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 .
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.
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) 1-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourjac et al. (US 7523889 B2) in view of Aubert et al. (US 10710732 B2) and further in view of Nordin et al. (US 20130043342 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bourjac teaches an aircraft, comprising: a fuselage including a hub (Fig. 1 element 15) to rotate relative to the fuselage (“Such aerodynamic surfaces correspond in particular to the blades of a rotorcraft (main rotor and antitorque rotor) or indeed the wings of an airplane” Col. 1 lines 8-10); an engine to drive the hub to rotate; a rotor blade coupled with the hub and having a plurality of zones disposed spanwise along the rotor blade (Fig. 5 elements 17); a plurality of ice detectors positioned along the rotor blade, each of the plurality of zones having at least one of the plurality of ice detectors (Fig. 5 elements 114); a plurality of heaters disposed along the rotor blade, the plurality of heaters extending an entire length of the rotor blade and at least one of aligned with, directly leading, or directly trailing the plurality of ice detectors (Shown in Fig. 5 to have heater elements 54 directly trailing detectors 114 in the spanwise direction), wherein the plurality of heaters configured to selectively provide heat to any of the plurality of zones (Fig. 5 elements 54), each of the plurality of zones having at least one of the plurality of heaters (Shown in Fig. 5); and a controller configured to activate one or more of the plurality of heaters to provide targeted heating to one or more of the plurality of zones responsive to feedback obtained from the plurality of ice detectors without providing heat to another one or more of the plurality of zones (“by implementing a microcontroller, it is possible to achieve better integration of the peripheral elements (temperature sensors, ice sensors, and heater elements). Each of these peripheral elements is identifiable by its predefined connection to one of the pins of the microcontroller. The anti-icing/de-icing modules are completely independent” Col. 4 lines 1-6).
Bourjac fails to explicitly teach the one or more of the plurality of zones having a first value of length spanwise that is greater than a second value of length spanwise of another one of the plurality of zones.
However, Aubert teaches the one or more of the plurality of zones having a first value of length spanwise that is greater than a second value of length spanwise of another one of the plurality of zones (Fig. 4b shows the length difference of the spanwise zones).
Bourjac and Aubert are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of Aircraft deicing systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deicing zones of Bourjac to have the longer spanwise length of the inboard zone as disclosed by Aubert. Doing so would allow for the ice detectors to be more focused on the outboard as the performance of the rotor blade is less sensitive to icing on the inboard length.
Bourjac and Aubert fail to explicitly teach a plurality of ice detectors positioned along the rotor blade on an exterior surface of the rotor blade, the plurality of ice detectors conformed to the exterior surface of the rotor blade.
However, Nordin teaches a plurality of ice detectors positioned along the rotor blade on an exterior surface of the rotor blade, the plurality of ice detectors conformed to the exterior surface of the rotor blade (Fig. 1 elements 9 are ice detectors conformed to the outer surface 5 of the airfoil structure).
Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft airfoil structure de-icing systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ice detectors of Bourjac in view of Aubert to be conformed to the exterior surface as disclosed by Nordin. Doing so would increase the accuracy and speed of the ice detectors as the measurements would be taken on the exterior surface, where the icing would occur.
Regarding Claim 2, Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Bourjac further discloses activating one or more of the plurality of heaters comprises activating one or more of the plurality of heaters corresponding to one or more of the plurality of zones at which an icing condition is detected (“by implementing a microcontroller, it is possible to achieve better integration of the peripheral elements (temperature sensors, ice sensors, and heater elements). Each of these peripheral elements is identifiable by its predefined connection to one of the pins of the microcontroller. The anti-icing/de-icing modules are completely independent” Col. 4 lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 3, Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin teach the limitations set forth in Claim 2.
Bourjac further discloses activating the one or more of the plurality of heaters comprises maintaining one or more others of the plurality of heaters in a de-activated state corresponding to one or more others of the plurality of zones at which the icing condition is not detected (“the heater elements of said modules are powered electrically via a common electrical power supply means, each anti-icing/de-icing module acting against icing in its own zone independently of the other module(s)” Col. 1 lines 56-60).
Regarding Claim 4, Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Aubert further discloses values of the length spanwise of the plurality of zones decreases along a length of the rotor blade from a first end of the rotor blade at the hub to a second end at a tip of the rotor blade (Shown in Fig. 4B).
Regarding Claim 6, Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Bourjac further discloses the plurality of ice detectors are positioned on a leading edge of the rotor blade (“Because the heater surface 5 is flexible, it can be applied to the leading edge of a blade and match its shape” Col. 5 lines 61-62).
Regarding Claim 7, Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Aubert further discloses the plurality of zones have non-uniform lengths spanwise, wherein the first value of the length spanwise of a first zone proximate to the hub about which the rotor blade is configured to rotate is larger than the second value of the length spanwise of a second zone proximate to a tip of the rotor blade (Shown in Fig. 4B).
Regarding Claim 8, Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Bourjac further discloses activating the one or more of the plurality of heaters comprises delaying an activation time until an amount of ice has built on the rotor blade at the one or more of the plurality of zones, and activating the one or more of the plurality of heaters responsive to the amount of ice building up on the rotor blade at the one or more of the plurality of zones (“The fourth regulator unit 34 comprising a microcontroller having a CAN interface connected to the bus 10 receives a fourth measurement signal from a temperature sensor 94 and a fourth monitoring signal from an ice sensor 114 in order to control the heater element 54” Col. 4 lines 40-44).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourjac et al. (US 7523889 B2), in view of Aubert et al. (US 10710732 B2), in view of Nordin et al. (US 20130043342 A1)and further in view of Mullen et al. (US 11280685 B2).
Regarding Claim 5, Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin fail to explicitly teach the plurality of ice detectors are configured to measure icing conditions at surfaces of the rotor blade at the plurality of zones by measuring resistance values at the rotor blade.
However, Mullen teaches the plurality of ice detectors are configured to measure icing conditions at surfaces of the rotor blade at the plurality of zones by measuring resistance values at the rotor blade (“assembly includes a resistance temperature detector for a component, one or more leads electrically connected to the resistance temperature detector, and a controller electrically connected to the resistance temperature detector through the one or more leads. The resistance temperature detector is configured to change resistance as the component temperature changes” Col. 6 lines 45-51).
Bourjac, Aubert, Nordin and Mullen are considered analogous to the claimed art as they are in the same field of ice detection systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detectors of Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin to be resistance measuring detectors as disclosed by Mullen. Doing so would provide an accurate measurement of the icing on the rotor blade by comparing the resistance values to predetermined nominal values.
Claim(s) 9-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourjac et al. (US 7523889 B2) in view of Aubert et al. (US 10710732 B2) and further in view of Nordin et al. (US 20130043342 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Bourjac teaches a method of de-icing an aircraft having a rotor blade including a plurality of zones (Fig. 5 elements 17) defined along a length of the rotor blade, a plurality of heaters corresponding to the plurality of zones (Fig. 5 elements 54), and a plurality of ice detectors corresponding to the plurality of zones (Fig. 5 elements 114), the method comprising: detecting an icing condition at a first zone of the plurality of zones based on feedback from the plurality of ice detectors; and activating a corresponding one of the plurality of heaters to provide heat to the rotor blade at the first zone of the plurality of zones at which the icing condition is detected (“The fourth regulator unit 34 comprising a microcontroller having a CAN interface connected to the bus 10 receives a fourth measurement signal from a temperature sensor 94 and a fourth monitoring signal from an ice sensor 114 in order to control the heater element 54” Col. 4 lines 40-44) the plurality of heaters extending an entire length of the rotor blade and at least one of aligned with, directly leading, or directly trailing the plurality of ice detectors (Shown in Fig. 5 to have heater elements 54 directly trailing detectors 114 in the spanwise direction).
Bourjac fails to explicitly teach one or more of the plurality of zones having a first value of length spanwise that is greater than a second value of the length spanwise of another one of the plurality of zones.
However, Aubert teaches one or more of the plurality of zones having a first value of length spanwise that is greater than a second value of the length spanwise of another one of the plurality of zones (Fig. 4b shows the length difference of the spanwise zones).
Bourjac and Aubert are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of Aircraft deicing systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deicing zones of Bourjac to have the longer spanwise length of the inboard zone as disclosed by Aubert. Doing so would allow for the ice detectors to be more focused on the outboard as the performance of the rotor blade is less sensitive to icing on the inboard length.
Bourjac and Aubert fail to explicitly teach a plurality of ice detectors conformed on exterior surfaces.
However, Nordin teaches a plurality of ice detectors conformed on exterior surfaces (Fig. 1 elements 9 are ice detectors conformed to the outer surface 5 of the airfoil structure).
Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft airfoil structure de-icing systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ice detectors of Bourjac in view of Aubert to be conformed to the exterior surface as disclosed by Nordin. Doing so would increase the accuracy and speed of the ice detectors as the measurements would be taken on the exterior surface, where the icing would occur.
Regarding Claim 10, Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Bourjac further discloses detecting, at a second of the plurality of zones, that an icing condition has not occurred based on feedback from the plurality of ice detectors; and maintaining a corresponding one of the plurality of heaters for the second of the plurality of zones in a de-activated state while activating the corresponding one of the plurality of heaters to provide heat to the first zone (“The fourth regulator unit 34 comprising a microcontroller having a CAN interface connected to the bus 10 receives a fourth measurement signal from a temperature sensor 94 and a fourth monitoring signal from an ice sensor 114 in order to control the heater element 54” Col. 4 lines 40-44).
Regarding Claim 11, Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Bourjac further discloses activating the corresponding one of the plurality of heaters to provide heat to the rotor blade at the first of the plurality of zones provides targeted localized heating to the first of the plurality of zones at which the icing condition is detected based on localized sensor data from a corresponding one of the plurality of ice detectors at the first of the plurality of zones (“The fourth regulator unit 34 comprising a microcontroller having a CAN interface connected to the bus 10 receives a fourth measurement signal from a temperature sensor 94 and a fourth monitoring signal from an ice sensor 114 in order to control the heater element 54” Col. 4 lines 40-44).
Regarding Claim 12, Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Bourjac further discloses the plurality of zones are defined discretely along a length of the rotor blade from a first end of the rotor blade at a hub (Fig. 1 element 15) about which the rotor blade is configured to rotate to a second end at a tip of the rotor blade (Shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 14, Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Bourjac further discloses the plurality of ice detectors are positioned on a leading edge of the rotor blade (“Because the heater surface 5 is flexible, it can be applied to the leading edge of a blade and match its shape” Col. 5 lines 61-62).
Regarding Claim 15, Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Aubert further discloses the plurality of zones have non-uniform lengths spanwise, wherein the first value of the length spanwise of the first zone proximate to a hub about which the rotor blade is configured to rotate is larger than the second value of the length spanwise of a second zone proximate to a tip of the rotor blade (Shown in Fig. 4B).
Regarding Claim 16, Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin teach the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Bourjac further discloses activating the one or more of the plurality of heaters comprises delaying an activation time until an amount of ice has built on the rotor blade at the one or more of the plurality of zones, and activating the one or more of the plurality of heaters responsive to the amount of ice building up on the rotor blade at the one or more of the plurality of zones (“The fourth regulator unit 34 comprising a microcontroller having a CAN interface connected to the bus 10 receives a fourth measurement signal from a temperature sensor 94 and a fourth monitoring signal from an ice sensor 114 in order to control the heater element 54” Col. 4 lines 40-44).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourjac et al. (US 7523889 B2), in view of Aubert et al. (US 10710732 B2), in view of Nordin et al. (US 20130043342 A1) and further in view of Mullen et al. (US 11280685 B2).
Regarding Claim 13, Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin teach teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 9.
Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin fail to explicitly teach the plurality of ice detectors are configured to measure icing conditions at surfaces of the rotor blade at the plurality of zones by measuring resistance values at the rotor blade.
However, Mullen teaches the plurality of ice detectors are configured to measure icing conditions at surfaces of the rotor blade at the plurality of zones by measuring resistance values at the rotor blade (“assembly includes a resistance temperature detector for a component, one or more leads electrically connected to the resistance temperature detector, and a controller electrically connected to the resistance temperature detector through the one or more leads. The resistance temperature detector is configured to change resistance as the component temperature changes” Col. 6 lines 45-51).
Bourjac, Aubert, Nordin and Mullen are considered analogous to the claimed art as they are in the same field of ice detection systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detectors of Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin to be resistance measuring detectors as disclosed by Mullen. Doing so would provide an accurate measurement of the icing on the rotor blade by comparing the resistance values to predetermined nominal values.
Claim(s) 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourjac et al. (US 7523889 B2) in view of Aubert et al. (US 10710732 B2) and further in view of Nordin et al. (US 20130043342 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Bourjac teaches a de-ice system for an aircraft having a rotor blade, the de-ice system (Fig. 5) comprising: a plurality of ice detectors to be locally disposed along the rotor blade at a plurality of zones (Fig. 5 elements 17) defined along the rotor blade; a plurality of heaters (Fig. 5 elements 54) to be disposed along the rotor blade at the plurality of zones, the plurality of heaters extending an entire length of the rotor blade and at least one of aligned with, directly leading, or directly trailing the plurality of ice detectors (Shown in Fig. 5 to have heater elements 54 directly trailing detectors 114 in the spanwise direction), wherein the plurality of heaters are independently operable to selectively provide heating to the rotor blade at the plurality of zones; and a controller (Fig. 5 element 24) configured to operate the plurality of heaters independently of each other based on sensor data obtained from the plurality of ice detectors to provide targeted heating to zones of the rotor blade at which ice conditions are detected (“by implementing a microcontroller, it is possible to achieve better integration of the peripheral elements (temperature sensors, ice sensors, and heater elements). Each of these peripheral elements is identifiable by its predefined connection to one of the pins of the microcontroller. The anti-icing/de-icing modules are completely independent” Col. 4 lines 1-6).
Bourjac fails to explicitly teach the one or more of the plurality of zones having a first value of length spanwise that is greater than a second value of the length spanwise of another one of the plurality of zones.
However, Aubert teaches the one or more of the plurality of zones having a first value of length spanwise that is greater than a second value of the length spanwise of another one of the plurality of zones (Fig. 4b shows the length difference of the spanwise zones).
Bourjac and Aubert are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft deicing systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deicing zones of Bourjac to have the longer spanwise length of the inboard zone as disclosed by Aubert. Doing so would allow for the ice detectors to be more focused on the outboard as the performance of the rotor blade is less sensitive to icing on the inboard length.
Bourjac and Aubert fail to explicitly teach ice detectors to be locally disposed along and conformed to an exterior surface of the rotor blade.
However, Nordin teaches ice detectors to be locally disposed along and conformed to an exterior surface of the rotor blade (Fig. 1 elements 9 are ice detectors conformed to the outer surface 5 of the airfoil structure).
Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft airfoil structure de-icing systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ice detectors of Bourjac in view of Aubert to be conformed to the exterior surface as disclosed by Nordin. Doing so would increase the accuracy and speed of the ice detectors as the measurements would be taken on the exterior surface, where the icing would occur.
Regarding Claim 18, Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin teach the limitations set forth in Claim 17.
Aubert further discloses the plurality of zones have non-uniform lengths spanwise, wherein the first value of the length spanwise of a first zone proximate to a hub of the rotor blade is larger than the second value of the length spanwise of a second zone proximate to a tip of the rotor blade (Shown in Fig. 4B).
Regarding Claim 20, Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin teach the limitations set forth in Claim 17.
Bourjac further discloses the plurality of zones are defined discretely along a length of the rotor blade from a first end of the rotor blade at a hub about which the rotor blade is configured to rotate to a second end at a tip of the rotor blade (Fig. 1 element 15).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourjac et al. (US 7523889 B2), in view of Aubert et al. (US 10710732 B2), in view of Nordin et al. (US 20130043342 A1) and further in view of Al-Khalil (US 20120091276 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin teach the limitations set forth in Claim 17.
Bourjac, Aubert and Nordin fail to explicitly teach the controller is configured to delay activation of the plurality of heaters to provide targeted heating to the zones of the rotor blade at which the ice conditions are detected once a predetermined thickness of ice has formed on the rotor blade.
However, Al-Khalil teaches the controller (Fig. 5A element 508) is configured to delay activation of the plurality of heaters to provide targeted heating to the zones of the rotor blade at which the ice conditions are detected once a predetermined thickness of ice has formed on the rotor blade (“for a power-limited application a deicing system may be used to shed ice only when the ice accumulation reaches a predetermined distributed thickness that has been shown to degrade the performance of the airfoil to an unacceptable extent” Par. [0004] lines 13-17).
Bourjac, Aubert, Nordin and Al-Khalil are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft deicing systems. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deicing system to control the heating elements based on an ice thickness measurement. Doing so would allow for the heating elements to only be activated when the icing reaches a performance based threshold. Activation of the heating system when the threshold is reached would reduce the overall energy consumption of the deicing system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes that Applicant’s references within the arguments are to Figure 2 of Bourjac while the rejections have relied on Figure 5. See the rejection above regarding the examiner’s response to the amendments. Applicant states that the icing detectors of Nordin are not conformed to the exterior surface of the blade. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the icing detectors are on the outer skin and conformed to the aerodynamic shape. This would also be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as having the icing detectors conform to the aerodynamic shape of the blade would reduce the drag of the structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights