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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/14/2023 and 12/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the limitation “attenuate an overvoltage…”. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “attenuate the overvoltage…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected because it comprises TWO periods. Only one “.” Can be used in a claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected because of the limitation “a generator” in line 4. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “the generator”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected because of the limitation “a GCU” in line 5. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “the GCU”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 2, 7, 13-17 and 19-20 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the GCU is configured to cause voltage division of the generator output between the GCU and the heater element if an overvoltage is detected to protect one or more GCU electrical components” renders the claim indefinite.
First, it is unclear whether “voltage division of the generator output between the GCU and the heater element” refers to “attenuate an overvoltage by directing at least at a portion of the generator output to a heater element”. The limitations appear to refer to the same claimed subject and it is suggested to amend the limitations to use consistent terminology in the claims.
Second, it is unclear how claim 2 further limit claim 1 if recited limitation in claim 2 only rephrase the limitation recited in claim 1. The phrase “to protect one or more GCU electrical components” is intended use of the GCU, does not structurally or functionally limit the claimed system.
Third, it is not clear whether “one or more GCU electrical components” is part of the generator system and/or generator control unit.
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “PMG output line” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “PMG” stand for permanent magnet generator line. If PMG refers to permanent magnet generator output line, how does it further limit “the generator line” without positively recite the generator is a permanent magnet generator. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the GCU is configured to cause voltage division of the generator output between the GCU and the heater element if an overvoltage is detected” renders the claim indefinite.
It is unclear whether “voltage division of the generator output between the GCU and the heater element” refers to “attenuate an overvoltage by directing at least at a portion of the generator output to a heater element”. The limitations appear to refer to the same claimed subject and it is suggested to amend the limitations to use consistent terminology in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 14-19, the claims either directly or indirectly depend on claim 13; thus, indefinite in view of foregoing reason(s).
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “a permanent magnet generation of the generator” renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of the limitation is unclear. For examination purpose, the limitation is broadly interpreted as “permanent magnet generator”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is indefinite because it is dependent on claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rozman (US 5,194,801).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-6, Rozman discloses a generator system (e.g. Fig. 1), comprising: a generator control unit (GCU) (e.g. Fig. 1: 10) configured to control a generator output of a generator (e.g. Fig. 1: permanent magnet generator 20),
wherein the GCU is configured to:
monitor the generator output for overvoltage (e.g. Fig. 1: output 24 induced by generator 20); and
attenuate an overvoltage (e.g. col 3 lines 17-69) by directing at least a portion of the generator output to a heater element (e.g. Fig. 1: 80, 82).
Regarding claim 2, Rozman discloses the GCU is configured to cause voltage division of the generator output between the GCU and the heater element (e.g. Fig. 1: 80, 82, 14) if an overvoltage is detected to protect one or more GCU electrical components (e.g. col 1 lines 20-27: overvoltage causes damage to aircraft components).
Regarding claim 8, Rozman discloses the generator includes a controllable voltage generator (e.g. Fig. 1: 40, 22, 24) controlled by the GCU to output a controlled voltage (e.g. Fig. 1: output of rectifier 54).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozman (US 5,194,801).
Regarding claim 3, Rozman discloses a divider switch (e.g. Fig. 1: 80) configured to be disposed between the heater element (e.g. Fig. 1: 82) and a generator output line (e.g. Fig. 1: 14) to selectively electrically communicate the generator output line with the heater element (e.g. Fig. 1: switch 80 in series with resistor 82; although the switch is not disposed between the output line and the resistor, the switch functionally the same as the claimed invention).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disposed the switch of Rozman in the manner the same as the claimed invention since the switch provide the equivalent function as the claimed invention so long it is in series with the resistor, and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, Rozman discloses the heater element is connected to the divider switch controlled by the GCU to selectively form a voltage divider between the GCU and the heating element (e.g. Fig. 1: 80, 82, 14; selectively control by the switch).
Regarding claim 7, Rozman discloses the generator output line is a PMG output line (e.g. Fig. 1: 14).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozman (US 5,194,801) in view of Spierling (EP 2426813 A1) and Senthilnathan et al. (US 2022/0281613 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Rozman discloses the heater element (e.g. Fig. 1: 82) of the controllable voltage generator (Fig. 1: 40, 22, 24).
Rozman fails to disclose, but Spierling teaches the heater element is a main stator heater (e.g. Fig. 3A: 38R) of a generator system of an aircraft, and Senthilnathan suggests heat dissipated by resistor in overvoltage condition can be used for thermal heating (e.g. [0026]) in an aircraft system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the stator heater of Spierling as heating element for dissipating excess power when overvoltage is detected. All the claimed elements are disclosed in the prior art. The modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in art since it would have been obvious to try to combine the elements to achieve the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Spierling teaches a ram air turbine (RAT) (e.g. [0016]) operatively connected to the generator to drive the generator (e.g. [0024-0025]).
Regarding claim 11, Senthilnathan teaches the generator is a variable frequency generator (VFG) (e.g. Senthilnathan: [0024, 0026]: variable-frequency drive motor that behaves as generator).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spierling (EP 2426813 A1) in view of Senthilnathan et al. (US 2022/0281613 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Spierling discloses a system (e.g. Fig. 3A), comprising:
a generator (e.g. Figs. 1-3: 14, 30, 32 & [0024-0025]);
a ram air turbine (RAT) (e.g. [0016]) operatively connected to the generator to drive the generator (e.g. [0024-0025]);
a generator control unit (GCU) (e.g. Fig. 3A: 64) configured to control a generator output (e.g. Fig .3A: 62) of a generator.
Spierling discloses all the elements of the claimed invention except monitoring overvoltage and directing a portion of the output to a heater element, but Senthilnathan teaches it is known to: monitor the generator output for overvoltage; and attenuate an overvoltage by directing at least a portion of the generator output to a heater element (e.g. [0026]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Spierling with the teachings of Senthilnathan to utilize the stator heater to dissipate excess power as heat to prevent damage to power circuit and efficiently utilize the thermal energy generated by a heating element.
Claim(s) 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spierling (EP 2426813 A1) in view of Senthilnathan et al. (US 2022/0281613 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Rozman (US 5,194,801).
Regarding claim 13, Spierling and Senthilnathan in combination fails to disclose, but Rozman teaches the GCU (e.g. Fig. 1: 10) comprises a rectifier (e.g. Fig. 1: 74, 54), wherein the GCU is configured to cause voltage division (e.g. Fig. 1: 80, 82, 14) of the generator output (e.g. Fig. 1: output 24 induced by generator 20) between the GCU and the heater element (e.g. Fig. 1: 80, 82) if an overvoltage (e.g. col 3 lines 17-69) is detected to protect the rectifier of the GCU (e.g. col 1 lines 20-27: overvoltage causes damage to aircraft components; thus, including rectifier).
Spierling, Senthilnathan and Rozman disclose a generator system of an aircraft. Spierling further teaches the use of a resistor as stator heater (e.g. Fig. 3A: 38R), Senthilnathan suggests heat dissipated by resistor in overvoltage condition can be used for thermal heating (e.g. [0026]), and Rozman further teaches how the generator system detect overvoltage and dissipate excess power into heat with resistor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the stator heater of Spierling as heating element for dissipating excess power when overvoltage is detected. All the claimed elements are disclosed in the prior art. The modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in art since it would have been obvious to try to combine the elements to achieve the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Rozman teaches the GCU further comprises a controller (e.g. Fig. 1: 10, 120, 62) configured to receive voltage and current inputs (e.g. Abstract) from the generator (e.g. Fig. 1: 20) and output an excitation command (e.g. Fig. 1: 72).
Regarding claim 15, Rozman teaches the GCU includes an exciter drive (e.g. Fig. 1: 70) connected to the controller to receive the excitation command from the controller, wherein the controller is configured to control the exciter drive to output an excitation signal as a function of the excitation command.
Regarding claim 16, Rozman teaches the generator includes a controllable voltage generator (e.g. Fig. 1: 40, 22, 24) connected to the exciter drive of the GCU to receive the excitation signal and output a controlled voltage.
Regarding claim 17, Spierling, Senthilnathan and Rozman in combination discloses the heater element (e.g. Spierling: Fig. 3A: 38R; Senthilnathan: [0026]; Rozman: Fig. 1: 80, 82), wherein the heater element is a main stator heater (e.g. Spierling: Fig. 3A: 38R) of the controllable voltage generator (e.g. Spierling: Fig. 3A: 30).
Regarding claim 18, Spierling, Senthilnathan and Rozman in combination discloses the claimed system (see rejection of claims 12-13), and Senthilnathan further teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer executable instructions configured to cause a computer to execute a method (e.g. [0210, 0211].
Regarding claim 19, Spierling and Senthilnathan in combination discloses receiving GCU power from a permanent magnet generation of the generator (e.g. Spierling: Fig. 1: PMG output 62) and controlling a variable frequency generator (VFG) of the generator with the GCU (e.g. Senthilnathan: [0024, 0026]: variable-frequency drive motor that behaves as generator).
Regarding claim 20, Spierling, Senthilnathan and Rozman in combination discloses dividing voltage between the resistive heater element (e.g. Fig. 1: 80, 82, 14) includes dividing voltage between a main stator heater (see rejection of claim 13: Spierling, Senthilnathan and Rozman in combination discloses stator heater 38R of Spierling could be used as resistive heater element for overvoltage) of the VFG and the GCU.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/KAWING CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846