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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 12 and 20 are amended. Claims 2, 4, 6 are canceled. Claims 21-23 are added. As a result, claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-23 remain under consideration.
The amendment to claim 12 obviates the previously indicated objection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that:
“The recited gate switch and controller manage the duration of "on" and "off' portions of a duty cycle without regard for frequency or pulse width. Further, the recited combination manages operation in two distinct modes: de-icing mode and normal mode. This functionality is not contemplated in the prior art and resolves questions about how much power to distribute to exterior surface heating elements.” See Remarks, page 9.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument regarding the controller managing duty cycles without regard to frequency or pulse width is unpersuasive as it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The Appellant is reminded that it is the language of the claims that defines the patentable subject matter, and in this case, the claim broadly recites a controller configured to send a duty cycle signal to the gate switch by controlling a duration in which the gate switch remains in the on position divided by a total cycle duration. Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the claims, the description “a first duration in which the gate switch remains in the on position divided by a total cycle duration of the duty cycle signal” is synonymous to the mathematically defined duty cycle used in PWM controllers, which is inextricably linked to frequency. Therefore, the generic controller, not negatively limited to exclude the use of PWMs, recited in the claim encompasses the PWM controller taught by Maunoury.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, “the recited combination manages operation in two distinct modes: de-icing mode and normal mode” 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.
For reasons detailed herein, the Examiner maintains, based on the preponderance of evidence that the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are proper.
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:
“at least one voltage manipulation element” in claims 1 and 20.
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.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 20 all recite “a signal indicative of a need for de-icing” however, the instant specification does not describe any sensor, human involvement or any other structure in communication with the controller to both monitor for de-icing scenarios and generate a signal that there is a need for de-icing.
Examiner notes that paragraphs [0045]-[0055] describes the controller sending a duty cycle signal to the gate switch, including the different percentages the signal would dictate the gate switch to remain in the on position during the total duration of the period of the gate switch’s on/off cycle, however these paragraphs only describe these signals being sent during overvoltage scenarios. One instance mentioning a “need for de-icing” appears in paragraph [0052] in the context of different overvoltage scenarios, however the specification fails to describe the structure that allows the need to de-ice to be sent to the controller in order to apply the correct duty cycle signal. There are mentions of a sensor in paragraph [00013], [0053] and [0064], but the sensor described monitors the voltage of the DC power bus of the system for overvoltage scenarios. Additionally, in the absence of any structure in communication with the controller responsible for signaling a need for de-icing, the instant specification fails to describe whether the controller alone has functions or programming necessary to discern whether there is a need for de-icing or if manual intervention is required for choosing the correct duty signal to apply when a need for de-icing is physically observed, rendering the claim language “a signal indicative of a need for de-icing” indefinite.
Claims 2-11, 13-19 and 21-23 inherit the above deficiencies and are rejected to due to dependency upon rejected-to claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 all define “a normal mode” as dependent on applying a duty cycle based on “(a) the difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage” of the DC bus system, and similarly “a de-icing mode” is defined as dependent on applying a duty cycle based on both “(a) the difference between the first voltage and first threshold voltage and (b) a signal indicative of a need for de-icing a surface of the aircraft.”
However, this definition of the modes as written introduces confusion because the boundaries between the modes become impossible to determine. Both modes rely on the voltage difference, however the instant specification and the claims as written fail to provide any mutually exclusive conditions, structures such as sensors, or logic to distinguish the modes from each other or otherwise dictate when the controller should be in one mode versus another. For example, if the controller evaluates variable (b) to determine the existence of ice, then it must perpetually be in de-icing mode as defined by the claims because normal mode has no such mutually exclusive conditions to differentiate it from de-icing mode. Similarly, if the aircraft experiences an overvoltage scenario, but a need for de-icing is absent, it is unclear whether the system is operating in the normal mode or in the de-icing mode because the system will divert excess power into the resistive elements regardless of whether ice is present because the logical overlap creates a contradiction due to the resistive elements acting as a voltage sink for the aircraft. An extreme overvoltage scenario must divert excess power to the wings to prevent circuit failure regardless of ice. Therefore, the claims as written define a system functioning in de-icing mode sending a duty cycle of 90% to the controller during an overvoltage scenario as functionally similar to a system in normal mode sending a duty cycle of 90% to the controller during an overvoltage scenario regardless of the presence of ice and the lack of mutually exclusive boundaries between the two modes makes it impossible for a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether the system operates in one mode or beings operating in another.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “the first duration” is directly proportional to the voltage difference. However, “the first duration” is a measurement of time, and the duty cycle (defined in the amended claim 1) to be applied that is “directly proportional to the voltage difference” is a measure of percentage of time. Furthermore, “directly proportional” has a strict, established definition requiring a linear ratio between two variables (y = kx) and is not synonymous with a broad “positive correlation” between variables, such as gate switch ON-time duration increasing as voltage difference increases. By claiming a system that varies the gate switch ON duration only without regard to total duration to indicate the duty cycle as a percentage of time, the attempt to establish first duration alone as having a “directly proportional relationship” to the voltage difference becomes undefined in a way that a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine what duty cycle would be applied to the gate switch because the claim is utilizing a strict mathematical term of art in a manner inconsistent with its established mathematical meaning. As such, it is unclear if the claim is limited to controllers that govern the system based on the linear ratio of “direct proportionality” or if it attempts to capture any controller where the ON duration of gate switches simply increase when voltage increases, regardless of whether the increase is linear, exponential, stepwise, etc.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “under conditions with an equivalent difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage” but neither the claims or the instant specification define the conditions that lead to the “equivalent difference” and the claim may be interpreted to mean any number of ranges “greater than” or “less than” what is required to stabilize the power of the system. For example, if the claims are interpreted in plain language to mean “in the high setting when experiencing a voltage spike, more power is diverted into the heating elements than would be diverted in a scenario experiencing the exact same voltage spike”, what is the “scenario” that the claim is being compared to? Is the high need setting voltage spike being compared to the voltage spike when the system is in the “normal mode” in claim 1? Is it being compared to the voltage spike when the system is in the “low setting mode” in the same claim? Or is it being compared to any and all modes or scenarios, as long as a voltage spike of equivalent value is being observed, whether the vehicle is sitting idle on the runway experiencing minimal voltage spike, or cruising at an altitude experiencing high voltage spike? Therefore, the claim language as written introduces confusion as to where the metes and bounds of the claim are.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, in addition to inheriting the above deficiencies of claim 7, the claims recite “greater than directly proportional to the difference in first voltage and first threshold voltage” which introduces contradictions that render the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the claims or the instant specification define an inequality expression linking a duration and a relationship. The absolute maximum of a duty cycle as defined in the amended claim 1 is 100%, wherein the gate switch is continuously in the ON state 100% of the time. In the case where a severe overvoltage scenario requires a 100% duty cycle to mitigate circuit failure, then the claim language of claim 22 can be interpreted to mean the controller is required to apply a duration “greater than” this 100% duty cycle wherein the gate switch is required to remain in the ON position greater than 100% of the available time, allowing the controller to drain the DC power bus below an undefined safe operational threshold and diverting an amount of power to the heating elements “greater than” what is proportionally required to fix the overvoltage in extreme icing conditions and/or no or low voltage excess.
Claims 2-6, 8-11, and 13-19 inherit the above deficiencies and are rejected to due to dependency upon rejected-to claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziebart et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20230202660 A1, in further view of Maunoury, EP Patent Application Publication No. 4134260 A1.
Claim 1. Ziebart discloses a power distribution system for an aircraft, comprising (Ziebart, Fig. 1 is a block diagram of an aircraft 100, including a power distribution system 112.)
at least one wing of the aircraft, (Ziebart, Fig. 1 shows wings 106.)
a power supply circuit including at least one DC power bus having a first voltage, (Ziebart, [0019] “The power distribution system 112 converts the electricity received from the electrical generators 122 into electricity usable by components of the systems 114 of the aircraft 100. For example, the power distribution system 112 converts a first portion of the electricity received from the electrical generators 122 into 3-phase alternating current (AC) electricity associated with a first voltage and a second portion of the electricity received from the electrical generators 122 into direct current (DC) electricity associated with a second voltage” where the voltage received from the electrical generators as DC electricity corresponds to the claimed first voltage of the DC power bus.)
To perform its function of converting electricity received from an electrical generator into electricity usable by components, such as converting AC electricity to DC electricity, the power distribution system 112 implies the inclusion of a power supply circuit, which is known to one of ordinary skill in the art as a system that converts alternating current (AC) from the main electricity supply into a more stable, direct voltage (DC) output.
Furthermore, the art establishes the power distribution system as being the source of DC electricity usable by the components of many different systems. To perform its function of distributing DC electricity to multiple downstream systems, the power distribution system 112 implies the inclusion of a DC bus or busbar, which is known to one of ordinary skill in the art as a component which conducts and distributes electricity from a source to multiple circuits, such as those present in multiple downstream systems.
at least one resistive heating element electrically connected with the at least one DC power bus and coupled with the at least one wing of the aircraft, and (Ziebart, [0002] “As another example, an electrical ice protection system uses electrical heaters to heat particular aircraft surfaces to reduce icing”; and [0003] “The ice protection system also includes a controller configured to, in response to a first determination indicating presence of an icing condition, determine a setpoint temperature for a first location of an outer surface of the wing configured to be heated by a heater of the one or more heaters.”; and [0029] “The heaters 146 are electro-thermal (e.g., resistance) heaters that are conformed, or are conformable, to portions of the aircraft 100 to be heated to prevent unacceptable icing.”)
wherein the controller is configured to operate in a normal mode and a de-icing mode, (Ziebart, [0030] “When the determination by the icing condition determiner 154 indicates that the aircraft 100 is in an icing condition, the icing condition determiner 154 causes the modeler 156 to determine, for each heater zone 204 of each heater 146, a setpoint temperature for the heater zone 204 at the location of the third sensors 148 associated with the heater zone 204. The setpoint temperature is a temperature needed to prevent unacceptable icing on an outer surface of the aircraft 100 associated with the heater zone 204... When the end of the icing condition is detected, the controller 142 causes a stop to the provision of power to the heaters 146 after a particular period of time” where maintaining the setpoint temperature to prevent unacceptable icing on the aircraft corresponds with the claimed de-icing mode, and halting the provision of power to the heaters at the end of the icing condition corresponds with the claimed normal mode.)
in the de-icing mode the duty cycle to be applied to the gate switch is based on both [(a)… and] (b) a signal indicative of a need for de-icing a surface of the aircraft. (Ziebart, [0022] “The one or more second sensors 144 provide icing condition data to the controller 142. The icing condition data enables the controller 142 to determine if the aircraft is experiencing an icing condition and allows for a determination of the water content of the outside air.”)
Ziebart does not explicitly disclose at least one voltage manipulation element configured to selectively adjust an amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one resistive heating element, and a controller electrically connected to the at least one voltage manipulation element of the power supply circuit and configured to regulate the first voltage of the DC power bus, the controller programmed to selectively control the at least one voltage manipulation element in response to the first voltage of the DC power bus being greater than a first threshold voltage to vary an amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one resistive heating element to cause the at least one resistive heating element to convert the amount of the first voltage into heat and thereby regulate overvoltage of the first voltage of the DC power bus, wherein the at least one voltage manipulation element is connected across the DC power bus and is a gate switch configured to be arranged in an on position and an off position, and wherein the controller is configured to selectively control the gate switch to the on and off positions, wherein the controller is configured to send a duty cycle signal to the gate switch indicative of a duty cycle to be applied to the gate switch, wherein the duty cycle to be applied to the gate switch is equal to a first duration in which the gate switch remains in the on position divided by a total cycle duration of the duty cycle signal, the total cycle duration being the first duration plus a second duration in which the gate switch in is the off position, and wherein the duty cycle signal causes the gate switch to move between the on position and the off position such that the gate switch remains in the on position for the first duration such that the desired amount of the first voltage is directed to the at least one resistive heating element during the first duration, […] in the normal mode the duty cycle to be applied to the gate switch is based on a difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage, and […the duty cycle to be applied to the gate switch is based on both] (a) the difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage.
Maunoury discloses at least one voltage manipulation element configured to selectively adjust an amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one resistive heating element, and (Maunoury, Fig. 5A shows switches that control the voltage the electrical resistors receive in a decentralized power control system, configured to adjust voltage based on temperature input, shown as a dotted line labeled “T*” and overvoltage of the electrical network (see Maunoury Abstract).)
a controller electrically connected to the at least one voltage manipulation element of the power supply circuit and configured to regulate the first voltage of the DC power bus, (Maunoury, [0072] “… flow control is preferably implemented by means of pulse width modulation (PWM)… Thus, the power flow diverted to the resistive loads can be controlled.”)
the controller programmed to selectively control the at least one voltage manipulation element in response to the first voltage of the DC power bus being greater than a first threshold voltage to vary an amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one resistive heating element to cause the at least one resistive heating element to convert the amount of the first voltage into heat and thereby regulate overvoltage of the first voltage of the DC power bus, (Maunoury, [0015] “The system comprises a voltage monitoring device for measuring the voltage in the electrical network and detecting whether or not the voltage exceeds a predetermined upper threshold value. The system further comprises a power control device coupled to the voltage monitoring device to receive a voltage measurement result as an input for diverting and regulating the excess power to flow to one or more dissipation devices including resistive loads located in or on the aircraft in a controlled manner when it is detected that the voltage exceeds the upper threshold value. The system further comprises the one or more dissipation devices for transforming electrical power into heat and dissipating the electrical power as thermal power in the resistive loads.”; and Fig. 2 show S20, which dictate what steps to take when measured voltage in the electrical network is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold voltage.)
wherein the at least one voltage manipulation element is connected across the DC power bus and is a gate switch configured to be arranged in an on position and an off position, and (Maunoury, Fig. 5A shows an electrical diagram illustrating the electrical connections between the power source and dissipation devices. The decentralized switches that control the power to the electrical resistance dissipation devices are in parallel.)
wherein the controller is configured to selectively control the gate switch to the on and off positions, (Maunoury, [0072] “… that flow control is preferably implemented by means of pulse width modulation (PWM). This means that when a particular one of the illustrated connections shall be "closed", the power control is achieved by opening and closing the respective power control switches in an alternating manner with a predetermined frequency (duty ratio) rather than having it closed permanently. Thus, the power flow diverted to the resistive loads can be controlled.”)
wherein the controller is configured to send a duty cycle signal to the gate switch indicative of a duty cycle to be applied to the gate switch, (Maunoury, [0072] “… flow control is preferably implemented by means of pulse width modulation (PWM). This means that when a particular one of the illustrated connections shall be "closed", the power control is achieved by opening and closing the respective power control switches in an alternating manner with a predetermined frequency (duty ratio) rather than having it closed permanently.”)
wherein the duty cycle to be applied to the gate switch is equal to a first duration in which the gate switch remains in the on position divided by a total cycle duration of the duty cycle signal, the total cycle duration being the first duration plus a second duration in which the gate switch in is the off position, and (Maunoury, [0072] “…the power control is achieved by opening and closing the respective power control switches in an alternating manner with a predetermined frequency (duty ratio) rather than having it closed permanently” where the “duty ratio” is the ratio of “on” time over total “on and off” time of a switch.)
wherein the duty cycle signal causes the gate switch to move between the on position and the off position such that the gate switch remains in the on position for the first duration such that the desired amount of the first voltage is directed to the at least one resistive heating element during the first duration, and (Maunoury, [0072] “…the power control is achieved by opening and closing the respective power control switches in an alternating manner with a predetermined frequency (duty ratio) rather than having it closed permanently. Thus, the power flow diverted to the resistive loads can be controlled.”)
in the normal mode the duty cycle to be applied to the gate switch is based on a difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage, and [… the duty cycle to be applied to the gate switch is based on both] (a) the difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage and (Maunoury, [0015] “The system further comprises a power control device coupled to the voltage monitoring device to receive a voltage measurement result as an input for diverting and regulating the excess power to flow to one or more dissipation devices including resistive loads located in or on the aircraft in a controlled manner when it is detected that the voltage exceeds the upper threshold value.”; [0058] “…as indicated at step S42, regulation is performed so as to achieve a situation, wherein the measured voltage drops down below the predetermined threshold.”; and Fig. 2 steps S30, S40, S42, S44 shows a cycle to regulate the power flow to the resistive load based on a measured voltage in the electrical network and the threshold voltage.)
Ziebart and Maunoury are analogous art because they are related to managing and regulating power of an aircraft. Ziebart differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not disclose the intentional use of de-icers or heaters to help regulate overvoltage of the aircraft power distribution system using the voltage manipulation elements controlled by a controller, however it teaches the sensors and controllers needed to detect ice on the outside surface of the aircraft, and the power information needed to maintain a first setpoint temperature, and a second setpoint temperature which is indicative of an icing condition that necessitates a second power that is significantly greater than the first power in order to de-ice the surface of the aircraft. Ziebart also teaches calculating temperature profiles for the surfaces associated with heater zones and heaters, and heat loads, including head load due to conduction which is directly tied to power, in order to iteratively solve outer surface temperatures until they converge on values that satisfy icing protection values (see Ziebart, [0034]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller 142 and components designed to adjust the power supplied to the heaters 146 as taught by Ziebart with the PMW and voltage monitoring device responsible for diverting and regulating excess power above a threshold value towards the dissipation devices which transform electrical power into heat using resistance, as taught by Maunoury. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to “protect the aircraft electrical network from overvoltages that may occur” (see Maunoury, Abstract) such as when there is a failure of network management system that will lead to more systems connected to the same amount of electrical generators, such as electrical propulsion engines that regenerate power, leading to “an excess power flow that cannot be consumed otherwise by components of an aircraft” (see Maunoury, [0004]-[0005]).
Claim 3. Modified Ziebart discloses the power distribution system of claim 1.
wherein the gate switch is arranged along an electrical line extending between and electrically connecting a negative side of the DC power bus and the at least one resistive heating element. (Maunoury, Fig. 5A shows the voltage control switches situated between a positive electrical line from the power source and the electrical resistance dissipation devices.)
Ziebart and Maunoury are analogous art because they are related to managing and regulating power of an aircraft. Maunoury differs from the claimed invention only in that it is connected to the positive line instead of the claimed negative line of the resistive load. However, the configurations where a switch is placed on the positive side or the negative side of a resistive load are functionally equivalent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place the switch on the negative side of the resistive load as claimed. Since the applicant has not disclosed that the claimed feature of placing the switch on the negative side of the resistive load solves any problem or is for a particular reason, it appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the switch arranged on the positive side of the resistive load.
Claim 5. Modified Ziebart discloses the power distribution system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to repeatedly send the duty cycle signal to the gate switch so as to repeatedly move the gate switch between the on and off positions at a first frequency. (Maunoury, [0072] “…the power control is achieved by opening and closing the respective power control switches in an alternating manner with a predetermined frequency (duty ratio) rather than having it closed permanently.”)
Claim 10. Modified Ziebart discloses the power distribution system of claim 6, further comprising:
at least one sensor connected to the DC power bus and configured to measure the first voltage of the DC power bus. (Maunoury, [0048] “The voltage monitoring module and the temperature monitoring module are further coupled to the power control device for communicating the results to the power control device. As indicated above, voltage monitoring is, in principle, possible at every position of the aircraft electrical network, because the voltage can be assumed to be equal throughout the network.”; and “Processing starts at step S10, wherein the voltage of the electrical network of the aircraft is monitored through measurement by the voltage monitoring device.”)
Ziebart and Maunoury are analogous art because they are related to managing and regulating power of an aircraft. Ziebart differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose a sensor connected to the electrical network of the aircraft in order to measure or monitor overvoltage of the voltage received from the electrical generators, which corresponds to the claimed first voltage of the DC power bus. However, Maunoury discloses voltage monitoring for the aircraft electrical network. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electrical network of Ziebart with the voltage monitoring devices as taught by Maunoury. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to protect the aircraft electrical network from overvoltages that may occur during operation (see Maunoury, Abstract).
Claim 11. Modified Ziebart discloses the power distribution system of claim 1, further comprising:
at least one additional resistive heating element electrically connected across the at least one DC power bus and arranged within a further component of the aircraft separate from the at least one wing. (Maunoury, [0022] “More specifically, this may be realized by placing the resistive loads of the dissipation devices in the air ducts of the associated electrical propulsion engines. Alternatively, the dissipation devices (resistive loads) could be implemented on the wing of the aircraft. Both implementations get the benefit of the engine airflow or the aircraft airflow as cooling medium” where the engine airduct corresponds with the claimed further component of the aircraft separate from at least one wing; and Fig. 5A shows each electrical resistance dissipation device is connected in parallel with one common power source.)
Claim 12. Ziebart discloses a power distribution system for an aircraft, comprising (Ziebart, Fig. 1 is a block diagram of an aircraft 100, including a power distribution system 112.)
a power supply circuit including at least one DC power bus having a first voltage and (Ziebart, [0019] “The power distribution system 112 converts the electricity received from the electrical generators 122 into electricity usable by components of the systems 114 of the aircraft 100. For example, the power distribution system 112 converts a first portion of the electricity received from the electrical generators 122 into 3-phase alternating current (AC) electricity associated with a first voltage and a second portion of the electricity received from the electrical generators 122 into direct current (DC) electricity associated with a second voltage” where the voltage received from the electrical generators as DC electricity corresponds to the claimed first voltage of the DC power bus.)
To perform its function of converting electricity received from an electrical generator into electricity usable by components, such as converting AC electricity to DC electricity, the power distribution system 112 implies the inclusion of a power supply circuit, which is known to one of ordinary skill in the art as a system that converts alternating current (AC) from the main electricity supply into a more stable, direct voltage (DC) output.
Furthermore, the art establishes the power distribution system as being the source of DC electricity usable by the components of many different systems. To perform its function of distributing DC electricity to multiple downstream systems, the power distribution system 112 implies the inclusion of a DC bus or busbar, which is known to one of ordinary skill in the art as a component which conducts and distributes electricity from a source to multiple circuits, such as those present in multiple downstream systems.
at least one electrical resistive element electrically connected with the at least one DC power bus, and (Ziebart, [0002] “As another example, an electrical ice protection system uses electrical heaters to heat particular aircraft surfaces to reduce icing”; and [0003] “The ice protection system also includes a controller configured to, in response to a first determination indicating presence of an icing condition, determine a setpoint temperature for a first location of an outer surface of the wing configured to be heated by a heater of the one or more heaters.”; and [0029] “The heaters 146 are electro-thermal (e.g., resistance) heaters that are conformed, or are conformable, to portions of the aircraft 100 to be heated to prevent unacceptable icing.”)
wherein the controller includes a processor and a memory with instructions stored therein to operate the controller in a normal mode and a de-icing mode, (Ziebart, [0004] “In another particular implementation, a controller for an ice protection system of an aircraft includes a processor and a memory coupled to the processor. The memory includes instructions executable by the processor. The instructions are executable by the processor to receive data regarding conditions associated with the aircraft from a plurality of sensors. In response to a determination based on the data indicating an icing condition, the instructions are executable by the processor to determine a setpoint temperature for a first location of an outer surface of a slat of a wing of the aircraft”; and [0030] “When the determination by the icing condition determiner 154 indicates that the aircraft 100 is in an icing condition, the icing condition determiner 154 causes the modeler 156 to determine, for each heater zone 204 of each heater 146, a setpoint temperature for the heater zone 204 at the location of the third sensors 148 associated with the heater zone 204. The setpoint temperature is a temperature needed to prevent unacceptable icing on an outer surface of the aircraft 100 associated with the heater zone 204... When the end of the icing condition is detected, the controller 142 causes a stop to the provision of power to the heaters 146 after a particular period of time” where maintaining the setpoint temperature to prevent unacceptable icing on the aircraft corresponds with the claimed de-icing mode, and halting the provision of power to the heaters at the end of the icing condition corresponds with the claimed normal mode.)
in the de-icing mode the controller is configured to selectively control the amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one electrical resistive element based on both [(a)… and] (b) a signal indicative of a need for de-icing a surface of the aircraft. (Ziebart, [0022] “The one or more second sensors 144 provide icing condition data to the controller 142. The icing condition data enables the controller 142 to determine if the aircraft is experiencing an icing condition and allows for a determination of the water content of the outside air.”)
Ziebart does not explicitly disclose at least one voltage manipulation element configured to selectively adjust an amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one resistive heating element, and a controller electrically connected to the at least one voltage manipulation element of the power supply circuit and configured to regulate the first voltage of the DC power bus, the controller programmed to selectively control the at least one voltage manipulation element in response to the first voltage of the DC power bus being greater than a first threshold voltage to vary an amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one resistive heating element to cause the at least one resistive heating element to convert the amount of the first voltage into heat and thereby regulate overvoltage of the first voltage of the DC power bus, […] in the normal mode the controller is configured to selectively control the amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one electrical resistive element based on a difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage, and [… the controller is configured to selectively control the amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one electrical resistive element based on…] (a) the difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage.
a controller electrically connected to the power supply circuit and configured to regulate the first voltage of the DC power bus, (Maunoury, [0072] “… flow control is preferably implemented by means of pulse width modulation (PWM)… Thus, the power flow diverted to the resistive loads can be controlled.”)
the controller being configured to selectively control an amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one electrical resistive element in response to the first voltage being greater than a first threshold voltage to selectively control the amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one electrical resistive element to cause the at least one electrical resistive element to regulate overvoltage of the first voltage of the DC power bus, (Maunoury, [0015] “The system comprises a voltage monitoring device for measuring the voltage in the electrical network and detecting whether or not the voltage exceeds a predetermined upper threshold value. The system further comprises a power control device coupled to the voltage monitoring device to receive a voltage measurement result as an input for diverting and regulating the excess power to flow to one or more dissipation devices including resistive loads located in or on the aircraft in a controlled manner when it is detected that the voltage exceeds the upper threshold value. The system further comprises the one or more dissipation devices for transforming electrical power into heat and dissipating the electrical power as thermal power in the resistive loads.”; and Fig. 2 show S20, which dictate what steps to take when measured voltage in the electrical network is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold voltage.)
in the normal mode the controller is configured to selectively control the amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one electrical resistive element based on a difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage, and [… the controller is configured to selectively control the amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one electrical resistive element based on…] (a) the difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage and (Maunoury, [0015] “The system further comprises a power control device coupled to the voltage monitoring device to receive a voltage measurement result as an input for diverting and regulating the excess power to flow to one or more dissipation devices including resistive loads located in or on the aircraft in a controlled manner when it is detected that the voltage exceeds the upper threshold value.”; [0058] “…as indicated at step S42, regulation is performed so as to achieve a situation, wherein the measured voltage drops down below the predetermined threshold.”; and Fig. 2 steps S30, S40, S42, S44 shows a cycle to regulate the power flow to the resistive load based on a measured voltage in the electrical network and the threshold voltage.)
Ziebart and Maunoury are analogous art because they are related to managing and regulating power of an aircraft. Ziebart differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not disclose the intentional use of de-icers or heaters to help regulate overvoltage of the aircraft power distribution system using the voltage manipulation elements controlled by a controller, however it teaches the sensors and controllers needed to detect ice on the outside surface of the aircraft, and the power information needed to maintain a first setpoint temperature, and a second setpoint temperature which is indicative of an icing condition that necessitates a second power that is significantly greater than the first power in order to de-ice the surface of the aircraft. Ziebart also teaches calculating temperature profiles for the surfaces associated with heater zones and heaters, and heat loads, including head load due to conduction which is directly tied to power, in order to iteratively solve outer surface temperatures until they converge on values that satisfy icing protection values (see Ziebart, [0034]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller 142 and components designed to adjust the power supplied to the heaters 146 as taught by Ziebart with the PMW and voltage monitoring device responsible for diverting and regulating excess power above a threshold value towards the dissipation devices which transform electrical power into heat using resistance, as taught by Maunoury. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to “protect the aircraft electrical network from overvoltages that may occur” (see Maunoury, Abstract) such as when there is a failure of network management system that will lead to more systems connected to the same amount of electrical generators, such as electrical propulsion engines that regenerate power, leading to “an excess power flow that cannot be consumed otherwise by components of an aircraft” (see Maunoury, [0004]-[0005]).
Claim 13. Modified Ziebart discloses the power distribution system of claim 12, further comprising at least one component of the aircraft, wherein the at least one electrical resistive element is coupled with the at least one component of the aircraft. (Ziebart, Fig. 2 shows one of the slats of the aircraft coupled with a plurality of heaters, which may be electro-thermal heaters (see Ziebart, [0029].)
Claim 14. Modified Ziebart discloses the power distribution system of claim 13,
wherein the power supply circuit further includes at least one voltage manipulation element configured to selectively adjust an amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one resistive heating element, and wherein the controller is programmed to selectively control the at least one voltage manipulation element in response to the first voltage of the DC power bus being greater than the first threshold voltage. (Maunoury, Fig. 5A shows multiple gates situated between the electrical resistance dissipation devices and the power supply, which controls the amount of voltage each dissipation device receives from electrical generators according to the steps shown in Fig. 2, particularly S20.)
Ziebart and Maunoury are analogous art because they are related to managing and regulating power of an aircraft. The power distribution system and power supply circuit taught by Ziebart is functionally equivalent to the electrical network taught by Maunoury in that they both receive power from electrical generators, resulting in a “first voltage” of the system. Ziebart differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose a voltage manipulation element configured to adjust the amount of the first voltage directed to at least one heating element. However, Maunoury’s electrical network has been improved similarly as claimed in that it has implemented steps and devices to monitor the voltage of the electrical network as “measured voltage”. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to improve the power distribution system and power supply circuit of Ziebart similarly to Maunoury in order to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such an improvement in order to “protect the aircraft electrical network from overvoltages that may occur” (see Maunoury, Abstract) such as when there is a failure of network management system that will lead to more systems connected to the same amount of electrical generators, such as electrical propulsion engines that regenerate power, leading to “an excess power flow that cannot be consumed otherwise by components of an aircraft” (see Maunoury, [0004]-[0005]).
Claim 15. Modified Ziebart discloses the power distribution system of claim 14,
wherein the at least one voltage manipulation element is connected across the DC power bus and is a gate switch configured to be arranged in an on position and an off position, and (Maunoury, Fig. 5A shows an electrical diagram illustrating the electrical connections between the power source and dissipation devices. The decentralized switches that control the power to the electrical resistance dissipation devices are in parallel.)
wherein the controller is configured to selectively control the gate switch to the on and off positions. (Maunoury, [0072] “… that flow control is preferably implemented by means of pulse width modulation (PWM). This means that when a particular one of the illustrated connections shall be "closed", the power control is achieved by opening and closing the respective power control switches in an alternating manner with a predetermined frequency (duty ratio) rather than having it closed permanently. Thus, the power flow diverted to the resistive loads can be controlled.”)
Claim 16. Modified Ziebart discloses the power distribution system of claim 15,
wherein the controller is configured to send a duty cycle signal to the gate switch indicative of a duty cycle to be applied to the gate switch, (Maunoury, [0072] “… flow control is preferably implemented by means of pulse width modulation (PWM). This means that when a particular one of the illustrated connections shall be "closed", the power control is achieved by opening and closing the respective power control switches in an alternating manner with a predetermined frequency (duty ratio) rather than having it closed permanently.”)
wherein the duty cycle to be applied to the gate switch is equal to a first duration in which the gate switch remains in the on position divided by a total cycle duration of the duty cycle signal, the total cycle duration being the first duration plus a second duration in which the gate switch in is the off position, and (Maunoury, [0072] “…the power control is achieved by opening and closing the respective power control switches in an alternating manner with a predetermined frequency (duty ratio) rather than having it closed permanently” where the “duty ratio” is the ratio of “on” time over total “on and off” time of a switch.)
wherein the duty cycle signal causes the gate switch to move between the on position and the off position such that the gate switch remains in the on position for the first duration such that the desired amount of the first voltage is directed to the at least one resistive heating element during the first duration. (Maunoury, [0072] “…the power control is achieved by opening and closing the respective power control switches in an alternating manner with a predetermined frequency (duty ratio) rather than having it closed permanently. Thus, the power flow diverted to the resistive loads can be controlled.”)
Claim 17. Modified Ziebart discloses the power distribution system of claim 16,
wherein the duty cycle to be applied to the gate switch is based on a difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage. (Maunoury, [0072] “…the power control is achieved by opening and closing the respective power control switches in an alternating manner with a predetermined frequency (duty ratio) rather than having it closed permanently.”)
Claim 18. Modified Ziebart discloses the power distribution system of claim 17,
wherein the first duration in which the gate switch remains in the on position of the duty cycle to be applied to the gate switch is directly proportional to the difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage. (Maunoury, [0063] “As can be seen therefrom, power dissipation starts at a time when the threshold is reached from below and stops at the time when the measured voltage drops back down below the threshold.”)
Claim 19. The power distribution system of claim 18,
wherein the at least one resistive heating element includes a plurality of resistive heating elements arranged within the at least one component, and (Ziebart, Fig. 2 shows a slat of a wing with multiple heater zones; and [0029] “The heaters 146 are electro-thermal (e.g., resistance) heaters that are conformed, or are conformable, to portions of the aircraft 100 to be heated to prevent unacceptable icing.”)
wherein each resistive heating element of the plurality of resistive heating elements includes a corresponding gate switch electrically connected thereto and configured to adjust an amount of the first voltage that flows to the corresponding resistive heating element. (Maunoury, Fig. 5A shows each electrical resistance dissipation device has a corresponding gate voltage control switch to control the electrical flow to the dissipation device.)
Claim 20. A method comprising: providing at least one wing of an aircraft, (Ziebart, Fig. 1 is a block diagram of an aircraft 100, including a power distribution system 112 and wings 106.)
providing a power supply circuit, including providing at least one DC power bus having a first voltage, (Ziebart, [0019] “The power distribution system 112 converts the electricity received from the electrical generators 122 into electricity usable by components of the systems 114 of the aircraft 100. For example, the power distribution system 112 converts a first portion of the electricity received from the electrical generators 122 into 3-phase alternating current (AC) electricity associated with a first voltage and a second portion of the electricity received from the electrical generators 122 into direct current (DC) electricity associated with a second voltage” where the voltage received from the electrical generators as DC electricity corresponds to the claimed first voltage of the DC power bus.)
To perform its function of converting electricity received from an electrical generator into electricity usable by components, such as converting AC electricity to DC electricity, the power distribution system 112 implies the inclusion of a power supply circuit, which is known to one of ordinary skill in the art as a system that converts alternating current (AC) from the main electricity supply into a more stable, direct voltage (DC) output.
Furthermore, the art establishes the power distribution system as being the source of DC electricity usable by the components of many different systems. To perform its function of distributing DC electricity to multiple downstream systems, the power distribution system 112 implies the inclusion of a DC bus or busbar, which is known to one of ordinary skill in the art as a component which conducts and distributes electricity from a source to multiple circuits, such as those present in multiple downstream systems.
electrically connecting at least one resistive heating element with the at least one DC power bus, (Ziebart, Fig. 1 shows the heating elements 145 part of the primary systems 128 are connected to the power distribution system 112; and [0029] “The heaters 146 are electro-thermal (e.g., resistance) heaters that are conformed, or are conformable, to portions of the aircraft 100 to be heated to prevent unacceptable icing.”)
coupling the at least one resistive heating element with the at least one wing of the aircraft, and (Ziebart, Fig. 2 shows a slat of the wing of the aircraft and a plurality of heaters.)
the controller being programmed to selectively control the at least one voltage manipulation element in (1) a normal mode […] and (2) in a de-ice mode […] (Ziebart, [0030] “When the determination by the icing condition determiner 154 indicates that the aircraft 100 is in an icing condition, the icing condition determiner 154 causes the modeler 156 to determine, for each heater zone 204 of each heater 146, a setpoint temperature for the heater zone 204 at the location of the third sensors 148 associated with the heater zone 204. The setpoint temperature is a temperature needed to prevent unacceptable icing on an outer surface of the aircraft 100 associated with the heater zone 204... When the end of the icing condition is detected, the controller 142 causes a stop to the provision of power to the heaters 146 after a particular period of time” where maintaining the setpoint temperature to prevent unacceptable icing on the aircraft corresponds with the claimed de-icing mode, and halting the provision of power to the heaters at the end of the icing condition corresponds with the claimed normal mode.)
Ziebart does not explicitly disclose arranging at least one voltage manipulation element in the power supply circuit that is configured to selectively adjust an amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one resistive heating element, and electrically connecting a controller to the at least one voltage manipulation element of the power supply circuit the controller being configured to regulate the first voltage of the DC power bus, the controller being programmed to selectively control the at least one voltage manipulation element in [(1) a normal mode in] response to the first voltage of the DC power bus being greater than a first threshold voltage to selectively control the amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one resistive heating element to cause the at least one resistive heating element to convert the amount of the first voltage into heat and thereby regulate overvoltage of the first voltage of the DC power bus and [(2) in a de-ice mode in response to] (a) the first voltage of the DC power bus being greater than a first threshold voltage and/or (b) a signal indicative of a need for anti-ice heating of a surface to selectively control the amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one resistive heating element to cause the at least one resistive heating element to convert the amount of the first voltage into heat and thereby regulate overvoltage of the first voltage of the DC power bus and/or to manage icing of a surface.
arranging at least one voltage manipulation element in the power supply circuit that is configured to selectively adjust an amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one resistive heating element, and (Maunoury, Fig. 5A shows switches that control the voltage the electrical resistors receive in a decentralized power control system, configured to adjust voltage based on temperature input, shown as a dotted line labeled “T*” and overvoltage of the electrical network (see steps in Maunoury, Fig. 2).)
electrically connecting a controller to the at least one voltage manipulation element of the power supply circuit, the controller being configured to regulate the first voltage of the DC power bus, (Maunoury, [0072] “… flow control is preferably implemented by means of pulse width modulation (PWM)… Thus, the power flow diverted to the resistive loads can be controlled.”)
the controller being programmed to selectively control the at least one voltage manipulation element in [(1) a normal mode in] response to the first voltage of the DC power bus being greater than a first threshold voltage to selectively control the amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one resistive heating element to cause the at least one resistive heating element to convert the amount of the first voltage into heat and thereby regulate overvoltage of the first voltage of the DC power bus and [(2) in a de-ice mode in response to] (a) the first voltage of the DC power bus being greater than a first threshold voltage and/or (b) a signal indicative of a need for anti-ice heating of a surface to selectively control the amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one resistive heating element to cause the at least one resistive heating element to convert the amount of the first voltage into heat and thereby regulate overvoltage of the first voltage of the DC power bus and/or to manage icing of a surface. (Maunoury, [0015] “The system comprises a voltage monitoring device for measuring the voltage in the electrical network and detecting whether or not the voltage exceeds a predetermined upper threshold value. The system further comprises a power control device coupled to the voltage monitoring device to receive a voltage measurement result as an input for diverting and regulating the excess power to flow to one or more dissipation devices including resistive loads located in or on the aircraft in a controlled manner when it is detected that the voltage exceeds the upper threshold value. The system further comprises the one or more dissipation devices for transforming electrical power into heat and dissipating the electrical power as thermal power in the resistive loads.”; and Fig. 2 show S20, which dictate what steps to take when measured voltage in the electrical network is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold voltage. The Examiner notes for the purpose of examination, the use of “and/or” claim language is considered as “or” and may not be examined.)
Ziebart and Maunoury are analogous art because they are related to managing and regulating power of an aircraft. Ziebart differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not disclose the intentional use of de-icers or heaters to help regulate overvoltage of the aircraft power distribution system using the voltage manipulation elements controlled by a controller, however it teaches the sensors and controllers needed to detect ice on the outside surface of the aircraft, and the power information needed to maintain a first setpoint temperature, and a second setpoint temperature which is indicative of an icing condition that necessitates a second power that is significantly greater than the first power in order to de-ice the surface of the aircraft. Ziebart also teaches calculating temperature profiles for the surfaces associated with heater zones and heaters, and heat loads, including head load due to conduction which is directly tied to power, in order to iteratively solve outer surface temperatures until they converge on values that satisfy icing protection values (see Ziebart, [0034]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller 142 and components designed to adjust the power supplied to the heaters 146 as taught by Ziebart with the PMW and voltage monitoring device responsible for diverting and regulating excess power above a threshold value towards the dissipation devices which transform electrical power into heat using resistance, as taught by Maunoury. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to “protect the aircraft electrical network from overvoltages that may occur” (see Maunoury, Abstract) such as when there is a failure of network management system that will lead to more systems connected to the same amount of electrical generators, such as electrical propulsion engines that regenerate power, leading to “an excess power flow that cannot be consumed otherwise by components of an aircraft” (see Maunoury, [0004]-[0005]).
Claim 21. Modified Ziebart discloses the power distribution system of claim 12,
wherein de-icing mode of the controller has a high need setting in which the amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one electrical resistive element is greater than the amount of the first voltage directed to the at least one electrical resistive element under conditions with an equivalent difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage, and a low need setting in which the amount of the first voltage that is directed to the at least one electrical resistive element is less than or equal to the amount of the first voltage directed to the at least one electrical resistive element under conditions with the equivalent difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage. (Ziebart, [0019] “For typical icing conditions, the power load determined by the power load manager 124, which includes the power load due to the use of the ice protection system 102, is not enough to violate the specified power criteria. But if the icing conditions are severe (e.g., the water content of the outside air is high), the power load determined by the power load manager 124, which includes the power load due to the use of the ice protection system 102, can violate the specified power criteria (e.g., by exceeding the threshold percentage). Exceeding the threshold percentage can result in the power load manager 124 sending signals to the power distribution system 112, to controllers of one or more of the secondary systems 130, or both, that cause suspension or reduction of power available to one or more of the secondary systems 130, so that sufficient power is available to operate the ice protection system 102.”)
Claims 7-9 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziebart et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20230202660 A1, in further view of Maunoury, EP Patent Application Publication No. 4134260 A1 and in further view of Rozman, US Patent Application Publication No. 20200076340 A1.
Claim 7. Modified Ziebart discloses the power distribution system of claim 1.
Modified Ziebart does not explicitly disclose wherein the first duration in which the gate switch remains in the on position of the duty cycle to be applied to the gate switch is directly proportional to the difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage.
Rozman teaches wherein the first duration in which the gate switch remains in the on position of the duty cycle to be applied to the gate switch is directly proportional to the difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage. (Rozman, [0017] “According to any prior disclosed embodiment of a unit, a duty cycle of the PWM signal is proportional to a difference between the feedback voltage and the reference voltage.”)
Ziebart, Maunoury and Rozman are analogous art because they are related to managing and regulating power of an aircraft. Modified Ziebart differs than the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose the program that operates the gate switch. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the PWM control of Maunoury with the proportional duty cycle control taught by Rozman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because comparing the feedback voltage to the reference voltage allows the controller to control the switches even when the load is variable, leading to stable voltage regulation of the electrical network (see Rozman, [0044]). This is simply the application of a known technique to a known piece of art ready for improvement (see MPEP 2143 C).
Claim 8. Modified Ziebart discloses the power distribution system of claim 7.
wherein the at least one resistive heating element includes a plurality of resistive heating elements arranged within the at least one wing, and (Ziebart, Fig. 2 shows a slat of a wing with multiple heater zones; and [0024] “The heaters 146 are electro-thermal (e.g., resistance) heaters that are conformed, or are conformable, to portions of the aircraft 100 to be heated to prevent unacceptable icing.”)
wherein each resistive heating element of the plurality of resistive heating elements includes a corresponding gate switch electrically connected thereto and configured to adjust an amount of the first voltage that flows to the corresponding resistive heating element. (Maunoury, Fig. 5A shows each electrical resistance dissipation device has a corresponding gate voltage control switch to control the electrical flow to the dissipation device.)
Claim 9. Modified Ziebart discloses the power distribution system of claim 8,
wherein the plurality of resistive heating elements include at least one group of at least two resistors arranged in parallel. (Maunoury, Fig. 5A shows the electrical resistance dissipation devices arranged in parallel between each wing.)
Ziebart and Maunoury are analogous art because they are related to managing and regulating power of an aircraft. Ziebart differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose the plurality of heaters used in the wings as being arranged in parallel. However, Maunoury shows control of multiple heat generating dissipation devices arranged in parallel connected to a common power source. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the arrangement of the heaters in each wing as taught by Ziebart with the parallel arrangement used to control multiple dissipation devices as taught by Maunoury. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to proper and reliable operation as it is desirable for the resistive loads to be distributed rather than centralized in a single resistive load for redundancy, enabling the system to “dissipate more excess power in the resistive loads that are better cooled down” and allowing the system to “be able to stop supply power to any overheated resistive load and direct the excess power flow to the others” (see Maunoury, [0038]).
Claim 22. Modified Ziebart discloses the power distribution system of claim 7,
wherein the de-icing mode of the controller has a high need setting in which the first duration in which the gate switch remains in the on position of the duty cycle to be applied to the gate switch is greater than directly proportional to the difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage. (Ziebart, [0030] “When the determination by the icing condition determiner 154 indicates that the aircraft 100 is in an icing condition, the icing condition determiner 154 causes the modeler 156 to determine, for each heater zone 204 of each heater 146, a setpoint temperature for the heater zone 204 at the location of the third sensors 148 associated with the heater zone 204. The setpoint temperature is a temperature needed to prevent unacceptable icing on an outer surface of the aircraft 100 associated with the heater zone 204...”; and [0019] “For typical icing conditions, the power load determined by the power load manager 124, which includes the power load due to the use of the ice protection system 102, is not enough to violate the specified power criteria. But if the icing conditions are severe (e.g., the water content of the outside air is high), the power load determined by the power load manager 124, which includes the power load due to the use of the ice protection system 102, can violate the specified power criteria (e.g., by exceeding the threshold percentage). Exceeding the threshold percentage can result in the power load manager 124 sending signals to the power distribution system 112, to controllers of one or more of the secondary systems 130, or both, that cause suspension or reduction of power available to one or more of the secondary systems 130, so that sufficient power is available to operate the ice protection system 102.”)
Claim 23. Modified Ziebart discloses the power distribution system of claim 22,
wherein the de-icing mode of the controller has a low need setting in which the first duration in which the gate switch remains in the on position of the duty cycle to be applied to the gate switch is less than or equal to directly proportional to the difference between the first voltage and the first threshold voltage. (Ziebart, [0030] “When the determination by the icing condition determiner 154 indicates that the aircraft 100 is in an icing condition, the icing condition determiner 154 causes the modeler 156 to determine, for each heater zone 204 of each heater 146, a setpoint temperature for the heater zone 204 at the location of the third sensors 148 associated with the heater zone 204. The setpoint temperature is a temperature needed to prevent unacceptable icing on an outer surface of the aircraft 100 associated with the heater zone 204... When the end of the icing condition is detected, the controller 142 causes a stop to the provision of power to the heaters 146 after a particular period of time” where maintaining the setpoint temperature to prevent unacceptable icing on the aircraft corresponds with the claimed high need setting, and halting the provision of power to the heaters at the end of the icing condition corresponds with the claimed low need setting.)
In the case where no power, or 0 volts, is being directed to the resistive heating elements, meaning the first duration that the gate switch remains in the ON position is 0 seconds, in other words the gate switch is in the ON position 0% of the time during the period of the duty cycle, Ziebert’s teachings of stopping the provision of power to the heaters fulfills the claimed “less than or equal to the proportional difference between first voltage and first voltage threshold” language in the claims as written.
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 KRYSTENE NHELLE B MACEDA whose telephone number is (571)272-2380. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/K.B.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights