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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a casing [claim 2] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 4-5, change “a turbine engine” to --said turbine engine--; in line 5, change “a system” to --said system-- in order to avoid a duplicant positive recitation for the limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Since claim 5 depends from claim 1, claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, change “a system” to --said system--; in line 2, change “an aircraft turbine engine” to --said aircraft turbine engine--; in lines 2-3, change “an electronic diagnosis device” to --said electronic diagnosis device--; in line 4, change “a turbine engine” to --said turbine engine--; in line 4, change “an aircraft” to --said aircraft--; in line 5, change “a computer” to --said computer--; in line 5, change “an actuator system” to --said actuator system--; and in lines 8 & 10, change “a work cycle” to --said work cycle-- in order to avoid a duplicant positive recitation for the limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, the limitation “the performing” should be change by either deleting the word “the” or replacing it with --a-- in order to avoid an insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and in line 2, change “a fault” to --said fault-- in order to avoid a duplicant positive recitation for the limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, change “a test profile” to --said test profile-- in order to avoid a duplicant positive recitation for the limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a power supply block, a connection block, a communication block, a control block, a test signal transmission module and modules all in claim 1 and an analysis module in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
a)Regarding claim 1, the claim states: “…modules for measuring the signals…” However, the specification does not in such full, clear, concise clarify what are the items and/or objects represent “modules” in the clam. The limitation above is shown in paragraphs [0011] and [0025] but no other description or explanation is given of what could be “modules”.
For examination purposes, the examiner is taking a position that modules could be any item or object that is capable of measuring any type of signals can be used for modules until clarification is given by the applicant. Since claims 2-7 depend from claim 1, they also are rejected for the above reason.
b)Regarding claim 5, the claim states: “…transmitting recommendations relating to said at least one detected fault.” However, the specification does not in such full, clear, concise explain what are the recommendations being transmitted. The limitation above is shown in paragraphs [0016], [0018] and [0031] but no other description or explanation of what recommendations could be transmitted relating to a detected fault.
For examination purposes, the examiner at this time is not giving patentable weight to the limitation “…transmitting recommendations relating to said at least one detected fault” until further explanation is given by the applicant. Since claims 6-7 depend from claim 5, they also are rejected for the above reason.
c)Regarding claim 6, the claim states: “… for fine-tuning of the recommendations.” However, the specification does not in such full, clear, concise explain how the recommendations being fine-tuned. The limitation above is shown in paragraph [0017] but no other description or explanation of what is meant by “fine-tuning of the recommendations” is given for one of ordinary skill in the art to concluded its meaning.
For examination purposes, the examiner at this time is not giving patentable weight to the limitation “…fine-tuning of the recommendations” until further explanation is given by the applicant.
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the claim states: “…transmitting recommendations relating to said at least one detected fault.” It is not clear from the claim if the “detected fault” is describing “the non-presence” or “the presence” fault in the above limitation. Since claims 6-7 depend from claim 5, they also are rejected for the above reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seka (US Pub 2019/0186416 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
336
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Seka discloses [see Fig. 1 above] an electronic device (power converter 1) for diagnosing [.i.e. testing] the condition of a system of actuators (actuator device 4) of an aircraft turbine engine (not shown but see Abstract) when the aircraft is on the ground, the device (1) being configured to be coupled, during the diagnosis, to an electrical wiring harness [not shown but see paragraph [0025] for details] of said turbine engine connecting a computer (control system 10) of said turbine engine to said system of actuators (4) of said turbine engine, the device (1) comprising a power supply block (combo of power supply network 2 and power block 5) to power said device (1), a connection block [not shown but see paragraph [0025] for details] configured to enable the connection of said device (1) to the electrical wiring harness [shown in paragraph [0025]] of the turbine engine to be diagnosed, a communication block (combo of receiver means 11 and sender means 15) configured to send information [via means 15] to a user (crew members) [via display 16 see paragraph [0052] for details] and to receive instructions [via means 11] from the user (crew members) [see paragraph [0048] for details], and a control block (control means 6) comprising a test signal transmission module (modules 7-9) [see paragraphs [0046] and [0049]-[0050] for details] and modules (measurement means 12) for measuring the signals received by the device (1) in response to the test signals over a work cycle of the system (4) of actuators of the turbine engine [see paragraph [0051] for details].
Regarding claim 2, Seka discloses a casing [shown but not numbered] inside which there are housed the power supply block (5) and control block (6), and at least partly the connection block [see paragraph [0025] for details].
Regarding claim 3, Seka discloses wherein the power supply block (2 & 5) comprises a battery [not shown] configured for self-powering of the electronic device (1). Although the prior art does not specifically disclose the claimed battery, this feature is seen to be an inherent teaching of that device since a power supply network and power block are disclosed in an aircraft and it is apparent that some type of battery must be presented for the network and block to function as intended.
Regarding claim 4, Seka discloses wherein the communication block (combo of receiver means 11 and sender means 15) comprises a wireless transmitting/receiving module (11 & 15) allowing the sending and receiving of information on and from a remote apparatus [see paragraphs [0048], [0050] and [0052] for details].
Regarding claim 5, Seka discloses a process of diagnosing the condition of said system of actuators (4) of said aircraft turbine engine (not shown but see Abstract), the process comprising the coupling of said electronic diagnosis device (1) according to claim 1, to the electrical wiring harness [not shown but see paragraph [0025] for details] of said turbine engine of said aircraft on the ground, the electrical harness connecting said computer (10) of the turbine engine to said actuator system (4), and the process further comprising powering [via items 2 & 5] of the device (1), wherein the process comprises the following steps: receiving data [via control system 10] from the actuator system (4) subjected to a work cycle, selecting a test operation as a function of the received data [step 100 see paragraph [0054] for details], recording a test profile related to the test operation over a work cycle of the actuator system (4) [step 110 see paragraph [0055] for details], the test profile being determined from measurements taken on the different components of said actuator system (4) [step 130 see paragraph [0056] for details], comparing [via comparator means 14] the test profile with a standard profile [step 150 see paragraph [0057] for details], detecting the non-presence of a fault [step 170] or the presence of at least one fault [step 160] from the result of the comparison [via item 14 see paragraphs [0013], [0058]-[0059] for details], transmitting [via sender means 15] recommendations relating to said at least one detected fault [via display 16].
Regarding claim 6, Seka discloses performing of at least one additional test following after the detection of said fault, to determine a secondary test profile for fine-tuning of the recommendations [see paragraphs [0054]-[0062] for details].
Regarding claim 7, Seka discloses further comprising the transmission of a test profile to an analysis module (determination means 13) before comparison [via comparator means 14], the comparison, detection, and transmission of recommendations being performed by the analysis module (13), the analysis module (13) being offset from the other elements of the electronic diagnosis device (1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMELE M HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1960. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Lee E Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/JERMELE M HOLLINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858