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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 9, 11 and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosqui et al. (US 6,195,598 B1) in view of Emrich et al. (US 2024/0084742 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 20-21, Bosqui discloses a method of processing engine monitoring parameters in a rotorcraft (e.g. Abstract) that comprises at least one rotor (e.g. Abstract & col 3 lines 15-30: rotary wing and rotor speed implies rotorcraft with rotor) and at least two engines (col 6 lines 40-59: two engines) for powering the at least one rotor in one of an All Engines Operative mode (e.g. Figs. 2-3) and a Single Engine Operation mode (e.g. Figs. 4-5 & col lines 58-60), wherein the engine monitoring parameters are at least indicative of power margins of one engine of the at least two engines of the rotorcraft (e.g. Fig. 1 & Abstract), the method comprising:
displaying an engine monitoring indicator for the one engine of the at least two engines of the rotorcraft for visualizing a current performance state of the one engine (e.g. Figs. 2-5);
determining (e.g. col 6 line 65 to col 7 line 18) whether the rotorcraft is operated in the All Engines Operative mode (e.g. Figs. 2-3), wherein the at least two engines are powering the at least one rotor, or in the Single Engine Operation mode, wherein only the one engine of the at least two engines is powering the at least one rotor (e.g. Figs. 4-5); and
in response to determining that the rotorcraft is operated in the Single Engine Operation mode, displaying a first graphical representation of a Single Engine Operation mode indicator with the engine monitoring indicator for visualizing that the rotorcraft is operated in the Single Engine Operation mode (e.g. Figs. 4-5: OEI/H, OEI30” or OEI/L, OEI2’).
Bosqui fails to explicitly disclose, but Emrich teaches in response to determining that the rotorcraft is operated in the All Engines Operative mode, displaying a second graphical representation of the Single Engine Operation mode indicator with the engine monitoring indicator for visualizing that the Single Engine Operation mode is available ([0024]: mode message indicates availability of REO and whether REO is currently engaged or disengaged).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bosqui with the teachings of Emrich (i.e. indicate whether REO availability) to provide better visual indication of available flight/engine power to pilot.
Regarding claim 3, Bosqui discloses displaying an engine monitoring indicator for the one engine of the at least two engines of the rotorcraft for visualizing a current performance state of the one engine comprises displaying a first limit indicator including: a reference line associated with collective-pitch equivalents of engine power requests (e.g. Figs. 2-5: 10a, 10b); a first indicator representing a collective-pitch equivalent of a maximum 30-second One Engine Inoperative power request (e.g. Figs. 4-5: lim OEI 30”); a second indicator representing a collective-pitch equivalent of a maximum 2-minute One Engine Inoperative power request (e.g. Figs. 4-5: lim OEI 2’); and a third indicator representing a collective-pitch equivalent of a current power request (e.g. Figs. 2-5: pitch index 9).
Regarding claim 4, Bosqui discloses, in response to determining that the rotorcraft is operated in the Single Engine Operation mode (e.g. Figs. 4-5), displaying a fourth indicator representing a collective-pitch equivalent of a maximum allowable non-nominal power request of the one engine of the at least two engines of the rotorcraft in the Single Engine Operation mode (e.g. Figs. 4-5: lim OEI cont).
Regarding claim 9, Bosqui discloses displaying an engine monitoring indicator for the one engine of the at least two engines of the rotorcraft for visualizing a current performance state of the one engine comprises displaying at least one engine performance parameter indicator including: a reference line associated with engine performance parameters of the one engine of the at least two engines of the rotorcraft (e.g. Figs. 4-5: 4); a first indicator representing a performance parameter equivalent of a maximum 30-second One Engine Inoperative power request (e.g. Figs. 4-5: lim OEI 30”); and a second indicator representing a performance parameter equivalent of a maximum 2-minute One Engine Inoperative power request (e.g. Figs. 4-5: lim OEI 2’).
Regarding claim 11, Bosqui discloses, in response to determining that the rotorcraft is operated in the Single Engine Operation mode, displaying a third indicator representing a performance parameter equivalent of a maximum allowable non-nominal power request of the one engine of the at least two engines of the rotorcraft in the Single Engine Operation mode (e.g. Figs. 4-5: lim OEI cont).
Regarding claim 14, Emrich teaches, in response to determining that the rotorcraft is operated in the Single Engine Operation mode, determining whether another one of the at least two engines is restarted for powering the at least one rotor; and in response to determining that the other one of the at least two engines is restarted for powering the at least one rotor, displaying an engine restart indicator with the engine monitoring indicator for visualizing that the other one of the at least two engines is restarted (e.g. [0025]: advisory messages indicate shutdown engine has been restarted).
Regarding claim 15, Emrich teaches discloses displaying an engine restart indicator with the engine monitoring indicator for visualizing that the other one of the at least two engines is restarted comprises displaying a restarting engine state indicator for visualizing a current state of the other one of the at least two engines that is restarted (e.g. [0025]: advisory messages indicate shutdown engine has been restarted).
Regarding claim 16, Bosqui discloses data processing system for a rotorcraft that comprises at least one rotor and at least two engines for powering the at least one rotor in one of an All Engines Operative mode and a Single Engine Operation mode (e.g. Fig. 1 & Abstract), the data processing system comprising at least one computing device (e.g. Fig. 1: 6) and at least one display means (e.g. Fig. 1: 1), wherein the data processing system is configured to perform a method of processing engine monitoring parameters according to claim 1 (e.g. Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Bosqui discloses a rotorcraft with at least one rotor (e.g. Abstract & col 3 lines 15-30: rotary wing and rotor speed implies rotorcraft with rotor) and at least two engines (col 6 lines 40-59: two engines) for powering the at least one rotor in one of an All Engines Operative mode (e.g. Figs. 2-3) and a Single Engine Operation mode (e.g. Figs. 4-5 & col lines 58-60), comprising a data processing system with at least one computing device (e.g. Fig. 1: 6) and at least one display means (e.g. Fig. 1: 1), wherein the data processing system is configured to perform a method of processing engine monitoring parameters according to claim 1 (e.g. Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Bosqui discloses displaying the Single Engine Operation mode indicator with the engine monitoring indicator comprises displaying the Single Engine Operation mode indicator (e.g. Figs. 4-5: OEI/H, OEI/L one engine inoperable) simultaneously with the engine monitoring indicator (e.g. Figs. 4-5: pitch index, lim OEI cont, lim OEI30”, lim OEI2’).
Regarding claim 19, Bosqui discloses the first graphical representation (e.g. Figs. 4-5) and the second graphical representation (e.g. Figs. 2-3) are visually distinct from one another.
Claim(s) 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosqui et al. (US 6,195,598 B1) and Emrich et al. (US 2024/0084742 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Oltheten et al. (US 10,173,787 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Bosqui fails to disclose, but Oltheten teaches the at least one engine performance parameter indicator comprises at least one of a torque indicator, a temperature indicator, and a rotational speed indicator for the one engine of the at least two engines of the rotorcraft (e.g. Figs. 2A-2B & 4A-4B: engine speed indicator 64, 66).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bosqui with the teachings of Oltheten to include engine speed indicator in the display so as to easily monitor whether engine speed matches up with rotor speed during takeoff and/or emergency situation.
Regarding claim 13, Oltheten teaches displaying an engine monitoring indicator for the one engine of the at least two engines of the rotorcraft for visualizing a current performance state of the one engine comprises displaying a triple speed indicator NR/N2 (e.g. Fig. 4B: 68 NR & 66 N2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, the examiner disagrees with following reasons:’
Bosqui discloses the Single Engine Operation mode indicator (e.g. Figs. 4-5: OEI/H, OEI/L one engine inoperable) simultaneously with the engine monitoring indicator (e.g. Figs. 4-5: pitch index, lim OEI cont, lim OEI30”, lim OEI2’);
Bosqui fails to disclose, but Emrich teaches REO (reduced/single engine operation) indicator (e.g. Figs. 4A-4B: 418A, 418B), and pilot is able to engage/disengage REO by pushing buttons 424 (e.g. [0053]). The indicator itself showing REO is unavailable implies it is not in REO mode. Figure 5 of Emrich showing how REO mode is being selected, and it implies before REO mode is selected, the system is on All engine operation mode. In short, the system is determined to be in All engine operation mode when it is not in REO mode. Therefore, Figs. 4-5 of Emrich showing how REO is indicated as available and selected discloses the amended limitation of claim 1.
In addition, claims 3-17 are unpatentable at least in view of the foregoing reasons, and claims 18-21 are unpatentable in view of rejections set forth in current Office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 12 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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights