DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the application filed on January 09, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim 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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 introduces new 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. Specifically, Amended claim 1 recites “a self-tuning engine estimation module in signal communication with the nominal engine estimation module to receive calibration adjustments output from the nominal engine estimation module… the self-tuning engine estimation module is configured to determine a performance change of the gas turbine engine based on the estimated nominal engine parameters output from the nominal engine estimation module, and is configured to track a health of the gas turbine engine based on the performance change” (emphasis added).
The specification as filed does not support that a performance change of the gas turbine engine is determined based on the estimated nominal engine parameters output from the nominal engine estimation module. According to the specification, a performance change is determined by performance assessment module 304, which is included in the self-tuning engine estimation module 108. Self-tuning engine estimation module 108 outputs estimated engine parameters P*est (via closed loop model 202). As is clearly shown in Figure 2, P*est parameters from self-tuning module 108 are utilized in determining a ∆P*, which is used by 300 in determinations by 300, 302 to ultimately determine the performance assessment (see ¶¶0037-0041, 0046 and Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
703
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 is annotated and reproduced above; the nominal engine estimation module 106 is highlighted with a darker grey and Self-tuning engine estimation module 108, a lighter gray.
However, in the specification the nominal engine estimation module 106 outputs engine estimated parameters Pest via open loop model 200 thereof (which are distinct from the P*est parameters output from the self-tuning engine estimation module 108; Figure 2). The engine estimated parameters Pest output by the nominal engine estimation module are not said to be utilized in the determining the performance change of the gas turbine engine, nor is this this shown to be the case in Figure 2. Rather, the only the aspect from the nominal engine estimation model 106 shown or said to be in communication with the self-tuning engine estimation module 108 are the now claimed calibration adjustments, which are not the engine estimated parameters Pest output from the nominal engine estimation module 106.
Measured parameters Pmas from the sensors 104 are distinct from Pest and P*est. Figure 2 shows these measured are utilized in determining ∆P* in the self-tuning module 108.
Figure 2 also shows that “Estimated Engine Parameters” are output from self-tuned model 202 and such “Estimated Engine Parameters” are input into performance assessment module 304 (These “Estimated Engine Parameters” just discussed are annotated “A…” in the Image above).
Nothing in the application as filed supports that engine estimated parameters Pest from the nominal engine estimation module 106 form any basis for the performance assessment module 304. Applicant has not sufficiently pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “a performance change of the gas turbine engine is determined based on the estimated nominal engine parameters output from the nominal engine estimation module” in the application as filed.
Claims 2-10 depend from Claim 1 and fail to comply with the written description requirement for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to Claim 1, the limitation “wherein the self-tuning engine estimation module is configured to determine a performance change of the gas turbine engine based on the estimated nominal engine parameters output from the nominal engine estimation module” renders the claim indefinite. The claim language makes the claim take on an unreasonable degree on uncertainty.
According to the specification, a performance change is determined by performance assessment module 304, which is included in the self-tuning engine estimation module 108. Self-tuning engine estimation module 108 outputs estimated engine parameters P*est (via closed loop model 202). As is clearly shown in Figure 2, P*est parameters from self-tuning module 108 are utilized in determining a ∆P*, which is used by 300 in determinations by 300, 302 to ultimately determine the performance assessment (see ¶¶0037-0041, 0046 and Figure 2). Measured parameters Pmas from the sensors 104 are utilized in determining ∆P* in the self-tuning module 108. Figure 2 also shows that “Estimated Engine Parameters” are output from self-tuned model 202 and such “Estimated Engine Parameters” are input into performance assessment module 304 (These “Estimated Engine Parameters” are annotated “A…” in the Image above). One of ordinary skill would not consider any of these aspects to be “based on” the estimated nominal engine parameters (Pest) output from the nominal engine estimation module (106) in view of the specification, which raises question as to what “based on” in the context of the claim and specification implies. In view of the foregoing, it is not clear how the self-tuning engine estimation module is configured to determine a performance change of the gas turbine engine based on the estimated nominal engine parameters output from the nominal engine estimation module.
See MPEP § 2173.03. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
As to Claim 5, “the closed-loop self-tuned engine model” at line 6 lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the scope of the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the claim includes an error in dependency (e.g., should depend from claim 2 or 3 or 4) and if not, whether the ‘closed loop self-tuned engine model’ forms part of “the nominal estimate module” in view of claim 5 lines 1-2 or is comprised in another module such as a self-tuned engine estimation module (e.g., consonant with Claim 2). As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.
As to Claim 9, “the operating conditions of the gas turbine engine” at lines 2-3 renders the claim indefinite. It is note clear if the recitation refers to: (i) the aforementioned ‘identified one or more engine operating conditions’ (claims 5, 6, 8); or (ii) other operating conditions of the engine that are not ‘engine operating conditions’ (e.g., ambient conditions).
Claims 2-4, 6-8 and 10 are rejected as depending from, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, at least one rejected indefinite claim.
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-20170146976-A1
“VOLPONI”
US-20190277155-A1
“DOWDELL”
US-20170370790-A1
“HETTLER”
Prior Art Discussion
Prior art does not appear to teach or suggest the limitation “wherein the self-tuning engine estimation module is configured to determine a performance change of the gas turbine engine based on the estimated nominal engine parameters output from the nominal engine estimation module and is configured to track a health of the gas turbine engine based on the performance change.” in combination with the other limitations of independent Claim 1. This limitation however raises issues under 35 U.S.C. 112 as noted above and therefore, the most relevant combination of prior art to Claim 1 is discussed below.
VOLPONI in view of DOWDELL and/or HETTLER
Re Claim 1, VOLPONI teaches an engine model calibration system comprising:
a gas turbine engine 100 configured to operate according to one or more engine operating parameters (¶¶0019-0020);
a sensor 215 configured to monitor the gas turbine engine and output measured parameters indicative of the one or more engine operating parameters (¶0020);
a nominal engine estimation module [230, 250, 270] including an open-loop nominal engine model 230 configured to output estimated nominal engine parameters 231 indicative of the one or more engine operating parameters (¶¶0021-0023); and
wherein the nominal engine estimation module is configured to identify one or more engine operating conditions of the gas turbine engine (steady, quasi-steady, or transient state) based on the one or more engine operating parameters (¶¶0027-0028, 0019-0020, 0023) and is configured to selectively update the open-loop nominal engine model based on the identified one or more engine operating conditions (¶¶0021, 0027-0028),
a self-tuning engine estimation module [240, 260] in signal communication with the nominal engine estimation module to receive calibration adjustments output from the nominal engine estimation module (¶¶0024-0025).
However, VOLPONI fails to teach wherein the self-tuning engine estimation module is configured to determine a performance change of the gas turbine engine based on the estimated nominal engine parameters output from the nominal engine estimation module and is configured to track a health of the gas turbine engine based on the performance change.
DOWDELL teaches a self-tuning engine estimation module 100 is configured to determine a performance change of a gas turbine engine is configured to track a health of the gas turbine engine based on the performance change (Figure 3; ¶¶0048-0064). However, the performance change is not based on estimated nominal engine parameters output from a nominal engine estimation module as claimed (e.g., where the estimated nominal engine parameters are output by an open-loop model of the nominal engine estimation module), but may be based on sensor data (¶0054). HETTLER likewise teaches a self-tuning engine estimation module (of process flow block 200) is configured to determine a performance change of a gas turbine engine is configured to track a health of the gas turbine engine based on the performance change (¶¶0035, 0046-0047). However, the performance change is not based on estimated nominal engine parameters output from a nominal engine estimation module as claimed (e.g., where the estimated nominal engine parameters are output by an open-loop model of the nominal engine estimation module). Neither DOWDELL or HETTLER would suggest the self-tuning engine estimation module of VOLPONI would be configured to determine the performance change of the gas turbine engine based on the estimated nominal engine parameters output from the nominal engine estimation module and is configured to track a health of the gas turbine engine based on the performance change, in particular since VOLONI also includes measured parameters and a tuned model 240.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks of 06/27/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendment overcame the previous rejections except the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) that are repeated above. Applicant did not argue the repeated rejections specifically. Applicant’s arguments to the rejections overcome by amendment are moot.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection above.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON H DUGER whose telephone number is (313) 446-6536. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30a to 4:30p Monday through Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DEVON KRAMER can be reached on (571) 272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JASON H DUGER
PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 3741
PHONE (313) 446 6536
FAX (571) 270 9083
DATE
October 4, 2025
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights