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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 7-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 9, 15-17 and 19-20 of copending Application No. 18/825,101 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the current application is same as the subject matter of the copending application.
Current Application:
Copending Application:
Rationale:
1. An Engine Control and Monitoring System, ECaMS, for an engine, the ECaMS comprising a first processor node and a second processor node: the first processor node comprising a first acquisition integrated circuit, a first output integrated circuit, and a first processor; and the second processor node comprising a second acquisition integrated circuit, a second output integrated circuit, and a second processor, wherein the first acquisition integrated circuit is connected directly to the second acquisition integrated circuit.
1. A method for modifying an Engine Control and Monitoring System, ECaMS, for an engine, the method comprising: identifying a provisioning deficit in the ECaMS, wherein the ECaMS comprises a first processor node and a second processor node: the first processor node comprising a first acquisition integrated circuit a first output integrated circuit, and a first processor; and the second processor node comprising a second acquisition integrated circuit, a second output integrated circuit, and a second processor, wherein the first acquisition integrated circuit is connected directly to the second acquisition integrated circuit; and connecting an expansion unit to the ECaMS, wherein the expansion unit comprises one or more expansion unit integrated circuits, said one or more expansion unit integrated circuits being connected to one or more integrated circuits of the ECaMS.
The subject matter of the current application (independent claim 1) is also discussed in the copending application (independent claim 1).
Dependent Claims 2-3 and 7-12
Dependent Claims 2, 9, 15-17 and 19-20
The same subject matter is discussed in both applications in reference to the dependent claims of the current application (Claims 2-3 and 7-12) and the dependent claims of the copending application (Claims 2, 9, 15-17 and 19-20).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
3
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Skertic et al. (Skertic), U.S. Publication No. 2020/0159941.
Regarding Claim 1, Skertic discloses an Engine Control and Monitoring System,
ECaMS, for an engine, the ECaMS comprising a first processor node and a second processor node:
the first processor node (i.e., control node 204; see figure 2 and paragraph [0022]) comprising a first acquisition integrated circuit (i.e., to receive data as described in paragraph [0025]), a first output integrated circuit (i.e., to transmit data as described in paragraph [0025]), and a first processor (i.e., processing units 208; see figure 2); and
the second processor node (i.e., engine health monitoring node 206; see figure 2 and paragraph [0022]) comprising a second acquisition integrated circuit (i.e., transceiver device 209 as described in paragraphs [0026]-[0027]), a second output integrated circuit (i.e., transceiver device 209 as described in paragraphs [0026]-[0027]), and a second processor (i.e., processing units 210; see figure 2),
wherein the first acquisition integrated circuit is connected directly to the second acquisition integrated circuit (as shown in figure 2 for allowing direct communication between the control node 204 and the engine health monitoring node 206).
Regarding Claim 2, Skertic discloses further comprising a third processor node
and a fourth processor node: the third processor node comprising a third acquisition integrated circuit, a third output integrated circuit, and a third processor; and the fourth processor node comprising a fourth acquisition integrated circuit, a fourth output integrated circuit, and a fourth processor, wherein the first acquisition IC, second acquisition integrated circuit, third acquisition integrated circuit and fourth acquisition integrated circuit are connected via a ring network (i.e., for obtaining sensor data 314, 316, 318, 320, 322, 324 as described in paragraph [0030] and shown in figure 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Skertic discloses wherein at least one processor node is
configured to receive sensor data generated by at least one sensor, and to transmit data packets via the ring network (shown in figure 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Skertic discloses wherein the ECaMS is an Electrical
Engine Controller, EEC (see paragraph [0001]).
Regarding Claim 8, Skertic discloses wherein a first portion of the processor
nodes comprising at least one processor node provides control functionality, and a second portion of the processor nodes comprising at least one processor node provides protection functionality (see paragraphs [0025]-[0027]).
Regarding Claim 9, Skertic discloses wherein the first portion of the processor
nodes are segregated from the second portion of the processor nodes (shown in figure 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Skertic discloses wherein the integrated circuits include
one or more of: Field Programmable Gate Arrays, FPGAs (see paragraph [0022]); Application Specific Integrated Circuits, ASICs; System on a Chips, SoCs; Complex Programmable Logic Devices, CPLDs; and Application Specific Standard Products, ASSPs.
Regarding Claim 11, Skertic discloses an engine comprising the ECaMS of
claim 1 (see paragraph [0001]).
Regarding Claim 12, Skertic discloses wherein the engine is: an aeronautical
gas turbine engine (see paragraph [0001]); a marine diesel engine; an automotive petrol engine; or a marine gas turbine engine.
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skertic in view of Turner et al. (Turner), U.S. Patent No. 12,068,885.
Regarding Claim 3, Skertic discloses the ECaMS as described above. Skertic
fails to disclose wherein the ring network is a dual ring network comprising a clockwise ring and anticlockwise ring. Turner discloses wherein the ring network is a dual ring network comprising a clockwise ring and anticlockwise ring (see col. 6, lines 33-61). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Turner’s invention with Skertic’s invention for providing low latency communication (as described throughout Turner).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skertic in view of Chasko et al. (Chasko), U.S. Publication No. 2013/0269032.
Regarding Claim 5, Skertic discloses the ECaMS as described above. Skertic
fails to disclose wherein the at least one processor node is configured to include a node identifier in the data packets. Chasko discloses wherein the at least one processor node is configured to include a node identifier in the data packets (see paragraph [0059]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Chasko’s invention with Skertic’s invention for maintaining security solutions as described throughout Chasko.
Regarding Claim 6, Skertic discloses the ECaMS wherein the at least one processor node is configured, when receiving one or more data packets via the ring network as described above. Skertic fails to disclose to determine whether the one or more data packets include the node identifier and: if the one or more data packets include the node identifier, to delete the data packets, or if the one or more data packets do not include the node identifier, to retransmit the data packets. Chasko discloses to determine whether the one or more data packets include the node identifier and: if the one or more data packets include the node identifier, to delete the data packets (see paragraph [0060]), or if the one or more data packets do not include the node identifier, to retransmit the data packets. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider Chasko’s invention with Skertic’s invention for maintaining security solutions as described throughout Chasko.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANTELL LAKETA HEIBER whose telephone number is (571)272-0886. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Addy, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHANTELL L HEIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
July 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights