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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
2. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6, 16, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 12448141 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is a broader and is anticipated by Claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12448141 B2 and thus constitutes an obvious variation. Further it would be obvious to claim a program and apparatus off the method and vice versa.
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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 1, 8, 9, and 16, they recite the limitation “based, in part, on…”. The limitation “in part” is used as a coordinating conjunction to show an alternative between features which separates two distinct options indicating that a choice must be made between them. But there is no other alternative feature claimed for “in part” alternative limitation.
As per Claim 17, it recites the limitation “based, at least in part, on…”. The limitation “at least in part” is used as a coordinating conjunction to show an alternative between features which separates two distinct options indicating that a choice must be made between them. But there is no other alternative feature claimed for “at least in part” alternative limitation.
As per claims 5, 13, and 20, they recite the limitation “the first local engine rating identifier, the second local engine rating identifier, or both, to the comparison target” in the comparing step which is unclear and indefinite because the recited comparison operands do not correspond to the identifier type of the recited comparison target. Each of these claims first maps the first local engine rating identifier and the second local engine rating identifier to a first local thrust rating model (TRM) identifier and a second local TRM identifier, respectively, and designates a single local TRM identifier as a comparison target; the comparison step, however, recites comparing the unmapped local engine rating identifiers, rather than the mapped local TRM identifiers, to the local-TRM-identifier comparison target. The claim recites the local engine rating identifiers and the local TRM identifiers as separate elements of different kinds and supplies no relation between them other than the mapping it recites. Therefore, it is unclear which a value of the one kind would be met by a value of the other for the purpose the comparing step recites. Examiner Interpretation - the limitation “the first local engine rating identifier, the second local engine rating identifier, or both, to the comparison target” is interpreted as comparing “the first local TRM identifier, the second local TRM identifier, or both, to the designated comparison target”.
As per Claim 6 and 14, they recite the limitation “condition is satisfied” which is vague and indefinite since “satisfied” does not set range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gunn (US 5893040 A).
As per Claim 1, and 9, Gunn discloses A method/ an aircraft (Fig. 1 and the description), comprising:
(Claim 9) two or more electronic engine controllers (EECs), wherein each EEC is associated with a respective one of the two or more engines (col. 3 lines 26-42); and a flight management computer (FMC) communicatively coupled to the two or more EECs, wherein the FMC includes a non-volatile memory and one or more processors configured to: (col. 3 lines 26-42; col. 4 lines 45-65: the FMC/TMCs coupled to the EECs over the communication system carry the non-volatile memory and the data processor);
(Claim 1 and 9) accessing, by one or more processors of a flight management computer (FMC) of an aircraft, first engine data from a non-volatile memory of the FMC (col. 5 lines 35-60 “At step 306 a test is made to determine whether an EEC thrust rating identifier is stored in nonvolatile memory 126(FIG. 1).”; col. 4 lines 58-65: the processing begins on power-up and interrogates the flight management computer’s nonvolatile memory 126 for the thrust rating identifier held there, the value being read at step 312, where a test is made whether a database entry exists for that identifier, and at step 408, where it is compared with the reported identifier, those operations being performed by the FMC/TMC’s data processor 127, i.e., the “first engine data” as claimed); and
performing, by the one or more processors, one or more error check operations based on at least the first engine data to determine whether to select an engine thrust rating for a thrust model of the aircraft based, in part, on a first engine rating identifier associated with the first engine data (col. 7 lines 3-20 “a test is made to determine whether the thrust rating identifier stored in volatile memory is the same as the thrust rating identifier stored in nonvolatile memory 126”; col. 6 lines 30-47 “the process proceeds to step 312, where a test is made to determine whether a database entry exists for the engine thrust rating identifier stored in nonvolatile memory 126”; col. 5 lines 42-46: the stored identifier is first tested for a corresponding database entry and, on a negative determination, the process branches instead to the identifier reported by the electronic engine controller; the stored-versus-reported equality test then governs whether the stored value is retained, so these operations determine whether the rating identified by the stored engine rating identifier is the one selected for the thrust computations of the aircraft).
As per Claim 8 and 16, Gunn discloses further comprising: accessing, from the non-volatile memory of the FMC, additional engine data for each engine of one or more additional engines of the aircraft (col. 7 lines 35-41 “the FMC/TMCs 120a and 120b would store a thrust rating identifier in nonvolatile memory 126 for each jet engine 104”: in the arrangement for an aircraft on which differing thrust ratings are allowed among the engines, a thrust rating identifier is stored in the non-volatile memory of the flight management computer for each engine of the aircraft); and
performing, by the one or more processors, one or more additional error check operations based on the additional engine data to determine whether to select the engine thrust rating for the thrust model of the aircraft based, in part, on one or more engine rating identifiers associated with the additional engine data (col. 7 lines 5-7 “a test is made to determine whether the thrust rating identifier stored in volatile memory is the same as the thrust rating identifier stored in nonvolatile memory 126”: with an identifier so stored for each engine, the stored-versus-reported test is performed in respect of each engine against that engine’s own stored identifier, and its result governs whether the rating identified by the stored identifier is selected).
As per Claim 17, Gunn discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors (Fig. 3-4 and the description) to:
access, from a non-volatile memory of a flight management computer (FMC), engine data associated with engines of an aircraft (col. 5 lines 35-60 “At step 306 a test is made to determine whether an EEC thrust rating identifier is stored in nonvolatile memory 126(FIG. 1).”; col. 4 lines 58-65: the processing begins on power-up and interrogates the flight management computer’s nonvolatile memory 126 for the thrust rating identifier held there, the value being read at step 312, where a test is made whether a database entry exists for that identifier, and at step 408, where it is compared with the reported identifier, those operations being performed by the FMC/TMC’s data processor 127, i.e., the “first engine data” as claimed);
perform one or more error check operations based on at least the engine data accessed from the non-volatile memory (col. 7 lines 3-20 “a test is made to determine whether the thrust rating identifier stored in volatile memory is the same as the thrust rating identifier stored in nonvolatile memory 126”; col. 6 lines 30-47 “the process proceeds to step 312, where a test is made to determine whether a database entry exists for the engine thrust rating identifier stored in nonvolatile memory 126”; col. 5 lines 42-46: the stored identifier is first tested for a corresponding database entry and, on a negative determination, the process branches instead to the identifier reported by the electronic engine controller; the stored-versus-reported equality test then governs whether the stored value is retained, so these operations determine whether the rating identified by the stored engine rating identifier is the one selected for the thrust computations of the aircraft); and select
an engine thrust rating for a thrust model of the aircraft, wherein the engine thrust rating is selected from among the engine data accessed from the non-volatile memory or from engine data received from an electronic engine controller (EEC) of the aircraft based, at least in part, on results of the one or more error check operations (col. 7 lines 3-17 “at step 414 the FMC/TMC 120 replaces the “old” thrust rating identifier stored in nonvolatile memory 126 with the “new” thrust rating identifier”: depending on the comparison results the FMC/TMC proceeds on the rating stored in non-volatile memory or adopts the newly reported EEC rating, i.e., the rating is selected from among the two data sources).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunn (US 5893040 A) in view of Meilinger (US 2018/0048424 A1).
Gunn teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17 above.
As per Claim 2, 10 and 18, Gunn fails to teach explicitly wherein the one or more error check operations include comparing a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) value received from an electronic engine controller (EEC) and a corresponding CRC value from the non-volatile memory of the FMC.
Meilinger teaches wherein the one or more error check operations include comparing a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) value received from an electronic engine controller (EEC) and a corresponding CRC value from the non-volatile memory of the FMC (Meilinger: [0040] “In step 103, a CRC checksum is calculated from the extracted address of the memory cell and the extracted data word.”; [0042] “In step 205, the calculated CRC checksum is compared with the extracted CRC checksum from the received data packet. In step 206, the extracted data word is written to the extracted address of the memory cell in a data storage if the calculated CRC checksum matches the extracted CRC checksum.”: Examiner’s Note - the claimed “cyclic redundancy check (CRC) value received from an electronic engine controller (EEC)” corresponds to the CRC checksum Meilinger extracts from the received data packet, and the claimed “corresponding CRC value from the non-volatile memory of the FMC” corresponds to the CRC checksum calculated at the receiving unit over the address and data word of the memory cell in which the data are held, because in the combination the data so transferred are the thrust rating identifier the engine’s electronic engine controller reports and the identifier the flight management computer holds in nonvolatile memory 126; the claimed corresponding value is accordingly a check value determined in respect of the engine data held in that non-volatile memory, and is not limited to a check value retrieved from that memory as a stored value). In particular, Meilinger teaches, for data transferred over an aircraft inter-computer data link, calculating a check value from the address and data word of the memory cell holding the data to be sent, transmitting that check value with the data, comparing it at the receiving unit with the check value calculated there, and writing the received data word into the addressed memory cell only when the two match.
Gunn and Meilinger are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor, data management for aircraft flight and engine control computing systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Meilinger into Gunn's invention to provide a highly deterministic, precisely time-matched performance system (Meilinger: [0003]).
As per Claim 3, 11 and 19, Gunn teaches further comprising, based on a result of the one or more error check operations, clearing the first engine data from the non-volatile memory of the FMC (col. 7 lines 3-15: upon a negative comparison result the old stored engine data ceases to be held in the non-volatile memory; Examiner’s Note - “clearing the first engine data from the non-volatile memory” corresponds to Gunn’s replacement of the “old” stored thrust rating identifier with the “new” identifier at step 414, because data that have been overwritten are no longer held in the memory that held them, which is the ordinary meaning of clearing data from a memory; paragraph [0052] of the specification of the instant application is consistent with that reading, but the reading does not depend on it).
5. Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunn (US 5893040 A).
Gunn teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17 above.
As per Claim 4, 12, and 20, Gunn teaches further comprising: receiving, at the one or more processors of the FMC from a first electronic engine controller (EEC) of the aircraft, a first thrust rating identifier associated with a first engine of the aircraft (col. 5 lines 1-22 “the associated FMC/TMCs 120a or 120b receive a new thrust rating identifier from the related EEC 108a or 108b”; col. 3 lines 26-35; col. 4 lines 30-44: each engine’s electronic engine controller interprets the configuration of that engine’s plugs and sends the corresponding thrust rating identifier over the communication system, the engine data interface unit transforming the data for the flight management digital data bus, which transfers it to the flight management computers, so that the flight management computer receives the identifier from the electronic engine controller of the related engine, Gunn describing in the alternative a configuration in which the electronic engine controllers send data directly to the flight management computers);
receiving, at the one or more processors of the FMC from a second EEC of the aircraft, a second thrust rating identifier associated with a second engine of the aircraft (col. 5 lines 1-34 “the associated FMC/TMCs 120a or 120b receive a new thrust rating identifier from the related EEC 108a or 108b.”; col. 3 lines 26-52 “ a pair of jet engines 104a and 104b, each having an electronic engine controller (EEC) 108a and 108b coupled to the engine”; col. 4 lines 30-44); and
determining a single rating identifier based on the first thrust rating identifier, the second thrust rating identifier, and the first engine rating identifier (col. 7 lines 5-7; col. 7 lines 21-42 “a test is made to determine whether all of the engine thrust rating identifiers stored in volatile memory match”). In particular, Gunn teaches testing the reported identifiers for agreement with one another (col. 7 lines 23-24) and, on agreement, comparing the reported identifier with the engine rating identifier the flight management computer holds in non-volatile memory (col. 7 lines 28-31: on a determination at step 410 that the reported identifiers from all engines match, the process proceeds to step 408; col. 7 lines 5-7), the outcome governing whether the identifier held in non-volatile memory is retained or is replaced by the reported identifier (col. 7 lines 8-11).
However, Gunn does not state in terms that these tests determine a single rating identifier. What Gunn selects at step 414 is which of two sources, the identifier held in non-volatile memory or the identifier newly reported by an electronic engine controller, supplies the engine thrust rating (col. 7 lines 8-11). The single rating identifier of the instant claim is a different quantity: a value determined from the thrust rating identifiers reported by two engines together with the engine rating identifier the flight management computer holds.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to characterize the identifier that Gunn’s tests leave in force as a single rating identifier determined from the first thrust rating identifier, the second thrust rating identifier and the first engine rating identifier. Gunn saves one pointer, to one database entry, for the identifier those tests leave in force (col. 6 lines 20-26 “When a corresponding database entry has been found, at step 314 the FMC/TMC 120 saves a pointer value to the database entry corresponding to the new engine thrust rating identifier.”), and the entries of that database are the data corresponding to a thrust rating (col. 6 lines 2-4). An avionic system that computes one thrust model for the aircraft must proceed on one such entry, and Gunn describes the saving of a pointer value, in the singular, for the identifier its tests leave in force; determining which identifier that is, from the two reported identifiers and the identifier held in non-volatile memory, is the function Gunn’s tests perform and the purpose for which Gunn performs them.
As per Claim 5, 13 and 20, Gunn teaches wherein said determining the single rating identifier comprises: determining, for the first engine, a first local engine rating identifier based on the first thrust rating identifier and the first engine rating identifier (col. 7 lines 1-15: on a negative determination the reported identifier replaces the identifier held in non-volatile memory, and on a positive determination the held identifier stands, so that the identifier in force for that engine is determined from the reported identifier and the identifier held for it); mapping the first local engine rating identifier to a first local thrust rating model (TRM) identifier (col. 6 lines 1-29 “When a corresponding database entry has been found, at step 314 the FMC/TMC 120 saves a pointer value to the database entry corresponding to the new engine thrust rating identifier.” : each database entry corresponds to one or more thrust ratings, so the saved pointer identifies the entry holding the thrust rating data for the rating that identifier designates);
determining, for the second engine, a second local engine rating identifier based on the second thrust rating identifier and a second engine rating identifier from the non-volatile memory of the FMC and mapping the second local engine rating identifier to a second local TRM identifier (col. 7 lines 21-41 “On an aircraft where differing thrust ratings are allowed among the engines, steps 410 and 412 would be eliminated, and processing would cycle to step 408 whenever one or more EEC-reported ratings are available. In this alternative, the FMC/TMCs 120a and 120b would store a thrust rating identifier in nonvolatile memory 126 for each jet engine 104.”: an identifier is held in the non-volatile memory of the flight management computer for each engine of the aircraft, so the determination and the mapping described above for the first engine are performed for the second engine against the identifier held for it).
Gunn does not state in terms that the flight management computer performs the step of designating a single local TRM identifier as a comparison target, nor the step of comparing the first local engine rating identifier, the second local engine rating identifier, or both, to the comparison target to identify a common rating identifier as the single rating identifier.
Further, Gunn describes two arrangements in the same passage and expressly offers them as alternatives (col. 7 lines 31-41): the preferred arrangement, in which the reported identifiers are tested against one another at step 410, and the alternative, in which an identifier is held in non-volatile memory for each engine and each reported identifier is tested at step 408 against the identifier held for its own engine. Gunn states that the step 410 test is not required (col. 7 lines 34-35 “The invention does not require this test to be performed.”). Their teachings are therefore properly taken together.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to designate one of the per-engine identifiers as the comparand and to test the others against it. Gunn already performs its comparison in that single-comparand form at step 408, where a reported identifier is tested against the one identifier held for that engine (col. 7 lines 5-7), and Gunn’s own arrangement contemplates the engines being reconciled to one rating, since the flight management computer saves a pointer value to the database entry on which the thrust model proceeds and step 410 exists to confirm that the ratings the engines report agree (col. 6 lines 20-26; col. 7 lines 23-24). Applying the comparison Gunn performs within one engine across the engines of the aircraft reaches the same determination of agreement that step 410 reaches, and reaches it in a number of comparisons that grows with the number of engines rather than with the number of pairs of engines. The identifier that the comparison confirms the engines to share is the identifier on which the thrust model then proceeds, i.e., the “common rating identifier as the single rating identifier” as claimed because the identifier in force for an engine and the pointer saved for it stand in one-to-one correspondence in Gunn (col. 6 lines 20-26).
6. Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunn (US 5893040 A) in view of Smith (US 2022/0106059 A1).
Gunn teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17 above.
As per Claim 6, Gunn teaches further comprising, after powerup of the FMC (col. 5 lines 39-42 “The processing 302 illustrated in FIG. 3 begins 304 on power-up.”: the power-up processing interrogates the flight management computer’s nonvolatile memory 126 for the thrust rating identifier held there).
However, Gunn fails to teach explicitly receiving sensor data, wherein the first engine data is accessed responsive to the sensor data indicating that an engine data processing condition is satisfied.
Smith teaches receiving sensor data, wherein the first engine data is accessed responsive to the sensor data indicating that an engine data processing condition is satisfied (Smith: [0200] “parameter values can be recorded for the parameters of one or more of the parameter reporting lists depending on whether the target conditions associated with the parameter reporting list are met.”; [0201] “At (612), the method (600) includes receiving sensor data from one or more sensors.”; [0202] “At (614), the method (600) includes determining whether the target condition(s) are met based at least in part on the received sensor data.”; Examiner’s Note - the claimed “engine data processing condition” corresponds to Smith’s target condition, and the claimed access of the first engine data responsive to that condition corresponds to Smith’s gating of the handling of engine parameter data on the same determination).
Gunn and Smith are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor, data management for aircraft flight and engine control computing systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Smith into Gunn's invention for the purpose of automatically providing jet engine thrust ratings to avionic systems to provide an improved system that parameter values are recorded depending on whether the target conditions associated with the parameter reporting list are met, determined based at least in part on the received sensor data, so that the data are taken up when the target conditions are met rather than on every power-up intelligently and efficiently (Smith: [0038], [0200]-[0202], [0221]).
As per Claim 14, Gunn teaches further comprising … wherein the one or more processors are configured to access engine data from the non-volatile memory and select the engine thrust rating for the thrust model …(col. 5 lines 40-42; col. 7 lines 5-11: the accessing of the engine data from the non-volatile memory and the selection of the engine thrust rating for the thrust model are Gunn’s and in the combination those operations are performed responsive to the sensor-indicated condition).
Gunn fails to teach explicitly further comprising one or more sensors configured to generate sensor data indicating whether an engine data processing condition is satisfied … based on the sensor data indicating that the engine data processing condition is satisfied.
Smith teaches comprising one or more sensors configured to generate sensor data indicating whether an engine data processing condition is satisfied… based on the sensor data indicating that the engine data processing condition is satisfied (Smith: [0200] “parameter values can be recorded for the parameters of one or more of the parameter reporting lists depending on whether the target conditions associated with the parameter reporting list are met.”; [0201] “At (612), the method (600) includes receiving sensor data from one or more sensors.”; [0202] “At (614), the method (600) includes determining whether the target condition(s) are met based at least in part on the received sensor data.: Examiner’s Note - the claimed “engine data processing condition” corresponds to Smith’s target condition, and the claimed access of the first engine data responsive to that condition corresponds to Smith’s gating of the handling of engine parameter data on the same determination).
7. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunn (US 5893040 A) in view of Smith (US 2022/0106059 A1), further in view of MN (US 2012/0277935 A1).
Gunn teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17 above.
Gunn as modified by Smith teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 6 and 14 above.
As per Claim 7 and 15, Gunn as modified by Smith teaches further comprising, in response to said performing one or more error check operations to determine whether to select the engine thrust rating for the thrust model indicating to select the engine thrust rating: selecting the engine thrust rating for the thrust model of the aircraft (Gunn: col. 7 lines 5-7; col. 5 lines 42-46; col. 6 lines 1-26 “These entries are used by the FMC/TMCs 120a and 120b in a variety of ways that are well known to those skilled in this art.”, “When a corresponding database entry has been found, at step 314 the FMC/TMC 120 saves a pointer value to the database entry corresponding to the new engine thrust rating identifier.”: when the identifier held in non-volatile memory passes the validity and equality tests, the rating that identifier designates is the one selected for the thrust model, and the flight management computer saves a pointer to the database entry corresponding to it).
However, Gunn as modified by Smith fails to teach explicitly performing one or more inflight calculations based on the engine thrust rating.
MN teaches performing one or more inflight calculations based on the engine thrust rating (MN: [0053] “the thrust 406 is obtained from the performance database based on the current predicted aircraft state which includes parameters, such as aircraft gross weight, flying altitude and the aircraft speed.”; [0057] “In this embodiment, the computations in the climb segment 304 include computing dv/dt and dh/dt.”; [0093] “Now referring to FIG. 5, which illustrates the FMS 502 including an aircraft performance predictions module 528 for determining the aircraft performance predictions for the climb flight phase using the processes shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, according to one embodiment.”: Examiner’s Note - the claimed “inflight calculations based on the engine thrust rating” correspond to MN’s aircraft performance predictions for the climb flight phase, the thrust for those computations being drawn from the performance database on the aircraft state then predicted). In particular, MN teaches a flight management system that includes an aircraft performance predictions module for determining the aircraft performance predictions for the climb flight phase, the computations of the climb segment including the rate of change of speed and the rate of change of altitude, and the thrust used in those computations being obtained from the performance database on the aircraft state then predicted ( [0053], [0057], [0093]).
Gunn, Smith, and MN are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, data management for aircraft flight and engine control computing systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate MN into Gunn as modified by Smith's invention for the purpose of automatically providing jet engine thrust ratings to avionic systems to provide an improved system that parameter values are recorded depending on whether the target conditions associated with the parameter reporting list are met, determined based at least in part on the received sensor data, so that the data are taken up when the target conditions are met rather than on every power-up intelligently and efficiently (Smith: [0038], [0200]-[0202], [0221]) and to provide the accurate aircraft performance predictions for the climb flight phase, the thrust for those predictions being obtained from the performance database based on the current predicted aircraft state (MN: [0003], [0093], [0053]).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Poth (US 2015/0275767 A1) teaches mapping desired gas turbine engine control ratings to generic rating structures stored in a controller memory.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights