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 § 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, 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, it is unclear whether “voltage division of the generator output between the GCU and the heater element” refers to “control switching of a first portion of the generator …to attenuate the overvoltage” as recited in claim 1. 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 13 and 19, 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 “control switching of a first portion of the generator …to attenuate the overvoltage” as recited in claim 12 and/or claim 18. 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 14-17, the claims either directly or indirectly depend on claim 13; thus, indefinite in view of foregoing reason(s).
Regarding claim 20, the claim either directly or indirectly depend on claim 19; thus, indefinite in view of foregoing reason(s).
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) provided to the GCU; and
control switching of a first portion of the generator output to a heater element (e.g. Fig. 1: 80, 82) while continuing to receive a second portion of the generator output at the GCU (e.g. Figs. 1-2 & col 3 line 57 to col 4 line 17: DC voltage as shown in Fig. 2 as line 100 is reduced by activating resistor 82 and transistor 80, and the reduced DC voltage is shown as solid line from point 104 to 108; since the DC voltage is reduced but not removed, it inherently disclosed a portion of the output passed through resistor 82 and transistor 80, and a portion of the output pass through DC bus 14) to attenuate the overvoltage (e.g. col 3 lines 17-69).
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 the overvoltage is detected to protect one or more electrical components within the GCU (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 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 (e.g. Fig. 1: 82) is connected to the divider switch (e.g. Fig. 1: 80); and the divider switch (e.g. Fig. 1: 80) is configured to be controlled by the GCU (e.g. Fig. 1: 1, 130) 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).
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) 12-20 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 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 provided to the GCU; 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.
Spierling and Senthilnathan in combination fails to disclose, but Rozman teaches control switching of a first portion of the generator output to a heater element (e.g. Fig. 1: 80, 82) while continuing to receive a second portion of the generator output at the GCU (e.g. Figs. 1-2 & col 3 line 57 to col 4 line 17: DC voltage as shown in Fig. 2 as line 100 is reduced by activating resistor 82 and transistor 80, and the reduced DC voltage is shown as solid line from point 104 to 108; since the DC voltage is reduced but not removed, it inherently disclosed a portion of the output passed through resistor 82 and transistor 80, and a portion of the output pass through DC bus 14) to attenuate the overvoltage (e.g. col 3 lines 17-69).
Senthilnathan silent on how to implement a circuitry to dissipate overvoltage by a heater element, and Rozman teaches a known in the art circuitry to solve the problem. It would have been obvious and merely routine skill in the art to add a parallelly connected resistor and transistor as taught by Rozman in the circuitry of Senthilnathan to attenuate overvoltage.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Spierling and Senthilnathan with the teachings of Rozman to achieve the claimed invention, since it is merely utilizing known circuitry in a known device ready for improvement. The modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art.
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 and configured 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 and configured 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 generator (e.g. Spierling: Fig. 1: PMG output 62) and controlling a variable frequency generator (VFG) of the permanent magnet 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 controlling the switching includes 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 claims 12-13: 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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozman (US 5,194,801) in view of Sinn (CN 104995837 A).
Regarding claim 21, Rozman discloses the divider switch comprises a switch (e.g. Fig. 1: 80) connected to an aircraft control bus (e.g. Fig. 1: 14 & col 1 lines 14-20: power generation system of an aircraft), the switch configured to enable control of the heater element (e.g. Fig. 1: 82) by an aircraft control system (e.g. Fig. 1: 10, 130).
Rozman fails to disclose, but Sinn teaches the divider switch comprises a double pole switch (e.g. claim 6: known in the art of protective device to use double-pole transistor or MOSFET as switching element).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Rozman with the teachings of Sinn to utilize double-pole transistor as taught by Sinn in the invention of Rozman, since it is merely simple substitutions of one known element with another.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly added limitations in claim(s) s 1, 12 and 18 have been considered but are moot in view of updated rejections based on Rozman. Rozman at least in Figs. 1-2 & col 3 lines 17-69 discloses the newly added limitations. Thus, the claims are unpatentable in view of Rozman and/or in view of combination of Spierling, Senthilnathan and Rozman as set forth in current Office action.
Claims 2-6, 8-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are unpatentable at least in view of foregoing reasons similar to claims 1, 12 and 18.
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 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 2837
Prosecution Insights