DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 13-15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
change claim 1 line 2 accordingly (to provided antecedent basis regarding claim 4): “an amount of fuel to a gas turbine engine”
change claim 1 lines 6-7 accordingly: “[[a]] the gas turbine engine”
change claim 2 line 2 accordingly: “configured to average”
change claim 4 line 2 accordingly: “the blended fuel delivery command signal”
change claim 5 line 2 accordingly: “[[a]] the gas turbine engine”
change claim 11 line 3 accordingly (to provided antecedent basis regarding claim 14): “an amount of fuel to the gas turbine engine”
change claim 11 lines 5-6 accordingly: “[[a]] the gas turbine engine”
change claim 13 line 2 accordingly: “and applying a second”
it appears claims 13 and 14 should include a “further comprising” clause
change claim 15 line 2 accordingly: “in response to the gas turbine engine receiving the fuel output”
change claim 17 line 3 accordingly: “and [[to]] outputting”
change claim 17 line 5 accordingly: “by a pressure sensor, [[c]] the real-time pressure (P3)” (it is thought the claim should be changed this way)
change claim 17 line 6 accordingly: “outputting a pressure signal from the pressure sensor [[signal]]”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fuel flow" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is only antecedent basis for a real-time fuel flow (Wf).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the fuel delivery rate" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the fuel output" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is only antecedent basis for an amount of fuel output.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the fuel flow output" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the acceleration" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the fuel delivered" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the fuel flow signal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the pressure signal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the speed signal" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the Wf/P3 ratio signal " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the acceleration signal" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “further comprising: … a ratio unit … and … a derivative unit”. Claim 8 is dependent upon claim 1 that recites a “controller” in line 3. Applicant pars. 36-37 and 40 state that the ratio unit 114 and the derivative unit 115 are included with the controller 110. Therefore it is unclear how the claim 1 control system can further comprise a ratio unit and derivative unit when such units are included with the claim 1 controller. For purposes of compact prosecution the claim is interpreted such that the claim 8 units can be included with the claim 1 controller or are portions of the claim 1 controller. This can be cured for example by reciting “a ratio unit of the controller” and similarly “a derivative unit of the controller”.
Claim 9 recites “further comprising: … a first feedback controller … and … a second feedback controller”. Claim 9 is dependent upon claim 1 that recites a “controller” in line 3. Applicant pars. 36-37 and 40 state that the first feedback controller 118 and the second feedback controller 119 is included with the controller 110. Therefore it is unclear how the claim 1 control system can further comprise the first and second feedback controllers when such feedback controllers are included with the claim 1 controller. For purposes of compact prosecution the claim is interpreted such that the claim 9 controllers can be included with the claim 1 controller or are a part of the claim 1 controller.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the Wf/P3 reference value" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the acceleration reference value" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the fuel output" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the fuel flow" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the fuel delivery rate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the fuel flow output" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The metes and bounds of the claim 17 phrase “The method of claim 4” is unclear because there is no method recited regarding claim 4 (claim 4 is an apparatus claim). For purposes of compact prosecution claim 17 is interpreted as being dependent upon claim 14 (and any claim objections above and 112(b) rejection(s) below regarding claims 17-20 are made according to this interpretation).
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the fuel delivered" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “further comprising: … a ratio unit … and … a derivative unit”. Claim 18 is dependent upon claim 11 that recites a “controller” in line 4. Applicant pars. 36-37 and 40 state that the ratio unit 114 and the derivative unit 115 are included with the controller 110. Therefore it is unclear how the claim 1 control system can further comprise a ratio unit and derivative unit when such units are included with the claim 1 controller. For purposes of compact prosecution the claim is interpreted such that the claim 8 units can be included with the claim 1 controller or are portions of the claim 1 controller.
Claim 19 recites “further comprising: … a first feedback controller … and … a second feedback controller”. Claim 19 is dependent upon claim 11 that recites a “controller” in line 4. Applicant pars. 36-37 and 40 state that the first feedback controller 118 and the second feedback controller 119 is included with the controller 110. Therefore it is unclear how the claim 11 method can further comprise the first and second feedback controllers when such feedback controllers are included with the claim 11 controller. For purposes of compact prosecution the claim is interpreted such that the claim 19 controllers can be included with the claim 11 controller or are a part of the claim 11 controller.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8 and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No. US 2011/0277482 A1 (Mosley) as evidenced by and Pub. No.: US 2023/0184176 A1 (Labrecque), in view of NPL “Aircraft Turbine Engine Control Research at NASA Glenn Research Center” (Garg) and NPL “Design of Transient State Control Mode Based on Rotor Acceleration” (Dang).
Regarding claim 1, Mosley discloses (see fig. 1) a gas turbine engine acceleration control system (see for example fuel controller 39 that controls fuel valve 35 to engine during acceleration for example wherein acceleration is represented by changing engine shaft speed via a sensor 17, see par. 17) comprising: a fuel system (at least 23,35) configured to output (see par. 21) an amount of fuel to a gas turbine engine 11; and a controller 23 in signal communication 33 with the fuel system, the controller 23 configured to: determine a real-time pressure (P3) (see compressor pressure sensor 17 in par. 17) of the gas turbine engine 11; determine a real-time rotational speed (N) (see “speed sensor [17] for sensing a rotational speed of the gas turbine” in par. 17) of the gas turbine engine 11; and generate a first fuel command signal (37a) that reduces a first error (see pars. 21-22; PI or PID control to reduce error by way of error calculator 27a and corresponding transfer function Ka(s)) between the real-time (first parameter) 21 and a (first parameter) reference value 29a for example, and a second fuel command signal (37b) that reduces a second error (see pars. 21-22; PI or PID control to reduce error by way of error calculator 27b and corresponding transfer function Kb(s)) between a real-time (second parameter) 21 and a (second parameter) reference value 29b, wherein the controller 23 generates a blended fuel delivery command signal 41 based on the first and second fuel command signals (see discussion of selection logic 39 in par. 23; first and second fuel command signals may be averaged for example. see par. 23, bottom), and controls the fuel system to change the fuel flow (via fuel actuator 35) using the blended fuel delivery command signal 41,33 (compensator 43 is optional, see par. 24, bottom). Mosley does not disclose determine a real-time Wf/P3 ratio between a real-time fuel flow (Wf) of the fuel output from the fuel system and the Mosley real-time pressure (P3); determine a real-time acceleration (N-dot) value of the gas turbine engine based on the Mosley real-time rotational speed (N); a first parameter is Wf/P3 ratio and a second parameter is a real-time acceleration (N-dot).
Mosley discloses three error calculators 27a-27c corresponding to feedback signals 21 from different corresponding gas turbine parameter sensors 17 as discussed in par. 30 and thus fuel supplied to the combustor is controlled based on these parameters wherein there can be more or less than three parameters. Garg points out that gas turbine fuel control tracks thrust that cannot be measured (see page 4, top: “Thrust, the primary controlled variable of interest cannot be measured”) and thus engine parameters such as engine speed are used as the variable of interest (see Garg page 4 text just above fig. 2) and this is consistent with engine speed feedback signal 21 of Mosley. Evidentiary reference Labrecque points out at par. 66 that thrust may also be represented by Wf/P3. Thus given the teachings Mosley and knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as represented by Garg and Labrecque it would reasonable to track Wf/P3 to control fuel flow by way of a Wf/P3 feedback 21, a Wf/P3 reference 29, and corresponding Wf/P3 transfer function and Wf/P3 fuel control signal 37 regarding Mosley fig. 1, and similarly it would reasonable to track N-dot to control fuel flow by way of a N-dot feedback 21, a N-dot reference 29, and corresponding N-dot transfer function and N-dot fuel control signal 37 given the teachings of Dang discussed below.
Garg teaches (see fig. 1) a gas turbine (see fig. 1) and further teaches a real-time Wf/P3 ratio between a real-time fuel flow (Wf) of the fuel output from the fuel system and the Mosley real-time pressure (P3) (see page 5, middle discussion measuring Wf/Ps30 wherein combustor inlet pressure corresponds with combustor outlet pressure (see fig. 1 of Garg) discussed with regard to Labrecque above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Mosley with determine a real-time Wf/P3 ratio between a real-time fuel flow (Wf) of the fuel output from the fuel system and the Mosley real-time pressure (P3) as taught by Garg in order to facilitate providing a control loop parameter important to acceleration of a gas turbine engine to prevent compressor surge (see Garg fig. 3 and page 3, middle).
Dang teaches a gas turbine engine (see fig .1) and further teaches determine a real-time acceleration (N-dot) value of the gas turbine engine based on real-time rotational speed (N) (derivative of engine “Compressor Speed”, see fig. 2 wherein reference or desired N-dot is compared to real time N-dot from Differentiator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Mosley in view of Garg with determine a real-time acceleration (N-dot) value of the gas turbine engine based on the Mosley real-time rotational speed (N) as taught by Dang in order to facilitate providing greater flexibility in scheduling engine acceleration (see Dang page 126, section I, first two sentences and section II, second paragraph).
Mosley in view of Garg and Dang result in Mosley’ fuel controller using feedback 21 of Wf/P3 and N-dot and corresponding reference values 29, error calculators 27 and transfer functions to arrive at respective fuel control signals regarding Wf/P3 and N-dot respectively (e.g. 37Wf/P3 and 37N-dot relating to Mosley fig. 1 of Mosley in view of Garg and Dang). This results in substitution of one or more of 21Wf/P3,29Wf/P3,27Wf/P3,KWf/P3(s),3Wf/P3 and 21N-dot,29N-dot,27N-dot,KN-dot(s),37N-dot for one or more of 21a,29a,27a,Ka(s),37a and 21b,29b,27bb,Kb(s),37b, or the addition of 21Wf/P3,29Wf/P3,27Wf/P3,KWf/P3(s),3Wf/P3 and 21N-dot,29N-dot,27N-dot,KN-dot(s),37N-dot to controller 23.
Regarding claim 2, Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Mosley further discloses (see fig. 1) a fuel delivery logic system (39 or 39,43; compensator 43 delays or limits fuel flow based on the logic wherein the dynamics of or air controller 25 is different than that of fuel controller 23, see par. 24) configured average (see par. 23, bottom) the first and second fuel command signals to generate the blended fuel delivery command signal. Mosley states “If desired, the selection logic can mathematically combine ( e.g., add, average together, etc.) two or more of the loop fuel control signals 37a-37c)”. It would desirable for example during acceleration operations of the gas turbine to average the fuel control signals relating to 37Wf/P3 and 37N-dot because Dang teaches such signals are both related to gas turbine acceleration (see Dang fig. 7). Also, the phrase “average the first and second command signals” combined with transitional phrase “comprising” does not appear to preclude other fuel controls signals, i.e. 37a,37b for example from being included in the average. The teachings of Garg include that gas turbine fuel controllers include a “select low” regarding an acceleration schedule. Thus averaging 37Wf/P3 and 37N-dot would not risk exceeding a bounded acceleration limit (a select low is also used in Dang fig. 7).
Regarding claim 3, Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Mosley further discloses (see fig. 1) wherein the fuel delivery logic system applies a first weighted value to the first fuel command signal and applies a second weighted value to the second fuel command (in the scenario wherein just the 37Wf/P3 and 37N-dot are included in the claimed average the weighting is 50/50; this is consistent with applicant par. 42, bottom disclosure; this disclosure provides that the ordinary and customary meaning of “average” (i.e. the average of A and B is (A + B)/2) to be included in the BRI of weighted value).
Regarding claim 4, Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Mosley further discloses (see fig. 1) wherein the fuel delivery logic system 39,43 modifies the blended fuel delivery command signal 41 to limit (see par. 24) the fuel delivery rate and the amount of the fuel output to the gas turbine engine 11.
Regarding claim 5, Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Mosley further discloses (see fig. 1) the gas turbine engine 11 configured to rotate at a rotational speed that can be varied in response to receiving the fuel output (see par. 21) from the fuel system (at least 23,35). Engine 11 rotation speed 21 is measured by sensor 17 and feedback 21 is used to adjust the fuel control signal (41 or 33) is order to track the speed with the demanded speed 27(a or b or c) such adjustment reduces the error between the measured speed 21 and the demanded speed 27 (see pars. 14 and 19).
Regarding claim 6, Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Mosley further discloses (see fig. 1) wherein the fuel flow output from the fuel supply system according to the blended fuel delivery command signal controls the acceleration of the gas turbine engine. For example when the pilot requests in increase in thrust with a power lever angle or some other input (including via an autothrottle) then the “target” (see par. 19) engine speed 29 increases resulting in an error 31 and there is a subsequent gain applied in the fuel controller 23 to increase fuel flow in order to meet the thrust increase request by the pilot. This is evidenced by Garg page 4, middle to page 5, middle wherein the Figure 2 PLA is power lever angle and the “Control Logic” schedules or maps a reference speed and computes an error between the reference speed and the measured fan speed.
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches a ratio unit (see Garg page 5, middle; since this ratio is “computed” then one of ordinary skill in the art that such computation is performed by the gas turbine engine FADEC controller at page 2, middle of Garg; such FADEC would include fuel controllers of the gas turbine engine, see throttle discussion regarding the FADEC on page 2) configured to receive the fuel flow signal and the pressure signal, and to output a Wf/P3 ratio signal (the signal of the combination would be output via feedback signal 21 of Mosley fig. 1 of the combination in a similar manner that engine speed N is output via signal 21 wherein both N and Wf/P3 are proxies for thrust as discussed in the claim 1 analysis above regarding Garg) indicating the real-time Wf/P3 ratio; and a derivative unit (see “Differentiator” in Dang fig. 2) configured to receive the speed signal and to output an acceleration signal (i.e. the measured N-dot from Differentiator that is compared to demanded or reference N-dot from schedule from pilot power lever angle, see section III, first paragraph on page 128) indicating the real-time acceleration (N-dot) value.
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches wherein the Wf/P3 reference value and the acceleration reference value are based on at least one of ambient gas turbine compressor entry temperature (T1), ambient outside air temperature (OAT), ambient altitude, ambient airspeed, and the real-time rotational speed (N). Mosley fig. 1 teaches a reference value 29i is used to compare to a measured value 21 wherein Garg as evidenced by Labrecque taught in the claim 1 analysis above that Wf/P3 is suitable for tracking thrust for fuel control as discussed in Garg page 5, middle (in a similar manner as tracking engine seed N in par. 11 of Mosely). Garg further points out that fuel control depends upon both the power lever angle and ambient conditions (see page 2, top and fig. 2). Because power lever angle and ambient condition are the reference conditions as pointed out by Garg, then the Wf/P3 reference value would include an ambient outside air temperature (see Garg page 5, middle pointing out ambient condition include ambient temperature). Dang teaches (see figs. 1, 2 and 7 and page 126, section II, 2nd par.) the acceleration reference value are based on at least ambient gas turbine compressor entry temperature (T1).
Regarding claim 11, Mosley discloses (see fig. 1) a method of controlling acceleration (see for example fuel controller 39 that controls fuel valve 35 to engine during acceleration for example wherein acceleration is represented by changing engine shaft speed via a sensor 17, see par. 17) of a gas turbine engine 11, the method comprising: outputting (see par. 21) an amount of fuel -to the gas turbine engine from a fuel system (at least 23,35); determining, by a controller 23, a real-time pressure (P3) (see compressor pressure sensor 17 in par. 17) of the gas turbine engine 11; determining, by the controller 23, a real-time rotational speed (N) (see “speed sensor [17] for sensing a rotational speed of the gas turbine” in par. 17) of the gas turbine engine; generating, by the controller, a first fuel command signal (37a) that reduces a first error (see pars. 21-22; PI or PID control to reduce error by way of error calculator 27a and corresponding transfer function Ka(s)) between the real-time (first parameter) 21 and a (first parameter) reference value 29a, and a second fuel command signal (37b) that reduces a second error (see pars. 21-22; PI or PID control to reduce error by way of error calculator 27b and corresponding transfer function Kb(s)) between a real-time (second parameter) 21 and a (second parameter) reference value 29b; generating, by the controller 23, a blended fuel delivery command signal 41 based on the first and second fuel command signals (see discussion of selection logic 39 in par. 23; first and second fuel command signals may be averaged for example. see par. 23, bottom); and controlling the fuel system to change the fuel flow (via fuel actuator 35) using the blended fuel delivery command signal 41,33 (compensator 43 is optional, see par. 24, bottom). Mosley does not disclose determining a real-time Wf/P3 ratio between a real-time fuel flow (Wf) of the fuel output from the fuel system; determining, by the controller 23, a real-time acceleration (N-dot) value; a first parameter is Wf/P3 ratio and a second parameter is a real-time acceleration (N-dot).
Mosley discloses three error calculators 27a-27c corresponding to feedback signals 21 from different corresponding gas turbine parameter sensors 17 as discussed in par. 30 and thus fuel supplied to the combustor is controlled based on these parameters wherein there can be more or less than three parameters. Garg points out that gas turbine fuel control tracks thrust that cannot be measured (see page 4, top: “Thrust, the primary controlled variable of interest cannot be measured”) and thus engine parameters such as engine speed are used as the variable of interest (see Garg page 4 text just above fig. 2) and this is consistent with engine speed feedback signal 21 of Mosley. Evidentiary reference Labrecque points out at par. 66 that thrust may also be represented by Wf/P3. Thus given the teachings Mosley and knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as represented by Garg and Labrecque it would reasonable to track Wf/P3 to control fuel flow by way of a Wf/P3 feedback 21, a Wf/P3 reference 29, and corresponding Wf/P3 transfer function and Wf/P3 fuel control signal 37 regarding Mosley fig. 1, and similarly it would reasonable to track N-dot to control fuel flow by way of a N-dot feedback 21, a N-dot reference 29, and corresponding N-dot transfer function and N-dot fuel control signal 37 given the teachings of Dang discussed below.
Garg teaches (see fig. 1) a gas turbine (see fig. 1) and further teaches a real-time Wf/P3 ratio between a real-time fuel flow (Wf) of the fuel output from the fuel system and the Mosley real-time pressure (P3) (see page 5, middle discussion measuring Wf/Ps30 wherein combustor inlet pressure corresponds with combustor outlet pressure (see fig. 1 of Garg) discussed with regard to Labrecque above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Mosley with determine a real-time Wf/P3 ratio between a real-time fuel flow (Wf) of the fuel output from the fuel system and the Mosley real-time pressure (P3) as taught by Garg in order to facilitate providing a control loop parameter important to acceleration of a gas turbine engine to prevent compressor surge (see Garg fig. 3 and page 3, middle).
Dang teaches a gas turbine engine (see fig .1) and further teaches determine a real-time acceleration (N-dot) value of the gas turbine engine based on real-time rotational speed (N) (derivative of engine “Compressor Speed”, see fig. 2 wherein reference or desired N-dot is compared to real time N-dot from Differentiator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Mosley in view of Garg with determine a real-time acceleration (N-dot) value of the gas turbine engine based on the Mosley real-time rotational speed (N) as taught by Dang in order to facilitate providing greater flexibility in scheduling engine acceleration (see Dang page 126, section I, first two sentences and section II, second paragraph).
Mosley in view of Garg and Dang result in Mosley’ fuel controller using feedback 21 of Wf/P3 and N-dot and corresponding reference values 29, error calculators 27 and transfer functions to arrive at respective fuel control signals regarding Wf/P3 and N-dot respectively (e.g. 37Wf/P3 and 37N-dot relating to Mosley fig. 1 of Mosley in view of Garg and Dang). This results in substitution of one or more of 21Wf/P3,29Wf/P3,27Wf/P3,KWf/P3(s),37Wf/P3 and 21N-dot,29N-dot,27N-dot,KN-dot(s),37N-dot for one or more of 21a,29a,27a,Ka(s),37a and 21b,29b,27bb,Kb(s),37b, or the addition of 21Wf/P3,29Wf/P3,27Wf/P3,KWf/P3(s),3Wf/P3 and 21N-dot,29N-dot,27N-dot,KN-dot(s),37N-dot to controller 23.
Regarding claim 12, Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Mosley further discloses (see fig. 1) averaging (see par. 23, bottom), by a fuel delivery logic system (39 or 39,43; compensator 43 delays or limits fuel flow based on the logic wherein the dynamics of or air controller 25 is different than that of fuel controller 23, see par. 24), the first and second fuel command signals to generate the blended fuel delivery command signal. Mosley states “If desired, the selection logic can mathematically combine ( e.g., add, average together, etc.) two or more of the loop fuel control signals 37a-37c)”. It would desirable for example during acceleration operations of the gas turbine to average the fuel control signals relating to 37Wf/P3 and 37N-dot because Dang teaches such signals are both related to gas turbine acceleration (see Dang fig. 7). Also, the phrase “average the first and second command signals” combined with transitional phrase “comprising” does not appear to preclude other fuel controls signals, i.e. 37a,37b for example from being included in the average. The teachings of Garg include that gas turbine fuel controllers include a “select low” regarding an acceleration schedule. Thus averaging 37Wf/P3 and 37N-dot would not risk exceeding a bounded acceleration limit (a select low is also used in Dang fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Mosley further discloses (see fig. 1) applying, by the fuel delivery logic system, a first weighted value to the first fuel command signal and applying a second weighted value to the second fuel command (in the scenario wherein just the 37Wf/P3 and 37N-dot are included in the claimed average the weighting is 50/50; this is consistent with applicant par. 42, bottom disclosure; this disclosure provides that the ordinary and customary meaning of “average” (i.e. the average of A and B is (A + B)/2) to be included in the BRI of weighted value as such applies to a weighted average).
Regarding claim 14, Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Mosley further discloses (see fig. 1) modifying, by the fuel delivery logic system 39,43, the blended fuel delivery signal 41 to limit (see par. 24) the fuel delivery rate and the amount of the fuel output to the gas turbine engine 11.
Regarding claim 15, Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Mosley further discloses (see fig. 1) rotating a gas turbine engine 11 at a rotational speed 21 that can be varied in response to the gas turbine engine receiving the fuel output from the fuel system (at least 23,35). Engine 11 rotation speed 21 is measured by sensor 17 and feedback 21 is used to adjust the fuel control signal (41 or 33) is order to track the speed with the demanded speed 27(a or b or c) such adjustment reduces the error between the measured speed 21 and the demanded speed 27 (see pars. 14 and 19).
Regarding claim 16, Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Mosley further discloses (see fig. 1) controlling the fuel flow output from the fuel supply system according to the blended fuel delivery command signal so as to control the acceleration of the gas turbine engine. For example when the pilot requests in increase in thrust with a power lever angle or some other input (including via an autothrottle) then the “target” (see par. 19) engine speed 29 increases resulting in an error 31 and there is a subsequent gain applied in the fuel controller 23 to increase fuel flow in order to meet the thrust increase request by the pilot. This is evidenced by Garg page 4, middle to page 5, middle wherein the Figure 2 PLA is power lever angle and the “Control Logic” schedules or maps a reference speed and computes an error between the reference speed and the measured fan speed.
Claim(s) 7, 9 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg as evidenced by Pub. No.: US 2022/0290576 A1 (Ota), and Dang.
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches a fuel flow sensor (Garg taught in the claim 1 analysis above measured Wf/P3 and thus there must be a fuel flow Wf sensor to perform the measurement; this is evidenced by Ota fig. 1 fuel flow sensor 21 that measures fuel flow rate of gas turbine engine 10) configured to measure the real-time fuel flow (Wf) (see Wfx in Ota fig. 1) of the fuel delivered to the gas turbine engine (see engine 11 in Mosely fig. 1 and engine 10 in Ota fig. 1) and to output a fuel flow signal (see Qf dashed line in Ota fig. 1) indicating the real-time fuel flow (Wf); a pressure sensor (sensor 17 of Mosley fig. 1 measures compressor pressure; see par. 17) configured to measure the real-time pressure (P3) of the gas turbine engine and to output a pressure signal 21 indicating the real time pressure (P3); and a spool speed sensor (sensor 17 of Mosley fig. 1 measures engine shaft speed; see par. 17) configured to measure the real-time rotational speed (N) of the gas turbine engine and to output a speed signal 21 indicating the real-time rotational speed (N).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg as evidenced by Ota, and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches (see Mosley fig. 1 the content of which has been modified as explained in the claim 1 analysis above) a first feedback controller (27Wf/P3 KWf/P3(s)) configured to output the first fuel command signal based 37Wf/P3 on the Wf/P3 ratio signal 21Wf/P3 and a Wf/P3 reference value 29Wf/P3; and a second feedback controller (27N-dot KN-dot(s)) configured to output the second fuel command signal 37N-dot based on the acceleration signal and an acceleration reference value 29N-dot.
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches (see fig. 1) measuring, by a fuel flow sensor (Garg taught in the claim 1 analysis above measured Wf/P3 and thus there must be a fuel flow Wf sensor to perform the measurement; this is evidenced by Ota fig. 1 fuel flow sensor 21 that measures fuel flow rate of gas turbine engine 10), the real-time fuel flow (Wf) (see Wfx in Ota fig. 1) of the fuel delivered to the gas turbine engine (see engine 11 in Mosely fig. 1 and engine 10 in Ota fig. 1) and outputting a fuel flow signal (see Qf dashed line in Ota fig. 1) from the fuel flow sensor indicating the real-time fuel flow (Wf); measuring, by a pressure sensor (sensor 17 of Mosley fig. 1 measures compressor pressure; see par. 17), the real-time pressure (P3) of the gas turbine engine, and outputting a pressure signal 21 from the pressure sensor signal indicating the real time pressure (P3); and measuring, by a spool speed sensor (sensor 17 of Mosley fig. 1 measures engine shaft speed; see par. 17), the real-time rotational speed (N) of the gas turbine engine, and outputting a speed signal 21 from the spool speed sensor indicating the real-time rotational speed (N).
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg as evidenced by Ota, and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches delivering the fuel flow signal and the pressure signal to a ratio unit (see Garg page 5, middle; since this ratio is “computed” then one of ordinary skill in the art that such computation is performed by the gas turbine engine FADEC controller at page 2, middle of Garg; such FADEC would include fuel controllers of the gas turbine engine, see throttle discussion regarding the FADEC on page 2); outputting a Wf/P3 ratio signal (the signal of the combination would be output via feedback signal 21 of Mosley fig. 1 of the combination in a similar manner that engine speed N is output via signal 21 wherein both N and Wf/P3 are proxies for thrust as discussed in the claim 11 analysis above regarding Garg) indicating the real-time Wf/P3 ratio from the ratio unit; delivering the speed signal to a derivative unit (see “Differentiator” in Dang fig. 2); and outputting an acceleration signal (i.e. the measured N-dot from Differentiator that is compared to demanded or reference N-dot from schedule from pilot power lever angle, see section III, first paragraph on page 128) indicating the real-time acceleration (N-dot) value from the derivative unit.
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg as evidenced by Ota, and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches (see Mosley fig. 1 the content of which has been modified as explained in the claim 11 analysis above) outputting, from a first feedback controller (27Wf/P3 KWf/P3(s)), the first fuel command signal 37Wf/P3 based on the Wf/P3 ratio signal 21Wf/P3 and a Wf/P3 reference value 29Wf/P3; and outputting, from a second feedback controller (27N-dot KN-dot(s)), the second fuel command signal 37N-dot based on the acceleration signal 21N-dot and an acceleration reference value 29N-dot.
Regarding claim 20, The combination of Mosley as evidenced by Labrecque, in view of Garg as evidenced by Ota, and Dang teach the current invention as claimed and discussed above. The combination teaches determining the Wf/P3 reference value and the acceleration reference value based on at least one of ambient gas turbine compressor entry temperature (T1), ambient outside air temperature (OAT), ambient altitude, ambient airspeed, and the real-time rotational speed (N). The combination teaches Mosley fig. 1 teaches a reference value 29i is used to compare to a measured value 21 wherein Garg as evidenced by Labrecque taught in the claim 1 analysis above that Wf/P3 is suitable for tracking thrust for fuel control as discussed in Garg page 5, middle (in a similar manner as tracking engine seed N in par. 11 of Mosely). Garg further points out that fuel control depends upon both the power lever angle and ambient conditions (see page 2, top and fig. 2). Because power lever angle and ambient condition are the reference conditions as pointed out by Garg, then the Wf/P3 reference value would include an ambient outside air temperature (see Garg page 5, middle pointing out ambient condition include ambient temperature). Dang teaches (see figs. 1, 2 and 7 and page 126, section II, 2nd par.) the acceleration reference value are based on at least ambient gas turbine compressor entry temperature (T1).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200088112 (Tang): general discussion of feedback error for gas turbine fuel controllers (pars. 33-34) and acceleration limits (par. 25); and
US 20030094000 (Zagranski): N-dot fuel control loop for gas turbine acceleration (fig. 1 and pars. 4-9).
weighted average regarding gas turbine controllers: US 4423594 (abstract); 20230126831 (par. 82)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights