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 .
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 2, 7, 11, 14, and 15 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 2, the limitations “preferably such that step bb) comprises at least one or several of the steps:
bb1) checking whether the aircraft is on ground,
bb2) checking whether a temperature is within predefined limits” renders the claim unclear. Regarding claim 2, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In the rejections below they are considered optional.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations “in case that an external leakage is determined in step c) or 6c), localizing the external leakage by isolating parts of the hydraulic system with the isolation means and conducting steps a) to c), or 6b) and 6c), for one, several or all of the isolated parts in order to determine in which of the parts the external leakage arises” renders the claims unclear. Claim 7 depends directly on claim 1 which does not introduce steps 6c) or 6b) and therefore the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear. Claim 6 does introduce steps 6b) and 6c) and therefore a possible correction would be to amend claim 7 to depend from claim 6. This is the interpretation that will be used below.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rendered unclear because the claim recites no structure, and therefore the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. In the rejections below, the limitations of claim 11 will be considered to be met if the limitations of claim 1 are met.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rendered unclear because the claim recites no further structure than the hydraulic system of claim 12 and therefore it is unclear how the aircraft is distinguished from the hydraulic system. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. In the rejections below, the limitations of claim 14 will be considered met if the limitations of claim 12 are met.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rendered unclear because there are no steps of the method claimed beyond the recitation to claim 1, and therefore it is unclear how the method of claim 15 is distinguished from the method of claim 1. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. In the rejections below, the limitations of claim 15 will be considered to be met if the limitations of claim 1 are met.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beiderman et al. (US PGPub 2007/0028674 A1).
As to claim 1, Beiderman et al. teaches a method for automatically testing a hydraulic system of an aircraft during ground service (paragraph [0017] and figure 3A, where the aircraft is not in operation), wherein the hydraulic system (102) includes, onboard of the aircraft (paragraph [0017]), a hydraulic pump (paragraph [0018], pump), a hydraulic reservoir (106), a hydraulic conduct system (108, paragraphs [0017]-[0019]), a hydraulically driven unit (driven by 114, 116, or 118, paragraph [0018]), and a control and monitoring unit (104), the method comprising:
a) pressurizing the hydraulic system by means of the hydraulic pump (paragraphs [0022] and [0018]),
b) monitoring at least one parameter indicative of an external leakage of the hydraulic system during the pressurisation of the hydraulic system (figures 3A-B and paragraphs [0026]-[0027], at least the temperature and fluid level),
c) determining whether an external leakage of the hydraulic system exists on basis of the at least one parameter (paragraphs [0027] and [0035]-[0039]).
As to claim 2, Beiderman et al. teaches wherein at least one or several of the following steps are conducted before step a):
aa) manually triggering the test routing comprising steps a) to c) (paragraphs [0023]),
bb) automatically checking whether conditions for pressurisation of the hydraulic system are met (paragraphs [0025]-[0026]), preferably such that step bb) comprises at least one or several of the steps:
bb1) checking whether the aircraft is on ground,
bb2) checking whether a temperature is within predefined limits (paragraphs [0025]-[0026]).
As to claim 3, Beiderman et al. teaches wherein step a) comprises at least one or several of the steps:
a1) pressurizing the hydraulic system up to a predefined level (figures 3A-B and paragraph [0018] and [0026]),
a2) commanding the pump to pressurize the system by means of the controlling and monitoring unit,
a3) keeping the hydraulic system pressurized by controlling the pump in order to compensate for internal leakage only,
a4) switching the pump off when the hydraulic system is pressurized,
a5) keeping the hydraulic system pressurized by controlling the pump in order to maintain the pressure in the hydraulic system.
As to claim 4, Beiderman et al. teaches wherein the parameter to be monitored in step b) is chosen from the group of parameters consisting of the pressure in the hydraulic system, the output power of the pump, and the fluid level in the reservoir (paragraphs [0026]-[0027] teach the fluid level).
As to claim 5, the requirements of the claim are considered to be met since claim 3 was met in the alternative where step a) comprises a1) and steps a2)-a5) are considered to be optional. Only that which is optional is claimed here, and therefore Beiderman et al. is considered to teach all of the limitations of the claimed invention.
As to claim 6, Beiderman et al. teaches a method for automatically testing a hydraulic system of an aircraft (paragraph [0017]), wherein the hydraulic system includes, onboard of the aircraft (paragraph [0017], aircraft), a hydraulic pump (paragraph [0018], pump), a hydraulic reservoir (106), a hydraulic conduct system (108, paragraphs [0017]-[0019]), a hydraulically driven unit (driven by 114, 116, or 118, paragraph [0018]), and a control and monitoring unit (104), the method comprising:
conducting the method according to claim 1 (as noted above in detail for claim 1) during ground service and conducting the following steps in flight:
6b) monitoring the at least one parameter indicative of an external leakage of the hydraulic system (figures 3A-B), and
6c) determining whether an external leakage of the hydraulic system exists on basis of the at least one parameter (figure 3A-B).
As to claim 7, Beiderman et al. teaches wherein the hydraulic system comprises an isolation means (126, 130, 132) configured to isolate several portions of the hydraulic system from each other (figure 1), wherein the method further comprises the step:
d) in case that an external leakage is determined in step c) or 6c), localizing the external leakage by isolating parts of the hydraulic system with the isolation means and conducting steps a) to c), or 6b) and 6c), for one, several or all of the isolated parts in order to determine in which of the parts the external leakage arises (see above interpretation under 112(b) above; paragraphs [0033]-[0039]).
As to claim 8, Beiderman et al. teaches wherein step d) comprises the following steps:
d1) isolating the hydraulic system in a first part upstream of the isolation means and a second part downstream of the isolation means (first zone isolated, paragraphs [0033]-[0039]),
d2) conducting steps a) to c), or 6b) and 6c), for the first part, and localizing the external leakage
i. downstream of the isolation means in case that the external leakage is no longer detected,
ii. upstream of the isolation means in case that the external leakage is still detected, and
iii. such that a first external leakage is upstream and a second external leakage is downstream of the isolation means in case that the external leakage is detected to a reduced scale (paragraphs [0033]-[0039]).
As to claim 9, Beiderman et al. teaches wherein the second part is kept isolated in case of i. or iii. in order to prevent system loss caused by external leakage (paragraphs [0033]-[0039]).
As to claim 10, Beiderman et al. teaches wherein a further isolation means (others of 128, 130, 132) is used to further refine the localization (paragraphs [0033]-[0039]).
As to claim 11, Beiderman et al. teaches a control and monitoring unit for a hydraulic system of an aircraft (paragraph [0017]), configured to control and monitor the hydraulic system to execute the steps of the method according to claim 1 (as noted above in detail for claim 1).
As to claim 12, Beiderman et al. teaches a hydraulic system for an aircraft (paragraph [0017]), comprising a pump (paragraph [0018], pump), a hydraulic reservoir (106), a hydraulic conduct system (108, paragraphs [0017]-[0019]), a hydraulically driven unit (driven by 114, 116, or 118, paragraph [0018]), at least one sensor (138, 136) for a parameter of the hydraulic system indicating an external leakage (paragraphs [0026]-[0027]) and a control and monitoring unit (104), wherein the control and monitoring unit is configured to control the hydraulic system to execute the steps of the method according to claim 1 (as noted above in detail for claim 1).
As to claim 13, Beiderman et al. teaches wherein the control and monitoring unit further is configured to monitor the at least one parameter during flight in order to determine an external leakage of the hydraulic system (figures 3A-B).
As to claim 14, Beiderman et al. teaches an aircraft (paragraph [0017]) comprising a hydraulic system according to claim 12 (as noted above in detail for claim 12).
As to claim 15, Beiderman et al. teaches a computer-implemented method (paragraphs [0022], [0023], and [0025]) of operating a hydraulic system comprising the steps of the method according to claim 1 (as noted above in detail for claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adamson et al. (US PGPub 2020/0386249 A1) and Alma et al. (US PGPub 2008/0286119 A1) teach systems with similarities to the disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights