FINAL 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 .
This is the second office action on the merits. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/29/2025. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 8; canceled claims 2, 9, and 16; and added claims 21-23. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23 are pending and examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/749,009, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Application 17/749,009 has no disclosure of “the low spool motor-generator and the high spool motor-generator are electrically connected via at least one electrical conductor configured to convey electrical power generated by one motor-generator to the other motor- generator, and the low spool motor-generator and the high spool motor-generator do not share a common stator” (claim 21) and “the operational data received from the operational data source comprises a fan inlet temperature, and wherein the controller is configured to command the high spool motor-generator to push power to the low spool motor-generator in response to determining that the fan inlet temperature exceeds a threshold fan inlet temperature, the threshold fan inlet temperature comprising a calibrated control parameter accessible to the controller” (claim 23). Accordingly, claims 21 and 23 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application filing date.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly for claims 8 and 15), the limitation “the controller is configured to command the high spool motor-generator to push power to the low spool motor-generator in response to a ratio of a fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature being less than a threshold fan-inlet-temperature-to-combustor-outlet-temperature ratio” lacks written description because the specification fails to provide enough detail to reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter. Regarding the limitation, the only support provided in the specification is found in paragraphs [0010], [0016], [0026], [0048], [0050], and [0055]. Paragraphs [0010], [0016], [0026], and [0055] merely repeat the claim limitation verbatim. Paragraph [0048] provides: “For example, at an increased fan inlet temperature and/or a decreased ratio of the fan inlet temperature to the combustor outlet temperature, controller 116 may command high spool motor-generator 78 to push power to low spool motor-generator 76.” Paragraph [0055] merely provides that the fan inlet temperature to combustor outlet ratio is one of various engine operating conditions that would cause the controller to push power from the low spool motor-generator to the high spool motor-generator, or vice versa.
There is no information on what exactly the “threshold fan-inlet-temperature-to-combustor-outlet-temperature ratio” is or what it entails. For example, the specification does not provide any example numerical values for this ratio. The specification also does not relate this threshold ratio to any operating conditions of the engine (e.g., a high power condition, a low power condition, etc.). Furthermore, there is no information regarding what happens in the event that the ratio of the fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature is greater than the threshold ratio. One cannot assume that the low spool motor-generator will push power to the high spool motor-generator if the actual ratio is greater than the threshold ratio. The specification does not provide any algorithms or flowcharts to properly illustrate how the claimed invention will work.
The limitation is overly broad, and the specification does not provide any quantitative (e.g., numerical values) or qualitative (e.g., engine conditions) details regarding the “threshold fan-inlet-temperature-to combustor-outlet-temperature ratio”. The limitation would cover every engine in existence because the “threshold” is undefined. For example, an engine sitting idle at an airport would qualify having a fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature being less than said “threshold” because the threshold could be set at any value slightly above zero. An engine sitting idle at an airport would meet easily meet the limitation because the combustor outlet temperature would be zero, which is less than a value slightly above zero. Likewise, an engine performing a high power maneuver (such as takeoff) would also qualify having a fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature being less than said “threshold” because the threshold could be set at an extremely high value.
For computer-implemented functional claim limitations, MPEP 2161.01(I), 6th paragraph, provides the following: “Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient)”.
The specification does not provide any algorithms or steps for performing the computer-implemented function, and the specification merely restates the function recited in the claim (that a fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature being less than said “threshold”). For these reasons, the claim lacks written description.
Claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-23 are also rejected for the same reasons and because they depend on either claim 1, 8, or 15.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites limitations which are not in the specification and therefore they introduce NEW MATTER. The new limitations are “the low spool motor-generator and the high spool motor-generator are electrically connected via at least one electrical conductor configured to convey electrical power generated by one motor-generator to the other motor-generator” and “the low spool motor-generator and the high spool motor-generator do not share a common stator” – emphasis on “not”, which renders the new limitations as negative limitations. Negative limitations or exclusionary proviso, that are not supported by the disclosure as filed, and introduced in a claim via an amendment in order to avoid the applied prior art in a rejection, must be rejected under 35 U.S.C.112, first paragraph, as "NEW MATTER". Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure, MPEP 2173.05(i).
It is further noted that the words “conductor” and “stator” are not found in the specification.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation “the threshold fan inlet temperature comprising a calibrated control parameter accessible to the controller” is not supported in Applicant’s disclosure. The words “calibrated” and “control parameter” are not found in the specification. For these reasons, the limitation constitutes new matter.
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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-23 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 (and similarly for claims 8 and 15), the limitation “the controller is configured to command the high spool motor-generator to push power to the low spool motor-generator in response to a ratio of the fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature being less than a threshold fan-inlet-temperature-to-combustor-outlet-temperature ratio” is indefinite because the “threshold fan-inlet-temperature-to-combustor-outlet-temperature ratio” is not well-defined. The specification does not provide any numerical values for this threshold ratio, nor does it describe the engine conditions that this threshold ratio entails. Furthermore, it is not understood what happens in the event that the ratio of the fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature is greater than the threshold ratio. The specification does not provide any algorithms or flowcharts to properly illustrate how the claimed invention will work.
As stated in the above 35 U.S.C. 112(a) section, the limitation is overly broad and would cover every engine in existence because the “threshold” is undefined in both quantitative and qualitative terms.
Regarding claims 11-14 and 18-20, these claims recite additional conditional limitations that may possibly conflict with the conditional limitation of claims 8 and 15. For example, claim 11 (which depends on claim 8) requires “the controller is configured to command the low spool motor-generator to operate in the push power mode in response to determining the velocity of the change in throttle position is greater than the threshold throttle change velocity”, which could be interpreted as a high power event. However, the claim 8 limitation requires “the controller is configured to command the high spool motor-generator to operate in the push power mode in response to determining the ratio of the fan inlet temperature to the combustor outlet temperature is less than the threshold fan-inlet- temperature-to-combustor-outlet-temperature ratio”, which could also be interpreted as a high power event. The specification provides no guidance on what happens in the event of two conflicting scenarios. Which one overrides the other? The specification does not provide any algorithms or flowcharts to determine what happens under these two conflicting events.
MPEP 2181, subsection (II)(B) states: “Accordingly, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate if the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor” and “Mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting "software" without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph”.
Claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-23 are also rejected because they depend on either claim 1, 8, or 15.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kupratis (US 2020/0240331 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kupratis teaches (Figs. 2 and 6) a power extraction system (62 – Fig. 2) for a gas turbine engine (20 – Fig. 2), comprising:
a low spool transmission (30);
a high spool transmission (32);
a low spool motor-generator (94) mechanically connected (see Fig. 6) to the low spool transmission (30);
a high spool motor-generator (92) mechanically connected to the high spool transmission (20) and electrically connected (Fig. 6: via 90 – see also ¶ [0053], ll. 8-12 and 14-17) to the low spool motor-generator (94);
a controller (64 – Fig. 6) in operable communication (via 102) with the low spool motor-generator (94)and the high spool motor-generator (92); and
an operational data source (Fig. 6: information from 96) in communication with the controller (64), wherein the controller (64) is configured to determine whether to command the high spool motor-generator (92) to push power to the low spool motor-generator (94) based on operational data received from the operational data source (note that aircraft control system 96 is capable of providing any information regarding the aircraft and/or engine),
wherein the controller (64) is configured to command the high spool motor-generator (92) to push power to the low spool motor-generator (94) in response to a ratio of a fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature being less than a threshold fan- inlet-temperature-to-combustor-outlet-temperature ratio (based on ¶ [0055], which teaches “during a power increase of engine 20 as achieved by increasing the rate of fuel flow combusted in combustor 56” and in response, “The acceleration of the low speed spool 30 can be controllably enhanced by drawing power from the high speed spool 32 by the inner motor-generator 92 and transferring the power to the outer motor generator 94”. Note that an increased rate of fuel flow combusted in the combustor results in an increase in the combustor outlet temperature, which decreases the ratio of the fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature from an unspecified threshold ratio. Note that a fan inlet temperature is inherent in all turbofan engines, and thus, a ratio of the fan inlet temperature to a combustor outlet temperature is also inherent in all turbofan engines).
Regarding claim 3, Kupratis teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Kupratis further teaches (Fig. 1) the gas turbine engine (20) is a two-spool turbofan engine (including spools 30 and 32) including a fan section (42) configured to move air along a bypass flow path (arrow “B”), and the fan inlet temperature is an inlet temperature of the fan section (42).
Regarding claim 4, Kupratis teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Kupratis further teaches (Fig. 6) the low spool motor-generator (94) is configured to output power generated by rotation of the low spool transmission (30) into the high spool motor-generator (92) – (¶ [0053], ll. 8-12 and 14-17).
Regarding claim 5, Kupratis teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 4, and Kupratis further teaches (Fig. 6) the high spool motor-generator (92) is configured to output power generated by rotation of the high spool transmission (32) into the low spool motor-generator (94) – (¶ [0053], ll. 8-12 and 14-17).
Regarding claim 6, Kupratis teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 5, and Kupratis further teaches (Fig. 6) the controller (64) is configured to determine whether to command the low spool motor-generator (94) to push power to the high spool motor-generator (92) based on the operational data received from the operational data source (as evidenced by ¶ [0055] and [0056]); and
the controller (64) is configured to command the low spool motor-generator (94) to push power to the high spool motor-generator (92) in response to identifying at least one of a snap acceleration or a cruise condition (based on ¶ [0056], which teaches “during a power decrease of engine 20” and in response, “by drawing power from the low speed spool 30 by the outer motor-generator 94 and transferring the power to the inner motor generator 92”. Note that a cruise condition is a power decrease of the engine).
Regarding claim 7, Kupratis teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 6, and Kupratis further teaches (Fig. 2) a first gear train (comprising 68, 76, 80, 70, and 88) rotationally coupled between the low spool transmission (30) and the low spool motor-generator (94); and
a second gear train (comprising 66 and 86) rotationally coupled between the high spool transmission (32) and the high spool motor-generator (92).
Regarding claim 22, Kupratis teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Kupratis further teaches (Fig. 2) the low spool motor-generator (94) and the high spool motor-generator (92) are electrically connected such that electrical power output by one of the motor-generators is received as electrical input by the other of the motor-generators to drive rotation of the associated spool (¶ [0053], ll. 12-17: “The transfer of loads between the spools 30, 32 is transferred through a combination of power input and output. Operation of the motor/ generators 92,94 enables power to be drawn from one spool and input into the other spool through the interface provided between the inner and outer motor/ generators 92, 94”).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupratis (US 2020/0240331 A1), in view of Dalal (US 10,934,935 B2: IDS reference).
Regarding claim 21, Kupratis teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, except for the low spool motor-generator and the high spool motor-generator are electrically connected via at least one electrical conductor configured to convey electrical power generated by one motor-generator to the other motor- generator, and the low spool motor-generator and the high spool motor-generator do not share a common stator.
Dalal teaches (Fig. 2) a similar power extraction system (104 – Fig. 1) for a gas turbine engine (254) comprising:
a low spool transmission (258);
a high spool transmission (256);
a low spool motor-generator (272) mechanically connected to the low spool transmission (258);
a high spool motor-generator (262) mechanically connected to the high-spool transmission (256) and electrically connected (via power converters 264, 274 and contactors 278, 280) to the low-spool motor-generator (272); and further teaches:
the low spool motor-generator (272) and the high spool motor-generator (262) are electrically connected via at least one electrical conductor (contactors 278, 280) configured to convey electrical power generated by one motor-generator (262, 272) to the other motor-generator (262, 272), and the low spool motor-generator (272) and the high spool motor-generator (262) do not share a common stator (as shown in Fig. 2, motor-generators 262, 272 are connected to one another through power convertors and contactors, which are not a common stator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kupratis by substituting the low-spool motor-generator connected to the high-spool motor-generator via a common stator for Dalal’s low-spool motor-generator connected to the high-spool motor-generator via power convertors and contactors, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (in this case, a low-spool motor-generator connected to the high-spool motor-generator via power convertors and contactors, as taught by Dalal) for another (in this case, Kupratis’ low-spool motor-generator connected to the high-spool motor-generator via a common stator) to obtain predictable results (in this case, to provide a similar, interchangeable motor-generator system for the low spool and the high spool that are electrically connected to one another), was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), MPEP 2143 (I) (B).
Claim 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupratis (US 2020/0240331 A1), in view of Gansler (US 2019/0002113 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Kupratis teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, except for the operational data received from the operational data source comprises a fan inlet temperature, and wherein the controller is configured to command the high spool motor-generator to push power to the low spool motor-generator in response to determining that the fan inlet temperature exceeds a threshold fan inlet temperature, the threshold fan inlet temperature comprising a calibrated control parameter accessible to the controller.
Gansler teaches (Fig. 2) a similar gas turbine engine (100 – Fig. 2), a controller (72), a low spool motor-generator and a high spool motor-generator (Fig. 2: 56 – ¶ [0056], ll. 14-18: “the first electric machine 62 may include a plurality of electric machines, e.g., with one being drivingly connected to the LP system (e.g., the LP shaft 124) and one being drivingly connected to the HP system (e.g., the HP shaft 122)”), and further teaches:
an operational data received from an operational data source comprises a fan inlet temperature (¶ [0059], ll. 23-27: “may include one or more ambient conditions sensors, such as one or more ambient temperature sensors, positioned outside the core air flowpath 121 of the turbomachine 102 for sensing data indicative of an ambient condition, such as an ambient temperature”), and wherein the controller (72) is configured to command the high spool motor-generator to push power to the low spool motor-generator in response to determining that the fan inlet temperature exceeds a threshold fan inlet temperature (¶ [0038], ll. 6-14: “the hybrid electric propulsion system may receive a command to accelerate the turbomachine to provide a desired thrust output, and further may receive data indicative of a temperature parameter approaching or exceeding an upper threshold. Further, in response to the received command and the received data, the hybrid electric propulsion system may provide electrical power to the electric machine to and power to the turbomachine to provide, or assist with providing, the desired thrust output”. Note that “accelerate the turbomachine” would involve pushing power to the electric machine that is connected to the LP shaft), the threshold fan inlet temperature comprising a calibrated control parameter accessible to the controller (¶ [0009], ll. 13-17: “data indicative of the ambient temperature approaching or exceeding the hot day condition threshold includes receiving, by one or more computing devices, data from a temperature sensor within the turbomachine”. Note that ¶ [0076], ll. 26-30 teaches “the hot day condition threshold may be approximately eighty-five degrees Fahrenheit. However, for other hybrid electric propulsion systems, or rather, for other turbomachines, the hot day temperature threshold may have any other value”, thereby showing that the threshold fan inlet temperature can be calibrated to any control parameter).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kupratis such that the operational data received from the operational data source comprises a fan inlet temperature, and wherein the controller is configured to command the high spool motor-generator to push power to the low spool motor-generator in response to determining that the fan inlet temperature exceeds a threshold fan inlet temperature, the threshold fan inlet temperature comprising a calibrated control parameter accessible to the controller, in order to use the operational data to provide power to the motor-generators to provide, or assist with providing, the desired thrust output, as taught by Gansler (¶ [0038], ll. 6-14), therefore allowing Kupratis’ controller 64 to use this operational data to:
command the high spool motor-generator (Kupratis, 92) to push power to the low spool motor-generator (Kupratis, 94) in response to determining that the fan inlet temperature exceeds a threshold fan inlet temperature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant argues that the specification provides the control behavior and the “Written description does not require disclosure of numerical threshold values or exhaustive implementation details”. This is not persuasive because the claim, as it stands, is overly broad due to the lack of sufficient details of the threshold. The specification does not provide any quantitative (e.g., numerical values) or qualitative (e.g., engine conditions) details regarding the “threshold fan-inlet-temperature-to combustor-outlet-temperature ratio”. The limitation would cover every engine in existence because the “threshold” is undefined in both the claim and in the specification.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “thresholds used in engine control systems are routinely calibration-dependent…”, as stated above, the “threshold” is currently undefined in both the claim and in the specification. By leaving the threshold undefined, Applicant is attempting to pursue an extremely broad claim that enables the threshold to be recalibrated to any numerical value or engine condition. This would cover every possible scenario that the engine operates in.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “The rejection improperly relies on MPEP §2181 and algorithm disclosure requirements applicable to means-plus-function limitations” and “The claims do not invoke §112(f)”, the algorithm disclosure requirements apply to all computer-implemented functional claim limitations, including those that do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As stated in MPEP 2161.01, “Even if a claim is not construed as a means-plus- function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), computer-implemented functional claim language must still be evaluated for sufficient disclosure under the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a)”. Per MPEP 2161.01(I), 6th paragraph: “Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient)”.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Note that the responses from the previous section equally apply to Applicant’s argument in this section.
Applicant’s argument that “The claims recite multiple independent control triggers” is not persuasive because of the lack of details of the recited thresholds. For example, claim 11 (which depends on claim 8) requires the controller to command the low spool motor-generator to push power in response to determining the velocity of the change in throttle position is greater than the threshold throttle change velocity, and claim 8 requires the controller to command the high spool motor-generator to push power in response to determining the ratio of the fan inlet temperature to the combustor outlet temperature is less than a threshold fan-inlet-temperature-to-combustor-outlet-temperature ratio. Without knowing exactly what the threshold throttle change velocity and the threshold fan-inlet-temperature-to-combustor-outlet-temperature ratio are, one cannot definitively say that claims 8 and 11 recite multiple independent control triggers.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant’s arguments in this section are persuasive only for independent claims 8 and 15. These claims require “receiving…a fan inlet temperature and a combustor outlet temperature” and “comparing…a ratio of the fan inlet temperature to the combustor outlet temperature to a threshold fan-inlet-temperature-to-combustor-outlet-temperature ratio”. Kupratis does not teach “receiving” or “comparing” these specific parameters. Therefore, the prior art rejections under Kupratis have been withdrawn for independent claims 8 and 15.
However, it is noted that independent claim 1 does not require “receiving…a fan inlet temperature and a combustor outlet temperature” or “comparing…a ratio of the fan inlet temperature to the combustor outlet temperature to a threshold fan-inlet-temperature-to-combustor-outlet-temperature ratio”. Therefore, the prior art rejection under Kupratis is maintained for claim 1.
Applicant’s argument that “Load sharing in Kupratis is achieved by controlling stator fields and electromagnetic slip between armatures, not by transferring electrical power from one motor-generator to another” is unpersuasive. For all intents and purposes, “loads” are electrical power in the context of Kupratis’ system. As stated in ¶ [0053] of Kupratis, “Operation of the motor/ generators 92,94 enables power to be drawn from one spool and input into the other spool through the interface provided between the inner and outer motor/ generators 92, 94”. The word “power” in this context means electrical power.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Note that all previous rejections in this section have been withdrawn. The current rejections in this office action are for new claims 21 and 23.
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 HENRY NG whose telephone number is (571)272-2318. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/HENRY NG/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741