Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 13, and 14 are independent.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 14-20 have been added.
This FINAL action is in response to “Amendments and Remarks” received on 11 June 2026.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed 11 June 2026, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and were not wholly persuasive. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to objections to the Specification, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections to the Specification have been withdrawn.
With respect to objection of the claims, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, the rejection is modified to incorporate different teachings of the same prior art. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant states that Rossotto does not teach or suggest detection of the current speed of rotation of the rotor not a determination of a condition of compatibility or condition of incompatibility between a current flight phase and the speed of rotation of the rotor. While Examiner agrees that Rossotto itself does not teach or suggest the above limitations, the combination of Rossotto, Vallart, and Iraudo teach detection of rotor speed and indication that a rotor speed lies within a range of speeds based on current flight phase.
Final Office Action
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three-prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossotto (US 20160375994 A1) in view of Vallart et al. (US 20160001880 A1), hereinafter Vallart, and further in view of Iraudo (US 20080319629 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rossotto discloses:
A method for monitoring operation of a power plant of a rotorcraft, the power plant comprising at least one engine, the rotorcraft comprising at least one lift rotor rotated by the power plant, wherein the monitoring method comprises the following steps (Abstract, A method of driving rotation of a rotor of an aircraft, said aircraft having at least two fuel-burning engines and an electric motor suitable for driving rotation of said rotor. Said rotor is driven by using said engines together. An authorization is generated only during at least one predetermined stage of flight, said authorization authorizing the use of the electric motor in order to drive said rotor in rotation. While said authorization is valid and if one of said engines has failed, then an operation order is generated to require said electric motor to operate. While said operation order is valid, said rotor is driven by each engine that has not failed together with said electric motor):
detecting a regulation failure affecting a regulation system of the at least one engine ([0051], For example, the aircraft has one management system per engine and an avionics system communicating with the management systems, the authorization is generated by the avionics system, the authorization being transmitted to each management system, the operation order being issued by a management system and transmitted to the electric motor; [0055], If so, the avionics system sends the authorization to the management systems. Under such circumstances, if a management system considers an engine as failed, then this management system issues the operation order);
However, Rossotto does not specifically state:
detecting a current speed of rotation of the at least one lift rotor;
determining whether there is a condition of compatibility or a condition of incompatibility between a current flight phase and the speed of rotation;
in a first operating mode, in the presence of the condition of compatibility and the regulation failure, generating a first alert simultaneously representative of the regulation failure and the condition of compatibility;
and in a second operating mode, in the presence of the condition of incompatibility and the regulation failure, generating a second alert simultaneously representative of the regulation failure and the condition of incompatibility.
Vallart teaches:
detecting a current speed of rotation of the at least one lift rotor ([0044], In this context, the present invention provides a method of regulating the speed of rotation, referred to as the speed NR, of at least one main rotor of a multi-engined rotorcraft);
determining whether there is a condition of compatibility or a condition of incompatibility between a current flight phase and the speed of rotation ([0018], The speed NR is traditionally predefined as being substantially constant, being allowed to vary, depending on the flight attitude of the rotorcraft, over no more than a narrow range of speed variation of the order of 5% of a nominal speed NR, while nevertheless not exceeding variation of the order of 1% per second. The impact of such narrow variation on the speed NR is negligible on varying the mechanical power to be supplied by the main engines of the rotorcraft in order to drive the main rotor; [0046], The method of the present invention is applied in the context, with the exception of an engine-failure situation, of the power plant driving said at least one main rotor in application of a speed setpoint, referred to as the NR setpoint, having a value that is variable and that is calculated by a control unit depending on the current flight conditions of the rotorcraft);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Vallart into the invention of Rossotto to include detection of a speed of rotation of a rotor and minimum and maximum speeds at a given current flight phase as Vallart discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that operates an engine within an acceptable range of values. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a rotorcraft powerplant management system that can disengage failing engines as disclosed by Rossotto and operational threshold of a rotorcraft engine as taught by Vallart. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Iraudo teaches:
in a first operating mode, in the presence of the condition of compatibility and the regulation failure, generating a first alert simultaneously representative of the regulation failure and the condition of compatibility ([0039], In the method, the control and regulation apparatus includes alarm means, and the alarm means are controlled by the electronic computer via an analog connection when an event occurs that might diminish the safety of the rotorcraft; [0043], For safety reasons, the apparatus includes a display system arranged in a cockpit of the rotorcraft, and the electronic computer sends a message to the display system via at least one digital bus so that the display system can inform the pilot that the turbine engine is being used in abnormal manner; [0046], Thus, the pilot is informed by two different means that a maintenance action needs to be under-taken on the turbine engine. The engine is thus well monitored, thereby guaranteeing proper operation);
and in a second operating mode, in the presence of the condition of incompatibility and the regulation failure, generating a second alert simultaneously representative of the regulation failure and the condition of incompatibility ([0039], In the method, the control and regulation apparatus includes alarm means, and the alarm means are controlled by the electronic computer via an analog connection when an event occurs that might diminish the safety of the rotorcraft; [0043], For safety reasons, the apparatus includes a display system arranged in a cockpit of the rotorcraft, and the electronic computer sends a message to the display system via at least one digital bus so that the display system can inform the pilot that the turbine engine is being used in abnormal manner; [0046], Thus, the pilot is informed by two different means that a maintenance action needs to be under-taken on the turbine engine. The engine is thus well monitored, thereby guaranteeing proper operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Iraudo into the invention of Rossotto in view of Vallart to include generating an alert when there is a safety risk as Iraudo discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can notify a pilot when a turbine engine is being used in an abnormal manner (Iraudo: [0043]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a rotorcraft powerplant management system that can disengage failing engines as disclosed by Rossotto in view of Vallart and an alert system to notify a pilot of a malfunctioning engine as taught by Iraudo. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo teaches:
wherein the condition of compatibility is identified when the current speed of rotation lies within a range of values defined by a rotational speed setpoint minus a first margin and the rotational speed setpoint plus a second margin and, alternatively, the condition of incompatibility is identified when the current speed of rotation lies outside the range of values (Vallart: [0018], The speed NR is traditionally predefined as being substantially constant, being allowed to vary, depending on the flight attitude of the rotorcraft, over no more than a narrow range of speed variation of the order of 5% of a nominal speed NR, while nevertheless not exceeding variation of the order of 1% per second. The impact of such narrow variation on the speed NR is negligible on varying the mechanical power to be supplied by the main engines of the rotorcraft in order to drive the main rotor; [0046], The method of the present invention is applied in the context, with the exception of an engine-failure situation, of the power plant driving said at least one main rotor in application of a speed setpoint, referred to as the NR setpoint, having a value that is variable and that is calculated by a control unit depending on the current flight conditions of the rotorcraft).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Vallart into the invention of Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo to include a speed setpoint with a speed margin as Vallart discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that operates an engine within an acceptable range of values. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a rotorcraft powerplant management system that can disengage failing engines as disclosed by Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo and operational threshold of a rotorcraft engine as taught by Vallart. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 3, Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo teaches:
wherein the rotational speed setpoint is variable as a function of the current flight phase (Vallart: [0046], The method of the present invention is applied in the context, with the exception of an engine-failure situation, of the power plant driving said at least one main rotor in application of a speed setpoint, referred to as the NR setpoint, having a value that is variable and that is calculated by a control unit depending on the current flight conditions of the rotorcraft).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additional teachings of Vallart into the invention of Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo to include a variable speed setpoint that changes with flight conditions as Vallart discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that operates an engine within an acceptable range of values for a variety of situations. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a rotorcraft powerplant management system that can disengage failing engines as disclosed by Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo and operational speed setpoints of a rotorcraft engine as taught by Vallart. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 4, Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo teaches:
wherein the first margin and the second margin are variable as a function of the current flight phase (Vallart: [0018], The speed NR is traditionally predefined as being substantially constant, being allowed to vary, depending on the flight attitude of the rotorcraft, over no more than a narrow range of speed variation of the order of 5% of a nominal speed NR, while nevertheless not exceeding variation of the order of 1% per second; [0046], The method of the present invention is applied in the context, with the exception of an engine-failure situation, of the power plant driving said at least one main rotor in application of a speed setpoint, referred to as the NR setpoint, having a value that is variable and that is calculated by a control unit depending on the current flight conditions of the rotorcraft).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the additional teachings of Vallart into the invention of Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo to include speed margins that change with flight conditions as Vallart discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that operates an engine within an acceptable range of values for a variety of situations. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a rotorcraft powerplant management system that can disengage failing engines as disclosed by Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo and operational speed setpoints of a rotorcraft engine as taught by Vallart. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo teaches:
wherein the condition of compatibility is identified when the current speed of rotation lies within a predetermined range of acceptable values allowing the current flight phase to be continued and, alternatively, the condition of incompatibility is identified when the current speed of rotation lies outside the predetermined range of acceptable values allowing the current flight phase to continue (Vallart: [0018], The speed NR is traditionally predefined as being substantially constant, being allowed to vary, depending on the flight attitude of the rotorcraft, over no more than a narrow range of speed variation of the order of 5% of a nominal speed NR, while nevertheless not exceeding variation of the order of 1% per second. The impact of such narrow variation on the speed NR is negligible on varying the mechanical power to be supplied by the main engines of the rotorcraft in order to drive the main rotor; [0046], The method of the present invention is applied in the context, with the exception of an engine-failure situation, of the power plant driving said at least one main rotor in application of a speed setpoint, referred to as the NR setpoint, having a value that is variable and that is calculated by a control unit depending on the current flight conditions of the rotorcraft).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Vallart into the invention of Rossotto in view of Iraudo to include a speed setpoint with a speed margin as Vallart discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that operates an engine within an acceptable range of values. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a rotorcraft powerplant management system that can disengage failing engines as disclosed by Rossotto in view of Iraudo and operational threshold of a rotorcraft engine as taught by Vallart. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo teaches:
wherein the predetermined range comprises an upper limit defined such that a tangential speed at the blade tip of a blade of the at least one lift rotor is kept below the speed of sound (Iraudo: [0002], Rotorcraft are generally provided with at least one free-turbine engine Power is then taken from a low pressure stage of each free turbine, which stage rotates at a speed in the range 20,000 revolutions per minute (rpm) to 50,000 rpm; [0003], Thereafter, a speed-reduction gearbox is needed to connect the free turbines to the main lift and propulsion rotor, since the speed of rotation of such a rotor lies substantially in the range 200 rpm to 400 rpm: this gearbox is the main transmission gearbox).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Iraudo into the invention of Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo to include operational speed limits within the speed of sound as Iraudo discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that operates an engine within an acceptable range of values. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a rotorcraft powerplant management system that can disengage failing engines as disclosed by Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo and operational threshold of a rotorcraft engine as taught by Iraudo. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo teaches:
wherein the predetermined range comprises a lower limit defined in order to provide a minimum thrust enabling the rotorcraft to fly at a constant altitude at a forward cruising speed (Rossotto: [0158], In this method, at least one predetermined stage of flight may be a stage of flight that requires a given power for driving the rotors 2, this given power being greater than the maximum power delivered by the engines 10 together in the event of a failure of one of said engines 10; [0159], Consequently, a predetermined stage of flight is a stage of flight during which each engine in isolation is not sufficient for obtaining the given power needed to maintain the current mission).
Regarding claim 11, Rossotto in view of Iraudo teaches:
wherein, the at least one engine comprising a first engine and a second engine, the regulation failure affecting a first regulation system of the first engine, when the second alert is generated, the method comprises a command to stop the first engine (Rossotto: [0112], Optionally, the regulator device comprises one management system per engine, each management system controlling one engine, the regulator device including an avionics system communicating with the management systems, and said authorization is generated by the avionics system, said authorization being transmitted to each management system, the operation order being issued by a management system and transmitted to the electric motor; [0114], By way of example, said regulator device comprises at least one member selected from the following list: a measurement system for determining a speed of advance of the aircraft, one measurement device per engine for determining the torque being developed by the engine, one measurement device per engine for determining the power being developed by the engine, one sensor per engine for determining the speed of rotation of a member of the engine, a touch device for determining whether the aircraft is standing on ground, and one control selector per engine for requesting at least operation of an engine, or stopping of the engine, or idling of the engine; [0183], Such a failure may be detected in conventional manner, and may give rise to a “FAIL DOWN” alarm being issued).
Regarding claim 12, Rossotto in view of Iraudo teaches:
wherein, the at least one engine comprising a first engine and a second engine, the regulation failure affecting a first regulation system of the first engine, when the second alert is generated, the method comprises controlling a reversible transmission device to prevent engine torque from being transmitted from the first engine to a power transmission system (Rossotto: [0112], Optionally, the regulator device comprises one management system per engine, each management system controlling one engine, the regulator device including an avionics system communicating with the management systems, and said authorization is generated by the avionics system, said authorization being transmitted to each management system, the operation order being issued by a management system and transmitted to the electric motor; [0114], By way of example, said regulator device comprises at least one member selected from the following list: a measurement system for determining a speed of advance of the aircraft, one measurement device per engine for determining the torque being developed by the engine, one measurement device per engine for determining the power being developed by the engine, one sensor per engine for determining the speed of rotation of a member of the engine, a touch device for determining whether the aircraft is standing on ground, and one control selector per engine for requesting at least operation of an engine, or stopping of the engine, or idling of the engine; [0183], Such a failure may be detected in conventional manner, and may give rise to a “FAIL DOWN” alarm being issued).
Regarding claim 13, Rossotto discloses:
A rotorcraft comprising at least one lift rotor rotated by a power plant, the power plant comprising at least one engine, wherein the rotorcraft comprises a monitoring system comprising (Abstract, A method of driving rotation of a rotor of an aircraft, said aircraft having at least two fuel-burning engines and an electric motor suitable for driving rotation of said rotor. Said rotor is driven by using said engines together. An authorization is generated only during at least one predetermined stage of flight, said authorization authorizing the use of the electric motor in order to drive said rotor in rotation. While said authorization is valid and if one of said engines has failed, then an operation order is generated to require said electric motor to operate. While said operation order is valid, said rotor is driven by each engine that has not failed together with said electric motor):
at least one failure sensor detecting a regulation failure affecting a regulation system of the at least one engine ([0051], For example, the aircraft has one management system per engine and an avionics system communicating with the management systems, the authorization is generated by the avionics system, the authorization being transmitted to each management system, the operation order being issued by a management system and transmitted to the electric motor; [0055], If so, the avionics system sends the authorization to the management systems. Under such circumstances, if a management system considers an engine as failed, then this management system issues the operation order);
However, Rossotto does not specifically state:
a speed sensor measuring a current speed of rotation of the at least one lift rotor;
a controller determining whether there is a condition of compatibility or a condition of incompatibility between a current flight phase and the speed of rotation,
the controller generating, in a first operating mode, in the presence of the condition of compatibility and the regulation failure, a first alert simultaneously representative of the regulation failure and the condition of compatibility;
and the monitoring controller generating, in a second operating mode, in the presence of the condition of incompatibility and the regulation failure, a second alert simultaneously representative of the regulation failure and the condition of incompatibility.
Vallart teaches:
a speed sensor measuring a current speed of rotation of the at least one lift rotor ([0044], In this context, the present invention provides a method of regulating the speed of rotation, referred to as the speed NR, of at least one main rotor of a multi-engined rotorcraft);
a controller determining whether there is a condition of compatibility or a condition of incompatibility between a current flight phase and the speed of rotation ([0018], The speed NR is traditionally predefined as being substantially constant, being allowed to vary, depending on the flight attitude of the rotorcraft, over no more than a narrow range of speed variation of the order of 5% of a nominal speed NR, while nevertheless not exceeding variation of the order of 1% per second. The impact of such narrow variation on the speed NR is negligible on varying the mechanical power to be supplied by the main engines of the rotorcraft in order to drive the main rotor; [0046], The method of the present invention is applied in the context, with the exception of an engine-failure situation, of the power plant driving said at least one main rotor in application of a speed setpoint, referred to as the NR setpoint, having a value that is variable and that is calculated by a control unit depending on the current flight conditions of the rotorcraft; Abstract, a control unit),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Vallart into the invention of Rossotto to include detection of a speed of rotation of a rotor and minimum and maximum speeds at a given current flight phase as Vallart discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that operates an engine within an acceptable range of values. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a rotorcraft powerplant management system that can disengage failing engines as disclosed by Rossotto and operational threshold of a rotorcraft engine as taught by Vallart. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Iraudo teaches:
the controller generating, in a first operating mode, in the presence of the condition of compatibility and the regulation failure, a first alert simultaneously representative of the regulation failure and the condition of compatibility ([0039], In the method, the control and regulation apparatus includes alarm means, and the alarm means are controlled by the electronic computer via an analog connection when an event occurs that might diminish the safety of the rotorcraft; [0043], For safety reasons, the apparatus includes a display system arranged in a cockpit of the rotorcraft, and the electronic computer sends a message to the display system via at least one digital bus so that the display system can inform the pilot that the turbine engine is being used in abnormal manner; [0046], Thus, the pilot is informed by two different means that a maintenance action needs to be under-taken on the turbine engine. The engine is thus well monitored, thereby guaranteeing proper operation);
and the monitoring controller generating, in a second operating mode, in the presence of the condition of incompatibility and the regulation failure, a second alert simultaneously representative of the regulation failure and the condition of incompatibility ([0039], In the method, the control and regulation apparatus includes alarm means, and the alarm means are controlled by the electronic computer via an analog connection when an event occurs that might diminish the safety of the rotorcraft; [0043], For safety reasons, the apparatus includes a display system arranged in a cockpit of the rotorcraft, and the electronic computer sends a message to the display system via at least one digital bus so that the display system can inform the pilot that the turbine engine is being used in abnormal manner; [0046], Thus, the pilot is informed by two different means that a maintenance action needs to be under-taken on the turbine engine. The engine is thus well monitored, thereby guaranteeing proper operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Iraudo into the invention of Rossotto in view of Vallart to include generating an alert when there is a safety risk as Iraudo discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that can notify a pilot when a turbine engine is being used in an abnormal manner (Iraudo: [0043]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a rotorcraft powerplant management system that can disengage failing engines as disclosed by Rossotto in view of Vallart and an alert system to notify a pilot of a malfunctioning engine as taught by Iraudo. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossotto in view of Valalrt and Iraudo, and further in view of Thiriet et al. (US 20220388673 A1), hereinafter Thiriet.
Regarding claim 8, Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo does not specifically state:
wherein shifting from the first operating mode to the second operating mode is irreversible.
Thiriet teaches:
wherein shifting from the first operating mode to the second operating mode is irreversible ([0035], The means of coupling and decoupling can ensure an irreversible type of decoupling, so that a coupling after decoupling is no longer possible except by the intervention of a maintenance operator for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Thiriet into the invention of Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo to include an irreversible mode change as Thiriet discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that requires intervention of a maintenance operator to clear an engine for future use (Thiriet: [0035]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a rotorcraft powerplant management system that can disengage failing engines as disclosed by Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo and an irreversible decoupling of an engine from a transmission system as taught by Thiriet. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 20, Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo does not specifically state:
wherein shifting from the first operating mode to the second operating mode is irreversible.
Thiriet teaches:
wherein shifting from the first operating mode to the second operating mode is irreversible ([0035], The means of coupling and decoupling can ensure an irreversible type of decoupling, so that a coupling after decoupling is no longer possible except by the intervention of a maintenance operator for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Thiriet into the invention of Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo to include an irreversible mode change as Thiriet discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that requires intervention of a maintenance operator to clear an engine for future use (Thiriet: [0035]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a rotorcraft powerplant management system that can disengage failing engines as disclosed by Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo and an irreversible decoupling of an engine from a transmission system as taught by Thiriet. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo, and further in view of Lewis (US 20240208667 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo does not specifically state:
wherein the generating of the first alert comprises a first display step wherein at least one item of information is displayed on a display unit in a first predetermined color.
Lewis teaches:
wherein the generating of the first alert comprises a first display step wherein at least one item of information is displayed on a display unit in a first predetermined color ([0002], In some embodiments of the aircraft, the controller is configured to provide the alert by: rendering the alert with the display using different colors based on a severity of the alert).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lewis into the invention of Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo to different colored alerts representing severity as Lewis discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that provides alerts by rendering the alert on a display using different colors depending on a severity of the alert (Lewis: [0002]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a rotorcraft powerplant management system that can disengage failing engines as disclosed by Rossotto in view of Vallart and Iraudo and displaying alerts on a display by Lewis. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Documents Considered but Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Drolet (US 20240060429 A1) discloses a system for a gas turbine engine includes an engine control system. The engine control system includes a processor in communication with a non-transitory memory storing instructions, which instructions when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: obtain a current engine installation configuration for the gas turbine engine, determine a normalized value of the engine parameter for an uninstalled gas turbine engine based on the current engine installation configuration and one or more of a normalized engine power (SHPN) of the gas turbine engine, an airspeed, or an altitude, determine a fully deteriorated engine (FDE) value of the engine parameter using the normalized value of the engine parameter, determine a current value of the engine parameter for the gas turbine engine, and determine the engine operating margin for the engine parameter based on the FDE value of the engine parameter and the current value of the engine parameter. Love (US 20170174363 A1) discloses a method of assessing health of two or more components includes receiving, from an aircraft, a plurality of flight measurements, the aircraft comprising a first component and a second component. At least two flight regimes that the aircraft operated in at the same time are identified. The at least two flight regimes comprise a first flight regime and a second flight regime. One of the first flight regime and the second flight regime is assigned to the first component based on where the first flight regime and the second regime are located within a prioritized list of flight regimes associated with the first component. One of the first flight regime and the second flight regime is assigned to the second component based on where the first flight regime and the second regime are located within a prioritized list of flight regimes associated with the second component.
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 IZCALLI ANDRE RIOS-AGUIRRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 9:00 - 19:00 EST.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/I.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights