DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Amendment filed 9/23/2025 wherein claims 14-15 and 21-22 are canceled, claims 1-13 are withdrawn, and claims 16-20 are presented for examination.
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 (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.
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 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marconi et al. (US 2013/0219905) in view of Poumarede et al. (WO 2015044614),
Regarding Claims 16-19, Marconi teaches (Figures 1-3) a method of operating a multi-engine aircraft (see title, abstract), comprising:
during a cruise flight condition (B and E; see Figure 1), shutting down a first engine (2) while allowing a second engine (1) to continue operating (see Paragraphs 0004 and 0060), wherein the second engine (1) provides power required to maintain the multi-engine aircraft (1, 2) in the cruise flight condition (Paragraphs 0004 and 0060).
Marconi does not teach monitoring a temperature, and when the temperature is below a predetermined threshold, warming engine oil for the first engine without restarting the first engine using a warming procedure that is automated and controlled by an aircraft system based on the temperature, that is initiated by a pilot based on monitoring the temperature in flight, or that is initiated by the pilot upon receiving an advisory message from the aircraft system indicating that warming oil for the first engine is required, wherein the engine oil is warmed by periodically cranking the first engine.
Poumarede teaches (Figure 1-13) a method of operating a multi-engine aircraft (see Figures 1-2), comprising: monitoring a temperature (a control unit linked to lubricant temperature sensors; Paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marconi to include monitoring a temperature, and when the temperature is below a predetermined threshold, warming engine oil for the first engine without restarting the first engine using a warming procedure that is automated and controlled by an aircraft system based on the temperature and to have the engine oil warmed by cranking the first engine, as taught by Poumarede, in order to maintain the lubricant at at least a minimum temperature when a turbomachine is maintained in turning mode with the combustion chamber off, such as during a cruising mode when the lubricant is no longer heated by the losses of the turbomachine (Paragraphs 0004, 0006, and 0008 of Poumarede) and to operate the rotary shaft in a turning mode so that the lubricant is heated while the motor is cooled (Paragraph 0042 of Poumarede).
Regarding the contingent limitation “when the temperature is below a predetermined threshold, warming engine oil for the first engine without restarting the first engine using a warming procedure that is automated and controlled by an aircraft system based on the temperature, that is initiated by a pilot based on monitoring the temperature in flight, or that is initiated by the pilot upon receiving an advisory message from the aircraft system indicating that warming oil for the first engine is required, wherein the engine oil is warmed using an exhaust from an oil cooler of the second engine”, it is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
It is noted that if the condition “when” is not satisfied or not “successful” then the “warming engine oil for the first engine without restarting the first engine using a warming procedure that is automated and controlled by an aircraft system based on the temperature, that is initiated by a pilot based on monitoring the temperature in flight, or that is initiated by the pilot upon receiving an advisory message from the aircraft system indicating that warming oil for the first engine is required, wherein the engine oil is warmed using an exhaust from an oil cooler of the second engine” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
Given the above facts, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 16 would only require the following if the condition “when” is not satisfied/not successful:
A method of operating a multi-engine aircraft, comprising:
during a cruise flight condition, shutting down a first engine while allowing a second engine to continue operating, wherein the second engine provides power required to maintain the multi-engine aircraft in the cruise flight condition; and
monitoring a temperature.
Regarding Claim 17, the limitation “wherein the oil is warmed by continuously or periodically cranking the first engine” is contingent on the temperature being below a predetermined threshold (discussed above). As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Therefore, the claim 17 does not require “wherein the engine oil is warmed by continuously or periodically cranking the first engine” if the condition “when” is not satisfied.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitation “wherein the engine oil is warmed using a heat exchanger operable to transfer heat from a heat source to the engine oil, wherein the heat source is associated with the second engine” is contingent on the temperature being below a predetermined threshold (discussed above). As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Therefore, the claim 18 does not require “wherein the engine oil is warmed using a heat exchanger operable to transfer heat from a heat source to the engine oil, wherein the heat source is associated with the second engine” if the condition “when” is not satisfied.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitation “wherein the engine oil is heated using one or more electrical heaters on an engine oil tank” is contingent on the temperature being below a predetermined threshold (discussed above). As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Therefore, the claim 18 does not require “wherein the engine oil is heated using one or more electrical heaters on an engine oil tank” if the condition “when” is not satisfied.
Regarding Claim 20, Marconi in view of Poumarede, Parsons, and McCormick teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Marconi in view of Poumarede, Parsons, and McCormick does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the monitored temperature is an outside air temperature, a first engine temperature, or an engine oil temperature.
Poumarede teaches (Figures 1-6) monitoring a temperature, wherein the monitored temperature is an engine oil temperature (a control unit linked to lubricant temperature sensors; Paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marconi in view of Poumarede, Parsons, and McCormick to include monitoring an engine oil temperature, as taught by Poumarede, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 16.
Claims 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marconi et al. (US 2013/0219905) in view of Poumarede et al. (WO 2015044614), and Parsons et al. (US 2020/0003295).
Regarding Independent Claim 16, Marconi teaches (Figures 1-3) a method of operating a multi-engine aircraft (see title, abstract), comprising:
during a cruise flight condition (B and E; see Figure 1), shutting down a first engine (2) while allowing a second engine (1) to continue operating (see Paragraphs 0004 and 0060), wherein the second engine (1) provides power required to maintain the multi-engine aircraft (1, 2) in the cruise flight condition (Paragraphs 0004 and 0060).
Marconi does not teach monitoring a temperature, and when the temperature is below a predetermined threshold, warming engine oil for the first engine without restarting the first engine using a warming procedure that is automated and controlled by an aircraft system based on the temperature, that is initiated by a pilot based on monitoring the temperature in flight, or that is initiated by the pilot upon receiving an advisory message from the aircraft system indicating that warming oil for the first engine is required, wherein the engine oil is warmed by periodically cranking the first engine.
Poumarede teaches (Figure 1-13) a method of operating a multi-engine aircraft (see Figures 1-2), comprising: monitoring a temperature (a control unit linked to lubricant temperature sensors; Paragraph 0040); and when the temperature is below a predetermined threshold (Paragraph 0015), warming the engine oil (from 16) for a first engine without restarting the first engine (engine 5a in turning mode; see Paragraphs 0043 and 0052) using a warming procedure (see Paragraph 0046, Figure 3A and Figure 5) that is automated and controlled by an aircraft system based on the temperature (a control unit linked to lubricant temperature sensors, where lubricant is compared to a threshold and forcing lubricant to pass through a hot source based on the threshold; see Paragraphs 0040 and 0046), wherein engine oil (within 14) is heated (via 29, within 16) using a first engine oil tank (16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marconi to include monitoring a temperature, and when the temperature is below a predetermined threshold, warming engine oil for the first engine without restarting the first engine using a warming procedure that is automated and controlled by an aircraft system based on the temperature, as taught by Poumarede, in order to maintain the lubricant at at least a minimum temperature when a turbomachine is maintained in turning mode with the combustion chamber off, such as during a cruising mode when the lubricant is no longer heated by the losses of the turbomachine (Paragraphs 0004, 0006, and 0008 of Poumarede) and to operate the rotary shaft in a turning mode so that the lubricant is heated while the motor is cooled (Paragraph 0042 of Poumarede).
Marconi in view of Poumarede does not teach initiating the warming procedure by a pilot based on monitoring the temperature in flight, or that is initiated by the pilot upon receiving an advisory message from the aircraft system indicating that warming oil for the engine is required.
Parsons teaches (Figures 1-6) initiating a warming procedure (42) by a pilot (see Paragraph 0024) upon receiving an advisory message from the aircraft system (100) indicating that warming oil (from 112) for an engine is required (when the lubricant drops below a threshold temperature; see Paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marconi in view of Poumarede to have the warming procedure initiated by a pilot based on monitoring the temperature in flight, or that is initiated by the pilot upon receiving an advisory message from the aircraft system indicating that warming oil for the engine is required, as taught by Parsons, in order for the pilot to be notified that the lubricant needs to be heated if the lubricant drops below a threshold temperature (Paragraph 0024 of Parsons).
It is noted that if the condition “when” is not satisfied or not “successful” then the “warming engine oil for the first engine without restarting the first engine using a warming procedure that is automated and controlled by an aircraft system based on the temperature, that is initiated by a pilot based on monitoring the temperature in flight, or that is initiated by the pilot upon receiving an advisory message from the aircraft system indicating that warming oil for the first engine is required, wherein the engine oil is warmed using an exhaust from an oil cooler of the second engine” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
Regarding Claim 17, Marconi in view of Poumarede and Parsons teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Marconi in view of Poumarede and Parsons does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the engine oil is warmed by continuously cranking the first engine.
As discussed above, Poumarede teaches (Figures 1-13) wherein the engine oil is warmed by cranking the first engine (the lubrication circuit can pass through at least two hot sources capable of heating the lubricant in said circuit during the rotation of said turbine and compressor with the combustion chamber extinguished; see Paragraphs 0011, 0015, and 0036).
It is noted the term “crank” is interpreted as “rotating, turning, or windmilling an aircraft engine” (see Paragraph 0044 of Applicant’s specification).
Regarding Claim 18, Marconi in view of Poumarede and Parsons teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Marconi in view of Poumarede and Parsons does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the engine oil is warmed using a heat exchanger operable to transfer heat from a heat source to the engine oil, wherein the heat source is associated with the second engine.
Poumarede teaches (Figures 1-13) wherein the engine oil is warmed using a heat exchanger operable to transfer heat from a heat source to the engine oil, wherein the heat source is associated with the second engine (the heat exchanger could be connected to a second turbomachine, the combustion chamber of which would remain lit while this turbomachine is maintained so as to provide the heat necessary for heating the lubricant through this heat exchanger; see Paragraph 0009)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marconi in view of Poumarede and Parsons to have the engine oil warmed using a heat exchanger operable to transfer heat from a heat source to the engine oil, wherein the heat source is associated with the second engine, as taught by Poumarede, in order to provide the heat necessary for heating the lubricant through the heat exchanger (Paragraph 0009 of Poumarede).
Regarding Claim 19, Marconi in view of Poumarede and Parsons teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Marconi in view of Poumarede and Parsons does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the engine oil is heated using an oil tank shared between the first engine and the second engine or using electrical heaters on a first engine oil tank.
Poumarede teaches (Figures 1-6) wherein the engine oil (within circuit 14; see Figures 7, 11, and 13) is heated using one or more electrical heaters (15b, 29) on an engine oil tank (16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marconi in view of Poumarede and Parsons to have the engine oil heated using one or more electrical heaters on an engine oil tank, as taught by Poumarede, in order to regulate the temperature of the lubricant of a turbomachine for its heating in turning mode (Paragraph 0051 of Poumarede).
Regarding Claim 20, Marconi in view of Poumarede and Parsons teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above. Marconi in view of Poumarede and Parsons does not teach, as discussed so far, wherein the monitored temperature is an outside air temperature, a first engine temperature, or an engine oil temperature.
Poumarede teaches (Figures 1-6) monitoring a temperature, wherein the monitored temperature is an engine oil temperature (a control unit linked to lubricant temperature sensors; Paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marconi in view of Poumarede and Parsons to include monitoring an engine oil temperature, as taught by Poumarede, for the same reasons discussed above in claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach warming any engine oil using an exhaust of an oil cooler configured to cool the engine oil of the second engine as recited in claim 16. In response and as discussed in the body of the rejection above, the recitation “when the temperature is below a predetermined threshold, warming engine oil for the first engine without restarting the first engine using a warming procedure that is automated and controlled by an aircraft system based on the temperature, that is initiated by a pilot based on monitoring the temperature in flight, or that is initiated by the pilot upon receiving an advisory message from the aircraft system indicating that warming oil for the first engine is required, wherein the engine oil is warmed using an exhaust from an oil cooler of the second engine” is a contingent limitation. It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
It is noted that if the condition “when” is not satisfied or not “successful” then the “warming engine oil for the first engine without restarting the first engine using a warming procedure that is automated and controlled by an aircraft system based on the temperature, that is initiated by a pilot based on monitoring the temperature in flight, or that is initiated by the pilot upon receiving an advisory message from the aircraft system indicating that warming oil for the first engine is required, wherein the engine oil is warmed using an exhaust from an oil cooler of the second engine” need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS P BURKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5407. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached on (571) 272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS P BURKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights