DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: power unit in claims 1-7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “power unit being configured to assume an operational state or a non-operational state and having a power drawing capacity” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “power unit” coupled with functional language “configured to assume an operational state or a non-operational state and having a power drawing capacity” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-7 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: e.g., a turboshaft engine or a turbojet engine (see page 6, ll. 19-20).
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 1-7 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. The claim 1 term “predetermined delay” does not appear to have support in original disclosure. Amended claims “must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure” (MPEP 2163 I. B.). The instant term does not find express support and it does not appear that delays are inherently predetermined. Applicant has cited p. 15, line 21 to page 16, line 2 as implicit support: “The state of the first power unit 30.1 is checked following a determined delay, of the order of a few seconds, after the amount of power drawn from the first power unit 30.1 has been increased. This delay makes it possible to be certain that the increase in the amount of power drawn from the first power unit has not affected its operational state.” However this does not appear to specify that the delay is determined in advance (i.e., predetermined) versus in real time. Examiner looked to other portions of applicant specification. Applicant page 12, lines 2-4 states “Irrespective of the embodiment, the centralized control unit 42 is configured to determine a variation 44.2 in the actual energy requirements 44 in real time or in advance.” Thus it appears when there is support for a predetermination then applicant specification expressly states “in advance”
Applicant p. 18, ll. 12-13 states “The subject matter disclosed herein can be implemented in or with software in combination with hardware and/or firmware.” The specification does not elaborate further for example that the determined delay is programmed into the power unit control units and does not change. Applicant argues that the translation “fixed” can support the term predetermined. In response fixed does not appear to be the same as predetermined. It appears that the specification has left open whether the determined delay is determined real time or in advance. Thus there does not appear to be full support for the instant term.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim 7 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 7 lines 1-2 recites “a second power draw”. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because there has been no first power draw recited from a supplementary power source in claims 1 or 7. For purposes of compact prosecution the claim is interpreted such that only one power draw from a supplementary power source is required. Examiner could not find discussion in applicant specification that “second” may represent a generic placeholder for example.
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 (such pertinent art representing at least knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art).
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No.: US 2014/0303871 A1 (Presse), as evidenced by Pub. US 2017/0341772 A1 (Reis) and US Patent 3,530,297 (Eddy), in view of US Patent 6,247,668 B1 (Reysa).
Regarding claim 1, Presse discloses a method (see figs. 1 and 4) for managing amounts of power (non-propulsive power; see abstract and pars. 3,32) drawn from power units (aircraft main engines M1,M2 and engine-class power unit GPP discussed in par. 12; see abstract and par. 19; the aircraft main engines M1,M2 provide propulsive power and non-propulsive power PM; the GPP provides an amount of non-propulsive power PG during normal flight at RA time segment, see figs. 3-4; the GPP provides an increased amount of non-propulsive power during engine failure regimes, OEI, wherein the GPP works alone or in conjunction with the operating main engine to accommodate the loss of non-propulsive power from the failed main engine(s), such increased GPP power levels being PSU, PMU and PIU, see pars. 41-43; Presse states in par. 12 that the GPP “is suitable for certification as an engine for use in all flight phases” but is silent whether the GPP provides propulsive power) of propulsion units (300,M1 and 400,M2 and 800,GPP) of an aircraft (see abstract), each power unit being configured to assume an operational state (see scenario in fig. 4 wherein both engines M1,M2 are running and each supplying non-propulsive power PMA to arrive at 2.PMA in fig. 4 for example; see par. 67; the GPP operates continuously during a flight and thus would be non-operational before and after the flight) or a non-operational state (see simultaneous fail of each engine in par. 69) and having a power drawing capacity (non-propulsion power can be drawn from both power units M1,M2 and power unit GPP; see abstract and see for example fig. 2 showing non-propulsive power PM from power units M1,M2 and non-propulsive power PG being drawing from power unit GPP; see pars. 33-34), the aircraft comprising at least first GPP and second M2 power units of the power units corresponding to first and second propulsion units, respectively, of the propulsion units corresponding to (for example referring to fig. 1 the propulsion units may be the 300,M1 and 400,M2 and 800,GPP the power units may be M1 and M2 and GPP, respectively; this is consistent with applicant p.2, ll. 5-10) first and second propulsion units, respectively, of the propulsion units, which for a flight of the aircraft requiring a minimum number of power units in the operational state (one of ordinary skill understands that an aircraft inherently must have at least one power unit in the operational state for propulsion in order to take-off from the runway (fixed wing aircraft) or tarmac (helicopter) for flight; see pertinent prior art infra) and having actual energy requirements (the aircraft has energy requirements; see par. 3 and 34; for example the aircraft requires chemical energy in the form of fuel for the engines M1,M2,GPP and mechanical energy in order to drive electric generators and pneumatic supplies such as pumps, see par. 5) , the method comprising:
transmitting a first speed command (from controller 800 to power unit GPP; see pars. 70,71 and par. 38: “the FADEC 800 authorises the GPP unit to increase the power supplied by the GPP unit” wherein this is done by acceleration of GPP as pointed out in pars. 70,71) to increase an engine speed (see par. 70) of the first propulsion unit 800,GPP to a new first value (the speeds at which the power PMU or PSU can be reached; see pars. 70,71),
transmitting a second speed command (command from control center 200 to FADEC 400 and from FADEC 400 to M2 to restart M2; one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the FADEC controls starting, see pertinent prior art infra; in parallel the GPP is accelerated so that to that non-propulsive power is sufficient for starting M2; see par. 72) to increase an engine speed of the second propulsion unit 400,M2 to a new second value (during starting the power unit M2 speed will change compared to when the power unit M2 was off, i.e., engine M2 failed, see par. 69),
transmitting a first power draw command S (see pars. 47, 57 and 69) to increase the amount of power drawn from the first power unit GPP (at time t0 or time t5 in fig. 4 wherein the power is increased such power increase being instantaneous, see pars. 14 top and 65, wherein the interval PMU optionally can be eliminated for simplicity of discussion, see par. 71) to a new first power drawing capacity (PMU and/or PSU) corresponding to (see pars. 70,71) the new first value,
after transmitting the first command, determining a state (a state of the GPP power unit is monitored and supplied to the aircraft controller 200 via link L; see pars. 25 and 39 and fig. 1; such state is sent to aircraft controller 200 via links L for the GPP and for M1,M2 as pointed out in par. 24, bottom; such state includes information regarding the operating state as pointed out in par. 57 bottom: i.e., the state of the engine M1 to be non-operational, i.e. failed, is sent from engine M1 via link L to aircraft controller 200 and then aircraft controller 200 sends signal S to GPP; thus one of ordinary skill would understand the state of the engines M1,M2,GPP being provided to the aircraft controller 200 includes whether the respective engine is in the operational or non-operational state (this is evidenced by Reis pars. 81-82 and fig. 4 pointing out that a gas turbine engine failure is determined by the FADEC engine controller of the respective gas turbine engine and an engine failure signal is communicated to a central controller 501, the central controller 501 processing the engine failure signals and then sending commands regarding engine power to FADEC; thus the FADEC controllers of engines M1,M2,GPP monitor for the non-operational state and supply this information to central aircraft controller 200 via links L in Presse fig. 1; this is supported by the knowledge of the POSITA that a sudden increase in non-propulsive power can lead to an engine shutdown; see Presse par. 25 pointing out that operating the GPP at for example super emergency power PSU may damage the engine and one of ordinary skill understands that if PSU is used than the GPP engine may need to be overhauled, see pertinent prior art) of the first power unit GPP to be the operational state (in the scenario of fig. 4 the GPP is in the operational state during PSU and the GPP is intended to operate in the operational state throughout the flight, see par. 14) or the non-operational state, and
transmitting a second power draw command (see par. 73 wherein the aircraft controller 200 sends a command via link L to increase the non-propulsive power PMA of engine M2; Par. 73 cites t7 that correlates with t8 in fig. 4 due to conscription error it is thought however because the interval RM has been eliminated then power increase PMA takes place at time t6) to increase the amount of power drawn from the second power unit M2 (at t6 in fig. 4 the non-propulsive power PMA of engine M2 is increased, see par. 71 stating that the interval RM in fig. 4 can be eliminated) to a new second power drawing capacity PMA corresponding to the new second value (after power unit M2 restarts M2 can share non-propulsive power requirement, the share being PMA; see par. 58),
wherein transmitting the second power draw command to increase the amount of power drawn from the second power unit M2 is time shifted (by the amount of time GPP operates at super emergency power PSU that is for example 35 seconds, see par. 45), with respect to transmitting the first power draw command to increase the amount of power drawn from the first power unit, for a predetermined delay of a few seconds (for example 35 seconds1, see par. 45; the ordinary worker would understand 35 seconds is within the BRI of few seconds) after the first power draw command to increase the amount of power drawn from the first power unit GPP; wherein a duration of the predetermined delay at least allows (the instant state of gas turbines take on the order of a few seconds to be determined; this is evidenced by Eddy: see “several seconds” at col. 1, ll. 65-67) the state of the first power unit to be determined (this is discussed above regarding Presse) to be the operational state or the non-operational state of the first power unit. Presse does not explicitly disclose the power unit GPP is of a propulsion unit.
Reysa teaches a gas turbine 14 and further teaches a power unit is of a propulsion unit (i.e., power unit 14 provides non-propulsive power and also provides propulsive power; see col. 2, ll. 19-25). Reysa teaches power unit 14 that supplies auxiliar power to an aircraft can also provide a propulsion function and provide thrust to the aircraft (see col. 1, ll. 17-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Presse with the power unit GPP is of a propulsion unit as taught by Reysa in order to facilitate more efficient auxiliary power system (see Reysa col. 1, ll. 15-20). It is noted that Reysa engine 14 is for use during a failure of a main propulsion engine (see Reysa col. 5, ll. 5-10) such use being similar to the GPP of Presse.
Regarding claim 3, Presse in view of Reysa teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above.
Claim 3 recites: “wherein transmitting the second power draw command to increase the amount of power drawn from the second power unit is carried out only:”
(a): “if the first power unit is in the operational state after the increase in the power drawn from this first power unit; or, otherwise,”
(b): “if a determined number of power units in the operational state, without taking into account the state of the second power unit, is greater than or equal to the minimum number of power units in the operational state required for a flight”.
These are contingent limitations. For example, the increase in power of the second power unit M2, regarding claim 1, occurs if either condition (a) or (b) are met. The prior art is not required to teach scenarios wherein the contingent limitations are not met if such prior art teaches the contingent limitation or limitations. In the instant case, Presse teaches (see figs. 1 and 4) the first power unit GPP being in the operational state after the increase in power (see fig. 4 wherein the first power unit GPP is continuously in the operational state to provide power non-propulsive power PSU followed by PIU for the remainder of the flight after the increase in power to PSU (see par. 68 pointing out that the time duration, t, of fig. 4 is until the end of the flight)). Therefore, the prior art Presse in view of Reysa is not required to address what happens if the conditions (a) or (b) are not met. MPEP 2111.04 II. In addition, for example, the method of claim 3 can be practiced by the combination of Presse in view of Reysa because the condition (a) is met. The method does not require a step regarding condition (b) because condition (a) is met by the combination. The method of claim 3 requires increasing the amount of power of drawn from the second power unit if either condition (a) or condition (b) is met.
Regarding claim 4, Presse in view of Reysa teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Presse discloses (see figs. 1 and 4) (as modified by Reysa in the claim 1 analysis above) wherein a power unit from among the first GPP and second M2 power units of the aircraft (see abstract) that first receives a request for the increase in the amount of power drawn is triggered first throughout the method. In figure 4 of Presse the first power unit GPP receives a request for the increase in non-propulsive power (non-propulsive power from GPP is increased at t0 or t5 as discussed in the claim 1 analysis above). The request for the increase in power regarding the second power unit M2 occurs at time t6 as discussed in the claim 1 analysis above. Thus, the claim limitation is satisfied. Regarding the claim 4 phrase “throughout the method”, the method of claim 4 requires one increase in power of the first power unit followed by, regarding the claimed delay, and one increase in power of the second power unit.
Regarding claim 5, Presse in view of Reysa teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Presse discloses (see figs. 1 and 4) (as modified by Reysa in the claim 1 analysis above) the power unit from among the first GPP and second M2 power units of the aircraft (see abstract) having first reached a power drawing capacity adapted to a request suitable to the increase in the amount of power drawn is triggered first throughout the method. First power unit GPP has an increase in non-propulsive power at t0 or t5 as discussed in the claim 1 analysis above and thus at t0 or t5 the first power unit GPP has reached a power drawing capacity (such capacity being evidenced by the actual increase in non-propulsive power being drawing from first power unit GPP at the instant time in fig. 4) suitable to the request at t0 or t5. The claimed increase in the amount of power drawn from second power unit M2 does not trigger until time t6 as discussed in the claim 1 analysis above. In other words, there can be no claimed adaptation until time t6 regarding the second power unit M2 and thus the claimed trigger occurs first regarding first power unit GPP. Regarding the claim 5 phrase “throughout the method”, the method of claim 5 requires one increase in power of the first power unit followed by, regarding the claimed delay, and one increase in power of the second power unit.
Regarding claim 6, Presse in view of Reysa teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Presse discloses (see figs. 1 and 4) (as modified by Reysa in the claim 1 analysis above) commanding (ram air turbine (RAT) must be commanded because it is “optional”, see par. 23) a first power draw (“additional non-propulsive power”, see par. 23 such as electric power or hydraulic power, see par. 77) from at least one supplementary power source (see RAT in par. 23) for at least a duration (see par. 23) between (beginning at time t3 all the non-propulsive power is supplied by GPP and thus the RAT can be operated) a time (time of signal S in par. 70) at which the first speed command (from controller 800 to power unit GPP; see pars. 70,71 and par. 38: “the FADEC 800 authorises the GPP unit to increase the power supplied by the GPP unit” wherein this is done by acceleration of GPP as pointed out in pars. 70,71) is transmitted and a time t5 at which the amount of power drawn from the first power unit GPP is increased to the new first power drawing capacity (PMU or PSU).
Regarding claim 7, Presse in view of Reysa teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Presse discloses (see figs. 1 and 4) (as modified by Reysa in the claim 1 analysis above) commanding (the RAT must be commanded because it is “optional”, see par. 23) a second (see 112 section above) power draw (“additional non-propulsive power”, see par. 23 such as electric power or hydraulic power, see par. 77) from at least one supplementary power source (see RAT in par. 23) for a duration (see par. 23) between (at time t3 all the non-propulsive power is supplied by GPP and thus RAT can be operated) a time (time of signal S in par. 70) at which the first speed command (from controller 800 to power unit GPP; see pars. 70,71 and par. 38: “the FADEC 800 authorises the GPP unit to increase the power supplied by the GPP unit” wherein this is done by acceleration of GPP as pointed out in pars. 70,71) is transmitted and a time (the instant increase below starts at time t8 in fig. 4; or at t6 when RM at t6 is eliminated, see par. 71) at which the amount of power drawn from the second power unit M2 is increased to the new second power drawing capacity (PMA).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Presse, as evidenced by Reis, Eddy and US Patent 3,828,742 (Weis), in view of Reysa.
Regarding claim 2, Presse in view of Reysa teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above.
Presse disclosed in the claim 1 analysis that the operational state or the non-operational state of the first power unit GPP is checked (a state of the GPP power unit is monitored and supplied to the aircraft controller 200 via link L; see pars. 25 and 39 and fig. 1; such state is sent to aircraft controller 200 via links L for the GPP and for M1,M2 as pointed out in par. 24, bottom; such state includes information regarding the operating state as pointed out in par. 57 bottom: i.e., the state of the engine M1 to be non-operational, i.e. failed, is sent from engine M1 via link L to aircraft controller 200 and then aircraft controller 200 sends signal S to GPP; thus one of ordinary skill would understand the state of the engines M1,M2,GPP being provided to the aircraft controller 200 includes whether the respective engine is in the operational or non-operational state; this is supported by the knowledge of the POSITA that a sudden increase in non-propulsive power can lead to an engine shutdown, see pertinent prior infra; also see Presse par. 25 pointing out that operating the GPP at for example super emergency power PSU may damage the engine and one of ordinary skill understands that if PSU is used than the GPP engine may need to be overhauled, see pertinent prior art) following (one of ordinary skill would understand that the monitoring of the engine state function regarding aircraft controller 200 occurs continuously because for example the monitoring function must detect a failure of engines M1,M2 in flight; this continuous monitoring is evidenced by Weis: Weis states that it is important for an engine control unit to continuously determine the state of a gas turbine unit to be operational or non-operational in order to prevent damage to the gas turbine unit; see abstract, col. 1, ll. 30-35 and col. 2, l. 52 to col. 3, l. 9) the determined delay (the amount of time GPP operates at super emergency power PSU in fig. 4 that is for example 35 seconds, see par. 45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the power unit corresponding with GPP of Presse (US 2014/0303871 A1) in view of Reysa (US 6,247,668 B1) does not meet the claim 1 requirements because the propulsion unit of Presse in view of Reysa is not equivalent to the claimed first propulsion unit. Applicant in the next paragraph then explains what is the equivalent of the claimed first power unit. For example applicant discusses safeguards against simultaneously failure of power units. However the Claim 1 propulsion unit is interpreted under BRI wherein propulsion is something that propels. Reysa teaches that a gas turbine engine that provides non-propulsive power and also provides propulsive power. Reysa points out that there is a weight penalty (see col. 1, ll. 10-16) for engines that provide non-propulsive power and do not provide propulsive power . This Reysa improves efficiency because propulsion unit of Reysa can add propulsive power to the aircraft during climb and takeoff for example (see col. 5, ll. 15-20 wherein APTU is “auxiliary power and thrust unit” as explained at col. 2, ll. 20-25). Thus the remaining engines that provide propulsive power may be sized to require a less thrust output. It is not permissible to interpret propulsion unit by way of importing specifications into the claims from applicant specification or arguments.
Thus the GPP power unit of Presse is modified with Reysa to provide propulsive power in order for safety reasons in the scenario the remaining engines that provide propulsive power have failed (for example see the scenario of Pressee par. 69; see Reysa col. 5, ll. 5-10: “the APTU engine thrust could be made to automatically increase to a high level when a main engine failure is detected”) in addition to the benefit of increased efficiency. Thus the propulsion unit corresponding to the GPP of Presse in view of Reysa meets the claim 1 limitations. Applicant argues against Presse in view of Reysa discussing the instability of simultaneously ramp ups of power units. In response the Presse in view Reysa power units correspond with time-shifted ramp ups of non-propulsive power (see time difference between ramp up at times t3 and t5 of GPP and ramp up of M2 at time t8).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “safeguard against multiple power units failing at the same time during power increase” at p. 6, bottom; predetermined, precautionary sequence of load increases” at p. 7 top; “role played by power unit” at p. 8, bottom; “primary power units” at p. 9, middle; “separate and distinct” intervening power control at p. 9, middle) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification and applicant arguments are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that Presse in view of Reysa does not teach a determined delay. The delay in fig. 4 (as explained in the 103 section above) is the amount of time GPP (as modified by Reysa) operates at super emergency power PSU that is for example 35 seconds (see par. 45: “In an exemplary embodiment, the periods are distributed as 35 seconds at power Psu”) for the embodiment of fig. 4 showing PSU. The delay is set by the embodiment. Such delay can be implemented by the pilot that has determined the delay before deciding to no longer relieve non-propulsive power demands on unit M2 (see par. 73). Alternatively the delay may be implemented “automatically” (see par. 19 referring to the scenario wherein both power units M1,M2 fail and only one restarts that is the scenario of fig. 4). Adjustment of non-propulsive power may be implemented by the pilot or by the controllers as discussed throughout Presse (see abstract; pars. 14, 19, 21, 63, 64 and 67; and claims 11, 16 and 18).
Applicant argues that the delay is not determined in advance although this was not required by the claims. In response the pilot determines the delay in advance of communicating his or her decision to the power unit. Likewise in the scenario of automatic control the computer determines the delay in advance of communicating the second power draw command to the second power unit M2.
Applicant argues that other embodiments of Presse may not meet the determined delay limitation. In response all embodiments of Presse are not required to meet claim 1. The cited embodiment fig. 4 is sufficient to meet the claim. In addition the embodiments applicant discusses (i.e., PMU and PIU) do not appear to be applicable to the embodiment of fig. 4 that involves failure of both power units M1,M2 wherein only M2 restarts (see pars. 41-43). Pmu does not involve restarting a power unit and PIU does not appear to be shown in fig. 4. In addition the embodiment supporting the rejection of claim 1, RM at power Pmu from time t6 to time t8 can be eliminated in order to more quicky restart M2 (see par. 71).
Applicant argues that the power unit GPP of Presse in view of Reysa is a supplementary power source. In response the supplementary power source is the Presse ram air turbine (RAT) (see pars. 23 and 77). The RAT is more akin to applicant battery 36’ supplementary power source that supplements non-propulsive power (see applicant p. 13, ll. 1-5).
Applicant argues that Presse in view of Reysa does not teach the new claim 6 and 7 limitations regarding supplementary power source. In response, Presse discloses supplementary power source ram air turbine that supplements of the GPP of Presse in view of Reysa when the GPP supplies all of the non-propulsive power demand (see pars. 23 and 77). Such a scenario occurs for example during starting at t3 in fig. 4. There is more detailed explanation in the 103 section above.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
RAT deployed during loss of main engine power: US 5899411 (col. 3, ll. 20-30)
APU speed increases with load demand: US 6777822
Battery supplemental power source: US 20120138737 (pars. 33 and 39)
FADEC controls gas turbine engine starting: US 20110271655 A1 (pars. 14 and 17)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
1 Such delay can be implemented by the pilot that has determined the delay before deciding to no longer relieve non-propulsive power demands on unit M2 (see par. 73). Alternatively the delay may be implemented “automatically” (see par. 19 referring to the scenario wherein both power units M1.M2 fail and only one restarts that is the scenario of fig. 4). Adjustment of non-propulsive power may be implemented by the pilot or by the controllers as discussed throughout Presse (see abstract; pars. 14, 19, 21, 63, 64 and 67; and claims 11, 16 and 18).
Prosecution Insights