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 .
Applicant’s Response
In Applicant’s Response dated 12/23/2025, Applicant amended Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 – 8; canceled Claims 2 and 5; and argued against all objections and rejections previously set forth in the Office Action dated 06/24/2025.
In light of Applicant’s amendment and remarks, the previously set forth objections are withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the previously set forth rejections of Claims 1 – 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph are withdrawn.
Status of the Claims
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph and Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 – 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 “an optimal power system”, “said system” and “the optimal system”, Claims 6 and 7 recite “the optimal system”. Claim 8 recites “an optimal power system”, “said system”, “the optimal system” and “this system”. As indicated in applicant response dated 12/23/2025 page 2 last paragraph, the applicant is referring to the same subject matter introduced as “an optimal power system”.
Each of the terms referring to the optimal power system” should be amended to recite “the optimal power system” to avoid antecedent basis and maintain consistency of the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 includes the limitation “conditional steps for alerting and recommending said optimal system be used if it is detected that this system is not used”. This limitation is straddling between two options depending on a determination if a specific set of conditions occurs. It has been held that where “the steps dependent on the ‘if’ conditional would not be invoked, the Examiner was not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claims obvious” (See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL514314, at 4–5 (BPAI 2011) (Appeal No. 2010–006083)). This claim limitation is specifically using the term “if”. Therefore, the Examiner is not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render these claims obvious. The Examiner recommends amending the “if” statements in a manner that would require the Examiner to find those limitations in the prior art.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “computing and storage means…” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8, Claim limitation “A digital platform comprising computing and storage means, and capable of communicating over a network, wherein the digital platform is configured to implement a method for air-conditioning a cabin of an aircraft on the ground, at an airport, by means of at least one internal source or external source of one or more of electrical and pneumatic power…” 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.
The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. 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, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linked or associated to the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clermont et al. (US 2018/0229860) (hereinafter, Clermont) (cited in IDS dated 04/24/2023) in view of Vedantam et al. (2022/0258748) (hereinafter, Vedantam).
Regarding Claim 1, Clermont teaches a method for air-conditioning a cabin of an aircraft on the ground at an airport, by means of at least one internal source or external source of one or more of electrical and pneumatic power (See Clermont’s Abstract par 0040 and par 0067), the method comprising:
a step of collecting, in real-time, data including:
parameters from the aircraft, among operating parameters of a main engine and of an APU of said aircraft and an inside cabin or outside temperature measured by the aircraft (Clermont in par 0055, teaches that in case of freezing temperatures (outside temperature), some movable parts of the aircraft need to be sprayed with a de-icing solution. Clermont in par 0058 – 0059, teaches that a ground support unit for supplying a service to an aircraft, the ground support unit comprising a reception means suitable for identifying an aircraft in motion or parked on the ground by receiving information emitted by a transponder of said aircraft including an instantaneous GPS coordinates of the position of the aircraft, the identity of the aircraft, the type of aircraft and the company of the aircraft. Clermont in par 0066, further teaches that the transponder can comprise numerous information concerning an aircraft, including data concerning the instant status of the aircraft. For example, the transponder can comprise a value of the instant temperature and/or relative humidity in a mixing chamber or in a cabin of an aircraft; it can comprise an actual value of the amount of fuel left in the tanks; it can indicate whether or not an auxiliary power unit (APU) is activated; and the like),
parameters from the power sources (Clermont in par 0062, further teaches that the microprocessor of a ground support unit is in communication with a central processor (9) located remote from the ground support unit. Said central processor is in communication with other ground support units and can optimize the interactions between different ground support units, or decide which unit is most suitable for servicing a given aircraft, depending on the servicing program required, on the distance to the aircraft, or on the need of an analogous service by another aircraft located nearby),
aircraft flight data (Clermont in par 0055 and Fig. 3, teaches that during its stay on the ground between a landing and a take-off, an aircraft must be serviced by a number of ground support units for providing the various services required for the functioning, comfort, and security of the aircraft. Each of the foregoing services must be carried out according to an accurate servicing program established by each airline company depending on the aircraft model, or even depending on a specific aircraft as a function of its airport of origin, the next destination, the mileage since the last servicing, and the like), and
airport infrastructure and equipment data (Clermont in par 0062, further teaches that the microprocessor of a ground support unit is in communication with a central processor (9) located remote from the ground support unit. Said central processor is in communication with other ground support units and can optimize the interactions between different ground support units, or decide which unit is most suitable for servicing a given aircraft, depending on the servicing program required, on the distance to the aircraft, or on the need of an analogous service by another aircraft located nearby);
a step of determining the available one or more of electrical and pneumatic power sources (Clermont in par 0062, further teaches that the microprocessor of a ground support unit is in communication with a central processor (9) located remote from the ground support unit. Said central processor is in communication with other ground support units and can optimize the interactions between different ground support units, or decide which unit is most suitable for servicing a given aircraft, depending on the servicing program required, on the distance to the aircraft, or on the need of an analogous service by another aircraft located nearby):
internal, among the main engine and the APU, based on data from avionics systems (Clermont in par 0067, further teaches a ground power unit (GPU) which provides 400 Hz power to an aircraft, requiring no intervention from an APU. A ground support unit, in particular a PCA, or a ground power unit (GPU) can be informed by the transponder whether the APU is on or off. In case the APU is on, a message or signal can be sent to the pilot informing that the a PCA or GPU is coupled to the aircraft, while the APU is on, so that the pilot can decide whether or not to switch off the APU), and
external, from an airport equipment database (Clermont in par 0062, further teaches that the microprocessor of a ground support unit is in communication with a central processor (9) located remote from the ground support unit. Said central processor is in communication with other ground support units and can optimize the interactions between different ground support units, or decide which unit is most suitable for servicing a given aircraft, depending on the servicing program required, on the distance to the aircraft, or on the need of an analogous service by another aircraft located nearby);
a step of evaluating, using specific algorithms, a performance level of each available power source as a function of a setpoint temperature to be reached in the cabin and of collected data, said performance comprising an ability and a time required to reach said set point temperature (Clermont in par 0021 – 0024, teaches that the services provided by the foregoing types of ground support units must be carried out according to a specific servicing program, comprising various parameters to be respected. For example, the following parameters can be cited: (b) in a ground pneumatic or hydraulic power supply unit: a supply time, a supply power, a supply energy, a pneumatic or hydraulic pressure upper limit, a supply flow, (c) in a ground thermal heating unit for heating or cooling an aircraft: a supply time, a target temperature, a maximum allowed air blowing pressure, a maximum allowed blowing air flow rate, a minimum blowing air temperature, an aircraft mixing chamber defrosting cycle, a supply power, a supply energy. Clermont in par 0062, teaches that the central processor is in communication with other ground support units and can optimize the interactions between different ground support units, or decide which unit is most suitable for servicing a given aircraft, depending on the servicing program required, on the distance to the aircraft, or on the need of an analogous service by another aircraft located nearby. Clermont in par 0066, further teaches that the transponder can comprise numerous information concerning an aircraft, including data concerning the instant status of the aircraft. For example, the transponder can comprise a value of the instant temperature and/or relative humidity in a mixing chamber or in a cabin of an aircraft. With this information, the ground support unit can optimize the specific servicing program corresponding to an aircraft within a predefined range allowed by said servicing program. For example, if the instant temperature of the cabin or the mixing chamber is comprised within a certain range, the servicing program corresponding to the aircraft can be adapted by changing and optimizing the temperature of the cool air blown into the cabin by a preconditioned air ground unit (PCA));
a step of determining an optimal power system comprising at least one power source from among the available power sources,[…] (Clermont in par 0062, further teaches that said central processor is in communication with other ground support units and can optimize the interactions between different ground support units, or decide which unit is most suitable for servicing a given aircraft, depending on the servicing program required, on the distance to the aircraft, or on the need of an analogous service by another aircraft located nearby. Clermont in par 0064, further teaches that by establishing statistics on the frequency of use of a type of ground support units depending on the location thereof, the geographical distribution of the parking stations of the units can be optimized. An analysis of the most used ranges of values of the parameters defining a servicing program in a given geographical area of an airport may help in installing ground support units specifically designed for working in said ranges (e.g., power, height, fuel tank capacity, etc.). Clermont in par 0067, further teaches a ground power unit (GPU) which provides 400 Hz power to an aircraft, requiring no intervention from an APU. A ground support unit, in particular a PCA, or a ground power unit (GPU) can be informed by the transponder whether the APU is on or off. In case the APU is on, a message or signal can be sent to the pilot informing that the a PCA or GPU is coupled to the aircraft, while the APU is on, so that the pilot can decide whether or not to switch off the APU);
a step of checking whether the optimal system is used (Clermont in par 0033 – 0035, teaches that the central processor may actively manage a fleet of mobile ground support units, sending them to specific aircrafts, or passively managing said fleet, by following the position of each unit and correlating this data with the position of the nearest aircraft and of whether a unit is in operative mode or in rest mode. The microprocessor can be programmed to optimize within a predefined range the servicing program selected as a function of the data received on the instant status of the aircraft. For example, in case the data indicates that the APU is activated while a ground support unit is coupled to the aircraft, the microprocessor may send a message to the pilot informing that the ground support unit is coupled to the aircraft and operative, and that the APU may possibly be redundant. The pilot can then decide whether or not to switch off the APU); and
an alert and a use recommendation step, in the event of non-use of the optimal system determined in the checking step (Clermont in par 0067, teaches that a ground support unit according to the present invention, in particular a PCA, or a ground power unit (GPU) can be informed by the transponder whether the APU is on or off. In case the APU is on, a message or signal can be sent to the pilot informing that the a PCA or GPU is coupled to the aircraft (optimal system), while the APU (less optimal system) is on, so that the pilot can decide whether or not to switch off the APU).
However, Clermont does not specifically disclose the performance of said system minimizing an energy, economic or polluting emissions cost function.
Vedantam in par 0002, teaches that large industrial operations, for example, airport operations, ground handling operations, etc., require the integration and coordination of multiple assets such as vehicles, equipment, systems, etc., into complex systems and/or methods of operation. Ground handling operations comprise a wide range of operations associated with servicing an asset, for example, an aircraft, while the asset in on the ground and parked at a terminal gate of an airport.
Vedantam in par 0011, 0035 and Fig. 5, further teaches that the operations management engine determines actions associated with the assets to be executed based on the determined data elements by performing one or more of the following. The operations management engine identifies optimal assets from among the plurality of assets to be allocated for tasks associated with the operations. The operations management engine identifies value-added machine asset hours and non-value-added machine asset hours for reducing fuel consumption and maintenance costs while extending warranty periods. Vendatam in par 0044, further teaches that the data elements provide information for proactive scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of equipment based on utilization and allow monitoring of the health of the assets 202. The data elements also facilitate optimization of asset utilization and reduction in fuel consumption, carbon footprint, and maintenance costs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Vedantam with the teachings as in Clermont to optimize the grounds units of Clermont as disclosed in in Vedantam. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure consistent service delivery standards to turn around an aircraft safely in the shortest amount of time; reduce operating and maintenance costs to deliver highest benefit/cost ratio that is shared between stakeholders; and implement technology-driven solutions to optimally utilize capital-intensive resources such as ground support equipment (GSE) (See Vedantam’s par 0098).
Regarding Claim 3, Clermont teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Clermont further teaches:
wherein the external power sources comprise a ground power unit (GPU), an air conditioning unit (ACU), a pre-conditioning air (PCA) and a fixed electrical power (FEGP) (Clermont in par 0011, teaches that There are many ground support units required for servicing an aircraft on the ground. In particular they include: [0012] (a) a ground electrical power supply unit (FEGP). Clermont in par 0055, teaches that an air conditioning pipe (ACU) is coupled to a door of the aircraft to blow hot or cold air into the cockpit to control the temperature inside the aircraft Clermont in par 0067, teaches that the APU has a high power consumption and if it is used by a pilot to cool the cabin, while a preconditioned air ground unit (PCA) is blowing cold air in the sale cabin at the same time, the power consumption is duplicated uselessly. The same applies with a ground power unit (GPU) which provides 400 Hz power to an aircraft, requiring no intervention from an APU. A PCA, or a ground power unit (GPU) can be informed by the transponder whether the APU is on or off).
Regarding Claim 4, Clermont teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Clermont further teaches:
wherein the step of determining the available internal and external power sources implements algorithms for automatically detecting a connection between the aircraft and any power source (Clermont in par 0067, teaches that a ground support unit according to the present invention, in particular a PCA, or a ground power unit (GPU) can be informed by the transponder whether the APU is on or off. In case the APU is on, a message or signal can be sent to the pilot informing that the a PCA or GPU is coupled to the aircraft, while the APU is on, so that the pilot can decide whether or not to switch off the APU).
Regarding Claim 8, Clermont teaches a digital platform comprising computing and storage means, and capable of communicating over a network, wherein the digital platform is configured to implement a method for air-conditioning a cabin of an aircraft on the ground, at an airport, by means of at least one internal source or external source of one or more of electrical and pneumatic power (See Clermont’s Abstract par 0040 and par 0067), said method comprising:
a step of collecting, in real-time, data including:
parameters from the aircraft, among operating parameters of a main engine and of an APU of said aircraft and an inside cabin or outside temperature measured by the aircraft (Clermont in par 0055, teaches that in case of freezing temperatures (outside temperature), some movable parts of the aircraft need to be sprayed with a de-icing solution. Clermont in par 0058 – 0059, teaches that a ground support unit for supplying a service to an aircraft, the ground support unit comprising a reception means suitable for identifying an aircraft in motion or parked on the ground by receiving information emitted by a transponder of said aircraft including an instantaneous GPS coordinates of the position of the aircraft, the identity of the aircraft, the type of aircraft and the company of the aircraft. Clermont in par 0066, further teaches that the transponder can comprise numerous information concerning an aircraft, including data concerning the instant status of the aircraft. For example, the transponder can comprise a value of the instant temperature and/or relative humidity in a mixing chamber or in a cabin of an aircraft; it can comprise an actual value of the amount of fuel left in the tanks; it can indicate whether or not an auxiliary power unit (APU) is activated; and the like),
parameters from the power sources (Clermont in par 0062, further teaches that the microprocessor of a ground support unit is in communication with a central processor (9) located remote from the ground support unit. Said central processor is in communication with other ground support units and can optimize the interactions between different ground support units, or decide which unit is most suitable for servicing a given aircraft, depending on the servicing program required, on the distance to the aircraft, or on the need of an analogous service by another aircraft located nearby),
aircraft flight data (Clermont in par 0055 and Fig. 3, teaches that during its stay on the ground between a landing and a take-off, an aircraft must be serviced by a number of ground support units for providing the various services required for the functioning, comfort, and security of the aircraft. Each of the foregoing services must be carried out according to an accurate servicing program established by each airline company depending on the aircraft model, or even depending on a specific aircraft as a function of its airport of origin, the next destination, the mileage since the last servicing, and the like), and
airport infrastructure and equipment data (Clermont in par 0062, further teaches that the microprocessor of a ground support unit is in communication with a central processor (9) located remote from the ground support unit. Said central processor is in communication with other ground support units and can optimize the interactions between different ground support units, or decide which unit is most suitable for servicing a given aircraft, depending on the servicing program required, on the distance to the aircraft, or on the need of an analogous service by another aircraft located nearby);
a step of determining the available one or more of electrical and pneumatic power sources (Clermont in par 0062, further teaches that the microprocessor of a ground support unit is in communication with a central processor (9) located remote from the ground support unit. Said central processor is in communication with other ground support units and can optimize the interactions between different ground support units, or decide which unit is most suitable for servicing a given aircraft, depending on the servicing program required, on the distance to the aircraft, or on the need of an analogous service by another aircraft located nearby):
internal, among the main engine and the APU, based on data from avionics systems (Clermont in par 0067, further teaches a ground power unit (GPU) which provides 400 Hz power to an aircraft, requiring no intervention from an APU. A ground support unit, in particular a PCA, or a ground power unit (GPU) can be informed by the transponder whether the APU is on or off. In case the APU is on, a message or signal can be sent to the pilot informing that the a PCA or GPU is coupled to the aircraft, while the APU is on, so that the pilot can decide whether or not to switch off the APU), and
external, from an airport equipment database (Clermont in par 0062, further teaches that the microprocessor of a ground support unit is in communication with a central processor (9) located remote from the ground support unit. Said central processor is in communication with other ground support units and can optimize the interactions between different ground support units, or decide which unit is most suitable for servicing a given aircraft, depending on the servicing program required, on the distance to the aircraft, or on the need of an analogous service by another aircraft located nearby);
a step of evaluating, using specific algorithms, a performance level of each available power source as a function of a setpoint temperature to be reached in the cabin and of collected data, said performance comprising an ability and a time required to reach said set point temperature (Clermont in par 0021 – 0024, teaches that the services provided by the foregoing types of ground support units must be carried out according to a specific servicing program, comprising various parameters to be respected. For example, the following parameters can be cited: (b) in a ground pneumatic or hydraulic power supply unit: a supply time, a supply power, a supply energy, a pneumatic or hydraulic pressure upper limit, a supply flow, (c) in a ground thermal heating unit for heating or cooling an aircraft: a supply time, a target temperature, a maximum allowed air blowing pressure, a maximum allowed blowing air flow rate, a minimum blowing air temperature, an aircraft mixing chamber defrosting cycle, a supply power, a supply energy. Clermont in par 0062, teaches that the central processor is in communication with other ground support units and can optimize the interactions between different ground support units, or decide which unit is most suitable for servicing a given aircraft, depending on the servicing program required, on the distance to the aircraft, or on the need of an analogous service by another aircraft located nearby. Clermont in par 0066, further teaches that the transponder can comprise numerous information concerning an aircraft, including data concerning the instant status of the aircraft. For example, the transponder can comprise a value of the instant temperature and/or relative humidity in a mixing chamber or in a cabin of an aircraft. With this information, the ground support unit can optimize the specific servicing program corresponding to an aircraft within a predefined range allowed by said servicing program. For example, if the instant temperature of the cabin or the mixing chamber is comprised within a certain range, the servicing program corresponding to the aircraft can be adapted by changing and optimizing the temperature of the cool air blown into the cabin by a preconditioned air ground unit (PCA));
a step of determining an optimal power system comprising at least one power source from among the available power sources,[…] (Clermont in par 0062, further teaches that said central processor is in communication with other ground support units and can optimize the interactions between different ground support units, or decide which unit is most suitable for servicing a given aircraft, depending on the servicing program required, on the distance to the aircraft, or on the need of an analogous service by another aircraft located nearby. Clermont in par 0064, further teaches that by establishing statistics on the frequency of use of a type of ground support units depending on the location thereof, the geographical distribution of the parking stations of the units can be optimized. An analysis of the most used ranges of values of the parameters defining a servicing program in a given geographical area of an airport may help in installing ground support units specifically designed for working in said ranges (e.g., power, height, fuel tank capacity, etc.). Clermont in par 0067, further teaches a ground power unit (GPU) which provides 400 Hz power to an aircraft, requiring no intervention from an APU. A ground support unit, in particular a PCA, or a ground power unit (GPU) can be informed by the transponder whether the APU is on or off. In case the APU is on, a message or signal can be sent to the pilot informing that the a PCA or GPU is coupled to the aircraft, while the APU is on, so that the pilot can decide whether or not to switch off the APU);
a step of checking whether the optimal system is used (Clermont in par 0033 – 0035, teaches that the central processor may actively manage a fleet of mobile ground support units, sending them to specific aircrafts, or passively managing said fleet, by following the position of each unit and correlating this data with the position of the nearest aircraft and of whether a unit is in operative mode or in rest mode. The microprocessor can be programmed to optimize within a predefined range the servicing program selected as a function of the data received on the instant status of the aircraft. For example, in case the data indicates that the APU is activated while a ground support unit is coupled to the aircraft, the microprocessor may send a message to the pilot informing that the ground support unit is coupled to the aircraft and operative, and that the APU may possibly be redundant. The pilot can then decide whether or not to switch off the APU); and
conditional steps for alerting and recommending said optimal system be used if it is detected that this system is not used (Clermont in par 0067, teaches that a ground support unit according to the present invention, in particular a PCA, or a ground power unit (GPU) can be informed by the transponder whether the APU is on or off. In case the APU is on, a message or signal can be sent to the pilot informing that the a PCA or GPU is coupled to the aircraft (optimal system), while the APU (less optimal system) is on, so that the pilot can decide whether or not to switch off the APU).
However, Clermont does not specifically disclose the performance of said system minimizing an energy, economic or polluting emissions cost function.
Vedantam in par 0002, teaches that large industrial operations, for example, airport operations, ground handling operations, etc., require the integration and coordination of multiple assets such as vehicles, equipment, systems, etc., into complex systems and/or methods of operation. Ground handling operations comprise a wide range of operations associated with servicing an asset, for example, an aircraft, while the asset in on the ground and parked at a terminal gate of an airport.
Vedantam in par 0011, 0035 and Fig. 5, further teaches that the operations management engine determines actions associated with the assets to be executed based on the determined data elements by performing one or more of the following. The operations management engine identifies optimal assets from among the plurality of assets to be allocated for tasks associated with the operations. The operations management engine identifies value-added machine asset hours and non-value-added machine asset hours for reducing fuel consumption and maintenance costs while extending warranty periods. Vendatam in par 0044, further teaches that the data elements provide information for proactive scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of equipment based on utilization and allow monitoring of the health of the assets 202. The data elements also facilitate optimization of asset utilization and reduction in fuel consumption, carbon footprint, and maintenance costs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Vedantam with the teachings as in Clermont to optimize the grounds units of Clermont as disclosed in in Vedantam. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure consistent service delivery standards to turn around an aircraft safely in the shortest amount of time; reduce operating and maintenance costs to deliver highest benefit/cost ratio that is shared between stakeholders; and implement technology-driven solutions to optimally utilize capital-intensive resources such as ground support equipment (GSE) (See Vedantam’s par 0098).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clermont in view of Vedantam and in further view of Lionel Clermont (US 2024/0308686) (hereinafter, Lionel) (filing date 07/13/2021).
Regarding Claim 6, Clermont in view of Vedantam teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Clermont further teaches:
wherein the step of determining the optimal system presents, for each power source,
a selection level that depends on the performance (Clermont in par 0062, teaches that a central processor is in communication with other ground support units and can optimize the interactions between different ground support units, or decide which unit is most suitable for servicing a given aircraft, depending on the servicing program required, on the distance to the aircraft, or on the need of an analogous service by another aircraft located nearby),
Clermont in par 0065, further teaches that by recording the actual servicing time and energy consumption of a ground support unit, the clients may be invoiced instantaneously based on the actual work performed. If flat rates are applied, they can be adapted to better match the actual consumption of the units.
However, Clermont does not specifically disclose a selection level that depends on an energy or monetary cost of using said source, and a selection level that depends on polluting emissions generated when using the source.
Lionel teaches ab aircraft ground support unit for supplying a specific service according to a specific set of service parameters to an aircraft (See Lionel’s Abstract)
Lionel in par 0004, teaches that mobile ground support units can be displaced to service aircrafts in separate locations sequentially, thereby reducing the total number of mobile ground support units required for servicing all the aircrafts. Most of the mobile aircraft ground support units include a rechargeable energy storage unit (RESU) such as a battery or a fuel tank. In association with a motor, the RESU is capable of autonomously powering the ground support unit for reaching an aircraft and for delivering a specific service thereto. This eliminates the need for an external power supply point close to all aircraft parking spots where an aircraft can receive a specific service. For the purpose of reducing carbon emissions associated with the servicing of the aircrafts, many airports require GSU's to be powered electrically. The RESU in such electrically powered GSU's can be a battery.
Lionel in par 0006, teaches that before supplying a specific service to an aircraft, an operator of a corresponding ground support unit (GSU) comprising a rechargeable energy storage unit (RESU) must first check an instantaneous charge level of the RESU and compare it with an estimate of the specific service energy required by the GSU to supply the whole specific service. Such energy shortage can induce an interruption of the servicing during the time a new GSU is brought to replace the first one, or during the time required for loading or refilling the RESU. In the end, the energy shortage can induce delays in the schedule of the serviced aircraft and cause additional financial losses. On the other hand, choosing a higher than required value of the foregoing safety margin leads to additional operator workload due to the more frequent recharging of the RESU. Frequent recharging of each GSU belonging to a fleet also increases an average unavailability time of the GSU's within the fleet, which can yield an oversizing of the fleet and additional costs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Lionel with the teachings as in Clermont and Vedantam to assign the units of Clermont based on different levels as disclosed in Lionel. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively select a unit that does not require recharging for a service, thus reducing monetary cost and carbon emissions (See Lionels’ par 0006 – 0007).
Regarding Claim 7, Clermont in view of Vedantam teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Clermont further teaches:
Clermont in par 0062, further teaches that said central processor is in communication with other ground support units and can optimize the interactions between different ground support units, or decide which unit is most suitable for servicing a given aircraft, depending on the servicing program required, on the distance to the aircraft, or on the need of an analogous service by another aircraft located nearby.
However, Clermont does not specifically disclose wherein the step of determining the optimal system is carried out by machine learning.
Lionel in par 0218, teaches that a control unit of the GSU is configured for determining an actual service energy consumption after completion of the specific service, and for uploading the actual service energy consumption to the database. The GSU can also communicate additional data provided by the airport management system or manually updated data entered through the user input interface to optimize the algorithms used for adapting the specific service energy budget estimate to different local situations. The correction of the algorithms can be made manually by a human programmer, or it can be adapted by the control unit by artificial intelligence, building up over accumulated data corresponding to various local situations of a same specific service.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Lionel with the teachings as in Clermont and Vedantam to use machine learning to update the algorithms of the microprocessor of Clermont as disclosed in Lionel. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively optimize the algorithms used for adapting the specific service energy budget estimate to different situations (See Lionel’s par 0218).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1) Applicant argues that Clermont fails to disclose collecting, in real time, data including aircraft flight data and airport infrastructure and equipment data as required by claim 1, because claim 1 requires that aircraft flight data and airport infrastructure and equipment data be part of the collected real-time data set used to drive subsequent determination, evaluation, and optimization steps.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Clermont in par 0055 and Fig. 3, teaches that during its stay on the ground between a landing and a take-off, an aircraft must be serviced by a number of ground support units for providing the various services required for the functioning, comfort, and security of the aircraft. Each of the foregoing services must be carried out according to an accurate servicing program established by each airline company depending on the aircraft model, or even depending on a specific aircraft as a function of its airport of origin, the next destination, the mileage since the last servicing, and the like. Clermont in par 0058 – 0059, teaches that a ground support unit for supplying a service to an aircraft, the ground support unit comprising a reception means suitable for identifying an aircraft in motion or parked on the ground by receiving information emitted by a transponder of said aircraft including an instantaneous GPS coordinates of the position of the aircraft, the identity of the aircraft, the type of aircraft and the company of the aircraft.
Clermont in par 0062, further teaches that the microprocessor of a ground support unit is in communication with a central processor (9) located remote from the ground support unit. Said central processor is in communication with other ground support units and can optimize the interactions between different ground support units, or decide which unit is most suitable for servicing a given aircraft, depending on the servicing program required, on the distance to the aircraft, or on the need of an analogous service by another aircraft located nearby.
Accordingly, Clermont is receiving actual information from the aircraft, thus real time information. Furthermore, Clermont teaches that the foregoing services must be carried out according to an accurate servicing program established by each airline company depending on the aircraft model, or even depending on a specific aircraft as a function of its airport of origin, the next destination, the mileage since the last servicing, and the like. Thus, Clermont discloses the transmission of flight data.
Furthermore, Clermont by providing communication with a plurality of ground units and optimize the units to determine which is the most suitable unit for the service teaches the airport infrastructure.
Accordingly, Clermont disclose collecting, in real time, data including aircraft flight data and airport infrastructure and equipment data as required by claim 1
(2) Clermont also fails to disclose determining the available electrical or pneumatic internal power sources among the main engine and the APU based on data from avionics systems data rather than merely relying on any external indication or status.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 recites “a step of determining the available one or more of electrical and pneumatic power sources: internal, among the main engine and the APU, based on data from avionics systems”
Clermont in par 0003, teaches that an aircraft needs refueling and it must be supplied with electrical and pneumatic or hydraulic power, so that all its powered functions may remain operational with its engines off when parked on the ground. Clermont in par 0067, further teaches a ground power unit (GPU) which provides 400 Hz power to an aircraft, requiring no intervention from an APU. A ground support unit, in particular a preconditioned air ground unit (PCA), or a ground power unit (GPU) can be informed by the transponder whether the APU is on or off. In case the APU is on, a message or signal can be sent to the pilot informing that the a PCA or GPU is coupled to the aircraft, while the APU is on, so that the pilot can decide whether or not to switch off the APU).
Accordingly, Clermont discloses providing servicing to an aircraft, the aircraft comprising a main engine and an APU unit. The a ground unit can be inform if the APU is on and provide a message to the pilot. Thus, Clermont teaches “a step of determining the available one or more of electrical and pneumatic power sources: internal, among the main engine and the APU, based on data from avionics systems” as claimed.
(3) Clermont further fails to disclose evaluating, using specific algorithms, a performance level of each available power source as a function of a set point temperature to be reached in the cabin and of the collected data, wherein the performance comprises an ability and a time required to reach said setpoint temperature.
Clermont in par 0021 – 0024, teaches that the services provided by the foregoing types of ground support units must be carried out according to a specific servicing program, comprising various parameters to be respected. For example, the following parameters can be cited: (c) in a ground thermal heating unit for heating or cooling an aircraft: a supply time, a target temperature, a maximum allowed air blowing pressure, a maximum allowed blowing air flow rate, a minimum blowing air temperature, an aircraft mixing chamber defrosting cycle, a supply power, a supply energy.
Clermont in par 0062, teaches that the central processor is in communication with other ground support units and can optimize the interactions between different ground support units, or decide which unit is most suitable for servicing a given aircraft, depending on the servicing program required, on the distance to the aircraft, or on the need of an analogous service by another aircraft located nearby.
Clermont in par 0066, further teaches that the transponder can comprise numerous information concerning an aircraft, including data concerning the instant status of the aircraft. For example, the transponder can comprise a value of the instant temperature and/or relative humidity in a mixing chamber or in a cabin of an aircraft. With this information, the ground support unit can optimize the specific servicing program corresponding to an aircraft within a predefined range allowed by said servicing program. For example, if the instant temperature of the cabin or the mixing chamber is comprised within a certain range, the servicing program corresponding to the aircraft can be adapted by changing and optimizing the temperature of the cool air blown into the cabin by a preconditioned air ground unit (PCA).
Accordingly, Clermont teaches that servicing programs includes the target temperature, receiving the cabin temperature and based on the received information optimizing the servicing units to select the most suitable unit for the particular servicing program, thus Clermont teaches or suggests a step of evaluating, using specific algorithms, a performance level of each available power source as a function of a setpoint temperature to be reached in the cabin and of collected data, said performance comprising an ability and a time required to reach said set point temperature as claimed.
(4) Clermont also fails to disclose determining an optimal power system comprising at least one power source from among the available power sources, wherein the performance of said system minimizes an energy, economic or polluting emissions cost function.
The examiner agrees. However, newly cited art teaches this portion of the claim (See the above rejection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Lionel with the teachings as in Clermont and Vedantam to use machine learning to update the algorithms of the microprocessor of Clermont as disclosed in Lionel. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively optimize the algorithms used for adapting the specific service energy budget estimate to different situations (See Lionel’s par 0218).
(5) Clermont fails to disclose checking whether the optimal system be used if it is detected that this system is not used, because claim 1 requires a prior determination of an optimal power system and a subsequent verification of whether that optimal system is used, with the alerting and recommending specifically tied to the detection of non-use of that optimal system. At minimum, Clermont does not disclose these limitations in the arrangement recited in Claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “a step of checking whether the optimal system is used; and an alert and a use recommendation step, in the event of non-use of the optimal system determined in the checking step”.
Clermont in par 0033 – 0035, teaches that the central processor may actively manage a fleet of mobile ground support units, sending them to specific aircrafts, or passively managing said fleet, by following the position of each unit and correlating this data with the position of the nearest aircraft and of whether a unit is in operative mode or in rest mode. The microprocessor can be programmed to optimize within a predefined range the servicing program selected as a function of the data received on the instant status of the aircraft. For example, in case the data indicates that the APU is activated while a ground support unit is coupled to the aircraft, the microprocessor may send a message to the pilot informing that the ground support unit is coupled to the aircraft and operative, and that the APU may possibly be redundant. The pilot can then decide whether or not to switch off the APU)
Accordingly, Clermont teaches that a PCA or GPU is coupled to the aircraft (optimal system), while the APU (Less optimal system) is on, so the pilot get an alert to decide whether or not to switch off the APU. Therefore, Clermont teaches or suggests “a step of checking whether the optimal system is used; and an alert and a use recommendation step, in the event of non-use of the optimal system determined in the checking step” as claimed.
Applicant's remaining arguments with respect to claims are substantially encompassed in the arguments above, therefore examiner responds with the same rationale.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Examiner maintains prior art rejections.
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 ARIEL MERCADO VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1701. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ARIEL MERCADO-VARGAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118