DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the application filed on January 26, 2023. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 17, 2025 has been entered.
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.
[continued on next page]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15 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, “to store analog coded identification (ID) information of auxiliary power unit…” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “auxiliary power unit” refers to (i) the aforementioned auxiliary power unit; or (ii) another auxiliary power unit. As such, metes and bounds of the analog coded identification (ID) information are not clear.
As to Claim 1, “a serial number of the auxiliary power unit” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if ‘the auxiliary power unit’ is: (i) the auxiliary power unit of the previous line (of the identification (ID) information); or (ii) the auxiliary power unit recited at line 2.
As to Claim 8, “the auxiliary power unit” (line 10) lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear whether this recitation refers to the aforementioned turbine engine.
As to Claim 8, “to store analog coded identification (ID) information of auxiliary power unit…” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “auxiliary power unit” (lines 11-12) refers to (i) the aforementioned auxiliary power unit of; or (ii) another auxiliary power unit. As such, metes and bounds of the analog coded identification (ID) information are not clear.
As to Claim 8, “a serial number of the auxiliary power unit” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if ‘the auxiliary power unit’ is: (i) the auxiliary power unit recited at line 10; or (ii) the auxiliary power unit recited at lines 11-12.
Claims 2-7 and 9-15 depend from and fail to cure the deficiencies of a rejected 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-5033010-A
“LAWRENCE”
US-7325401-B1
“KESSELI”
US-20100275575-A1
“BROWN”
US-20030187554-A1
“HENRY”
This action references the following non-patent documents:
AUTHOR OR EDITOR
TITLE (DATE),
PUBLISHER,
EDITION
CHAPTERS / PAGES
COPY
HEREINAFTER
MICROCHIP
Digital Potentiometers Design Guide (2016),
ALL
PROVIDED HEREWITH
“MICROCHIP”
ANALOG DEVICES
Resolution Enhancements of Digital Potentiometers with Multiple Devices (2001),
ANALOG DEVICES,
AN-582
ALL
PROVIDED HEREWITH
“AN-582”
ANALOG DEVICES
Digital Potentiometers (2009),
ANALOG DEVICES,
MT-091
ALL
PROVIDED HEREWITH
“MT-091”
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, 8, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAWRENCE in view of MICROCHIP and KESSELI.
Re Claim 1, LAWRENCE teaches an aircraft (4:55-57) comprising:
an auxiliary power unit [APU including its transducers] (Figure 1, 5:48-52);
a controller 44; and
an identification module [40; Figure 4 embodiment] comprising a connector [110, 112] and a plurality of digital components [inter alia 82, 83, 86] (formed on a chip 84) to store information about the auxiliary power unit and readable by the controller (6:28-36, 14:3 to 15:2), wherein the connector is configured to electrically connect the identification module to the auxiliary power unit (via ECU 44, 90, 92, 94, 96, 98; 8:51-68, 10:60-66), and to program the plurality of digital components via the controller to store coded identification (ID) information of auxiliary power unit [“data stored in the storing means”] and coded information indicative of a serial number [“serial number of the turbine engine”] of the auxiliary power unit (6:28-36, 8:51-68, 9:67 to 10:14, 10:51-66, 14:3 to 15:2). However, LAWRENCE fails to teach the digital components are digital potentiometers.
MICROCHIP teaches a plurality of digital potentiometers formed on a chip (e.g., a dual or quad digital potentiometer device having non-volatile EEPROM memory; pp. 1, 14-16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the identification module of LAWRENCE such that it includes a plurality digital potentiometers to store information about the auxiliary power unit and readable by the controller and wherein the connector is configured to program the plurality of digital potentiometers via the controller, in order to store data of the auxiliary power unit (LAWRENCE 14:44-49; MICROCHIP p. 6) and/or such that signal processing techniques may be applied to data by the identification module (LAWRENCE 14:3-43, 14:50 to 15:2 MICROCHIP p. 6, 14-23). However, LAWRENCE in view of MICROCHIP as discussed so far fails to teach the coded identification information is analog and the information indicative of serial number is binary.
With respect to the coded identification information, LAWRENCE teaches stored coded identification information may include transducer information and that the data can take many forms (14:3 to 15:17, 16:1-25), including data stored from multiple transducer types that would suggest analog coded data to one of ordinary skill (e.g., see 6:1-36, 7:41-55). KESSELI teaches transducer information may be analog coded information (7:24-63). Likewise, with respect to the information indicative of serial number, LAWRENCE teaches storing binary coded information for an engine identification code (15:1-16, stored on binary EEPROM) and MICROCHIP teaches storing binary coded information indicative of serial number (p. 6; stored on binary EEPROM). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the aircraft so the connector is configured to program the plurality of digital potentiometers via the controller to store analog coded identification (ID) information of auxiliary power unit and binary coded information indicative of a serial number of the auxiliary power unit, in order to maintain an engine history and identifiers as taught by LAWRENCE (as described in one example 14:3 to 16:67). It has been held that [when] all the claimed elements were known in the prior art (in the instant case, analog data and binary data) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (storing analog coded identification (ID) information and binary coded information indicative of a serial number) with no change in their respective functions (storing data to maintain an engine history and identifiers), and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (data stored according to its measurement type and data stored on a binary storage medium), it would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976). See MPEP § 2143 (I) A. The above modification would have provided an advantageous engine history function in permanent association with the engine (LAWRENCE 16:1-25) and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in that various types of data may be stored in LAWRENCE (LAWRENCE 14:3-15, 14:16-49 16:1-25).
Re Claim 8, LAWRENCE teaches a system (4:55-57) comprising:
a turbine engine of an aircraft [APU including its transducers] (Figure 1, 5:48-52);
a controller 44; and
an identification module [40; Figure 4 embodiment] comprising a plurality of digital components [inter alia 82, 83, 86] (formed on a chip 84) to store information about the turbine engine and readable by the controller (6:28-36, 14:3 to 15:2), wherein the connector [110 and 112] is configured to electrically connect the identification module to the gas turbine engine (via ECU 44, 90, 92, 94, 96, 98; 8:51-68, 10:60-66), and to program the plurality of digital components via the controller to store coded identification (ID) information of auxiliary power unit [“data stored in the storing means”] and coded information indicative of a serial number [“serial number of the turbine engine”] of the auxiliary power unit (6:28-36, 8:51-68, 9:67 to 10:14, 10:51-66, 14:3 to 15:2). However, LAWRENCE fails to teach the digital components are digital potentiometers.
MICROCHIP teaches a plurality of digital potentiometers formed on a chip (e.g., a dual or quad digital potentiometer device having non-volatile EEPROM memory; pp. 1, 14-16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the identification module of LAWRENCE such that it includes a plurality digital potentiometers to store information about the turbine engine and readable by the controller and wherein the connector is configured to program the plurality of digital potentiometers via the controller, in order to store data of the turbine engine (LAWRENCE 14:44-49; MICROCHIP p. 6) and/or such that signal processing techniques may be applied to data by the identification module (LAWRENCE 14:3-43, 14:50 to 15:2 MICROCHIP p. 6, 14-23). However, LAWRENCE in view of MICROCHIP as discussed so far fails to teach the coded identification information is analog and the information indicative of serial number is binary.
With respect to the coded identification information, LAWRENCE teaches stored coded identification information may include transducer information and that the data can take many forms 14:3 to 15:17, 16:1-25), including data stored from multiple transducer types that would suggest analog coded data to one of ordinary skill (e.g., see 6:1-36, 7:41-55). KESSELI teaches transducer information may be analog coded information (7:24-63). Likewise, with respect to the information indicative of serial number, LAWRENCE teaches storing binary coded information for an engine identification code (15:1-16, stored on binary EEPROM) and MICROCHIP teaches storing binary coded information indicative of serial number (p. 6; stored on binary EEPROM). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system so the connector is configured to program the plurality of digital potentiometers via the controller to store analog coded identification (ID) information of auxiliary power unit and binary coded information indicative of a serial number of the auxiliary power unit, in order to maintain an engine history and identifiers as taught by LAWRENCE (14:3 to 16:67). It has been held that [when] all the claimed elements were known in the prior art (in the instant case, analog data and binary data) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (storing analog coded identification (ID) information and binary coded information indicative of a serial number) with no change in their respective functions (storing data to maintain an engine history and identifiers), and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (data stored according to its measurement type and data stored on a binary storage medium), it would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976). See MPEP § 2143 (I) A. The above modification would have provided an advantageous engine history function in permanent association with the engine (LAWRENCE 16:1-25) and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in that various types of data may be stored in LAWRENCE (LAWRENCE 14:3-15, 14:16-49 16:1-25).
Re Claims 6, 13 & 14, LAWRENCE in view of MICROCHIP and KESSELI teaches the aircraft of claim 1 and system of claim 8, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein at least one of the plurality of digital potentiometers stores a serial number associated with the auxiliary power unit that is a turbine engine, and wherein at least one other of the plurality of digital potentiometers stores dynamic information associated with the auxiliary power unit that is a turbine engine.
LAWRENCE further teaches storing a serial number associated with the auxiliary power unit that is a turbine engine (14:44-50) and further storing dynamic information associated with the auxiliary power unit that is a turbine engine 4:58 to 5:15,14:3 to 15:2) and MICROCHIP further teaches storing information using the plurality of digital potentiometers including system information and serial numbers (p. 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the aircraft and system wherein at least one of the plurality of digital potentiometers stores a serial number associated with the auxiliary power unit that is a turbine engine, and wherein at least one other of the plurality of digital potentiometers stores dynamic information associated with the auxiliary power unit that is a turbine engine, in order to store as build data and store/process operational data such as faults and fatigue cycles (LAWRENCE 4:58 to 5:15,14:3 to 15:2, MICROCHIP p. 6).
Claims 2-4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAWRENCE in view of MICROCHIP and KESSELI as applied above, further in view of AN-582.
Re Claims 2 & 9, LAWRENCE in view of MICROCHIP and KESSELI teaches the aircraft of claim 1 and system of claim 8, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the plurality of digital potentiometers are arranged in a parallel configuration.
AN-582 teaches a plurality of digital potentiometers are arranged in a parallel configuration (pp. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plurality of digital potentiometers are arranged in a parallel configuration, to optimize resolution and/or resistance (AN 582 p. 1).
Re Claims 3 & 10, LAWRENCE in view of MICROCHIP and KESSELI teaches the aircraft of claim 1 and system of claim 8, as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the plurality of digital potentiometers are arranged in a series configuration.
AN-582 teaches a plurality of digital potentiometers are arranged in a series configuration (pp. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plurality of digital potentiometers are arranged in a series configuration, to optimize resolution and/or resistance (AN 582 p. 1).
Re Claims 4 & 11, LAWRENCE in view of MICROCHIP and KESSELI teaches the aircraft of claim 1 and system of claim 8, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the plurality of digital potentiometers comprises a first subset of digital potentiometers connected in parallel with each other and a second subset of potentiometers connected in series with each other wherein the first subset is connected in parallel with the second subset.
AN-582 teaches a first subset of digital potentiometers connected in parallel with each other (p. 1) and a second subset of potentiometers connected in series with each other (pp. 1-2) and further teaches users can stack parallel or cascade multiple digital potentiometers to optimize resolution and application (p. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the aircraft and system wherein the first and second subsets are cascaded in parallel such that the first subset is connected in parallel with the second subset, and the first subset of digital potentiometers connected in parallel with each other and the second subset of potentiometers connected in series with each other, in order to optimize resolution and/or resistance and/or adjustment coarseness (pp. 1-2). It has been held that [when] all the claimed elements were known in the prior art (in the instant case, digital potentiometers) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (provided the four potentiometers such that two of the four are in series with one another and two of the four are in parallel with each and also with the two in series) with no change in their respective functions (signal processing), and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (cascaded digital potentiometers), it would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976). See MPEP § 2143 (I) A.
Claims 5 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAWRENCE in view of MICROCHIP and KESSELI as applied above, further in view of MT-091.
Re Claims 5 & 12, LAWRENCE in view of MICROCHIP and KESSELI teaches the aircraft of claim 1 and the system of claim 8, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein at least one of the plurality of digital potentiometers is a reprogrammable digital potentiometer, and wherein at least one other of the plurality of digital potentiometers is a fusible digital potentiometer.
MT-091 teaches at least one of the plurality of digital potentiometers is a reprogrammable digital potentiometer, and wherein at least one other of the plurality of digital potentiometers is a fusible digital potentiometer (pages 3-5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein at least one of the plurality of digital potentiometers is a reprogrammable digital potentiometer, and wherein at least one other of the plurality of digital potentiometers is a fusible digital potentiometer, in order to overwrite if desired (e.g., operational data) and make permanent unchanged data (e.g., serial number). See MT-091 pages 3-5 and LAWRENCE ¶¶0025-0027.
Claims 7 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAWRENCE in view of MICROCHIP and KESSELI as applied above, further in view of APPLICANT ADMITTED PRIOR ART (“AAPA”) and BROWN.
Re Claims 7 & 15, LAWRENCE in view of MICROCHIP and KESSELI teaches the aircraft of claim 6, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the dynamic information associated with the auxiliary power unit comprises an exhaust gas temperature trim or a torque trim.
LAWRENCE further teaches dynamically updating information (14:2-15). AAPA teaches information monitored by legacy aircraft input to the EEC and stored included exhaust gas temperature trim and torque trim (SPEC ¶0033). BROWN teaches it was known to dynamically update trim values, including for exhaust gas temperature (Figure 3, ¶¶0019-0020, 0024-0025, 0033-0035) consonant with LAWRENCE. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the aircraft and system such that the dynamic information associated with the auxiliary power unit/turbine engine comprises an exhaust gas temperature trim, in order to advantageously perform condition based and/or predictive maintenance (LAWRENCE 14:3-43, 14:50 to 15:2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejections art not persuasive. The new grounds of rejection teach every aspect of the amended claims as fully set forth above. The transducer information between stored in LAWRENCE would have been obvious to store as analog code where the transducers are analog. Likewise, a serial number would be obvious to store in binary format on a binary storage medium such as EEPROM.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian, can be reached on (571) 270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of 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
December 13, 2025
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741