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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/8/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that the groups are sufficiently related that there is no serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the Applicant has not overcome the basis alleged in the previous restriction for providing serious burden. The Examiner further notes the apparatus claims raise further issues not raised by the method claim. For instance, the apparatus claims require a controller configured to carry out the method of claim 1 but do not actually require the steps of method claim 1 to be carried out. The method of claim 1 comprises normal starting and accelerated starting of the passive engine(s) in the economy operating mode; normal starting comprising a first acceleration of the passive engine(s) for a first time period… the accelerated starting comprising a second acceleration of the passive engine(s) for a second time period… the normal starting taking place following the issuing of an alert indicating that the functional limitations of the economy operating mode have been exceeded…” among others. Thus, claim 1 recites actual method steps of operating an aircraft whereas the apparatuses of groups II and III merely require a controller programmed to carry out the recited steps. Thus, the claims raise issues of proper dependency. See MPEP 608.01(n)(III). The Examiner notes that consideration of different art and rejections amount to a serious burden on the Examiner. Additionally, the apparatus does not have to actually operate in accordance with the method and can be operated in asymmetric mode without fast starting for instance.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/8/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “safety limitations” and “functional limitations” render the claims indefinite because its unclear what actually constitutes a safety limitation or a functional limitation. The specification states that the safety limitations are those parameters that have a direct effect on keeping the aircraft airborne and functional limitations effect the operation of the aircraft or the effectiveness of the economy operating mode. While the specification provides examples of safety and functional limitations, it is unclear what exactly constitutes each limitation. The specification states for example that lack of visibility may or may not be a safety or functional limitation. See para. [0104]. Thus, its unclear what the scope of each limitation requires.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “issuing an alert” at the sixth line from the last renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether this is the same as that previously claimed or not.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “an active engine” and “a passive engine” renders the claims indefinite because its unclear whether these are the at least one passive engine or the at least one active engine previously claimed.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “an alert” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether this is the same as previously claimed or not.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “margins relating to performances of the heat engine” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear what is required by these margins. Referring to para. [0045], the Applicant states that the margins may be the available power, internal temperatures of the heat engines” but it is unclear what is included in margins relating to the performances of the heat engines. It is further unclear because the internal temperatures are claimed in addition to the margins. Further regarding claim 6, the limitation “engine counters… counting an item of usage” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear what is being recited by the limitation. Referring to para. [0045], the specification recites that engine counter includes transmission counters as the exemplary mode, however, the transmission counter is subsequently claimed. Thus, it is unclear what the scope of the recitation is intended to require. Additionally regarding claim 6, the limitation “an altitude… a height in relation to the overflow ground” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether the limitation is intended to refer to AGL or ASL and if AGL, how the recitation differs from the claimed height.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “an alert” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether this is the alert previously claimed in claim 1 or not. Additionally, the second limitation “an alert” renders the claim indefinite because its unclear whether this is the same alert as that previously claimed in claim 9 and 1 or not. Additionally, the limitation “at least one of the first functional limitations” and “the second functional limitations”, “the first functional limitations” renders the claim indefinite because the claim previously recites “a first functional limitation” and “a second functional limitation” and it is unclear whether the subsequent recitations are referring to the first and second functional limitation or other limitations, and if so, what other limitations are being included. The limitation “economy operating mode limitations” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the first safety limitations” and “the second safety limitations” renders the claim indefinite because the claim previously recites “a first safety limitation” and “a second safety limitation” and its unclear whether the subsequent recitation is including the singular recitation or not and what other recitations are being included.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauchesne-Martel US 2023/0080365 herein after ‘BM’ in view of Dooley US 2017/0327241.
Regarding claim 1, BM discloses a method for controlling an economy operating mode for an aircraft, see abstract operating an asymmetric operating regime (AOR), the aircraft being provided with at least one rotor 108 and at least two heat engines 102, 104 rotating the rotor(s) 108, the aircraft having a controller 210 configured to control the heat engines in at least the economy operating mode wherein at least one active engine from among the heat engines supplies non-zero mechanical power to the rotor(s) and at least one passive engine from among the other heat engines does not supply mechanical power to the rotors(s), see abstract stating that in AOR, the first engine is operated in active mode to provide motive power to an aircraft while the second engine is operating in a standby mode declutched from the gearbox, the method comprising the following steps: measuring operating parameters of the aircraft by means of sensors, see para. [0043] stating sensors 204, 206 are used to measure engine parameters; using a calculator to compare the operating parameters of the aircraft with safety limitations and functional limitations relating to the economy operating mode, see paras. [0043]-[0044] stating that the measurements from the sensors are used to calculate or determine other related engine parameters, that the sensor measurements are used in a monitoring device to determine whether the operating conditions are met or no longer met; the aircraft parameters include communications, navigation, display, monitoring, flight control systems, collision avoidance systems, flight recorders, weather systems and aircraft management systems; where the Applicant specifically states that the weather and traffic may be functional limitations, as well as certain conditions such as collision avoidance systems, weather, traffic are examples of safety limitations depending on the circumstances, the safety limitations having a direct effect on the safety of the flight of the aircraft, the functional limitations having an effect on the operation of the aircraft and/or on the effectiveness of the economy operating mode, the Applicant’s specification states that weather and traffic may both be functional and safety limitations depending on the circumstances; if the aircraft is in the economy operating mode and at least one of the functional limitations is not being respected and the safety limitations are being respected, issuing an alert indicating that the functional limitations of the economy operating mode have been exceeded, see para. [0051] a non-emergency exit mode may be initiated upon receipt, from a pilot, by a pilot commanded request such as when a cruise segment is ending, where the functional limitation is interpreted as when the condition for cruise has ended, the non-emergency exit mode from AOR indicates that a functional limitation has not been respected but since the emergency exit mode has not been triggered, a safety limitation has not been disrespected, and if the aircraft is in the economy operating mode and at least one of the safety limitations is not being respected, automatically disengaging the economy operating mode, the automatic disengagement comprising the activation of the passive engine(s) by means of the controller, see para. [0050], stating an emergency exit mode may be initiated as a result of a triggering event such as rotor droop, rotor speed loss, one engine operative (OEO) event, which are interpreted as safety limitations where the computer FADEC, EEC, ECU or the like generates an emergency request, where the operator can only refuse an exit request if it is determined the AOR cannot be safely exited otherwise the AOR is exited as rapidly as possible. BM does not teach wherein the method comprises normal starting and accelerated starting of the passive engine(s) in the economy operating mode; the normal starting comprising a first acceleration of the passive engine(s) for a first time period, until it supplies non-zero mechanical power to the rotor(s); the accelerated starting comprising a second acceleration of the passive engine(s) for a second time period, until it supplies non-zero mechanical power to the rotor(s), the second time period being shorter than the first time period; the normal starting taking place following the issuing of an alert indicating that the functional limitations of the economy operating mode have been exceeded and if a pilot of the aircraft authorizes the disengagement of the economy operating mode by means of an interface; and the accelerated starting being carried out during the activation.
Dooley teaches a dual engine helicopter power plant management system operating in AOR, see title, where the energy sources may comprise a single set of batteries or capacitors operating at different output settings under normal or emergency start conditions, see para. [0020], where a higher rate of energy may be delivered to the starters than at normal starting by delivering a larger current per unit time in comparison with the regular starting, see para. [0016], and thus, the energy provided may bring a shut down engine during rapid start to operation in a relatively short period of time, see para. [0032]. Thus, Dooley teaches a normal starting comprising a first acceleration of the passive engines for a first time period, until it supplies non-zero mechanical power to the rotors, i.e. the engine is operational, the accelerated starting, i.e. emergency starting, comprising a second acceleration of the passive engine(s) for a second time period, until it supplies non-zero mechanical power to the rotor(s), i.e. until the engine is operational, the second time period being shorter than the first time period, see paras. [0016], [0032] stating that the starters are provided with larger amounts of energy to start the engine in a relatively shorter time; the normal starting taking place following the issuing of an alert indicating that the functional limitations of the economy operating mode have been exceeded and if a pilot of the aircraft authorizes the disengagement of the economy operating mode by means of an interface; and the accelerated starting being carried out during the activation, the emergency starts occur during emergency conditions such as a failure of the engine, i.e. OEO event, and the normal operation would occur when exiting AOR. The use of rapid restart may prevent a catastrophic situation. See para. [0027].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker in the art at the time of the invention to provide a rapid restart system and method in the helicopter powerplant of BM, in order to provide for rapid restart when safety limitations are disrespected (i.e. emergency exit of AOR) and to provide normal restart when functional limitations are disrespected (i.e. normal exit of AOR), as taught by Dooley, in order to prevent the catastrophic situation. Id.
Regarding claim 2, BM, in view of Dooley, discloses wherein, if the aircraft is not in the economy operating mode and the safety and functional limitations are being respected by the operating parameters, the method comprises issuing information relating to the availability of the economy operating mode. BM teaches that prior to entry into, or exit from, the AOR, it is desirable for various operating parameters of the engines 102, 104, the rotor 108, and/or the aircraft 100, to meet certain operating conditions associated with the AOR and to be within predetermined bands, at, below or above, certain predetermined values. See para. [0042].
Regarding claim 3, BM, in view of Dooley, discloses if the aircraft is not in the economy operating mode and the safety and functional limitations are being respected by the operating parameters, the method comprises engaging the economy operating mode, the engagement comprising a first control of at least one of the heat engines by means of the controller so that it is an active engine, and a second control of at least the other of the heat engines by means of the controller in order for it to be a passive engine, the second control comprising stopping or idling the other(s) of the heat engines. BM teaches that control of the AOR is incorporated from Morgan US 2020/0049025 where the multi-engine helicopter is controlled by one or more controllers that are programmed to manage the operation of the engine so that one of the engines is operated in low power standby mode in AOR and one engine is operated as an active high power engine. See Morgan para. [0071]. Referring to claim 2 above, AOR is entered when the safety and functional limitations are being respected by the operating parameters.
Regarding claim 4, BM, in view of Dooley, discloses the calculator determines the active engine(s) and the passive engine(s) from among the heat engines in the economy operating mode, the calculator transmitting information to the controller relating to the active engine(s) for the first control and to the passive engine(s) for the second control. Referring to BM para. [0042], BM states the various operating parameters of the engines are monitored to make sure the engine operating parameters are within predetermined bands, or certain predetermined values. The measurements are used to calculate or determine other parameters. See para. [0043].
Regarding claim 5, BM, in view of Dooley, discloses the issuing of an alert indicating that the functional limitations of the economy operating mode have been exceed comprises a step of displaying a message on a display device of the aircraft, the message comprising information relating to the operating parameter(s) that do(es) not respect the associated functional limitation. Referring to para. [0051], during a normal exit request, a pilot commanded request may be received by the operator in an interface in the cockpit and may be require a button press or a long hold to prevent inadvertent selection and may comprise normal pilot commanded exit requests.
Regarding claim 6, BM, in view of Dooley, discloses all elements wherein the operating parameters of the aircraft comprises at least two parameters, including:
propulsion parameters relating to an assembly of the aircraft, the assembly comprising the heat engines 102, 104, the rotor(s) , and a mechanical transmission channel 158 mechanically connecting the heat engines and the rotor(s), the propulsion parameters being chosen from torques and speeds of rotation at rotating members of the heat engines, a torque and a speed of rotation of a mast of the rotor(s), torques and speeds of rotation of rotating members of the mechanical transmission channel, internal temperatures of the heat engines, see para. [0043] stating that sensors 204, 206, 208 include temperature sensors for acquiring data of the engines, margins relating to performances of the heat engines, engine counters associated with the heat engines, each engine counter counting an item of usage data of one of the heat engines, and transmission counters associated respectively with shafts of the mechanical transmission channel mechanically connected respectively to the heat engines, each transmission counter counting an item of usage of one of the shafts; flight parameters of the aircraft chosen from a forward speed, a rate of climb, an altitude, id. stating the sensor include altitude sensors, an attitude, a height in relation to the overflow ground; operational parameters of the aircraft, the operational parameters being chosen from controlled pitch values of blades of the rotor(s), a forward speed acceptable to the aircraft in the economy operating mode, a state of equipment of the aircraft, the state comprising at least two states from a “normal” operating state, a “stopped” state or a “malfunction present” state relating to the equipment; and environmental parameters relating to traffic conditions around the aircraft and to weather conditions outside the aircraft. Thus, BM, in view of Dooley, discloses at least operating parameters including internal temperatures and altitude among others.
Regarding claim 7, BM, in view of Dooley, discloses the safety limitations and the functional limitations together comprise: at least one propulsion limitation relating to at least one of the propulsion parameters, (internal temperature of the engines at para. [0043]); at least one flight limitation relating to at least one of the flight parameters (altitude at para. [0043]); at least one operational limitation relating to at least one of the operational parameters, (airspeed at para. [0049]); and at least one environmental limitation relating to at least one of the environmental parameters (weather at para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 8, BM, in view of Dooley, discloses wherein the economy operating mode comprises a first operating mode wherein the passive engine(s) is/are stopped, see para. [0028] stating AOR may comprise zero flow, and not supplied with fuel and a second operating mode wherein the passive engine(s) is/are started and supplied with fuel, see para. [0031] stating AOR may be sub-idle engine speed with low speed operation.
Regarding claim 11, BM, in view of Dooley, discloses the controller comprises as many engine controllers as the aircraft comprises heat engines. Referring to para. [0027, BM states the controller 210 may comprises a first controller for controlling the first engine 102 and a second controller for controlling the second engine 104.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims notwithstanding any issues identified above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 9, the prior art discloses all elements but does not teach or fairly suggest “if the aircraft is in the first operating mode and at least one of the first functional limitations is not being respected and the second functional limitations are being respected, the method comprises: issuing an alert… or engaging the second operating mode… or issuing an alert…” in combination with the remaining elements of the claim. While BM does teach first and second operating modes, BM appears to teach that they are modes used in alternative to each other. Since claim 9 requires verifying the first functional limitation is not being respected and the second functional limitation is being respected, BM doesn’t appear to check both the limitations for compliance.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “if the aircraft is in the first operating mode and at least one of the first safety limitations is not being respected and the second safety limitations are being respected, engaging the second operating mode…” in combination with remaining claims. While BM does teach first and second operating modes, BM appears to teach that they are modes used in alternative to each other. Thus, the prior art does not appear to verify whether the first and second safety limitations are being respected at the same time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD LUTHER SUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3765. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 PST.
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 at (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.
/GERALD L SUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741