Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment “B”
The response to the office action filed May 4, 2026 has been entered. Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 8, and 9. Examiner withdraws objections to claims 1, 3, 8, and 9. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall inside one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)? Yes for claims 1-9. Claims 1-9 are drawn to a method for training a pilot to cope with a fault affecting a powertrain of a hybrid propulsion system for an aircraft (i.e., a process).
Step 2A - Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? Yes, for claims 1-9.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for training a pilot to cope with a fault affecting a powertrain of a hybrid propulsion system for an aircraft comprising n powertrains connected in parallel on a transmission unit, n being an integer greater than or equal to 2, including a first powertrain and a second powertrain that are heterogeneous in nature, the method comprising, during a flight of the aircraft, simulating a fault affecting the first powertrain by implementing the following steps:
- decreasing the instantaneous power PMlinst delivered by the first powertrain down to a training power PM1Eco1 and maintaining this power PM1Ecol until an end of a simulation, with:
PM2maxOEI > PM1Eco1 > PMlmin
PM2maxOEI being the instantaneous maximum power that could be delivered by the second powertrain when not in the training mode and PMlmin being an instantaneous minimum power that could be delivered by the first powertrain;
and - increasing the instantaneous power PM2inst delivered by the second powertrain up to a power that is lower than or equal to an upper limit power PM2lim_Eco1 applicable to the second powertrain in the training mode, and regulating the power PM2inst during the simulation so that the instantaneous total power Ptot_Eco1 delivered by the first powertrain and the second powertrain in the training mode is lower than or equal to PM2maxOEI, with:
Ptot_Eco1 = PM1Eco1 + PM2inst
Ptot_Eco1 ≤ PM2maxOEI
PM2inst ≤ PM2lim_Eco1 ≤ PM2max_OEI
PM2lim_Eco1 + PM1Ecol = PM2maxOEI
PM2lim_Eco1 being the maximum power that could be delivered by the second powertrain in the training mode so that Ptot_Eco1 does not exceed PM2maxOEI;
the method further comprising, at the same time as performing the simulation, checking the status of the n powertrains of the hybrid propulsion system and, if a fault affecting one of the n powertrains is detected, stopping the simulation and increasing the instantaneous power delivered by at least one amongst the first powertrain and the second powertrain, so that the sum of the instantaneous powers delivered by the n powertrains is higher than or equal to PRmin_OEI, PRmin_OEI being a minimum total instantaneous power required for the aircraft to continue its flight.
These steps amount to abstract ideas, which include grouping of mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). The claimed invention includes steps or a procedure for training a pilot at coping with a fault affecting a powertrain of a hybrid propulsion system for an aircraft [0027]. Examiner notes that steps are individual, sequential actions that make up a procedure. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas including: a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); a mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978); the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 15 (1981); and a mathematical formula for hedging, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ 2d 1001, 1004 (2010).
Dependent claims 2-9 are directed towards mini-tasks (selecting type of powertrain, drawing a portion of the instantaneous power, decreasing the instantaneous power that includes a transient reduction in the power, and increasing the instantaneous power with a delay, etc.) for a method that trains a pilot to cope with a fault affecting a powertrain of a hybrid propulsion system for an aircraft. Each claim amounts to a form of collecting, analyzing, and adjusting data which falls within the scope of a method for grouping mathematical concepts, (i.e., an abstract idea). As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 2-9 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception? No
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a regulation system [0044] of claimed invention is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Examiner notes that a regulation system uses computers, memory, and processors. Furthermore, the limitations of the regulation system amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Use of a regulation system (computer, processor, memory) or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to a regulation system (computing device, processor, and memory, etc.). This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-9 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective independent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? i.e., Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea? No
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an “inventive concept.” An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong Two”, the identified additional elements in independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-9 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-9 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in independent claim 1 is further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in claim 1). The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Therefore, claims 1-9 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under US 20160236790 A1 (“Knapp”) in view of WO 2006135284 A1 (“Johnsson”).
In regards to claim 1, Knapp discloses the following limitations with the exception of the underlined limitations.
A method for training a pilot to cope with a fault affecting a powertrain of ([0326], “Monitor the health of the powertrain by the Fault detection and identification function” Examiner notes that a fault detection function is specifically designed to identify fault-like conditions in an operating aircraft.) a hybrid propulsion system for an aircraft ([0050], “FIG. 6 is a … propulsion system … that may be used in an embodiment of an electric-hybrid aircraft”) comprising n powertrains connected in parallel on a transmission unit, n being an integer greater than or equal to 2 ([0574], “Aircraft are designed for multiple … powertrains” Examiner notes that aircraft powertrains, particularly in electric-hybrid configurations can be connected in parallel on a transmission unit and that multiple powertrains generally denote two or more powertrains.), including a first powertrain and a second powertrain that are heterogeneous in nature ([0578], “the inventive hybrid-electric aircraft are designed to integrate with a … hybrid-electric powertrain” Examiner notes that electric-hybrid aircraft powertrains are inherently heterogeneous in their design.), the method comprising, during a flight of the aircraft, simulating a fault affecting the first powertrain by implementing the following steps ([0102], “Development and use of a fault-tolerant design of the aircraft powertrain for … features offering redundancy in event of faults of the power sources, … among other elements or processes”): - decreasing the instantaneous power PMlinst ([0532], “Stored energy … can put out a wide range of power levels; however, high discharge rates are inefficient, reducing the total energy available, and peak power output decreases as the stored energy level drops”) delivered by the first powertrain down to a training power PM1Eco1 and maintaining this power PM1Ecol until an end of a simulation, with ([0054], “FIG. 10 is a diagram … of a powertrain optimization and control system (POCS) that may be used in … an electric-hybrid aircraft” Examiner notes that a powertrain optimization and control system can decrease instantaneous power and maintain instantaneous power in a powertrain.): PM2maxOEI > PM1Eco1 > PMlmin PM2maxOEI being an instantaneous maximum power that could be delivered by the second powertrain when not in the training mode and PMlmin being an instantaneous minimum power that could be delivered by the first powertrain ([0054], “FIG. 10 is a diagram … of a powertrain optimization and control system (POCS) that may be used in … an electric-hybrid aircraft” Examiner notes that a powertrain optimization and control system can store maximum and minimum instantaneous power values for multiple powertrains.);
and - increasing the instantaneous power PM2inst ([0532], “Stored energy … can put out a wide range of power levels” Examiner notes that stored energy systems can provide a wide range of power levels, including increases in power output when needed.) delivered by the second powertrain up to a power that is lower than or equal to an upper limit power PM2lim_Eco1 applicable to the second powertrain in the training mode, and regulating the power PM2inst during the simulation so that the instantaneous total power Ptot_Eco1 delivered by the first powertrain and the second powertrain in the training mode is lower than or equal to PM2maxOEI, with: Ptot_Eco1 = PM1Eco1 + PM2inst Ptot_Eco1 ≤ PM2maxOEI PM2inst ≤ PM2lim_Eco1 ≤ PM2max_OEI
PM2lim_Eco1 + PM1Ecol = PM2maxOEI PM2lim_Eco1 being the maximum power that could be delivered by the second powertrain in the training mode so that Ptot_Eco1 does not exceed PM2maxOEI ([0054], “FIG. 10 is a diagram … of a powertrain optimization and control system (POCS) that may be used in … an electric-hybrid aircraft” Examiner notes that a powertrain optimization and control system can increase and regulate instantaneous power in a powertrain.);
the method further comprising, at the same time as performing the simulation, checking the status of the n powertrains of the hybrid propulsion system and ([0208], “Key metrics communicated to POCS may include … power, status for each motor” Examiner notes that a powertrain includes a motor among other components.), if a fault affecting one of the n powertrains is detected, stopping the simulation and increasing the instantaneous power delivered by at least one amongst the first powertrain and the second powertrain, so that the sum of the instantaneous powers delivered by the n powertrains is higher than or equal to PRmin_OEI, PRmin_OEI being a minimum total instantaneous power required for the aircraft to continue its flight ([0255], “propulsor motor fault tolerant control is managed by the fault-detection and recovery module within POCS that monitors flight conditions to detect and diagnose issues, and then redistributes power to the healthy motors in an optimal way to restore sufficient flight capabilities” Examiner notes that a fault-detection module is specifically designed to identify fault-like conditions in an operating aircraft.).
Johnsson discloses
A method for training a pilot to cope with (page 2, lines 10-13, “The object of the invention is to … train … aircraft pilots … to operate a vehicle during trying conditions”)
the method comprising, during a flight of the aircraft, simulating (page 2, lines 29-30, “The method … may be used for simulating many different states of the vehicle”)
Knapp and Johnsson are considered analogous to the claimed invention
because they are in the same field of hybrid-electric powertrains for aircraft and training aircraft pilots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a fault affecting a powertrain of a hybrid propulsion system for an aircraft comprising n powertrains connected in parallel on a transmission unit, n being an integer greater than or equal to 2, including first and second powertrains that are heterogeneous in nature, a fault affecting the first powertrain by implementing the following steps: - decreasing the instantaneous power PMlinst delivered by the first powertrain down to a training power PM1Eco1 and maintaining this power PM1Ecol until the end of the simulation, with: PM2maxOEI > PM1Eco1 > PMlmin PM2maxOEI being the instantaneous maximum power that could be delivered by the second powertrain when not in the training mode and PMlmin being the instantaneous minimum power that could be delivered by the first powertrain; and - increasing the instantaneous power PM2inst delivered by the second powertrain up to a power that is lower than or equal to an upper limit power PM2lim_Eco1 applicable to the second powertrain in the training mode, and regulating the power PM2inst during the simulation so that the instantaneous total power Ptot_Eco1 delivered by the first and second powertrains in the training mode is lower than or equal to PM2maxOEI, with: Ptot_Eco1 = PM1Eco1 + PM2inst Ptot_Eco1 ≤ PM2maxOEI PM2inst ≤ PM2lim_Eco1 ≤ PM2max_OEI
PM2lim_Eco1 + PM1Ecol = PM2maxOEI PM2lim_Eco1 being the maximum power that could be delivered by the second powertrain in the training mode so that Ptot_Eco1 does not exceed PM2maxOEI; the method further comprising, at the same time as performing the simulation, checking the status of the n powertrains of the propulsion system and, if a fault affecting one of the n powertrains is detected, stopping the simulation and increasing the instantaneous power delivered by at least one amongst the first powertrain and the second powertrain, so that the sum of the instantaneous powers delivered by the n powertrains is higher than or equal to PRmin_OEI, PRmin_OEI being a minimum total instantaneous power required for the aircraft to continue its flight, as disclosed by Knapp, to provide a method for training a pilot to cope with and the method comprising, during a flight of the aircraft, simulating, as disclosed by Johnsson, for a training method for aircraft pilots and a method for simulating different states of a vehicle. One skilled in the art would recognize the value of the addition of a training method for aircraft pilots and a method for simulating different states of a vehicle.
In regards to claim 2, Knapp discloses
wherein the second powertrain is selected from among a hydraulic or electrical type powertrain ([0148], “Electricity for the propulsion motors … is provided by a … hybrid-electric powertrain”), and the first powertrain is selected from among a gas turbine type powertrain ([0072], “Conventional aircraft engine: combustion engines currently in use to provide aircraft propulsion, including … gas turbines”).
In regards to claim 3, Knapp discloses
wherein, the second powertrain being reversible ([0275], “Reverse power controls—one for each propulsor, controlling the reverse power output of the propulsor” Examiner notes that a powertrain includes a propulsor.), the step of increasing the instantaneous power PM2inst ([0532], “Stored energy … can put out a wide range of power levels” Examiner notes that stored energy systems can provide a wide range of power levels, including increases in power output when needed.) delivered by the second powertrain is preceded by a step of drawing, by the second powertrain, a portion of the instantaneous power PM1 delivered by the first powertrain to the transmission unit, ([0054], “FIG. 10 is a diagram … of a powertrain optimization and control system (POCS) that may be used in … an electric-hybrid aircraft” Examiner notes that a powertrain optimization and control system can cause a powertrain to draw a portion of instantaneous power delivered by another powertrain component before that power reaches the final transmission output.) whereby a faster drop in the instantaneous total power Ptot_Eco1 delivered by the first powertrain and the second powertrain during the simulation is obtained ([0531], “Power generation models … represent the properties of each source, and losses due to transmission”).
In regards to claim 4, Knapp discloses
wherein the step of decreasing the instantaneous power PMlinst ([0532], “Stored energy … can put out a wide range of power levels; however, high discharge rates are inefficient, reducing the total energy available, and peak power output decreases as the stored energy level drops”) delivered by the first powertrain includes a transient reduction in the power of the first powertrain below PM1Eco1 ([0097], “reductions are enabled by regenerative braking of the propulsors” Examiner notes that regenerative braking of propulsors results in transient reduction in the power output.), followed by an increase in the power ([0532], “Stored energy … can put out a wide range of power levels” Examiner notes that stored energy systems can provide a wide range of power levels, including increases in power output when needed.) of the first powertrain to PM1Eco1 ([0054], “FIG. 10 is a diagram … of a powertrain optimization and control system (POCS) that may be used in … an electric-hybrid aircraft” Examiner notes that a powertrain optimization and control system can increase power in a powertrain.).
In regards to claim 5, Knapp discloses
wherein the triggering of the step of increasing the instantaneous power PM2inst ([0532], “Stored energy … can put out a wide range of power levels” Examiner notes that stored energy systems can provide a wide range of power levels, including increases in power output when needed.) delivered by the second powertrain is delayed and/or the increase of the instantaneous power PM2inst ([0532], “Stored energy … can put out a wide range of power levels” Examiner notes that stored energy systems can provide a wide range of power levels, including increases in power output when needed.) delivered by the second powertrain is slowed ([0054], “FIG. 10 is a diagram … of a powertrain optimization and control system (POCS) that may be used in … an electric-hybrid aircraft” Examiner notes that a powertrain optimization and control system can increase, delay, and/or slow power in a powertrain.), whereby a transient power hole is created ([0360], “Includes strategy to route excess power … from the generators to charge the storage units to insulate generators from transients”).
In regards to claim 6, Knapp discloses
wherein, the second powertrain being reversible ([0275], “Reverse power controls—one for each propulsor, controlling the reverse power output of the propulsor” Examiner notes that a powertrain includes a propulsor.) and PM1Eco1 being selected so as to be higher than or equal to PRmin_Eco1 (PRmin_Eco1 being the minimum total instantaneous power required for the aircraft to continue its flight in the training mode) ([0054], “FIG. 10 is a diagram … of a powertrain optimization and control system (POCS) that may be used in … an electric-hybrid aircraft” Examiner notes that a powertrain optimization and control system can increase instantaneous power.), a step of drawing a portion of the power delivered by the first powertrain to the transmission unit is carried out, by the second powertrain ([0054], “FIG. 10 is a diagram … of a powertrain optimization and control system (POCS) that may be used in … an electric-hybrid aircraft” Examiner notes that a powertrain optimization and control system can cause a powertrain to draw a portion of instantaneous power delivered by another powertrain component before that power reaches the final transmission output.), at least once during the step of increasing the power ([0532], “Stored energy … can put out a wide range of power levels” Examiner notes that stored energy systems can provide a wide range of power levels, including increases in power output when needed.) delivered by the second powertrain, the maximum portion PM2min_Eco1 that could be drawn being a negative value and being equal, in absolute value, to the maximum power that the second powertrain could draw from the transmission unit in the training mode, with PM1Ecol + PM2min_Eco1 ≤ PRmin_Eco1 ([0054], “FIG. 10 is a diagram … of a powertrain optimization and control system (POCS) that may be used in … an electric-hybrid aircraft” Examiner notes that a powertrain optimization and control system can cause the maximum portion of instantaneous power that could be drawn from a powertrain to be a negative value.).
In regards to claim 7, Knapp discloses the following limitation with the exception of the underlined limitation.
wherein the power PM1Eco1 of the first powertrain and the power limit of the second powertrain PM2min_Eco1 are adapted in real-time during the simulation, so that an average of the power of the second powertrain during the simulation is equal to a reference power PM2ref selected so as to guarantee a margin for piloting the aircraft, with PM2min < PM2ref < PM2min_Eco1 and PM2limEcol(t) + PM1Eco1(t) = PM2max_OEI ([0054], “FIG. 10 is a diagram … of a powertrain optimization and control system (POCS) that may be used in … an electric-hybrid aircraft” Examiner notes that a powertrain optimization and control system can calculate the average power of a powertrain and compare it to a selected reference power.).
Johnsson discloses
wherein the power PM1Eco1 of the first powertrain and the power limit of the second powertrain PM2min_Eco1 are adapted in real-time during the simulation (page 3, lines 28-31, “The vehicle model, which can handle different load configurations and environmental conditions for instance, can be either in its simplest form a tabulated vehicle description, but preferably a real time dynamic model for the vehicle motion based on the equations of motion.”)
Knapp and Johnsson are considered analogous to the claimed invention
because they are in the same field of hybrid-electric powertrains for aircraft and training aircraft pilots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a fault affecting a powertrain of a hybrid propulsion system for an aircraft comprising n powertrains connected in parallel on a transmission unit, n being an integer greater than or equal to 2, including first and second powertrains that are heterogeneous in nature, a fault affecting the first powertrain by implementing the following steps: - decreasing the instantaneous power PMlinst delivered by the first powertrain down to a training power PM1Eco1 and maintaining this power PM1Ecol until the end of the simulation, with: PM2maxOEI > PM1Eco1 > PMlmin PM2maxOEI being the instantaneous maximum power that could be delivered by the second powertrain when not in the training mode and PMlmin being the instantaneous minimum power that could be delivered by the first powertrain; and - increasing the instantaneous power PM2inst delivered by the second powertrain up to a power that is lower than or equal to an upper limit power PM2lim_Eco1 applicable to the second powertrain in the training mode, and regulating the power PM2inst during the simulation so that the instantaneous total power Ptot_Eco1 delivered by the first and second powertrains in the training mode is lower than or equal to PM2maxOEI, with: Ptot_Eco1 = PM1Eco1 + PM2inst Ptot_Eco1 ≤ PM2maxOEI PM2inst ≤ PM2lim_Eco1 ≤ PM2max_OEI
PM2lim_Eco1 + PM1Ecol = PM2maxOEI PM2lim_Eco1 being the maximum power that could be delivered by the second powertrain in the training mode so that Ptot_Eco1 does not exceed PM2maxOEI; the method further comprising, at the same time as performing the simulation, checking the status of the n powertrains of the propulsion system and, if a fault affecting one of the n powertrains is detected, stopping the simulation and increasing the instantaneous power delivered by at least one amongst the first powertrain and the second powertrain, so that the sum of the instantaneous powers delivered by the n powertrains is higher than or equal to PRmin_OEI, PRmin_OEI being a minimum total instantaneous power required for the aircraft to continue its flight, wherein, the second powertrain being reversible and PM1Eco1 being selected so as to be higher than or equal to PRmin_Eco1 (PRmin_Eco1 being the minimum total instantaneous power required for the aircraft to continue its flight in the training mode), a step of drawing a portion of the power delivered by the first powertrain to the transmission unit is carried out, by the second powertrain, at least once during the step of increasing the power delivered by the second powertrain, the maximum portion PM2min_Eco1 that could be drawn being a negative value and being equal, in absolute value, to the maximum power that the second powertrain could draw from the transmission unit in the training mode, with PM1Ecol + PM2min_Eco1 ≤ PRmin_Eco1, so that an average of the power of the second powertrain during the simulation is equal to a reference power PM2ref selected so as to guarantee a margin for piloting the aircraft, with PM2min < PM2ref < PM2min_Eco1 and PM2limEcol(t) + PM1Eco1(t) = PM2max_OEI, as disclosed by Knapp, to provide a method for training a pilot to cope with and the method comprising, during a flight of the aircraft, simulating, wherein the power PM1Eco1 of the first powertrain and the power limit of the second powertrain PM2min_Eco1 are adapted in real-time during the simulation, as disclosed by Johnsson, for a vehicle model capable of handling different load configurations and environmental conditions to train a pilot while operating air vehicles.
In regards to claim 8, Knapp discloses the following limitations with the exception of the underlined limitation.
A device for training a pilot to cope with a fault affecting a powertrain of ([0326], “Monitor the health of the powertrain by the Fault detection and identification function” Examiner notes that a fault detection function is specifically designed to identify fault-like conditions in an operating aircraft.) a hybrid propulsion system for an aircraft ([0050], “FIG. 6 is a … propulsion system … that may be used in an embodiment of an electric-hybrid aircraft”) comprising n powertrains, n being an integer greater than or equal to 2 ([0574], “Aircraft are designed for multiple … powertrains” Examiner notes that aircraft powertrains, particularly in electric-hybrid configurations can be connected in parallel on a transmission unit and that multiple powertrains generally denote two or more powertrains.), including the first powertrain and the second powertrain that are heterogeneous in nature ([0578], “the inventive hybrid-electric aircraft are designed to integrate with a … hybrid-electric powertrain” Examiner notes that electric-hybrid aircraft powertrains are inherently heterogeneous in their design.) and connected in parallel on a transmission unit, the device comprising control means configured to implement a training method according to claim 1 ([0574], “Aircraft are designed for multiple … powertrains” Examiner notes that aircraft powertrains, particularly in electric-hybrid configurations can be connected in parallel on a transmission unit.).
Johnsson discloses
A device for training a pilot to cope with (page 2, lines 10-13, “The object of the invention is to … train … aircraft pilots … to operate a vehicle during trying conditions”)
Knapp and Johnsson are considered analogous to the claimed invention
because they are in the same field of hybrid-electric powertrains for aircraft and training aircraft pilots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a fault affecting a powertrain of a hybrid propulsion system for an aircraft comprising n powertrains, n being an integer greater than or equal to 2, including first and second powertrains that are heterogeneous in nature and connected in parallel on a transmission unit, the device comprising control means configured to implement a training method according to claim 1, as disclosed by Knapp, a device for training a pilot to cope with, as disclosed by Johnsson, for a method that trains a person while operating air vehicles such as an aircraft. One skilled in the art would recognize the value of the addition of a method that trains a person while operating air vehicles such as an aircraft.
In regards to claim 9, Knapp discloses
An aircraft equipped with a hybrid propulsion system ([0050], “FIG. 6 is a … propulsion system … that may be used in an embodiment of an electric-hybrid aircraft”) comprising n powertrains, n being an integer greater than or equal to 2, including the first powertrain and the second powertrain that are heterogeneous in nature ([0578], “the inventive hybrid-electric aircraft are designed to integrate with a … hybrid-electric powertrain” Examiner notes that electric-hybrid aircraft powertrains are inherently heterogeneous in their design.) and connected in parallel on a transmission unit, and a training device according to claim 8 ([0574], “Aircraft are designed for multiple … powertrains” Examiner notes that aircraft powertrains, particularly in electric-hybrid configurations can be connected in parallel on a transmission unit.).
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 4, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 8 and 9. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application. With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues “the claims are not an effort to protect alleged mathematical concepts themselves. Nor are they a method with steps that involve the individual mathematical evaluations or calculations of a larger mathematical algorithm recited in the claim. Rather, they are directed to a method for controlling power trains to simulate faults thereof in an aircraft. That is not a mathematical concept or abstract idea; it is a patent eligible invention” (See AMENDMENT “B”, REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101, page 6, paragraph 2.) Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. Regarding the claims, the limitations of the claims amount to an abstract idea, which includes grouping of mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). The claimed invention includes steps or a procedure for training a pilot at coping with a fault affecting a powertrain of a hybrid propulsion system for an aircraft [0027]. Examiner notes that steps are individual, sequential actions that make up a procedure. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas including: a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); a mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978); the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 15 (1981); and a mathematical formula for hedging, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ 2d 1001, 1004 (2010). Dependent claims 2-9 are directed towards mini-tasks (selecting type of powertrain, drawing a portion of the instantaneous power, decreasing the instantaneous power that includes a transient reduction in the power, and increasing the instantaneous power with a delay, etc.) for a method that trains a pilot to cope with a fault affecting a powertrain of a hybrid propulsion system for an aircraft. Each claim amounts to a form of collecting, analyzing, and adjusting data which falls within the scope of a method for grouping mathematical concepts, (i.e., an abstract idea). As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 2-9 recite an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the requirement to execute the steps/functions using a regulation system [0044] of claimed invention is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Examiner notes that a regulation system uses computers, memory, and processors. The limitations of the regulation system amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an “inventive concept.” An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). The identified additional elements in independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-9 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The Examiner has determined that no additional element or combination of additional elements is sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Therefore, claims 1-9 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues “Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art references, alone and in combination, do not teach or render obvious decreasing the instantaneous power delivered by the first powertrain down to a training power and increasing the instantaneous power delivered by the second powertrain up to a power that is lower than or equal to an upper limit power, as recited by the claim.” (See AMENDMENT “B”, REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103, page 6, paragraph 5.), “Knapp is specifically directed to avoiding a fault-like operation whereas the claims are specifically directed to operating an aircraft under fault-like conditions.” (See AMENDMENT “B”, REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103, page 7, paragraph 1.), and “Johnsson fails to correct these deficiencies.” (See AMENDMENT “B”, REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103, page 7, paragraph 3.) Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. Regarding claim 1, Knapp discloses a method for training a pilot to cope with a fault affecting a powertrain of ([0326], “Monitor the health of the powertrain by the Fault detection and identification function” Examiner notes that a fault detection function is specifically designed to identify fault-like conditions in an operating aircraft.) a hybrid propulsion system for an aircraft ([0050], “FIG. 6 is a … propulsion system … that may be used in an embodiment of an electric-hybrid aircraft”) comprising n powertrains connected in parallel on a transmission unit, n being an integer greater than or equal to 2 ([0574], “Aircraft are designed for multiple … powertrains” Examiner notes that aircraft powertrains, particularly in electric-hybrid configurations can be connected in parallel on a transmission unit and that multiple powertrains generally denote two or more powertrains.), including a first powertrain and a second powertrain that are heterogeneous in nature ([0578], “the inventive hybrid-electric aircraft are designed to integrate with a … hybrid-electric powertrain” Examiner notes that electric-hybrid aircraft powertrains are inherently heterogeneous in their design.), the method comprising, during a flight of the aircraft, simulating a fault affecting the first powertrain by implementing the following steps ([0102], “Development and use of a fault-tolerant design of the aircraft powertrain for … features offering redundancy in event of faults of the power sources, … among other elements or processes”): - decreasing the instantaneous power PMlinst ([0532], “Stored energy … can put out a wide range of power levels; however, high discharge rates are inefficient, reducing the total energy available, and peak power output decreases as the stored energy level drops”) delivered by the first powertrain down to a training power PM1Eco1 and maintaining this power PM1Ecol until an end of a simulation, with ([0054], “FIG. 10 is a diagram … of a powertrain optimization and control system (POCS) that may be used in … an electric-hybrid aircraft” Examiner notes that a powertrain optimization and control system can decrease instantaneous power and maintain instantaneous power in a powertrain.): PM2maxOEI > PM1Eco1 > PMlmin PM2maxOEI being an instantaneous maximum power that could be delivered by the second powertrain when not in the training mode and PMlmin being an instantaneous minimum power that could be delivered by the first powertrain ([0054], “FIG. 10 is a diagram … of a powertrain optimization and control system (POCS) that may be used in … an electric-hybrid aircraft” Examiner notes that a powertrain optimization and control system can store maximum and minimum instantaneous power values for multiple powertrains.); and - increasing the instantaneous power PM2inst ([0532], “Stored energy … can put out a wide range of power levels” Examiner notes that stored energy systems can provide a wide range of power levels, including increases in power output when needed.) delivered by the second powertrain up to a power that is lower than or equal to an upper limit power PM2lim_Eco1 applicable to the second powertrain in the training mode, and regulating the power PM2inst during the simulation so that the instantaneous total power Ptot_Eco1 delivered by the first powertrain and the second powertrain in the training mode is lower than or equal to PM2maxOEI, with: Ptot_Eco1 = PM1Eco1 + PM2inst Ptot_Eco1 ≤ PM2maxOEI PM2inst ≤ PM2lim_Eco1 ≤ PM2max_OEI
PM2lim_Eco1 + PM1Ecol = PM2maxOEI PM2lim_Eco1 being the maximum power that could be delivered by the second powertrain in the training mode so that Ptot_Eco1 does not exceed PM2maxOEI ([0054], “FIG. 10 is a diagram … of a powertrain optimization and control system (POCS) that may be used in … an electric-hybrid aircraft” Examiner notes that a powertrain optimization and control system can increase and regulate instantaneous power in a powertrain.); the method further comprising, at the same time as performing the simulation, checking the status of the n powertrains of the hybrid propulsion system and ([0208], “Key metrics communicated to POCS may include … power, status for each motor” Examiner notes that a powertrain includes a motor among other components.), if a fault affecting one of the n powertrains is detected, stopping the simulation and increasing the instantaneous power delivered by at least one amongst the first powertrain and the second powertrain, so that the sum of the instantaneous powers delivered by the n powertrains is higher than or equal to PRmin_OEI, PRmin_OEI being a minimum total instantaneous power required for the aircraft to continue its flight ([0255], “propulsor motor fault tolerant control is managed by the fault-detection and recovery module within POCS that monitors flight conditions to detect and diagnose issues, and then redistributes power to the healthy motors in an optimal way to restore sufficient flight capabilities”) and Johnsson discloses a method for training a pilot to cope with (page 2, lines 10-13, “The object of the invention is to … train … aircraft pilots … to operate a vehicle during trying conditions”) the method comprising, during a flight of the aircraft, simulating (page 2, lines 29-30, “The method … may be used for simulating many different states of the vehicle”).
MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification during
examination. Under BRI, the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless
such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim
limitations from the specification into the claim. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the BRI is broader than what is argued. Therefore, the rejection of independent claim 1, as obvious over Knapp in view of Johnsson, is maintained. Consequently, the rejections of dependent claims 2-9, as obvious over Knapp in view of Johnsson, are maintained.
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 Lisa Antoine whose telephone number is (571)272-4252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:30 pm EST.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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. 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.
LISA H ANTOINE
Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights