DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the reply filed November 12, 2025. Claims 1, 6, 13, 15 and 19 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 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 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to Claim 1, “the one controlled to reduce operation of the non-critical functions” at line 17 lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. The claim previously recites [at lines 6-7] “reducing operations of the systems providing non-critical functions…” (emphasis added) but does not recite controlling one of the cores “to reduce operation of the non-critical functions” (emphasis added). As a result, the claim language raises question as to whether or not “being the one controlled to reduce operation of the non-critical functions” is intended to be “based upon the temperature of the FADEC approaching a limit” [line 7].
As to Claim 1, “the reduction of the systems providing the non-critical function” [line 20] lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. The claim previously recites “reducing operations of the systems…” [lines 6-7] and “reduction of operations of the systems…” [line 18] but does not recite “reduction of the systems providing the non-critical function” (emphasis added). As such, the limitation raises question as to whether the systems themselves are reduced, or simply operations thereof. Further, in the latter case the language raises question as to which, if any, aforementioned reducing operations [line 6-7] or aforementioned reduction of operation [line 18] of the systems this recitation is referring to.
In Claim 6, “the reduction of the non-critical functions” is ambiguous and unclear if it refers to the aforementioned: (i) reducing operations of the systems providing non-critical functions [claim 1, lines 6-7]; (ii) reducing operation of the non-critical functions by controlling the at least one of the cores [claim 1, lines 16-17]; (iii) reduction of operation of the systems providing non-critical functions occurring during takeoff [claim 1, lines 18-19]; or (iv) the reduction of the systems providing the non-critical function including reducing clock frequency [claim 1, lines 20-21].
As to Claim 8, “the one controlled to reduce operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions” at lines 18-19 lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. Previously in the claim, reduction of operation of the systems providing non-critical functions is discussed and said to be operable from “embedded processing circuitry” (See lines 6-8; lines 10-11). As such, it is not clear if “the one” is referring to one of the aforementioned reductions in operations of the systems providing non-critical functions previously set forth with respect to the ‘embedded processing circuitry’ or is an additional aspect controlled to also reduce operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions.
In Claim 8, it is not clear if “the reduction of the non-critical functions” at line 22 refers to: (i) reducing operations of the systems providing non-critical functions [claim 8, lines 7-8]; (ii) reducing operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions by controlling the at least one of the cores [claim 8, lines 18-19]; or (iii) reduction of operation of the non-critical functions occurring during takeoff [claim 8, lines 20-21].
In Claim 13, it is not clear if “the reduction of the non-critical functions” refers to: (i) reducing operations of the systems providing non-critical functions [claim 8, lines 7-8]; (ii) reducing operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions by the controlling the at least one of the cores [claim 8, lines 18-19]; or (iii) reduction of operation of the non-critical functions occurring during takeoff [claim 8, lines 20-21].
As to Claim 15, “the one controlled to reduce operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions” at lines 18-19 lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. Previously in the claim, reduction of operation of the systems providing non-critical functions is discussed and said to be operable from “embedded processing circuitry” (See lines 7-9; lines 11-12). As such, it is not clear if “the one” is referring to the aforementioned reduction in operations of the systems providing non-critical functions previously set forth with respect to the ‘embedded processing circuitry’ or is an additional aspect controlled to also reduce operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions.
As to Claim 15, “the reduction of the systems providing the non-critical function” [line 23] lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. The claim previously recites “reduce operation of the systems…” [lines 6-7] and “reduce operation of the systems…” [lines 19-20] but does not recite “reduction of the systems providing the non-critical function” (emphasis added). As such, the limitation raises question as to whether the systems themselves are reduced, or simply operations thereof. Further, in the latter case the language raises question as to which, if any, aforementioned reduced operation of the systems is being referred to.
In Claim 19, it is not clear if “the reduction of the non-critical functions” refers to: (i) reducing operations of the systems providing non-critical functions [claim 15, lines 8-9]; (ii) reducing operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions by controlling the at least one of the cores [claim 15, lines 18-19]; or reduction of operation of the non-critical functions occurring during takeoff [claim 15, lines 21-22].
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-20220349353-A1
“SCHEID”
US-10088843-B1
“RADACK”
US-20230305906-A1
“ZAYKOV”
US-20150233605-A1
“BERNHARDT”
US-20190303778-A1
“DESAI”
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 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHEID in view of RADACK, ZAYKOV and BERNHARDT or DESAI.
Re Claim 1, SCHEID teaches a method comprising:
operating a gas turbine engine 104 associated with an aircraft with a full authority digital electronic controller ("FADEC") 122 (¶0043) including operating systems that provide functions that are critical to operation of the gas turbine engine for the aircraft (¶¶0057-0060; Level A, control or protection), and systems that provide non-critical functions (¶¶0058-0061; Level C and/or Level E, data management);
wherein the non-critical functions include environmental functions (e.g., receipt of sensed data from engine environment; packaging of engine data for retransmission to local ground station; associating header with data, which defines an identifier for the local destination of the data; received updated data from local ground station/offboard system) and health functions e.g., collection/use of data for extending the life of life limited parts) (See ¶¶0060-0061, 0065, 0052-0053);
a processor 241 within the FADEC includes a plurality of cores [240a, 240b, 240c, 240n] (Figure 2C), with at least one of the cores being utilized to control the systems providing the non-critical functions (¶¶0058-0060, Fig. 3).
However, SCHEID fails to teach the at least one of the plurality of cores being the one controlled to reduce operation of the non-critical functions; and wherein reduction of operation of the systems providing non-critical functions occurs at least during takeoff of the associated aircraft.
RADACK teaches at least one of a plurality of cores [core 3 and/or core 4] being utilized to control non-critical functions and the at least one of the cores being the one controlled to reduce operation of the non-critical functions (core(s) for loading non-critical instructions is/are set to hold in a Reset Mode until critical instructions are loaded into the first core; Figs. 4-5, 11:51 to 13:3). 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 at least one of the plurality of cores being the one controlled to reduce operation of the non-critical functions, in order to ensure bandwidth required to load critical instructions is not interfered with by the loading of non-critical instructions (RADACK 12:26-37, SCHEID ¶¶0057-0058) and/or to activate critical systems more rapidly (RADACK 13:4-11).
RADACK further teaches prioritizing of critical functions (deprioritizing non-critical functions) at least during takeoff of an associated aircraft (during emergency takeoff procedure) (9:25-30). 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 reduction of operation of the systems providing non-critical functions occurs at least during takeoff of the associated aircraft, in order to ensure system requirements during takeoff are satisfied (RADACK 9:25-30 SCHEID ¶¶0057-0058; e.g., requirements to operate/protect the engine), to ensure bandwidth required to load critical instructions is not interfered with by loading non-critical instructions (RADACK 12:26-37) and/or to activate critical systems more rapidly (RADACK 13:4-11).
However, SCHEID in view of RADACK fails to teach monitoring a FADEC temperature of the FADEC, and reducing operations of the systems providing non-critical functions based upon the temperature of the FADEC approaching a limit; the method includes monitoring a sensed temperature of the FADEC to perform the monitoring step; the method includes assuming the FADEC temperature might be approaching the limit under certain conditions, the certain conditions include at least one of a core temperature, a flight phase of the aircraft, an ambient pressure outside the engine, an engine temperature, and a throttle level angle from the associated aircraft.
ZAYKOV teaches monitoring a system temperature [where “operational parameter” is a temperature] of a computing system 101 (consonant with the FADEC of SCHEID and its temperature) (¶¶0036-0038, 0045), and reducing operations of systems providing non-critical functions [systems providing functions that are not “safety critical”] (¶¶0019, 0028, 0030, 0036) based upon the temperature of the computing system approaching a limit [approaching thermal envelope upper limit] (thermal envelope upper limit is being approached when it is determined from the operational parameter thermal profile exceeds a threshold; ¶¶0003, 007, 0019, 0047-0048, 0054-0057, 0068); and teaches the method includes monitoring a sensed temperature to perform the monitoring step (¶0037, operational parameter may be a sensed temperature). ZAYKOV further teaches the method includes assuming the temperature might be approaching the limit under certain conditions that include a flight phase of an associated aircraft (¶¶0028, 0054, 0060, 0062-0063; see also Fig. 5) and wherein reduction of operation of the non-critical functions occurs at least during takeoff of an associated aircraft (¶¶0028, 0054, 0060, 0062-0063; see also Fig. 5). 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 it includes monitoring a FADEC temperature of the FADEC, and reducing operations of the systems providing non-critical functions based upon the temperature of the FADEC approaching a limit; the method includes monitoring a sensed temperature of the FADEC to perform the monitoring step; the method includes assuming the FADEC temperature might be approaching the limit under certain conditions, the certain conditions include at least one of a core temperature, a flight phase of the aircraft, an ambient pressure outside the engine, an engine temperature, and a throttle level angle from the associated aircraft, in order to provide thermal management that enables a computing system to operate close to maximum performance given environmental conditions while also providing consistent operation sufficient for safety critical applications and/or to guarantee the thermal envelope of the FADEC (ZAYKOV ¶0068).
However, SCHEID in view of RADACK and ZAYKOV as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the reduction of the non-critical function includes reducing a clock frequency for the non-critical functions to reduce a generated heat.
As discussed above, RADACK and ZAYKOV teach reduction of the systems non-critical functions (such as Level E functions in SCHEID) in order to prioritize systems that provide critical functions (such as Level A safety functions in SCHEID) (see RADACK above) and guarantee a thermal envelope (See ZAYKOV above).
BERNHARDT teaches reduction of a systems function to reduce a generated heat includes reducing a clock frequency for the functions (¶¶0040-0042, 0061-0063); or DESAI teaches reduction of a system’s non-critical functions to reduce a generated heat includes reducing a clock frequency for the non-critical functions (¶¶0057, 0196-0200). 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 reduction of the systems providing the non-critical function includes reducing a clock frequency for the non-critical functions to reduce a generated heat, in order to maintain the thermal envelope by reducing clock frequencies of components that support decreased operational frequencies/voltages to reduce power consumption and are not critical for safety (BERNHARDT ¶¶0040-0042; DESAI ¶¶0196-0200).
Re Claim 6, SCHEID in view of RADACK, ZAYKOV and BERNHARDT or DESAI teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the reduction of the non-critical functions includes turning off the non-critical functions.
ZAYKOV further teaches wherein the reduction of the non-critical functions includes turning off the non-critical functions (¶0028). 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 reduction of the non-critical functions includes turning off the non-critical functions, in order to only perform functions necessary for the given phase of flight that is presently taking place and/or to restrict to only safety critical applications such that the thermal profile stays within the thermal envelope (ZAYKOV ¶0028).
Re Claim 8, SCHEID teaches an assembly comprising:
a full authority digital electronic controller ("FADEC") 122 (¶0043) having embedded processing circuitry 210 operable to operate a gas turbine engine 104 associated with an aircraft including operating systems that are critical to operation of the gas turbine engine for the aircraft (¶¶0057-0060; Level A, control or protection systems), and systems that provide non-critical functions (¶¶0058-0061; Level C and/or Level E, data management systems);
wherein the non-critical functions include environmental functions (e.g., receipt of sensed data from engine environment; packaging of engine data for retransmission to local ground station; associating header with data, which defines an identifier for the local destination of the data; received updated data from local ground station/offboard system) and health functions (e.g., collection/use of data for extending the life of life limited parts) (See ¶¶0060-0061, 0065, 0052-0053);
a processor 241 within the full authority digital electronic controller including a plurality of cores [240a, 240b, 240c, 240n] (Fig. 2C), with at least one of the plurality of cores being utilized to perform control the systems providing the non-critical functions (¶¶0058-0060, Fig. 3).
However, SCHEID fails to teach the at least one of the plurality of cores being the one controlled to reduce operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions; and wherein reduction of operation of the non-critical functions occurs at least during takeoff of the associated aircraft.
RADACK teaches at least one of a plurality of cores [core 3 and/or core 4] being utilized to perform control the systems providing the non-critical functions and the at least one of the plurality of cores being the one controlled to reduce operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions (core(s) for loading non-critical instructions is/are commanded to hold in a Reset Mode until critical instructions are loaded into the first core; Figs. 4-5, 11:51 to 13:3). 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 assembly wherein at least one of the plurality of cores being the one controlled to reduce operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions, in order to ensure bandwidth required to load critical instructions is not interfered with by the loading of non-critical instructions (RADACK 12:26-37, SCHEID ¶¶0057-0058) and/or to activate critical systems more rapidly (RADACK 13:4-11).
RADACK further teaches prioritizing of critical functions (deprioritizing non-critical functions) at least during takeoff of an associated aircraft (during emergency takeoff procedure) (9:25-30). 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 assembly wherein reduction of operation of the non-critical functions occurs at least during takeoff of the associated aircraft, in order to ensure system requirements during takeoff are satisfied (RADACK 9:25-30 SCHEID ¶¶0057-0058; e.g., requirements to operate/protect the engine), to ensure bandwidth required to load critical instructions is not interfered with by loading non-critical instructions (RADACK 12:26-37) and/or to activate critical systems more rapidly (RADACK 13:4-11).
However, SCHEID in view of RADACK fails to teach the embedded processing circuitry also operable to monitor a FADEC temperature of the FADEC, and reduce operation of the systems providing non-critical functions based on the FADEC temperature approaching a limit; the embedded processing circuitry operable to monitor sensed temperatures to determined to reduce operations of the systems providing the non-critical functions; the embedded processing circuitry operable to assume the FADEC temperature might be approaching the limit under certain conditions, the certain conditions include at least one of a core temperature, a flight phase of an associated aircraft, an ambient pressure outside the engine, an engine temperature, and a throttle level angle from the associated aircraft.
ZAYKOV teaches embedded processing circuitry operable to monitor a system temperature [where “operational parameter” is a temperature] of a computing system 101 (consonant with the FADEC of SCHEID) (¶¶0036-0038, 0045), and reduce operation of the systems providing non-critical functions [systems providing functions that are not “safety critical”] (¶¶0019, 0028, 0030, 0036) based upon the system temperature of the computing system approaching a limit [approaching thermal envelope upper limit] (thermal envelope upper limit is being approached when it is determined from the operational parameter thermal profile exceeds a threshold; ¶¶0003, 007, 0019, 0047-0048, 0054-0057, 0068); the embedded processing circuitry operable to monitor sensed temperatures to determined to reduce operations of the non-critical functions (¶0037, operational parameter may be a sensed temperature). ZAYKOV further teaches the embedded processing circuitry operable to assume the temperature might be approaching the limit under certain conditions including a flight phase of an associated aircraft (¶¶0028, 0054, 0060, 0062-0063; see also Fig. 5) wherein reduction of operation of the non-critical functions occurs at least during takeoff of an associated aircraft (¶¶0028, 0054, 0060, 0062-0063; see also Fig. 5). 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 assembly wherein the embedded processing circuitry is also operable to monitor a FADEC temperature of the FADEC, and reduce operation of the systems providing non-critical functions based on the FADEC temperature approaching a limit; the embedded processing circuitry operable to monitor sensed temperatures to determined to reduce operations of the systems providing the non-critical functions; the embedded processing circuitry operable to assume the FADEC temperature might be approaching the limit under certain conditions, the certain conditions include at least one of a core temperature, a flight phase of an associated aircraft, an ambient pressure outside the engine, an engine temperature, and a throttle level angle from the associated aircraft, in order to provide thermal management that enables a computing system to operate close to maximum performance given environmental conditions while also providing consistent operation sufficient for safety critical applications and/or to guarantee the thermal envelope of the FADEC (ZAYKOV ¶0068).
