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
Amendment to specification filed on 07/17/2024 is accepted and entered.
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.
“means for mapping the electromagnetic field inside the closed nacelle” in claim 11 is interpreted to be “the central processing unit 4 performs a mapping of the electromagnetic field inside the nacelle 1 of the turbine engine 2.” See ¶ 0057;
“means for matching the known position of the devices with the electromagnetic characteristics of their respective radio tags” in claim 11 is interpreted to be, See 35 USC 112 (b) rejections; and
“means for carrying out an inventory by time-reversal focusing of waves,” in claim 11 is interpreted to be, See 35 USC 112 (b) rejections
“means for detecting the closure of the nacelle,” in claim 12 is interpreted to be, “the central processing unit 4 checks the closure of the nacelle” See ¶ 0066, “the central processing unit 4 uses a nearby sensor (not shown), preferably without physical contact, using acoustic, light, infrared or radioelectric waves, making it possible to check that the covers of the nacelle are indeed closed and locked together. The sensor is configured to communicate to the radio frequency identification reader 8, the opening/closing status of the nacelle.” See ¶ 0067;
“means for carrying out an inventory without time reversal focusing of waves,” in claim 13 is interpreted to be See 35 USC 112 (b) rejections.
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 device for detecting whether the nacelle is open or closed and configured to communicate with the radio frequency identification reader” is interpreted to be, “the central processing unit 4 uses a nearby sensor (not shown), preferably without physical contact, using acoustic, light, infrared or radioelectric waves, making it possible to check that the covers of the nacelle are indeed closed and locked together. The sensor is configured to communicate to the radio frequency identification reader 8, the opening/closing status of the nacelle.” See ¶ 0067
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 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 3, 7, 8 and 11-15 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 3 recites, “a step of carrying out an inventory without time reversal focusing of waves,” however, the preceding claim 1 established, “carrying out an inventory by time reversal focusing of waves,” therefore, claim 3 is establishing opposition of what the preceding claim 1 established, renders claim 3 indefinite and makes it unclear to the examiner, the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 7 recites, “computing and control means controlled by … artificial intelligence type” makes it unclear to the examiner, the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites, “the air slots” without proper antecedent basis.
Claims 14 and 15 are improperly changing the invention established in the preceding claim. Therefore, makes it unclear to the examiner, the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim limitations:
“means for matching the known position of the devices with the electromagnetic characteristics of their respective radio tags” in claim 11,
“means for carrying out an inventory by time-reversal focusing of waves,” in claim 11, and
“means for carrying out an inventory without time reversal focusing of waves,” in claim 13; invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specification fails to define specific structure for the claimed “means for matching the known position of the devices with the electromagnetic characteristics of their respective radio tags” in claim 11, “means for carrying out an inventory by time-reversal focusing of waves,” in claim 11, and “means for carrying out an inventory without time reversal focusing of waves…” as required by this statute. Therefore, the claims 11 and 13 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 12, 14-15 are rejected by the virtue of their dependency.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lhommeau (WO 2020/025881 A1 published 02/06/2020, for citations please see US equivalent US 2021/0375071 A1) in view of Gilboa (US 2001/0038354 A1), and further in view of Griffin (US 2013/0147609 A1).
Consider claim 1, Lhommeau teaches, method for managing devices installed in a nacelle (1) of a turbine engine, the devices being provided with radio tags (13) and the turbine engine being fitted with a radio frequency identification reader (12) and with at least two [[time reversal]] antennae (112,1115), Lhommeau teaches, “the invention is based on radio-identification technology, also called RFID technology (radio frequency identification). It proposes to integrate to the nacelle wherein the turbojet engine is accommodated radiofrequency linking elements allowing radiofrequency signals to be relayed between the inside of the nacelle and its external environment without having to open the nacelle cowl.” See ¶ 0005. Lhommeau teaches, “an interrogator device, also called «RFID reader», and an RFID tag conventionally involves the transmission, from the interrogator device to the RFID tag, of a radiofrequency interrogation signal and the transmission, from the RFID tag to the interrogator device, of a radiofrequency response signal encoding information contained in an electronic chip of the RFID tag.” See ¶ 0010; Lhommeau teaches, “The inner antenna is for example mounted on an inner surface of the nacelle wall. It can also be mounted on a turbojet engine casing.” See ¶ 0012, “outer antenna is located outside the nacelle compartment.” See ¶ 0014.See Fig. 1.
the method comprising the following steps:
With respect to mapping the electromagnetic field inside the closed nacelle, in an analogous art, Gilboa teaches, “tracking the six-dimensional position and orientation of an object, which may move and rotate relative to an external frame of reference” See ¶ 0011, Gilboa teaches, “a passive transponder in the region of interest, the transponder having a position and an orientation, generating an electromagnetic field in the region of interest, causing the transponder to generate electromagnetic signal, mapping the electromagnetic field and the signal as functions of the position and the orientation of the transponder, fixing the transponder to the object being tracked, receiving the signals generated by the transponder while the transponder is fixed to the object being tracked, and processing the signal, with reference to the functions, to compute the three-dimensional translational position and three-axis rotational orientation of the object.” See abstract; Gilboa teaches, “the amplitude of the signal generated in each of coils 32, 34 and 36 by circuits 38, 40 and 42 is proportional to the amplitude of a component of the electromagnetic vector field h produced by field generators 20 along the axis of the respective coil. Similarly, the response of sensors 24 to the signal fields generated by transponder coils 32, 34 and 36 is preferably a linear function of the vector amplitudes of the signals, which may be described by a vector field r. For the sake of clarity, we note that there is an electromagnetic vector field h.sub.i produced by each one of multiple field generators 20, and a response vector field r.sub.j relating to each sensor 24.” See ¶ 0056,
matching the known position of the devices with the electromagnetic characteristics of their respective radio tags, Gilboa teaches, “the present invention provides that multiple objects, each with its own transponder, may be tracked simultaneously without confusion, providing that every one of the coils in the various transponders to be tracked is coupled to an electrical circuit having a unique, known resonant frequency.” See ¶ 0016, Gilboa teaches, “each circuit 38, 40 and 42 generates signals with a different characteristic frequency. Thus, when these signals are received by sensors 24, it is possible for sensor circuits 28 to distinguish them one from another on the basis of their frequencies.” See ¶ 0055, Gilboa teaches, “mapping r and h, transponder 30 is held in a fixed, known x, y, z position and orientation within the region of interest.” See ¶ 0062; and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the invention of Lhommeau and allow the system to map the electromagnetic field and confirm the location of the of the objects with the RFID transponders using signals characteristic, as suggested by Gilboa in an effort to track, “multiple objects, each with its own transponder, … simultaneously without confusion” See ¶ 0016.
With respect to,
radio frequency identification reader and with at least two time reversal antennae and carrying out an inventory by time reversal focusing of waves, Lhommeau teaches, “RFID tag can contain information relative to an identification of the part that it equips, information relative to a lifetime of said part and/or information relative to the presence of a predetermined substance in said part. The RFID tag can in particular contain a serial number, a product number, an indication relative to the manufacturer, an estimated lifetime of the part, a scheduled replacement date of the part and/or information relative to the presence of a dangerous or toxic substance.” See ¶ 0020, Lhommeau does not discuss time reversal focusing of waves, in an analogous art, Griffin teaches, “a passive or semi-passive RF tag and a tag reader configured to communicate with the RF tag. The tag reader includes an interface configured to couple to a plurality of antennas where a first antenna selected from the plurality of antennas is configured to transmit a pilot signal and where the tag reader is configured to measure a first phase from a modulated signal received from the RF tag. In addition, the modulated signal is emitted in response to the pilot signal and the tag reader is configured to determine a phase shift based on the first phase of the modulated signal. The tag reader of the system also includes a phase shifting component that is configured to phase shift at least one signal transmitted by at least one of the plurality of antennas based on the phase shift where the at least one signal and a second signal transmitted from a different antenna of the plurality of the antennas interfere at a location of the RF tag.” See ¶ 0009. Griffin teaches, “antenna diversity schemes may be used to ensure constructive interference at the location of the RF tag 105, such as time-reversal or beam forming. Transmit diversity, time-reversal, and beam forming are closely related concepts as each seeks to create the coherent addition of signals from multiple antennas at a particular spatial location or in a desired direction. In fact, conjugating the channel phase in the frequency domain (i.e., performing transmit diversity) is equivalent to performing time-reversal in the time domain if both the amplitude and phase is adjusted.” See ¶ 0054. Griffin Fig. 2 shows at least two corresponding time reversal antennas (260 and 265).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the combination of Lhommeau-Gilboa and use well known method to determine the distance of the signal using the time-reversal or beam forming using multiple antennas, as suggested by Griffin, thereby allowing the system to “deliver more power to a specified location” thereby selectively energizing the tags.
Consider claim 3, method according to claim 1, comprising a step of carrying out an inventory without time reversal focusing of waves, Lhommeau teaches, “RFID tag can contain information relative to an identification of the part that it equips, information relative to a lifetime of said part and/or information relative to the presence of a predetermined substance in said part. The RFID tag can in particular contain a serial number, a product number, an indication relative to the manufacturer, an estimated lifetime of the part, a scheduled replacement date of the part and/or information relative to the presence of a dangerous or toxic substance.” See ¶ 0020.
Consider claim 4, method according to claim 1, wherein each device is provided with a single radio tag, Lhommeau teaches, “a plurality of parts each equipped with an RFID tag.” See ¶ 0011
Consider claim 5, method according to claim 1, wherein the radio frequency identification reader has a maximum power of 4 W. Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the prior art to limit 4 W. In United States, FCC limits unlicensed frequency range between 100 kHz to 6 GHz to .08 W/kg.
Consider claim 6, method according to claim 1, wherein the radio frequency identification reader makes it possible to configure the time reversal antennae, Lhommeau teaches, “a user actuates a controlling button of the interrogator device 12 in order to emit an interrogator signal. This interrogator signal is received by the outer antenna 1115, 2115, processed by the interface device 111, 211 and re-emitted by each inner antenna 112, 212.” See ¶ 0034; Griffin teaches, “FIG. 2 is an RFID system with a bistatic tag reader, according to one embodiment of the invention. As shown, the RFID system 200 includes a plurality of transmit antennas 260.sub.1-N and a plurality of receive antennas 265.sub.1-N. In operation, the transmit antennas 260.sub.1-N broadcast a signal to the RF tag 105. In case of a passive or semi-passive RF tag 105, if the received signal exceeds the necessary threshold for energizing the modulator 110, the RF tag 105 backscatters a modulated signal to the receive antennas 265.sub.1-N. Each antenna 260, 265 would be associated with either a receiver 170 or transmitter 155.” See ¶ 0046
Consider claim 7, method according to claim 1, wherein the radio frequency identification reader is provided with computing and control means controlled by on-board intelligence of the algorithm or artificial intelligence type, Lhommeau teaches, “collision management algorithm integrated within the interrogator device.” See ¶ 0011; Griffin teaches, “the tag reader 150 measures the phase (θ) of, the signal propagated through the backscatter channel. For example, the phase delay module 165 may calculate the phase from the received modulated signal ({tilde over (H)}). The phase delay module 165 may then divide the phase in half (θ/2).” See ¶ 0068; therefore, the reader 150 comprises on-board intelligence of the algorithm.
Consider claim 10, method according to claim 1, wherein the radio tags are passive and supplied by radio waves generated by the radio frequency identification reader in the UHF frequency band (860 to 960 MHz), Lhommeau teaches, “the outer antenna is arranged to emit and receive radiofrequency signals in a range of UHF frequencies comprised between 860 MHz and 960 MHz” See ¶ 0014.
Consider claim 11, system for managing devices installed in a nacelle of a turbine engine, the devices being provided with radio tags and the turbine engine being fitted with a radio frequency identification reader and with at least two time reversal antennae, the system comprising:
means for mapping the electromagnetic field inside the closed nacelle;
means for matching the known position of the devices with the electromagnetic characteristics of their respective radio tags; and
means for carrying out an inventory by time-reversal focusing of waves, See rejection of claim 1.
Consider claim 13, system according to claim 11, comprising
means for carrying out an inventory without time reversal focusing of waves, See rejection of claim 3.
Consider claim 14, turbine engine including devices provided with radio tags and fitted with a radio frequency identification reader and with at least two time reversal antennae, the turbine engine comprising a management system according to claim 11, See rejection of claim 1.
Consider claim 15, aircraft comprising a turbine engine according to claim 14, See rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lhommeau (WO 2020/025881 A1) in view of Gilboa (US 2001/0038354 A1), in view of Griffin (US 2013/0147609 A1), and further in view of Yoshikawa (US 2022/0324645 A1).
Consider claim 2, method according to claim 1, comprising a step of detecting the closure of the nacelle, in an analogous art, Yoshikawa teaches, “a storage cabinet including a door and a shelf on which items are placed, wherein the items are placed on the shelf while the door is open, the storage cabinet including: a door sensor that detects whether the door is open or closed; … a wireless tag reader that reads IDs from wireless tags attached to the items; a memory that stores the IDs of the items in the storage cabinet read by the wireless tag reader, as registration information; and a microcomputer, wherein the microcomputer: identifies, from among IDs that are readable by the wireless tag reader after a first period, a candidate ID that is an ID that is not included in the registration information, as a first ID of a first item that is newly loaded, the first period being a period from when the door is opened to when the door is closed that is determined based on a result of detection performed by the door sensor;” See ¶ 0005.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the combination of Lhommeau-Gilboa-Griffin, and have a sensor that can tell whether the nacelle compartment open or closed, as suggested by, in an effort to “improve management accuracy of items” with the RFID tags.
Consider claim 9, method according to claim 1, wherein the nacelle is provided with a device for detecting whether the nacelle is open or closed and configured to communicate with the radio frequency identification reader, See Yoshikawa ¶ 0005.
Consider claim 12, system according to claim 11, comprising
means for detecting the closure of the nacelle, See Yoshikawa ¶ 0005.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lhommeau (WO 2020/025881 A1) in view of Gilboa (US 2001/0038354 A1), in view of Griffin (US 2013/0147609 A1), and further in view of Yoshikawa (US 2022/0324645 A1).
Consider claim 8, method according to claim 1, wherein the air slots in the nacelle have dimensions smaller than a quarter of the wavelength used by the radio frequency identification reader, in an analogous art, Forster teaches, “an RFID system includes: an RFID device; and an electrically-conductive material that cooperates with the RFID device to enhance performance of the RFID device.” See ¶ 0010. “arms 26 and 28 are on either side of an aperture or elongated slot 30, an opening between the parts of the antenna structure 12.” See ¶ 0067, “slot or aperture 30 may have a substantially constant width between the arms 26 and 28 of the antenna structure 12. The slot 30 may have a length from of approximately one quarter of a wavelength of radiation used to communicate with the RFID chip 14. The slot 30 allows the RFID device 10 to be read along a narrow axis 46.” See ¶ 0068.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the combination of Lhommeau-Gilboa-Griffin, and have a slot in the nacelle have dimensions smaller than a quarter of the wavelength, as suggested by, in an effort to provide an “RFID device 10 may exhibit good readability characteristics in substantially any direction within or parallel to the plane of the antenna structure 12 or the RFID device 10 as a whole.” See ¶ 0068.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omer S. Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-5146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 8:00 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, Brian A. Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/Omer S Khan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686