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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding claim 1, recitation “wherein the power shaft is driven via electric machine for cooling” is believed to be in error for - - wherein the at least one power shaft is driven via the reversible electric machine for cooling - -
Regarding claim 5, recitation “wherein the power shaft is driven via electric machine for cooling” is believed to be in error for - - wherein the power shaft is driven via the reversible electric machine for cooling - -
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 limitation and the corresponding structure(s) 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, recitation “…; - if the electrical energy level is lower than a threshold value, an electrical generation control (E6) controls the gas turbine at a mechanical power level capable of rotating the at least one power shaft at a second operating speed (N2) and controls the reversible electric machine in a generator mode for the generation of an electric power for a first predetermined duration (t2), able to be stored in the electric power supply means; - switching from the rated operating speed (Nref) of the at least one power shaft to a first operating speed (N1) lower than the rated operating speed (Nref), for the first predetermined duration (t2); controlling (E7) the extinction of the combustion chamber of the gas turbine; - controlling the at least one power shaft to rotate at the 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 the second predetermined duration (t3), wherein the second operating speed (N2) is lower than the first operating speed (N1)” is not supported by the specification because:
i) according to the specification, pp. 9-10 and Figs. 5-6, in step E2, the gas turbine reduces to a first operating speed (which is N1 in Fig. 6) by burning fuel, and in step E3, the gas turbine operates at the first operating speed (which is N1 in Fig. 6) for a predetermined duration (which is t2 in Fig. 6); in step 5, verifying whether the electrical energy level of the power supply means 8 has enough electricity for the electric machine 7 to drive the gas turbine as a motor during step 8, which is operating the gas turbine at the second operating speed (which is N2 in Fig. 6) for a second predetermined duration (which is t3 in Fig. 6) without burning fuel, and the second operating speed (which is N2 in Fig. 6) is lower than the first operating speed (which is N1 in Fig. 6); if electrical energy level is not enough, the electric machine 7 is operated in the generator mode in step 6 during the predetermined duration (which is t2 in Fig. 6), i.e., operating the electric machine 7 in the generator mode occurs when operating the gas turbine at the first operating speed (which is N1 in Fig. 6) that is a high than the second operating speed (which is N2 in Fig. 6);
ii) however, the recitation requires operating the electric machine in a generator mode for a first predetermined duration (t2) when the gas turbine is rotating at a second operating speed (N2), and said second operating speed is a rotating speed of using the electric machine as a motor to drive the gas turbine and is lower than the first operating speed (N1), which is conflicting with the disclosure;
iii) thus, the recitation is rejected as new matter.
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,
I. recitation “if the electrical energy level is lower than a threshold value, an electrical generation control (E6) controls the gas turbine at a mechanical power level capable of rotating the at least one power shaft at a second operating speed (N2) and controls the reversible electric machine in a generator mode for the generation of an electric power for a first predetermined duration (t2), able to be stored in the electric power supply means; - switching from the rated operating speed (Nref) of the at least one power shaft to a first operating speed (N1) lower than the rated operating speed (Nref), for the first predetermined duration (t2); controlling (E7) the extinction of the combustion chamber of the gas turbine; - controlling the at least one power shaft to rotate at the 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 the second predetermined duration (t3), wherein the second operating speed (N2) is lower than the first operating speed (N1)” is indefinite because:
i) the recitation firstly claims that if the electrical energy level is lower than a threshold value, the at least one power shaft is rotating at the second operating speed (N2) and the reversible electric machine is operated in a generator mode for the generation of an electric power for a first predetermined duration (t2);
ii) the recitation secondly claims that switching from the rated operating speed (Nref) of the at least one power shaft to a first operating speed (N1) lower than the rated operating speed (Nref), for the first predetermined duration (t2);
iii) the recitation thirdly claims that controlling the at least one power shaft to rotate at the 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 the second predetermined duration (t3), wherein the second operating speed (N2) is lower than the first operating speed (N1);
iv) thus, the claim languages are inconsistent and conflicting to each other, it is unclear rotating the power shaft at which speed of the claimed two speeds during which direction of the claimed two durations. It is noted that the claim languages confusing and impossible for interpretation;
II. claim limitation “an electrical generation control” 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. 9, ll. 5-6, the specification generally discloses the comparison means 18 in Fig. 4 are further coupled to the electric machine 7 so as to make it operate in the generator mode, and p. 10, ll. 1-10 and ll. 14-18, the specification discloses the comparison means 18 receives date of the electrical power level and compare and verify the electrical power level to the threshold valve; however, it is unclear what structure or an equivalent thereof the claimed control means has to perform the claimed function, i.e., controls the gas turbine at a mechanical power level capable of rotating at least one power shaft at a second operating speed and controls the reversible electric machine in a generator mode for the generation of an electric power, e.g., a processor and a memory configured to perform a electrical generation control algorithm or a physical structure: a relay;
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.
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 extinguishing the 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 mechanical 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 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 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SWANN 20220042465 in view of Hon 20180372003 and MARIOTTO 20200173372.
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 claims 5-6 and 9, 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]) 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 comprising an electric machine (motor-generator 28, see [0035]) coupled to a gas turbine (see Figs. 2-3) 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 at “determine descent mode” in Fig. 5);
- 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 is determined according to the distance of descent, the power demand for descent, i.e., how fast the aircraft descends, and the electricity 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 electricity 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 (when the aircraft is on the ground, the engine 110 is operated without combusting fuel and is driven by 28 in the motor mode, 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 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 ground operation duration (a duration of operating engine 110 on the ground, which including reverse or taxiing, which is used to determine how to operate the gas turbine in the second descent mode, Fig. 6 and [0075-0077]), 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 operating engine 110 on the ground and is 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 extinguishing the combustion chamber of the gas turbine (the extinction of the combustion chamber 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 the ground operation duration (the duration of operating engine 110 on the ground, which including reverse or taxiing, which is used to determine how to operate the gas turbine in the second descent mode, Fig. 6 and [0075-0077]) without injecting fuel into the combustion chamber (per [0069], the motor-generator 28 is operated in the motor mode to drive the engine 110 on the ground 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 operating engine 110 on the ground after landing), control the gas turbine at a required mechanical power level (a required mechanical power level for operating engine in the second descent mode and generating electricity for charging) and controls the reversible electric machine in a generator mode (operate 28 as generator) for the generation of an electric power 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), 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 operating the engine 110 on the ground after landing, see [0077-0078]).
SWANN does not teach means for keeping the power shaft rotating at a second operating speed (N2) by driving the power shaft via the reversible electric machine electrically powered and operating in a motor mode for a second predetermined duration (t3), the power shaft being in the second operating speed (N2) lower than the first operating speed (N1), wherein the power shaft is driven via electric machine for cooling, and a comparison means configured to - verify (E4, E5), following the stoppage control (E1), and before extinguishing the 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 the second predetermined duration (t3) without injecting fuel into the combustion chamber.
However, Hon further teaches during operating the gas turbine (100, Fig. 2) on the ground (the post-flight operation mode 310 in Fig. 6 and [0090]), keeping the power shaft (122, Fig. 2) rotating at a second operating speed (a rotating speed for prevent bowed rotor condition, see 334-340 in Fig. 6) by driving the power shaft (122) via the reversible electric machine (electric machine 56 is a motor-generator, [0051]) electrically powered and operating in a motor mode (by providing electricity from energy storage unit to the electric machine 56, see 334, Fig. 6) for a second predetermined duration (a duration for prevent the bowed rotor condition, see 334-340 in Fig. 6 and [0090]), the power shaft (122) being in the second operating speed (the rotating speed for prevent bowed rotor condition, see 334-340 in Fig. 6) lower than the first operating speed (a rotating speed during flight operation, which including descent and is used for charging the energy storage unit, 304 and 306 in Fig. 4 and [0073-0074]), wherein the power shaft (122) is driven via electric machine (56) for cooling (in order to prevent bowed rotor condition, [0004]).
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 Hon’s teaching of driving the power shaft via the electric machine for cooling during ground operation, such that
means for keeping the power shaft rotating at a second operating speed (N2) by driving the power shaft via the reversible electric machine electrically powered and operating in a motor mode for a second predetermined duration (t3), the power shaft being in the second operating speed (N2) lower than the first operating speed (N1), wherein the power shaft is driven via electric machine for cooling, and - verify (E4, E5), following the stoppage control (E1), and before extinguishing the 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 the second predetermined duration (t3) without injecting fuel into the combustion chamber
(the modification is to add Hon’s cooling operation as part of SWANN’s ground operation, and thus, verifying whether SWANN’s reversible electric machine is capable of driving the power shaft during the ground operation including verifying whether SWANN’s reversible electric machine is capable of driving the power shaft during Hon’s second predetermined duration of Hon’s ground cooling operation, which read on the claimed limitation)
in order to minimize a risk of bowing or other deformation within a turbomachine without requiring high cycle wear on a starter (Hon, [0006]).
SWANN in view of Hon does not teach 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.
However, MARIOTTO teaches a 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 a brake ([0038-0039]) coupled to the reversible electric machine (50) and is 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 in view of Hon with MARIOTTO’s brake operably coupled to the reversible electric machine and 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 7, SWANN in view of Hon and 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 operation 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 Hon and MARIOTTO to be between 30 and 120 seconds and modifying the first operating speed of SWANN in view of Hon and 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 Hon and 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 8, SWANN in view of Hon and MARIOTTO does not teach wherein the second predetermined duration (t3) is comprised between 60 and 300 seconds, and during which the second operating speed (N2) is comprised between 5 and 15% of the rated operating speed (Nref) of the power shaft of the gas turbine.
However, Hon further teaches the second predetermined duration (the duration for prevent the bowed rotor condition, see 334-340 in Fig. 6 and [0090]) and the second operating speed (the rotating speed for prevent bowed rotor condition, see 334-340 in Fig. 6 and [0090]) are both determined by a temperature of the gas turbine (e.g., faster speed with shorter duration or slower speed with longer duration, see [0091-0092]). 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 second operating speed and the second predetermined duration are results-effective variables that control the temperature of the gas turbine. Thus, the claimed limitation, “the second predetermined duration (t3) is comprised between 60 and 300 seconds, and during which the second operating speed (N2) is comprised between 5 and 15% of the rated operating speed (Nref) of the 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 Hon and MARIOTTO to be between 60 and 300 seconds and modifying the second operating speed of SWANN in view of Hon and MARIOTTO to be between 5 and 15% of the rated operating speed and, as it involves only adjusting the amount of the electric power provided to the reversible electric machine of SWANN in view of Hon and MARIOTTO as taught by Hon ([0091-0092]).
"[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 comprised between 60 and 300 seconds, and the claimed second operating speed being between 5 and 15% of the rated operating speed of the power shaft of the gas turbine, as it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation as suggested by Hon ([0076-0078]).
Regarding claim 10, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of the previously applied references and the new reference being used in the current office action, necessitated by amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant's arguments have been addressed above, at the appropriate locations.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights