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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, while figure 1 has reference numbers, figure 1 is missing labels. (See MPEP 608.02(b) ¶ 6.22) Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 & 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Al-Khalil (EP Pub No. 1,968,854 B1).
Regarding claim 1
Al-Khalil teaches a method for controlling an anti-icing device (See paragraphs 0023- 0037 & figures 1-6, ref # 508) protecting at least one outer surface (See figures 1-6, ref # 14 & 16) of an aircraft, (See figures 1-6, ref # 10) the device (See figures 1-6, ref # 508) being provided with at least one anti-icing means (See figures 1-6, ref # 17 & 22) and a means for measuring the ice accretion rate, (See paragraphs 0030 & 0052) the at least one anti-icing means (See figures 1-6, ref # 17 & 22) comprising at least one anti-icing means (See figures 1-6, ref # 17 & 22) with a heating element (See figures 1-6, ref # 17) and/or at least one anti-icing means (See figures 1-6, ref # 17 & 22) with a mechanical element, (See figures 1-6, ref # 22) the
control method comprising steps of determining at least one activation parameter of the at
least one anti-icing means (See figures 1-6, ref # 17 & 22) as a function of the ice accretion rate
(See paragraph 0030) determined by the measuring means in order to prevent the accretion of
ice (See paragraph 0030) over the at least one outer surface (See paragraph 0032-0034 &
figures 1-6, ref # 14 & 16) to be protected or in order to reduce the thickness of the ice
accumulated over the at least one outer surface (See figures 1-6, ref # 14 & 16) to be protected,
(See paragraph 0030) the control method further comprising the following steps: (See
paragraphs 0023-0024) determining a duration between two activations as a function of the ice
accretion rate, a correlation factor between the ice accretion rate measured by the
measurement of the ice accretion rate and the ice accretion rate at the outer surface to be
protected, and a maximum tolerated ice thickness; (See paragraphs 0023-0024) and controlling
an actuator of an anti-icing means each time the determined duration between two activations
elapses, so as to reduce the thickness of ice formed on the at least one outer surface to be
protected. (See paragraphs 0023-0024)
Regarding claim 5
Al-Khalil teaches wherein the air flow velocity is equal to the true air speed (See paragraphs 0023-0024) when the anti-icing means (See figures 1-6, ref # 17 & 22) is disposed on a wing leading edge (See paragraph 0015) or on a rear tail unit (See paragraph 0015) of an aircraft (See paragraphs 0023-0024) or depends on the true air speed (See paragraphs 0023- 0024) and the rotational velocity of the propulsion unit (See paragraph 0015; the velocity of the surface is a factor in determining ice accretion, therefore the speed of the surface of the blade/other airfoils, would need to be known based on the teachings of velocity of the surface and the device can be on inlets and other airfoils) when the anti-icing means (See figures 1-6, ref # 17 & 22) is disposed on an engine air inlet, (See paragraph 0015; aircraft inlets) a blade of an engine (See paragraph 0015; other airfoils) or a blade of a rotary wing. (See paragraph 0015; other airfoils)
Al-Khalil mostly describes the anti-icing means for a wing or tail but also teaches the anti-icing means can be on engine air inlets (See paragraph 0015) and on other airfoils which would include blades of an engine or rotary wing. (See paragraph 0015) Therefore the same principles required for the wing, such as the velocity of the surface, would also be required for the blade or rotary wing. Based on this, if the anti-icing means was on a blade of an engine or rotary wing, (See paragraph 0015) then the rotary speed would need to be known too.
Regarding claim 6
Al-Khalil teaches a system for controlling (See figures 1-6) an anti-icing device (See figures 1-6, ref # 508) protecting at least one outer surface (See figures 1-6, ref # 14 & 16) of an aircraft, (See figures 1-6, ref # 10) the device (See figures 1-6, ref # 508) being provided with at least one anti-icing means, (See figures 1-6, ref # 17 & 22) and a means for measuring the ice accretion rate, (See paragraph 0030) the control system (See figures 1-6, ref # 508 & 510) comprising a control means (See figures 1-6, ref # 508) connected as input to a flight computer, (See figures 1-6, ref # 510) said flight computer (See figures 1-6, ref # 510) being connected to a set of measuring means, (See paragraph 0030) comprising a means for measuring the ice accretion rate, (See paragraph 0030) said flight computer (See figures 1-6, ref # 510) being connected as output to at least one of said anti-icing means, (See figures 1-6, ref # 17 & 22) wherein the control means (See figures 1-6, ref # 508) is capable of executing the control method. (See paragraphs 0006 & 0023-0037)
Regarding claim 7
Al-Khalil teaches wherein an anti-icing means (See figures 1-6, ref # 17 & 22) is selected amongst an anti-icing means (See figures 1-6, ref # 17 & 22) with the heating element (See figures 1-6, ref # 17) and an anti-icing means (See figures 1-6, ref # 17 & 22) with the mechanical element. (See paragraphs 0006, 0008 & figures 1-6, ref # 22)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 & 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Khalil (EP Pub No. 1,968,854 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bosetti et al. (US Patent No. 10,071,808 B1).
Regarding claim 2
Al-Khalil teaches the at least one anti-icing means (See figures 1-6, ref # 17 & 22) comprising at least one anti-icing means (See figures 1-6, ref # 17 & 22) with the heating element, (See figures 1-6, ref # 17) the control method comprising the following steps: determining the power density (See paragraph 0025) as a function of the ice accretion rate, (See paragraphs 0025 & 0030) the flow velocity (See paragraphs 0023-0024) and the air of the total ambient temperature (See paragraphs 0023-0024) received form the flight computer, (See figures 1-6, ref # 510) and a predetermined temperature setpoint; (See paragraph 0023) and controlling an actuator of the at least one anti-icing means (See figures 1-6, ref # 17 & 22) with the heating element (See figures 1-6, ref # 17) such that a power as a function of the determined power density (See paragraph 0025) is transmitted to the anti-icing means (See figures 1-6, ref # 17 & 22) with the heating element (See figures 1-6, ref # 17) so as to prevent the formation of ice on the anti-icing means (See figures 1-6, ref # 17 & 22) with the heating element. (See paragraphs 0025-0026 & figures 1-6, ref # 17)
Al-Khalil is silent about determining the power density as a function of the attitude of the aircraft.
However, Bosetti teaches at least one anti-icing means with the heating element, (See column 8, lines 34-42, column 9, lines 28-37 & figures 1-5) determining the power density as a function of the attitude of the aircraft. (See column 4, lines 61-67, column 5, lines 1-22, & column 6, lines 1-16)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the power density as a function of the attitude of the aircraft as taught by Bosetti in the aircraft of Al-Khalil, so as to control the ice accretion of the aircraft surfaces.
Regarding claim 4
Al-Khalil teaches wherein the correlation factor depends on the air flow velocity, (See paragraphs 0023-0024) the static ambient temperature, (See paragraphs 0023-0024) the rotational speed of the propulsion unit (See paragraph 0015; the velocity of the surface is a factor in determining ice accretion, therefore the speed of the surface of the blade/other airfoils, would need to be known based on the teachings of velocity of the surface and the device can be on inlets and other airfoils) and the true speed of the aircraft. (See paragraphs 0023-0024)
Al-Khalil mostly describes the anti-icing means for a wing or tail but also teaches the anti-icing means can be on engine air inlets (See paragraph 0015) and on other airfoils which would include blades of an engine or rotary wing. (See paragraph 0015) Therefore the same principles required for the wing, such as the velocity of the surface, would also be required for the blade or rotary wing. Based on this, if the anti-icing means was on a blade of an engine or rotary wing, (See paragraph 0015) then the rotary speed would need to be known too.
Al-Khalil is silent about the correlation factor depends on the attitude of the aircraft.
However, Bosetti teaches the correlation factor depends on the attitude of the aircraft. (See column 4, lines 61-67, column 5, lines 1-22, column 6, lines 1-16, & column 9, lines 28-37)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the correlation factor depends on the attitude of the aircraft as taught by Bosetti in the aircraft of Al-Khalil, so as to control the ice accretion of the aircraft surfaces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 1 of the remarks that they corrected the drawing, however, the drawings are still missing labels.
The Applicant argues on pages 1-2 of the remarks that Al-Khalil does not describe how to determine a correlation factor between the measured accretion rate and the accretion rate of the surface to be protected and therefore does not teach claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is not what the claim recites. The claim recites “determining a duration between two activations” the determination of the duration is as a function of the ice accretion rate, a correlation factor between the ice accretion rate measured by the measurement of the ice accretion rate and the ice accretion rate at the outer surface to be protected. The reference is using some of the same correlation factors as the disclosed and claimed invention and uses wind tunnel tests and sensors to determine the ice accretion rate and correlation factors such as true airspeed, temperature, geometry of the surface. (See paragraph 0023-0024) Similarly, the Applicant discloses using simulations (i.e., wind tunnel testing) and sensors. Therefore it is unclear how the Applicant can meet the claim language while the reference does not meet the claim language when they are both using similar structures and simulation/testing and sensing.
The Applicant argues on pages 2-3 of the remarks that the reference Bosetti does not teach the limitations of claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The reference Bosetti was not used in the rejection of claim 1.
The Applicant provided no further arguments.
Therefore the Examiner maintains the above rejections of claims 1-2 & 4-7.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RODNEY ANDREW BONNETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7556. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/RODNEY A BONNETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights