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 Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding claim 1, para. 3-7, the recitation - controlling (E7) an extinction of the combustion chamber of the gas turbine;
- controlling the at least one power shaft to rotate at a second operating speed (N2) by driving the at least one power shaft via the reversible electric machine electrically powered and operating in a motor mode for a second predetermined duration (t3), wherein the second operating speed (N2) is lower than the first operating speed (N1); …” is believed to be in error for
- - controlling (E7) [[an]]the extinction of the combustion chamber of the gas turbine;
- controlling the at least one power shaft to rotate at a second operating speed (N2) by driving the at least one power shaft via the reversible electric machine electrically powered and operating in a motor mode for [[a]]the second predetermined duration (t3), wherein the second operating speed (N2) is lower than the first operating speed (N1) - -
Regarding claim 5, para. 8, term “an extinction of a combustion chamber of the gas turbine” is believed to be in error for - - extinguishing the is believed to be in error for - - [[a]]the second predetermined duration - -
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitations and the corresponding structures from the specification are:
electric power supply means in claims 1 and 5-6 comprising a battery as per p. 10, ll. 1-2;
setpoint control means, actuation means, extinguishing control means, means for keeping the power shaft rotating at a second operating speed (N2), and stoppage control means in claim 5 raise 112b issues, see interpretations below;
comparison means in claim 6 raise 112b issues, see interpretations below.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations and the corresponding structures from the specification is : an electrical generation control (E6) in claims 1 and 5 raise 112b issue, see interpretations below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 and 3-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, even in the light of the specification, term “required” of the recitation “an electrical generation control (E6) controls the gas turbine at a required mechanical power level” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what standard is used to evaluate/determine a power level is a required power level, e.g., a standard related to the claimed electrical energy level, or any other standards, and what physical structure or algorithm(s) is required for the claimed electrical generation control to control the gas turbine at the claimed required mechanical power level.
Specifically, i) according to p. 9, ll. 18-30 and Figs. 5-6, specification discloses that at step E3, the gas turbine operates at a first speed (N1 in Fig. 6) that is lower than a rated speed (Nref in Fig. 6) for a predetermined duration (t2 in Fig. 6) for cooling, wherein the first speed (N1 in Fig. 6) is between 50% and 70% of the rated speed (Nref in Fig. 6) and the predetermined duration (t2 in Fig. 6) is between 30 and 120 seconds, i.e., the mechanical power level of the gas turbine during the duration t2 needs to satisfy the cooling requirement;
ii) according to from p. 9, l. 30 to p. 10, l. 18 and Figs. 5-6, specification ONLY discloses that at steps E4-E6, verifying whether the electrical energy level of the power supply means 8 is enough for the electric machine 7 to drive the gas turbine for a second predetermined duration (t3 in Fig. 6), if the electrical energy level is not enough, i.e., lower than a threshold, the electric machine 7 is operated in generator mode during the predetermined duration (t2 in Fig. 6) to increase the electrical energy level of the power supply means 8, i.e., the gas turbine drives the electric machine 7 in the duration t2 (see Fig. 6) to increase the electrical energy level of the power supply mean, which does NOT mean the electrical energy level reaches the threshold at the end of duration t2;
iii) the specification also does NOT disclose whether any of the mechanical power level of the gas turbine during the predetermined duration t2 and/or the length of the predetermined duration t2 is adjusted in order to ensure the electrical energy level reaches the threshold at the end of duration t2, i.e., it is unclear whether the mechanical power level of the gas turbine in the duration t2 need to satisfy the cooling requirement and the charging requirement;
iv) thus, even in the light of the specification, it is unclear what standard is used to define a mechanical power level is the claimed required mechanical power level, and it is also unclear the claimed electrical generation control is required to comprise what physical structure or algorithm(s) to be able to control the gas turbine at the claimed required mechanical power level, as stated above.
Regarding claim 5 and its dependents,
I) terms “setpoint control means”, “actuation means”, “extinguishing control means”, “means for keeping the power shaft rotating at a second operating speed (N2)”, and “stoppage control means” render the claim indefinite because these terms invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically,
a) on p. 8, ll. 15-25, the specification discloses that an control means 16 in Fig. 4, i.e., the claimed setpoint control means, is configured to initiate the progressive stoppage of engine and is able to generate a setpoint signal to an actuation means 17 in Fig. 4; however, it is unclear what structure or an equivalent thereof the claimed control means has to perform the claimed function, i.e., generating a stoppage setpoint of the at least one turbogenerator, e.g., a processor and a memory configured to perform a setpoint control algorithm or a physical structure: a speed switch;
b) on p. 8, ll. 15-25, the specification discloses that the actuation means 17 in Fig. 4, i.e., the claimed actuation means, is coupled to the gas turbine 2 and is configured to reduce the rated operating speed of the shaft 3 to a first operating speed; however, it is unclear what structure or an equivalent thereof the claimed actuation means has to perform the claimed function, i.e., switching, for a first predetermined duration (t2), the rated operating speed (Nref) of the power shaft to a first operating speed (N1) lower than the rated operating speed (Nref), e.g., a processor and a memory configured to perform actuation algorithm or a physical structure: a fuel metering assembly or a fuel pump;
c) on p. 9, ll. 5-6, p. 10, l. 18, p. 11, ll. 13-16, p. 4, ll. 16-19, and p. 3, ll. 24-30, the specification discloses that a control means 19 in Fig. 4, i.e., the claimed extinguishing control means, coupled to the combustion chamber 6 to stop the combustion chamber by stopping fuel injection that performed in step E7 in Fig. 5; however, it is unclear what structure or an equivalent thereof the claimed extinguishing control means has to perform the claimed function, i.e., extinguishing a combustion chamber of the gas turbine, e.g., a processor and a memory configured to perform extinguishing algorithm or a physical structure: a shut-off valve, a bypass valve, or a motor of fuel pump, etc.,
d) on p. 9, ll. 7-10 and p. 10, ll. 19-21, the specification discloses that a holding means 20 in Fig. 4, i.e., the claimed means for keeping the power shaft rotating at a second operating speed, is configured to make the electric machine 7 operate in the motor mode to rotate the power shaft when the fuel is no longer injected into combustion chamber 6; however, it is unclear what structure or an equivalent thereof the claimed means for keeping the power shaft rotating at a second operating speed has to perform the claimed function, i.e., operating the reversible electric machine in a motor mode and driving the power shaft at a second operating speed, e.g., a processor and a memory configured to perform keeping the power shaft rotating algorithm or a physical structure: a clutch or an electrical relay;
e) on p. 9, ll. 10-12 and p. 10, ll. 25-31, the specification discloses that a control means 22 in Fig. 4, i.e., the claimed stoppage control means, is configured to progressively stop the electric machine 7; however, it is unclear what structure or an equivalent thereof the claimed stoppage control means has to perform the claimed function, i.e., progressively stopping the electric machine, e.g., a processor and a memory configured to perform stoppage algorithm or a physical structure: a brake assembly;
It is also noted that it is unclear whether “the stoppage control means” also performs additional claimed functions, i.e., verifying (i).. and (ii), see rejection below.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
II) the colon and the sub-paragraphs of the recitation “stoppage control means configured to: - stop the drive of the power shaft …; and -verify (E4, E5), following the stoppage control (E1), and before controlling an extinction of a combustion chamber of the gas turbine, (i)… and (ii)…” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claimed function, i.e., verify (E4 and E5), …, is a function performed by a) the stoppage control means (may raise 112a issue); or b) a different means (a comparison means as discussed by the specification and claimed in claim 6);
III) term “the stoppage control (E1)” that is followed by verifying step (E4 and E5) lakes antecedent basis, and it is unclear whether it refers to a) the previously claimed generating stoppage setpoint signal step; or b) the previously claimed progressive stoppage of rotation step;
IV) even in the light of specification, term “required” of the recitation “control the gas turbine at a required mechanical power level … for generating the electric power” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what standard is used to evaluate/determine a power level is a required power level, e.g., a standard related to the claimed electrical energy level, or any other standards, see details in 112b rejection for claim 1 above, and it is also unclear the claimed electrical generation control is required to comprise what physical structure or algorithm(s) to be able to control the gas turbine at the claimed required mechanical power level, as stated above.
Regarding claim 6, term “comparison means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, according to p. 8, l. 26 to p. 9, l. 5 of the specification, a comparison means 18 in Fig. 4, i.e., the claimed comparison means, performs claimed verifying steps E4 and E5, and coupled to and make the electric machine 7 to operate in the generator mode; however, it is unclear what structure or an equivalent thereof the claimed comparison means has to perform the claimed functions, i.e., verifying, following the generation of the stoppage setpoint signal, an electrical energy level of the electric power supply means, and if the electrical energy level is lower than a threshold value, the reversible electric machine is able to generate, for the first predetermined duration (t2), an electric power able to be stored in the electric power supply means, e.g., a processor and a memory configure to perform a comparing algorithm or a physical structure: a clutch/relay for make the electric machine 7 operate in the claimed generator mode.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
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, 3, 5-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SWANN 20220042465 in view of MARIOTTO 20200173372.
Regarding claim 1, SWANN teaches the invention as claimed: a method for stoppage (started at determining descent mode in Fig. 5 according to an electrical energy level, see Fig. 5 and [0075], and stopped at parking at the gate, see [0075]) at least one turbogenerator (engine 110 in Fig. 3, which has the same configuration of engine 5 in Fig. 2) for an aircraft (1 in Fig. 3), the at least one turbogenerator (engine 110 in Fig. 3, which has the same configuration of the engine 5 in Fig. 2) comprising a reversible electric machine ( motor-generator 28, see Fig. 2 and [0035]) coupled to a gas turbine (engine 110 in Fig. 3, which has the same configuration of the engine 5 in Fig. 2 that is a gas turbine) through at least one power shaft (shaft 24, see Fig. 2 and [0035]) initially in a rated operating speed (the operating speed before starting operating the engine 110 at the second descent mode in Fig. 5, e.g., cruise speed), the method comprising:
- controlling a stoppage of the at least one turbogenerator (by starting to determine which descent mode, i.e., the first descent mode or the second descent mode, to select, at “determine descent mode” in Fig. 5);
- verifying (starts at “determine required electrical energy” in Fig. 6), following the stoppage control (the “determine required electrical energy” in Fig. 6 occurs after the “determine descent mode” in Fig. 5, see [0075]), and before controlling an extinction of a combustion chamber of the gas turbine (the extinction of the combustion chamber occurs during ground taxiing after landing, and the “determine required electrical energy” in Fig. 6 occurs during descent, per [0069], which is before said extinction), (i) an electrical energy level of an electric power supply means (a charge state of battery 30, see [0076]) and (ii) that the reversible electric machine (the motor-generator 28, [0035]) is capable of driving the at least one power shaft (shaft 24) for a second predetermined duration (a predetermined duration for ground taxiing, which indicates the electric energy requirement for ground taxiing after landing, see [0075]) without injecting fuel into the combustion chamber (per [0069], the motor-generator 28 is operated in the motor mode to drive the engine 110 during the ground taxiing mode without combusting fuel);
- if the electrical energy level (the charge state of the battery 30) is lower than a threshold value (the electric energy requirement for the ground taxiing mode after landing), an electrical generation control (an electrical generation step per [0078]) controls the gas turbine at a required mechanical power level (the second descent mode) and controls the reversible electric machine in a generator mode (operate 28 as generator) for the generation of an electric power for a first predetermined duration (a second descent mode operating time, which starts at the initial of the second descent mode and ends at touching the runway, see [0077]), able to be stored in the electric power supply means (battery 30, see [0077-0078] and Figs. 5-6) to increase the electrical energy level until said electrical energy level (the charge state of the battery 30) to be equal to or greater than the threshold value (the electric energy requirement for the ground taxiing mode after landing, see [0077-0078]; it is noted that gas turbine is operated at the second descent mode, which is the required mechanical power level to satisfy the power demand for descent and the power demand for recharging);
- switching from the rated operating speed (the operating speed before starting operating the engine 110 at the second descent mode) of the at least one power shaft (the shaft 24) to a first operating speed (the operating speed of the second descent mode, which is determined by the required mechanical power level to satisfy the power demand for descent and the power demand for charging) lower than the rated operating speed (e.g., the cruise speed), for the first predetermined duration (the second descent mode operating time, which starts at the initial of the second descent mode and ends at touching the runway, see [0078], and said second descent mode operating time is a duration determined according to the distance of descent, e.g., from the aircraft to the runway, the power demand for the descent mode, i.e., how fast the aircraft descends, and the charging requirement, see [0077-0078]);
- controlling an extinction of the combustion chamber of the gas turbine (operating the engine 110 at the ground taxiing mode after landing without combusting fuel, i.e., the combustion chamber is extinguished by cutting off fuel supply, see [0069]);
- controlling the at least one power shaft (shaft 24) to rotate at a second operating speed (the operating speed of the ground taxiing mode) by driving the at least one power shaft (shaft 24) via the reversible electric machine (the motor-generator 28, [0035]) electrically powered by the electric power supply means (battery 30, [0035]) and operating in a motor mode ([0069]) for a second predetermined duration (the operating time of the ground taxiing mode), wherein the second operating speed (the operating speed of the ground taxiing mode) is lower than the first operating speed (the operating speed of the second descent mode); and
- controlling a stoppage of the reversible electric machine (28) to no longer drive the at least one power shaft (24; after parking at the gate, the engine may be stopped, i.e., stop rotating the power shaft 24, which comprises at least cutting off the electricity provided to the motor 28).
SWANN does not teach controlling said stoppage of said reversible electric machine to no longer drive said at least one power shaft and cause a progressive stoppage of said rotation of said at least one power shaft.
However, MARIOTTO teaches a turbogenerator (see Fig. 2) for an aircraft ([0002]) comprising a reversible electric machine (50 and [0091]) coupled to a gas turbine (13) through at least one power shaft (the shaft rotated by the turbine 15, Fig. 2) and a brake coupled to the at least one power shaft ([0038-0039]),
wherein during a cooling process (under order ORD1 between 1.5 to 2 minute in Fig. 6, [00120]), the reversible electric machine (50) operates in a motor mode ([0131]) to rotate the at least one power shaft for a predetermined duration (the limited duration under order ORD1 in Fig. 6, which is 0.5 minute) without injecting fuel into the combustion chamber (the order ORD1 cuts off the supply of fuel, [0131]), and
the reversible electric machine (50) is controlled to be stop and no longer drive the at least one power shaft (at the end of order ORD1, e.g., at the 2 minute in Fig. 6, the electrical machine is switched off, see [0131]) and the brake ([0038-0039]) causes a progressive stoppage of the rotation of the at least one power shaft ([0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide SWANN with MARIOTTO’s brake to cause a progressive stoppage of the rotation of the at least one power shaft because it is noted, “the use of a known prior art structure, in this case the use of a brake on a power shaft as taught by MARIOTTO, to obtain predictable results, in this case to progressively stop the rotation of the power shaft as taught by MARIOTTO, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings”, MPEP 2141(III)(A).
Regarding claim 3, SWANN in view of MARIOTTO teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above.
SWANN in view of MARIOTTO does not teach the first predetermined duration is comprised between 30 and 120 seconds, and during which the first operating speed is comprised between 50 and 70% of the rated operating speed of the at least one power shaft of the gas turbine.
The combination for rejection of claim 1 as discussed above teaches operating the gas turbine at the first operating speed at the second descent mode, which is determined by the required mechanical power level satisfying the power demand for descent and the power demand for charging, for the first predetermined duration, which is determined by the distance of the descent, the power demand of descent, and the charging requirement, to increase the electrical energy level of the electric power supply means until said electrical energy level is equal to or greater than the threshold value, which is the electric energy requirement for the ground taxiing mode after landing. A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977).
Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the first operating speed and the first predetermined duration are results-effective variables that control the electrical energy level, i.e., higher operating speed needs shorter duration and lower operating speed needs longer duration. Thus, the claimed limitation, “the first predetermined duration is comprised between 30 and 120 seconds and the first operating speed is comprised between 50 and 70% of the rated operating speed of the at least one power shaft of the gas turbine”, is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the first predetermined duration of SWANN in view of MARIOTTO to be between 30 and 120 seconds and modifying the first operating speed of SWANN in view of MARIOTTO to be between 50 and 70% of the rated operating speed, as it involves only adjusting the amount of fuel provided to the gas turbine of SWANN in view of MARIOTTO as taught by SWANN ([0057]).
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the claimed first predetermined duration comprised between 30 and 120 seconds, and the claimed first operating speed being between 50 and 70% of the rated operating speed of the at least one power shaft of the gas turbine, as it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation as suggested by SWANN ([0076-0078]).
Examiner note: due to the ambiguity of claim 5, limitation, “- stoppage control means configured to:
- stop the drive of the power shaft by the reversible electric machine and thus enable a progressive stoppage of the rotation of the power shaft; and
- verify (E4, E5), following the stoppage control (E1), and before controlling (E7) an extinction of a combustion chamber of the gas turbine, (i) an electrical energy level of an electric power supply means and (ii) that the reversible electric machine is capable of driving the power shaft for a second predetermined duration (t3) without injecting fuel into the combustion chamber”
is interpreted as stoppage control means configured to stop the drive of the power shaft by the reversible electric machine and thus enable a progressive stoppage of the rotation of the power shaft and an additional component other than the stoppage control means is configured to verify, following the stoppage control, and before controlling an extinction of a combustion chamber of the gas turbine, (i) an electrical energy level of an electric power supply means and (ii) that the reversible electric machine is capable of driving the power shaft for a second predetermined duration (t3) without injecting fuel into the combustion chamber, i.e., said additional component is the comparison means later claimed in claim 6.
Regarding claim 5, SWANN teaches the invention as claimed: a device (a control system, see abstract) for stopping (started at determining descent mode in Fig. 5 according to an electrical energy level, see Fig. 5 and [0075], and stopped at parking at the gate, see [0075]) at least one turbogenerator (engine 110 in Fig. 3, which has the same configuration of engine 5 in Fig. 2) for an aircraft (1 in Fig. 3), the at least one turbogenerator (engine 110 in Fig. 3, which has the same configuration of the engine 5 in Fig. 2) comprising an electric machine (motor-generator 28, see [0035]) coupled to a gas turbine (engine 110 in Fig. 3, which has the same configuration of the engine 5 in Fig. 2 that is a gas turbine) through a power shaft (shaft 24, see Fig. 2 and [0035]) initially in a rated operating speed (the operating speed before starting operating the engine 110 at the second descent mode in Fig. 5, e.g., cruise speed),
the device (the control system) comprising:
- setpoint control means able to generate a stoppage setpoint signal of the at least one turbogenerator (a setpoint algorithm that is carried by the control system and is able to start determining which descent mode, i.e., the first descent mode or the second descent mode, is selected, “determine descent mode” in Fig. 5 in the second descent mode);
- actuation means able to switch (an actuation algorithm that is carried by the control system and is able to switch the operation mode of the engine 110), for the first predetermined duration (the second descent mode operating time, which starts at the initial of the second descent mode and ends at touching the runway, see [0078], and said second descent mode operating time determined according to the distance of descent, e.g., from the aircraft to the runway, the power demand for descent, i.e., how fast the aircraft descends, and the charging requirement, see [0077-0078]), the rated operating speed (the operating speed before starting operating the engine 110 at the second descent mode, e.g., cruise speed) of the power shaft (the shaft 24) to a first operating speed (the operating speed of the second descent mode, which is determined by the required mechanical power level satisfying the power demand for descent and the power demand for charging), lower than the rated operating speed (e.g., the cruise speed);
- extinguishing control means (an extinguishing algorithm that is carried by the control system and is able to extinguishing the combustor) for extinguishing the combustion chamber of the gas turbine (operating the engine 110 at the ground taxiing mode after landing without combusting fuel, i.e., the combustion chamber is extinguished by cutting off fuel supply, see [0069]);
- means (a keep rotation algorithm that is carried by the control system and is able to operate 28 as the motor) for keeping the power shaft (shaft 24) to rotate at a second operating speed (the operating speed of the ground taxiing mode) by driving the power shaft (shaft 24) via the reversible electric machine (the motor-generator 28, [0035]) electrically powered (by (battery 30, [0035]) and operating in a motor mode ([0069]) for a second predetermined duration (the operating time of the ground taxiing mode, which is the predetermined duration used to determine whether to operate the gas turbine in the second descent mode, Fig. 6 and [0075-0077]), the power shaft (24) being in the second operating speed (the operating speed of the ground taxiing mode) lower than the first operating speed (the operating speed of the second descent mode), and
- stoppage control means (a motor stoppage control algorithm that is carried by the control system and is able to stop the motor 28, e.g., cutting off the electricity provided to the motor 28) configured to:
- stop the drive of the power shaft by the reversible electric machine (28; after parking at the gate, the engine may be stopped, i.e., stop rotating the power shaft 24, which comprises at least cutting off the electricity provided to the motor 28);
- a comparison means (a comparison algorithm that is carried by the control system and is able to compare the charge state of the battery 30 with a threshold value, which is an electric energy requirement for the ground taxiing mode after landing determined in “determine required electrical energy” in Fig. 6) configured to:
- verify (starts at “determine required electrical energy” in Fig. 6,), following the stoppage control (the “determine required electrical energy” in Fig. 6 occurs after the “determine descent mode” in Fig. 5, see [0075]), and before controlling an extinction of a combustion chamber of the gas turbine (the extinction of the combustion chamber occurs during ground taxiing after landing, per [0069], and the “determine required electrical energy” in Fig. 6 occurs during descent, which is before said extinction), (i) an electrical energy level of the electric power supply means ((a charge state of the battery 30, see [0076]) and (ii) that the reversible electric machine (the motor-generator 28, [0035]) is capable of driving the power shaft (shaft 24) for a second predetermined duration (a predetermined duration for ground taxiing, which indicates the electric energy requirement for ground taxiing after landing, see [0075]) without injecting fuel into the combustion chamber (per [0069], the motor-generator 28 is operated in the motor mode to drive the engine 110 during the ground taxiing mode without combusting fuel); and
- an electrical generation control (an electrical generation step performed by the control system) configured to, if the electrical energy level (the charge state of the battery 30) is lower than a threshold value (the electric energy requirement for the ground taxiing mode after landing), control the gas turbine at a required mechanical power level (the second descent mode) and controls the reversible electric machine in a generator mode (operate 28 as generator) for the generation of an electric power for a first predetermined duration (a second descent mode operating time, which starts at the initial of the second descent mode and ends at touching the runway), able to be stored in the electric power supply means (battery 30, see [0077-0078] and Figs. 5-6) to increase the electrical energy level (the charge state of the battery 30) until said electrical energy level to be equal to or greater than the threshold value (the electric energy requirement for the ground taxiing mode after landing, see [0077-0078]; it is noted that gas turbine is operated at the second descent mode, which is the required mechanical power level to satisfy the power demand for descent and the power demand for recharging).
SWANN does not teach said stoppage control means configured to stop said drive of said power shaft by said reversible electric machine and thus enable a progressive stoppage of said rotation of said power shaft.
However, MARIOTTO teaches a turbogenerator (see Fig. 2) for an aircraft ([0002]) comprising a reversible electric machine (50 and [0091]) coupled to a gas turbine (13) through a power shaft (the shaft rotated by the turbine 15, Fig. 2) and a brake coupled to the power shaft ([0038-0039]),
wherein during a cooling process (under order ORD1 between 1.5 to 2 minute in Fig. 6, [00120]), the reversible electric machine (50) operating in a motor mode ([0131]) to rotate the power shaft for a predetermined duration (the limited duration under order ORD1 in Fig. 6, which is 0.5 minute) without injecting fuel into the combustion chamber (the order ORD1 cuts off the supply of fuel, [0131]), and
the reversible electric machine (50) is controlled to be stop (by controller 30) and no longer drive the power shaft (at the end of order ORD1, e.g., at the 2 minute in Fig. 6, the electrical machine is switched off, see [0131]) and the brake ([0038-0039]) operably coupled to a controller (30, per [0039], the brake is controlled by the controller according to a stopping command) to enable a progressive stoppage of the rotation of the power shaft ([0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide SWANN with MARIOTTO’s brake operably coupled to the controller to enable a progressive stoppage of the rotation of the power shaft because it is noted, “the use of a known prior art structure, in this case the use of a brake on a power shaft as taught by MARIOTTO, to obtain predictable results, in this case to progressively stop the rotation of the power shaft as taught by MARIOTTO, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings”, MPEP 2141(III)(A).
Regarding claim 6, SWANN in view of MARIOTTO teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above.
The combination as discussed above teaches the claimed limitation of claim 6, see demonstration of rejection for claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, SWANN in view of MARIOTTO teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above.
SWANN in view of MARIOTTO does not teach the first predetermined duration is comprised between 30 and 120 seconds, and during which the first operating speed is comprised between 50 and 70% of the rated operating speed of the at least one power shaft of the gas turbine.
The combination for rejection of claim 5 as discussed above teaches operating the gas turbine at the first operating speed at the second descent mode, which is determined by the required mechanical power level satisfying the power demand for descent and the power demand for charging, for the first predetermined duration, which is determined by the distance of the descent, the power demand of descent, and the charging requirement, to increase the electrical energy level of the electric power supply means until said electrical energy level is equal to or greater than the threshold value, which is the electric energy requirement for the ground taxiing mode after landing. A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977).
Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the first operating speed and the first predetermined duration are results-effective variables that control the electrical energy level, i.e., higher operating speed needs shorter duration and lower operating speed needs longer duration. Thus, the claimed limitation, “the first predetermined duration is comprised between 30 and 120 seconds and the first operating speed is comprised between 50 and 70% of the rated operating speed of the at least one power shaft of the gas turbine”, is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the first predetermined duration of SWANN in view of MARIOTTO to be between 30 and 120 seconds and modifying the first operating speed of SWANN in view of MARIOTTO to be between 50 and 70% of the rated operating speed and, as it involves only adjusting the amount of fuel provided to the gas turbine of SWANN in view of MARIOTTO as taught by SWANN ([0057]).
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the claimed first predetermined duration comprised between 30 and 120 seconds, and the claimed first operating speed being between 50 and 70% of the rated operating speed of the at least one power shaft of the gas turbine, as it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation as suggested by SWANN ([0076-0078]).
Regarding claim 9, SWANN in view of MARIOTTO teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above.
The combination as discussed above teaches the claimed limitation of claim 9, see demonstration of rejection for claim 5.
Regarding claim 10, SWANN in view of MARIOTTO teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above.
SWANN further teaches the aircraft (101 in Fig. 3) comprising the at least one turbogenerator (engine 110), the at least one turbogenerator including the gas turbine (engine 110 in Fig. 3, which has the same configuration of the engine 5 in Fig. 2 that is a gas turbine), the reversible electric machine (28, [0035]), and the device (the control system carries the various algorithms claimed in claim 5, see abstract and Figs. 5-6).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SWANN 20220042465 in view of MARIOTTO 20200173372, and in further view of TOMESCU 20210301677.
Regarding claim 4, SWANN in view of MARIOTTO teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above.
SWANN in view of MARIOTTO as discussed so far does not teach controlling the at least one power shaft to rotate at the second operating speed for the second predetermined duration during ground taxi mode for cooling the gas turbine.
However, MARIOTTO further teaches after extinction a combustion chamber of the gas turbine (at the end of Tfct, cut-off fuel via stope order ORD1, see Fig. 6 and [0129-0131]), controlling the at least one power shaft to rotate at a second operating speed (a speed of rotation provided by the electrical machine 50, [0131 and 0117] and curve C2 between 1.5 to 2 mins under ORD1 in Fig. 6) by driving at least one power shaft (the shaft rotated by turbine 15, see Fig. 2) via the reversible electric machine (50) electrically powered and operating in a motor mode ([0091]) for a second predetermined duration (the time range between 1.5 to 2 mins in Fig. 6) for cooling the gas turbine in order to limit any risk of coking ([0035 and 0105]),
wherein the second predetermined duration may be 30 seconds (the time arrange between 1.5 to 2 mins under ORD1 in Fig. 6), the second operating speed is comprised between 8% to 15% of a rated operating speed (a nominal speed, see [0108]), and the second predetermined duration and the second operating speed may be determined/setup according to various parameters ([0057-0061 and 0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide SWANN in view of MARIOTTO with MARIOTTO’s driving the at least one power shaft at the second operating speed via the reversible electric machine for the second predetermined duration after extinction the combustion chamber and setting the second operating speed and the second predetermined duration according to various parameters in order to cool the gas turbine and to limit risk of coking and damage or difficulty in restarting (MARIOTTO, [0032 and 0035]).
SWANN in view of MARIOTTO does not teach wherein said second predetermined duration is comprised between 60 and 300 seconds, and wherein said second operating speed is comprised between 5 and 15% of the rated operating speed of said at least one power shaft of said gas turbine.
However, TOMESCU teaches a method of mitigating rotor bow for a gas turbine engine for an aircraft (abstract and Figs. 1A-5) by driving the gas turbine engine via an electric motor ([0020]) comprising:
initiating motoring procedure for an initial motoring duration at an initial motoring interval (302); and
then adjusting, i.e., increasing or decreasing, the initial motoring duration and/or the initial motoring interval (306 and [0035]) according to real-time measure engine temperature (304 and equations (1)-(4)); and
further adjusting the rotating speed of the gas turbine engine throughout the adjusted motoring duration and/or the adjusted motoring interval ([0029 and 32]) according to real-time measure engine temperature (304 and equations (1)-(4));
continuing the above steps until the gas turbine engine cools and the rotor bow dissipates to an acceptable level ([0005]).
A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977).
Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the rotating speed and rotating duration are results-effective variables that controls engine temperature. Thus, the claimed limitation, “the second predetermined duration is comprised between 60 and 300 seconds, and the second operating speed is comprised between 5 and 15% of the rated operating speed of the at least one power shaft of the gas turbine”, is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the second predetermined duration of SWANN in view of MARIOTTO to be between 60 and 300 seconds and the second operating speed of SWANN in view of MARIOTTO to be between 5 and 15% of the rated operating speed, as it involves only adjusting an electrical energy provided to the electrical machine of SWANN in view of MARIOTTO as taught by TOMESCU ([0029 and 0032]).
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the claimed second predetermined duration being between 60 and 300 seconds and claimed the second operating speed being between 5 and 15% of the rated operating speed, as it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation as suggested by TOMESCU ([0005]).
Regarding claim 8, SWANN in view of MARIOTTO teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above.
SWANN in view of MARIOTTO as discussed so far does not teach controlling the at least one power shaft to rotate at the second operating speed for the second predetermined duration for cooling the gas turbine.
However, MARIOTTO further teaches after extinction a combustion chamber of the gas turbine (at the end of Tfct, cut-off fuel via stope order ORD1, see Fig. 6 and [0129-0131]), controlling the at least one power shaft to rotate at a second operating speed (a speed of rotation provided by the electrical machine 50, [0131 and 0117] and curve C2 between 1.5 to 2 mins under ORD1 in Fig. 6) by driving at least one power shaft (the shaft rotated by turbine 15, see Fig. 2) via the reversible electric machine (50) electrically powered and operating in a motor mode ([0091]) for a second predetermined duration (the time range between 1.5 to 2 mins in Fig. 6) for cooling the gas turbine in order to limit any risk of coking ([0035 and 0105]),
wherein the second predetermined duration may be 30 seconds (the time arrange between 1.5 to 2 mins under ORD1 in Fig. 6), the second operating speed is comprised between 8% to 15% of a rated operating speed (a nominal speed, see [0108]), and the second predetermined duration and the second operating speed may be determined/setup according to various parameters ([0057-0061 and 0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide SWANN in view of MARIOTTO with MARIOTTO’s driving the at least one power shaft at the second operating speed via the reversible electric machine for the second predetermined duration after extinction the combustion chamber and setting the second operating speed and the second predetermined duration according to various parameters in order to cool the gas turbine and to limit risk of coking and damage or difficulty in restarting (MARIOTTO, [0032 and 0035]).
SWANN in view of MARIOTTO does not teach wherein said second predetermined duration is comprised between 60 and 300 seconds, and wherein said second operating speed is comprised between 5 and 15% of the rated operating speed of said at least one power shaft of said gas turbine.
However, TOMESCU teaches a method of mitigating rotor bow for a gas turbine engine for an aircraft (abstract and Figs. 1A-5) by driving the gas turbine engine via an electric motor ([0020]) comprising:
initiating motoring procedure for an initial motoring duration at an initial motoring interval (302); and
then adjusting, i.e., increasing or decreasing, the initial motoring duration and/or the initial motoring interval (306 and [0035]) according to real-time measure engine temperature (304 and equations (1)-(4)); and
further adjusting the rotating speed of the gas turbine engine throughout the adjusted motoring duration and/or the adjusted motoring interval ([0029 and 32]) according to real-time measure engine temperature (304 and equations (1)-(4));
continuing the above steps until the gas turbine engine cools and the rotor bow dissipates to an acceptable level ([0005]).
A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977).
Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the rotating speed and rotating duration are results-effective variables that controls engine temperature. Thus, the claimed limitation, “the second predetermined duration is comprised between 60 and 300 seconds, and the second operating speed is comprised between 5 and 15% of the rated operating speed of the at least one power shaft of the gas turbine”, is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation.
Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the second predetermined duration of SWANN in view of MARIOTTO to be between 60 and 300 seconds, and the second operating speed of SWANN in view of MARIOTTO to be between 5 and 15% of the rated operating speed, as it involves only adjusting an electrical energy provided to the electrical machine of SWANN in view of MARIOTTO as taught by TOMESCU ([0029 and 0032]).
"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the claimed second predetermined duration being between 60 and 300 seconds and claimed the second operating speed being between 5 and 15% of the rated operating speed, as it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation as suggested by TOMESCU ([0005]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2025 have been fully considered.
I. regarding 112b rejection for term “electrical generation control”, p. 7, Applicant argues, “For example, Applicant respectfully submits that "electrical generation control" refers to the functional module identified with respect to E6 in FIG. 5 of the originally filed application and as described in paragraph [0113] of the originally filed application. This module corresponds with the unit that is configured to control the gas turbine and the reversible electric machine when the energy level is below the threshold, for example so that the electric machine is operated in generator mode for the first predetermined duration (t2) in order to recharge the power supply means. Additionally, and with respect to "required mechanical power level," Applicant respectfully submits that the description included in the originally filed application ( e.g., at least at paragraphs [0037], [0039], and [0110]-[0113]) makes clear that the required mechanical power level refers to a mechanical power level sufficient to allow the reversible electric machine to operate in generator mode for the first predetermined duration (t2) so as to recharge the power supply means up to the threshold value. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed language is clear to a skilled person in view of the originally filed application”.
Examiner does not agree with such argument because
i) as explained in the 112 rejection for claim 1 above, the speciation ONLY discloses the reversible electric machine is operated in generator mode to charge the battery during the first predetermined duration t2 when the power shaft is rotated in the first operating speed N1, and the specification does NOT disclose a) the battery is charged up to the threshold value as Applicant argues; or b) adjusting any one of the first predetermined duration and the first operating speed to satisfy the charging requirement for the battery, i.e., it is unclear the claimed required mechanical power level is required to satisfy what requirement(s), e.g., cooling, thrust demand, or charging, etc.;
ii) thus, it is unclear what structure/algorithm is required for the claimed electrical generation control in order to control the gas turbine engine at the claimed required mechanical power level.
II. regarding 112b rejection for various terms associated with “means”, p. 7, Applicant argues, “Additionally, Applicant respectfully submits the following clarifications regarding the various terms associated with "means" in claims 5-6. For example, and with respect to claim 5, (i) the setpoint control means corresponds with module 16, which generates the stoppage setpoint signal, (ii) the actuation means corresponds with module 17, which reduces the shaft speed to a first operating speed, (iii) the extinguishing control means corresponds with module 19, which stops fuel injection into the combustion chamber at step E7, (iv) the means for keeping the shaft rotating corresponds with module 20, which controls the reversible electric machine in motor mode, and (v) the stoppage control means corresponds with module 22, which progressively stops the reversible electric machine. Support for these clarifications can be found in at least paragraphs [0089]-[0099] of the originally filed application. With respect to claim 6, the comparison means corresponds with module 18 in FIG. 4, which is described in paragraphs [0056] and [0092]-[0096] of the originally filed application. As an example, module 18 can perform the verification steps E4 and ES by checking the energy level of the supply means and, when this level is below the threshold, the module 18 can control the reversible electric machine to operate in generator mode for the first duration t2 as described in paragraph [0113]”.
Examiner does not agree with such argument because:
i) as explained in 112b rejection for claim 5 above, the specification does not clearly define what is the structure for each of the various means (16-20 and 22) that is required to respectively perform the claimed function;
ii) for example, for the claimed setpoint control means and the claimed actuation means, the specification discloses, p. 8, ll. 20-25, the control means 16 is configured to initiate the stoppage of the gas turbine and is able to generate a setpoint signal to actuation means 17 coupled to the gas turbine 2, wherein the actuation means 17 is configured to reduce the rated operating speed to a first operating speed, i.e.,
a) the control means 16, the claimed setpoint control means, may be a physical structure, such as an operation mode switch or a lever, or may be a setpoint control algorithm carried by a controller to switch operation mode by command, and
b) the actuation means 17 may be a physical structure, such as a fuel valve/pump to reduce the fuel provided to the gas turbine in order to reduce the operating speed, or may be an actuation control algorithm carried by a controller to control fuel flow according to a fuel schedule,
however, the specification does NOT clearly define what structure/algorithm carried by a controller is required for the claimed setpoint control means / the claimed actuation means to perform the claimed function, the same ambiguity is also applied to terms “extinguishing control means”, “means for keeping”, “stoppage control means” and “comparison means”, see 112b rejection for claim 5 above.
III. regarding the art rejection, Applicant’s argument is moot because it does not apply to the new combination of the new references and the previously applied reference being used in the current office action, necessitated by amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant's argument has been addressed above, at the appropriate locations.
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 JINGCHEN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6639. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30.
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 at (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 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.
/JINGCHEN LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights