DETAILED ACTION
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 in response to the above application filed on 02/25/2025. Claims 1 – 20 are examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in of Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270. That is, Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 falls entirely within the scope of Claim 1 of the instant application or, in other words, Claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 because specific anticipates generic. As shown in Table 1 below (underlined limitations of patent correspond to limitations of the instant application), the limitations of Claim 1 of the instant application are recited in Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270. Claim 1, l. 8 of the instant application recites “an alternating current (AC) bus of the aircraft”. Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 recited “A system for combining power on a bus of an aircraft…a second transformer stage configured to transform the second AC waveform to the second ATRU output at a second output of the second ATRU”. Since the second ATRU output was an alternating current (AC) waveform that was combined on the aircraft bus, said aircraft bus had to be an alternating current (AC) bus since alternating current (AC) electricity supplied to a direct current (DC) bus would cause immediate and cascading failures of the DC components of said DC bus. Therefore apparatus Claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 since specific anticipates generic.
Table 1
U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270
Instant Application
10. A system for combining power on a bus of an aircraft, the system comprising: a first autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU) configured to output a first ATRU output based on a first GPU output from a first ground power unit (GPU), the first ATRU including:
1. An autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU) for an aircraft,
the ATRU comprising:
a first sync generator/receiver configured to generate a sync signal;
a first frequency source configured to generate a first frequency signal based on the sync signal generated by the first sync generator/receiver;
a first frequency conversion stage configured to synthesize a first alternating current (AC) waveform based the first GPU output
and the first frequency signal; and
a first transformer stage configured to transform the first AC waveform to the first ATRU output at a first output of the first ATRU;
and second autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU) configured to output a second ATRU output based on a second GPU output from a second ground power unit (GPU), the second ATRU including:
a second sync generator/receiver configured to receive the sync signal from the first ATRU;
a sync generator/receiver
configured to receive a sync signal;
a second frequency source configured to generate a second frequency signal based on the sync signal received from the first ATRU;
a frequency source configured to generate a frequency signal based on the sync signal;
a second frequency conversion stage configured to synthesize a second alternating current (AC) waveform based the second GPU output and the second
frequency signal; and
a frequency conversion stage configured to synthesize an alternating current (AC) waveform based on a ground power unit (GPU) output received at an input of the ATRU and the frequency signal; and
a second transformer stage configured to transform the second AC waveform to the second ATRU output at a second output of the second ATRU,
a transformer stage configured to transform the AC waveform and to output an ATRU output to an alternating current (AC) bus of the aircraft,
the first ATRU output and the second ATRU output being synchronized by the sync signal.
the
ATRU output being synchronized with the sync signal.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 2 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in of Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270. That is, Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 falls entirely within the scope of Claim 2 of the instant application or, in other words, Claim 2 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 because specific anticipates generic. As shown in Table 1 above (underlined limitations of patent correspond to limitations of the instant application), the limitations of Claim 1 of the instant application are recited in Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270. Claim 2 depends from Claim 1. Claim 2 of the instant application recites “The ATRU for the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the AC bus includes other signals that are synchronized to the sync signal”. Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 recited “the first ATRU output and the second ATRU output being synchronized by the sync signal” which reads on Claim 2 since the first ATRU output, i.e., signal, and the second ATRU output, i.e., signal, to the AC bus were both synchronized to the sync signal. Therefore apparatus Claim 2 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 since specific anticipates generic.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 3 and 4 of the instant application is generic to all that is recited in of Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270. That is, Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 falls entirely within the scope of Claims 3 and 4 of the instant application or, in other words, Claims 3 and 4 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 because specific anticipates generic. As shown in Table 1 above (underlined limitations of patent correspond to limitations of the instant application), the limitations of Claims 3 and 4 of the instant application are recited in Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270. Claim 3 depends from Claim 1 and Claim 4 depends from Claim 3. Claim 3 of the instant application recites “The ATRU for the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the ATRU is a first ATRU of the aircraft and the sync signal is received from a second autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU) of the aircraft”. Claim 4 of the instant application recites “4. The ATRU for the aircraft according to claim 3, wherein the second ATRU is configured to output a second ATRU output to the AC bus, the second ATRU output being synchronized with the sync signal”. Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 recited “first autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU)”, “second autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU)”, the “second autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU) including: second sync generator/receiver configured to receive the sync signal from the first ATRU”, and “the first ATRU output and the second ATRU output being synchronized by the sync signal” which reads on Claims 3 and 4 since Claim 3 merely switches the numerical names of the ATRU. The first ATRU of Claims 3 and 4 of the instant application reads on the second ATRU of Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270. Similarly, the second ATRU of Claims 3 and 4 of the instant application reads on the first ATRU of Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270. Therefore apparatus Claims 3 and 4 of the instant application are anticipated by Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 since specific anticipates generic.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 in view of Atkey et al. (7,207,521). As shown in Table 1 above (underlined limitations of patent correspond to limitations of the instant application), the limitations of Claims 1 and 5 of the instant application are recited in Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270. Claim 5 depends from Claim 1 and recites “The ATRU for the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein: the GPU output is received at the ATRU from a ground power unit (GPU) coupled externally to the aircraft”. Claim 10 recites “second autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU) configured to output a second ATRU output based on a second GPU output from a second ground power unit (GPU)”. Claim 10 does not recite said ground power unit (GPU) “…coupled externally to the aircraft”. Atkey teaches, in Fig. 4 and Col. 9, ll. 15 - 40, a similar aircraft having a first ground power unit (GPU) [412a] and a second ground power unit (GPU) [412b] both coupled (via ground connectors 413a and 413b) externally to the aircraft (402) because, as implied by the name “ground power unit”, the GPUs remain on the ground, e.g., at a first/departure airport, where the GPUs would be uncoupled from the aircraft so said aircraft can take-off from the first airport, climb to cruising altitude, cruise to a destination airport, descend and land at the destination airport which can be hundreds to thousands of miles away from the take-off airport. At the destination airport a different GPU or set of GPUs would be coupled externally to the aircraft to electrically power the aircraft systems when the propulsion engines of said aircraft are shutdown, e.g., at an airport terminal gate when passengers are deplaning or onboarding.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 in view of Atkey teaches that the ground power unit (GPU) would be coupled externally to the aircraft because that was how ground power units (GPUs) were designed and intended to be used.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 in view of Brombach et al. (9,484,749). As shown in Table 1 above (underlined limitations of patent correspond to limitations of the instant application), the limitations of Claim 1 of the instant application is recited in Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270. Claim 6 depends from Claim 1 and recites “The ATRU for the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the GPU output is a three-phase alternating current (AC) signal in a lower voltage domain and the ATRU output is a three phase AC signal in a higher voltage domain” which is not recited by Claim 10. Brombach teaches, in Figs. 1 – 6, Col. 1, ll. 60 – 65, Col. 2, ll. 10 – 15, Col. 4, ll. 45 – 55, and Col. 8, ll. 40 - 50, a similar ground power unit (GPU) [6 – Fig. 1] having a GPU output is a three-phase alternating current (AC) signal in a lower voltage domain [the three 115 Volt AC lines connecting 6 to 7] and the ATRU [7] output is a three phase AC signal in a higher voltage domain [the three 230 Volt AC lines leaving 7].
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 with the GPU output is a three-phase alternating current (AC) signal in a lower voltage domain and the ATRU output is a three phase AC signal in a higher voltage domain, taught by Brombach, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the system for combining power on a bus of an aircraft, the system comprising: a first autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU) configured to output a first ATRU output based on a first GPU output from a first ground power unit (GPU), and the GPU output is a three-phase alternating current (AC) signal in a lower voltage domain and the ATRU output is a three phase AC signal in a higher voltage domain, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the three-phase alternating current (AC) signal in a lower voltage domain and the ATRU output is a three phase AC signal in a higher voltage domain, taught by Brombach, for the non-recited GPU output phase and voltage of Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the GPU would output 115 Volt AC on three separate power lines that fed into the autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU) where step-up transformers would “step-up” the three-phase 115 Volt input power into three-phase 230 Volt output power to match the voltage level and phase of electrical power generated by the aircraft engine generators (1 – Fig. 1, Brombach - Col. 2, ll. 55 – 65). KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 in view of Brombach et al. (9,484,749). As shown in Table 1 above (underlined limitations of patent correspond to limitations of the instant application), the limitations of Claim 1 of the instant application is recited in Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270. Claim 8 depends from Claim 1 and recites “The ATRU for the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the GPU output is a three-phase alternating current (AC) signal at a first frequency and the ATRU output is a three phase AC signal at a second frequency, the first frequency different from the second frequency.” which is not recited by Claim 10. Brombach teaches, in Figs. 1 – 6, Col. 1, ll. 60 – 65, Col. 2, ll. 10 – 15, Col. 4, ll. 45 – 55, and Col. 8, ll. 40 - 50, a similar ground power unit (GPU) [6 – Fig. 1] having a GPU output is a three-phase alternating current (AC) signal at a first frequency [Col. 7, ll. 5 – 35 teaches that the three-phase GPU output can be a variable frequency ranging from 360 – 800 Hz, hertz] and the ATRU output is a three phase AC signal [the three 230 Volt AC lines leaving 7] at a second frequency [Col. 2, ll. 3 – 5 teaches that the aircraft on-board electrical systems required AC electricity at a frequency of 400 Hz], the first frequency [variable frequency ranging from 360 – 800 Hz] different from the second frequency [400 Hz].
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 with the GPU output is a three-phase alternating current (AC) signal at a first frequency and the ATRU output is a three phase AC signal at a second frequency, the first frequency different from the second frequency, taught by Brombach, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the system for combining power on a bus of an aircraft, the system comprising: a first autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU) configured to output a first ATRU output based on a first GPU output from a first ground power unit (GPU), and the GPU output is a three-phase alternating current (AC) signal at a first frequency and the ATRU output is a three phase AC signal at a second frequency, the first frequency different from the second frequency, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the GPU output is a three-phase alternating current (AC) signal at a first frequency and the ATRU output is a three phase AC signal at a second frequency, the first frequency different from the second frequency, taught by Brombach, for the non-recited GPU output phase and frequencies of Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the GPU would output 115 Volt AC on three separate power lines at a first variable frequency and the ATRU would have adjusted the first variable frequency into a fixed second frequency, e.g., 400 Hz, so that the ATRU output would have been a three phase AC signal at a second frequency, e.g., 400 Hz, that matched the frequency required by the aircraft on-board electrical systems (Brombach - Col. 2, ll. 55 – 65). KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 in view of Synchronization (alternating current) [Wikipedia webpage accessed on 07/02/2026 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronization_(alternating_current)]. As shown in Table 1 above (underlined limitations of patent correspond to limitations of the instant application), the limitations of Claim 1 of the instant application is recited in Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270. Claim 9 depends from Claim 1 and recites “The ATRU for the aircraft according to claim 1, wherein the ATRU output being synchronized with the sync signal includes: a first frequency of the sync signal and a second frequency of the ATRU output being equal; and a first phase of the sync signal and a second phase of the ATRU output being equal.” Claim 10 recited “…the first ATRU output and the second ATRU output being synchronized by the sync signal”. Synchronization (alternating current) teaches, on Pg. 1, first paragraph, that “In an alternating current (AC) electric power system, synchronization is the process of matching the frequency, phase and voltage of a generator or other source to an electrical grid in order to transfer power. If two unconnected segments of a grid are to be connected to each other, they cannot safely exchange AC power until they are synchronized.”
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,252,270 teaching that “…the first ATRU output and the second ATRU output being synchronized by the sync signal” meant that the a first frequency of the sync signal and a second frequency of the ATRU output being equal; and a first phase of the sync signal and a second phase of the ATRU output being equal because that was the designed and intended purpose of the sync signal so that the AC power output by two or more ATRUs would have been safely connected to the same electrical grid.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17 – 20 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.
Claim 17, l. 3 recites “a second autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU) of the aircraft” which implies that there should be a ‘first autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU) of the aircraft’. However, Claim 17 failed to recite a ‘first autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU) of the aircraft’; therefore it is unclear if Claim 17, l. 1 recitation ‘autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU) for an aircraft’ is supposed to be the ‘first ATRU’ or the third, fourth, fifth, etc. ATRU. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Claims 18 – 20 depend from Claim 17 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10, and 11 are 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 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 18 - 20 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.
Claims 12 – 16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent method Claim 12, prior art fails to teach in combination with the other limitations of the claim, “…receiving a slave signal at a master/slave port of the ATRU; configuring the ATRU to receive a sync signal at a sync-in port of the ATRU based on the slave signal; generating a frequency signal based on the sync signal; synthesizing an alternating current (AC) waveform based on the GPU output and the frequency signal; and transforming the AC waveform to generate an autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU) output at an output of the ATRU, the ATRU output being synchronized with the sync signal.” Claims 13 – 16 depend from Claim 12 and are in condition for allowance for the same reasons.
The closest prior art Atkey et al. (7,207,521) teaches, in Figs. 1 – 8C, a method for … an autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU) [724 – Fig. 7] of an aircraft [402 – Fig. 4], the method comprising: receiving a ground power unit (GPU) output (lines from ‘230 Vac GND PWR 1’ and ‘230 Vac GND PWR 2’ – Col. 10, l. 65 to Col. 11, l. 5) at an input port (solid line flowing into) of the ATRU [724].
Atkey does not teach a method for synchronizing an autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU) the method comprising: receiving a slave signal at a master/slave port of the ATRU; configuring the ATRU to receive a sync signal at a sync-in port of the ATRU based on the slave signal; generating a frequency signal based on the sync signal; synthesizing an alternating current (AC) waveform based on the GPU output and the frequency signal; and transforming the AC waveform to generate an autotransformer rectifier unit (ATRU) output at an output of the ATRU, the ATRU output being synchronized with the sync signal. In Fig. 7, the ATRUs [724] convert 230 Volts AC into + 270 Volts DC. Unlike alternating current (AC), direct current (DC) does not have a frequency or phase, therefore the DC power output of two ATRUs do not have to be synchronized. Consequently, Atkey’s ATRUs outputting DC power did not have to be synchronizing.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights