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 . Claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 are objected under 35 CFR 1.83 because the numerals associated with the boxes are not indicative as to what said symbol represents. Applicant is required to label in words the function of said rectangles, such that a reader would be appraised of their function without having to read the entire specification in order to figure it out. For example, according to the specification, element 6 is intermediate consumption mode, therefore it is suggested that applicant labels box 6 – intermediate consumption mode. Examples of clearly labeled block diagrams may be found in the following U.S. Pre-grant Publications: 2016/0076461, 2015/0330869, 2015/0251766, 2015/0128597.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 8, in line 1 “the first” should be “the first turbine engine”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations “normal reactivation being preferred over accelerated reactivation, accelerated reactivation also being preferred over rapid reactivation” render the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the limitations are a required part of the claim since the term “preferred” suggest that the limitations may not be required. For the purposes of this examination the limitation will not be considered a part of the claim.
Claims 2-10 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of this examination the limitations follow the phrase will not be considered a part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of this examination the limitations follow the phrase will not be considered a part of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manoukian (U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2020/0256265), hereinafter Manoukian.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Manoukian discloses a method for managing the exiting of a specific consumption mode of an aircraft (Figures 1 and 3) equipped with a first turbine engine, 10A, operating in a nominal mode (Paragraph 0030 – the first engine operates alone, i.e. in a nominal/active mode, during stable flight) and a second turbine engine, 10B, operating in a standby mode (Paragraph 0030 – the second engine operates in a standby mode during stable flight), the method comprising a step of identifying a need to reactivate the second turbine engine in the nominal mode of said second turbine engine (Figure 3, Elements 302 and 303 – Paragraph 0054 – a signal to exit asymmetric operating regime is generated and thus a step of identifying the need to reactivate the second engine is performed) and a step of:
normal reactivation for a first duration of the second turbine engine in the nominal mode of said second turbine engine when the aircraft and/or the first turbine engine meets a first condition (Paragraphs 0045-0050 – a normal reactivation occurs when the system receives a normal exit request and the determines that the exit protocol meets a first condition, i.e. is a normal exit protocol; normal reactivation occurs in a first/slower time/duration);
accelerated reactivation for a second duration of the second turbine engine in the nominal mode of said second turbine engine when the aircraft and/or the first turbine engine meets a second condition (Paragraphs 0045-0050 and 0076 – the accelerated reactivation, i.e. rapid transition to all engines operative (AEO), is a reactivation of the second engine within a second duration, that is faster than the first duration, when the parameters of the engine/aircraft meet the requirements for a rapid transition to AEO, i.e. a second condition is met); and
rapid reactivation for a third duration of the second turbine engine in the nominal mode of said second turbine engine when the aircraft and/or the first turbine engine meets a third condition (Paragraphs 0045-0050 and 0076 – the rapid reactivation, i.e. very rapid transition to all engines operative (AEO), is a reactivation of the second engine within a third duration, that is faster than the second duration, when the parameters of the engine/aircraft meet the requirements for a very rapid transition to AEO, i.e. a third condition is met),
the first duration being longer than the second duration, and the second duration being longer than the third duration (Paragraphs 0045-0050 and 0076 – the first duration is for a slow transition, the second duration is for a rapid transition and the third duration is for a very rapid transition, therefore the first duration is longer than the second duration, and the second duration is longer than the third duration).
Regarding Claim 2, Manoukian discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Manoukian further discloses the step of identifying a need to reactivate the second turbine engine in the nominal mode of said second turbine engine comprises a step of detecting an anomaly of at least one operating parameter of the first turbine engine (Paragraphs 0040-0042 and 0048-0049 – the request to exit asymmetric operating regime (AOR) is generated when the system detects an anomaly with the operating parameters of the first turbine engine, i.e. they parameters not long meet the requirements for AOR) or comprises a step of receiving a reactivation instruction issued by an on-board computer (Paragraph 0048 – the exit request is generated by an on-board computer, i.e. FADEC, EEC ECU or aircraft computer) and/or an aircraft pilot (Paragraph 0049 – the exit request may be generated by the pilot).
Regarding Claim 7, Manoukian discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Manoukian further discloses the first condition comprises receiving by the second turbine engine a reactivation instruction issued by an on-board computer and/or an aircraft pilot (Paragraphs 0048 and 0049 – the AOR exit request is requested by an on-board computer or an aircraft pilot).
Regarding Claim 8, Manoukian discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Manoukian further discloses the second condition comprises detecting a failure on the first (Paragraphs 0047 – the second condition for rapid transition/accelerated reactivation comprises detecting a failure of the first engine) or comprises receiving by the second turbine engine a reactivation instruction issued by an on-board computer and/or an aircraft pilot (Paragraphs 0048 and 0049 – the AOR exit request is requested by an on-board computer or an aircraft pilot).
Regarding Claim 9, Manoukian discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Manoukian further discloses the third condition comprises detecting a failure on the first (Paragraphs 0047 – the third condition for very rapid transition/rapid reactivation comprises detecting a failure of the first engine) or comprises receiving by the second turbine engine a reactivation instruction issued by an on-board computer and/or an aircraft pilot (Paragraphs 0048 and 0049 – the AOR exit request is requested by an on-board computer or an aircraft pilot).
Regarding Claim 10, Manoukian discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Manoukian further discloses implemented continuously by a computer of the first and/or of the second turbine engines as long as the second turbine engine is not in the nominal mode of operation thereof (Figure 3 - Paragraph 0044 – the parameters of the aircraft/engine are continuously monitored when in AOR, i.e. the second turbine engine is in standby and therefore not in nominal mode), the first, second and third conditions also comprising a condition of maintaining the flight altitude of the aircraft over the time necessary for reactivating the second turbine engine (Paragraphs 0045 and 0064-0075 – the conditions for exiting AOR/standby mode/reactivating the second engine include the altitude of the aircraft during flight meeting certain thresholds; thus the method includes maintaining a flight altitude at a level for the time necessary reactivation).
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) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manoukian.
Regarding Claim 4, Manoukian discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Manoukian further discloses wherein the step of normal reactivation comprises a step of thermally stabilizing at a predefined temperature the second turbine engine (Paragraph 0046 – the normal reactivation allows for thermal expansion, i.e. thermal stabilization at a designed/predefined temperature), the step of normal reactivation further comprising implementing a fuel flow rate law (Paragraphs 0026, 0033-0034 and 0037 – the power and speed of the engines is controlled by the controlling of the fuel flow rate to the each engine, thus the step of normal reactivation would further include implementing a fuel flow rate control/law for the normal reactivation).
Manoukian does not explicitly disclose making a reactivation time between 1 and 3 minutes possible.
However, Manoukian teaches that the acceleration rate, and thus the reactivation time, when exiting AOR may be varied to provide comfortable recoupling of the engine and sufficient time for engine thermal expansion (Paragraph 0046).
Therefore the reactivation time/acceleration rate is recognized as a result effective variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case the recognized result is how smoothly the engine couples to the drive system and the time allotted for engine thermal expansion.
Therefore since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the method has an acceleration rate during normal reactivation/reactivation time, were disclosed in the prior art by Manoukian, it is not inventive to discover the optimum reactivation time by routine experimentation (In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618,195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Manoukian such that a reactivation time between 1 and 3 minutes possible in order to provide comfortable recoupling of the engine and sufficient time for engine thermal expansion.
Regarding Claim 5, Manoukian discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Manoukian further discloses the step of accelerated reactivation comprises implementing a fuel flow rate law (Paragraphs 0026, 0033-0034 and 0037 – the power and speed of the engines is controlled by the controlling of the fuel flow rate to the each engine, thus the step of accelerated reactivation would further include implementing a fuel flow rate control/law for the accelerated reactivation).
Manoukian does not explicitly disclose making a reactivation time of between 25 seconds and 45 seconds possible.
However, Manoukian teaches that the acceleration rate, and thus the reactivation time, when exiting AOR may be varied to provide overall aircraft occupant safety while sacrificing passenger comfort and time for engine thermal expansion (Paragraph 0051).
Therefore the reactivation time/acceleration rate is recognized as a result effective variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case the recognized result is the tradeoff between overall aircraft occupant safety while sacrificing passenger comfort and time for engine thermal expansion.
Therefore since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the method has an acceleration rate during accelerated reactivation/reactivation time, were disclosed in the prior art by Manoukian, it is not inventive to discover the optimum reactivation time by routine experimentation (In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618,195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Manoukian such that a reactivation time between 25 seconds and 45 seconds possible in order to optimize overall aircraft occupant safety while minimizing the sacrifice of passenger comfort and time for engine thermal expansion.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manoukian in view of Vallart (U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2017/0305541), hereinafter Vallart.
Regarding Claim 3, Manoukian discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Manoukian does not disclose the step of normal reactivation and/or the step of accelerated reactivation and/ or the step of rapid reactivation comprises a step of assisting the second turbine engine by an electric machine of the aircraft.
However, Vallart teaches an aircraft reactivation system (Figure 4) with a normal reactivation and rapid reactivation (Paragraphs 0021-0023) where a step of assisting a turbine engine by an electric machine, 31 and 41, of the aircraft (Paragraph 0083 – the system and method uses the electric machine to assist the reactivation of the turbine engine during normal and rapid reactivations).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Manoukian by making the step of normal reactivation and/or the step of accelerated reactivation and/ or the step of rapid reactivation comprises a step of assisting the second turbine engine by an electric machine of the aircraft, as taught by Vallart, in order to provide a reactivation system with an improved availability (Vallart – Paragraph 0013).
Regarding Claim 6, Manoukian discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Manoukian further discloses the step of rapid reactivation comprises implementing a fuel flow rate law (Paragraphs 0026, 0033-0034 and 0037 – the power and speed of the engines is controlled by the controlling of the fuel flow rate to the each engine, thus the step of rapid reactivation would further include implementing a fuel flow rate control/law for the rapid reactivation) making a reactivation time of between 5 seconds and 15 seconds possible (Paragraph 0047 – the acceleration rate of 15% per second or 20% per second result in the acceleration to full/nominal power/reactivation time of five to six seconds).
Manoukian does not explicitly disclose a specific starting system configured to implement an assist torque.
However, Vallart teaches an aircraft reactivation system (Figure 4) with a specific starting system, 31 and 41, configured to implement an assist torque (Paragraph 0031 – the electric machines/start systems drive the engine, i.e. implement assist torque).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Manoukian by including a specific starting system configured to implement an assist torque, as taught by Vallart, in order to provide a reactivation system with an improved availability (Vallart – Paragraph 0013).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klonowski (U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2018/0171874) shows a system for turbine engine rapid reactivation.
Dooley (U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2013/0086919) shows a multi-engine aircraft with a system for turbine engine rapid starting of one of the engines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4pm 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, 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.
/KYLE ROBERT THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3741