However, SCHEID in view of RADACK and ZAYKOV as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the reduction of the non-critical functions includes reducing a clock frequency for the systems providing the non-critical function to reduce a generated heat.
As discussed above, RADACK and ZAYKOV teach reduction of the systems non-critical functions (such as Level E functions in SCHEID) in order to prioritize systems that provide critical functions (such as Level A safety functions in SCHEID) (see RADACK above) and guarantee a thermal envelope (See ZAYKOV above).
BERNHARDT teaches reduction of a systems function to reduce a generated heat includes reducing a clock frequency for the functions (¶¶0040-0042, 0061-0063); or DESAI teaches reduction of a system’s non-critical functions to reduce a generated heat includes reducing a clock frequency for the non-critical functions (¶¶0057, 0196-0200). 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 assembly wherein the reduction of the non-critical functions includes reducing a clock frequency for the systems providing the non-critical function to reduce a generated heat, in order to maintain the thermal envelope by reducing clock frequencies of components that support decreased operational frequencies/voltages to reduce power consumption and are not critical for safety (BERNHARDT ¶¶0040-0042; DESAI ¶¶0196-0200).
Re Claim 13, SCHEID in view of RADACK, ZAYKOV and BERNHARDT or DESAI teaches the assembly as set forth in claim 8, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the reduction of the non-critical functions includes turning off the systems providing the non-critical functions.
ZAYKOV further teaches wherein the reduction of the non-critical functions includes turning off systems providing the non-critical functions (¶0028). 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 assembly wherein the reduction of the non-critical functions includes turning off the systems providing the non-critical functions, in order to only perform functions necessary for the given phase of flight that is presently taking place and/or to restrict to only safety critical applications such that the thermal profile stays within the thermal envelope (ZAYKOV ¶0028).
Re Claim 15, SCHEID teaches a gas turbine engine 104 comprising:
a compressor, combustor and a turbine (¶0037);
a full authority digital electronic controller ("FADEC") 122 (¶0043) having embedded processing circuitry 210 operable to operate the gas turbine engine associated with an aircraft including operating systems that provide functions that are critical to operation of the gas turbine engine for the aircraft (¶¶0057-0060; Level A, control or protection systems), and systems that provide non-critical functions (¶¶0058-0061; Level C and/or Level E, data management systems);
wherein the non-critical functions include environmental functions (e.g., receipt of sensed data from engine environment; packaging of engine data for retransmission to local ground station; associating header with data, which defines an identifier for the local destination of the data; received updated data from local ground station/offboard system) and health functions (e.g., collection/use of data for extending the life of life limited parts) (See ¶¶0060-0061, 0065, 0052-0053);
a processor 241 within the FADEC includes a plurality of cores [240a, 240b, 240c, 240n] (Fig. 2C), with at least one of the plurality of cores being utilized to control the systems providing the non-critical functions (¶¶0058-0060, Fig. 3).
However, SCHEID fails to teach the at least one of the plurality of cores being the one controlled to reduce operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions; and wherein reduction of operation of the non-critical functions occurs at least during takeoff of the aircraft.
RADACK teaches at least one of a plurality of cores [core 3 and/or core 4] being utilized to perform control the systems providing the non-critical functions and the at least one of the plurality of cores being the one controlled to reduce operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions (core(s) for loading non-critical instructions is/are commanded to hold in a Reset Mode until critical instructions are loaded into the first core; Figs. 4-5, 11:51 to 13:3). 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 gas turbine engine the at least one of the plurality of cores being the one controlled to reduce operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions, in order to ensure bandwidth required to load critical instructions is not interfered with by the loading of non-critical instructions (RADACK 12:26-37, SCHEID ¶¶0057-0058) and/or to activate critical systems more rapidly (RADACK 13:4-11).
RADACK further teaches prioritizing of critical functions (deprioritizing non-critical functions) at least during takeoff of an associated aircraft (during emergency takeoff procedure) (9:25-30). 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 gas turbine engine wherein reduction of operation of the non-critical functions occurs at least during takeoff of the aircraft, in order to ensure system requirements during takeoff are satisfied (RADACK 9:25-30 SCHEID ¶¶0057-0058; e.g., requirements to operate/protect the engine), to ensure bandwidth required to load critical instructions is not interfered with by loading non-critical instructions (RADACK 12:26-37) and/or to activate critical systems more rapidly (RADACK 13:4-11).
However, SCHEID in view of RADACK fails to teach the embedded processing circuitry also operable to monitor a FADEC temperature of the FADEC, and reduce operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions based on the FADEC temperature of the FADEC approaching a limit; the embedded processing circuitry operable to monitor sensed FADEC temperatures to determine to reduce operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions; the embedded processing circuitry operable to assume the FADEC temperature might be approaching the limit under certain conditions, the certain conditions include at least one of a core temperature, a flight phase of an associated aircraft, an ambient pressure outside the engine, an engine temperature, and a throttle level angle from the aircraft.
ZAYKOV teaches embedded processing circuitry operable to monitor a system temperature [where “operational parameter” is a temperature] of a computing system 101 (consonant with the FADEC of SCHEID) (¶¶0036-0038, 0045), and reduce operation of the systems providing non-critical functions [systems providing functions that are not “safety critical”] (¶¶0019, 0028, 0030, 0036) based upon the system temperature of the computing system approaching a limit [approaching thermal envelope upper limit] (thermal envelope upper limit is being approached when it is determined from the operational parameter thermal profile exceeds a threshold; ¶¶0003, 007, 0019, 0047-0048, 0054-0057, 0068); the embedded processing circuitry operable to monitor sensed system temperatures of the computing system to determine to reduce operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions (¶0037, operational parameter may be a sensed temperature). ZAYKOV further teaches the embedded processing circuitry operable to assume the temperature might be approaching the limit under certain conditions including a flight phase of an associated aircraft (¶¶0028, 0054, 0060, 0062-0063; see also Fig. 5) wherein reduction of operation of the non-critical functions occurs at least during takeoff of an associated aircraft (¶¶0028, 0054, 0060, 0062-0063; see also Fig. 5). 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 gas turbine engine the embedded processing circuitry also operable to monitor a FADEC temperature of the FADEC, and reduce operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions based on the FADEC temperature of the FADEC approaching a limit; the embedded processing circuitry operable to monitor sensed FADEC temperatures to determine to reduce operation of the systems providing the non-critical functions; the embedded processing circuitry operable to assume the FADEC temperature might be approaching the limit under certain conditions, the certain conditions include at least one of a core temperature, a flight phase of an associated aircraft, an ambient pressure outside the engine, an engine temperature, and a throttle level angle from the aircraft, in order to provide thermal management that enables a computing system to operate close to maximum performance given environmental conditions while also providing consistent operation sufficient for safety critical applications and/or to guarantee the thermal envelope of the FADEC (ZAYKOV ¶0068).
However, SCHEID in view of RADACK and ZAYKOV as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the reduction of the systems providing the non-critical functions includes reducing a clock frequency for the non-critical function to reduce a generated heat.
As discussed above, RADACK and ZAYKOV teach reduction of the systems non-critical functions (such as Level E functions in SCHEID) in order to prioritize systems that provide critical functions (such as Level A safety functions in SCHEID) (see RADACK above) and guarantee a thermal envelope (See ZAYKOV above).
BERNHARDT teaches reduction of a systems function to reduce a generated heat includes reducing a clock frequency for the functions (¶¶0040-0042, 0061-0063); or DESAI teaches reduction of a system’s non-critical functions to reduce a generated heat includes reducing a clock frequency for the non-critical functions (¶¶0057, 0196-0200). 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 gas turbine engine wherein the reduction of the systems providing the non-critical functions includes reducing a clock frequency for the non-critical function to reduce a generated heat, in order to maintain the thermal envelope by reducing clock frequencies of components that support decreased operational frequencies/voltages to reduce power consumption and are not critical for safety (BERNHARDT ¶¶0040-0042; DESAI ¶¶0196-0200).
Re Claim 19, SCHEID in view of RADACK, ZAYKOV and BERNHARDT or DESAI teaches the gas turbine engine as set forth in claim 15, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein the reduction of the non-critical functions includes turning off the systems providing the non-critical functions.
ZAYKOV further teaches wherein the reduction of the non-critical functions includes turning off systems providing the non-critical functions (¶0028). 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 gas turbine engine wherein the reduction of the non-critical functions includes turning off the systems providing the non-critical functions, in order to only perform functions necessary for the given phase of flight that is presently taking place and/or to restrict to only safety critical applications such that the thermal profile stays within the thermal envelope (ZAYKOV ¶0028).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendment overcame some of the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) where no longer included above, failed to overcome some of the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) where repeated above and necessitated new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth fully above.
Applicant’s arguments to the obviousness rejections have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
The examiner notes the rejections are based upon the combined teachings of the prior art to meet the claims. Applicants attacks ZAYKOV separately rather than addressing the combined teachings of the prior art. With respect Applicant’s assertion ZAYKOV is relied upon to teach “the bulk of the control required by the claims” appears to overlook that the FADEC itself, processing cores and scheduling thereof are taught in SCHEID (e.g., see ¶¶0043, 0052-0053, 0057-0061, 0065). Notably, SCHEID is clear that data management tasks can be various types of tasks and are NOT limited to the examples provided (see ¶0061). Further, aspects related to only thermal control of a processor are not the “bulk of a control function” of a full authority digital engine control, which by definition control all aspects of aircraft engine performance.
Applicant asserts without evidence ZAYKOV would have no need to reduce clock frequency. However, the FADEC is that of SCHEID. Reducing its clock frequency for non-critical functions to reduce a generated heat would facilitate maintenance of the thermal envelope (as is expressly desired in the prior art) and reduce power consumption (also desired in the prior art) by reducing clock frequencies for components that support decreased operational frequencies/voltages and are not critical for safety (BERNHARDT ¶¶0040-0042; DESAI ¶¶0196-0200). As such, BERNHARDT and DESAI illustrate that reducing clock frequency was merely one known alternative for maintaining a thermal envelope and/or power consumption, as is expressly desired in the prior art. The same would be particularly beneficial to reduce heat from non-safety critical components that support decreased operational frequencies/voltages while they are kept running.
Applicant arguments to the reasons to combine at pages 14 & 15 are not responsive to the rejection as articulated, and is unpersuasive. First, reducing power consumption is an express motivation to reduce clock frequency found in the prior art. Applicant asserts without evidence, but does not explain why, this reason is not adequate. Moreover, the argument does not address the full motivation to combine as articulated nor the supporting portions of BERNHARDT or DESAI cited in the motivation statement (DESAI ¶¶0196-0200 BERNHARDT ¶¶0040-0042), which importantly reference desirability of temperature matching with workload, preventing overheating, preserving power, and which are said to be “just a few of the possible reasons for implementing power management”. The fact that Applicant’s own motivation was already recognized in the prior art is not evidence the combination would not have been obvious.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON H DUGER whose telephone number is (313) 446-6536. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30a to 4:30p EST Monday & Tuesday and 8:00a to 2:00p Wednesday, and is OFF Thursday and Friday.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian, can be reached on (571) 270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JASON H DUGER
PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 3741
PHONE (313) 446 6536
FAX (571) 270 9083
DATE
February 24, 2026
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741