coultier) in view of Takaki et al. (US 2019/0383222) (hereinafter Takaki).
Regarding claim 1, Coultier teaches a system for determining an indicated turbine temperature (ITT) for a gas turbine engine, the system comprising:
an engine control system (110) including a processor (402) in communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions (see paragraph 0018, 0049 and 0050), which instructions when executed by the processor (see paragraphs 0007, 0049 and 0050), cause the processor to: determine a first estimated outlet temperature (T5) value for a high-pressure turbine of the gas turbine engine (see paragraphs 0023 and 0024); determine an estimated inlet temperature (T4) value for the high-pressure turbine (see paragraph 0032 and Fig. 2)
However, Coultier does not explicitly teach determine an estimated work (WHPT) of the high-pressure turbine; using the estimated work (WHPT); and determine the ITT by calculating a second estimated outlet temperature value using the estimated inlet temperature value, the second estimated outlet temperature value different than the first estimated outlet temperature value.
Takaki teaches determine an estimated work (WHPT) of the high-pressure turbine (see paragraph 0062); determine an estimated inlet temperature value for the high-pressure turbine using the estimated work (WHPT) (see paragraphs 0062, 0068-0074 and 0080-0081); and determine the ITT by calculating a second estimated outlet temperature value using the estimated inlet temperature value (see paragraphs 0074-0081), the second estimated outlet temperature value different than the first estimated outlet temperature value (see paragraphs 0074-0081).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Coultier to determine an estimated work (WHPT) of the high-pressure turbine; using the estimated work (WHPT); and determine the ITT by calculating a second estimated outlet temperature value using the estimated inlet temperature value, the second estimated outlet temperature value different than the first estimated outlet temperature value as taught by Takaki. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to provide an accurate indicated turbine temperature and enhance the control accuracy of the gas turbine.
Regarding claim 5, Takaki further teaches the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to measure an exhaust gas temperature for the gas turbine engine, and wherein the step of determining the first estimated outlet temperature value includes determining the first estimated outlet temperature value using the exhaust gas temperature (see paragraphs 0059-0061).
Regarding claim 6, Takaki further teaches the first estimated outlet temperature value is different than the second estimated outlet temperature value (see paragraphs 0074-0081).
Regarding claim 7, Takaki further teaches the step of determining the estimated inlet temperature value includes determining the estimated inlet temperature value using a state variable model executed by the engine control system (see equation 11; paragraph 0082).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coultier in view of Takaki as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Macchia (US 2004/0079090) (hereinafter Macchia).
Regarding claim 2, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Coultier as modified by Takaki does not explicitly teach the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to determine an ITT operating margin for the gas turbine engine.
Macchia teaches the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to determine an ITT operating margin for the gas turbine engine (see paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by the prior combination with the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to determine an ITT operating margin for the gas turbine engine as taught by Macchia. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to alert an operator in case of a malfunction and indicate that a corrective action (e.g. fuel nozzle maintenance) has to be taken before an engine part (e.g. the combustor) is damaged due to excessive thermal stresses resulting from a maintenance condition (e.g. a clogged fuel nozzle).
Regarding claim 3, Macchia further teaches the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to compare the ITT operating margin to a predetermined threshold operating margin value to identify that a maintenance requirement of the gas turbine engine is present or absent (see paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 4, the prior combination teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Coultier as modified by Takaki does not explicitly teach the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to compare the ITT to a predetermined ITT value to identify that a high-temperature condition (hot-spot) of the gas turbine engine is present or absent.
Macchia further teaches the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to compare the ITT to a predetermined ITT value to identify that a high-temperature condition (hot-spot) of the gas turbine engine is present or absent (see paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by the prior combination with the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to compare the ITT to a predetermined ITT value to identify that a high-temperature condition (hot-spot) of the gas turbine engine is present or absent as taught by Macchia. One would be motivated to make this combination in order to alert an operator in case of a malfunction and indicate that a corrective action (e.g. fuel nozzle maintenance) has to be taken before an engine part (e.g. the combustor) is damaged due to excessive thermal stresses resulting from a maintenance condition (e.g. a clogged fuel nozzle).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the closest prior art alone or in combination fails to teach or render obvious determining an estimated compressor temperature increase value; determining an estimated turbine inlet temperature value using the first estimated outlet temperature value and the estimated compressor temperature increase value; applying a relationship constant for the turbine inlet and the turbine outlet to the estimated turbine inlet temperature value to calculate the ITT for the gas turbine engine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manoukian et al. (US 2021/01808571) discloses determining a change in a temperature in a main gas path of the first engine at a location in the main gas path at or downstream of a combustor of the first engine, and in response to determining that the change is below a threshold, executing an action with respect to the first engine, the air valve, and/or the second engine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE M SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-7707. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/JANICE M SOTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
