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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2, Fig 6 (claims 1 and 3-10) in the reply filed on 18 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 2 and 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species 1, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 December 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:
claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/151734 (reference application)
claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/150857 (reference application)
claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/123782 (reference application)
claim 19 of copending Application No. 18/996111 (reference application)
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference Applications anticipate claims 1 and 9 of the current application (they teach at least all the limitations of the current Application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl.1: “the first rotary spool and the mechanical power” is believed to be in error for -- the first rotary spool and convert the mechanical power--
Cl.3: “command signal having” is believed to be in error for –command signals having—
Cl.5: “a voltage” is believed to be in error for –the voltage—
Cl.9-10: “a variation in a voltage” is believed to be in error for –the variation in the voltage--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalal 20180291807 in view of Hu-1.
1 Changbin Hu, Dynamic compensation control strategy of DC bus voltage based on residual generator, 18 June 2021, Science Progress, 104(s), doi: 10.1177/00368504211026284
Regarding Claim 1, Dalal teaches an assembly (Fig 3) for an electrically hybridized gas turbine engine (102 or 104), comprising:
a first rotary spool (34 or 36) forming a first source of mechanical power (by definition);
a second rotary spool (other of 34 or 36) forming a second source of mechanical power (by definition); and
an electrical system (300) comprising:
an electrical power supply bus (310) provided to be connected to at least one electrical load (392, 394) and configured to supply an electrical power to the load in the form of a DC signal (310 is a DC bus);
a plurality of electrical power sources (incl. 350, 352, 344) configured to transfer an electrical power to the bus (Fig 3) and comprising:
a first AC generator (350) connected to the first rotary spool to take off a mechanical power from the first rotary spool and convert the mechanical power into electrical power able to be transferred to the bus (by definition);
a second AC generator (352) connected to the second rotary spool to take off a mechanical power from the second rotary spool and convert the mechanical power into electrical power able to be transferred to the bus (by definition);
a plurality of converters (360, 362, 345, 364, 366) connected to the plurality of electrical power sources and to the bus (Fig 3), the plurality of converters being configured to regulate a voltage of the bus based on an electrical power supplied by the plurality of electrical power sources (by definition, the converters convert AC power to DC power, which DC power is characterized by a voltage; since this DC power is supplied to the DC bus, operation of the converters as modulated by controller 320, regulates the voltage of the bus) and comprising:
a first converter (360 or 362 or 364 or 366) connected to the first AC generator (Fig 3), the first converter being connected to the bus and configured to regulate the voltage of the bus based on an electrical power supplied by the first AC generator (by definition, the converters convert AC power to DC power, which DC power is characterized by a voltage; since this DC power is supplied to the DC bus, operation of the converters as modulated by controller 320, regulates the voltage of the bus);
a second converter (other of 360 or 362 or 364 or 366) connected to the second AC generator (Fig 3), the second converter being connected to the bus and configured to regulate the voltage of the bus based on an electrical power supplied by the second AC generator (by definition, the converters convert AC power to DC power, which DC power is characterized by a voltage; since this DC power is supplied to the DC bus, operation of the converters as modulated by controller 320, regulates the voltage of the bus; and
a control device (incl. 320, 370, 372) connected to the first converter and the second converter (Fig 3),
the control device being configured to drive the first converter and the second converter to compensate for a variation in the power of the bus by successive use of each electrical power source of the plurality of electrical power sources according to a determined offtake sequence ([0035-36, 47], successive use characterized by different generators providing majority power in different power splits ).
Dalal further teaches the bus being at a constant voltage of, e.g., +/- 960Vdc ([0038]).
Dalal does not specifically discuss managing the voltage (rather than power) of the bus by the power split between the AC generators using converter control.
However, Hu teaches constant DC bus voltage as desirable for stability (p.2, “Introduction”, para.1-2); the main reason for DC bus voltage fluctuations being a change in active power from load switching and distributed power generation fluctuations (p.2, “Introduction”, para.1-2); and the conventional voltage control strategy being a PI dual-loop arrangement (p.2, “Introduction”, para.3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the control device of Dalal (driving the first and second converters to successively use each electrical power source per a determined offtake sequence) to further compensate for variation in voltage of the bus using a PI dual loop control strategy as taught by Hu, in order to mitigate fluctuations in the active power due to load switching or distributed power generation fluctuations, because Hu teaches such control strategy as conventional for DC bus voltage regulation (p.2, “Introduction”, para.1-3).
Regarding claim 3, Dalal in view of Hu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Dalal further teaches the first converter and the second converter comprise respectively a first control member configured to drive the first converter and a second control member configured to drive the second converter (AC/DC converters are multi-component structures, at least one of which being in communication with 320 for intelligent control; Fig 3, [0034-35]), the control device further comprising a central member (320) configured to:
transmit to the first control member a command signal to drive the first converter and to the second control member a command signal to drive the second converter based on a desired offtake sequence ([0034-35]).
Dalal in view of Hu as discussed so far, does not teach the central member receiving a setpoint relating to the determined offtake sequence; and the command signal(s) generated from the setpoint.
However, as discussed above, Hu teaches using conventional PI dual-loop control for DC bus voltage regulation, which requires a setpoint, a comparison of measured values to the setpoint, and an output command based on the setpoint (by the error/difference between the setpoint and the measured value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the control device of Dalal in view of Hu (driving the first and second converters to successively use each electrical power source per a determined offtake sequence) to further compensate for variation in voltage of the bus using a PI dual loop control strategy as taught by Hu, in order to mitigate fluctuations in the active power due to load switching or distributed power generation fluctuations, because Hu teaches such control strategy as conventional for DC bus voltage regulation (p.2, “Introduction”, para.1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Dalal in view of Hu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Dalal further teaches the control device is further configured to drive the plurality of converters as a function of an offtake threshold specific to each electrical power source of the plurality electrical power sources. That is, each power generator is only capable of producing a maximum amount of power based on the capability of the generator and the rated power of the engine spool. This maximum may be set as an offtake threshold; the control device necessarily operating the converters as a function of the offtake threshold for each respective generator and engine spool.
Regarding claim 8, Dalal in view of Hu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Dalal further teaches the control device is further configured to drive the plurality of converters as a function of a distribution of offtake between the plurality of electrical power sources (320 controlling the power split among all the generators/converters).
Dalal in view of Hu as discussed so far, also teaches using a setpoint for control.
That is Hu, as discussed above, Hu teaches using conventional PI dual-loop control for DC bus voltage regulation, which requires a setpoint, a comparison of measured values to the setpoint, and an output command based on the setpoint (by the error/difference between the setpoint and the measured value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the control device of Dalal in view of Hu (driving the first and second converters to successively use each electrical power source per a determined offtake distribution sequence) to further compensate for variation in voltage of the bus using a PI dual loop control strategy as taught by Hu, in order to mitigate fluctuations in the active power due to load switching or distributed power generation fluctuations, because Hu teaches such control strategy as conventional for DC bus voltage regulation (p.2, “Introduction”, para.1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Dalal in view of Hu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Dalal further teaches a method for controlling the assembly according to claim 1, the method being implemented by the control device and comprising driving the plurality of converters to compensate for a variation in power of the bus by successive use of each electrical power source of the plurality of electrical power sources according to a predetermined offtake sequence ([0035-36, 47]).
Dalal further teaches the bus being at a constant voltage of, e.g., +/- 960Vdc ([0038]).
Dalal in view of Hu also teaches managing the voltage (rather than power) of the bus by the power split between the AC generators using converter control.
That is, as discussed above, Hu teaches constant DC bus voltage as desirable for stability (p.2, “Introduction”, para.1-2); the main reason for DC bus voltage fluctuations being a change in active power from load switching and distributed power generation fluctuations (p.2, “Introduction”, para.1-2); and the conventional voltage control strategy being a PI dual-loop arrangement (p.2, “Introduction”, para.3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the control device of Dalal in view of Hu (driving the first and second converters to successively use each electrical power source per a determined offtake sequence) to further compensate for variation in voltage of the bus using a PI dual loop control strategy as taught by Hu, in order to mitigate fluctuations in the active power due to load switching or distributed power generation fluctuations, because Hu teaches such control strategy as conventional for DC bus voltage regulation (p.2, “Introduction”, para.1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Dalal in view of Hu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Dalal further teaches
using a preferred electrical power source from among the plurality of electrical power sources until an offtake limit of the preferred electrical power source is reached;
then using successively each electrical power source of the plurality of electrical power sources distinct from the preferred electrical power source once the offtake limit has been exceeded.
That is, Dalal teaches various other power sources (incl. 374, 344) supplementing the power from 350, 352, and further other power sources (such as ram air turbines) for emergency generation ([0039-40]). Thus, Dalal teaches 350, 352 as a preferred electrical power source from the among the electrical power sources, and using alternative power sources 374, 344 when 350, 352 is insufficient (i.e. their offtake limit is reached), and successively using ram air turbine (or other) power sources as emergency power generation sources when needed to address an emergent situation.
Claims 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalal in view of Hu, and further in view of Waltner 20170297732.
Regarding Claim 5, Dalal in view of Hu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Dalal in view of Hu as discussed so far, does not teach the control device is further configured to: receive a control signal representative of a correction associated with a difference between a measurement of a voltage of the bus and a reference, the difference being representative of the variation in the voltage of the bus; perform a frequency filtering of the control signal so as to determine at least one low-frequency component and at least one high-frequency component; and drive the plurality of converters based on at least one out of the low-frequency component and the high-frequency component.
However, Hu further teaches the control device regulating a DC bus being configured to receive a control signal representative of a correction associated with a difference between a measurement of a voltage of the bus and a reference, the difference being representative of the variation in the voltage of the bus (by definition of PI dual-loop control arrangements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the control device of Dalal in view of Hu (driving the first and second converters to successively use each electrical power source per a determined offtake sequence) to further compensate for variation in voltage of the bus using a PI dual loop control strategy as taught by Hu, in order to mitigate fluctuations in the active power due to load switching or distributed power generation fluctuations, because Hu teaches such control strategy as conventional for DC bus voltage regulation (p.2, “Introduction”, para.1-3).
Dalal in view of Hu still does not teach the control device configured to perform a frequency filtering of the control signal so as to determine at least one low-frequency component and at least one high-frequency component; and drive the plurality of converters based on at least one out of the low-frequency component and the high-frequency component.
However, Waltner teaches a power leveling control strategy applicable to hybrid electric turbine engine arrangements ([0025-26]) that involves performing a frequency filtering of the control signal so as to determine at least one low-frequency component and at least one high-frequency component ([0026-27]); and controlling the plurality of power generators (including the hybrid electric turbine engines) based on at least one out of the low-frequency component and the high-frequency component ([0026-27]). Waltner discusses the high and low frequency components being used to control power generators with relatively faster and slower response times, respectively. In the case of a dual spool gas turbine engine, the high pressure spool has a lower inertia and faster response time than the low pressure spool, thus the high pressure spool could be controlled by the higher frequency component, and the low pressure spool could be controlled by the lower frequency component .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PI dual loop control strategy of Dalal in view of Hu, to further use high and low frequency filtering of the control signal as taught by Waltner in order to control for voltage variations requiring both rapid and slower response times from the power generators of the high (faster response) and low (slower response) pressure spools of the gas turbine engine in Dalal (Waltner [0025-27]).
Regarding claim 6, Dalal in view of Hu and Waltner teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Dalal further teaches the plurality of power sources may include power generators on high and low pressure spools of two different engines (Fig 3).
Dalal in view of Hu and Waltner as discussed so far, does not teach the control device is configured to drive the plurality of converters based on the at least one low-frequency component.
However, Waltner further teaches a control device may be configured to control a plurality of power generators (including power generators of faster response time, and power generators of slower response time) based on the at least one low-frequency component ([0025-27]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PI dual loop control strategy of Dalal in view of Hu and Waltner, to further use low frequency filtering of the control signal as taught by Waltner in order to control for voltage variations requiring slower response times from the power generators of the low (slower response) pressure spools of the gas turbine engines in Dalal (Waltner [0025-27]).
Regarding claim 7, Dalal in view of Hu and Waltner teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Dalal further teaches the plurality of power sources may include power generators on high and low pressure spools of two different engines (Fig 3).
Dalal in view of Hu and Waltner as discussed so far, does not teach the control device is configured to drive the plurality of converters based on the at least one high-frequency component.
However, Waltner further teaches a control device may be configured to control a plurality of power generators (including power generators of faster response time, and power generators of slower response time) based on the at least one high-frequency component ([0025-27]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the PI dual loop control strategy of Dalal in view of Hu and Waltner, to further use high frequency filtering of the control signal as taught by Waltner in order to control for voltage variations requiring faster response times from the power generators of the high (faster response) pressure spools of the gas turbine engines in Dalal (Waltner [0025-27]).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9153. The examiner can normally be reached on 1000-1600 Eastern.
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 on (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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741