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 . Claims 1-12 filed on 7/18/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FR2200875, filed on 2/1/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 7/18/2024 has been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 7/18/2024 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 7/18/2024 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
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: “embedded control means”, in claim 1; “calculating means”, in claims 1 and 3-4; “comparison means”, in claims 3 and 5-8; “first subtractor”, in claim 9; “second subtractor”, in claim 9; “first comparison means”, in claim 9; “second comparison means”, in claim 9; “third comparison means”, in claim 9; and “fourth comparison means”, in claim 9.
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 1-10 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 limitations “embedded control means”, in claim 1; “calculating means”, in claims 1 and 3-4; “comparison means”, in claims 3 and 5-8; “first subtractor”, in claim 9; “second subtractor”, in claim 9; “first comparison means”, in claim 9; “second comparison means”, in claim 9; “third comparison means”, in claim 9; and “fourth comparison means”, in claim 9, invokes 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. In particular, review of the specification failed to provide any description of the corresponding structure (i.e. hardware, processor, computer, etc.) for embodying the listed generic placeholder terms provided above.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
Claims 6-8 are further 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.
Claims 6-8 recites the limitation "the biases are stored" in the claim limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-10 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. The specification fails to provide explicit written description regarding the Claim limitations of “embedded control means”, in claim 1; “calculating means”, in claims 1 and 3-4; “comparison means”, in claims 3 and 5-8; “first subtractor”, in claim 9; “second subtractor”, in claim 9; “first comparison means”, in claim 9; “second comparison means”, in claim 9; “third comparison means”, in claim 9; and “fourth comparison means”, in claim 9; such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the inventors at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites, “at least one embedded control means configured to determine a command intended for at least one equipment item as a function of the measurement of at least one operating quantity of the device and a selected measurement of the controlled equipment item,”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of merely determining a command for a function based on selected measurement data which is an act that can reasonably be performed in the human mind and thus falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, claim 1 recites, “the control system further comprising a calculating means configured to determine the selected measurement of the at least one controlled equipment item, by means of a Kalman filter observer, as a function of the at least one measurement of the operating quantity of the device and the measurements of the channels for measuring a redundant sensor for the controlled equipment item,” and “the calculating means being further configured to detect a failure of one of the channels for measuring the redundant sensor by applying a Kalman filter observer, as a function of the at least one measurement of the operating quantity of the device and of the measurements of the channels of the redundant sensor, for the controlled equipment item,”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes using a Kalman filter for determining and detecting failures which employs the use of mathematical formulas and thus falls within the, “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For instance, claim 1 further recites, “the calculating means being further configured to detect a failure of one of the channels… so as to exclude therefrom the measurement channel.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, provides limitations for detecting a failure of a measurement channel but fails to provide any nexus on how the detection of the failed channel is utilized when excluding measurements. For instance, it is not even clear if the detected failed channel is the one that is excluded and further, how is the channel excluded/isolated? As such, this merely represents applying the judicial exception until further clarified (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, claim 1 recites, “the control system comprising at least one sensor each capable of measuring an operating quantity of the device,”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Additionally, claim 1 recites, “two channels for measuring a redundant sensor for each equipment item”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, merely provides descriptive structural limitations which just generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Finally, the limitations of, “an embedded control means” and “a calculating means” represent generic means for implementing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering operating quantity data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Independent claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is thus rejected using the same rationale as provided above.
Review of the dependent claims did not provide any additional limitations that would overcome the current rejection. For instance, claims 3-4 and 9, each have additional limitations in which calculations are being performed, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, include limitations which would fall within the, “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 3-7 each include limitations of transmitting/sending various data based on specific conditions, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, claims 2-8, 10, and 12, disclose a plurality of conditions which dictate which data is transmitted/stored, describes the various parameters measured by the systems sensors, and further that an aircraft incorporates the described system, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering various operating data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mahmoud (DE 19607429).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11; Mahmoud teaches; System for controlling a device provided with at least one equipment item, (Mahmoud; at least page 6; disclose a control system for controlling a vehicles steering)
the control system comprising at least one sensor each capable of measuring an operating quantity of the device, and two channels for measuring a redundant sensor for each equipment item, (Mahmoud; at least page 5, last paragraph; page 6; disclose a plurality of sensors for measuring an operating quantity of the vehicle steering and further, the system includes two redundant parallel sensor channels)
at least one embedded control means configured to determine a command intended for at least one equipment item as a function of the measurement of at least one operating quantity of the device and a selected measurement of the controlled equipment item, (Mahmoud; at least page 5, last 3 paragraphs; page 6; disclose a driving dynamics controller for operating the steering of the vehicle in response to the received sensor measurements)
the control system further comprising a calculating means configured to determine the selected measurement of the at least one controlled equipment item, by means of a Kalman filter observer, as a function of the at least one measurement of the operating quantity of the device and the measurements of the channels for measuring a redundant sensor for the controlled equipment item, (Mahmoud; at least pages 5 and 6; disclose wherein the system includes an error handling filter, which utilizes a Kalman filter observer to monitor the quality of received sensor values from the primary sensor and redundant secondary sensor)
the calculating means being further configured to detect a failure of one of the channels for measuring the redundant sensor by applying a Kalman filter observer, as a function of the at least one measurement of the operating quantity of the device and of the measurements of the channels of the redundant sensor, for the controlled equipment item, so as to exclude therefrom the measurement channel. (Mahmoud; at least page 5, last 3 paragraphs; page 6; disclose wherein the system detects an error in one of the sensor channels, and if they error is serious, an isolation logic circuit can switch off the faulty channel to prevent erroneous data from interrupting the vehicle controller).
Regarding Claim 2; Mahmoud teaches; Control system according to claim 1, wherein the device comprises at least two equipment items, the selected measurement of the at least two equipment items being determined by the same Kalman filter observer. (Mahmoud; at least pages 5 and 6).
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahmoud (DE 19607429) in view of Vershinin et al. (US PGPUB 20090043447).
Regarding Claim 10; Mahmoud appears to be silent on; Control system according to claim 1, wherein the device is an aircraft engine and the channels for measuring the redundant sensor measure the position of the linear variable differential transformers, the position of the fuel metering valve, the variable stator valves of the high-pressure compressor of the engine, the measurement of the input temperature of the high-pressure compressor of the engine, or the input static pressure measurement of the combustion chamber of the engine.
However, Vershinin teaches; Control system according to claim 1, wherein the device is an aircraft engine and the channels for measuring the redundant sensor measure the position of the linear variable differential transformers, the position of the fuel metering valve, the variable stator valves of the high-pressure compressor of the engine, the measurement of the input temperature of the high-pressure compressor of the engine, or the input static pressure measurement of the combustion chamber of the engine. (Vershinin; at least paragraphs [0027] and [0035]; discloses a sensor fault detection and isolation system and method including using Kalman filter observers for monitoring various engines sensors including various temperatures and pressures of the aircraft engine).
Mahmoud and Vershinin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area of, sensor fault detection and isolation control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the known method of monitoring various aircraft engine sensors as taught by Vershinin with the known system of a sensor fault detection and isolation control system as taught by Mahmoud in order to help provide a method of improving control system reliability as taught by Vershinin (paragraph [0007]).
Regarding Claim 12; the combination of Mahmoud and Vershinin teach; Aircraft provided with a control system according to claim 1. (Vershinin; at least paragraph [0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The office would like to first note that the identified claims each have an outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112a/b rejection that must be resolved prior to consideration of allowance.
Claim 3 recites: “Control system according to claim 1, wherein the calculating means comprises: a Kalman filter observer determining an estimation of a bias of the first measurement channel and an estimation of a bias of the second measurement channel as a function of the at least one measurement of the operating quantity of the device, of the measurement of the first channel for measuring the redundant sensor and of the measurement of the second channel for measuring the redundant sensor; a comparison means configured to send a selection signal as a function of the comparison results of each bias estimation at a first predetermined threshold, of the result of the comparison of the absolute value of the difference of two measurement channels at a second predetermined threshold and of the bias estimations with one another; and e a selection device configured to transmit the selected measurement equal to the measurement of the first measurement channel, to the measurement of the second measurement channel or to the average of the measurements of the first measurement channel and of the second measurement channel as a function of a selection signal.”
This application describes a control system for a device, such as an aircraft engine, that has one or more equipment items like valves or vanes. Each controlled item is monitored by two redundant sensor channels measuring the same quantity. The system uses a Kalman filter observer to estimate which channel is healthy by comparing the channels against an internal model of the device. Based on that estimate, it selects either the first channel, the second channel, or an average of both channels. The selected measurement is then used by the controller to issue the command for the equipment item. The goal is to avoid relying on a drifting or biased sensor channel. The system can also detect and isolate a failed channel rather than merely flagging that something is wrong. In some versions, it compares bias magnitude, bias variance, or bias gradient over time to improve fault selection. The disclosure also includes a mode for detecting actuator failures, not just sensor-channel failures. The invention is especially aimed at aircraft engine control, where a wrong sensor choice could affect engine performance or safety.
The closest prior art of record is Mahmoud (DE 19607429). Mahmoud discloses a redundant sensor monitoring system and method for a vehicle controller. The system employs a Kalman observer to monitor two redundant sensor channels in order to detect a fault in either line and in response to positively detecting an error, the system can switch off and isolate the faulty line such that the steering control is not impacted. The system is further capable of isolating the automatic control system if it detects a failure in the remaining sensor line such that the automatic steering capability is compromised. However, Mahmoud nor any other cited reference, alone or in combination, disclose:
“…a Kalman filter observer determining an estimation of a bias of the first measurement channel and an estimation of a bias of the second measurement channel as a function of the at least one measurement of the operating quantity of the device, of the measurement of the first channel for measuring the redundant sensor and of the measurement of the second channel for measuring the redundant sensor; a comparison means configured to send a selection signal as a function of the comparison results of each bias estimation at a first predetermined threshold, of the result of the comparison of the absolute value of the difference of two measurement channels at a second predetermined threshold and of the bias estimations with one another; and e a selection device configured to transmit the selected measurement equal to the measurement of the first measurement channel, to the measurement of the second measurement channel or to the average of the measurements of the first measurement channel and of the second measurement channel as a function of a selection signal.”
Dependent claims 4 and 5 each depend upon claim 3 and would also be considered allowable if incorporated with all limitations of identified claim 3.
Claim 6 recites: “Control system according to claim 1, wherein the comparison means is configured to perform the following steps: the estimations of the biases are stored at the moment when it is determined that the difference in absolute value between the measurement of the first measurement channel and the measurement of the second measurement channel is higher than a predetermined threshold and a selection signal is sent indicating to the selection device to transmit a selected measurement equal to the measurement of the channel for measuring the redundant sensor for which the absolute value of its estimation of the bias is the lowest.”
This application describes a control system for a device, such as an aircraft engine, that has one or more equipment items like valves or vanes. Each controlled item is monitored by two redundant sensor channels measuring the same quantity. The system uses a Kalman filter observer to estimate which channel is healthy by comparing the channels against an internal model of the device. Based on that estimate, it selects either the first channel, the second channel, or an average of both channels. The selected measurement is then used by the controller to issue the command for the equipment item. The goal is to avoid relying on a drifting or biased sensor channel. The system can also detect and isolate a failed channel rather than merely flagging that something is wrong. In some versions, it compares bias magnitude, bias variance, or bias gradient over time to improve fault selection. The disclosure also includes a mode for detecting actuator failures, not just sensor-channel failures. The invention is especially aimed at aircraft engine control, where a wrong sensor choice could affect engine performance or safety.
The closest prior art of record is Mahmoud (DE 19607429). Mahmoud discloses a redundant sensor monitoring system and method for a vehicle controller. The system employs a Kalman observer to monitor two redundant sensor channels in order to detect a fault in either line and in response to positively detecting an error, the system can switch off and isolate the faulty line such that the steering control is not impacted. The system is further capable of isolating the automatic control system if it detects a failure in the remaining sensor line such that the automatic steering capability is compromised. However, Mahmoud nor any other cited reference, alone or in combination, disclose:
“…the estimations of the biases are stored at the moment when it is determined that the difference in absolute value between the measurement of the first measurement channel and the measurement of the second measurement channel is higher than a predetermined threshold and a selection signal is sent indicating to the selection device to transmit a selected measurement equal to the measurement of the channel for measuring the redundant sensor for which the absolute value of its estimation of the bias is the lowest.”
Claim 7 recites: “Control system according to claim 1, wherein the comparison means is configured to perform the following steps: the estimations of biases are stored on a sliding window over time, when a predefined number of values are stored, the variance or the standard deviation of the estimations of the bias of the first measurement channel is determined and the variance or the standard deviation of the estimation of the bias of the second measurement channel is determined, the variances or the standard deviations obtained are compared and a selection signal is sent indicating to the selection device to transmit a selected measurement equal to the measurement of the channel for measuring the redundant sensor for which the variance or the standard deviation of the associated estimation of the bias takes the lowest value.”
This application describes a control system for a device, such as an aircraft engine, that has one or more equipment items like valves or vanes. Each controlled item is monitored by two redundant sensor channels measuring the same quantity. The system uses a Kalman filter observer to estimate which channel is healthy by comparing the channels against an internal model of the device. Based on that estimate, it selects either the first channel, the second channel, or an average of both channels. The selected measurement is then used by the controller to issue the command for the equipment item. The goal is to avoid relying on a drifting or biased sensor channel. The system can also detect and isolate a failed channel rather than merely flagging that something is wrong. In some versions, it compares bias magnitude, bias variance, or bias gradient over time to improve fault selection. The disclosure also includes a mode for detecting actuator failures, not just sensor-channel failures. The invention is especially aimed at aircraft engine control, where a wrong sensor choice could affect engine performance or safety.
The closest prior art of record is Mahmoud (DE 19607429). Mahmoud discloses a redundant sensor monitoring system and method for a vehicle controller. The system employs a Kalman observer to monitor two redundant sensor channels in order to detect a fault in either line and in response to positively detecting an error, the system can switch off and isolate the faulty line such that the steering control is not impacted. The system is further capable of isolating the automatic control system if it detects a failure in the remaining sensor line such that the automatic steering capability is compromised. However, Mahmoud nor any other cited reference, alone or in combination, disclose:
“…the estimations of biases are stored on a sliding window over time, when a predefined number of values are stored, the variance or the standard deviation of the estimations of the bias of the first measurement channel is determined and the variance or the standard deviation of the estimation of the bias of the second measurement channel is determined, the variances or the standard deviations obtained are compared and a selection signal is sent indicating to the selection device to transmit a selected measurement equal to the measurement of the channel for measuring the redundant sensor for which the variance or the standard deviation of the associated estimation of the bias takes the lowest value.”
Claim 8 recites: “Control system according to claim 1, wherein the comparison means is configured to perform the following steps: the estimations of the bias are stored over time, when a predefined number of values are stored, the gradient of the estimations of the bias of the first measurement channel is determined and the gradient of the estimations of the bias of the second measurement channel is determined, the gradients obtained are compared and a selection signal is sent indicating to the selection device to transmit a selected measurement equal to the measurement of the channel for measuring the redundant sensor for which the gradient of the estimation of the associated bias is the lowest.”
This application describes a control system for a device, such as an aircraft engine, that has one or more equipment items like valves or vanes. Each controlled item is monitored by two redundant sensor channels measuring the same quantity. The system uses a Kalman filter observer to estimate which channel is healthy by comparing the channels against an internal model of the device. Based on that estimate, it selects either the first channel, the second channel, or an average of both channels. The selected measurement is then used by the controller to issue the command for the equipment item. The goal is to avoid relying on a drifting or biased sensor channel. The system can also detect and isolate a failed channel rather than merely flagging that something is wrong. In some versions, it compares bias magnitude, bias variance, or bias gradient over time to improve fault selection. The disclosure also includes a mode for detecting actuator failures, not just sensor-channel failures. The invention is especially aimed at aircraft engine control, where a wrong sensor choice could affect engine performance or safety.
The closest prior art of record is Mahmoud (DE 19607429). Mahmoud discloses a redundant sensor monitoring system and method for a vehicle controller. The system employs a Kalman observer to monitor two redundant sensor channels in order to detect a fault in either line and in response to positively detecting an error, the system can switch off and isolate the faulty line such that the steering control is not impacted. The system is further capable of isolating the automatic control system if it detects a failure in the remaining sensor line such that the automatic steering capability is compromised. However, Mahmoud nor any other cited reference, alone or in combination, disclose:
“…the estimations of the bias are stored over time, when a predefined number of values are stored, the gradient of the estimations of the bias of the first measurement channel is determined and the gradient of the estimations of the bias of the second measurement channel is determined, the gradients obtained are compared and a selection signal is sent indicating to the selection device to transmit a selected measurement equal to the measurement of the channel for measuring the redundant sensor for which the gradient of the estimation of the associated bias is the lowest.”
Claim 9 recites: “Control system according to claim 1, wherein the controlled equipment item is an actuator, the system comprises a Kalman filter observer determining an estimation of a bias of the first measurement channel and an estimation of a bias of the second measurement channel as a function of the at least one measurement of the operating quantity of the device, of the measurement of the first channel for measuring the redundant sensor and of the measurement of the second channel for measuring the redundant sensor, a detection device comprising: a first subtractor determining the difference between the first channel for measuring the redundant sensor and the second channel for measuring the redundant sensor; a first comparison means determining whether the difference between the measurement of the first channel for measuring the redundant sensor and the measurement of the second channel for measuring the redundant sensor is lower than a second threshold, if such is the case the first comparison means sends a first signal intended for a logic gate; a second comparison means determining whether the estimation of the bias of the first measurement channel is higher than a third threshold, if such is the case the second comparison means sends a first signal intended for the logic gate; a third comparison means determining whether the estimation of the bias of the second measurement channel is higher than the third threshold, if such is the case the third comparison means sends a first signal intended for the logic gate; a second subtractor determining the difference between the estimation of the bias of the first measurement channel and the estimation of the bias of the second measurement channel; a fourth comparison means determining whether the difference between the estimation of the bias of the first measurement channel and the estimation of the bias of the second measurement channel is lower than a fourth threshold, by a hysteresis taking into account the accuracy of the channels for measuring the redundant sensor, if such is the case the fourth comparison means sends a first signal intended for the logic gate; and the logic gate transmitting a signal when all of its inputs receive a first signal, the logic gate not transmitting a signal when at least one of its inputs does not receive the first signal, which makes it possible to detect a failure of the actuator.”
This application describes a control system for a device, such as an aircraft engine, that has one or more equipment items like valves or vanes. Each controlled item is monitored by two redundant sensor channels measuring the same quantity. The system uses a Kalman filter observer to estimate which channel is healthy by comparing the channels against an internal model of the device. Based on that estimate, it selects either the first channel, the second channel, or an average of both channels. The selected measurement is then used by the controller to issue the command for the equipment item. The goal is to avoid relying on a drifting or biased sensor channel. The system can also detect and isolate a failed channel rather than merely flagging that something is wrong. In some versions, it compares bias magnitude, bias variance, or bias gradient over time to improve fault selection. The disclosure also includes a mode for detecting actuator failures, not just sensor-channel failures. The invention is especially aimed at aircraft engine control, where a wrong sensor choice could affect engine performance or safety.
The closest prior art of record is Mahmoud (DE 19607429). Mahmoud discloses a redundant sensor monitoring system and method for a vehicle controller. The system employs a Kalman observer to monitor two redundant sensor channels in order to detect a fault in either line and in response to positively detecting an error, the system can switch off and isolate the faulty line such that the steering control is not impacted. The system is further capable of isolating the automatic control system if it detects a failure in the remaining sensor line such that the automatic steering capability is compromised. However, Mahmoud nor any other cited reference, alone or in combination, disclose:
“…wherein the controlled equipment item is an actuator, the system comprises a Kalman filter observer determining an estimation of a bias of the first measurement channel and an estimation of a bias of the second measurement channel as a function of the at least one measurement of the operating quantity of the device, of the measurement of the first channel for measuring the redundant sensor and of the measurement of the second channel for measuring the redundant sensor, a detection device comprising: a first subtractor determining the difference between the first channel for measuring the redundant sensor and the second channel for measuring the redundant sensor; a first comparison means determining whether the difference between the measurement of the first channel for measuring the redundant sensor and the measurement of the second channel for measuring the redundant sensor is lower than a second threshold, if such is the case the first comparison means sends a first signal intended for a logic gate; a second comparison means determining whether the estimation of the bias of the first measurement channel is higher than a third threshold, if such is the case the second comparison means sends a first signal intended for the logic gate; a third comparison means determining whether the estimation of the bias of the second measurement channel is higher than the third threshold, if such is the case the third comparison means sends a first signal intended for the logic gate; a second subtractor determining the difference between the estimation of the bias of the first measurement channel and the estimation of the bias of the second measurement channel; a fourth comparison means determining whether the difference between the estimation of the bias of the first measurement channel and the estimation of the bias of the second measurement channel is lower than a fourth threshold, by a hysteresis taking into account the accuracy of the channels for measuring the redundant sensor, if such is the case the fourth comparison means sends a first signal intended for the logic gate; and the logic gate transmitting a signal when all of its inputs receive a first signal, the logic gate not transmitting a signal when at least one of its inputs does not receive the first signal, which makes it possible to detect a failure of the actuator.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shim et al. (US PGPUB 20080276155): disclose a system and method detecting and isolating faults within redundant sensor systems using a two reduced-order pair vector such that even in the event of a double sensor failure the system can correctly identify and alert a user.
Down et al. (US PGPUB 20030020487): disclose a system and method for employing a Kalman observer and model-based filter for identifying and alerting detection of faulty sensors.
Burghardt et al. (US PGPUB 20200201359): disclose an airplane navigation system and method that utilizes a Kalman observer to identify faulty sensors and in response, revert to replacing the faulty data with previously known “good” data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights