FIRST NON-FINAL REJECTION
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 16-19 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.
With respect to claim 16, line 2 of the claim reads “are operable to cause to be performed operations comprising” and this claim phrase is not clearly understood. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. CN113790102.
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 16, Chen teaches a turboshaft engine (gas turbine 1) for powering the aircraft; an inlet barrier filter (IBF)(filters 8, 9, and 10) for filtering air at an inlet through which the turboshaft engine draws inlet air (page 3); a differential pressure transducer (differential pressure transmitters 11, 12, 13, 14) for measuring a differential pressure across the IBF during operation of the aircraft (pages 3 and 4); and a flight control computer system (power control system 4) configured to, during operation of the aircraft: periodically calculate a restriction of an airflow through the IBF (data is received from the differential pressure transmitters, page 4); periodically determine a rate of change of the restriction of the airflow (change rate of the differential pressure is determined, pages 4 and 5); compare the rate of change to a threshold rate (judging and determining health of filter from the change rate and pressure difference set values, pages 4 and 5); and provide an alert to a pilot of the aircraft when the determined rate of change exceeds the threshold rate (health state is displayed, page 4).
With respect to claims 2, 10, and 17, Chen teaches wherein the restriction of the airflow through the IBF is calculated as a function of the differential pressure measured by the differential pressure transducer and at least one characteristic differential pressure value (interpreted as the differential pressure data from the differential pressure transmitters 11, 12, 13, 14, pages 3 and 4).
With respect to claims 3-7, 11-15, and 18-20, Chen teaches an instrument panel including an indicator configured to provide the alert (interpreted as the display for displaying each level of filter core health, pages 3 and 4), wherein the indicator comprises a gauge or light element (interpreted as the display for displaying each level of filter core health which is a gauge level as well as light element, pages 3 and 4), wherein the flight control computer system is further configured to estimate from the rate of change an amount of time the aircraft can continue to operate in current conditions before the restriction of the airflow reaches a maximum limit (filter core remaining service life is displayed, pages 3 and 4), an instrument panel of a cockpit of the aircraft including an indicator configured to present a text message including the estimated amount of time (interpreted as the displayed remaining service life of the filter core, pages 3 and 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. CN113790102 in view of Bergami U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0112981.
With respect to claim 8, Chen teaches the claimed invention except wherein the aircraft comprises a rotorcraft. Bergami teaches a control method for controlling an air intake system for an engine of a helicopter (abstract, paragraph 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Chen and provide the filter health system as part of the helicopter control system of as taught by Bergami in order to provide more reliably helicopter control system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDDIE KIRKLAND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2232. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
FREDDIE KIRKLAND III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/Freddie Kirkland III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 7/11/2026
Prosecution Insights