DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B (claims 11-18) in the reply filed on 21 May 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites “a controller” and depends from claim 11 which recites “a controller”; it is not clear if a controller in claim 14 refers to the controller previously recited in claim 11 or to an additional and different controller.
Clarification and/or amendment is respectfully requested.
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.
Claim(s) 11-12, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calkins et al – hereafter Calkins – (US 20190031319 A1; also US 12,065,234 B2) in view of Amerling et al – hereafter Amerling – (US 6,261,062 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Calkins teaches an apparatus (Fig.1-6) comprising:
a fan pitch actuation system (202) coupled to a blade (150) of a propeller, the fan pitch actuation system moveable in a first direction to rotate the blade from a first pitch angle to a second pitch angle based on an amount of hydraulic fluid pumped into the fan pitch actuation system (Fig.3; ¶56);
a fluid supply/reservoir (212) to store the hydraulic fluid;
a valve (240/242) coupled to an output (via 218) of the fluid supply/reservoir and an input of the fan pitch actuation system (¶72, note “the pitch hydraulic fluid exiting the protective control valve 240 flows downstream to the oil transfer bearing 186 of the pitch actuation assembly 202”), the valve to, when open provide the hydraulic fluid from the fluid supply/reservoir to the fan pitch actuation system based on a control signal (¶70-71); and
a controller (250) to:
detect a triggering event (¶83, note “control valve 230 fails, becomes unresponsive, or erroneously drives the pitch of the propeller blades 150 toward a fine pitch position”) ; and
based on at least one of user preferences, flight characteristics, or engine characteristics, output the control signal to open the valve based on the detected triggering event (¶83, note “the protective control valve 240 takes over operation of governing overspeed conditions as well as feathering the propeller blades 150 to a full feather position. The controller 250 then utilizes the protective speed sensor 244 and may use the protective blade angle feedback sensor 246 in conjunction with the protective control valve 240 to control the propeller assembly 106”).
Calkins does not explicitly teach an accumulator to store the hydraulic fluid.
Amerling teaches a controllable pitch propeller actuation system (column 1 line 6-7). Amerling further teaches (Fig.4) the controllable pitch propeller actuation system including multiple valves (210/240/242/251/252/253/254), a fluid supply (42) with hydraulic fluid (44) and an accumulator (200) that further stores pressurized hydraulic fluid to be used in controlling the pitch of the propeller. This configuration allows maintaining the hydraulic fluid at a desired operating pressure (column 10 line 35-37).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Calkins by having an accumulator to store the hydraulic fluid based on the teachings of Amerling because this configuration allows maintaining the hydraulic fluid at a desired operating pressure.
Regarding claim 12, Calkins and Amerling further teach the triggering event is at least one of a malfunction or an error (Calkins ¶83, note “in the event the primary control valve 230 fails, becomes unresponsive, or erroneously drives the pitch of the propeller blades 150 toward a fine pitch position, the protective control valve 240 takes over operation of governing overspeed conditions as well as feathering the propeller blades 150 to a full feather position”).
Regarding claim 15, Calkins and Amerling further teach a reservoir to store the hydraulic fluid output from the fan pitch actuation system (Calkins ¶65, note lines 224 are drain lines where the hydraulic fluid can be scavenged to the hydraulic fluid supply 212; Also, Amerling column 10 line 52-54, note “Hydraulic fluid will return through line 52 and valve element 254 to return to the reservoir 42”).
Regarding claim 16, Calkins and Amerling further teach the valve is a first valve, wherein the apparatus further includes:
a hydraulic source (Calkins Fig.3, 210; Amerling Fig.4, 40) coupled to the reservoir, the hydraulic source to receive the hydraulic fluid from the reservoir (Calkins Fig.3; Amerling Fig.4); and
a second valve (Amerling Fig.4, 240) coupled to the hydraulic source and the accumulator, the second valve to, when open, cause the hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic source to flow into the accumulator (Amerling Fig.4).
Regarding claim 17, Calkins and Amerling further teach the controller is to output the control signal to a control coil (Calkins Fig.3, note 242 is an electrohydraulic servovalve which is controlled via control signals to a control coil), however, do not explicitly teach wherein the control signal being applied to the control coil causes the second valve to open. Note that Calkins’ control signal controls the first valve and the second valve of Amerling is a check valve.
However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the apparatus of Calkins and Amerling by having the check valve being a valve with an electrohydraulic servovalve controller as disclosed by Calkins because this would provide better control features to the overall apparatus.
Regarding claim 18, Calkins and Amerling further teach the valve is a first valve and the fan pitch actuation system, the accumulator, and first valve is included in a first engine (Calkins Fig.3 and Amerling Fig.4), wherein the apparatus further includes:
a second valve (Amerling Fig.4, 240) coupled to a hydraulic source (Amerling Fig.4, 40) and the accumulator (Amerling Fig.4, 200), the second valve to, when open, cause the hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic source to flow into the accumulator (Amerling Fig.4), however, do not explicitly teach the hydraulic source being included in a second engine.
However, it has been held that if shifting the position of a component in a device would not have modified the operation of said device, said position shift of said component is unpatentable, additionally, a particular placement of a component in a device has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In the current instance, there is no evidence that having the hydraulic source being included in a second engine, would change the operation of the apparatus, therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the apparatus of Calkins and Amerling by shifting the position/placement of the hydraulic source to be included in a second engine as an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The following claim limitations were not found in the prior art.
the valve is a first valve, wherein the apparatus further includes: a connector coupled to an output of the fan pitch actuation system; a pressure relief valve coupled to the connector; a second valve coupled to the connector; and a reservoir coupled to the pressure relief valve and the second valve (as in the context of claim 13).
Calkins teaches a pressure relief valve (Fig.3, 216), however, the pressure relief valve is not configured with a second valve and a reservoir as claimed.
Amerling also teaches a pressure relief valve (Fig.4, 210), however, the pressure relief valve is not configured with a second valve and a reservoir as claimed.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights