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 .
This action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 7/17/2024
Claims 1-9 and 11 are pending
Claim 10 is canceled
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: “authorisation” should be spelled “authorization”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “non-transient” should be changed to “non-transitory”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6 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 1 recites the limitation "the availability of another engine" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the thrust" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the two conditions B1 or B2" in line 2, “the condition B1” in line 4, and “the condition B2” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the two conditions B1 and B2" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “the availability of another engine” and "the aircraft" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
All of the dependent claims are rejected as well, as they depend on the rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durocher USPGPUB 2022/0349343 A1 (hereinafter Durocher) in view of Morvan et al. US 2011/0088383 A1 (hereinafter Morvan).
Regarding claim 1, Durocher teaches a method for monitoring an engine of an aircraft supplied with dihydrogen (Par. [0077], “system to detect, contain, and purge any hydrogen fluid leakages that may come out from an aircraft engine fuel supply system.” – hydrogen fluid is interpreted as dihydrogen), comprising a safety device comprising a safety valve that is movable between an open position in which the engine is supplied with dihydrogen and a closed position in which the engine is no longer supplied with dihydrogen (Fig. 2, Par. [0065], “control module 131 is operatively connected to one or more components and can be configured to shut down or otherwise reduce fuel flow (e.g., to stop the pump 103a and/or to close valve 103e) if a leak is detected above a threshold” – Durocher’s hydrogen leak detection/control/shutoff arrangement is interpreted as the safety device), an engine fire detection system (Par. [0070], “A temperature sensor can be employed to sense if a leak starts a fire in the vent line”; Par. [0074], “temperature sensor can be installed in air vent outlet duct to detect abnormal hydrogen leakage level or / and abnormal air temperature raised that may indicate hydrogen fire situation”), a dihydrogen leak detection system (Par. [0067], “and a leak detection system coupled to the hydrogen fuel circuit to and configured to detect a hydrogen leak from at least a portion of the hydrogen fuel circuit”), and comprising electronic circuitry adapted to implement the monitoring method (Par. [0131], “The fuel system of any preceding clause, further comprising a control module (154) configured to determine whether a leak has occurred”; Par. [0065], “control module 131 is operatively connected to one or more components”), the monitoring method comprising:
if one of conditions A and B is true, then the safety device closes the safety valve (Par. [0065], “shut down or otherwise reduce fuel flow (e.g., to stop the pump 103a and/or to close valve 103e) if a leak is detected above a threshold (e.g., if an amount of hydrogen exceeds a high threshold or if a temperature exceeds a threshold indicating hydrogen burning in the sweep flow path).”), with:
the condition A is true if an engine fire detection system detects a fire (Par. [0065], “temperature exceeds a threshold indicating hydrogen burning in the sweep flow path”),
the condition B is true if a dihydrogen leak detection system detects a dihydrogen leak (Par. [0065], “if a leak is detected above a threshold”), and
Durocher does not explicitly teach an engine damage detection system that detects engine damage;
If a locking authorization is given, the locking authorization given according to criteria linked to the availability of another engine of the aircraft; and
if condition C is true, then the safety device closes the safety valve, wherein the condition C is true if an engine damage detection system detects engine damage.
However, Morvan teaches an engine damage detection system that detects engine damage (Par. [0063], “Engine 2 also comprises an uncontained engine failure detection system that issues a specific information signal when an uncontained failure is detected using a communication line 22 as a data bus.”; Par. [0021], “at least one pump is driven by an engine that may Suffer uncontained engine failure, where said uncontained failure may throw debris into the projection area” - uncontained failure is interpreted as engine damage);
If a locking authorization is given, the locking authorization given according to criteria linked to the availability of another engine of the aircraft (Par. [0142], “Locking of output 302 is achieved when the conditions for activating the closing of the cut-out valve are satisfied and the DEFA signal from the uncontained engine failure detection system is also present”; Par. [0147], “the volume of hydraulic fluid then remaining in the tank once this level is reached being required to sustain satisfactory operation of the hydraulic circuit supplied with hydraulic pressure by the other pump in said circuit driven by another engine”; Par. [0152], “the hydraulic circuit in question, that has at least one other pump driven by at least one other engine, for instance a propulsion engine on the opposite wing, remains operational because of the fact that said other pump is operating” – authorization / locking logic is linked to whether continued operation is available through another engine-driven pump, which corresponds to criteria linked to the availability of another engine); and
if condition C is true, then the safety device closes the safety valve, wherein the condition C is true if an engine damage detection system detects engine damage (Par. [0134], “When the DEFA signal issued by uncontained engine failure detection system 21, the FADEC in the given example, switches to logical value 1… the command to close cut-out valve 311 is issued”; Par. [0086], “when the uncontained engine failure is confirmed, it is desirable to isolate pump 10 when engine 2 suffered an uncontained failure…”).
Durocher and Morvan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both relate to aircraft safety systems involving detection of hazardous conditions near aircraft engines and automatic isolation of a fluid circuit using a valve.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above hydrogen fuel shutoff system, as taught by Durocher, and incorporate an engine damage detection system and engine damage-based valve closing and locking logic for limiting consequences of line damage caused by uncontained engine failure, as taught by Morvan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve “protection for Such hydraulic systems that limits the consequences of certain lines rupturing close to the hydraulic pressure pumps in cases of uncontained engine failure”, as suggested by Morvan (Par. [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Durocher and Morvan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Durocher further teaches wherein the condition B is true if one of the two conditions B1 or B2 is true (Par. [0065], “if a leak is detected above a threshold (e.g., if an amount of hydrogen exceeds a high threshold or if a temperature exceeds a threshold indicating hydrogen burning in the sweep flow path).”), with:
- the condition B2 is true if at least one of the following conditions is met: a dihydrogen concentration greater than a predetermined threshold is detected by the dihydrogen leak detection system; or a break of a dihydrogen supply line is detected by the dihydrogen leak detection system; or a pressure in the engine greater than a predetermined pressure is detected by the dihydrogen leak detection system; or a temperature variation greater than a predetermined temperature variation is detected by the dihydrogen leak detection system (Par. [0065], “if a leak is detected above a threshold (e.g., if an amount of hydrogen exceeds a high threshold or if a temperature exceeds a threshold indicating hydrogen burning in the sweep flow path).”).
Durocher does not explicitly teach the condition B1 is true if a dihydrogen pressure less than a predetermined threshold is detected by the dihydrogen leak detection system.
However, Morvan teaches the condition B1 is true if a pressure less than a predetermined threshold is detected by the leak detection system (Par. [0027] – [0029], “receives from the pressure sensors in each line … the distinctive measured pressure signal; compares each distinctive measured pressure signal to a threshold predefined for each line; issues an FVCF cut-out valve close command signal when at least one of the distinctive measured pressure signals is below the threshold to which it is compared”; Par. [0120], “When a significant leak occurs on HP discharge line 33, the pressure in said HP discharge line drops and values PHP1 and PHP2 measured by discharge pressure sensors 322a and 322b drop below the SHP threshold value causing the closing of cut-out valve 311 because the closing logic is active in view of the other activation conditions”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Durocher and Morvan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Durocher and Morvan further teaches or suggests wherein the condition B is true if the two conditions B1 and B2 are true.
As discussed above regarding claim 3, Morvan teaches condition B1, and Durocher teaches condition B2. Morvan further teaches requiring a pressure-drop condition to be consolidated with another leak-related confirmation condition before valve closure (Par. [0126], “Consolidating the measurement of the pressure drop in suction line 31 with the detection of low level in the tank prevents triggering an FVCF close cut-out valve 311 command because of normal pressure variations in the hydraulic circuit whereas in the case of a significant leak, the pressure drop in the suction line and the detection of the low level occur quickly after the start of the leak.”).
Therefore, in the combined system, it would have been obvious to make condition B true if the two conditions B1 and B2 are true in order to improve reliability of leak detection and reduce false-positive closure of the safety valve due to normal pressure variations.
Regarding claim 6, Durocher teaches a safety device of an engine supplied with dihydrogen (Par. [0077], “system to detect, contain, and purge any hydrogen fluid leakages that may come out from an aircraft engine fuel supply system.”; Par. [0065], “control module 131 is operatively connected to one or more components and can be configured to shut down or otherwise reduce fuel flow (e.g., to stop the pump 103a and/or to close valve 103e) if a leak is detected above a threshold” – hydrogen fluid is interpreted as dihydrogen, and Durocher’s hydrogen leak detection/control/shutoff arrangement is interpreted as the safety device), wherein the safety device comprises:
a safety valve that is movable between an open position in which the engine is supplied with dihydrogen and a closed position in which the engine is no longer supplied with dihydrogen (Fig. 2, Par. [0065], “control module 131 is operatively connected to one or more components and can be configured to shut down or otherwise reduce fuel flow (e.g., to stop the pump 103a and/or to close valve 103e) if a leak is detected above a threshold”);
an engine fire detection system (Par. [0070], “A temperature sensor can be employed to sense if a leak starts a fire in the vent line”; Par. [0074], “temperature sensor can be installed in air vent outlet duct to detect abnormal hydrogen leakage level or / and abnormal air temperature raised that may indicate hydrogen fire situation”);
a dihydrogen leak detection system (Par. [0067], “and a leak detection system coupled to the hydrogen fuel circuit to and configured to detect a hydrogen leak from at least a portion of the hydrogen fuel circuit”); and
electronic circuitry adapted to implement a monitoring method (Par. [0131], “The fuel system of any preceding clause, further comprising a control module (154) configured to determine whether a leak has occurred”; Par. [0065], “control module 131 is operatively connected to one or more components”) in which, if one of conditions A or B is true, then the safety device closes the safety valve (Par. [0065], “shut down or otherwise reduce fuel flow (e.g., to stop the pump 103a and/or to close valve 103e) if a leak is detected above a threshold (e.g., if an amount of hydrogen exceeds a high threshold or if a temperature exceeds a threshold indicating hydrogen burning in the sweep flow path).”), with:
the condition A is true if an engine fire detection system detects a fire (Par. [0065], “temperature exceeds a threshold indicating hydrogen burning in the sweep flow path”), and
the condition B is true if a dihydrogen leak detection system detects a dihydrogen leak (Par. [0065], “if a leak is detected above a threshold”).
Durocher does not explicitly teach an engine damage detection system;
if a locking authorization is given, the locking authorization being given according to criteria linked to the availability of another engine of the aircraft; and
if condition C is true, then the safety device closes the safety valve, wherein the condition C is true if an engine damage detection system detects engine damage.
However, Morvan teaches an engine damage detection system (Par. [0063], “Engine 2 also comprises an uncontained engine failure detection system that issues a specific information signal when an uncontained failure is detected using a communication line 22 as a data bus.”; Par. [0021], “at least one pump is driven by an engine that may Suffer uncontained engine failure, where said uncontained failure may throw debris into the projection area” - uncontained failure is interpreted as engine damage);
if a locking authorization is given, the locking authorization being given according to criteria linked to the availability of another engine of the aircraft (Par. [0142], “Locking of output 302 is achieved when the conditions for activating the closing of the cut-out valve are satisfied and the DEFA signal from the uncontained engine failure detection system is also present”; Par. [0147], “the volume of hydraulic fluid then remaining in the tank once this level is reached being required to sustain satisfactory operation of the hydraulic circuit supplied with hydraulic pressure by the other pump in said circuit driven by another engine”; Par. [0152], “the hydraulic circuit in question, that has at least one other pump driven by at least one other engine, for instance a propulsion engine on the opposite wing, remains operational because of the fact that said other pump is operating” – authorization / locking logic is linked to whether continued operation is available through another engine-driven pump, which corresponds to criteria linked to the availability of another engine); and
if condition C is true, then the safety device closes the safety valve, wherein the condition C is true if an engine damage detection system detects engine damage (Par. [0134], “When the DEFA signal issued by uncontained engine failure detection system 21, the FADEC in the given example, switches to logical value 1… the command to close cut-out valve 311 is issued”; Par. [0086], “when the uncontained engine failure is confirmed, it is desirable to isolate pump 10 when engine 2 suffered an uncontained failure…”).
Durocher and Morvan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both relate to aircraft safety systems involving detection of hazardous conditions near aircraft engines and automatic isolation of a fluid circuit using a valve.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above hydrogen fuel shutoff system, as taught by Durocher, and incorporate an engine damage detection system and engine damage-based valve closing and locking logic for limiting consequences of line damage caused by uncontained engine failure, as taught by Morvan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve “protection for Such hydraulic systems that limits the consequences of certain lines rupturing close to the hydraulic pressure pumps in cases of uncontained engine failure”, as suggested by Morvan (Par. [0003]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Durocher and Morvan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Durocher teaches the dihydrogen leak detection system as discussed above (Par. [0067], “and a leak detection system coupled to the hydrogen fuel circuit to and configured to detect a hydrogen leak from at least a portion of the hydrogen fuel circuit”; Par. [0074], “hydrogen sensor and temperature sensor can be installed in air vent outlet duct to detect abnormal hydrogen leakage level or/and abnormal air temperature raised that may indicate hydrogen fire situation”).
Durocher does not explicitly teach wherein the dihydrogen leak detection system comprises an element chosen from among a line break detector, a dihydrogen pressure detector, a detector of pressure in the engine, and/or a temperature variation detector.
However, Morvan teaches a pressure detector (Par. [0027] – [0029], “receives from the pressure sensors in each line, suction lines, discharge lines and drain lines, the distinctive measured pressure signal; compares each distinctive measured pressure signal to a threshold predefined for each line; issues an FVCF cut-out valve close command signal when at least one of the distinctive measured pressure signals is below the threshold to which it is compared.”; Par. [0120], “When a significant leak occurs on HP discharge line 33, the pressure in said HP discharge line drops and values PHP1 and PHP2 measured by discharge pressure sensors 322a and 322b drop below the SHP threshold value causing the closing of cut-out valve 311 because the closing logic is active in view of the other activation conditions”).
Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill int eh art to modify Durocher’s dihydrogen leak detection system to include Morvan’s pressure detector, such that the dihydrogen leak detection system comprises a dihydrogen pressure detector, in order to detect leaks by pressure drop and close the safety valve before further hazardous hydrogen release occurs.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Durocher and Morvan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Durocher further teaches the aircraft (Par. [0001], “This disclosure relates to fuel systems, e.g., for aircraft”) comprising a safety device according to claim 6 (see reasons above with respect to claim 6).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durocher USPGPUB 2022/0349343 A1 (hereinafter Durocher) in view of Morvan et al. US 2011/0088383 A1 (hereinafter Morvan), and further in view of Jackson et al. US 4,662,171 A (hereinafter Jackson).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Durocher and Morvan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Morvan further teaches wherein the locking authorization corresponds to a locking authorization given (Par. [0142] – [0143], “Locking of output 302 is achieved when the conditions for activating the closing of the cut-out valve are satisfied and the DEFA signal from the uncontained engine failure detection system is also present. Locking of output 302 is achieved when the conditions for activating the closing of the cut-out valve are satisfied and the DEF A signal from the uncontained engine failure detection system is also present”) if one of the conditions A, B, and C has not already been detected true for the other engine of the aircraft (Par. [0152], “the hydraulic circuit in question, that has at least one other pump driven by at least one other engine, for instance a propulsion engine on the opposite wing, remains operational because of the fact that said other pump is operating. The engine that suffered the uncontained failure is identified by its specific pressure signals … the signal from uncontained engine failure detection system determines unambiguously the failing engine on which the cut-out valve must be closed” – locking authorization is applied to the failing engine while maintaining operation through the other engine-driven pump. Conditions A and B are taught by Durocher as outlined above).
Durocher and Morvan do not explicitly teach locking authorization given if the thrust of the other engine is available.
However, Jackson teaches determining whether the thrust of the other engine is available (Col. 3, lines 49-57, “N1 signals contain information about the magnitude of the thrust produced by their respective engines. It is to be understood that use of N1 signals is for illustration purposes only since other types of signals denoting engine thrust are produced by other types of engines. The important point to note is that the A/T system 25 continuously receives a signal from each engine that denotes the thrust produced by the engine”; Col. 6, lines 9-13, “the RPM produced by ENGINE NO. 1 is greater than 50% of its maximum value (which indicates that ENGINE NO. 1 is working) … the thrust produced by ENGINE NO. 2 is less than 40% of its maximum value (which indicates that ENGINE NO. 2 has failed)”; Col. 6, lines 46-49, “The high state of the FORWARD DRIVE VOLTAGE TO ENGINE NO. 1 causes the thrust of the first engine 11 to increase to compensate for the loss of thrust from the second engine 13” – Thus, Jackson teaches determining whether another engine is producing available thrust by monitoring thrust/RPM signals and identifying whether the other engine is working.).
Durocher, Morvan, and Jackson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to aircraft safety systems that respond to abnormal engine conditions while preserving aircraft operability.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above authorization logic, as taught by Durocher and Morvan, and incorporate thrust-availability determination as an additional criterion before authorizing the valve-closing lock, as taught by Jackson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to preserve aircraft operability by increasing thrust to a working engine when thrust is lost from another engine, as suggested by Jackson (Col. 1, lines 36-39).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durocher USPGPUB 2022/0349343 A1 (hereinafter Durocher) in view of Morvan et al. US 2011/0088383 A1 (hereinafter Morvan), and further in view of Dammann US 2002/0125414 A1 (hereinafter Dammann).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Durocher and Morvan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Durocher further teaches the condition A2 is true if the fire detection system detects a fire (Par. [0070], “A temperature sensor can be employed to sense if a leak starts a fire in the vent line”; Par. [0074], “temperature sensor can be installed in air vent outlet duct to detect abnormal hydrogen leakage level or / and abnormal air temperature raised that may indicate hydrogen fire situation”; Par. [0065], “temperature exceeds a threshold indicating hydrogen burning in the sweep flow path”).
Morvan further teaches or suggests wherein the condition A is true if two conditions A1 and A2 are true, because Morvan teaches requiring one detected condition to be consolidated with another confirmation condition before valve closure (Par. [0126], “Consolidating the measurement of the pressure drop in suction line 31 with the detection of low level in the tank prevents triggering an FVCF close cut-out valve 311 command because of normal pressure variations in the hydraulic circuit whereas in the case of a significant leak, the pressure drop in the suction line and the detection of the low level occur quickly after the start of the leak.”).
Durocher and Morvan do not explicitly teach wherein
- the condition A1 is true if a fault of a fire detection loop is detected by the fire detection system
However, Dammann teaches wherein
- the condition A1 is true if a fault of a fire detection loop is detected by the fire detection system (Par. [0027], “the fiber optic cable of the sensor 5 is laid out as a loop, whereby both of its ends are connected through respective interfaces 2 to the optical receiver 7 and the laser emitter 8.”; Par. [0034], “when the respective sensor is known to be operating without a fault or defect, and is also not experiencing an overheating condition, the reflection signal shown in Fig. 2B can be used by the computer as a baseline nominal calibration signal or comparison signal, to which later reflection signals will be compared to evaluate whether an overheating condition or a fault exists.”; Par. [0017], “any faulty interruption of the fiber optic cable can be detected, due to the change of the end reflection signal”)
Durocher, Morvan, and Dammann are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to aircraft safety systems that detect hazardous conditions and respond to reduce damage.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above fire detection system with confirmation logic, as taught by Durocher and Morvan, and incorporate fire detection loop fault detection, as taught by Dammann.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve “better diagnosis of problems, and allows temporary, short-duration and thus non-critical overheating conditions to be indicated or the like, without triggering a drastic corrective measure such as shutting down the affected system or component”, as suggested by Dammann (Par. [0016]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Durocher and Morvan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Durocher teaches wherein the fire detection system comprises a fire detector (Par. [0070], “A temperature sensor can be employed to sense if a leak starts a fire in the vent line”; Par. [0074], “temperature sensor can be installed in air vent outlet duct to detect abnormal hydrogen leakage level or / and abnormal air temperature raised that may indicate hydrogen fire situation”; Par. [0065], “temperature exceeds a threshold indicating hydrogen burning in the sweep flow path”).
Durocher and Morvan do not explicitly teach wherein the fire detection system comprises a fire detection loop.
However, Dammann teaches wherein the fire detection system comprises a fire detection loop (Par. [0027], “the fiber optic cable of the sensor 5 is laid out as a loop, whereby both of its ends are connected through respective interfaces 2 to the optical receiver 7 and the laser emitter 8.”; Par. [0034], “when the respective sensor is known to be operating without a fault or defect, and is also not experiencing an overheating condition, the reflection signal shown in Fig. 2B can be used by the computer as a baseline nominal calibration signal or comparison signal, to which later reflection signals will be compared to evaluate whether an overheating condition or a fault exists.”; Par. [0017], “any faulty interruption of the fiber optic cable can be detected, due to the change of the end reflection signal”).
Durocher, Morvan, and Dammann are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to aircraft safety systems that detect hazardous conditions and respond to reduce damage.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above fire detection system, as taught by Durocher and Morvan, and incorporate a fire detection loop, as taught by Dammann.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve “better diagnosis of problems, and allows temporary, short-duration and thus non-critical overheating conditions to be indicated or the like, without triggering a drastic corrective measure such as shutting down the affected system or component”, as suggested by Dammann (Par. [0016]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durocher USPGPUB 2022/0349343 A1 (hereinafter Durocher) in view of Morvan et al. US 2011/0088383 A1 (hereinafter Morvan), and further in view of Wang et al. US 2023/0211888 A1 (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Durocher and Morvan teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Durocher and Morvan teach the method for monitoring according to claim 1 (see reasons above with respect to claim 1).
Durocher and Morvan do not explicitly teach a non-transient storage medium on which is stored a computer program comprising program code instructions for executing, when said instructions are read from said non-transient storage medium and executed by a processor.
However, Wang teaches a non-transient storage medium on which is stored a computer program comprising program code instructions for executing, when said instructions are read from said non-transient storage medium and executed by a processor (Par. [0091] – [0092], “the controller 240 can include one or more computing device(s) 332. The computing device(s) 332 can include one or more processor(s) 332A and one or more memory device(s) 332B. The one or more processor(s) 332A can include any suitable processing device, such as a microprocessor, microcontroller, integrated circuit, logic device, and/or other suitable processing device. The one or more memory device(s) 332B can include one or more computer-readable media, including, but not limited to, non-transitory computer-readable media, RAM, ROM, hard drives, flash drives, and/or other memory devices ... In some embodiments, the instructions 332C can be executed by the one or more processor(s) 332A to cause the one or more processor(s) 332A to perform operations, such as any of the operations and functions for which the controller 240 and/or the computing device(s) 332 are configured, the operations for operating a propulsion system (e.g., method 600), as described herein, and/or any other operations or functions of the one or more computing device(s) 332”).
Durocher, Morvan, and Wang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to aircraft propulsion safety and control systems that detect hazardous conditions and respond to reduce damage.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above monitoring method, as taught by Durocher and Morvan, and incorporate computer-readable program code instructions stored on a non-transitory storage medium and executed by a processor, as taught by Wang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve “inherent flexibility of computer-based systems allows for a great variety of possible configurations, combinations, and divisions of tasks and functionality between and among components”, as suggested by Wang (Par. [0094]).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Behbahani-Pour [US 2017/0283083 A1] teaches a fire extinguishing system may include a number of air-separation modules that may supply an inert gas to a supply network and a programmable controller that may be operatively connected with the inert gas supply network to control how the inert gas outputs may be distributed in response to a fire threat signal.
Sibbach et al. [US 2022/0307428 A1] teaches a fuel leak detection system including a sensor and controller communicatively coupled to the sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER XU whose telephone number is (571)272-0792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/PETER XU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights