DETAILED 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 .
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0001978 (Yakobov) in view of US 2020/0248619 (Romero), US 2020/0408148 (Beauchesne-Martel), US 2016/0178464 (Burns), and US 2020/0248622 (Crowley).
Regarding claim 1, Yakobov teaches a propulsion system (Fig 6A; engines/propellers) comprising: at least two propulsors (110, 130; 610, 630), each of the at least two propulsors comprising a fan (130, 630); and a controller having one or more processors configured to implement controller logic (220, 620, and/or 650), in implementing the controller logic, the one or more processors are configured to: determine an actual pairwise phase difference between a pair of propulsors of the at least two propulsors (para 61-68; difference between phases of the propellers is determined); generate a reference phase angle for the pair of propulsors (either a “threshold” value of phase difference – para 68, or an “optimal phase difference” – para 64); compare the actual pairwise phase difference to the reference phase angle to generate a phase error (actual phase difference is compared to the “optimal” value or the “threshold” to generate an error signal); provide the phase error to a phase controller module and generating an output based on the phase error (controller module 220 or 620 receive “control signals” – construed as the “phase error”; modules 220 and 620 generate outputs to control their respective engines); and adjust a speed of at least one propulsor of the at least two propulsors based on the output to drive the phase error towards zero (para 12, 22, 68).
Yakobov fails to teach generating one of an electric machine power command or a speed reference modifier as an output based on the phase error. However, Romero teaches using an electric machine to provide supplemental force to the gas turbine shaft and generating an electric machine power command (para 37-41; command from controller 216 to control the electric machine 212A to augment power to the shaft 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to generate one of an electric machine power command or a speed reference modifier as an output based on the phase error in order to control the at least one propulsor (e.g. adjust a speed of the at least one propulsor as in Yakobov), as taught by Romero. It is noted that Yakobov controls (adjusts a speed of) an engine based on the phase error. Romero teaches that speed may be adjusted by using an electric machine; therefore, when the combination is made, the electric machine power command will be an output based on the phase error because the speed correction is made due to the phase error. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, generating one of an electric machine power command or a speed reference modifier as an output based on the phase error yields predictable results.
Yakobov teaches providing the phase error (as discussed under claim 1) and generating a pitch command (para 22, 68; generating instructions for causing changes), and performing one or more control actions based on the pitch command (performing the changes), but fails to teach comparing an actual speed to a speed reference to generate a speed error; compare an actual torque to a reference torque to generate a torque error; provide the phase error, the speed error, and the torque error to a multi-input multi-output(MIMO) control module; generate a fuel command, a pitch command, and a torque command with the MIMO control module.
However, Beauchesne-Martel teaches one or more processors, configured to compare an actual speed to the speed reference to generate a speed error (para 47-50; speed reference 410 compared to actual speed 402 to generate a speed error); and generate a fuel command (controller 210, or module 207 or 206; “the speed control loop 207 to determine a fuel flow needed to obtain a desired power turbine speed”; Fig 4A-4B; or Fig 5A-5B, para 52-54), perform one or more control actions based on the fuel command (adjusting the fuel; para 41, 59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the one or more processors, configured to compare an actual speed to the speed reference to generate a speed error; and generate a fuel command, and perform one or more control actions based on the fuel command, as taught by Beauchesne-Martel. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the one or more processors configured to compare an actual speed to the speed reference to generate a speed error; and generate a fuel command and perform one or more control actions based on the fuel command yields predictable results (desired engine control).
Burns teaches comparing an actual torque to a reference torque to generate a torque error (para 10-11; actual/detected torque compared to a reference/limit torque; a value outside the limit would be a torque error), and generating a torque command (para 73; command to take action), and perform one or more control actions based on the torque command (para 73: “takes the appropriate annunciation or control action”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the one or more processors configured to compare an actual torque to a reference torque to generate a torque error and to generate a torque command and perform one or more control actions based on the torque command, as taught by Burns. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the one or more processors configured to configured to compare an actual torque to a reference torque to generate a torque error and to generate a torque command and perform one or more control actions based on the torque command yields predictable results (desired engine control).
Crowley teaches that control systems may be multi-input, multi-output (mimo) systems to account for interactions of the control loops (para 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the phase error, the speed error, and the torque error to a multi-input multi-output(MIMO) control module; generate a fuel command, a pitch command, and a torque command with the MIMO control module in order to account for interactions of the control loops, as taught by Crowley. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the one or more processors configured to provide the phase error, the speed error, and the torque error to a multi-input multi-output(MIMO) control module; generate a fuel command, a pitch command, and a torque command with the MIMO control module yields predictable results (desired engine control).
Regarding claim 2, Yakobov in view of Romero, Beauchesne-Martel, Burns, and Crowley further teaches each propulsor of the at least two propulsors further comprises a shaft coupled to the fan and an electric machine operably connected to the shaft, and wherein the one or more processors, in implementing a phase angle control scheme, are configured to: provide the phase error to the phase controller module to generate the output as the electric machine power command that is based on the phase error; and adjust an amount of power transferred between the electric machine and the shaft based on the electric machine power command. As discussed above, the combination of Yakobov in view of Romero, Beauchesne-Martel, Burns, and Crowley teaches providing the phase error to the phase controller module to generate the output (Yakobov; controller module 220 or 620 receive “control signals” – construed as the “phase error”; modules 220 and 620 generate outputs to control their respective engines), and the output will be the electric machine power command that is based on the phase error (the electric machine power command will be the output based on the phase error because the speed correction is made due to the phase error). Romero teaches propulsors may comprise a shaft coupled to the fan (Fig 2, para 37-39; shaft 40 coupled to fan 42) and speed adjustments to the engine/propulsor may be made by an electric machine (electric motor 212a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a shaft coupled to the fan and an electric machine operably connected to the shaft, and wherein the one or more processors, in implementing a phase angle control scheme, are configured to: provide the phase error to the phase controller module to generate the output as the electric machine power command that is based on the phase error; and adjust an amount of power transferred between the electric machine and the shaft based on the electric machine power command in order to control speed, as taught by Romero. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, providing a shaft coupled to the fan and an electric machine operably connected to the shaft, and wherein the one or more processors, in implementing a phase angle control scheme, are configured to: provide the phase error to the phase controller module to generate the output as the electric machine power command that is based on the phase error; and adjust an amount of power transferred between the electric machine and the shaft based on the electric machine power command yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Yakobov teaches each propulsor of the at least two propulsors further comprises a fuel delivery system operably connected to a combustion section (Fig 1, para 34; combustor 116 receives fuel) but fails to teach wherein the one or more processors, in implementing a speed control scheme, are further configured to: generate the speed reference for one or more propulsors of the at least two propulsors; receive the actual speed of the one or more propulsors of the at least two propulsors; compare the actual speed to the reference speed to generate the speed error; provide the speed error to a fuel controller module to generate the fuel command based on the speed error; and adjust an amount of fuel supplied to the combustion section of the one or more propulsors of the at least two propulsors with the fuel delivery system to drive the speed error towards zero. However, Beauchesne-Martel teaches one or more processors, in implementing a speed control scheme, are further configured to: generate a speed reference for one or more propulsors of the at least two propulsors (para 47-50; speed reference 410); receive an actual speed of the propulsor of the at least two propulsors (output shaft speed 402); compare the actual speed to the reference speed to generate a speed error (para 50); provide the speed error to a fuel controller module to generate a fuel command based on the speed error (controller 210, or module 207 or 206; “the speed control loop 207 to determine a fuel flow needed to obtain a desired power turbine speed”); and adjust an amount of fuel supplied to the combustion section of the one or more propulsors of the at least two propulsors with the fuel delivery system to drive the speed error towards zero (Fig 4A-4B; or Fig 5A-5B, para 52-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the one or more processors, in implementing a speed control scheme, further configured to: generate the speed reference for one or more propulsors of the at least two propulsors; receive the actual speed of the one or more propulsors of the at least two propulsors; compare the actual speed to the reference speed to generate the speed error; provide the speed error to a fuel controller module to generate the fuel command based on the speed error; and adjust an amount of fuel supplied to the combustion section of the one or more propulsors of the at least two propulsors with the fuel delivery system to drive the speed error towards zero, as taught by Beauchesne-Martel. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the one or more processors, in implementing a speed control scheme, further configured to: generate the speed reference for one or more propulsors of the at least two propulsors; receive the actual speed of the one or more propulsors of the at least two propulsors; compare the actual speed to the reference speed to generate the speed error; provide the speed error to a fuel controller module to generate the fuel command based on the speed error; and adjust an amount of fuel supplied to the combustion section of the one or more propulsors of the at least two propulsors with the fuel delivery system to drive the speed error towards zero yields predictable results (desired engine control).
Claim(s) 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0001978 (Yakobov) in view of US 2020/0248619 (Romero), US 2020/0408148 (Beauchesne-Martel), US 2016/0178464 (Burns), and US 2020/0248622 (Crowley) and further in view of US 5027277 (Schneider).
Regarding claims 4, Yakobov in view of Romero, Beauchesne-Martel, Burns, and Crowley fails to teach the one or more processors are further configured to: generate, with the phase controller module, a speed reference modifier for the one or more propulsors of the at least two propulsors based on the phase error as the output; and modify the speed reference with the speed reference modifier prior to comparing the actual speed to the speed reference to generate the speed error. However, Schneider teaches a processor configured to: generate, with a phase controller module, a speed reference modifier for the one or more propulsors of the at least two propulsors based on the phase error as the output; and modify the speed reference with the speed reference modifier prior to comparing the actual speed to the speed reference to generate the speed error (col 7 l. 64-col 8 l. 59: “summing each said individual phase error signal with the related propeller reference speed signal to produce a modified difference speed error therefor to adjust each slave propeller's blade pitch angle in a manner to reduce the magnitude of each said phase error”; “said improved accuracy phase error signals being presented to said signal summing means for summation with the related propeller reference speed signal to produce said modified speed reference speed error”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the one or more processors further configured to: generate, with the phase controller module, a speed reference modifier for the one or more propulsors of the at least two propulsors based on the phase error as the output; and modify the speed reference with the speed reference modifier prior to comparing the actual speed to the speed reference to generate the speed error in order to provide improved accuracy, as taught by Schneider. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the one or more processors further configured to: generate, with the phase controller module, a speed reference modifier for the one or more propulsors of the at least two propulsors based on the phase error as the output; and modify the speed reference with the speed reference modifier prior to comparing the actual speed to the speed reference to generate the speed error yields predictable results (desired engine control).
Regarding claims 6, Yakobov in view of Romero, Beauchesne-Martel, Burns, and Crowley fails to teach the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether the phase error is less than or exceeds an error threshold; generate, when the phase error is determined to exceed the error threshold, a speed reference modifier for the at least one propulsor of the at least two propulsors based on the phase error as the output; and adjust the speed of the at least one propulsor of the at least two propulsors based on the output. However, Schneider teaches the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether the phase error is less than or exceeds an error threshold; generate, when the phase error is determined to exceed the error threshold, a speed reference modifier for the at least one propulsor of the at least two propulsors based on the phase error as the output; and adjust the speed of the at least one propulsor of the at least two propulsors based on the output (col 6 l. 23-col 7 l. 10; col 7 l. 64-col 8 l. 59; corrective action is taken when phase error exceeds a value – construed as an error threshold; the corrective action generates the speed reference modifier as discussed above; Yakobov teaches adjusting speed based on the output - para 12, 22, 68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether the phase error is less than or exceeds an error threshold; generate, when the phase error is determined to exceed the error threshold, a speed reference modifier for the at least one propulsor of the at least two propulsors based on the phase error as the output; and adjust the speed of the at least one propulsor of the at least two propulsors based on the output, as taught by Schneider. It has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, making the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether the phase error is less than or exceeds an error threshold; generate, when the phase error is determined to exceed the error threshold, a speed reference modifier for the at least one propulsor of the at least two propulsors based on the phase error as the output; and adjust the speed of the at least one propulsor of the at least two propulsors based on the output yields predictable results (desired engine control).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11, 13-20 are allowed.
Claim 5 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other claim limitations, generating, when the phase error is determined to be less than the error threshold, an electric machine power command as an output based on the phase error.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that “Crowley does not teach or suggest providing specifically a phase error, a speed error, and a torque error together to a single control module that generates a fuel command, a pitch command, and a torque command based on those errors, and then performing control actions based on those commands”, Examiner respectfully asserts that Crowley teaches that making a control system multi-input and multi-output to account for control loops was known in the art. As discussed in the rejection, Yakobov, Beauchesne-Martel, and Burns teach generating a fuel command, a pitch command, and a torque command, and performing control actions based on those commands.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that “Burns is a health monitoring system that compares torque against limits for event detection, not a control system that generates a continuous torque error signal for use in a control loop” and Burns’ action “is fundamentally different from generating a torque error signal that is provided to a control module for generating control commands”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites: “compare an actual torque to a reference torque to generate a torque error”, “generate a torque command”, and “perform one or more control actions based on the torque command”. As discussed above, Burns teaches each of these limitations, including taking an action based on a torque error. The claim does not require “a continuous torque error signal for use in a control loop”. However, it is further noted that Burns does appear to teach the monitoring occurring continuously (para 10-11, 71-74).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5063. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4 pm, Monday-Friday.
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 (Pat) 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.
/ANDREW H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights