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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 9 should be
amended to recite “ [[a]] the system …” since the limitation has been previously recited. 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.
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 1-9 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 1 and 7 recites “the second engine remaining active …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 and 7 recites “the sum of the powers supplied …”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 and 7 recites “the rotation speed N2 …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 and 7 recites “the altitude …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the oil temperature TH …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the fuel temperature Tcarb …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “the method being wherein ..., it comprises ...”. There is no method previously recited and it is unclear, what Applicant is referring to by “it”, Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “the system comprises ...”.
Claims 3-6 and 8-9 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marconi (US 20170122221 A1) in view of Gallant (US 20040088991A1), and further in view of Logan (US 4609165 A).
Regarding claim 1, Marconi discloses a method for assisting the piloting of a rotary-wing aircraft (See at least abstract, [0001-0005] At the same time, the turboshaft engines are also oversized so as to be able to ensure flight over the entire flight range specified by the aircraft manufacturer, and in particular flight at high altitudes and during hot weather), including two engines, a first engine of which is put in standby to ensure the operation of the aircraft in a fuel economy mode, the so-called ECO mode, the second engine remaining active in said ECO mode (See at least abstract, [0008-0010] Methods for optimizing the specific consumption of the turboshaft engines of a helicopter by the possibility of putting at least one turboshaft engine into a stable flight mode, referred to as continuous flight mode, and at least one turboshaft engine into a particular standby mode that it can leave in an emergency or in a normal manner, according to need), the fulfilment of the following conditions for authorization of entry into ECO mode: the sum of the powers supplied by the engines is less than a maximum continuous power (See at least abstract, [0003-0008] the turboshaft engines operate at low power levels, below their maximum continuous power (hereinafter MCT). In some configurations (forward speeds of less than the maximum speed, the helicopter not flying at the maximum mass, etc.), the power provided by the turboshaft engines during a cruise flight can be less than 50% of the maximum take-off power (hereinafter MTO)), the rotation speed N2 of a power turbine of the second engine is greater than a determined speed threshold which is between 80% and 90% of the maximum speed of the engine (See at least abstract, [0009-0016] a standby mode referred to as normal super-idling, in which the combustion chamber is ignited and the shaft of the gas generator rotates at a speed of between 20 and 60% of the nominal speed, a standby mode referred to as assisted super-idling, in which the combustion chamber is ignited and the shaft of the gas generator rotates, with mechanical assistance, at a speed of between 20 and 60% of the nominal speed. A turboshaft engine that can have a super-idling mode, in which the combustion chamber is ignited and the shaft of the gas generator rotates at a speed of between 20 and 60% of the nominal speed, and that is not affected by the operating temperatures of the turboshaft engine or mechanically assisted by an external drive device.), and no detected critical fault exists (See at least abstract [0007-0012], [0018-0020] A transition out of standby mode is referred to as ‘emergency’ when there is a failure or a power deficit in the active engine, or when the flight conditions suddenly become difficult. he invention also aims to provide a method for optimizing the zero-power super-idling mode of a twin-engine helicopter according to the invention comprising at least one turboshaft engine according to the invention). Examiner notes that Marconi discloses the claimed invention except for a determined speed threshold which is between 80% and 90% of the maximum speed of the engine. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a threshold determined speed threshold which is between 80% and 90% of the maximum speed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Marconi does not explicitly disclose the method being characterized in that to allow the activation by a pilot of the ECO mode, a flight computer of the aircraft checks, in real time, the fulfilment of the conditions for authorization of entry into ECO mode. However, Gallant teaches the method being characterized in that to allow the activation by a pilot of the ECO mode, a flight computer of the aircraft checks, in real time, the fulfilment of the conditions for authorization of entry into ECO mode (See at least abstract, [0008-0010], [0030-0035], [0044-0046] Portions of fault management system 100 reside in the aircraft's central computer 10, the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system 20 associated with the left engine and the FADEC system 40 associated with the right engine. The fault management system of the subject application analyzes, in real-time, electronic control system fault scenarios and helps pilots and maintenance personnel make intelligent decisions on the dispatch capability of aircraft. It also allows maintenance to be scheduled appropriately, FIG. 1 a is a schematic representation of a dual engine fault management system which includes left and right electronic engine control units interfacing with an aircraft computer. Thus the aircraft could be dispatched with faults present in more than one engine's FADEC system. FIG. 1b schematically illustrates representative FADEC system 20 which consists of, among other things, an electronic engine control (EEC) unit 22, a fuel metering unit (i.e., hydromechanical control unit) 24, engine sensors 26, critical engine systems (effectors, etc.) 28, a dedicated power supply 30 and FADEC components and interfaces 32.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Marconi to incorporate the teachings of Gallant which teaches the method being characterized in that to allow the activation by a pilot of the ECO mode, a flight computer of the aircraft checks, in real time, the fulfilment of the conditions for authorization of entry into ECO mode since they are all directed to automated engine control and incorporation of Gallant would improve the reliability accuracy of the ECO mode.
Marconi as modified by Gallant does not explicitly disclose the altitude of the aircraft is greater than a minimum value allowing a transient phase of autorotation during the reactivation of the engine in standby in the event of a fault of the active engine as a condition for authorization of entry into ECO mode. However, Logan teaches the altitude of the aircraft is greater than a minimum value allowing a transient phase of autorotation during the reactivation of the engine in standby in the event of a fault of the active engine as a condition for authorization of entry into ECO mode (See at least abstract, [Page 5, col 1, lines 20-32] At high enough altitudes, failure of the main propulsion plant will allow the pilot to successfully enter an autorotation mode wherein the descent of the helicopter is used to transfer power into the rotor system, thereby rotating the rotor blades, providing lift and thereby lessening the rate of descent. Sufficient energy cannot be coupled into the rotor system unless the helicopter is at or above a minimum altitude at the time of power failure.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Marconi as modified by Gallant to incorporate the teachings of Logan which teaches the altitude of the aircraft is greater than a minimum value allowing a transient phase of autorotation during the reactivation of the engine in standby in the event of a fault of the active engine as a condition for authorization of entry into ECO mode since they are all directed to engine activation and incorporation of Logan would improve the accuracy and safety of the ECO mode.
Regarding claim 2, Marconi as modified by Gallant and Logan discloses wherein, to allow the reactivation of the first engine and therefore to exit the ECO mode (See at least Marconi abstract, [0006-0008], [0010-0015] It is possible to stop one of the turboshaft engines and to put it into a mode referred to as standby mode. A normal transition out of standby mode of this kind occurs over a period of between 10 seconds and 1 minute. A transition out of standby mode is referred to as ‘emergency’ when there is a failure or a power deficit in the active engine, or when the flight conditions suddenly become difficult. An emergency transition out of standby mode of this kind occurs over a period of less than 10 seconds), at least one of the preceding conditions for entry into ECO mode (See at least Marconi abstract, [0007-0016]) or one of the following additional conditions must be false: no acceleration limit is reached, the oil temperature TH is greater than a determined temperature threshold making it possible to ensure the rapid reactivation of the engine in standby, the fuel temperature Tcarb is greater than a determined temperature threshold making it possible to ensure the rapid reactivation of the engine in standby, and there is no loss of power to the active engine (See at least Marconi abstract, [0008-0010] A transition out of standby mode is referred to as ‘emergency’ when there is a failure or a power deficit in the active engine, or when the flight conditions suddenly become difficult.).
Regarding claim 4, , Marconi as modified by Gallant does not explicitly disclose wherein the critical faults comprise data faults which impede the proper operation of the engine and/or its equipment, serial connection faults, electrical system faults, faults causing the loss of engine control, control system faults, and hydraulic system faults. However, Logan teaches wherein the critical faults comprise data faults which impede the proper operation of the engine and/or its equipment (See at least Logan abstract, [0056-0058] For example, if the high pressure turbine spool speed sensor for channel A fails (NH(A)), then the high pressure turbine spool speed sensor for channel B (NH(B)), CPU(B), PS(B) and the XCHAN data link are required to be operational, as denoted by an “X” in cells 216, 222, 218, and 224, respectively. Examiner notes a monitored sensor/data-channel failure impeding proper engine-control operation), serial connection faults (See at Logan least abstract, [0054-0056] ARINC 429 is a data bus link which provides a communication link between channel A and the aircraft's central computer and cross-engine communication with the both channels. RS 423 is a serial data link which provides the cross channel data link between channels A and B), electrical system faults (See at least Logan abstract, [0045-0047], FIG. 1b schematically illustrates representative FADEC system 20 which consists of, among other things, an electronic engine control (EEC) unit 22, a fuel metering unit (i.e., hydromechanical control unit) 24, engine sensors 26, critical engine systems (effectors, etc.) 28, a dedicated power supply 30 and FADEC components and interfaces 32), faults causing the loss of engine control (See at least Logan abstract, [0005-0006] A Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) equipped aircraft, for limited time periods, with faults present in the system, after which, appropriate repairs shall be made to bring the system to the “full up” configuration. The term “full up” is used to indicate that the FADEC system is free of faults which affect the loss of thrust control (LOTC) failure rate.), control system faults (See at least Logan abstract, [0045-0050] FIG. 1b schematically illustrates representative FADEC system 20 which consists of, among other things, an electronic engine control (EEC) unit 22, a fuel metering unit (i.e., hydromechanical control unit) 24, engine sensors 26, critical engine systems (effectors, etc.) 28 … Shown herein, the effectors 28 consist of the amount of fuel flow (WF), the inlet guide vane angle (IGV), and the bleed valve position (HBV). Those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that EEC unit 22 as shown in FIG. 2 can control other critical engine systems), and hydraulic system faults (See at least Logan abstract, [0007-0010] The FADEC system consists generally of an electronic engine control (EEC) unit, a fuel metering unit (i.e. hydromechanical control unit), sensors, actuators, valves, an alternator and interconnecting electrical harnesses. FIG. 1 b provides a schematic representation of a typical FADEC system for a dual channel EEC unit.). .). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Marconi as modified by Gallant to incorporate the teachings of Logan which teaches wherein the critical faults comprise data faults which impede the proper operation of the engine and/or its equipment, serial connection faults, electrical system faults, faults causing the loss of engine control, control system faults, and hydraulic system faults since they are all directed to engine activation and incorporation of Logan would improve the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the ECO mode.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Marconi as modified by Gallant and Logan discloses an aircraft, preferably a twin-engine helicopter, comprising a system for assisting piloting as claimed in claim 7 (See at least Marconi abstract, [0002-0008], [0017-0020] A helicopter is generally provided with at least two turboshaft engines which operate at speeds that depend on the flight conditions of the helicopter. During holding phases on the ground, pilots generally prefer to put the various turboshaft engines into ground idling so as to be certain of being able to restart them. The invention also aims to provide a twin-engine helicopter comprising at least one turboshaft engine according to the invention).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marconi (US 20170122221 A1) in view of Gallant (US 20040088991A1), further in view of Logan (US 4609165 A) and further in view of Teicholz (US 20160332743 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Marconi as modified by Gallant and Logan does not explicitly disclose wherein the oil or fuel temperature threshold is of 5 C. However, Teicholz teaches wherein the oil or fuel temperature threshold is of a certain degree (See at least abstract, Fig. 1, [0010-0015] he thermal management system may comprise a sensor configured to detect a current altitude of the aircraft, and a controller in operative communication with the sensor. The controller may be configured to manage a fuel temperature for the gas turbine engine based at least in part on the current altitude detected by the sensor. In a refinement, the controller may be further configured to schedule the fuel temperature at a first predetermined temperature when the current altitude is below a threshold altitude. In another refinement, the first predetermined temperature may be between an inclusive range of about 200° F. to about 220° F. In another refinement, the controller may be further configured to schedule the fuel temperature at a second predetermined temperature when the current altitude is above the threshold altitude). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Marconi as modified by Gallant and Logan to incorporate the teachings of Teicholz which teaches wherein the oil or fuel temperature threshold is of a certain degree since they are directed to engine reliability and incorporation of Teicholz would improve the accuracy and reliability of engine activation. Teicholz teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the oil or fuel temperature threshold is of 5 C. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include 5C as the certain degree, 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).
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marconi (US 20170122221 A1) in view of Gallant (US 20040088991A1), further in view of Logan (US 4609165 A) and further in view of ANM-110 (FAA Advisory Circular 20-88A – Guidelines on the Marking of Aircraft Powerplant Instruments – NPL)
Regarding claim 5, Marconi as modified by Gallant and Logan does not explicitly discloses wherein the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of the authorization conditions is displayed on an indicator dial including three power ranges respectively corresponding to the fulfilment of the authorization conditions, to the possible fulfilment of the authorization conditions and to the non-fulfilment of the authorization conditions. ANM-110 teaches wherein the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of the authorization conditions is displayed on an indicator dial including three power ranges respectively corresponding to the fulfilment of the authorization conditions, to the possible fulfilment of the authorization conditions and to the non-fulfilment of the authorization conditions (See at least Fig. 1, [Page 3-4, Sections d. – h.], [Pages 9-12, Sections a. – g. ] These dimensions are adequate for reflective markings in low light level conditions at a nominal 28-inch viewing distance. (1) (2) (3) Red Radial - 0.05 inches wide, 0.30 inches long. Red, Yellow, or Green Arc - 0.10 inches wide, length as required. Striped Green Arc - Same length and width as above with alternate green and white stripes 0.05 inches wide. The color red indicates an operating condition beyond authorized limits and requires a spec1f1c action on the part of the flight crew. The color green is used to indicate a normal condition for operation, both ground and flight. Where applicable, the high value end of the green arc should indicate the maximum limit for normal operation, and the low value end of the green arc should indicate the minimum limit for normal operation. The color yellow is used to indicate either a takeoff or cautionary range where limited operation is permissible as directed by the applicable Airplane/Rotorcraft Flight Manual. Examiner notes that green (normal/fulfillment), yellow (possible fulfillment), and red (nonfulfillment) is the standard three-zone convention for powerplant instrument dials). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Marconi as modified by Gallant and Logan to incorporate the teachings of ANM-110 which teaches wherein the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of the authorization conditions is displayed on an indicator dial including three power ranges respectively corresponding to the fulfilment of the authorization conditions, to the possible fulfilment of the authorization conditions and to the non-fulfilment of the authorization conditions since they are all directed to pilot interface design and incorporation of ANM-110 would improve and reduce decision time to convey ECO mode authorization.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is commensurate in scope with claim 5. See rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marconi (US 20170122221 A1) in view of Gallant (US 20040088991A1), further in view of Logan (US 4609165 A) and further in view of FAA-P-8740-71 ( Planning Autorotations - NPL).
Regarding claim 6, Marconi as modified by Gallant and Logan does not explicitly disclose wherein the minimum value of the altitude is equal to 300m. However, FAA-P-8740-71 teaches wherein the minimum value of the altitude is equal to a certain number (See at least [Page 2, Autorotation Phases, paragraphs 1-2] This portion of the autorotation will be initiated into the wind, at the manufacturer’s recommended entry speed and a minimum pattern altitude between 500–700 feet above the ground (AGL) for a straight-in autorotation. Use a minimum altitude of 700 feet AGL with an entry point on the downwind leg abeam the touchdown point for a 180° autorotation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Marconi as modified by Gallant and Logan to incorporate the teachings of FAA-P-8740-71 which teaches wherein the minimum value of the altitude is equal to a certain number since they are all directed to automated engine control and incorporation of FAA-P-8740-71 would improve the safety margin of the ECO mode. FAA-P-8740-71 discloses the claimed invention except for the minimum value of the altitude is equal to 300m. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use 300m as the certain number, 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LABIBAH I. ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6738. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/LABIBAH ILMA ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights