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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on March 2, 2016. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that loading at structural load paths of an aircraft propulsion system will vary throughout a range of different operating conditions (Applicant’s Response, pg. 7), the examiner agrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument that measurement of the related loading values will also change during operation (Applicant’s Response, pg. 7), the examiner agrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument that values of the measured loading which may be used to determine the zero-load value may be different than values of the measured loading which may be used to identify a structural load path failure (Applicant’s Response, pgs. 7-8), the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the claim only recites a single measured loading. The measured loading of the nacelle is the same measured loading being used to set the zero-load value.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the same measured loading values are used both to determine the zero-load value and to identify a structural load path failure is not required by the claims (Applicant’s Response, pg. 8), the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the claim only recites a single measured loading. The claim is interpreted to use the same leading value to determine the zero-load value and to identify a structural load path failure as there is only one loading value recited in the claim. It is additionally noted that using the same measured loading value is not enabled in the specification.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the claims 1-20 are eligible under 35 US.C. 101 (Applicant’s Response, pg. 8), the examiner agrees. The limitation “in response to identifying the measured loading is less than the zero-load value, identify a structural load path failure for the structural load path position” in combination with “the load cell is configured to measure a loading of the nacelle at a structural load path position of the nacelle” is considered a practical application.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Shetzer does not disclose determining a “zero-load value” (Applicant’s Response, pg. 20), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Shetzer discloses an expected large load value when the latch assembly is closed prior to take off. Paragraph 0048 of the disclosure states that the zero-load value is determined during a low-power condition of the propulsion system and as the large load value is used before take-off this value determined during a low-power condition.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Shetzer does not disclose determining any reference value using measured loading (Applicant’s Response, pg. 20), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Shetzer discloses a large load value for the latch assembly when it is closed. The load on the pin must have first been measured using the strain gauge to determine what the expected large load is. If the load was not initially measured to determine the expected large load, there would be no value for comparing the current load value to.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Shetzer does not disclose comparing measured loading to a zero-load value (Applicant’s Response, pg. 20), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Shetzer discloses determining that the cowl doors are properly closed by monitoring the transmitted load signal. By determining that the cowl doors are properly closed using the load signal, the load signal would have to be compared to the expected large load value.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Shetzer does not disclose identifying a structural load path failure based on the comparison (Applicant’s Response, pg. 21), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Shetzer discloses determining that the cowl doors are properly closed by monitoring the transmitted load signal. By determining that the cowl doors are properly closed using the load signal, the load signal would have to be compared to the expected large load value. If the load signal is less than the expected large load value, it is determined that the cowl doors have been tampered with or are open.
Drawings
The drawings were received on March 2, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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 9-10, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 9, lines 3-4, and claim 14, lines 1-2, the limitation “determin[ing] the zero-load value for the structural load path position using the measured loading” in combination with “compar[ing] the measured loading [of the load cell] to a zero-load value for the structural load path position” from claim 1, lines 13-14, and claim 11, lines 8-9, respectively, renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear how the zero-loading would be different than the measured loading. Comparing the zero-load value, which is based on the measured loading, with the measured loading is the same as comparing a value to itself.
In claim 16, line 10, the limitation “compare the measured loading of the load cell to the zero-load value for the structural load path position” in combination with “determine a zero-load value for the structural load path position using the measured loading from claim 16, lines 8-9, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the zero-loading would be different than the measured loading. Comparing the zero-load value, which is based on the measured loading, with the measured loading is the same as comparing a value to itself.
Claims 10 and 17-20 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shetzer (US 2009/0173823).
Regarding claim 16, Shetzer discloses an assembly for an aircraft propulsion system, the assembly comprising:
a nacelle (Shetzer, Fig. 2 regarding the engine being housed in a nacelle);
a load cell disposed on the nacelle, the load cell is configured to measure a loading of the nacelle at a structural load path position of the nacelle (Shetzer, [0040] regarding a strain gauge being used to detect the pin load, [0039] regarding the pin being connected to the linkage which carries the load on the latch, & [0038] regarding the linkage being used to hold the cowl doors of the nacelle); and
a controller connected in signal communication with the load cell (Shetzer, [0041] regarding a microcontroller receiving signals from the strain gauge), the controller includes a processor in communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions, which instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
determine a zero-load value for the structural load path position using the measured loading (Shetzer, [0049] regarding the pin bearing a large load (e.g., 400 to 800 lbs) when the latch assembly is closed and a small load (e.g., 3 lbs) when the latch assembly is open);
compare the measured loading of the load cell to the zero-load value for the structural load path position to identify the measured loading is greater than or less than the zero-load value; and
in response to identifying the measured loading is less than the zero-load value, identify a structural load path failure for the structural load path position (Shetzer, [0054] regarding monitoring the transmitted load signal to determine if the door is improperly open (i.e., load is less than the large load range). By determining the load is less than the large load range, it must first have compared the current reading to the known load range to determine that the door is open).
Regarding claim 17, Shetzer discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 16, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to generate a warning for the structural load path failure at the structural load path position in response to identifying the measured loading is less than the zero-load value (Shetzer, [0049] regarding the signal indicative of the load on the pin being wirelessly transmitted so that a pilot or mechanic can be aware of the status of the latch assembly, [0050] regarding reporting when the latch changes from closed to opened & [0049] regarding the pin bearing a large load (e.g., 400 to 800 lbs) when the latch assembly is closed and a small load (e.g., 3 lbs) when the latch assembly is open. By reporting when the latch changes from closed to open, this is the same as saying that the latch loading has fallen below the large load range.).
Regarding claim 18, Shetzer discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 16, wherein the nacelle includes attachment hardware at the structural load path position, and the load cell is disposed on the attachment hardware (Shetzer, [0040] regarding the pin having a strain gauge, [0039] regarding the pin being connected to the linkage which carries the load on the latch, & [0038] regarding the linkage being used to hold the cowl doors of the nacelle).
Regarding claim 19, Shetzer discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 16, wherein the nacelle includes a fan cowl section including a first cowl door, a second cowl door, and a latch assembly configured to selectively retain the first cowl door and the second cowl door together in a closed position, and the load cell is disposed on the latch assembly (Shetzer, [0035] regarding the engine nacelle including two cowl doors that are retained closed by latch assemblies, [0038] regarding linkage being used to hold the cowl doors of the nacelle, [0039] regarding the pin being connected to the linkage which carries the load on the latch, & [0040] regarding the pin having a strain gauge).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shetzer in view of Poupon (US 2020/0124090).
Regarding claim 20, Shetzer discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 16, but does not disclose wherein the nacelle includes a thrust reverser section, the thrust reverser section includes a fixed thrust reverser structure, a moveable thrust reverser structure, and a locking assembly for selectively retaining the moveable thrust reverser structure in a fixed position relative to the fixed thrust reverser structure, and the load cell is disposed on the locking assembly.
Poupon teaches wherein the nacelle includes a thrust reverser section, the thrust reverser section includes a fixed thrust reverser structure, a moveable thrust reverser structure, and a locking assembly for selectively retaining the moveable thrust reverser structure in a fixed position relative to the fixed thrust reverser structure, and the load cell is disposed on the locking assembly (Poupon, [0024] regarding a thrust reverser comprising flaps (moveable thrust reverser structure) aligns with the wall of a nacelle (fixed thrust reverser structure) when closed and opens to uncover openings in the nacelle, [0025] regarding a carriage of a slide that moves along a guide to move the flaps from closed to open and vice-versa (locking assembly), [0049-0050] regarding the carriage including an upper and lower part that are connected with a screw & [0052] regarding a sensor for measuring tension in the screw).
Shetzer and Poupon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft nacelles. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shetzer to incorporate having a thrust reverser section and placing a tension sensor in the connection between the reverser and the nacelle, as disclosed by Poupon, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining the force being exerted on the thrust reverser structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 11-13, and 15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious in response to identifying the engine output parameter is greater than the threshold engine output parameter, compare the measured loading of the load cell to a zero-load value for the structural load path position to identify the measured loading is greater than or less than the zero-load value. Shetzer discloses determining a structural load path failure when the load is less than an expected load. However, it does not disclose in response to identifying the engine output parameter is greater than the threshold engine output parameter, compare the measured loading of the load cell to a zero-load value for the structural load path position to identify the measured loading is greater than or less than the zero-load value.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 9-10 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665