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 .
Pursuant to communications filed on 11/08/2024, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits wherein claims 1-11 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
1)-. In order to make the claims for US compliance, it is advisable to avoid using numbers in parentheses in US patent claims to ensure maximum clarity and avoid potential issues with claim construction. This is because parentheses in US claims can sometimes introduce ambiguity regarding the scope of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
2)-. Claim 8 is objected due lot a lack of completeness: Claim 8 recites "a computer of the (100)", which has a missing noun (presumably "turbomachine 100"), hence lacks proper antecedent basis for "a computer".
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 1-11 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 the instant case:
1)-. Claim 1 has antecedent basis: The phrase "a method in which a fuel flow rate setpoint..." breaks claim continuity. It should integrate smoothly into the active step-performing sequence. Applicant should change the passive phrase to an active step, for example, change "a method in which a fuel flow rate setpoint..." to an active participle like "adjusting a fuel flow rate setpoint..." or "calculating a fuel flow rate setpoint..." to match the surrounding steps.
Appropriate correction is required.
3)-. Claim 1 recites: "a power generated" (Step E1): The term lacks a clear antecedent or precise mathematical definition in the claim, making it slightly ambiguous whether this refers to total shaft power, turbine power, or net available power on the high-pressure shaft.
Appropriate correction is required.
4)-. Claim 1 recites: "a torque threshold (Tseuil) from the hybridization rate (TH)" (Step E2): The functional dependency or relationship showing how the threshold is derived from (TH) is completely unstated, which could border on functional claiming at the point of novelty if the bounds of (TH) are unmeasurable.
Appropriate correction is required.
5)-. Claim 1 recites: "power consumed (Pe) by the electric motor (ME)" (Step E1): It is slightly indefinite whether (Pe) represents electrical input power or mechanical torque-converted power, though contextually understandable.
Appropriate correction is required.
6)-. Claim 1 is considered indefinite since it contains the conditional clause “if” creating an uncertainty wherein an event can occur or not, hence the use of this clause renders the claims indefinite and the scope of the claim is unascertainable because the use of conditional term “if” is linked to two options: Yes or Not, so the claim must provide the result of both possibilities: "Only after X happens will Y happen." The condition is a singular event that triggers the indicated response. The speaker does not know whether the activity in the “if” phrase will occur. Hence, one suggested option to correct this issue is using the word “when” instead of term “if”. That is, "Anytime X occurs, Y results." That X will occur is expected (when). The speaker knows that the activity in “when” phrase is likely to occur. “When” expresses more certainty than “if”. In other words, the use of “if” is to introduce a possible or unreal situation or condition, while the use of “when” refers to the time of a future situation or condition that we are certain of.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
1)-. In the instant case, claim 8 appears to be an independent claim directed to a computer program. However, the claim further refers back to claim 1. Hence claim 8 fails to further limit the computer program, and fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
2)-. In the instant case, claim 9 appears to be an independent claim and further refers back to claim 8. However, claim 9 fails to further limit the electronic control system, and fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
3)-. In the instant case, claim 10 appears to be an independent apparatus claim (a turbomachine) and recites the phrase “A turbomachine comprising an electronic control system according to claim 9.”. However, claim 9 fails to further limit the turbomachine, and fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
1)-. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed as a “computer program” that is reasonably interpreted as a software, and software claims are not patentable. Based on the provided claim language, the claimed “computer program” is not supported by hardware such as tangible computer storage medium or execution engine, which would enable one skill in the art to construe that the apparatus is built from tangible product to carry out any functionality being conveyed from the claim. Thus, the “computer program” is software per se and therefore is not being embodied in a manner as to be executable. Therefore, Applicant is suggested to amend claim 8 to recite, as for example, A computer program product for ……, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having program code embodied therewith, the program code comprising the programming instructions for…...”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
It appears claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections, the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action, however, further search and consideration may be required upon the submission of claim amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaime Figueroa whose telephone number is (571)270-7620. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Wade Miles can be reached on 571-270-7777. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAIME FIGUEROA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights