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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted April 8, 2025 and August 19, 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 7 and 10-17 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 7, lines 6-7 recite “a high pressure, a high temperature, or a high mass flow rate”, and the word “high” is a relative term whose scope is not defined in either the claim or specification. The scope of the term in each usage is unknown which renders the claim unclear.
Claim 16, lines 6-7 also recite “a high pressure”, “a high temperature”, and “a high mass flow rate” which render the claim indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 10, line 13 introduces “a compressor speed of the at least one compressor” and lines 15-16 also introduce “a compressor speed of the at least one compressor”, and it is unclear whether these are the same feature or different features.
Claims 11-17 depend from claim 10 and contain its limitations, and therefore are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a cabin blower control system comprising an inlet, an outlet, a blower unit comprising at least one compressor, a drive unit, a controller including a memory and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a desired mass flow rate of the outlet airflow to meet current loading;
receive measurements of an inlet temperature and an inlet pressure;
receive a previous operating condition of the blower unit;
receive a current speed of the at least one compressor;
determine an estimated power consumption of the blower unit by using the inlet temperature, the inlet pressure, the current speed, and the previous operating condition;
determine a current power consumption of the blower unit;
determine an estimated operating condition of the blower unit by using the current power consumption and the estimated power consumption;
determine a desired speed of the at least one compressor by using the desired mass flow rate and the estimated operating condition; and
transmit a desired command signal to the drive unit to operate the at least one compressor at the desired speed.
The steps of “receiving” various types of information is data gathering, which is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and MPEP §2106.05(g) for further clarification).
The steps of “determining” the estimated power consumption, current power consumption, estimated operating condition of the blower unit, and desired speed are considered mathematical concepts, which is an abstract idea (see MPEP §2106.04(a) for further clarification).
The step of “transmitting a desired command signal” is considered data transmission, and receiving or transmitting data over a network is considered a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(d) II for further clarification).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not further used. While the final step performed by the processor states the intended purpose is to “operate the at least one compressor at the desired speed”, the step being performed is transmitting a signal. If the claim was amended to add a step regarding “changing the speed of the at least one compressor to the desired speed”, then there would be a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the cabin blower control system comprising an inlet, an outlet, a blower unit comprising at least one compressor, a drive unit, a controller including a memory and a processor are all well-known, common features of cabin blower systems.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is directed to a method which performs the above steps and recites the same additional features. The method steps are considered an abstract idea for the same reasons, and the additional features do not amount to more than the abstract idea for the same reason. If claim 10 was amended to add a step regarding changing the speed of the at least one compressor to the desired speed, then the abstract idea would have a practical application.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, claim 2 adds method steps performed by the processor (and claimed as method steps in claim 11), where the processor is configured to: receive an operating pressure range of a pressure of the outlet airflow, receive an operating temperature range of a temperature of the outlet airflow, receive an operating speed range of the at least one compressor, determine a desired pressure ratio range of the blower unit, determine a desired temperature ratio range of the blower unit, and determine a desired speed of the at least one compressor.
As stated above, steps for “receiving” values are considered data gathering, and steps for “determining” values are considered mathematical concepts.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, claims 3 and 12 add a variable exit vane arrangement, wherein the drive unit is further configured to control the variable exit vane arrangement, further defines the pressure ratio dataset, the isentropic efficiency dataset, and the mass flow dataset, and the processor is further configured to determine a set of desired speeds of the at least one compressor to achieve the desired mass flow rate for all positions of the variable exit vane arrangement, determine a combination of a desired position of the variable exit vane arrangement and the desired speed that satisfies each of the operating pressure range and the operating temperature range using the estimated operating condition in the predetermined blower dataset, and transmit a vane command signal to the drive unit to operate the variable exit vane arrangement at the desired position.
Variable exit vane arrangements are also well-known features in blower systems, which do not elevate the invention to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further defining the datasets does not elevate them beyond their abstract ideas.
The steps of “determining” the set of desired speeds and combination of a desired position and the desired speed are considered either mathematical concepts or are mental processes, which are considered abstract ideas (see MPEP §2106.04(a) for further clarification).
The step of transmitting a vane command signal is considered data transmission, which is an abstract idea as explained above. If the claim was amended to add a step regarding “changing the position of the variable exit vane arrangement to the desired position”, then the claim would have a practical application of the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the claims add steps regarding receiving a detected operating condition of the cabin blower system from at least one airframe system positioned downstream of the cabin blower system, and determining if the detected operating condition corresponds to the estimated operating condition. The receiving step is considered data gathering, and the determining step is considered a mathematical concept.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the claims add steps regarding receiving an operating efficiency of the drive unit and determining the estimated operating condition further based on the operating efficiency. The receiving step is considered data gathering, and the determining step is considered a mathematical concept.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the claims add a recirculation valve, and the processor is further configured to receiving a desired temperature of the outlet airflow to meet the current loading and operate the recirculation valve in an open state if the desired temperature of the outlet airflow is below a predefined temperature threshold.
The additional feature of a recirculation valve is known in the art of cabin blowers and does not elevate the invention beyond abstract idea alone.
The receiving step is considered data gathering. The step of operating the recirculation valve would be a practical application if it was certain to occur. As the claims are currently written, the step is conditional on the desired temperature being below the predetermined temperature threshold, which means the practical application may not occur under some circumstances.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the claims add a release valve and a bypass duct, and states the processor is communicably coupled to the release valve and is configured to operate the release valve in an open state “in case of a high pressure, a high temperature, or a high mass flow rate in the cabin blower system”.
The additional features of a release valve and bypass duct are known in the art of cabin blowers and do not elevate the invention beyond abstract idea alone.
Similar to the recirculation valve of claim 6, the operation of the release valve is conditional, and therefore is not clearly a practical application of the abstract idea when the conditions are not met.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the claims state the desired speed is determined without measuring any outlet conditions, which does not cure the deficiency of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is directed to a cabin blower system comprising an inlet, an outlet, a blower unit including at least one compressor, and the cabin blower control system of claim 1. The additional features of the cabin blower system comprising an inlet, an outlet, a blower unit including at least one compressor are common, well-known features of a cabin blower system and do not elevate the invention to substantially more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6,732,939 to Wang teaches a blower control system involving mass flow rate and temperature as variables. US 5,967,461 to Farrington teaches a cabin blower control system. US 2021/0171205 to Ippedico teaches a cabin blower control system comprising a cabin blower having an inlet and an outlet, a controller, and variable geometry vanes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights