DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed 1/9/2026 wherein claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“each engine” (Claim 1, line 22 and Claim 11, line 18) is believed to be in error for - - each propulsive gas turbine engine - -;
“the busses” (Claim 1, line 23 and Claim 11, line 19) is believed to be in error for - - the electrical distribution busses - -;
“operational engines” (Claim 1, line 25 and Claim 11, lines 21-22) is believed to be in error for - - operational propulsive gas turbine engines - -;
“the faulted engine” (Claim 1, line 26 and Claim 11, line 22) is believed to be in error for - - the faulted one or more propulsive gas turbine engines - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 11 recite “responsive to the determination and during the time period ∆T, the control system is further configured to control the bus ties to route electrical power from one or more operational engines to electrical loads associated with the faulted engine while discharging the electrical energy storage system and controlling the plurality of electrical loads to reduce the electrical power demand”. Although Applicant’s specification discusses that the bus ties may route electrical power from one or more operational engines to electrical loads associated with the faulted engine in Paragraph 0070, Applicant’s specification does not describe that this is controlled during a time period ∆T or while discharging the electrical energy storage system and controlling the plurality of electrical loads to reduce the electrical power demand, as required by claim 1. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one having ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above based on their dependency to claims 1 or 11.
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 1-20 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 "the aircraft power and propulsion system comprising one or more propulsive gas turbine engines" in lines 2-3 and “the aircraft power and propulsion system comprises multiple propulsive gas turbine engines” in lines 20-21. It is unclear how many propulsive gas turbine engines are required by the claim.
Claims 2-10 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above based on their dependency to claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "An aircraft power and propulsion system, comprising: one or more propulsive gas turbine engines" in lines 1-2 and “the aircraft power and propulsion system comprises multiple propulsive gas turbine engines” in lines 16-17. It is unclear how many propulsive gas turbine engines are required by the claim.
Claims 12-19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above based on their dependency to claim 11.
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 1-4, 11-12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajashekara et al. (US 2012/0318914) in view of Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463) and Huang (US 2018/0339790).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Rajashekara teaches (Figures 1-3) a method of operating an aircraft power and propulsion system (110, 120; see Figure 1), the aircraft power and propulsion system (110, 120) comprising one or more propulsive gas turbine engines (110; see Figure 1 and Paragraph 0012), each propulsive gas turbine engine (110) comprising one or more electric machines (115); and an electrical system (120) connected with (see Figure 1 and Paragraph 0012) the one or more electric machines (115) and comprising an electrical energy storage system (205; see Figure 2), the method comprising:
operating one or more of the electric machines (115) of the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines (110) as generators to extract mechanical power from the engine and to generate electrical power therefrom (Paragraph 0002);
meeting an electrical power demand, PD, of a plurality of electrical loads (see Figures 1-2 and Paragraph 0012) connected with the electrical system (120) by supplying the plurality of electrical loads with electrical power generated by the one or more electric machines (115; see Paragraphs 0012-0013);
determining a condition that there is a fault in the electrical system (when the aircraft is operating in an in-flight emergency condition; see Paragraph 0014) and/or one or more of the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines (110) and that an amount of electrical power being generated by the aircraft power and propulsion system has reduced to a lower level, Pfault (see Paragraphs 0014 and 0030); and
responsive to the determination and during a time period ∆T (a time period when an aircraft is operating, including a time of an in-flight emergency and/or failure of one or more of the main engines; see Paragraphs 0014-0015, 0029-0030, and 0033-0034), meeting at least part of the electrical power demand of the power of electrical loads (125, 128; see Paragraphs 0014-0015, 0024, and 0030) by discharging the electrical energy storage system (205; see Paragraphs 0024 and 0030) while controlling the plurality of electrical loads to reduce the electrical power demand (by powering to just the critical loads 128; see Paragraphs 0015, 0024, and 0030);
wherein the aircraft power and propulsion system (110, 120) comprises multiple propulsive gas turbine engines (Paragraph 0012), each having one or more electric machines (110),
the electrical system (120) comprises an electrical distribution buss (180) associated with each propulsive gas turbine engines (110).
Rajashekara does not teach that each engine comprising a plurality of spools and one or more electric machines mechanically coupled with one or more of its spools, wherein the one or more electric machines are operated as generators to extract mechanical power from one or more of the spools, the electrical distribution busses being interconnected via selectively openable and closable bus ties, and responsive to the determination and during the time period ∆T, the method further comprises controlling the bus ties to route electrical power from one or more operational engines to electrical loads associated with the faulted engine while discharging the electrical energy storage system and controlling the plurality of electrical loads to reduce the electrical power demand.
Huang ‘463 teaches (Figures 1-2) one or more propulsive gas turbine engines (10), wherein each engine (10) comprises a plurality of spools (26, 28) and one or more electric machines (46, 48) mechanically coupled (via 50, 54) with one or more of the plurality of spools (26, 28), wherein the one or more electric machines (46, 48) are operated as generators to extract mechanical power (see Paragraph 0016) from one or more of the plurality of spools (26, 28), the electrical distribution busses (84 and 60, 58 in 42, 44; see Figure 2) responsive to extract power
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajashekara to have each engine comprise a plurality of spools and one or more electric machines mechanically coupled with one or more of its spools, wherein the one or more electric machines are operated as generators to extract mechanical power from one or more of the spools, as taught by Huang ‘463, in order to produce DC power from mechanical power supplied by the spools of the gas turbine engine (see Paragraph 0016 of Huang ‘463). Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 does not teach, as discussed so far, electrical distribution busses being interconnected via selectively openable and closable bus ties, and responsive to the determination and during the time period ∆T, the method further comprises controlling the bus ties to route electrical power from one or more operational engines to electrical loads associated with the faulted engine while discharging the electrical energy storage system and controlling the plurality of electrical loads to reduce the electrical power demand.
Huang ‘790 teaches (Figures 1-5) electrical distribution busses (44, 46, 60, 62, 80) being interconnected via selectively openable and closable bus ties (96, 98), and responsive to the determination and during a time period of an engine system failure (see Figure 3), the method further comprises controlling the bus ties (96, 98) to route electrical power from one or more operational engines (34) to electrical loads (54) associated with the faulted engine (32) while discharging the electrical energy storage system (at 86, 88) and controlling the plurality of electrical loads (54) to reduce the electrical power demand (Paragraph 0043).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 to have electrical distribution busses being interconnected via selectively openable and closable bus ties, and responsive to the determination and during the time period ∆T, the method further comprises controlling the bus ties to route electrical power from one or more operational engines to electrical loads associated with the faulted engine while discharging the electrical energy storage system and controlling the plurality of electrical loads to reduce the electrical power demand, as taught by Huang ‘790, in order to selectively disconnect a non-operational first generator and selectively connect an operation second generator with an essential power bus (Paragraphs 0036-0039 of Huang ‘790).
It is noted that the limitation “responsive to the determination and during a time period ∆T, meeting at least part of the electrical power demand of the plurality of electrical loads by discharging the electrical energy storage system while controlling the plurality of electrical loads to reduce the electrical power demand” is contingent on determining that there is a fault in the electrical system and/or one or more of the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines and that an amount of electrical power being generated by the aircraft power and propulsion system has reduced to a lower level. It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed”. See MPEP 2111.04 II. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations following “responsive to the determination” in claim 1 need not be carried out for the claimed method to be performed if the condition “determining that there is a fault” is not satisfied.
Regarding Claim 2, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. It is noted that the limitation “responsive to the determination, during the time period ∆T, controlling the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines to adjust operating points thereof and thereby increase an electrical power generation capacity of the aircraft power and propulsion system, wherein controlling the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines comprises reducing a rate that fuel is supplied to at least one propulsive gas turbine engine to change the engine to a lower thrust operating point” is contingent on determining that there is a fault in the electrical system and/or one or more of the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines and that an amount of electrical power being generated by the aircraft power and propulsion system has reduced to a lower level. It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed”. See MPEP 2111.04 II. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations following “responsive to the determination” in claims 1 and 2 need not be carried out for the claimed method to be performed if the condition “determining that there is a fault” is not satisfied.
Regarding Claim 3, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Rajashekara further teaches (Figures 1-3) in which controlling the plurality of electrical loads (125, 128) to reduce the electrical power demand comprises implementing a pre-defined limp mode having a reduced power demand (prioritizing which loads receive power in the event that power system is unable to supply power to all loads; see Paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 4, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Rajashekara further teaches (Figures 1-3) in which the reduced electrical power generating level, Pfault, (power required for critical loads, a subset of power required for loads 125; see Paragraphs 0014-0015) is lower than the electrical power demand, PD (power required for loads 125; see Paragraph 0014), of the plurality of electrical loads (125), and wherein: controlling the plurality of electrical loads (125) comprises, during the time period ∆T (the time period it takes for the fuel cell to be started and has reached sufficient output levels to power critical loads without assistance; see Paragraph 0024), reducing the total electrical power demand to below the reduced amount of electrical power, Pfault; (power required for just the critical loads 128; see Paragraphs 0014-0015, 0024-0025, and 0029) and meeting at least part of the electrical power demand of the plurality of electrical loads (power demand for 128; see Paragraph 0015) by discharging the electrical energy storage system (205) comprises, during the time period ∆T (the time period it takes for the fuel cell to be started and has reached sufficient output levels to power critical loads without assistance; see Paragraph 0024), supplying a deficit in the generated electrical power from the electrical energy storage system (205; see Paragraph 0024).
Regarding Claim 20, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Rajashekara further teaches (Figures 1-3) an aircraft (100; see Figure 1, title, and abstract) comprising the aircraft power and propulsion system (110, 120; see Figure 1) of claims 1 (as discussed above).
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Rajashekara teaches (Figures 1-3) an aircraft power and propulsion system (110, 120; see Figure 1), comprising:
one or more propulsive gas turbine engines (110; see Figure 1 and Paragraph 0012), each engine (110) comprising one or more electric machines (115);
an electrical system (120) connected with (see Figure 1 and Paragraph 0012) the one or more electric machines (115) of the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines (110) and comprising an electrical energy storage system (205; see Figure 2); and
a control system (FADEC; see Paragraph 0026) configured to control the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines (110) and the electrical system (120),
wherein the control system (FADEC; see Paragraph 0026) is configured, responsive to a determination to the effect that there is a fault in the electrical system (when the aircraft is operating in an in-flight emergency condition; see Paragraph 0014) and/or one or more of the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines (110) and that an amount of electrical power being generated by the aircraft power and propulsion system has reduced to a lower level, Pfault (see Paragraphs 0014 and 0030) to:
during a time period ∆T (the time period it takes for the fuel cell to be started and has reached sufficient output levels to power critical loads without assistance; see Paragraphs 0024 and 0030), meet at least part of an electrical power demand of the power of electrical loads (125; see Paragraphs 0014-0015 and 0030) by discharging the electrical energy storage system (205; see Paragraph 0024); and
during the time period ∆T (the time period it takes for the fuel cell to be started and has reached sufficient output levels to power critical loads without assistance; see Paragraphs 0024 and 0030), control the plurality of electrical loads connected with the electrical system to reduce the electrical power demand of the plurality of electrical loads (by powering only the critical loads 128; see Paragraphs 0015 and 0030).
during a time period ∆T (a time period of an in-flight emergency and/or failure of one or more of the main engines; see Paragraphs 0014-0015, 0029-0030, and 0033-0034), meet at least part of the electrical power demand of the power of electrical loads (125, 128; see Paragraphs 0014-0015, 0024, and 0030) by discharging the electrical energy storage system (205; see Paragraphs 0024 and 0030) while controlling the plurality of electrical loads to reduce the electrical power demand (by powering to just the critical loads 128; see Paragraphs 0015, 0024, and 0030).
wherein the aircraft power and propulsion system (110, 120) comprises multiple propulsive gas turbine engines (Paragraph 0012), each having one or more electric machines (110),
the electrical system (120) comprises an electrical distribution buss (180) associated with each propulsive gas turbine engines (110).
Rajashekara does not teach that each engine comprising a plurality of spools and one or more electric machines mechanically coupled with one or more of its spools, wherein the one or more electric machines are operated as generators to extract mechanical power from one or more of the spools, the electrical distribution busses being interconnected via selectively openable and closable bus ties, and responsive to the determination and during the time period ∆T, the method further comprises controlling the bus ties to route electrical power from one or more operational engines to electrical loads associated with the faulted engine while discharging the electrical energy storage system and controlling the plurality of electrical loads to reduce the electrical power demand.
Huang ‘463 teaches (Figures 1-2) one or more propulsive gas turbine engines (10), wherein each engine (10) comprises a plurality of spools (26, 28) and one or more electric machines (46, 48) mechanically coupled (via 50, 54) with one or more of the plurality of spools (26, 28), wherein the one or more electric machines (46, 48) are operated as generators to extract mechanical power (see Paragraph 0016) from one or more of the plurality of spools (26, 28), the electrical distribution busses (84 and 60, 58 in 42, 44; see Figure 2) responsive to extract power
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajashekara to have each engine comprise a plurality of spools and one or more electric machines mechanically coupled with one or more of its spools, wherein the one or more electric machines are operated as generators to extract mechanical power from one or more of the spools, as taught by Huang ‘463, in order to produce DC power from mechanical power supplied by the spools of the gas turbine engine (see Paragraph 0016 of Huang ‘463). Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 does not teach, as discussed so far, electrical distribution busses being interconnected via selectively openable and closable bus ties, and responsive to the determination and during the time period ∆T, the method further comprises controlling the bus ties to route electrical power from one or more operational engines to electrical loads associated with the faulted engine while discharging the electrical energy storage system and controlling the plurality of electrical loads to reduce the electrical power demand.
Huang ‘790 teaches (Figures 1-5) electrical distribution busses (44, 46, 60, 62, 80) being interconnected via selectively openable and closable bus ties (96, 98), and responsive to the determination and during a time period of an engine system failure (see Figure 3), the method further comprises controlling the bus ties (96, 98) to route electrical power from one or more operational engines (34) to electrical loads (54) associated with the faulted engine (32) while discharging the electrical energy storage system (at 86, 88) and controlling the plurality of electrical loads (54) to reduce the electrical power demand (Paragraph 0043).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 to have electrical distribution busses being interconnected via selectively openable and closable bus ties, and responsive to the determination and during the time period ∆T, the method further comprises controlling the bus ties to route electrical power from one or more operational engines to electrical loads associated with the faulted engine while discharging the electrical energy storage system and controlling the plurality of electrical loads to reduce the electrical power demand, as taught by Huang ‘790, in order to selectively disconnect a non-operational first generator and selectively connect an operation second generator with an essential power bus (Paragraphs 0036-0039 of Huang ‘790).
Regarding Claim 12, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Rajashekara further teaches (Figures 1-3) in which the control system (FADEC; see Paragraph 0026) is configured, responsive to the determination (when the aircraft is operating in an in-flight emergency condition; see Paragraph 0014), to implement a pre-defined limp mode having a reduced electrical power demand (prioritizing which loads receive power in the event that power system is unable to supply power to all loads; see Paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 16, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Rajashekara in view of Huang does not teach, as discussed so far, in which each of the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines comprises a first spool, a second spool, a first electric machine mechanically coupled with the first spool and a second electric machine mechanically coupled with the second spool.
Huang teaches (Figures 1-2) in which each of the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines (10) comprises a first spool (26), a second spool (28), a first electric machine (46) mechanically coupled (via 50) with the first spool (26) and a second electric machine (48) mechanically coupled with (via 54) the second spool (28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 to have the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines comprises a first spool, a second spool, a first electric machine mechanically coupled with the first spool and a second electric machine mechanically coupled with the second spool, as taught by Huang, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 11 and to output first and second voltages to an electrical distribution bus to supply the voltages to electrical loads (see abstract of Huang).
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajashekara et al. (US 2012/0318914) in view of Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463) and Huang (US 2018/0339790) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Cline et al. (US 10,583,931).
Regarding Claim 2, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Rajashekara teaches, as discussed above, determine that there is a fault in the electrical system (when the aircraft is operating in an in-flight emergency condition; see Paragraph 0014) and/or one or more of the one or more gas turbine engines (110) and that an amount of electrical power being generated by the aircraft power and propulsion system has reduced to a lower level, Pfault (see Paragraph 0014) to: during a time period ∆T (the time period it takes for the fuel cell to be started and has reached sufficient output levels to power critical loads without assistance; see Paragraph 0024), meet at least part of the electrical power demand of the power of electrical loads (125; see Paragraphs 0014-0015) by discharging the electrical energy storage system (205; see Paragraph 0024); and during the time period ∆T (the time period it takes for the fuel cell to be started and has reached sufficient output levels to power critical loads without assistance; see Paragraph 0024), control a plurality of electrical loads connected with the electrical system to reduce the electrical power demand of the plurality of electrical loads (by powering only the critical loads 128; see Paragraph 0015). Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 does not teach, as discussed so far, controlling the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines to adjust operating points thereof and thereby increase an electrical power generation capacity of the aircraft power and propulsion system, wherein controlling the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines comprises reducing a rate that fuel is supplied to at least one propulsive gas turbine engine to change the engine to a lower thrust operating point.
Cline teaches (Figures 1-6B) controlling one or more propulsive gas turbine engines (12) to adjust operating points thereof and thereby increase an electrical power generation capacity (by decreasing the speed and extracting electrical power from a low pressure electric machine; see Column 7, lines 47-58. One having ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that decreasing speed leads to a reduction in electrical load) of an aircraft power and propulsion system (10), wherein controlling the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines (12) comprises reducing a rate that fuel (see claims 1 and 7) is supplied to at least one propulsive gas turbine engine (12) to change the engine to a lower thrust operating point (Column 7, lines 47-58 and claims 1 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 to control the one or more gas turbine engines to adjust operating points thereof and thereby increase an electrical power generation capacity of the power and propulsion system, wherein controlling the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines comprises reducing a rate that fuel is supplied to at least one propulsive gas turbine engine to change the engine to a lower thrust operating point, as taught by Cline, in order to extract power from the low pressure electric machine (Column 7, lines 47-58 and claims 1 and 7 of Cline).
Regarding Claim 13, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Rajashekara teaches, as discussed above, a control system (FADEC; see Paragraph 0026) that is configured, responsive to a determination to the effect that there is a fault in the electrical system (when the aircraft is operating in an in-flight emergency condition; see Paragraph 0014) and/or one or more of the one or more gas turbine engines (110) and that an amount of electrical power being generated by the power and propulsion system has reduced to a lower level, Pfault (see Paragraph 0014) to: during a time period ∆T (the time period it takes for the fuel cell to be started and has reached sufficient output levels to power critical loads without assistance; see Paragraph 0024), meet at least part of the electrical power demand of the power of electrical loads (125; see Paragraphs 0014-0015) by discharging the electrical energy storage system (205; see Paragraph 0024); and during the time period ∆T (the time period it takes for the fuel cell to be started and has reached sufficient output levels to power critical loads without assistance; see Paragraph 0024), control a plurality of electrical loads connected with the electrical system to reduce the electrical power demand of the plurality of electrical loads (by powering only the critical loads 128; see Paragraph 0015). Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 does not teach, as discussed so far, controlling the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines to adjust operating points thereof and thereby increase an electrical power generation capacity of the aircraft power and propulsion system, wherein controlling the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines comprises reducing a rate that fuel is supplied to at least one propulsive gas turbine engine to change the engine to a lower thrust operating point.
Cline teaches (Figures 1-6B) controlling one or more propulsive gas turbine engines (12) to adjust operating points thereof and thereby increase an electrical power generation capacity (by decreasing the speed and extracting electrical power from a low pressure electric machine; see Column 7, lines 47-58. One having ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that decreasing speed leads to a reduction in electrical load) of an aircraft power and propulsion system (10), wherein controlling the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines (12) comprises reducing a rate that fuel (see claims 1 and 7) is supplied to at least one propulsive gas turbine engine (12) to change the engine to a lower thrust operating point (Column 7, lines 47-58 and claims 1 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 to control the one or more gas turbine engines to adjust operating points thereof and thereby increase an electrical power generation capacity of the power and propulsion system, wherein controlling the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines comprises reducing a rate that fuel is supplied to at least one propulsive gas turbine engine to change the engine to a lower thrust operating point, as taught by Cline, in order to extract power from the low pressure electric machine (Column 7, lines 47-58 and claims 1 and 7 of Cline).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajashekara et al. (US 2012/0318914) in view of Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463) and Huang (US 2018/0339790) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Turner (US 2020/0392909).
Regarding Claim 5, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Rajashekara teaches, as discussed above, a control system (FADEC; see Paragraph 0026) that is configured, responsive to a determination to the effect that there is a fault in the electrical system (when the aircraft is operating in an in-flight emergency condition; see Paragraph 0014) and/or one or more of the one or more gas turbine engines (110) and that an amount of electrical power being generated by the power and propulsion system has reduced to a lower level, Pfault (see Paragraph 0014) to: during a time period ∆T (the time period it takes for the fuel cell to be started and has reached sufficient output levels to power critical loads without assistance; see Paragraph 0024), meet at least part of the electrical power demand of the power of electrical loads (125; see Paragraphs 0014-0015) by discharging the electrical energy storage system (205; see Paragraph 0024); and during the time period ∆T (the time period it takes for the fuel cell to be started and has reached sufficient output levels to power critical loads without assistance; see Paragraph 0024), control a plurality of electrical loads connected with the electrical system to reduce the electrical power demand of the plurality of electrical loads (by powering only the critical loads 128; see Paragraph 0015). Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 does not teach, as discussed so far, in which the reduced amount of electrical power, Pfault, is greater than the electrical power demand, PD, of the plurality of electrical loads, and wherein: meeting at least part of the electrical power demand of the plurality of electrical loads by discharging the electrical energy storage system comprises supplying at least part of the electrical power demand from the electrical energy storage system to maintain surge margins of one or more propulsive gas turbine engines until the electrical power demand has been reduced.
Turner teaches (Figures 1-22) an amount of electrical power being greater than an electrical power demand of the electrical loads (see Figure 6), and wherein: meeting at least part of the electrical power demand (PD) of the plurality of electrical loads by discharging the electrical energy storage system (305) comprises supplying at least part of the electrical power demand from the electrical energy storage system to maintain surge margins of the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines until the electrical power demand has been reduced (see abstract and Paragraph 0013 of Turner).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 to meet at least part of the electrical power demand of the plurality of electrical loads by discharging the electrical energy storage system comprises supplying at least part of the electrical power demand from the electrical energy storage system to maintain surge margins of one or more propulsive gas turbine engines until the electrical power demand has been reduced, as taught by Turner, in order to facilitate a change of electrical power supply at a requested rate while maintaining surge margins of the LP and HP compressors (see abstract of Turner).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajashekara et al. (US 2012/0318914) in view of Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463) and Huang (US 2018/0339790) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Solodovnik et al. (US 2019/0181669).
Regarding Claim 6, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. As discussed above, Rajashekara teaches (Figures 1-3) determining that there is a fault in the electrical system (when the aircraft is operating in an in-flight emergency condition; see Paragraph 0014) and/or one or more of the one or more gas turbine engines (110) and that an amount of electrical power being generated by the power and propulsion system has reduced to a lower level, Pfault (see Paragraph 0014). Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 does not teach, as discussed so far, prior to the determination to the effect that there is a fault in the electrical system and/or in the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines: maintaining a state of charge of the electrical energy storage system at or above a pre-defined level.
Solodovnik teaches (Figures 1-4) that the state of charge of the electrical energy storage system (118, 168) should be maintained at or above a pre-defined level (see Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0034-0039).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 to maintain a state of charge of the electrical energy storage system at or above a pre-defined level, as taught by Solodovnik, in order charge the battery when the state-of-charge is less than a first threshold and leave enough charging capacity in the battery if the state-of-charge becomes greater than a second threshold (Paragraph 0035-0037 of Solodovnik).
Regarding Claim 8, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463, Huang ‘790, and Solodovnik teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Rajashekara further teaches (Figures 1-3) in which the plurality of electrical loads (125, 128; see Paragraphs 0014-0015) include one or more critical electrical loads (128), and wherein a pre-defined level is sufficient to power the one or more critical electric loads during the time period ∆T (a battery and/or other electrical energy storage system 205 is engaged to power the critical loads until fuel cell 200 and/or emergency power generator 150 have been started and have achieved sufficient output to power critical loads 128; see Paragraph 0030).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajashekara et al. (US 2012/0318914) in view of Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463), Huang (US 2018/0339790), and Solodovnik et al. (US 2019/0181669) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Fox (US 2021/0101692).
Regarding Claim 7, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463, Huang ‘790, and Solodovnik teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463, Huang ‘790, and Solodovnik does not teach, as discussed so far, that, prior to the determination to the effect that there is a fault in the electrical system and/or in the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines: within a pre-defined time after take-off of the aircraft, charging the electrical energy storage system to a state of charge greater than or equal to the pre-defined level using electrical power generated by the one or more electric machines.
As discussed above, Solodovnik teaches (Figures 1-4) that the state of charge of the electrical energy storage system (118, 168) should be maintained at or above a pre-defined level (see Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0034-0039).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463, Huang ‘790, and Solodovnik to maintain a state of charge of the electrical energy storage system at or above a pre-defined level, as taught by Solodovnik, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 6. Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463, Huang ‘790, and Solodovnik does not teach that the electrical energy storage system is charged a pre-defined time after take-off of the aircraft.
Fox teaches (Figures 1-5B) that an electrical energy storage device (72A) is charged during the cruise phase of the flight of the aircraft (see Paragraphs 0031 and 0048).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463, Huang ‘790, and Solodovnik to have the electrical energy storage system be charged during a pre-defined time after take-off of the aircraft, as taught by Fox, in order for the battery to not require re-charging after landing (Paragraph 0031 of Fox).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajashekara et al. (US 2012/0318914) in view of Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463), Huang (US 2018/0339790), and Solodovnik et al. (US 2019/0181669) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bailey et al. (US 2018/0138716).
Regarding Claim 9, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463, Huang ‘790, and Solodovnik teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463, Huang ‘790, and Solodovnik does not teach, as discussed so far, in which the one or more critical electrical loads include one or more electrically powered fuel pumps for delivering fuel to combustion equipment of the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines.
Bailey teaches (Figures 1-7) one or more critical electrical loads include one or more electrically powered fuel pumps (27; see Paragraphs 0018-0019) for delivering fuel to combustion equipment of one or more propulsive gas turbine engines (12, 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463, Huang ‘790, and Solodovnik to have the one or more critical electrical loads include one or more electrically powered fuel pumps for delivering fuel to combustion equipment of the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines, as taught by Bailey, since the failure of the fuel pump would contribute to or cause a failure condition which would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the aircraft (Paragraph 0018 of Bailey).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajashekara et al. (US 2012/0318914) in view of Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463) and Huang (US 2018/0339790) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kern et al. (US 2008/0149445).
Regarding Claim 10, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 does not teach, as discussed so far, that operating the one or more of the electric machines of the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines as generators to extract mechanical power from one or more of the spools and to generate electrical power therefrom comprises, for each one of the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines: extracting greater than 5% of a combined power of the plurality of spools and generating electrical power from said extracted power.
Kern teaches (Paragraph 0051) an arrangement to extract power from the spools of a gas turbine engine such that an increase in power extraction by the starter-generator leads to a reduced acceleration time for increasing emergency thrust, a high stability margin of the high pressure spool, and a reduced idle thrust due to decreasing low pressure spool speed (see Paragraph 0051). Therefore, the amount of power being extracted from the spools to generate electrical power is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that increasing the power extracted by the starter-generator leads to low acceleration time, high stability margin, and reduced idle thrust.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the amount of power being extracted from the spools can be increased, were taught in the prior art by Kern, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the increased power extraction, as taught by Kern, in order to reduce acceleration time, increase stability margin, and reduce idle thrust. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajashekara et al. (US 2012/0318914) in view of Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463) and Huang (US 2018/0339790) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Okuwa et al. (US 2022/0290616).
Regarding Claim 14, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 does not teach, as discussed so far, that each of the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines comprises combustion equipment and an electrically powered fuel pump for delivering fuel to combustion equipment.
Okuwa teaches (Figures 1-3) a propulsive gas turbine engine (1) comprising combustion equipment (5) and an electrically powered fuel pump (34) for delivering fuel (Paragraph 0023) to combustion equipment (5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 to have the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines comprises combustion equipment and an electrically powered fuel pump for delivering fuel to combustion equipment, as taught by Okuwa, in order to drive a rotating shaft and to supply fuel to the combustor (Paragraphs 0016 and 0023 of Okuwa).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajashekara et al. (US 2012/0318914) in view of Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463), Huang (US 2018/0339790), and Okuwa et al. (US 2022/0290616) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bailey et al. (US 2018/0138716), Solodovnik et al. (US 2019/0181669), and Prou (FR 2961767).
Regarding Claim 15, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463, Huang ‘790, and Okuwa teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. As discussed above, Okuwa teaches (Figures 1-3) an electrically powered fuel pump (34) for delivering fuel (Paragraph 0023) to combustion equipment (5). Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463, Huang ‘790, and Okuwa does not teach, as discussed so far, in which the control system is configured to control the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines and the electrical system to maintain a state of charge of the electrical energy storage system above a pre-defined level sufficient to power the electrically powered fuel pump during the time period ∆T.
Bailey teaches (Figures 1-7) one or more critical electrical loads include one or more electrically powered fuel pumps (27; see Paragraphs 0018-0019) for delivering fuel to combustion equipment of one or more propulsive gas turbine engines (12, 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463, Huang ‘790, and Okuwa to have the one or more critical electrical loads include one or more electrically powered fuel pumps for delivering fuel to combustion equipment of the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines, as taught by Bailey, since the failure of the fuel pump would contribute to or cause a failure condition which would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of the aircraft (Paragraph 0018 of Bailey). Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463, Huang ‘790, Okuwa, and Bailey does not teach that the control system is configured to control the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines and the electrical system to maintain a state of charge of the electrical energy storage system above a pre-defined level sufficient to power the critical components during the time period ∆T.
Solodovnik teaches (Figures 1-4) that the state of charge of the electrical energy storage system (118, 168) should be maintained at or above a pre-defined level (see Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0034-0039).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463, Huang ‘790, Okuwa, and Bailey to maintain a state of charge of the electrical energy storage system at or above a pre-defined level, as taught by Solodovnik, in order charge the battery when the state-of-charge is less than a first threshold and leave enough charging capacity in the battery if the state-of-charge becomes greater than a second threshold (Paragraph 0035-0037 of Solodovnik). Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463, Huang ‘790, Okuwa, Bailey, and Solodovnik does not teach that the control system is configured to control the one or more gas turbine engines and the electrical system to maintain a state of charge of the electrical energy storage system above a pre-defined level sufficient to power the critical components during the time period ∆T.
Prou teaches (Figure 1) that the gas turbine engine (1) and the electrical system (4) is controlled to maintain a state of charge of the electrical energy storage system (6) above a pre-defined level sufficient to power the critical components during the time period (Page 3, lines 104-113).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463, Huang ‘790, Okuwa, Bailey, and Solodovnik to have control system be configured to control the one or more gas turbine engines and the electrical system to maintain a state of charge of the electrical energy storage system above a pre-defined level sufficient to power the critical components during the time period, as taught by Prou, in order to provide a state of charge that is sufficient to power the critical equipment for a predetermined duration (Page 3, lines 104-113 of Prou).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajashekara et al. (US 2012/0318914) in view of Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463) and Huang (US 2018/0339790) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Singh et al. (US 2019/0181786).
Regarding Claim 17, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 does not teach, as discussed so far, that each of the first and second electric machines of each of the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines comprises a first sub-machine and a second sub-machine.
Singh teaches (Figures 1-7) a first electrical machine (Gen #1) and a second electrical machine (Gen #2) of an engine (302) comprising a first sub-machine (314 in Gen #1 and 318 in Gen #2; see Figures 3-4) and a second sub-machine (312 in Gen #1 and 316 in Gen #2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 to have each of the first and second electric machines of each of the one or more propulsive gas turbine engines comprise a first sub-machine and a second sub-machine, as taught by Singh, in order to aid in generating maximum torque per ampere and to allow use of the electric machines at their full capacity (Paragraph 0056 of Singh).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajashekara et al. (US 2012/0318914) in view of Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463) and Huang (US 2018/0339790) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lents et al. (US 2018/0003072).
Regarding Claim 18, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 does not teach, as discussed so far, that, for each respective gas turbine engine, a ratio defined as a combined rated power of all of the one or more electrical machines mechanically coupled with the spools of the gas turbine engine divided by the maximum rated thrust of the gas turbine engine is between 4.5 WN-1 and 13 WN-1.
Lents teaches (Figures 1-2) a motor/generator can put power on the low spool such that the same amount of thrust is produced as a conventional engine such that enough thrust is generated to overcome engine drag (Paragraph 0041). Therefore, power of the electric machines relative to the thrust is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that increasing the power of the electric machines leads to the thrust produced by the motor/generator to overcome engine drag.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the amount of power of the electric machines relative to the thrust of the gas turbine engines can be increased, were disclosed in the prior art by Lents, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the amount of power of the electric machines as taught by Lents in order to produce enough thrust to overcome engine drag and supply the same amount of thrust as produced by a conventional engine. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajashekara et al. (US 2012/0318914) in view of Huang et al. (US 2015/0123463) and Huang (US 2018/0339790) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kumar et al. (US 2020/0290742).
Regarding Claim 19, Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Rajashekara in view of Huang ‘463 and Huang ‘790 does not teach, as discussed so far, that a ratio defined as a total energy storage capacity of the electrical energy storage system divided by a combined maximum rated thrust of the one or more gas turbine engines, is between 0.1 WhN-1 and 0.5 WhN-1
Kumar teaches (Figures 1-46) a plurality of energy storage capacity of at least 1,500 kWh and thrust produced by the propulsor being at least 10MW (see claim 1). Kumar additionally teaches that the capacity of energy storage units and the output of the generator are optimized for maximum efficiency over regional ranges to lower operating costs compared to conventional aircraft (Paragraph 0698 of Kumar). Therefore, the total energy storage capacity relative to the thrust produced is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the capacity of the energy storage units relative to thrust generated are optimized for maximum efficiency.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the capacity of the storage units relative to the thrust of the engines can be optimized, were taught in the prior art by Kumar, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the storage capacity as taught by Kumar in order to provide maximum efficiency over regional ranges. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being applied in this office action. However, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejection above, at the appropriate locations.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
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.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741