That DETAILED ACTION
This is a final rejection in response to amendments filed 11/5/25. Claims 10-21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/5/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Constans does not teach a thrust-specific marker. Rather that Constans is focused on energy. While, there is validity to the argument, Constans teaches the aircrafts engines are the primary device for controlling and modulating the energy of the aircraft [0004,0022]. Constans teaches specific visual and haptic feedback on the “actual aircraft push provided by the aircraft engines” and describes an interface lined to the throttle lever used for controlling engine thrust [0038,0004,0006]. Constans teaches maximum limits (acceleration and deceleration) of the lever race [0024]. As well as available relevant thrust [0046] and discusses the HMI display changing with the thrust [0006]. Regarding the argument for a lack of “each of the at least one adaptive power marker is configured to output at least one of an optical feedback and a haptic feedback on at least one of
an available common drive thrust,
an available relevant maximum thrust of at least one of the first engine and the second engine”, Bacon is relied upon for teaching each engine being used, Bacon teaches impalanced thrust. Constans teaches an integrated interface, as combined Constans would provide a maximum limit marker at the transition point where the first engine reaches its upper limit [0046,0030-0032]. In regards to the lack of a malfunction feedback, Bacon teaches engine out safety [0014], and Constans teaches provided feedback in RTO situations and when energy is too low or too high [0003,0030,0044]. As combined, the system of Constans would provide the aircraft of Bacon with feedback when a malfunction exists.
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) 10-12 and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacon (US 2005/0178890) in view of Constans et al. (US 20170305571).
Regarding independent claim 10, Bacon teaches a power control unit for automatically controlling a drive of an aircraft which is in a normal operating state [0010, 0021-0027], the power control unit comprising:
a control device (inherent); and
wherein,
the aircraft is configured to fly in ambient air via a dynamic lift for overcoming a service weight [0021-0027], the aircraft comprising:
a first engine which is configured to generate a first drive thrust which comprises a first idle thrust and a first maximum thrust [0021-0027]; and
at least one second engine which is configured to generate a second drive thrust which comprises a second idle thrust and a second maximum thrust [0021-0027],
wherein,
each of the first engine, via the first drive thrust, and the at least one second engine, via the second drive thrust, can be accelerated relative to the ambient air [0021-0027],
the control device is configured so that, in the normal operating state, the first drive thrust and the second drive thrust are controlled relative to one another depending on the specified power at an increasing specified power so that the first engine is first controlled at an increasing first drive thrust and, only after a first upper limit thrust of the first engine has been reached, the second drive thrust is also additionally controlled so as to increase, until a common drive thrust corresponding to the specified power is reached [0021-0027],
Bacon is silent to the power control unit comprising:
a specified power can be input by an operator via the input device (although Bacon teaches specified power based on situation),
an input device which comprises at least one adaptive power marker,
wherein,
each of the at least one adaptive power marker is configured to output at least one of an optical feedback and a haptic feedback on at least one of
an available common drive thrust,
an available relevant maximum thrust of at least one of the first engine and the second engine, and
if a malfunction exists.
Constans teaches the power control unit 15 comprising:
a control device 86; and
a specified power can be input by an operator via the input device [0018],
an input device 10 which comprises at least one adaptive power marker,
wherein,
each of the at least one adaptive power marker is configured to output at least one of an optical feedback and a haptic feedback [0023, 0034,0035] on at least one of
an available common drive thrust (current value in actual aircraft push) [0036-0038],
an available relevant maximum thrust of at least one of the first engine and the second engine [0044], and
if a malfunction exists [0044,0003].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the aircraft of Bacon with the control unit of Constans, as Constans teaches improved controls and visual feedback [0022-0023], this results in improved safety and reduced load on the pilot.
Regarding dependent claim 11, Bacon in view of Constans teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Bacon further teaches wherein the control device is further configured so that, in the normal operating state, the first drive thrust and the second drive thrust are controlled relative to one another depending on the specified power at a decreasing specified power so that, the second engine is first controlled at a decreasing second drive thrust and, only after a second lower limit thrust of the second engine has been reached, the first drive thrust is also additionally controlled so as to decrease, until the common drive thrust corresponding to the specified power is reached [0021].
Regarding dependent claim 12, Bacon in view of Constans teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Bacon further teaches wherein at least one of,
the first upper limit thrust corresponds to the first maximum thrust or an upper limit thrust of the first engine that is safe for a relevant operating state [0023], and
the second lower limit thrust corresponds to the second idle thrust.
Regarding dependent claim 14, Bacon in view of Constans teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Constans further teaches further comprising:
a display device 30 which is assigned to the input device, the display device being configured to display at least one of information relating to a relevant operating state, information relating to an available maximum drive thrust, and information regarding an identified malfunction [0043-0044].
Regarding dependent claim 15, Bacon in view of Constans teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Constans further teaches wherein the input device is a thrust lever unit [0039-0044].
Regarding dependent claim 16, Bacon in view of Constans teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Constans further teaches wherein,
the thrust lever unit comprises a thrust lever and a brake device which is configured to adaptively hamper a movement of the thrust lever [0018,0041].
Regarding dependent claim 17, Bacon in view of Constans teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Constans further teaches wherein the at least one adaptive power marker is produced via the brake device [0046].
Regarding dependent claim 18, Bacon in view of Constans teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Bacon further teaches drive system comprising:
the power control unit as recited in claim 10;
the first engine 120; and
the at least one second engine 140.
Regarding dependent claim 19, Bacon in view of Constans teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Bacon further teaches one of the engines running at a reduced power [0023-0025] but does not explicitly teach
wherein,
the first maximum thrust is at most 45 % to 90 % of the second maximum thrust, or
the second maximum thrust is at most 45 % to 90 % of the first maximum thrust.
Bacon in view of Constans fails to teach the first maximum thrust is at most 45 % to 90 % of the second maximum thrust, or the second maximum thrust is at most 45 % to 90 % of the first maximum thrust.
It has been held that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II(B).
Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the maximum thrust of the engines relative to each other as taught by Bacon in view of Constans because the maximum thrust was recognized as a result-effective variable achieving a particular level of thrust for a particular flight condition and it was known to have a different amount of thrust and it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the maximum thrust to achieve flight conditions to achieve a desired level of efficiency.
Regarding dependent claim 20, Bacon in view of Constans teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Bacon further teaches an aircraft 100 comprising:
the drive system as recited in claim 19.
Regarding dependent claim 21, Bacon in view of Constans teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Bacon further teaches an aircraft 100 comprising:
the power control unit as recited in claim 10.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacon in view of Constans and further in view of Granier et al. (US 20180134403).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Bacon in view of Constans teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Bacon in view of Constans further teaches further comprising:
a malfunction sensor which is configured to identify the malfunction,
wherein,
when the malfunction sensor identifies that the malfunction has occurred on the first engine, the control device is further configured to switch into a malfunction operating state where the second drive thrust of the at least one second drive engine as a non-malfunctioning engine is controlled until the common drive thrust corresponding to the specified power is reached or until there is an available drive thrust corresponding to the second maximum thrust, or
when the malfunction sensor identifies that the malfunction has occurred on the at least one second engine, the control device is further configured to switch into a malfunction operating state where the first drive thrust of the first drive engine as a non-malfunctioning engine is controlled until the common drive thrust corresponding to the specified power is reached or until there is an available drive thrust corresponding to the first maximum thrust.
Granier teaches the use of sensors for obtaining flight parameters and operational situations of the aircraft [0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide Bacon in view of Constans with the sensors of Granier, as Grainier teaches improved management of energy and improved safety [0015].
As combined, Bacon teaches controlling the engine based on engine out situation [0023] and therefore further using the sensors of Granier, would teach,
a malfunction sensor which is configured to identify the malfunction,
wherein,
when the malfunction sensor identifies that the malfunction has occurred on the first engine, the control device is further configured to switch into a malfunction operating state where the second drive thrust of the at least one second drive engine as a non-malfunctioning engine is controlled until the common drive thrust corresponding to the specified power is reached or until there is an available drive thrust corresponding to the second maximum thrust, or
when the malfunction sensor identifies that the malfunction has occurred on the at least one second engine, the control device is further configured to switch into a malfunction operating state where the first drive thrust of the first drive engine as a non-malfunctioning engine is controlled until the common drive thrust corresponding to the specified power is reached or until there is an available drive thrust corresponding to the first maximum thrust.
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 CRAIG SANG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1418. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/CRAIG KIM/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3741