DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the reply filed on June 10, 2025. Claims 21-24, 27-34 and 37-41 are pending.
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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-24, 27-34 and 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claims 21 and 31, the claims recite “initiating a first power transfer… in a first increment during a set interval of time“ and “initiating a subsequent power transfer… in a second increment during the set interval of time” (emphasis added).
Applicant only points specifically to paragraphs 0076-0077 in the specification in support of the amendment. However, these paragraphs fail to support that the first power transfer/first increment and the subsequent power transfer/second increment are both during the set interval of time (of the first power transfer). To the contrary, the paragraphs state power is transferred incrementally at a set interval of time. Thus, the subsequent power transfer would occur after, not during, the set interval of time in which the first power transfer occurs, corresponding to a subsequent interval. This incremental transfer is said to occur until the stall is cleared. The written description does not support two distinct power transfers/increments during the same “set interval of time”. Applicant has not otherwise pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear additional support elsewhere, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed.
As to Claims 21 and 31, the claims recite “initiating a subsequent power transfer via the one or more electric machines, in a second increment during the set interval of time in order to prevent or clear the stall condition, wherein the second increment is different than the first increment” (emphasis added).
Applicant only points specifically to paragraphs 0076-0077 in the specification in support of the amendment. However, these paragraphs fail to support that a first increment and a second increment (of a subsequent power transfer) are different during the same “set interval of time” and in response to a same stall condition. Applicant has not otherwise pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear additional support elsewhere, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed.
Claims 22-24, 27-30, 32-34 and 37-41 lack adequate support for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 21-24, 27-34 and 37-41 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 to Claims 21 and 31, a claim, although clear on its face, may be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970).
In the instant case, the ”set interval of time” is used in the specification to describe a manner in which power is transferred incrementally (at the set interval of time). As such, it is apparent one increment occurs at one instance of the set interval of time. However, the claims now recite a first power transfer of a first increment in a set interval of time and a subsequent power transfer in a second increment during the set interval of time. This raises question as to the intended meaning of “set interval” and how Applicant is using the term in the claims, which does not correspond to the specification, and how the interval of time is considered “set”. Notably, where a process is repeated at a set interval in perpetuity only until a criteria separate from time is met, one of ordinary skill would not typically consider the entire time period of the process to be a “set interval”. The specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). As a result of the above, the metes and bounds of “set interval of time” are not clear.
As to Claims 21 and 31, a claim, although clear on its face, may be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970).
In the instant case, the claims recite that “the second increment is different from the first increment” during a “set interval of time”. The specification does not discuss first and second increments being different within the same “set interval of time”. In view of the disclosure, it is not clear what “the second increment is different from the first increment” covers, particularly given it is to occur during “the set interval of time”. For example, is a second increment different from a first increment merely by occurring subsequently in the interval of time? Likewise, if a first increment is an increase from 0 horsepower to 75 horsepower, and a second increment increases that 75 horsepower to 150 horsepower, is the second increment different than the first increment?
Claims 22-24, 27-30, 32-34 and 37-41 dependent from an indefinite claim and are unclear for like reasons.
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
2019/0368500
“EPSTEIN”
US 4,117,668
“ELSAESSER”
2021/0246837
“ROMERO”
US 4,686,834
“HALEY”
2019/0003397
“GANSLER”
2011/0125419
“BECHHOEFER”
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.
Claims 21-24 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EPSTEIN in view of ELSAESSER AND ROMERO and HALEY.
Re Claim 21, EPSTEIN teaches a method for operating a hybrid-electric propulsion system of an aircraft [Figs. 1, 4-5] (wherein system 400 is an embodiment of engine 20 of Figure 1, ¶¶0031, 0041), the hybrid-electric propulsion system comprising a gas turbine engine [20, 400] having a high pressure ("HP") compressor 204B, a low pressure ("LP") compressor 204A, and one or more electric machines [212A, 212B] coupled to at least one of the HP compressor and the LP compressor (212A is coupled to the LP compressor and 212B is coupled to the HP compressor), the method comprising:
sensing current speed data of the HP compressor of the gas turbine engine (Step 502, ¶¶0036-0037, 0045; as such the data is indicative of acceleration, deceleration and steady state operation);
identifying an aerodynamically unstable compressor by determining that conditions within one of the HP compressor or the LP compressor are within a threshold of a surge condition based at least in part on the sensed data, the one of the HP compressor or the LP compressor that is determined to be within the threshold of a surge condition being the aerodynamically unstable compressor (Step 504, ¶¶0037, 0045, 0002); and
initiating a first power transfer, via the one or more electric machines, in a first increment to the aerodynamically unstable compressor (Steps 506 & 508, ¶¶0038-0039, 0045-0046). However, EPSTEIN as discussed so far fails to expressly teach the surge condition is a stall condition (though implicit).
EPSTEIN further teaches that “surge and rotating stalls” are referred to as surge throughout (¶0002). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the surge condition such that it is a stall condition, such as a rotating stall, to damp out compressor surge oscillations during the early stages and reduce risk of compressor stall (¶¶0002, 0019). However, EPSTEIN as discussed so far fails to teach the sensing data indicative of current acceleration is acceleration of the HP compressor of the gas turbine engine.
ELSAESSER teaches identifying a stall condition by sensing data indicative of current acceleration of a HP compressor of the gas turbine engine and identifying an aerodynamically unstable compressor by determining that conditions within one of the HP compressor or an LP compressor are within a threshold of a stall condition based at least in part on the sensed data (1:57 to 2:30, 4:42-68, claim 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of EPSTEIN such that the sensing of data is indicative of current acceleration of the HP compressor of the gas turbine engine, in order to detect stall such that corrective action can be taken such that stall is avoided (ELSAESSER 1:5-25). However, EPSTEIN in view of ELSAESSER as discussed so far fails to teach the initiating the first power transfer via the one or more electric machines, is in a first increment during a set interval of time to the aerodynamically unstable compressor; repeating, during the set interval of time, the sensing step and the identifying step after initiating the first power transfer in the first increment; and initiating a subsequent power transfer, via the one or more electric machines, in a second increment during the set interval of time in order to prevent or clear the stall condition, wherein the second increment is different than the first increment.
ROMERO teaches initiating a first power transfer via the one or more electric machines, that is in a first increment during an interval of time (¶¶0038-0040) to the aerodynamically unstable compressor (Fig. 6, ¶¶0038-0040) and repeating, during the interval of time, the sensing step and the identifying step after initiating the first power transfer in the first increment (Figure 6, ¶0038, 0040); and initiating a subsequent power transfer, via the one or more electric machines, in a second increment during the interval of time in order to prevent or clear the stall condition (¶0040, method repeated on the basis of monitoring surge recovery), wherein the second increment is different than the first increment (where the method is repeated ¶0040 on the basis of monitoring surge recovery it will determine the amount of power based in proportion to the engine parameters again, and thus suggests the increment of the repetition would be different in time of application and also different in magnitude). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method wherein the initiating the first power transfer via the one or more electric machines, is in a first increment during an interval of time to the aerodynamically unstable compressor; repeating, during the interval of time, the sensing step and the identifying step after initiating the first power transfer in the first increment; and initiating a subsequent power transfer, via the one or more electric machines, in a second increment during the interval of time in order to prevent or clear the stall condition, wherein the second increment is different than the first increment, in order to apply continuing surge control assistance until a surge condition is detected as having been resolved (ROMERO ¶0040).
To the extent that Applicant may be considering ‘a duration until surge is cleared’ to be a “set interval of time” (See Rejection under 35 USC 112 above), it is noted that the interval of time of ROMERO discussed above would then be a set interval of time. Furthermore, since repeating the method of Figure 5, occurs subsequent to a first pass of the method, the second increment of the subsequent pass of the method would be different and also where the method 500 is repeated the amount of power would be based in proportion to a new measurement from the sensed engine parameters of the current pass of the method and be different for this additional reason. However, given the ambiguity of the claims resulting from the 35 USC 112 issue noted above, HALEY is also discussed below.
Additionally or alternatively, HALEY teaches surge control of a compressor 12 including initiating a first power transfer (additional current to increase RPM) via one or more electric machines 22 in a first increment (increased RPM) during a set interval of time to an aerodynamically unstable compressor (during a time set by timer in Section IV in Fig. 2); repeating, during the set interval of time, a sensing step (measure freq. step in Section III in Fig. 2) and an identifying step (frequency of surge fluctuation step in Section III in Fig. 2) after initiating the first power transfer in the first increment (Figure, see flowchart section III & IV); and initiating a subsequent power transfer, via the one or more electric machines, in a second increment during the set interval of time in order to prevent or clear the stall condition (Figure 2 flowchart sections III & IV, 1:15, 25; 5:15-29, claims 8, 14, 18), wherein the second increment is different than the first increment (it can be set according to a different flag and also may result in a further increase in speed; Figure 2, 1:15, 25; 5:15-29, claims 8, 14, 18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method wherein the initiating the first power transfer via the one or more electric machines, is in a first increment during a set interval of time to the aerodynamically unstable compressor; repeating, during the set interval of time, the sensing step and the identifying step after initiating the first power transfer in the first increment; and initiating a subsequent power transfer, via the one or more electric machines, in a second increment during the set interval of time in order to prevent or clear the stall condition, wherein the second increment is different than the first increment, in order to apply continuing surge control assistance until a surge condition is detected as having been resolved (ROMERO ¶0040; HALEY 1:15, 25; 5:15-29, claim 8).
Re Claim 22, EPSTEIN in view of ELASAESSER, ROMERO and HALEY teaches the method of claim 21, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein at least one of the initiating a first power transfer step of the initiating a subsequent power transfer step further comprises: transferring power, via the one or more electric machines, from an external power source to the aerodynamically unstable compressor.
ROMERO teaches at least one of the initiating a first power transfer step of the initiating a subsequent power transfer step further comprises: transferring power, via the one or more electric machines, from an external power source 700 to the aerodynamically unstable compressor (¶0029-0030). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method so wherein at least one of the initiating a first power transfer step of the initiating a subsequent power transfer step further comprises: transferring power, via the one or more electric machines, from an external power source to the aerodynamically unstable compressor, in order to recover from and/or prevent surge/stall while maintaining proper thrust levels (ROMERO ¶0040).
Re Claims 23-24, EPSTEIN in view of ELASAESSER, ROMERO and HALEY teaches the method of claim 21, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein at least one of the initiating a first power transfer step of the initiating a subsequent power transfer step further comprises: transferring power, via the one or more electric machines, from the HP compressor or the LP compressor, other than the one determined to be within the threshold of the stall condition, to the aerodynamically unstable compressor and wherein transferring power from the HP compressor or the LP compressor, other than the one determined to be within the threshold of the stall condition, to aerodynamically unstable compressor comprises: removing power from the other of the HP compressor or the LP compressor; and adding the power that was removed to the aerodynamically unstable compressor.
ROMERO further teaches wherein at least one of the initiating a first power transfer step of the initiating a subsequent power transfer step further comprises: transferring power, via the one or more electric machines, from the HP compressor or the LP compressor, other than the one determined to be within the threshold of the stall condition, to the aerodynamically unstable compressor and wherein transferring power from the HP compressor or the LP compressor, other than the one determined to be within the threshold of the stall condition, to aerodynamically unstable compressor comprises: removing power from the other of the HP compressor or the LP compressor; and adding the power that was removed to the aerodynamically unstable compressor (¶¶0035-0040, 212a may act as a motor/gen where power from first motor 212a may be configured to drive 212b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method wherein at least one of the initiating a first power transfer step of the initiating a subsequent power transfer step further comprises: transferring power, via the one or more electric machines, from the HP compressor or the LP compressor, other than the one determined to be within the threshold of the stall condition, to the aerodynamically unstable compressor and wherein transferring power from the HP compressor or the LP compressor, other than the one determined to be within the threshold of the stall condition, to aerodynamically unstable compressor comprises: removing power from the other of the HP compressor or the LP compressor; and adding the power that was removed to the aerodynamically unstable compressor, in order to recover from and/or prevent surge/stall while maintaining proper thrust levels (ROMERO ¶0040).
Re Claim 41, EPSTEIN in view of ELASAESSER, ROMERO and HALEY teaches the method of claim 21, but as discussed so far fails to teach the method further comprising: extracting, during the initiating a first power transfer step, the first increment of power from the other of the HP compressor or the LP compressor with the one or more electric machines; adding the extracted first increment of power to the aerodynamically unstable compressor; determining, after adding the extracted first increment of power to the aerodynamically unstable compressor, that the aerodynamically unstable compressor is still within the threshold of the stall conditions; extracting, during the initiating a subsequent power transfer step, the second increment of power from the HP compressor or the LP compressor, other than the one determined to be within the threshold of the stall condition, with the one or more electric machines; adding the extracted second increment of power to the aerodynamically unstable compressor in order to prevent or clear the stall condition.
HALEY teaches applying surge corrections to the aerodynamically unstable compressor with a time interval therebetween first and second increments of correction (1:15, 25; 5:15-29, claims 8, 14, 18, Fig. 2). ROMERO further teaches extracting, during initiating a first power transfer step, the first increment of power from the HP compressor or the LP compressor, other than the one determined to be within the threshold of the stall condition, with the one or more electric machines; adding the extracted first increment of power to the aerodynamically unstable compressor (¶¶0033-0040, 212a may act as a motor/gen where power from first motor 212a may be configured to drive 212b); determining, after adding the extracted first increment of power to the aerodynamically unstable compressor, that the aerodynamically unstable compressor is still within the threshold of the stall conditions (¶0040, repeating method 500); extracting, during an initiating a subsequent power transfer step, the second amount/increment of power from the other of the HP compressor or the LP compressor, other than the one determined to be within the threshold of the stall condition, with the one or more electric machines (¶0038-0040); adding extracted the second increment of power to the aerodynamically unstable compressor in order to prevent or clear the stall condition (repeating method 500 after the method does not result in surge recovery, ¶0040). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method further comprising: extracting, during the initiating a first power transfer step, the first increment of power from the other of the HP compressor or the LP compressor with the one or more electric machines; adding the extracted first increment of power to the aerodynamically unstable compressor; determining, after adding the extracted first increment of power to the aerodynamically unstable compressor, that the aerodynamically unstable compressor is still within the threshold of the stall conditions; extracting, during the initiating a subsequent power transfer step, the second increment of power from the HP compressor or the LP compressor, other than the one determined to be within the threshold of the stall condition, with the one or more electric machines; adding the extracted second increment of power to the aerodynamically unstable compressor in order to prevent or clear the stall condition, in order to apply continuing surge control assistance until a surge condition is detected as having been resolved (ROMERO ¶0040; HALEY 1:15, 25; 5:15-29, claim 8).
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EPSTEIN in view of ELSAESSER AND ROMERO and HALEY as applied above, further in view of GANSLER.
Re Claim 27, EPSTEIN in view of ELASAESSER, ROMERO and HALEY teaches the method of claim 21, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein, during at least one of the initiating a first power transfer step of the initating a second power transfer step, power is transferred to the aerodynamically unstable compressor in increments of between about 50 horsepower and about 150 horsepower.
EPSTEIN and ROMERO further teach selecting the amount of power based on measured conditions (EPSTEIN ¶0038-0039, ROMERO ¶0033) and GANSLER teaches wherein GANSLER teaches power is transferred to the aerodynamically unstable compressor in increments of between about 50 horsepower and about 150 horsepower (¶0063). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method wherein the power is transferred to the aerodynamically unstable compressor in increments of between about 50 horsepower and about 150 horsepower (GANSLER ¶0063), in order to damp developed or developing surge oscillations (EPSTEIN ¶0038-0039, ROMERO ¶0033). The prior art recognizes the amount of power transferred as a result-effective variable that achieves the desired surge control response. It has been held that the optimization of result effective variables by routine experimentation was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Re Claim 28, EPSTEIN in view of ELASAESSER, ROMERO and HALEY teaches the method of claim 21, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the stall condition is cleared and the initiating a subsequent power transfer step is terminated once the conditions within the aerodynamically unstable compressor are outside the threshold of the stall condition based at least in part on the sensed data indicative of a current acceleration of the HP compressor.
EPSTEIN further teaches sensed data within LP compressor (¶¶0036-0037, 0045). ROMERO teaches the stall condition is cleared and surge response is terminated once the conditions within the aerodynamically unstable compressor are outside the threshold of the stall condition based at least in part on the sensed data within the HP compressor (surge recover is monitored at step 512; method 500 may be repeated if the compressor does not recover and/or if the compressor experiences another cycle of surge, ¶¶0036, 0040). GANSLER also teaches wherein a power assist is terminated when it is determined to no longer be needed (¶0093). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method wherein the stall condition is cleared and the initiating a subsequent power transfer step is terminated once the conditions within the aerodynamically unstable compressor are outside the threshold of the stall condition based at least in part on the sensed data indicative of a current acceleration of the HP compressor, in order to recover from and/or prevent surge/stall while maintaining proper thrust levels (ROMERO ¶0040).
Re Claim 29, EPSTEIN in view of ELASAESSER, ROMERO and HALEY teaches the method of claim 21, but as discussed so far fails to teach further comprising accelerating or decelerating the gas turbine engine while performing the sensing step, the identifying step, and at least one of the initiating a first power transfer step or the initiating a second power transfer step.
ROMERO teaches performing the method (including the sensing step, the identifying step, and the transferring step during a thrust recovery (which includes deceleration and acceleration as shown in Fig. 6). See Fig. 6 and ¶0040. GANSLER teaches accelerating to provide thrust recovery (¶0085). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method further comprising accelerating or decelerating the gas turbine engine while performing the sensing step, the identifying step, and at least one of the initiating a first power transfer step or the initiating a second power transfer step, in order to recover from and/or prevent surge/stall while maintaining proper thrust levels in thrust recovery (ROMERO ¶0040).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EPSTEIN in view of ELSAESSER AND ROMERO and HALEY as applied above, further in view of BECHHOEFER.
Re Claim 30, EPSTEIN in view of ELASAESSER, ROMERO and HALEY teaches the method of claim 21, but as discussed so far is silent to wherein the sensing data includes sensing data at a particular frequency.
BECHHOEFER teaches a sensing data step includes sensing data at a frequency of at least 500 Hz (¶0178). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method such that the sensing data includes and the instructions further comprise sensing data at a frequency of at least 500 Hz, in order to utilize and/or monitor speed/acceleration data, for example via a 16- bit interface module (¶0178).
Claims 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EPSTEIN in view of ELSAESSER AND ROMERO and HALEY.
Re Claim 31, EPSTEIN teaches a hybrid-electric propulsion system of an aircraft (Figs. 1, 4-5) (wherein system 400 is an embodiment of engine 20 of Figure 1, ¶¶0031, 0041), comprising: a gas turbine engine 20,400 having a high pressure ("HP") compressor 204B, a low pressure ("LP") compressor 204A, at least one electric machine [212A, 212B] coupled to at least one of the HP compressor and the LP compressor (212A is coupled to the LP compressor and 212B is coupled to the HP compressor), and a controller 216 (¶0036), the controller including memory and one or more processors (¶0036), the memory storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the system to perform the following: sensing current speed data of the HP compressor of the gas turbine engine (Step 502, ¶¶0036-0037, 0045; as such the data is indicative of acceleration, deceleration and steady state operation); identifying an aerodynamically unstable compressor by determining that conditions within one of the HP compressor or the LP compressor are within a threshold of a surge condition based at least in part on the sensed data, the one of the HP compressor or the LP compressor that is determined to be within the threshold of a surge condition being the aerodynamically unstable compressor (¶¶0037, 0045, 0002; see also step 504); and transferring power in a first increment, via the one or more electric machines, to the aerodynamically unstable compressor (¶¶0038-0039, 0045-0046; see Steps 506, 508). However, EPSTEIN as discussed so far fails to expressly teach the surge condition is a stall condition (though implicit).
EPSTEIN further teaches that “surge and rotating stalls” are referred to as surge throughout (¶0002). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the surge condition such that it is a stall condition, such as a rotating stall, to damp out compressor surge oscillations during the early stages and reduce risk of compressor stall (¶¶0002, 0019). However, EPSTEIN as discussed so far fails to teach the sensing data is indicative of current acceleration of the HP compressor of the gas turbine engine.
ELSAESSER teaches identifying a stall condition by sensing data indicative of current acceleration of a HP compressor of the gas turbine engine and identifying an aerodynamically unstable compressor by determining that conditions within one of the HP compressor or an LP compressor are within a threshold of a stall condition based at least in part on the sensed data (1:57 to 2:30, 4:42-68, claim 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of EPSTEIN such that the sensing of data is indicative of acceleration of the HP compressor of the gas turbine engine, in order to detect stall such that corrective action can be taken such that stall is avoided (1:5-25). However, EPSTEIN in view of ELSAESSER as discussed so far fails to teach the initiating the first power transfer via the one or more electric machines, is in a first increment during a set interval of time to the aerodynamically unstable compressor; repeating, during the set interval of time, the sensing step and the identifying step after initiating the first power transfer in the first increment; and initiating a subsequent power transfer, via the one or more electric machines, in a second increment during the set interval of time in order to prevent or clear the stall condition, wherein the second increment is different than the first increment.
ROMERO teaches initiating a first power transfer via the one or more electric machines, in a first increment during an interval of time (¶0040) to the aerodynamically unstable compressor (Fig. 6, ¶¶0038-0040) and repeating, during the interval of time, the sensing step and the identifying step after initiating the first power transfer in the first increment (Figure 6, ¶0038, 0040); and initiating a subsequent power transfer, via the one or more electric machines, in a second increment during the interval of time in order to prevent or clear the stall condition (¶0040, method repeated on the basis of monitoring surge recovery), wherein the second increment is different than the first increment (where the method is repeated ¶0040 on the basis of monitoring surge recovery it will include determined the amount of power based in proportion to the engine parameters again, an thus suggests the increment would be different in time of application and also in magnitude). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system wherein the initiating the first power transfer via the one or more electric machines, is in a first increment during an interval of time to the aerodynamically unstable compressor; repeating, during the interval of time, the sensing step and the identifying step after initiating the first power transfer in the first increment; and initiating a subsequent power transfer, via the one or more electric machines, in a second increment during the interval of time in order to prevent or clear the stall condition, wherein the second increment is different than the first increment, in order to apply continuing surge control assistance until a surge condition is detected as having been resolved (ROMERO ¶0040).
To the extent that Applicant may be considering ‘a duration until surge is cleared’ to be a “set interval of time” (See Rejection under 35 USC 112), it is noted that the interval of time of ROMERO discussed above would then be a set interval of time. Furthermore, since repeating the method of Figure 5 occurs later the second increment would be different and also where the method 500 is repeated the amount of power would be based in proposed to a measurement from the sensed engine parameters of the current cycle and being different for this additional reason. However, given the ambiguity of the claims resulting from the 35 USC 112 issue noted above, HALEY is also discussed below.
Additionally or alternatively, HALEY teaches surge control of a compressor 12 including initiating a first power transfer (additional current to increase RPM) via one or more electric machines 22 in a first increment (increased RPM) during a set interval of time to an aerodynamically unstable compressor (during a time set by timer in Section IV in Fig. 2); repeating, during the set interval of time, a sensing step (measure freq. step in Section III in Fig. 2) and an identifying step (frequency of surge fluctuation step in Section III in Fig. 2) after initiating the first power transfer in the first increment (Figure, see flowchart section III & IV); and initiating a subsequent power transfer, via the one or more electric machines, in a second increment during the set interval of time in order to prevent or clear the stall condition (Figure 2 flowchart sections III & IV, 1:15, 25; 5:15-29, claims 8, 14, 18), wherein the second increment is different than the first increment (it can be set according to a different flag and also may result in a further increase in speed; Figure 2, 1:15, 25; 5:15-29, claims 8, 14, 18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system wherein the initiating the first power transfer via the one or more electric machines, is in a first increment during a set interval of time to the aerodynamically unstable compressor; repeating, during the set interval of time, the sensing step and the identifying step after initiating the first power transfer in the first increment; and initiating a subsequent power transfer, via the one or more electric machines, in a second increment during the set interval of time in order to prevent or clear the stall condition, wherein the second increment is different than the first increment, in order to apply continuing surge control assistance until a surge condition is detected as having been resolved (ROMERO ¶0040; HALEY 1:15, 25; 5:15-29, claim 8).
Re Claim 32, EPSTEIN in view of ELASAESSER, ROMERO and HALEY teaches the system of claim 31, but as discussed so far fails to teach at least one of the initiating a first power transfer or the initiating a second power transfer comprises: transferring power, via the one or more electric machines, from an external power source to the aerodynamically unstable compressor.
ROMERO teaches a transferring step further comprises: transferring power, via the one or more electric machines, from an external power source 700 to the aerodynamically unstable compressor (¶0029-0030). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system so at least one of the initiating a first power transfer or the initiating a second power transfer further comprises: transferring power, via the one or more electric machines, from an external power source to the aerodynamically unstable compressor, in order to recover from and/or prevent surge/stall while maintaining proper thrust levels (ROMERO ¶0040).
Re Claims 33-34, EPSTEIN in view of ELASAESSER, ROMERO and HALEY teaches the system of claim 31 but as discussed so far fails to teach, wherein at least one of the initiating a first power transfer or the initiating a second power transfer further comprises: transferring power, via the one or more electric machines, from the HP compressor or the LP compressor, other than the one determined to be within the threshold of the stall condition, to the aerodynamically unstable compressor and the instructions stored in memory when executed by the process cause the system perform removing an amount of power from the HP compressor or the LP compressor, other than the one determined to be within the threshold of the stall condition; and adding the amount of power that was removed to the aerodynamically unstable compressor.
ROMERO further teaches wherein at least one of the initiating a first power transfer or the initiating a second power transfer further comprises: transferring power, via the one or more electric machines, from the HP compressor or the LP compressor, other than the one determined to be within the threshold of the stall condition, to the aerodynamically unstable compressor and wherein transferring power from the HP compressor or the LP compressor, other than the one determined to be within the threshold of the stall condition to aerodynamically unstable compressor comprises: removing power from the HP compressor or the LP compressor other than the one determined to be within the threshold of the stall condition; and adding the power that was removed to the aerodynamically unstable compressor (¶¶0035-0040, 212a may act as a motor/gen where power from first motor 212a may be configured to drive 212b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system wherein at least one of the initiating a first power transfer or the initiating a second power transfer further comprises: transferring power, via the one or more electric machines, from the HP compressor or the LP compressor, other than the one determined to be within the threshold of the stall condition, to the aerodynamically unstable compressor and the instructions stored in memory when executed by the process cause the system perform removing an amount of power from the HP compressor or the LP compressor, other than the one determined to be within the threshold of the stall condition; and adding the amount of power that was removed to the aerodynamically unstable compressor, in order to recover from and/or prevent surge/stall while maintaining proper thrust levels (ROMERO ¶0040).
Claims 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EPSTEIN in view of ELSAESSER AND ROMERO and HALEY as applied above, further in view of GANSLER.
Re Claim 37, EPSTEIN in view of ELASAESSER, ROMERO and HALEY teaches the system of claim 36, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the instructions stored in the memory, when executed by the one or more processor, cause the system to perform the following: further comprise transferring power, during the imitating a first power transfer step, to the aerodynamically unstable compressor in increments of between about 50 horsepower and about 150 horsepower.
EPSTEIN and ROMERO further teach selecting the amount of power based on measured conditions (EPSTEIN ¶0038-0039, ROMERO ¶0033) and GANSLER teaches power is transferred to the aerodynamically unstable compressor in increments of between about 50 horsepower and about 150 horsepower (¶0063). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system wherein the instructions stored in the memory, when executed by the one or more processor, cause the system to perform the following: further comprise transferring power, during the imitating a first power transfer step, to the aerodynamically unstable compressor in increments of between about 50 horsepower and about 150 horsepower (GANSLER ¶0063), in order to damp developed or developing surge oscillations (EPSTEIN ¶0038-0039, ROMERO ¶0033). The prior art recognizes the amount of power transferred as a result-effective variable that achieves the desired surge control response. It has been held that the optimization of result effective variables by routine experimentation was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Re Claim 38, EPSTEIN in view of ELASAESSER, ROMERO and HALEY teaches the system of claim 31, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the instructions stored in the memory, when executed by the one or more processor, cause the system to perform the following: clearing the stall condition and terminating the subsequent transfer of power once the conditions within the aerodynamically unstable compressor are outside the threshold of the stall condition based at least in part on the sensed data indicative of a current acceleration of the HP compressor.
EPSTEIN further teaches sensed data within LP compressor (¶¶0036-0037, 0045). ROMERO teaches the stall condition is cleared and surge response is terminated once the conditions within the aerodynamically unstable compressor are outside the threshold of the stall condition based at least in part on the sensed data within the HP compressor and sensed data within LP compressor of the gas turbine engine (surge recover is monitored at step 512; method 500 may be repeated if the compressor does not recover and/or if the compressor experiences another cycle of surge, ¶¶0036, 0040). GANSLER teaches wherein a power assist is terminated when it is determined to no longer be needed (¶0093). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system wherein the instructions stored in the memory, when executed by the one or more processor, cause the system to perform the following: clearing the stall condition and terminating the subsequent transfer of power once the conditions within the aerodynamically unstable compressor are outside the threshold of the stall condition based at least in part on the sensed data indicative of a current acceleration of the HP compressor, in order to recover from and/or prevent surge/stall while maintaining proper thrust levels (ROMERO ¶0040).
Re Claim 39, EPSTEIN in view of ELASAESSER, ROMERO and HALEY teaches the system of claim 31, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the instructions stored in the memory, when executed by the one or more processor, cause the system to perform the following: accelerating or decelerating the gas turbine engine while performing the sensing step, the identifying step, and at least one of the initiating a first power transfer step or the initiating a second power transfer step.
ROMERO teaches performing the method (including the sensing step, the identifying step, and the transferring step during a thrust recovery (which includes deceleration and acceleration as shown in Fig. 6). See Fig. 6 and ¶0040. GANSLER teaches accelerating to provide thrust recovery (¶0085). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the instructions stored in the memory, when executed by the one or more processor, cause the system to perform the following: accelerating or decelerating the gas turbine engine while performing the sensing step, the identifying step, and at least one of the initiating a first power transfer step or the initiating a second power transfer step, in order to recover from and/or prevent surge/stall while maintaining proper thrust levels in thrust recovery (ROMERO ¶0040).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EPSTEIN in view of ELSAESSER AND ROMERO and HALEY as applied above, further in view of BECHHOEFER.
Re Claim 40, EPSTEIN in view of ELASAESSER, ROMERO and HALEY teaches claim 31, but as discussed so far is silent to wherein the instructions further comprise sensing data at a frequency of at least 500 Hz.
BECHHOEFER teaches a sensing data step includes sensing data at a frequency of at least 500 Hz (¶0178). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system wherein the instructions further comprise sensing data at a frequency of at least 500 Hz, in order to utilize and/or monitor speed/acceleration data, for example via a 16- bit interface module (¶0178).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 06/10/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendment overcame the previous rejections under 35 USC 112, but necessitated new grounds of rejection set forth fully above.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments to the 35 USC § 103 rejec