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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the European Union on November 14, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP23315420.2 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The document filed on October 23, 2024 is a copy of a certified copy. For help on filing the proper copy, the Examiner suggests contacting the Patents Ombuds Office at 888-786-0101 or PatentsOmbudsOffice@uspto.gov.
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:
“processing system determines the bending moment acting on the rotor shaft based on the signal from the at least one sensor” in claim 1;
“processing unit that retrieves the reference signal from the storage circuit to determine an additional bending moment acting on the rotor blade based on the reference signal from the storage circuit and the signal from the at least one sensor” in claim 10.
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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volanthen et al (US 2009/0324409 A1), hereinafter “Volanthen”, and further in view of Wurzel et al. (US 2022/0065738 A1), hereinafter “Wurzel”.
Regarding claim 1, Volanthen teaches a measurement apparatus for determining a force of a rotary-wing aircraft (abstract, Fig. 1), comprising:
a sensor arrangement (Fig. 1, ref 2) that is mounted to a rotor blade (ref 1, paragraphs [0033]-[0034]) and that comprises:
at least one sensor that generates a signal in response to a force or moment that acts on the rotor blade (paragraphs [0033], [0035]), and
a cable that is connected to the at least one sensor for transmitting the signal (ref 3, paragraph [0033]); and
a processing system that is connected to the cable and that receives the signal from the at least one sensor via the cable (paragraphs [0027]-[0028]).
Volanthen is silent regarding determining a bending moment acting on a rotor shaft, the sensor mounted to a rotor blade that is attached to the rotor shaft, and wherein the processing system determines the bending moment acting on the rotor shaft based on the signal from the at least one sensor.
However, Wurzel teaches a device for measuring bending on a rotor shaft (abstract, Fig. 2) including determining a bending moment acting on a rotor shaft (paragraph [0062]), the sensor attached to the rotor shaft (ref 200, paragraph [0062]), and wherein the processing system determines the bending moment acting on the rotor shaft based on the signal from the at least one sensor (paragraph [0074], [0081]-[0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Volanthen with the teaching of Wurzel by including determining a bending moment acting on a rotor shaft, the sensor mounted to a rotor blade that is attached to the rotor shaft, and wherein the processing system determines the bending moment acting on the rotor shaft based on the signal from the at least one sensor in order to provide contactless determination of a bending moment acting on a hollow cylindrical body, paragraph [0015].
Regarding claim 2, Volanthen teaches wherein the force or moment causes at least one of a strain, a displacement, or an angle change of the rotor blade (paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 3, Volanthen teaches wherein the sensor arrangement comprises at least one additional sensor (paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Volanthen teaches wherein the sensor arrangement is an embedded sensor arrangement, a surface integrated sensor arrangement, or a surface applied sensor arrangement (paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 6, Volanthen teaches wherein the cable comprises a fiber optic cable, and wherein the at least one sensor comprise at least one optical sensor (paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Volanthen teaches wherein an optical sensor of the at least one optical sensor comprises a fiber-Bragg grating in the fiber optic cable (paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 10, Volanthen wherein the processing system further comprises: a storage circuit that stores a reference signal measured during an initial undeformed state of the rotor blade; and a processing unit that retrieves the reference signal from the storage circuit to determine an additional bending moment acting on the rotor blade based on the reference signal from the storage circuit and the signal from the at least one sensor (paragraphs [0024]-[0025]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volanthen and Wurzel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sutton et al. (US20150370030A1), hereinafter “Sutton”.
Regarding claim 5, Volanthen is silent regarding wherein the rotor blade comprises a flexbeam, and wherein the sensor arrangement is mounted to the flexbeam.
However, Sutton teaches a device for optical measurement of blades (abstract) wherein the rotor blade comprises a flexbeam, and wherein the sensor arrangement is mounted to the flexbeam (paragraphs [0022]-[0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Volanthen with the teaching of Sutton by including wherein the rotor blade comprises a flexbeam, and wherein the sensor arrangement is mounted to the flexbeam in order to monitor a helicopter rotor (paragraph [0022]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volanthen and Wurzel as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Sutton et al. (US20150370030A1), hereinafter “Sutton”.
Regarding claim 8, Volanthen is silent regarding an interrogator that sends light having a first wavelength profile to the at least one optical sensor, and wherein the at least one optical sensor reflects light having a second wavelength profile as the signal back to the processing system.
However, Sutton teaches an interrogator that sends light having a first wavelength profile to the at least one optical sensor, and wherein the at least one optical sensor reflects light having a second wavelength profile as the signal back to the processing system (paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Volanthen with the teaching of Sutton by including an interrogator that sends light having a first wavelength profile to the at least one optical sensor, and wherein the at least one optical sensor reflects light having a second wavelength profile as the signal back to the processing system in order to monitor the blade.
Regarding claim 9, Volanthen wherein a change of the force or moment that acts on the rotor blade causes a change of the second wavelength profile (paragraph [0029]).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volanthen and Wurzel as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Egedal (US 2013/0294911 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Volanthen is silent regarding wherein the processing unit further comprises: an arithmetic logic unit that determines a magnitude and an azimuth angle of the bending moment based on the additional bending moment acting on the rotor blade.
However, Egedal teaches a device for optical measurement of blades (abstract) wherein the processing unit further comprises: an arithmetic logic unit that determines a magnitude and an azimuth angle of the bending moment based on the additional bending moment acting on the rotor blade (paragraphs [0011], [0031]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Volanthen with the teaching of Egedal by including wherein the processing unit further comprises: an arithmetic logic unit that determines a magnitude and an azimuth angle of the bending moment based on the additional bending moment acting on the rotor blade in order to monitor a structural unbalance of the blade.
Regarding claim 12, Volanthen is silent regarding a display that displays the magnitude and the azimuth angle of the bending moment.
However, Wurzel teaches a device for measuring bending on a rotor shaft (abstract, Fig. 2) including a display that displays the magnitude and the angle of the bending moment (paragraph [0111]).
Furthermore, Egedal teaches the azimuth angle of the bending moment (paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Volanthen with the teaching of Wurzel and Egedal by including a display that displays the magnitude and the azimuth angle of the bending moment in order to inform a user of the results.
Regarding claim 13, Volanthen is silent regarding an alert system that provides at least one of a visual alarm or an aural alarm when the magnitude of the bending moment is greater than a predetermined threshold value.
However, Wurzel teaches a device for measuring bending on a rotor shaft (abstract, Fig. 2) including an alert system that provides at least one of a visual alarm or an aural alarm when the magnitude of the bending moment is greater than a predetermined threshold value (paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Volanthen with the teaching of Wurzel by including an alert system that provides at least one of a visual alarm or an aural alarm when the magnitude of the bending moment is greater than a predetermined threshold value in order to alert a user of the results.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volanthen, and further in view of Wurzel, Sutton, and Egedal.
Regarding claim 14, Volanthen teaches a method of operating a measurement apparatus for determining a force of a rotary-wing aircraft (abstract, Fig. 1), the measurement apparatus comprising a processing system (paragraphs [0027][0028]) and a sensor arrangement (Fig. 1, ref 1, paragraphs [0033]-[0034]), wherein the sensor arrangement is mounted to a rotor blade (ref 1, paragraphs [0033]-[0034]), and wherein the sensor arrangement further comprises at least one optical sensor (paragraphs [0033], [0035]) and a fiber optic cable that connects the at least one optical sensor with the processing system (ref 3, paragraph [0033]), the method comprising:
in response to detecting the change of the second wavelength profile, using the processing system to determine an additional bending moment that acts on the rotor blade (paragraphs [0024]-[0025]).
Volanthen is silent regarding determining a bending moment acting on a rotor shaft, the sensor mounted to a rotor blade that is attached to the rotor shaft, and wherein the processing system determines the bending moment acting on the rotor shaft based on the signal from the at least one sensor; with an interrogator in the processing system, sending light having a first wavelength profile to the at least one optical sensor, wherein the at least one optical sensor reflects light having a second wavelength profile back to the processing system; with the processing system, detecting a change in the second wavelength profile compared to the second wavelength profile in an initial undeformed state of the rotor blade; using an arithmetic logic unit in the processing system to determine a magnitude and an azimuth angle of the bending moment acting on the rotor shaft based on the additional bending moment that acts on the rotor blade.
However, Wurzel teaches a method for measuring bending on a rotor shaft (abstract, Fig. 2) including determining a bending moment acting on a rotor shaft (paragraph [0062]), the sensor attached to the rotor shaft (ref 200, paragraph [0062]), and wherein the processing system determines the bending moment acting on the rotor shaft based on the signal from the at least one sensor (paragraph [0074], [0081]-[0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Volanthen with the teaching of Wurzel by including determining a bending moment acting on a rotor shaft, the sensor mounted to a rotor blade that is attached to the rotor shaft, and wherein the processing system determines the bending moment acting on the rotor shaft based on the signal from the at least one sensor in order to provide contactless determination of a bending moment acting on a hollow cylindrical body, paragraph [0015].
Furthermore, Sutton teaches wherein the processing system determines the bending moment acting on the rotor shaft based on the signal from the at least one sensor; with an interrogator in the processing system, sending light having a first wavelength profile to the at least one optical sensor, wherein the at least one optical sensor reflects light having a second wavelength profile back to the processing system (paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Volanthen with the teaching of Sutton by including wherein the processing system determines the bending moment acting on the rotor shaft based on the signal from the at least one sensor; with an interrogator in the processing system, sending light having a first wavelength profile to the at least one optical sensor, wherein the at least one optical sensor reflects light having a second wavelength profile back to the processing system in order to monitor the blade.
Furthermore, Egedal teaches a device for optical measurement of blades (abstract) including with the processing system, detecting a change in the second wavelength profile compared to the second wavelength profile in an initial undeformed state of the rotor blade; using an arithmetic logic unit in the processing system to determine a magnitude and an azimuth angle of the bending moment acting on the rotor shaft based on the additional bending moment that acts on the rotor blade (paragraphs [0011], [0031]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Volanthen with the teaching of Egedal by including with the processing system, detecting a change in the second wavelength profile compared to the second wavelength profile in an initial undeformed state of the rotor blade; using an arithmetic logic unit in the processing system to determine a magnitude and an azimuth angle of the bending moment acting on the rotor shaft based on the additional bending moment that acts on the rotor blade in order to monitor a structural unbalance of the blade.
Regarding claim 15, Volanthen is silent regarding using a display to display the magnitude and the azimuth angle of the bending moment; and using an alert system to provide at least one of a visual alarm or an aural alarm in response to detecting that the magnitude of the bending moment is greater than a predetermined threshold value.
However, Wurzel teaches a device for measuring bending on a rotor shaft (abstract, Fig. 2) including a display that displays the magnitude and the angle of the bending moment (paragraph [0111]), and using an alert system to provide at least one of a visual alarm or an aural alarm in response to detecting that the magnitude of the bending moment is greater than a predetermined threshold value.
Furthermore, Egedal teaches the azimuth angle of the bending moment (paragraph [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Volanthen with the teaching of Wurzel and Egedal by including using a display to display the magnitude and the azimuth angle of the bending moment; and using an alert system to provide at least one of a visual alarm or an aural alarm in response to detecting that the magnitude of the bending moment is greater than a predetermined threshold value in order to inform a user of the results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cravener (US 2023/0194312) teaches a sensor for measuring rotor blades in a rotary aircraft, and could be combined to render at least claim 1 obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kara E Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877