DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 2/11/2026 and 5/11/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/11/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species A; Group II, Species 1; and Group III, Species 1 in the reply filed on 11/12/2024 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper 20200141266 in view of Crowley 20200248622, Nestico 20170218854 and SAE International: “Propeller/Propfan in-flight Thrust Determination” SAE International 217 (Prior Art listed in IDS, and hereinafter referred to as “SAE”), Heilman 4543814 and Sue 20120210767.
Regarding claim 1, Cooper teaches:
A method of testing an unducted aircraft engine, the method comprising:
the unducted aircraft engine (Cooper: “The system may be arranged to calibrate an engine core without a propulsive fan or fan case attached to the engine core” [0023], “the disclosure may apply, for example, to any type of gas turbine engine, such as an open rotor (in which the fan stage is not surrounded by a nacelle) or turboprop engine, for example” [0097]), the unducted aircraft engine including an engine control torque sensor (sensor [0016], “a torque sensor to measure the torque applied to one or more of the core shafts 26, 27 of the engine core 11” [0116], and “The relevant engine performance parameter (for example shaft speed or torque) is measured at block 210” [0146]; “a torque measurement of the fan” [0037], “At step 110, the set speed of the engine core 11 is altered. For example, the engine control parameter may be varied. The process of allowing the engine core 11 operation to stabilise, measuring the torque and/or angular velocity on the shaft 26 and determining the thrust from a measured force on the retaining link 60 is repeated. These steps are repeated for a variety of engine speeds, to provide a range of calibration data between the torque and/or shaft speed and the thrust. The completed set of data is then output, at block 112, as power rating data” [0129])
running the unducted aircraft engine at full power during the ground test, the unducted aircraft engine including propeller or fan blades (“an open rotor (in which the fan stage is not surrounded by a nacelle) or turboprop engine, for example” [0097], where these engines are known to include propeller or fan blades; “combining the calibrated core with a fan and fan case” [0017]; “The fan comprises a plurality of fan blades.” [0033]; “Such a gas turbine engine may comprise a fan (having fan blades) located upstream of the engine core” [0040]), the full power being a power of the unducted aircraft engine required at takeoff of an aircraft (Cooper: “[0133] The load 62 is used to simulate the effect of the fan 23. However, the load of the fan 23 may vary in different flight conditions. For example, the fan 23 spins faster during take-off to produce more thrust and so the fan 23 is more highly loaded than at cruise”), the unducted aircraft engine being tested using testing hardware that is configured to simulate at least some flight-like or operational conditions (Cooper teaches, inter alia, producing operational conditions: “It will be appreciated that the resistance provided by the load 62 and the engine speed may be varied simultaneously to fully simulate different engine conditions” [0136], “varying the resistance of the resistance load to simulate different flight conditions” [0011]) for the unducted aircraft engine during the ground test,
directly measuring a thrust of the unducted aircraft engine (Measuring the total thrust and engine core thrust [0029]) during the ground test to obtain a measured thrust (Cooper inter alia, 108 Figs 6-7B, 210);
measuring a torque of the unducted aircraft engine during the ground test using the engine control torque sensor to obtain a measured torque (Cooper “the torque on the shaft 26 and/or the angular velocity of the shaft 26 is measured at block 106, and at block 108” [0128], see Fig. 7B, “torque sensor” [0116] sensor 66 provided within the engine core 11 [0117], controller 68 […] and the sensor arrangement 66 may be coupled [0118]);
during the ground test, obtaining a predicted torque and a predicted thrust of the unducted aircraft engine (“In any of the above aspects, the first power setting parameter may correlate the first engine performance parameter to the fan thrust for a range of values of the first engine performance parameter.” [0036]; “providing a first power setting parameter associating the fan thrust with the first engine performance parameter; and providing a second power setting parameter associating the engine core thrust with the second engine performance parameter” [0024], Torque is related to thrust as taught by Cooper “gas turbine engines are calibrated to provide a correlation between a measurable parameter, such as rotation speed of one of the core shafts or torque on the core shafts, to a known thrust output.” [0006]; “measuring the torque and/or angular velocity on the shaft 26 and determining the thrust” [0129])
during the ground test, comparing the measured torque to the predicted torque and comparing the measured thrust to the predicted thrust to obtain comparison results (“At block 214, it is checked whether the measured thrust is the same as the target thrust” [0147]; Torque is related to thrust as taught by Cooper and discussed above);
subsequent to the ground test, deploying the unducted aircraft engine with the engine control torque sensor aboard the aircraft (At block 202, after the engine core 11 is calibrated, it is combined with a fan 23 and fan case module 35, and installed on an aircraft (not shown)” [0144], “The initial thrust may be determined by a flight controller (see FIG. 9) or may be received via an input from a pilot through suitable control means.” [0145]);
applying sensed operating conditions of the unducted aircraft engine to obtain a first thrust contribution, wherein the first thrust contribution is related to a first airflow created by the propeller or fan blades of the unducted aircraft engine (“The method may comprise outputting the first power setting parameter to a first data card associated with the fan; and outputting the second power setting parameter to a second data card associated with the engine core. The first and second data cards may be arranged to be coupled to an engine control unit of the assembled engine” [0030], “The thrust generated by an engine 10 has two main contributions; the air flow A through the engine core 11, and the air flow B through the bypass 22” [0110]);
calculating a second thrust contribution of additional airflows of the unducted aircraft engine other than the first airflow (“The thrust generated by an engine 10 has two main contributions; the air flow A through the engine core 11, and the air flow B through the bypass 22” [0110]) using at least some of the sensed operating conditions and summing the first thrust contribution and the second thrust contribution to obtain an overall thrust (”two separate airflows. A first airflow is received by a core of the engine, and a second airflow is received in a bypass duct [0002], “Typically, whilst some thrust is provided by the core nozzle, the majority of the thrust generated by the engine is provided by the propulsive fan” [0004], [0110], the overall thrust being the sum of the two);
determining an action to take based at least in part upon the overall thrust, the action being one or more of examining, repairing or adjusting components of the unducted aircraft engine (Cooper: inter alia, “When an engine 10 is manufactured, overhauled or serviced, it is calibrated” [0107], “controlling the engine control parameter” [0017]).
Cooper is silent about:
obtaining an analytical model of the unducted aircraft engine.
[obtaining a predicted a predicted thrust of the unducted aircraft engine] using the analytical model;
However, Crowley teaches a gas turbine (Fig. 1) and “a machine learning model configured to generate model correction errors indicating the difference between the real-time model-based estimate of engine parameters and sensed values of the engine parameters, and a comparator configured to produce residuals indicating a difference between the real-time model-based estimate of engine parameters and the sensed values of the engine parameters” (abstract), and:
obtaining an analytical model of the unducted aircraft engine (“system includes an aero-thermodynamic engine model configured to produce a real-time model-based estimate of engine parameters” abstract)
obtaining a predicted thrust of the unducted aircraft engine using the analytical model (inter alia, “three machine learned models 120a, 120b, and 120c are developed representing aero-thermodynamic transient model error for three operating regimes. The three regimes include, but are not limited to: normal thrust producing operation; ground thrust reversing operation” [0074]);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cooper with Crowley's teachings discussed above in order “to generate model correction errors indicating the difference between the real-time model-based estimate of engine parameters and sensed values of the engine parameters” as taught by Crowley, Abstract.
Cooper in view of Crowley is silent about:
obtaining a predicted torque using the analytical model;
However, Nestico teaches a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) and a linear engine model [0057] used to estimate sensed parameters associated with the gas turbine [0057], and:
obtaining a predicted torque using the analytical model (Linear engine model 620 can be a complex multi-parameter model that is used to estimate sensed parameters associated with gas turbine engine 10, such as shaft torque [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cooper in view of Crowley with Nestico's teachings discussed above in order to provide “by real-time model based optimization” [0057], providing a “method for controlling a gas turbine engine on an aircraft in response to airflow distortion in an airflow path” (abstract) as taught by Nestico.
Cooper in view of Crowley and Nestico teaches comparing the measured torque and thrust to predicted torque and thrust, as discussed above, but is silent about:
during the ground test, based upon the comparison results, determining one or more modifiers, and modifying the analytical model using the one or more modifiers to obtain a correlated analytical model;
However, Crowley teaches:
during the ground test, comparing the measured torque to the predicted torque and comparing the measured thrust to the predicted thrust to obtain comparison results (the controller 106 compares from the sensor 108 to corresponding data and estimations of the engine model 102 or sensor and actuator model 104).
during the ground test, based upon the comparison results, determining one or more modifiers, and modifying the analytical model using the one or more modifiers to obtain a correlated analytical model (updating the reference data of the engine model 102 or actuator model 104, degradation of the components, which may occur over time” [0058]);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cooper in view of Crowley and Nestico with Crowley's teachings discussed above in order to “take various steps to address the difference including update the sensor and actuator model 104 with the data of the sensor 108” as taught by Crowley [0058].
Cooper in view of Crowley and Nestico teaches deploying the unducted aircraft engine and sensors aboard the aircraft as discussed above, and summing the first thrust contribution and the second thrust contribution to obtain an overall thrust, as discussed above, but is silent about:
the flight-like conditions including creation of an air flow that impacts or flows about the unducted aircraft engine at velocity of air that approximates a velocity of air that impacts or flows about the unducted aircraft engine during flight
applying sensed operating conditions of the unducted aircraft engine obtained during flight operations of the aircraft to the correlated analytical model to obtain a first thrust contribution,
during flight operations, [calculating a second thrust contribution of additional airflows of the unducted aircraft engine other than the first airflow using at least some of the sensed operating conditions and summing the first thrust contribution and the second thrust contribution to obtain an overall thrust]
However, SAE teaches a method for determining in-flight thrust for propeller/propfan propulsion system (page 1, forward), and:
the flight-like conditions including creation of an air flow that impacts or flows about the unducted aircraft engine at velocity of air that approximates a velocity of air that impacts or flows about the unducted aircraft engine during flight (inter alia, “Freejet flow simulation is accomplished using an air supply plant to condition the intake air to the pressure and temperature representative of the flight airspeed and altitude, a nozzle to shape and guide the flow to the desired flight airspeed and aircraft altitude and an exhaust plant to maintain the test cell at the proper altitude static pressure.(Figure 41)” page 102);
subsequent to the ground test, deploying the unducted aircraft engine with the engine control torque sensor aboard the aircraft (“Flight testing of an instrumented aircraft and propulsion system is the final step in the thrust determination process”, page 11, SAE, inter alia, pagers 111-120);
applying sensed operating conditions of the unducted aircraft engine obtained during flight operations of the aircraft to the correlated analytical model (“successful flight test […] appropriate analytical model must exist” page 112; “Various techniques exist to convert flight test data into a form which can be directly compared to the analytical model “ page 120; “The analytical models are normally developed from a combination of airframe and propulsion system performance, analytical estimates and wind tunnel test results” [0112]) to obtain a first thrust contribution (inter alia, “in-flight thrust for the propeller/propfan” Page 111, “propeller thrust” page 112)
during flight operations, calculating a second thrust contribution of additional airflows of the unducted aircraft engine other than the first airflow using at least some of the sensed operating conditions (inter alia, core thrust, page 112, “Secondary power output level Exhaust thrust” page 115) and summing the first thrust contribution and the second thrust contribution to obtain an overall thrust (inter alia, see equation
PNG
media_image1.png
42
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in Overall Net Thrust, F'.sub.N figure, page 118)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cooper in view of Crowley and Nestico with SAE's teachings discussed above in order to have “accurately describe the aircraft performance” as taught by SAE on page 111.
Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico and SAE teaches calibration of the test apparatus (Cooper: ”Prior calibration of the test apparatus 58 allows the force to be converted to a thrust measurement” [0126], “For example, the test apparatus 58 may be calibrated using a reference engine with a known relationship between the total thrust produced, and an engine performance parameter. The calibration of the test apparatus 58 uses the core 11 from the reference engine, and measures the force exerted between the frame 52 and base 54 as a function of the engine performance parameter, over a range of conditions” [0127]) but Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico and SAE does not explicitly teach:
a precision torque meter disposed outside the unducted aircraft engine, the precision torque meter used in a ground test to calibrate the engine control torque sensor
However, Heilman teaches:
a precision torque meter (inter alia, “a standard laboratory calibrated load cell” Col 2 ll. 42-50, connected to the calibration stand, see abstract) disposed outside the unducted aircraft engine (the calibration stand is used outside the engine, in a laboratory, Col 2 ll. 10-15), the precision torque meter used in a ground test to calibrate the engine control torque sensor (“The present invention provides a novel and unique way of calibrating electrical torque transducers in the laboratory with a high degree of precision” Col 2 ll. 10-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico and SAE with Heilman’s teachings in order to provide a way of “calibrating electrical torque transducers in the laboratory with a high degree of precision in circumstances where very large torque loading must be applied to the transducer for full-scale calibration” as taught by Heilman Col 2 ll. 10-15.
Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman, as discussed so far, is silent about:
and determining a torque offset for the engine control torque sensor
However, Sue teaches:
determining a torque offset (“determined torque value may be compared to the applied torque” [0017], where the offset would be difference between two values, in this case the determined and the applied torque) for the engine control torque sensor and calibrating the engine control torque sensor according to the torque offset to obtain a calibrated engine control torque sensor (used to calibrate a torque measurement for a turbine system [0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE, Heilman with Sue’s structure discussed above in order to “provide[s] improved accuracy in determining an angular displacement 302, which improves a torque measurement used to evaluate turbomachinery”
Regarding claim 2, Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE, Heilman and Sue teaches the invention as discussed above Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE, Heilman and Sue, as discussed so far, is silent about:
determining the action comprises
developing a control schedule to achieve a desired thrust rating.
However, SAE teaches: determining the action comprises developing a control schedule to achieve a desired thrust rating (Inter alia, Figure 50 - Relation of Sensed Parameters to Required Performance Aerodynamic Data”, Fig 51 “Relation of Measurements to Parameters Required for Thrust Determination”, and “This data provides information required to set power (in flight test and later in normal operations) and it provides data relating to engine health.” Page 115, 116)
Regarding claim 3, Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE, Heilman and Sue teaches the invention as discussed above. Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE, Heilman and Sue, as discussed so far, is silent about:
comprising calibrating the engine control torque sensor according to the torque offset to obtain a calibrated engine control torque sensor.
However, Sue teaches:
calibrating the engine control torque sensor according to the torque offset to obtain a calibrated engine control torque sensor (used to calibrate a torque measurement for a turbine system [0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman teaches the invention as discussed above. Cooper further teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein calculating the second thrust contribution considers the additional airflows and the additional airflows comprise a second airflow extending through a core of the unducted aircraft engine (“The thrust generated by an engine 10 has two main contributions; the air flow A through the engine core 11, and the air flow B through the bypass 22” [0110]).
Regarding claim 5, Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman teaches the invention as discussed above. Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman, as discussed so far, is silent about:
calculating the second thrust contribution considers the additional airflows and the additional airflows comprise a third airflow extending through a non-core portion of the unducted aircraft engine.
However, SAE teaches:
calculating the second thrust contribution considers the additional airflows and the additional airflows comprise a third airflow extending through a non-core portion of the unducted aircraft engine (“when the power plant is installed on the airplane, aerodynamic interactions between the propulsion system and airframe often give rise to additional interaction forces”; Fig 11: slipstream induced interaction; also “It was known that the residual swirl, inherent with single rotation (SR) propellers, if recovered, could result in further performance enhancements, hence the counter-rotating (CR)” Page 83).
Regarding claim 6, Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman teaches the invention as discussed above. Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman, as discussed so far, is silent about:
creating the analytical model utilizes testing of a scale model of the unducted aircraft engine.
However SAE teaches:
creating the analytical model utilizes testing of a scale model of the unducted aircraft engine (inter alia, “It is noted that the propulsion tests are usually performed with model propellers” page 38, “models that properly simulate geometry, Reynolds number, blade tip Mach number and J” page 89, page 90)
Regarding claim 7, Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman teaches the invention as discussed above. Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman, as discussed so far, is silent about:
the analytical model comprises one or more of an electronic file or a machine learning model.
However, Crowley teaches: the analytical model comprises one or more of an electronic file or a machine learning model (an aero-thermodynamic engine model configured to produce a real-time model-based estimate of engine parameters, a machine learning model configured to generate model correction errors indicating the difference between the real-time model-based estimate of engine parameters and sensed values of the engine parameters, and a comparator configured to produce residuals indicating a difference between the real-time model-based estimate of engine parameters and the sensed values of the engine parameters”, abstract)
Regarding claim 8, Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman teaches the invention as discussed above. Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman, as discussed so far, is silent about:
the one or more modifiers comprise one or more scalars, one or more adders, one or more curves, or one or more tables.
However, SAE teaches: the one or more modifiers comprise one or more scalars, one or more adders, one or more curves, or one or more tables (“If flight test data and analytical model predictions disagree, further tests or analytical rationalization should be pursued until a reasonable degree of agreement is reached“ page 111, it is noted that one of skill in the art would interpret “further analytical rationalization” to adjust, based on empirical data, constants and coefficients in the equations used in the analytical model; also, “Typical in-flight engine data required to validate engine analytical model power output predictions” Fig 51 on page 116).
Furthermore, Crowley also teaches modifiers comprise one or more scalars, one or more adders, one or more curves, or one or more tables (“a machine learning model configured to generate model correction errors indicating the difference between the real-time model-based estimate of engine parameters and sensed values of the engine parameters”, Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman teaches the invention as discussed above. Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman, as discussed so far, is silent about:
the one or more modifiers comprise a first modifier related to a first operational state of the aircraft and a second modifier related to a second operational state of the aircraft.
However, Crowley teaches the one or more modifiers comprise a first modifier related to a first operational state of the aircraft and a second modifier related to a second operational state of the aircraft (inter alia, “SVM must be representative of the engine dynamics across the flight envelope [0003-0006])
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper 20200141266 in view of Crowley 20200248622, Nestico 20170218854 and SAE International: “Propeller/Propfan in-flight Thrust Determination” SAE International 217 (Prior Art listed in IDS, and hereinafter referred to as “SAE”), Heilman 4543814.
Regarding claim 10, Cooper teaches:
A system (Cooper Claim 13), the system comprising:
testing hardware (inter alia, claim 1) that is associated with an unducted aircraft engine (Cooper: “The system may be arranged to calibrate an engine core without a propulsive fan or fan case attached to the engine core” [0023], “the disclosure may apply, for example, to any type of gas turbine engine, such as an open rotor (in which the fan stage is not surrounded by a nacelle) or turboprop engine, for example” [0097])
during a ground test of the unducted aircraft engine (inter alia, Figs 5C, 6-8), the unducted aircraft engine including propeller or fan blades (“an open rotor (in which the fan stage is not surrounded by a nacelle) or turboprop engine, for example” [0097], where these engines are known to include propeller or fan blades; “combining the calibrated core with a fan and fan case” [0017]; “The fan comprises a plurality of fan blades.” [0033]; “Such a gas turbine engine may comprise a fan (having fan blades) located upstream of the engine core” [0040]), the testing hardware effective to producing at least some operational (Cooper teaches, inter alia, producing operational conditions: “It will be appreciated that the resistance provided by the load 62 and the engine speed may be varied simultaneously to fully simulate different engine conditions” [0136], “varying the resistance of the resistance load to simulate different flight conditions” [0011]) or flight-like conditions for the unducted aircraft engine during the ground test,
a controller coupled to an electronic memory (inter alia, 68, 72 Fig. 5B, [0118-0124]);
[a program] stored in the electronic memory (inter alia, computer program 74 [0123]);
and an engine control torque sensor (sensor [0016], “a torque sensor to measure the torque applied to one or more of the core shafts 26, 27 of the engine core 11” [0116], and “The relevant engine performance parameter (for example shaft speed or torque) is measured at block 210” [0146]; “a torque measurement of the fan” [0037], “At step 110, the set speed of the engine core 11 is altered. For example, the engine control parameter may be varied. The process of allowing the engine core 11 operation to stabilise, measuring the torque and/or angular velocity on the shaft 26 and determining the thrust from a measured force on the retaining link 60 is repeated. These steps are repeated for a variety of engine speeds, to provide a range of calibration data between the torque and/or shaft speed and the thrust. The completed set of data is then output, at block 112, as power rating data” [0129])
wherein the unducted aircraft engine is tested at full power during the ground test (step 102, Fig. 7A), the full power being a power of the unducted aircraft engine required at takeoff of an aircraft (Cooper: “[0133] The load 62 is used to simulate the effect of the fan 23. However, the load of the fan 23 may vary in different flight conditions. For example, the fan 23 spins faster during take-off to produce more thrust and so the fan 23 is more highly loaded than at cruise”), and a measured thrust and a measured torque of the unducted aircraft engine are obtained during the ground test (“After the operation of the engine core 11 has stabilised, the torque on the shaft 26 and/or the angular velocity of the shaft 26 is measured at block 106, and at block 108, the force on the retaining link 60 is measured, and the thrust determined“ [0128]);
wherein the controller is configured to during the ground test:
- receive the measured torque produced by the unducted aircraft engine during the ground test, the measured torque being received from the engine control torque sensor (“a torque sensor to measure the torque applied to one or more of the core shafts 26, 27 of the engine core 11” [0116], and “The relevant engine performance parameter (for example shaft speed or torque) is measured at block 210” [0146]; “a torque measurement of the fan” [0037],”measuring the torque and/or angular velocity on the shaft 26 and determining the thrust from a measured force on the retaining link 60 is repeated. These steps are repeated for a variety of engine speeds, to provide a range of calibration data between the torque and/or shaft speed and the thrust. The completed set of data is then output, at block 112, as power rating data” [0129]);
- receive the measured thrust of the unducted aircraft engine that occurs during the ground test and is directly measured (“test apparatus 58 allows the force to be converted to a thrust measurement” [0126]; 108 in Fig 6-7B, 212 Fig 8);
- obtain a predicted torque and a predicted thrust of the unducted aircraft engine (“In any of the above aspects, the first power setting parameter may correlate the first engine performance parameter to the fan thrust for a range of values of the first engine performance parameter.” [0036]; “providing a first power setting parameter associating the fan thrust with the first engine performance parameter; and providing a second power setting parameter associating the engine core thrust with the second engine performance parameter” [0024], Torque is related to thrust as taught by Cooper “gas turbine engines are calibrated to provide a correlation between a measurable parameter, such as rotation speed of one of the core shafts or torque on the core shafts, to a known thrust output.” [0006]; “measuring the torque and/or angular velocity on the shaft 26 and determining the thrust” [0129])
- compare the measured torque to the predicted torque and compare the measured thrust to the predicted thrust to obtain comparison results (“At block 214, it is checked whether the measured thrust is the same as the target thrust” [0147]; Torque is related to thrust as taught by Cooper and discussed above);
wherein the unducted aircraft engine is subsequently tested aboard the aircraft and sensed operating conditions of the unducted aircraft engine (At block 202, after the engine core 11 is calibrated, it is combined with a fan 23 and fan case module 35, and installed on an aircraft (not shown)” [0144], “The initial thrust may be determined by a flight controller (see FIG. 9) or may be received via an input from a pilot through suitable control means.” [0145])
Cooper is silent about:
an analytical model
[obtain a predicted torque and a predicted thrust of the unducted aircraft engine] from the analytical model;
However, Crowley teaches a gas turbine (Fig. 1) and “a machine learning model configured to generate model correction errors indicating the difference between the real-time model-based estimate of engine parameters and sensed values of the engine parameters, and a comparator configured to produce residuals indicating a difference between the real-time model-based estimate of engine parameters and the sensed values of the engine parameters” (abstract), and:
an analytical model stored in the electronic memory ((“system includes an aero-thermodynamic engine model configured to produce a real-time model-based estimate of engine parameters,” abstract; [0047])
obtain a predicted thrust of the unducted aircraft engine from the analytical model; (inter alia, “three machine learned models 120a, 120b, and 120c are developed representing aero-thermodynamic transient model error for three operating regimes. The three regimes include, but are not limited to: normal thrust producing operation; ground thrust reversing operation” [0074], [0045]);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cooper with Crowley's structure discussed above in order “to generate model correction errors indicating the difference between the real-time model-based estimate of engine parameters and sensed values of the engine parameters” as taught by Crowley, Abstract.
Cooper in view of Crowley is silent about: obtaining a predicted torque from the analytical model;
However, Nestico teaches a gas turbine engine (Fig. 1) and a linear engine model [0057]used to estimate sensed parameters associated with the gas turbine [0057], and:
obtaining a predicted torque from the analytical model (Linear engine model 620 can be a complex multi-parameter model that is used to estimate sensed parameters associated with gas turbine engine 10, such as shaft torque).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cooper in view of Crowley with Nestico's structure discussed above in order to provide “by real-time model based optimization” [0057] as taught by Nestico.
Cooper in view of Crowley and Nestico teaches comparing the measured torque and thrust to predicted torque and thrust, as discussed above, but is silent about:
- based upon the comparison results, determine one or more modifiers, and modify the analytical model using the one or more modifiers to obtain a correlated analytical model;
However, Crowley teaches:
-compare the measured torque to the predicted torque and compare the measured thrust to the predicted thrust to obtain comparison results (the controller 106 compares from the sensor 108 to corresponding data and estimations of the engine model 102 or sensor and actuator model 104).
- based upon the comparison results, determine one or more modifiers, and modify the analytical model using the one or more modifiers to obtain a correlated analytical model (updating the reference data of the engine model 102 or actuator model 104, degradation of the components, which may occur over time” [0058]);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cooper in view of Crowley and Nestico with Crowley's structure discussed above in order to “take various steps to address the difference including update the sensor and actuator model 104 with the data of the sensor 108” as taught by Crowley [0058].
Cooper in view of Crowley and Nestico teaches the engine testing aboard the aircraft as discussed above, but is silent about:
the flight-like conditions including creation of an air flow that impacts or flows about the unducted aircraft engine at velocity of air that approximates a velocity of air that impacts or flows about the unducted aircraft engine during flight
wherein the unducted aircraft engine is subsequently tested aboard the aircraft and sensed operating conditions of the unducted aircraft engine obtained during flight operations of the aircraft are applied to the correlated analytical modelto obtain a first thrust contribution of a first airflow created by the propeller or fan blades of the unducted aircraft engine, and wherein during the flight operations a second thrust contribution of additional airflows other than the first airflow is also determined
However, SAE teaches a method for determining in-flight thrust for propeller/propfan propulsion system (page 1, forward), and:
the flight-like conditions including creation of an air flow that impacts or flows about the unducted aircraft engine at velocity of air that approximates a velocity of air that impacts or flows about the unducted aircraft engine during flight (inter alia, “Freejet flow simulation is accomplished using an air supply plant to condition the intake air to the pressure and temperature representative of the flight airspeed and altitude, a nozzle to shape and guide the flow to the desired flight airspeed and aircraft altitude and an exhaust plant to maintain the test cell at the proper altitude static pressure.(Figure 41)” page 102);
wherein the unducted aircraft engine is subsequently tested aboard the aircraft (SAE, inter alia, pagers 111-120) and sensed operating conditions of the unducted aircraft engine obtained during flight operations of the aircraft are applied to the correlated analytical model (“successful flight test […] appropriate analytical model must exist” page 112; “Various techniques exist to convert flight test data into a form which can be directly compared to the analytical model “ page 120) to obtain a first thrust contribution of a first airflow created by the propeller or fan blades of the unducted aircraft engine (inter alia, “in-flight thrust for the propeller/propfan” Page 111, “propeller thrust” page 112), and wherein during the flight operations a second thrust contribution of additional airflows other than the first airflow is also determined (inter alia, core thrust, page 112; “Secondary power output level Exhaust thrust” page 115); and
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cooper in view of Crowley and Nestico with SAE's structure discussed above in order to have “accurately describe the aircraft performance” as taught by SAE on page 111.
Regarding the limitation: “wherein an action to take is determined based upon a summation of the first thrust contribution and a second thrust contribution, the action being one or more of examining, repairing or adjusting components of the unducted aircraft engine” interpreted as the desired result to be taken upon determining the summation of the first and second thrust contributions; in the alternative, this can also be interpreted as the intended use of the above. However, Cooper further teaches the imitation: inter alia, “When an engine 10 is manufactured, overhauled or serviced, it is calibrated” [0107], “controlling the engine control parameter” [0017].
Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico and SAE teaches calibration of the test apparatus (Cooper: ”Prior calibration of the test apparatus 58 allows the force to be converted to a thrust measurement” [0126], “For example, the test apparatus 58 may be calibrated using a reference engine with a known relationship between the total thrust produced, and an engine performance parameter. The calibration of the test apparatus 58 uses the core 11 from the reference engine, and measures the force exerted between the frame 52 and base 54 as a function of the engine performance parameter, over a range of conditions” [0127]) but Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico and SAE does not explicitly teach:
a precision torque meter disposed outside the unducted aircraft engine, the precision torque meter used in a ground test to calibrate the engine control torque sensor
However, Heilman teaches:
a precision torque meter (inter alia, “a standard laboratory calibrated load cell” Col 2 ll. 42-50, connected to the calibration stand, see abstract) disposed outside the unducted aircraft engine (the calibration stand is used outside the engine, in a laboratory, Col 2 ll. 10-15), the precision torque meter used in a ground test to calibrate the engine control torque sensor (“The present invention provides a novel and unique way of calibrating electrical torque transducers in the laboratory with a high degree of precision” Col 2 ll. 10-15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico and SAE with Heilman’s teachings in order to provide a way of “calibrating electrical torque transducers in the laboratory with a high degree of precision in circumstances where very large torque loading must be applied to the transducer for full-scale calibration” as taught by Heilman Col 2 ll. 10-15.
Regarding claim 11, Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman teaches the invention as discussed above. Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico and SAE, as discussed so far, is silent about:
The system of claim 10 wherein the action is determined by comparing an overall thrust to a rating.
However, this is interpreted as the desired result to be taken upon determining the summation of the first and second thrust contributions; in the alternative, this can also be interpreted as the intended use of the above. Cooper further teaches: action is determined by comparing an overall thrust to a rating (inter alia, “measuring a thrust generated by the engine based on the power rating data and a measured engine performance parameter; determining if the measured thrust is equal to the target thrust; and controlling the engine control parameter based on the determining” [0017]).
Regarding claim 12, Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman teaches the invention as discussed above. Cooper further teaches:
The system of claim 10 wherein the additional airflows comprise a second airflow extending through a core of the unducted aircraft engine (“The thrust generated by an engine 10 has two main contributions; the air flow A through the engine core 11, and the air flow B through the bypass 22” [0110]).
Regarding claim 13, Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman teaches the invention as discussed above. Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman, as discussed so far, is silent about:
the additional airflows further comprise a third airflow extending through a non-core portion of the unducted aircraft engine.
However, SAE teaches:
additional airflows further comprise a third airflow extending through a non-core portion of the unducted aircraft engine (“when the power plant is installed on the airplane, aerodynamic interactions between the propulsion system and airframe often give rise to additional interaction forces”; Fig 11: slipstream induced interaction; also “It was known that the residual swirl, inherent with single rotation (SR) propellers, if recovered, could result in further performance enhancements, hence the counter-rotating (CR)” Page 83).
Regarding claim 14, Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman teaches the invention as discussed above. Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman, as discussed so far, is silent about:
the analytical model comprises one or more of an electronic file or a machine learning model.
However, Crowley teaches: the analytical model comprises one or more of an electronic file or a machine learning model (an aero-thermodynamic engine model configured to produce a real-time model-based estimate of engine parameters, a machine learning model configured to generate model correction errors indicating the difference between the real-time model-based estimate of engine parameters and sensed values of the engine parameters, and a comparator configured to produce residuals indicating a difference between the real-time model-based estimate of engine parameters and the sensed values of the engine parameters”, abstract)
Regarding claim 15, Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman teaches the invention as discussed above. Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman, as discussed so far, is silent about:
the one or more modifiers comprise one or more scalars, one or more adders, one or more curves, or one or more tables.
However, SAE teaches: the one or more modifiers comprise one or more scalars, one or more adders, one or more curves, or one or more tables (“If flight test data and analytical model predictions disagree, further tests or analytical rationalization should be pursued until a reasonable degree of agreement is reached“ page 111, it is noted that one of skill in the art would interpret “further analytical rationalization” to include adjusting, based on empirical data, constants and coefficients in the equations used in the analytical model; also, “Typical in-flight engine data required to validate engine analytical model power output predictions” Fig 51 on page 116).
Furthermore, Crowley also teaches modifiers comprise one or more scalars, one or more adders, one or more curves, or one or more tables (“a machine learning model configured to generate model correction errors indicating the difference between the real-time model-based estimate of engine parameters and sensed values of the engine parameters”, Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman teaches the invention as discussed above. Cooper in view of Crowley, Nestico, SAE and Heilman, as discussed so far, is silent about:
the one or more modifiers comprise a first modifier related to a first operational state of the aircraft and a second modifier related to a second operational state of the aircraft.
However, Crowley teaches the one or more modifiers comprise a first modifier related to a first operational state of the aircraft and a second modifier related to a second operational state of the aircraft (inter alia, “SVM must be representative of the engine dynamics across the flight envelope [0003-0006])
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive because they do not apply to the new combination of references, i.e., adding a new reference to the old combination of references, that was necessitated by applicant’s amendment. However, to the extent possible, applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections above, at the appropriate location.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights