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 Status
Claims 1-10 have been amended.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 06/10/2026, with respect to claims 1-10 rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-10 rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Murrow (20190061964; already of record) in view of Baig et al. (20230227171; hereinafter Baig, already of record) fails to disclose determining the value of the detection threshold from at least one control parameter, the operating deviation, and the rotation speed of the electric machine.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s arguments rely on newly amended limitations that were not addressed in the prior Office Action of record. However, Baig does disclose of:
“Such failure detection may be achieved through monitoring changes in an N1 or an N2 signal. N1 represents the low-pressure spool speed (in rpm) and N2 represents the high-pressure spool speed (in rpm). The primary indicators are associated with changes in primary N1/N2 signals. Primary indicators are associated with engine sensors designed to monitor engine parameters, including, but not limited to shaft rotational speeds, torque on shaft, etc.” ¶ 61
Which does disclose of determining the value of the detection threshold from at least one control parameter, the operating deviation, and the rotation speed of the electric machine, as Baig monitors and utilizes the steady-state / average of electric machine speed.
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murrow (20190061964; already of record) in view of Baig et al. (20230227171; hereinafter Baig, already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Murrow teaches a method comprising (Murrow: Abstract):
determining a control state of a coupling device of an aircraft turbomachine comprising a rotary shaft and an electric machine (Murrow: “the forward thrust propulsor 34 is comprises a fan 124 coupled to a fan shaft 126. The aft output shaft 118 of the turbomachine 110 is selectively mechanically coupled to, or permanently mechanically coupled to, the fan shaft 126 to allow the turbomachine 110 to drive the fan 124” ¶ 84, “a turbomachine 110 and electric machine 42 in accordance with such an exemplary embodiment may allow for the electric power source 36 to generate a relatively high amount of electric power and to provide such electric power to the plurality of VTE fans of the propulsion system 32” ¶ 83), the control state delivered in a form of a control command in the coupled state or in the decoupled state of the coupling device (Murrow: “the clutch may instead be a two-way clutch actuatable between an engaged position and a disengaged position by a controller, such as the main controller 80, based on one or more control decisions” ¶ 99), wherein;
the coupling device connects a rotor shaft of the electric machine to the rotary shaft in the coupled state (Murrow: “the electric machine 42 is mechanically coupled to the forward thrust propulsor 32 through, e.g., the LP shaft 114 of the turbomachine 110, and more specifically through the forward output shaft 116. Accordingly, for the embodiment depicted, the electric machine 42 may further drive one or more components of the turbomachine 110” ¶ 96),
the coupled state secures the rotor shaft and the rotary shaft, and
the decoupled state separates the rotor shaft and the rotary shaft (Murrow: “The turbomachine 110 is selectively mechanically coupled to the forward thrust propulsor 34 through the coupling unit 164 ... the electric machine 42 is positioned between the coupling unit 164 and the forward thrust propulsor ... moveable automatically between an engaged position and a disengaged position” ¶ 99);
...
determining a rotational speed of the rotary shaft (Murrow: “the operability sensors may sense data indicative of a rotational speed of one or more shafts of the turbomachine” ¶ 123
...
controlling, using the control command, the coupling device to enter the coupled state or the decoupled state based on the existence of the failure or the absence of the failure (Murrow: “the aircraft 10 may rely solely on the coupling unit 164 to decoupled the electric machine 42 from the turbomachine 110 during a failure condition of the turbomachine 110” ¶ 108, see also ¶ 125).
While, Murrow discloses of measuring shaft rotational speeds and general failure conditions in paragraph 88 and 123, Murrow remains silent regarding:
determining a rotational speed of the electric machine;
...
performing a first comparison of the rotational speed of the electric machine with a time evolution profile of the rotational speed of the electric machine determined from the rotational speed of the rotary shaft and the control state of the coupling device, the first comparison being carried out to determine an operating deviation
performing a second comparison of the operating deviation with a detection threshold, wherein performing the second comparison further comprises determining a value of the detection threshold from at least one control parameter, the operating deviation, and the rotational speed of the electric machine;
identifying an existence or an absence of a failure of the coupling device based on the value; and
...
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Baig teaches:
determining a rotational speed of the electric machine (Baig: “the hybrid electric propulsion systems may include that the motor data is a rotational speed of the electric machine” ¶ 19);
...
performing a first comparison of the rotational speed of the electric machine with a time evolution profile of the rotational speed of the electric machine determined from the rotational speed of the rotary shaft and the control state of the coupling device, the first comparison being carried out to determine an operating deviation (Baig: “a plot 526 that illustrates a motor speed (rad/sec) 528 and a shaft speed (rad/sec) 530, as a function of time, during normal operation ... FIG. 5C illustrates a plot 532 that illustrates a shaft failure. Specifically, as shown in plot 532, the motor speed 528 and the shaft speed 530 deviate at the point of failure 534” ¶ 68, “the rotational speed of an engine shaft is compared against a rotational speed of the electric machine” ¶ 69);
performing a second comparison of the operating deviation with a detection threshold (Baig: “the detected speeds (or other parameter) diverge by more than the predetermined tolerance or threshold, the shaft would be declared failed” ¶ 62, “the engine fault electric machine detection system 500 is configured to monitor a primary indicator of the engine core 502. Specifically, a direct comparison of an aspect of the engine core 502 is made against an aspect of the electrical power system 510” ¶ 69, see also ¶ 61, 63, 78, 79), wherein performing the second comparison further comprises determining a value of the detection threshold from at least one control parameter, the operating deviation, and the rotational speed of the electric machine (Baig: “Such failure detection may be achieved through monitoring changes in an N1 or an N2 signal. N1 represents the low-pressure spool speed (in rpm) and N2 represents the high-pressure spool speed (in rpm). The primary indicators are associated with changes in primary N1/N2 signals. Primary indicators are associated with engine sensors designed to monitor engine parameters, including, but not limited to shaft rotational speeds, torque on shaft, etc.” ¶ 61, see also ¶ 78, 79);
identifying an existence or an absence of a failure of the coupling device based on the value (Baig: “Such failure detection may be achieved through monitoring changes in an N1 or an N2 signal” ¶ 61, “If, during operation, the detected speeds (or other parameter) diverge by more than the predetermined tolerance or threshold, the shaft would be declared failed” ¶ 62); and
...
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the monitoring system of Murrow so that it also includes the element of detection, comparison, and identification based on values, as taught by Baig, in order to accurately detect failure (Baig: ¶ 63, 68).
Regarding claim 2, Murrow fails to teach the method according to Claim 1, wherein the control parameter is selected from an outside temperature, an altitude of an aircraft and a parameter representative of a type of the failure associated with the coupling device.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Baig teaches the method according to Claim 1, wherein the control parameter is selected from an outside temperature, an altitude of an aircraft and a parameter representative of a type of the failure associated with the coupling device (Baig: “sensed and/or derived parameters related to speed, flow rate, pressure ratios, temperature, thrust, and the like can be used to establish operational schedules and transition limits ... The controller 304 may be configured to monitor electrical/motor data and/or engine data from the engine core in order to make determinations regarding health and/or faults of the engine core” ¶ 56, “sensors of an electric motor are employed to monitor primary indicators and secondary indicators associated with engine core status/operation. The electric motor may be used, in this capacity, as a monitor for maintenance events of the engine, such as shaft failure, blade failure, rubbing events, valve runaway, etc.” ¶ 61, see also ¶ 63, 75).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the monitoring system of Murrow so that it also includes the element of control parameter types, as taught by Baig, in order to accurately detect failure types (Baig: ¶ 63, 75, 90).
Regarding claim 3, Murrow fails to teach the method according to Claim 1, wherein performing the first comparison further comprises a prior step of determining a chart of time evolution profiles of the rotational speed of the electric machine as a function of the rotational speed of the rotary shaft and the control state of the coupling device.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Baig teaches the method according to Claim 1, wherein performing the first comparison further comprises a prior step of determining a chart of time evolution profiles of the rotational speed of the electric machine as a function of the rotational speed of the rotary shaft and the control state of the coupling device (Baig: “FIG. 5B illustrates a plot 526 that illustrates a motor speed (rad/sec) 528 and a shaft speed (rad/sec) 530, as a function of time, during normal operation. As shown, during normal operation, the rotational speed of the electric machine 512 (motor speed 528) and the rotational speed of the high speed shaft 504 (shaft speed 530) are aligned” ¶ 68, “this is illustrated in plot 622 of FIG. 6B. In plot 622, a shaft speed 624 and an electrical current 626 are plotted as a function of time. FIGS. 6C-6E illustrate plots of current measurements during operation of the engine fault electric machine detection system 600. Plot 628 of FIG. 6C illustrates a normal operation of the engine core 602 and the current of the electric machine 612 during such operation” ¶ 73, see also ¶ 68, 78, 79).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the monitoring system of Murrow so that it also includes the element of time evolution profiles, as taught by Baig, in order to accurately detect failures based on historical data (Baig: ¶ 61).
Regarding claim 5, Murrow fails to teach the method according to Claim 1, further comprising; delaying the second comparison.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Baig teaches the method according to Claim 1, further comprising; delaying the second comparison (Murrow: “by monitoring an aspect of the electric machine 612 ... a conclusion regarding the health of the engine core 602 may be provided ... a fault may be declared when an energy level of any peak rises above a threshold value. For example, the peak related to a rotating gear is always present, however, it is only a problem if an amplitude increases above the threshold value” ¶ 74, see also ¶ 76, 78).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the monitoring system of Murrow so that it also includes the element of delaying the second comparison, as taught by Baig, in order to accurately detect failures (Baig: ¶ 74, 75).
Regarding claim 6, Murrow in view of Baig teaches the method according to Claim 1, further comprising; prior to determining the rotational speed of the electric machine, a control of the electric machine in motor mode when the aircraft turbomachine is stopped (Murrow: “an electric machine 42 of a propulsion system 32 may drive a forward thrust propulsor 32 of the propulsion system 32” ¶ 97).
Regarding claim 7, Murrow in view of Baig teaches the method according to Claim 6, further comprising blocking a rotation of the rotary shaft when the electric machine operates in a motor mode (Murrow: “an electric machine 42 of a propulsion system 32 may drive a forward thrust propulsor 32 of the propulsion system 32 during emergency operations without rotating one or more components of a turbomachine 110, or without rotating one or more components of a turbomachine 110 at the same speed” ¶ 97, see also ¶ 100).
Regarding claim 8, Murrow teaches module (Murrow: “the electric communication bus 38 includes a main controller 80 and a plurality of electric power controllers 82. The main controller 80 is electrically connected to both the electric machine 42 and the electric energy storage unit 44” ¶ 64, see also ¶ 99)
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 8, the claim recites analogous limitations to previously rejected claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 9, Murrow teaches an aircraft turbomachine comprising: a rotary shaft, an electric machine (Murrow: “the forward thrust propulsor 34 is comprises a fan 124 coupled to a fan shaft 126. The aft output shaft 118 of the turbomachine 110 is selectively mechanically coupled to, or permanently mechanically coupled to, the fan shaft 126 to allow the turbomachine 110 to drive the fan 124” ¶ 84, “a turbomachine 110 and electric machine 42 in accordance with such an exemplary embodiment may allow for the electric power source 36 to generate a relatively high amount of electric power and to provide such electric power to the plurality of VTE fans of the propulsion system 32” ¶ 83), and a coupling device configured to connect a rotor shaft of the electric machine to the rotary shaft and having two operating states (Murrow: “the electric machine 42 is mechanically coupled to the forward thrust propulsor 32 through, e.g., the LP shaft 114 of the turbomachine 110, and more specifically through the forward output shaft 116. Accordingly, for the embodiment depicted, the electric machine 42 may further drive one or more components of the turbomachine 110” ¶ 96), a coupled state so as to secure the rotor shaft and the rotary shaft and a decoupled state so as to separate the rotor shaft and the rotary shaft (Murrow: “The turbomachine 110 is selectively mechanically coupled to the forward thrust propulsor 34 through the coupling unit 164 ... the electric machine 42 is positioned between the coupling unit 164 and the forward thrust propulsor ... moveable automatically between an engaged position and a disengaged position” ¶ 99), wherein the aircraft turbomachine comprises a module according to Claim 8 (Murrow: “the electric communication bus 38 includes a main controller 80 and a plurality of electric power controllers 82. The main controller 80 is electrically connected to both the electric machine 42 and the electric energy storage unit 44” ¶ 64, see also ¶ 99).
Regarding claim 10, Murrow teaches an aircraft comprising a turbomachine according to claim 9 (Murrow: “an aircraft 10 in accordance with various the exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure” ¶ 50, see also ¶ 52).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, Murrow in view of Baig fails to teach the method according to Claim 1, wherein performing the second comparison further comprises;
calculating a gradient of an operating deviation; and
calculating a gradient of the time evolution profile prior to performing the second comparison, the value of the detection threshold being determined from the control parameter, the gradient of the operating deviation, and the gradient of the rotational speed of the electric machine.
Murrow fails to teach the operating deviation and the time evolution profile. Instead, Baig is relied upon to teach these limitations as seen in the rejection above. Baig does disclose of secondary indicators used to detect faults by utilizing changes over time (e.g. gradient, slope, etc.) of the turbomachine and electric motor evolution profiles (FIGs. 5B, 5C, 6B-6E, 7A, 7B) in paragraphs 63; however, Baig fails to disclose of calculating the gradient of the operating deviation and furthermore the value detection threshold being determined from the gradient of the operating deviation.
Upon further search, the closest prior art found is Ayukawa et al. (20220074814; hereinafter Ayukawa, already of record) which discloses determining failures based on changes in time series trends; however, Ayukawa fails to disclose calculating the gradient of the operating deviation and further the value detection threshold being determined from the gradient of the operating deviation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dorr et al. (20130345908) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of function monitoring.
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 CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights