Aircraft Sound Diagnostic Method and Device
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s reply filed 01/22/2026 which has amendments to the claims and Applicant's arguments related to the previous rejection. The above have been entered and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the method claims have been amended to not invoke 112(f). The examiner agrees and withdraws the interpretation of the method claims under 112(f).
Applicant argues the apparatus claims should not be interpreted under 112(f) because an ordinary artisan in the field of aviation and aircraft testing would understand a central unit could be a computer. The examiner disagrees with applicant’s assertion and believes the terms “central unit, “storage unit”, “computation unit”, “comparison unit”, “transmission unit”, “display unit” and “uploading unit” do not have sufficient definite meaning individually to not invoke 112(f). The interpretation is maintained.
Applicant requests reconsideration of the written description and indefiniteness rejections. Since the method claims are not being interpreted under 112(f), the examiner withdraws the rejections of the method claims under 112(a) and 112(b). Further, the examiner has reconsidered the rejections of the apparatus claims for lack of written description and indefiniteness in light of figure 1 and MPEP 2181(II)(A). The examiner believes the combination of the central unit connected to sensors, avionics bus, storage unit, display, clock, uploading unit, computation unit, comparison unit and transmission unit “must be implemented by or on a general or special purpose computer (although it is not clear why the written description does not simply state ‘computer’ or some equivalent phrase)” [MPEP 2181(II)(A). Since the structure in the figure and disclosure corresponding to means-plus-function limitations is implicitly a general or special purpose computer, the examiner withdraws the rejections of the apparatus claims under 112(a) and 112(b).
Applicant argues the amendments obviate the rejections of claims 6-7 and 13 for indefiniteness. The examiner is persuaded and withdraws the rejection under 112(b).
Applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the indefiniteness rejection of claim 14. The examiner is not persuaded and maintains the rejection for insufficient antecedent basis.
Applicant argues Ramillon does not teach combining microphones and accelerometers to generate sound mapping since Ramillon uses microphones or accelerometers.
The examiner is not persuaded. Ramillon suggests using accelerometers to identify vibrations. In Ramillon’s statement “Instead of using microphones”, “Instead” does not inherently mean exclusively. Further, Ramillon states “the invention… encompasses all variants… that will suggest themselves to the person skilled in the art”. The examiner believes Ramillon teaches Locheron to additionally measure, receive, record and analyze vibratory signals. [see Ramillon, ¶ 0229-0230]
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a central unit configured to receive the acoustic signals measured by the plurality of microphones (at least claim 8)
a storage unit configured to record in real time the measured acoustic signals received by the central unit (at least claim 8)
a computation unit configured to generate a sound mapping on the basis of the measured acoustic signals and the positions of the microphones (at least claim 8)
a comparison unit configured to generate a comparison mapping based on a comparison between the sound mapping (at least claim 8)
a transmission unit configured to transmit the comparison mapping to a user device (at least claim 8)
the central unit is further configured to receive in real time the vibratory signals measured by the vibration sensors (at least claim 9)
the storage unit is further configured to record in real time the measured vibratory signals received by the central unit (at least claim 9)
the central unit is further configured to receive in real time flight parameters of the aircraft (at least claim 10)
a display unit configured to display in real time a graphic (at least claim 11)
an uploading unit configured to upload to the computation unit at least the measured acoustic signals (at least claim 12)
the uploading unit is further configured to upload to the computation unit the measured vibratory signals and the positions of the vibration sensors (at least claim 13)
uploading unit is further configured to upload to the computation unit the flight parameters of the aircraft (at least claim 14)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that no structure is described in the specification for the following 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations: a real-time recording step, a computation step, a comparison step, a transmission step, a display step, an uploading step, a central unit, a storage unit, a computation unit, a comparison unit, a transmission unit, a display unit, and an uploading unit.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations depend from claim 8 and assert “the uploading unit is further configured”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitations as depending from claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locheron (US 20190162624; “Locheron”), in view of Ramillon (20040167734; “Ramillon”).
Regarding claim 1, Locheron discloses, in figures 1-7, an aircraft sound diagnostic method (not enumerated, see fig. 4) comprising: measuring in real-time (E6) of acoustic signals (¶ 0055, examiner notes Locheron’s acquisition devices measure noise) by a plurality of microphones (43) mounted at a first set of different positions (see fig. 6, ¶ 0059, Locheron’s acquisition devices may be positioned in areas of interest inside the aircraft) inside the aircraft (11); receiving, by a central unit, (5) the acoustic signals (¶ 0057, Locheron’s monitoring device receives acquisition data from the acquisition devices through a wireless network) measured by the microphones (43); real-time recording (¶ 0081, Locheron’s acquisition devices measure and record noise, and transmits noise files to the monitoring device), by a storage unit (52), of the measured acoustic signals (¶ 0081, Locheron records and transmits current noise) received by the central unit (5); generating (¶ 0083, “monitoring device 5 is configured to process the data received from the various acquisition devices”), by a computation unit (5), a sound mapping (¶ 0090, “monitoring device 5 is configured to locate the location exhibiting an anomaly on the basis of the noise acquisition data coming from the various microphones 43”, ¶ 0093, further “detection system 1 is also able to be used in flight to create a map of the noise in the whole cabin”) based on the measured acoustic signals and on the positions (see previous comment) of the microphones (43), wherein the generation of the sound mapping (see previous comment) is performed on the basis of the measured acoustic signals (see previous comment) and the positions of the microphones (43); generating (E9), by a comparison unit (5), a comparison mapping based on a comparison between the sound mapping and a reference mapping (¶ 0087, “the monitoring device 5 is configured to compare the acquisition spectral data 85 with reference spectral data pre-recorded in a database 86 containing known recordings of leak noise emanating from areas analogous to the areas of interest”); and transmitting, by a transmission unit (5), the comparison mapping (¶ 0090, Locheron’s monitoring device reports results of the comparison directly in real time to the touchscreen with buttons to read data and command the system) to a user device (57, 73, 74).
Locheron fails to disclose the measurement, reception, recording vibratory signals and analysis of measured vibratory signals.
Ramillon teaches, in figures 1-2, measuring in real-time vibratory signals ((18) ¶ 0041 Ramillon measures vibration signals) by a plurality of vibration sensors (¶ 0041, “accelerometers”) mounted at a second set of different positions (1R, 1L, 2R, 3R, 2L, 3L, 4R, 4L) inside the aircraft (see fig. 1) receiving in real-time the vibratory signals (¶ 0084, Ramillon records the vibration signals) measured by the vibration sensors (see previous comment); recording in real-time the measured vibratory signals received by the central unit (¶ 0083, Ramillon’s microcomputer stores each sampled signal), wherein the generation of the sound mapping is performed on the basis of the measured vibratory signals and the positions of the vibration sensors (¶ 0218, Ramillon associates measured signals with sensor positions and resolves source location based on this relationship).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ramillon’s scheme of using the spectrum of vibration signals to locate the source of noise into Locheron’s scheme of using the spectrum of acoustic signals to detect leak noise since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of determining an aircraft door seal issue by increasing detection modes.
Regarding claim 3, Locheron and Ramillon, as combined in claim 1, fail to disclose real-time recording of flight parameters of the aircraft.
However, Ramillon further teaches the reception step (10, 12) further comprises real-time recording of flight parameters (¶ 0082, “flight parameters such as engine revs (values of N1 and N2), the aircraft speed/Mach number, the altitude, the flight phase (climb, cruising, descent), the pressure difference between the cabin and the atmosphere, etc.”) of the aircraft (not enumerated, see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ramillon’s scheme of recording context data into Locheron and Ramillon’s scheme of using the spectrum of acoustic signals to detect leak noise. Doing so increases efficiency by providing for only considering line signatures reasonably indicated by the context data.
Regarding claim 4, Locheron and Ramillon disclose, in Locheron’s figure 6, a display step, implemented by a display unit (Locheron (57)), comprising real-time display of a graphic representation (Locheron, ¶ 0090, “results are reported directly in real-time on the touchscreen”) of at least one of the following parameters: measured acoustic signals, positions of the microphones (see Locheron’s fig. 6, examiner notes the positions of the microphones within the aircraft are displayed).
Regarding claim 5, Locheron and Ramillon disclose, in Locheron’s figure 6, an uploading step, implemented by an uploading unit (Locheron (45, 55, 75)), comprising uploading to the computation unit (Locheron (5)) at least one of the measured acoustic signals (¶ 0083, Locheron receives data including acoustic data from the acquisition devices via Wi-Fi network) and the positions of the microphones (¶ 0062, Locheron’s graphical user interface indicates the acquisition device installation configuration per fig. 6, therefore the positions of the microphones have been uploaded to the monitoring device, ¶ 0076, Locheron’s button sets parameters).
Regarding claim 6, Locheron and Ramillon, as combined in claim 1, disclose uploading measured acoustic data (Locheron, ¶ 0083) and positions of microphones (see Locheron’s fig. 6).
Locheron and Ramillon fail to explicitly disclose measuring vibratory signals vibration sensors at certain positions.
Ramillon teaches, in figure 1, measuring vibratory signals ((18) ¶ 0041 Ramillon measures vibration signals) with vibration sensors (¶ 0041, “accelerometers”) in certain positions (1R, 1L, 2R, 3R, 2L, 3L, 4R, 4L).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ramillon’s scheme of measuring vibration signals with accelerometers in certain position into Locheron and Ramillon’s scheme of uploading signal data and sensor positions to increase the diversity of data used to make a leak determination. Doing so provides a reliable way of determining an aircraft door seal issue.
Regarding claim 7, Locheron and Ramillon, as combined in claim 1, fail to disclose uploading flight parameters of the aircraft into the computation unit (not enumerated, see fig. 1).
Ramillon teaches uploading (10) to the computation unit (¶ 0081, “microcomputer”) of the flight parameters (¶ 0082, “flight parameters such as engine revs (values of N1 and N2), the aircraft speed/Mach number, the altitude, the flight phase (climb, cruising, descent), the pressure difference between the cabin and the atmosphere, etc.”) of the aircraft (not enumerated, see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ramillon’s scheme of uploading context data into Locheron and Ramillon’s scheme of using the spectrum of acoustic signals to detect leak noise. Doing so increases efficiency by providing for only considering line signatures reasonably indicated by the context data.
Regarding claim 8, Locheron discloses, in figures 1-7, an aircraft sound diagnostic device (not enumerated, see fig. 3), comprising: a plurality of microphones (43) configured to be mounted at a first set of different positions (see fig. 6, ¶ 0059, Locheron’s acquisition devices may be positioned in areas of interest inside the aircraft) inside the aircraft (11), each of the plurality of microphones (43) configured to measure in real time ( (E6) an acoustic signal (¶ 0055, examiner notes Locheron’s acquisition devices measure noise); a central unit (5) configured to receive the acoustic signals (¶ 0057, Locheron’s monitoring device receives acquisition data from the acquisition devices through a wireless network) measured by the plurality of microphones (43); a storage unit (52) configured to record in real time the measured acoustic signals (¶ 0081, Locheron’s acquisition devices measure and record noise, and transmits noise files to the monitoring device) received by the central unit (5); a computation unit ((5) ¶ 0083, “monitoring device 5 is configured to process the data received from the various acquisition devices”) configured to generate a sound mapping (¶ 0090, “monitoring device 5 is configured to locate the location exhibiting an anomaly on the basis of the noise acquisition data coming from the various microphones 43”, ¶ 0093, further “detection system 1 is also able to be used in flight to create a map of the noise in the whole cabin”) on the basis of the measured acoustic signals and the positions (see previous comment) of the microphones (43); a comparison unit (5) configured to generate a comparison mapping based on a comparison between the sound mapping and a reference mapping (¶ 0087, “the monitoring device 5 is configured to compare the acquisition spectral data 85 with reference spectral data pre-recorded in a database 86 containing known recordings of leak noise emanating from areas analogous to the areas of interest”); and a transmission unit (5) configured to transmit the comparison mapping (¶ 0090, Locheron’s monitoring device reports results of the comparison directly in real time to the touchscreen with buttons to read data and command the system) to a user device (57, 73, 74).
Locheron fails to disclose a plurality of vibration sensors, receiving vibratory signals, recording vibratory signals and analyzing measured vibratory signals.
Ramillon teaches, in figures 1-2, a plurality of vibration sensors (¶ 0041, “accelerometers”) configured to be mounted at a second set of different positions (1R, 1L, 2R, 3R, 2L, 3L, 4R, 4L) inside the aircraft (see fig. 1), each of the plurality of vibration sensors (see previous comment) configured to measure in real time vibratory signals ((18) ¶ 0041 Ramillon measures vibration signals); a central unit configured to receive in real time the vibratory signals (¶ 0083, Ramillon’s microcomputer receives and stores each sampled signal) measured by the vibration sensors (see previous comment); a storage unit configured to record in real time the measured vibratory signals received by the central unit (see previous comment); a computation unit configured to generate a sound mapping on the basis of the measured vibratory signals and the positions of the vibration sensors (¶ 0218, Ramillon associates measured signals with sensor positions and resolves source location based on this relationship).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ramillon’s scheme of using the spectrum of vibration signals to locate the source of noise into Locheron’s scheme of using the spectrum of acoustic signals to detect leak noise since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of determining an aircraft door seal issue by increasing detection modes.
Regarding claim 10, Locheron and Ramillon, as combined in claim 8, fail to disclose receiving parameters of the aircraft.
However, Ramillon further teaches the central unit (¶ 0081, “microcomputer”) is further configured to receive in real time flight parameters (¶ 0082, “flight parameters such as engine revs (values of N1 and N2), the aircraft speed/Mach number, the altitude, the flight phase (climb, cruising, descent), the pressure difference between the cabin and the atmosphere, etc.”) of the aircraft (not enumerated, see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ramillon’s scheme of recording context data into Locheron and Ramillon’s scheme of using the spectrum of acoustic signals to detect leak noise. Doing so increases efficiency by providing for only considering line signatures reasonably indicated by the context data.
Regarding claim 11, Locheron and Ramillon disclose, in Locheron’s figure 6, a display unit (Locheron (57)) configured to display in real time a graphic representation (Locheron, ¶ 0090, “results are reported directly in real-time on the touchscreen”) of at least one of the following parameters: measured acoustic signals, positions of the microphones (see Locheron’s fig. 6, examiner notes the positions of the microphones within the aircraft are displayed).
Regarding claim 12, Locheron and Ramillon disclose, in Locheron’s figure 6, an uploading unit (Locheron (45, 55, 75)) configured to upload to the computation unit (Locheron (5)) at least the measured acoustic signals (¶ 0083, Locheron receives data including acoustic data from the acquisition devices via Wi-Fi network) and the positions of the microphones (¶ 0062, Locheron’s graphical user interface indicates the acquisition device installation configuration per fig. 6, therefore the positions of the microphones have been uploaded to the monitoring device, ¶ 0076, Locheron’s button sets parameters).
Regarding claim 13, Locheron and Ramillon, as combined in claim 12, disclose the upload unit (Locheron (5)) uploads measured acoustic data (Locheron, ¶ 0083) and positions of microphones (see Locheron’s fig. 6) and measured vibratory signals ((18) ¶ 0041 Ramillon measures vibration signals) and positions (1R, 1L, 2R, 3R, 2L, 3L, 4R, 4L) of the vibration sensors (¶ 0041, “accelerometers”).
Locheron and Ramillon fail to explicitly disclose uploading measured vibratory signals and positions of vibration sensors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ramillon’s scheme of measuring vibration signals with accelerometers in certain position into Locheron and Ramillon’s scheme of uploading signal data and sensor positions to increase the diversity of data used to make a leak determination. Doing so provides a reliable way of determining an aircraft door seal issue.
Regarding claim 14, Locheron and Ramillon, as combined in claim 12, fails to disclose uploading the flight parameters to the computation unit.
Ramillon further teaches uploading the uploading unit (¶ 0081, “microcomputer”) is further configured to upload (10) to the computation unit (¶ 0081, “microcomputer”) the flight parameters (¶ 0082, “flight parameters such as engine revs (values of N1 and N2), the aircraft speed/Mach number, the altitude, the flight phase (climb, cruising, descent), the pressure difference between the cabin and the atmosphere, etc.”) of the aircraft (not enumerated, see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ramillon’s scheme of uploading context data into Locheron and Ramillon’s scheme of using the spectrum of acoustic signals to detect leak noise. Doing so increases efficiency by providing for only considering line signatures reasonably indicated by the context data.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855