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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Girard et al., US Pg. Pub. No. (2021/0140338) referred to hereinafter as Girard.
As per claim 1, Girard teaches a method of operation, comprising: determining a parameter of an aircraft engine of an aircraft (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8); comparing the parameter to a threshold using a monitoring unit controller onboard the aircraft, the threshold established by an electrical resistance of a circuit component onboard the aircraft which is external to the monitoring unit controller (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8); and initiating an action using the monitoring unit controller where the parameter is greater than or equal to the threshold (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8).
As per claim 2, Girard teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the circuit component is discrete from the monitoring unit controller (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8).
As per claim 3, Girard teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the circuit component comprises an electronic configuration plug electrically coupled to the monitoring unit controller (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8).
As per claim 4, Girard teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the circuit component comprises a wire harness electrically coupled to the monitoring unit controller (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8).
As per claim 5, Girard teaches a method of claim 1, further comprising: changing the threshold by replacing the circuit component with a second circuit component (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8); wherein an electrical resistance of the second circuit component is different than the electrical resistance of the circuit component (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8).
As per claim 6, Girard teaches a method of claim 5, wherein the changing of the threshold comprises increasing the threshold (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8).
As per claim 7, Girard teaches a method of claim 5, wherein the changing of the threshold comprises decreasing the threshold (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8).
As per claim 8, Girard teaches a method of claim 5, wherein the action is initiated during an aircraft flight; and the threshold is changed following the aircraft flight during maintenance of the aircraft (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8).
As per claim 9, Girard teaches a method of claim 5, wherein the circuit component is replaced with the second circuit component without disassembling the monitoring unit controller (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8).
As per claim 10, Girard teaches a method of claim 5, wherein the circuit component is replaced with the second circuit component without removing the monitoring unit controller from the aircraft (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8).
As per claim 11, Girard teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the parameter comprises vibrations (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8).
As per claim 12, Girard teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the action comprises a notification to at least one of an operator of the aircraft engine or maintenance personnel (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8).
As per claim 13, Girard teaches a method of claim 1, further comprising: measuring a second parameter of the aircraft engine using a sensor (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8); and communicating a signal from the sensor to an engine controller for the aircraft engine, the signal indicative of the second parameter (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8); the action comprising altering the signal between the sensor and the engine controller using the monitoring unit controller to trigger a response by the engine controller (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8).
As per claim 14, Girard teaches a method of claim 13, wherein the response comprises initiating a notification to at least one of an operator of the aircraft engine or maintenance personnel (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8).
As per claim 15, Girard teaches a method of claim 13, wherein the response comprises altering operation of the aircraft engine (see at least abstract, summary, Para 16. 20, 22, 39, 40, and figs. 3-4, 6-8).
As per claims 16-20, the limitations of claims 16-20 are similar to the limitations of claims 1-15, therefore they are rejected based on the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Please refer to form 892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSSA A SHAAWAT whose telephone number is (313)446-6592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/MUSSA A SHAAWAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights