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.
Note Regarding Applicant’s Remarks Related to Prior Interview
In the section titled “Statement of Substance of Interview”, Applicant’s representative states that “The Examiner indicated that the proposed amendments…likely overcome the current rejections”.
However, the Examiner’s Interview Summary mailed on 08 April 2026 notes that there was insufficient time to reach an agreement on the proposed amendments. However, a response in writing by Applicant including the proposed amendments and arguments in support thereof, would likely advance prosecution by at least increasing the clarity of Applicant’s position.
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)
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
Amendments to the Abstract are accepted and entered.
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 and 3-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitations of “timing setpoint(s)” is unclear because such terminology is not used in the Specification. The Specification mentions a “setpoint Pref relating to the offtake sequence [which] provides the order in which the generators 411, 421 and the DC source 431 must be used”. However, there is not sufficient evidence that such setpoint is related to time (e.g. with units of time). The other mentions of time in the Specification are not related to any setpoint(s) that provide “an order in which each electrical power source…is used”. For example, other mentions of time refer to response times, voltage as a function of time, setpoints varying over time for optimization, real time response capability, etc. A broadest reasonable interpretation of the term is used for examination, i.e. as any setpoint, related in any way, to time, while satisfying the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Dependent claims 3-10 are also rejected for depending on a rejected claim above.
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 –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by French 20170187311.
Regarding claim 1, French teaches an assembly for an electrically hybridized gas turbine engine (Figs 1-2), comprising:
a first rotary spool (24 or 26) forming a first source of mechanical power (by definition; Fig 1);
a second rotary spool (26 or 24) forming a second source of mechanical power (by definition; Fig 1); and
an electrical system (Fig 2) comprising:
an electrical power supply bus (72 or 74) provided to be connected to at least one electrical load ([0016]) and configured to supply an electrical power to the load in the form of a DC signal ([0017]);
a plurality of electrical power sources (84, 86, 96) configured to transfer an electrical power to the bus (Fig 2) and comprising:
a first AC generator (84 or 86; [0020, 21]) 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 (Figs 1-2), and
a second AC generator (86 or 84; [0021, 20]) 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 (Figs 1-2);
a plurality of converters (88, 90; or 92, 94) connected to the plurality of electrical power sources and to the bus (Fig 2), 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 ([0017, 19, 32]) and comprising:
a first converter (88, 90; or 92, 94) connected to the first AC generator (Fig 2), 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 ([0017, 19, 32]), and
a second converter (92, 94; or 88, 90) connected to the second AC generator, 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 ([0017, 19, 32]); and
a control device (80, 82) connected to the first converter and the second converter (Fig 2), the control device being configured to drive the first converter at a first timing setpoint and the second converter at a second timing setpoint different from the first timing setpoint to compensate for a variation in the voltage of the bus ([0017, 19, 31]), the first timing setpoint and the second timing setpoint providing an order in which each electrical power source of the plurality of electrical power sources is used according to a determined offtake sequence ([0017, 19, 31]; depending on the phase of flight, power extraction from one generator is prioritized over the other in order to minimize impact on the operation of the engine; thus providing timing setpoints based on flight envelope as well as for sequencing power source order for active power management).
Regarding claim 3, French teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. French 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 (88, 90, 92, 94 being integrated converter/controllers; [0022-25]), the control device further comprising a central member (82) configured to:
receive a timing setpoint relating to the determined offtake sequence (82 receives information from 80 regarding engine 20 in order to make informed control decisions for 70; [0018-19]); and
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 (Fig 2), the command signals having been generated from the timing setpoint (e.g. mission segment information from 80 is provided to 82 in order to determine the sequence in which power sources should be used for active power management; [0031]).
Regarding claim 4, French teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. French 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 of 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, French teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. French further teaches the control device is further configured to drive the plurality of converters as a function of a setpoint of distribution of offtake between the plurality of electrical power sources ([0032]).
Regarding claim 9, French teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. French further teaches a method for controlling the assembly ([0017, 19, 31]), the method being implemented by the control device and comprising driving the plurality of converters at a plurality of timing setpoints respectively to compensate for the variation in the voltage of the bus, the plurality of timing setpoints providing an order in which each electrical power source of the plurality of electrical power sources is used according to a predetermined offtake sequence ([0017, 19, 31]).
Regarding claim 10, French teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. French further teaches driving the plurality of converters at the plurality of timing setpoints respectively to compensate for the variation in the voltage of the bus comprises ([0031]):
using a preferred electrical power source (e.g. 96) from among the plurality of electrical power sources until an offtake limit of the preferred electrical power source is reached (e.g. when 96 insufficient to power loads);
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 ([0031]; e.g. using 84 or 86 depending on which has less negative impact).
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 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French in view of Hu-1 and Waltner 20170297732.
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 5, French teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. French 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 the 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 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) 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 French (driving the first and second converters to successively use each electrical power source per a determined offtake sequence) to 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).
French 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 French 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 French in view of Hu (Waltner [0025-27]).
Regarding claim 6, French in view of Hu and Waltner teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. French further teaches the plurality of power sources may include power generators on high and low pressure spools (Figs 1-2).
French 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 French 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 French in view of Hu and Waltner (Waltner [0025-27]).
Regarding claim 7, French in view of Hu and Waltner teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. French further teaches the plurality of power sources may include power generators on high and low pressure spools (Figs 1-2).
French 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 French 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 French in view of Hu and Waltner (Waltner [0025-27]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01 May 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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 0600-0900 AM ET M-F and 1-2PM T/R.
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 (571-270-5426. 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
Prosecution Insights