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 .
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 14-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deldalle 9777644 in view of Falke 5907949.
Regarding Claim 1, Deldalle teaches a fuel system (Fig 1) for an aircraft engine (col.1 ll.5-15), comprising:
a fuel source (fuel tank, col.4 l.49);
a fuel pump (4, 6) fluidly connected to the fuel source and located downstream of the fuel
source relative to a fuel flow (through 2; Fig 1);
a metering valve (12) fluidly connected to the fuel pump via a fuel line (Fig 1), the metering valve
defining a valve opening (34, 34’), an area of the valve opening being variable (Figs 2A-11B), the metering
valve having:
an first configuration (2A-B, 4A-B, 6, 9A, 10A-B) in which the area of the valve opening corresponds to a first area (shaded) sized to regulate a flow rate through the metering valve to a minimum flow rate required for the aircraft engine (the low flow rate required by the engine per col.5 ll.38-41, col.5 l.62 – col.6 l.10, col.7 ll.44-51, col.8 ll.2-11, 27-31, col.9 ll.3-12), and
an ice-shedding (second) configuration (3A-B, 5A-B, 8A-B, 9C, 11A-B) in which the area of the valve opening corresponds to an ice-shedding area (shaded) being greater than the first area (compare Figures; also, col.6 ll.11-24, col.7 ll.52-62, col.8 ll.12-15, 33-38, col.9 ll.21-31); and
a controller (“servo-valve” requires servomechanism/servo) operatively connected to the metering valve (col.5 ll.18-23; col.5 l.62 – col.6 l.5; col.6 ll.11-19), the controller having a processing unit operatively connected to a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon executable by the processing unit (servo having processor and memory, by definition) to, during starting of the aircraft engine:
configure the metering valve in the ice-shedding configuration to allow the flow rate through the metering valve to be greater than the minimum flow rate to permit ice particles to flow through the valve opening (col.1 ll.29-47, icing conditions are encountered during flight at high flow operations such as take-off and ascent due to low ambient temperature and limited oil heat relative to fuel flow; col.6 ll.20-24,43-50, col.7 ll.52-62, col.8 ll.12-15, col.9 ll.21-31, the high flow operation position of the valve corresponds to ice-shedding positions by not allowing ice particles to agglomerate, and thus allowing ice particles to pass through the opening); and
configure the metering valve in the first configuration to restrict the flow rate through the metering valve to the minimum flow rate (col.5 ll.38-41, col.5 l.62 – col.6 l.10, col.7 ll.44-51, col.8 ll.2-11, 27-31, col.9 ll.3-12).
Deldalle does not specifically define the first configuration as an “ignition” configuration (thus the first area being an ignition area and the minimum flow rate being a minimum ignition flow rate) required for “starting” the engine.
However, Falke teaches a fuel system for an aircraft engine (Fig 1), comprising:
a fuel source (32);
a fuel pump (34) fluidly connected to the fuel source and located downstream of the fuel
source relative to a fuel flow (from 32 to 34 in Fig 1);
a metering valve (36) fluidly connected to the fuel pump via a fuel line (from 34 to 36 in Fig 1),
the metering valve defining a valve opening (by definition to enable fuel flow), an area of the valve opening being variable (by definition for valve to regulate flow), the metering valve having:
an ignition configuration (at any of WfINITIAL, WfTARGET, WfTERMINAL in both the current invention bold line and the conventional prior art dashed line) in which the area of the valve opening corresponds to an ignition area sized to regulate a flow rate through the metering valve to a minimum ignition flow rate required for starting the aircraft engine (col.4 ll.44-58, col.5 ll.4-58), and
a second configuration in which the area of the valve opening corresponds to a second flow rate higher than the first flow rate (indicated by increased flow rate during WfCMD up to at least idle at t6, and beyond per both the current invention bold line and the conventional prior art dashed line in Figs 2-3); and
a controller (50) operatively connected to the metering valve (col.4 ll.44-58), the controller having a processing unit operatively connected to a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon executable by the processing unit (col.4 ll.9-10) to, during starting of the aircraft engine (col.4 ll.44-58):
configure the metering valve in the second configuration to allow the flow rate through the metering valve to be greater than the minimum ignition flow rate (Figs 2-3); and
configure the metering valve in the ignition configuration to restrict the flow rate through the metering valve to the minimum ignition flow rate (Figs 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the low flow configuration of Deldalle could be used during ignition and start up as taught by Falke, in order to provide precisely and accurately controlled fuel flow during ignition and starting (Deldalle, col.1 ll.57-63, col.5 ll.38-41; Falke, col.4 ll.44-48, Figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 2, Deldalle in view of Falke teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (incl. the first configuration being an ignition configuration). Deldalle further teaches the metering valve further has a filling configuration (Figs 7A-B, Fig 9B) in which the area of the valve opening corresponds to a filling area (shaded) being greater than the ignition area and smaller than the ice-shedding area (compare with Figs 6, 8A-B, Fig 9A, and Fig 9C), the filling area sized to regulate the flow rate through the metering valve in the filling configuration to a filling flow rate (valve opening by definition results in a flow rate) required for filling the fuel system with the fuel (the opening provides fuel that fills the fuel system in all configurations).
Regarding claim 4, Deldalle in view of Falke teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deldalle further teaches the ice-shedding area of the valve opening corresponds to a maximum area of the valve opening of the metering valve (3A-B, 5A-B, 8A-B, 9C, 11A-B).
Regarding claim 5, Deldalle in view of Falke teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deldalle in view of Falke as discussed so far, does not teach the computer-readable medium includes instructions executable by the processing unit to: after the configuration of the metering valve in the ignition configuration, temporarily increase the area of the valve opening above the ignition area.
However, Falke further teaches the computer-readable medium includes instructions executable by the processing unit to: after the configuration of the metering valve in the ignition configuration, temporarily increase the area of the valve opening above the ignition area (Fig 3 teaches temporarily increasing the area of the valve opening to WfTARGET after configuring the valve in the initial ignition configuration of WfINITIAL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the low flow configuration of Deldalle in view of Falke could be used during ignition and start up as taught by Falke, in order to provide precisely and accurately controlled fuel flow during ignition and starting (Deldalle, col.1 ll.57-63, col.5 ll.38-41; Falke, col.4 ll.44-48, Figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 6, Deldalle in view of Falke teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deldalle in view of Falke as discussed so far, does not teach the computer-readable medium includes instructions executable by the processing unit to temporarily increase the area of the valve opening by temporarily increasing the area of the valve opening at least two times after the configuration of the metering valve in the ignition configuration.
However, Falke further teaches the computer-readable medium includes instructions executable by the processing unit to temporarily increase the area of the valve opening by temporarily increasing the area of the valve opening at least two times after the configuration of the metering valve in the ignition configuration (Fig 3 showing the temporary increase occurring as many as three times).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the low flow configuration of Deldalle in view of Falke could be used during ignition and start up as taught by Falke, in order to provide precisely and accurately controlled fuel flow during ignition and starting (Deldalle, col.1 ll.57-63, col.5 ll.38-41; Falke, col.4 ll.44-48, Figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 7, Deldalle in view of Falke teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deldalle further teaches the metering valve includes a housing (24) and a valve body (22, 26) movable within the housing, the housing and the valve body conjointly defining the valve opening (Figs 10A-11B), the valve opening having a shape that narrows in a downstream direction (Figs 10A-11B) from a first end (the “first end” of the variable opening changes depending on the amount of opening or operating state by the claim definition of the opening as being defined conjointly by the housing and the valve body; see Figs 10A and 11A below *) to a second end (the “second end” of the variable opening changes depending on the amount of opening or operating state by the claim definition of the opening as being defined conjointly by the housing and the valve body; see Figs 10A and 11A below *),
PNG
media_image1.png
270
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
283
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the valve opening having a first section (from first end to dashed line in Figs 10A and 11A above) from the first end and a second section (from dashed line to second end in Figs 10A and 11A above) extending from the first section to the second end, the second section being opened in both of ignition configuration and ice-shedding configuration (by definition, see Figs 10A and 11A above).
Regarding claim 14, Deldalle teaches a method of operating an aircraft engine (col.1 ll.5-15) having a fuel system (Fig 1) including a metering valve (12) fluidly connecting a fuel source (fuel tank, col.4 l.49) to a manifold (feeding injectors 14), the method comprising:
configuring the metering valve in an ice-shedding configuration (3A-B, 5A-B, 8A-B, 9C, 11A-B; col.1 ll.29-47, icing conditions are encountered during flight at high flow operations such as take-off and ascent due to low ambient temperature and limited oil heat relative to fuel flow; col.6 ll.20-24,43-50, col.7 ll.52-62, col.8 ll.12-15, col.9 ll.21-31, the high flow operation position of the valve corresponds to ice-shedding positions by not allowing ice particles to agglomerate, and thus allowing ice particles to pass through the opening) to allow a flow rate through the metering valve to be greater than a low flow rate required to operate the aircraft engine (high flow rate of 3A-B, 5A-B, 8A-B, 9C, 11A-B per col.6 ll.11-24, col.7 ll.52-62, col.8 ll.12-15, 33-38, col.9 ll.21-31 is higher than the low flow rate configuration of 2A-B, 4A-B, 6, 9A, 10A-B); and
configuring the metering valve in a low flow rate configuration (of 2A-B, 4A-B, 6, 9A, 10A-B) to restrict the flow rate through the metering valve to the low flow rate.
Deldalle does not specifically define the first configuration as an “ignition” configuration (thus the low flow rate being an ignition flow rate) required for “starting” the engine.
However, Falke teaches a fuel system for an aircraft engine (Fig 1), comprising:
a fuel source (32);
a metering valve (36) having:
an ignition configuration (at any of WfINITIAL, WfTARGET, WfTERMINAL in both the current invention bold line and the conventional prior art dashed line) in which the area of the valve opening corresponds to an ignition area sized to regulate a flow rate through the metering valve to a minimum ignition flow rate required for starting the aircraft engine (col.4 ll.44-58, col.5 ll.4-58), and
a second configuration in which the area of the valve opening corresponds to a second flow rate higher than the ignition flow rate (indicated by increased flow rate during WfCMD up to at least idle at t6, and beyond per both the current invention bold line and the conventional prior art dashed line in Figs 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the low flow configuration of Deldalle could be used during ignition and start up as taught by Falke, in order to provide precisely and accurately controlled fuel flow during ignition and starting (Deldalle, col.1 ll.57-63, col.5 ll.38-41; Falke, col.4 ll.44-48, Figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 15, Deldalle in view of Falke teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (incl. the low flow configuration being an ignition configuration). Deldalle further teaches the metering valve further has a filling configuration (Figs 7A-B, Fig 9B) in which the area of the valve opening corresponds to a filling area (shaded) being greater than the ignition area and smaller than the ice-shedding area (compare with Figs 6, 8A-B, Fig 9A, and Fig 9C), the filling area sized to regulate the flow rate through the metering valve in the filling configuration to a filling flow rate (valve opening by definition results in a flow rate) required for filling the fuel system with the fuel (the opening provides fuel that fills the fuel system in all configurations).
Regarding claim 17, Deldalle in view of Falke teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (incl. the low flow configuration being an ignition configuration). Deldalle further teaches the configuring of the metering valve in the ice-shedding configuration includes fully opening the valve to a maximum (3A-B, 5A-B, 8A-B, 9C, 11A-B).
Regarding claim 18, Deldalle in view of Falke teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (incl. the low flow configuration being an ignition configuration). Deldalle IN VIEW OF Falke as discussed so far, does not teach after the configuring of the metering valve in the ignition configuration, temporarily increasing an area of the valve opening above an ignition area.
However, Falke further teaches, after the configuration of the metering valve in the ignition configuration, temporarily increase the area of the valve opening above the ignition area (Fig 3 teaches temporarily increasing the area of the valve opening to WfTARGET after configuring the valve in the initial ignition configuration of WfINITIAL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the low flow configuration of Deldalle in view of Falke could be used during ignition and start up as taught by Falke, in order to provide precisely and accurately controlled fuel flow during ignition and starting (Deldalle, col.1 ll.57-63, col.5 ll.38-41; Falke, col.4 ll.44-48, Figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 19, Deldalle in view of Falke teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (incl. the low flow configuration being an ignition configuration). Deldalle in view of Falke as discussed so far, does not teach the temporarily increasing of the area of the valve opening includes temporarily increasing the area of the valve opening at least two times after the configuration of the metering valve in the ignition configuration.
However, Falke further teaches temporarily increasing the area of the valve opening at least two times after the configuration of the metering valve in the ignition configuration (Fig 3 showing the temporary increase occurring as many as three times).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the low flow configuration of Deldalle in view of Falke could be used during ignition and start up as taught by Falke, in order to provide precisely and accurately controlled fuel flow during ignition and starting (Deldalle, col.1 ll.57-63, col.5 ll.38-41; Falke, col.4 ll.44-48, Figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 20, Deldalle in view of Falke teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deldalle further teaches the metering valve includes a housing (24) and a valve body (22) movable within the housing (Figs 1A-11B), the housing and the valve body conjointly defining the
valve opening (Figs 1A-11B), the valve opening having a shape that flares in a downstream direction (Figs 1A-11B).
Claims 3, 8-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deldalle 9777644 in view of Falke 5907949 and Kacprowski 20210041193.
Regarding claim 3, Deldalle in view of Falke teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deldalle further teaches the computer-readable medium including instructions executable by the processing unit to: configure the metering valve in the ice-shedding configuration when a temperature and pressure of the fuel is below a freezing point of water (during fuel icing conditions in flight at high flow operations such as takeoff and ascent; col.1 ll.29-47).
Deldalle in view of Falke does not teach a sensor operatively connected to the controller, the computer-readable medium including instructions executable by the processing unit to: receive a signal from the sensor, the signal indicative of a temperature of the fuel, such that the metering valve is in the ice-shedding configuration when the temperature is below a freezing point of water.
However, Kacprowski teaches a sensor (43) operatively connected to a controller (45), a computer-readable medium (required by the control operations of 45 per [0042]) of the controller including instructions executable by a processing unit (required by the control operations of 45 per [0042]) to:
receive a signal from the sensor ([0042]), the signal indicative of a temperature of the fuel ([0042]).
Kacprowski further teaches: fuel temperature constantly decreasing after takeoff ([0053]), potential for flow blockages due to low ambient temperatures and fuel flocculation ([0053]), monitoring of fuel temperature to determine bypass status of a fuel heating heat exchanger due to blockage (41; [0049, 53]), using the blockage data to inform other operations such as thrust demand or maintenance operations ([0052]), and providing the bypass of the fuel heat exchanger to ensure flow downstream and mitigate overpressure ([0036-37]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Deldalle in view of Falke to further include the fuel temperature sensor (and perhaps the fuel-oil heat exchanger bypass) as taught by Kacprowski, in order to detect low fuel temperatures after takeoff and determine blockage/bypass status to inform pilot decisions and maintenance operations ([0049, 52-53]). Note, that fuel temperature monitoring as taught by Kacprowski occurs during all flight conditions including low temperature and high flow operations such as exist after takeoff (Figs 2-3; [0053]); and high flow, ice-shedding valve operation as taught by Deldalle also occurs after takeoff (i.e. during ascent; col.1 ll.29-33, 41-47); thus, in the combination of Deldalle in view of Falke and Kacprowski, the controller configures the metering valve of in the ice-shedding configuration when the fuel temperature is below a freezing point of water.
Regarding claim 8, Deldalle teaches a method of mitigating effects of water (col.1 ll.29-33) in a fuel tank (col.4 l.49) during operation of an aircraft engine (col.1 ll.5-15) having a fuel system (Fig 1) including a metering valve (12) fluidly connecting a fuel source (in the fuel tank) to a manifold (feeding injectors 14), the method comprising:
determining that a temperature of fuel in the fuel system may be below a threshold at which the water forms ice particles in the fuel system during normal operation of the aircraft (in flight, such as during take-off and ascent; col.1 ll.29-33, 41-47); and
preventing any such ice particles from accumulating at a valve opening (34, 34’) of the metering valve by increasing an area (shaded) of the valve opening beyond a low flow area sized to regulate a flow rate through the metering valve to a minimum flow rate required for the aircraft engine (Figs 3A-B, 5A-B, 8A-B, 9C, and 11A-B teach a high flow area larger than a low flow area required by the engine in Figs 2A-B, 4A-B, 6, 9A, and 10A-B, in order to prevent ice accumulation at the opening, col.6 ll.11-24,43-50, col.7 ll.52-62, col.8 ll.12-15, col.9 ll.21-31).
Deldalle does not specifically define the low flow configuration as an “ignition” configuration (thus the low flow area being an ignition area and the minimum flow rate being a minimum ignition flow rate) required for “starting” the engine; nor definitively determine that the fuel temperature is below icing conditions.
However, Falke teaches a fuel system for an aircraft engine (Fig 1), comprising:
a fuel source (32);
a metering valve (36) fluidly connected to the fuel pump via a fuel line (from 34 to 36 in Fig 1),
the metering valve defining a valve opening (by definition to enable fuel flow), an area of the valve opening being variable (by definition for valve to regulate flow), the metering valve having:
an ignition configuration (at any of WfINITIAL, WfTARGET, WfTERMINAL in both the current invention bold line and the conventional prior art dashed line) in which the area of the valve opening corresponds to an ignition area sized to regulate a flow rate through the metering valve to a minimum ignition flow rate required for starting the aircraft engine (col.4 ll.44-58, col.5 ll.4-58), and
a second configuration in which the area of the valve opening corresponds to a second flow rate higher than the first flow rate (indicated by increased flow rate during WfCMD up to at least idle at t6, and beyond per both the current invention bold line and the conventional prior art dashed line in Figs 2-3); and
wherein, during starting of the aircraft engine (col.4 ll.44-58):
configuring the metering valve in the second configuration to allow the flow rate through the metering valve to be greater than the minimum ignition flow rate (Figs 2-3); and
configuring the metering valve in the ignition configuration to restrict the flow rate through the metering valve to the minimum ignition flow rate (Figs 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the low flow configuration of Deldalle could be used during ignition and start up as taught by Falke, in order to provide precisely and accurately controlled fuel flow during ignition and starting (Deldalle, col.1 ll.57-63, col.5 ll.38-41; Falke, col.4 ll.44-48, Figs 2-3).
Deldalle in view of Falke still does not teach definitively determining that the fuel temperature is below icing conditions.
However, Kacprowski teaches a fuel temperature sensor (43; [0042]); fuel temperature constantly decreasing after takeoff ([0053]), potential for flow blockages due to low ambient temperatures and fuel flocculation ([0053]), monitoring of fuel temperature to determine bypass status of a fuel heating heat exchanger due to blockage (41; [0049, 53]), using the blockage data to inform other operations such as thrust demand or maintenance operations ([0052]), and providing the bypass of the fuel heat exchanger to ensure flow downstream and mitigate overpressure ([0036-37]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Deldalle in view of Falke to further include the fuel temperature sensor (and perhaps the fuel-oil heat exchanger bypass) as taught by Kacprowski, in order to definitively detect low fuel temperatures after takeoff (including fuel temperature below the freezing temperature of water if it occurs during the normal flight operations of takeoff and ascent) and determine blockage/bypass status to inform pilot decisions and maintenance operations ([0049, 52-53]). See also, MPEP2112.02(I) providing that a method claim (claim 8) is taught by a prior art device (Deldalle in view of Falke and Kacprowski including fuel temperature sensor that operates at all flight conditions, including after takeoff) that would necessarily perform the claimed method in its normal and usual operation (the aircraft of Deldalle in view of Falke and Kacprowski determines fuel temperature is below the freezing temperature of water when the aircraft encounters ambient temperatures during its normal and usual operation that cause the fuel temperature to drop below the freezing temperature of water; Deldalle, col.1 ll.29-33, 41-47; Kacprowski [0047, 49, 52-53]).
Regarding claim 9, Deldalle in view of Falke and Kacprowski teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (incl. the low flow configuration being an ignition configuration). Deldalle further teaches the increasing of the area of the valve opening (to the ice-shedding area of Figs 3A-B, 5A-B, 8A-B, 9C, and 11A-B) beyond the ignition area (of Figs 2A-B, 4A-B, 6, 9A, and 10A-B) includes increasing the area of the valve opening beyond a filling area (shaded area of Figs 7A-B, Fig 9B) of the metering valve sized to regulate the flow rate through the metering valve to a filling flow rate (valve opening by definition results in a flow rate) required for filling the fuel system with the fuel (the opening provides fuel that fills the fuel system in all configurations).
Regarding claim 10, Deldalle in view of Falke and Kacprowski teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deldalle in view of Falke and Kacprowski as discussed so far, does not teach the determining that the temperature of the fuel is below the threshold includes receiving a signal from a sensor, the signal indicative of the temperature of the fuel.
However, Kacprowski further teaches receiving a signal (at controller 45) from the fuel temperature sensor (43; [0042]), the signal indicative of the temperature of the fuel ([0042]; Figs 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Deldalle in view of Falke and Kacprowski to further include the fuel temperature sensor (and controller) as taught by Kacprowski, in order to definitively detect low fuel temperatures after takeoff (including fuel temperature below the freezing temperature of water if it occurs during the normal flight operations of takeoff and ascent) and determine blockage/bypass status to inform pilot decisions and maintenance operations ([0049, 52-53]). See also, MPEP2112.02(I) providing that a method claim (claim 8) is taught by a prior art device (Deldalle in view of Falke and Kacprowski including fuel temperature sensor that operates at all flight conditions, including after takeoff) that would necessarily perform the claimed method in its normal and usual operation (the aircraft of Deldalle in view of Falke and Kacprowski determines fuel temperature is below the freezing temperature of water when the aircraft encounters ambient temperatures during its normal and usual operation that cause the fuel temperature to drop below the freezing temperature of water; Deldalle, col.1 ll.29-33, 41-47; Kacprowski [0047, 49, 52-53]).
Regarding claim 11, Deldalle in view of Falke and Kacprowski teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deldalle further teaches increasing of the area of the valve opening beyond the ignition area includes increasing the area of the valve to a maximum area of the valve (3A-B, 5A-B, 8A-B, 9C, 11A-B).
Regarding claim 12, Deldalle in view of Falke and Kacprowski teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deldalle in view of Falke and Kacprowski as discussed so far, does not teach restricting the flow through the metering valve, and, after the restricting of the flow, temporarily increasing the area of the valve opening above the ignition area.
However, Falke further teaches, after restricting the flow through the metering valve in the ignition configuration, temporarily increasing the area of the valve opening above the ignition area (Fig 3 teaches temporarily increasing the area of the valve opening to WfTARGET after configuring the valve in the initial ignition configuration of WfINITIAL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the low flow configuration of Deldalle in view of Falke and Kacprowski could be used during ignition and start up as taught by Falke, in order to provide precisely and accurately controlled fuel flow during ignition and starting (Deldalle, col.1 ll.57-63, col.5 ll.38-41; Falke, col.4 ll.44-48, Figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 13, Deldalle in view of Falke and Kacprowski teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deldalle in view of Falke and Kacprowski as discussed so far, does not teach the temporarily increasing of the area of the valve includes temporarily increasing the area of the valve opening at least two times after the restricting of the flow through the metering valve.
However, Falke further teaches temporarily increasing the area of the valve opening at least two times after the configuration of the metering valve in the ignition configuration (Fig 3 showing the temporary increase occurring as many as three times).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the low flow configuration of Deldalle in view of Falke and Kacprowski could be used during ignition and start up as taught by Falke, in order to provide precisely and accurately controlled fuel flow during ignition and starting (Deldalle, col.1 ll.57-63, col.5 ll.38-41; Falke, col.4 ll.44-48, Figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 16, Deldalle in view of Falke teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Deldalle further teaches configuring the metering valve in the ice-shedding configuration when a temperature and pressure of the fuel is below a freezing point of water (during fuel icing conditions in flight at high flow operations such as takeoff and ascent; col.1 ll.29-47).
Deldalle in view of Falke does not teach receiving a signal from a sensor, the signal indicative of a temperature of the fuel.
However, Kacprowski further teaches receiving a signal (at controller 45) from the fuel temperature sensor (43; [0042]), the signal indicative of the temperature of the fuel ([0042]; Figs 2-3).
Kacprowski further teaches: fuel temperature constantly decreasing after takeoff ([0053]), potential for flow blockages due to low ambient temperatures and fuel flocculation ([0053]), monitoring of fuel temperature to determine bypass status of a fuel heating heat exchanger due to blockage (41; [0049, 53]), using the blockage data to inform other operations such as thrust demand or maintenance operations ([0052]), and providing the bypass of the fuel heat exchanger to ensure flow downstream and mitigate overpressure ([0036-37]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Deldalle in view of Falke to further include the fuel temperature sensor (and controller, and perhaps the fuel-oil heat exchanger bypass) as taught by Kacprowski, in order to detect low fuel temperatures after takeoff and determine blockage/bypass status to inform pilot decisions and maintenance operations ([0049, 52-53]). Note, that fuel temperature monitoring as taught by Kacprowski occurs during all flight conditions including low temperature and high flow operations such as exist after takeoff (Figs 2-3; [0053]); and high flow, ice-shedding valve operation as taught by Deldalle also occurs after takeoff (i.e. during ascent; col.1 ll.29-33, 41-47); thus, in the combination of Deldalle in view of Falke and Kacprowski, the controller configures the metering valve of in the ice-shedding configuration when the fuel temperature is below a freezing point of water.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument appears to contrast portions of Applicant’s disclosure to portions of Deldalle’s teachings.
However, when examining claims on the merit, limitations from Applicant’s Specification cannot be imported into the claims.
Applicant’ asserts that Deldalle teaches the opposite of what is claimed (opening the valve wider than needed during a startup of the gas turbine engine).
However, Applicant also asserts that Deldalle does not teach anything about starting. Deldalle cannot simultaneously teach the opposite starting method and not teach starting at all.
Applicant asserts that, in the claims, “a narrow portion of the opening is not covered”
However, this limitation is never recited in the claims.
Applicant appears to contend that the ice-shedding strategy of Deldalle is different than the ice-shedding strategy disclosed by Applicant.
However, these differences in strategy do not result in a patentable difference in the claims. If the claim language still recites structures and control steps that are taught by Deldalle (in view of Falke), the claims are still not patentable over the prior art.
Applicant asserts that even the combination of Deldalle in view of Falk does not teach the claims because Falke merely teaches ignition flow rates being associated with smaller area than a second area.
However, the start up procedure of an engine may be interpreted to include ramp up to idle. Falke is explicitly teaching using a small area for ignition and a large area for the rest of the startup to idle. In combination with Deldalle teaching how to achieve small flow area and large flow area in a variable area orifice valve while avoiding icing, completes the reading on the claim language.
Applicant asserts that the proposed operation of Deldalle in view of Falke would be exactly what Applicant wants to avoid,
However, as discussed such difference between Applicant’s claimed invention and the prior art must be exhibited in the claims for patentability.
Applicant argues (regarding claim 7) that the narrow portion of Deldalle is closed in the high flow configuration.
However, as discussed above, the claim defines the valve opening as the opening defined conjointly by the housing and the valve body such that the first and second ends of the opening change with varying position of the valve body in the housing, and the second section being open (by definition of the term “opening”) under all operating conditions. This is also taught by Deldalle as discussed above (with reference to Figs 10A-11B).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG whose telephone number is (469)295-9153. The examiner can normally be reached on 1000-1600 ET.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached on (571-270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741