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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/07/2025 has been entered.
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 1-5.
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 1-5 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 § 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 3-5 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, 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 M1,M2 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 engines M1,M2 and engine GPP; see abstract and see for example fig. 2 showing non-propulsive power PM from engines M1,M2 and non-propulsive power PG being drawing from engine GPP; see pars. 33-34), the aircraft comprising at least first GPP and second M2 power units of the power 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 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 the power is increased such power increase being instantaneous, see pars. 14 top and 65, wherein the interval PMU can be eliminated for simplicity of discussion, see par. 71)
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 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) 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 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),
wherein transmitting the second 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 command to increase the amount of power drawn from the first power unit, for a determined delay of a few seconds (for example 35 seconds, see par. 45; the ordinary worker would understand 35 seconds is within the BRI of few seconds; see pertinent prior art infra) after the first command to increase the amount of power drawn from the first power unit GPP; wherein a duration of the determined 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 the power unit is of a propulsion unit. Reysa teaches an APU type engine 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 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.
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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Presse is still cited as the base reference. However, the GPP is used as the first power unit and this scenario was not cited in previous office actions and thus not addressed in applicant arguments.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
BRI of few seconds in power supply arts: US 20200235607 A1 par. 75: “few seconds (e.g., approximately one second, two seconds, three seconds, five seconds, ten seconds, thirty seconds, one minute, or the like …)”
sudden increase in non-propulsive power can lead to gas turbine engine shutdown: RU 2797468 C1 (“Background of the Invention”, 4th par.);
if super emergency power PSU is used than the engine must be overhauled: US 20050278084 (par. 9);
APU type engine used for propulsion: US 3489377 10301035
minimum number of engines required for flight: US 2018/0362171 (see pars. 9 and 41; both engines of a two engine aircraft can be required for takeoff).
Conclusion
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