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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation(s) "means for determining an operating condition" has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder "means" coupled with functional language "for determining an operating condition" without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-11 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Pg. 7, lines 5-14 describes that the means can be a pressure sensor or a calculator configured to estimate a pressure.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robic (US 20170226934) in view of Sautron (US 20180057171).
Regarding claim 1, Robic discloses A turbomachine assembly comprising:
a high-pressure compressor configured to be driven by a high-pressure shaft (Figure 2, item 2);
a low-pressure compressor configured to be driven by a low-pressure shaft (Figure 2, item 1), the low-pressure shaft being configured to be driven at a lower speed than the high-pressure shaft (Paragraph 0050 and low pressure shafts must operate at a lower speed than the high pressure shaft for the turbine to operate correctly);
a first power converter configured to be driven by the high-pressure shaft (Paragraphs 0037-0044 describes that a converter harvests energy from one shaft and is capable of delivering the energy to the other shaft as supplementary power);
a controller configured to send transfer instructions to the first power converter for transferring power from the high-pressure shaft to the low-pressure shaft or a power from the low-pressure shaft to the high-pressure shaft depending on the operating condition (Paragraphs 0037-0044 describes that a converter harvests energy from one shaft and is capable of delivering the energy to the other shaft as supplementary power and paragraph 0072 describes a FADEC that manages the system). However, Robic does not explicitly disclose an air circulation system comprising a first air bleed port positioned in the high-pressure compressor and a second air bleed port placed upstream the first air bleed port; and means for determining an operating condition of the turbomachine assembly.
Robic and Sautron are analogous prior art because both describe gas turbine control systems. Sautron teaches an air circulation system comprising a first air bleed port positioned in the high-pressure compressor (Figure 2, item 36) and a second air bleed port placed upstream the first air bleed port (Figure 2, item 34); and means for determining an operating condition of the turbomachine assembly (Figure 2, items 28 described in paragraphs 0016). The system of Sautron provides superior and variable bleed conditioning for an environmental control system, can eliminate wasted heat, improves efficiency of the engine, provides cost savings, and increases operable flight range (Par. 0069-0071). As Robic already provides an engine to be implemented in an aircraft, these benefits would apply to the system of Robic. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the air circulation system, bleed air ports, and pressure sensors of Sautron in the turbine of Robic because the bleed air and sensing system provides superior and variable bleed conditioning for an environmental control system, can eliminate wasted heat, improves efficiency of the engine, provides cost savings, and increases operable flight range (Par. 0069-0071).
Regarding claim 2, Robic in view of Sautron teaches that the means for determining the operating condition comprise at least one of the following elements:
a pressure sensor positioned at the level of the second air bleed port (Sautron Figure 2, items 28 described in paragraphs 0016); or
a calculator configured to estimate a pressure at the level of the second air bleed port.
Regarding claim 3, Robic in view of Sautron teaches that the first power converter is an electromechanical converter operating in generator mode, the first power converter being able to take the power from the high-pressure shaft or to transfer the power to the high pressure shaft. Robic Paragraphs 0037-0044 describes that a converter harvests energy from one shaft and is capable of delivering the energy to the other shaft as supplementary power and describe the converter operating in generator mode.
Regarding claim 4, Robic in view of Sautron teaches a second power converter receiving the power from the first power converter, the second power converter being able to take the power from the low-pressure shaft or to transfer the power to the low-pressure shaft. Robic Paragraphs 0037-0044 describes that a converter harvests energy from one shaft and is capable of delivering the energy to the other shaft as supplementary power. As described in those paragraphs, depending on the situation one of the converters takes power from one of the shafts and delivers to the other of the shafts. As such, either items 7 or 8 could be the first or second converter depending on the situation and which shaft is sending power to which other shaft.
Regarding claim 5, Robic in view of Sautron teaches that the second power converter is an electrotechnical converter operating in motor mode. Robic Paragraphs 0037-0044 describes that a converter harvests energy from one shaft and is capable of delivering the energy to the other shaft as supplementary power. Item 8 shows the motor.
Regarding claim 6, Robic in view of Sautron teaches that the second air bleed port is positioned in the high-pressure compressor (Sautron paragraph 0016 describes that bleed ports can be arranged at multiple stages of both the low and high pressure compressors, meaning that the second air bleed port can also be located in the HPC when there are multiple bleed locations there. This is further shown as items 186a-c in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Robic in view of Sautron teaches the limitaitons of claim 1 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, they do not explicitly teach the second bleed air port being positioned between a second compression stage and a fourth compression stage if the high-pressure compressor.
Sautron describes providing bleed ports at multiple locations in the high-pressure compressor, as shown in items 186a-c in Figure 4 but does not describe the exact stage locations of each port. However, Sautron paragraph 0013 describes that the location of each bleed port provides differing bleed air characteristics such as “bleed air mass flow rate, bleed air temperature, or bleed air pressure” and paragraph 0052 describes that the location of the different ports provides different pressure and temperatures of high pressure bleed air and the sources can be tailored to provide different values. Further, paragraph 0053 describes that these differing pressures, temperatures, and mass flows allows for the operation of the system and efficiency of the system. As such, the stage location of each port is a result effective variable with the result being the pressure, temperature, and mass flow rate of the extracted air along with the efficiency of the engine and system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first port placed between a second and fourth compression stage, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, Robic in view of Sautron teaches the turbomachine assembly according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, Robic in view of Sautron teaches a method for monitoring the turbomachine assembly according to claim 1, the method comprising:
determining an operating condition of the turbomachine assembly (Robic Paragraphs 0037-0044 describe the system that determines operating points and conditions, paragraph 0072 describes the FADEC taking operating conditions, and Sautron Figure 2, items 28 and paragraphs 0016 show sensors that determine pressure sensor measurements),
transferring a power from the high-pressure shaft to the low-pressure shaft or a power from the low-pressure shaft to the high-pressure shaft depending on the operating condition (Robic Paragraphs 0037-0044 describes that a converter harvests energy from one shaft and is capable of delivering the energy to the other shaft as supplementary power) so as to increase a pressure at the level of the second bleed point (Increasing power to the low pressure compressor shaft would increase the pressure at the LPC which would increase the pressure at the level of the second bleed point, which Sautron shows in the LPC).
Regarding claim 10, Robic in view of Sautron teaches a method for sizing the turbomachine assembly according to claim 1, the method comprising:
determining a target pressure in the cruise phase of a turbomachine comprising the turbomachine assembly (Sautron paragraph 0013 describes that the location of each bleed port provides differing bleed air characteristics such as “bleed air mass flow rate, bleed air temperature, or bleed air pressure” and paragraph 0052 describes that the location of the different ports provides different pressure and temperatures of high pressure bleed air and the sources can be tailored to provide different values. As such, the target pressure of each location is set during the design of the engine once the location is chosen); and
positioning the second air bleed port so that the pressure at the level of the second air bleed port is equal to the target pressure (As described above, the locations are all selected to provide specific bleed properties).
Regarding claim 11, Robic in view of Sautron teaches the limitaitons of claim 7 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, they do not explicitly teach the second bleed air port being positioned between a second compression stage and a third compression stage if the high-pressure compressor.
Sautron describes providing bleed ports at multiple locations in the high-pressure compressor, as shown in items 186a-c in Figure 4 but does not describe the exact stage locations of each port. However, Sautron paragraph 0013 describes that the location of each bleed port provides differing bleed air characteristics such as “bleed air mass flow rate, bleed air temperature, or bleed air pressure” and paragraph 0052 describes that the location of the different ports provides different pressure and temperatures of high pressure bleed air and the sources can be tailored to provide different values. Further, paragraph 0053 describes that these differing pressures, temperatures, and mass flows allows for the operation of the system and efficiency of the system. As such, the stage location of each port is a result effective variable with the result being the pressure, temperature, and mass flow rate of the extracted air along with the efficiency of the engine and system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first port placed between a second and third compression stage, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892. McQuiston (US 20220065175) shows an energy storage and harvesting system that connects to both the LPC and HPC and Foutch (US 20150275758), Ortiz (US 20180334918), and Walter (US 5594665) show bleed air systems that draw multiple bleed air sources from the HPC.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571)-272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745