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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20130286515 by White et al. (hereinafter “White”), further in view of US20200076184 by Belisle et al. (hereinafter “Belisle”).
Regarding claim 1, White teaches A system, comprising: an aircraft electrical power system controller comprising a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by a processor to: switch from an operating state to a failsafe state based on detection of an output voltage, from a low voltage power source of the aircraft electrical power system controller, outside of an acceptable voltage range; see for example paragraphs [0036]-[0039] describing the aircraft power system controller. See also Fig. 2 and paragraphs [0059]-[0060], where the transformer 212 (low voltage power source) supplies power to the low voltage AC panel 252. See also paragraphs [0060] and [0065], where contactor 229 can disconnect the low voltage bus when necessary, and the controller 254 can trip the contactors as appropriate to protect the power system in response to an undesirable power condition.
inhibit, based on a failsafe cycling protection being enabled, the aircraft electrical power system controller from returning to the operating state from the failsafe state see again paragraphs [0060] and [0065], where contactor 229 can disconnect the low voltage bus when necessary, and the controller 254 can trip the contactors as appropriate to protect the power system in response to an undesirable power condition. See also paragraph [0026], where the system is trying to avoid intermittent arc fault issues.
and cause the aircraft electrical power system controller to return to the operating state, from the failsafe state, based on a manual input, a detection of an on-ground state, or a counter value. See for example paragraphs [0066], [0097], or [0043]-[0046], where the system has a manual fault reset switch actuatable by the pilots, reading on a manual input. See also Fig. 5 and paragraph [0096], where the faults are cleared after a time delay, reading on a counter value. Alternatively, see paragraph [0084], where the system attempts to return to an operational state after a first failure, but not after a second, also reading on a counter value.
White does not explicitly teach that the system should maintain its inhibited state even at power up.
However, Belisle teaches a system wherein the system maintains its inhibited state even at power up. See for example paragraph [0040], where the protection condition remains latched mechanically. See also [0037], where the system remains tripped until mechanically reset.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuit protection of White with the mechanical reset system of Belisle with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to avoid intermittent (e.g. arc fault) failures, and is in line with White’s desire to avoid recurrent tripping (see, e.g., paragraph [0084], where automatic reset is disabled after a second failure).
Claims 10 and 16 have similar limitations to claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected based on a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, White teaches wherein the manual input comprises an activation of a control switch on a flight deck. See for example paragraphs [0066], [0097], or [0043]-[0046], where the system has a manual fault reset switch actuatable by the pilots on the flight deck.
Claims 11 and 19 have similar limitations to claim 2 above, and are therefore rejected based on a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 5, White teaches wherein the counter value indicates whether the failsafe cycling protection is enabled. See again Fig. 5 and paragraph [0096], where the faults are cleared after a time delay, reading on a counter value, and the protection is enabled for the duration of the time delay, reading on cycling protection is enabled. Alternatively, see paragraph [0084], where the system attempts to return to an operational state after a first failure, but not after a second, also reading on a counter value, and cycling protection is enabled.
Claim 14 has similar limitations to claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected based on a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 8, White teaches wherein the instructions, to cause the aircraft electrical power system controller to return to the operating state, are operative upon execution by the processor to: determine whether to permit the aircraft electrical power system controller to switch from the failsafe state to the operating state based on the counter value. See again Fig. 5 and paragraph [0096], where the faults are cleared after a time delay, reading on a counter value. Alternatively, see paragraph [0084], where the system attempts to return to an operational state after a first failure, but not after a second, also reading on a counter value. In either case, the system refuses to switch from the tripped, failsafe state to the normal operating state based on the counter value.
Claim 15 has similar limitations to claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected based on a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 9, White teaches further comprising: a flag, in a non-volatile memory, that indicates whether the failsafe cycling protection is enabled; or a latch that indicates whether the failsafe cycling protection is enabled. See for example paragraphs [0096]-[0097] and [0092], where faults are cleared (from controller memory) based on either counter values or based on a manual reset. See also paragraph [0044], where the availability of a reset is displayed to the crew via an interface.
Regarding claim 17, White teaches wherein the low voltage power source is further operable to receive a low voltage current and create one or more lower level voltages to supply circuitry. See for example Fig. 2 and paragraph [0059], where the low voltage power supplied to the low voltage bus are supplied to any number of loads.
Regarding claim 18, White teaches wherein the failsafe cycling component is further operable to: cause the aircraft electrical power system controller to return to the operating state, from the failsafe state, based on a manual input, a detection of an on-ground state, or a counter value. See for example paragraphs [0066], [0097], or [0043]-[0046], where the system has a manual fault reset switch actuatable by the pilots, reading on a manual input. See also Fig. 5 and paragraph [0096], where the faults are cleared after a time delay, reading on a counter value. Alternatively, see paragraph [0084], where the system attempts to return to an operational state after a first failure, but not after a second, also reading on a counter value.
Claims 3-4, 12-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Belisle as applied to claims 1, 10, and 16 above, and further in view of US20080036298 by Ausman et al. (hereinafter “Ausman”).
Regarding claim 3, White does not explicitly teach, but Ausman teaches teaches wherein detection of the on-ground state comprises a detection that engines, of an aircraft associated with the aircraft electrical power system controller, are off. See for example paragraphs [0011]-[0012], where the system detects an aircraft shutdown state based on engine being shut down.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuit protection of White, modified by the mechanical reset system of Belisle, with the engine shutdown detection of Ausman with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to determine that the aircraft is entering into a shutdown state based on the engine speed in order to alert the pilots so they can try resetting the breakers.
Claims 12 and 20 have similar limitations to claim 3 above, and are therefore rejected based on a similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, White teaches wherein the instructions are further operative upon execution by the processor to: sense that a set of generator control breakers are in an open state, wherein the engines are detected as being off based on the set of generator control breakers being in the open state. See for example paragraphs [0048]-[0052], where the generators are powered by the engines, and the system can determine the status of the generator circuit breaker 207 as part of disconnecting the engine’s generator.
Claim 13 has similar limitations to claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected based on a similar rationale.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White in view of Belisle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20100280682 by Lazarovich et al. (hereinafter “Lazarovich”).
Regarding claim 6, White does not explicitly teach, but Lazarovich teaches wherein the counter value is incremented based on an engine start or based on actions associated with a ground handling relay. See for example paragraph [0030] or [0033], where the system is triggered by removal of external power to the system (based on actions associated with a ground handling relay) or start up of a main engine.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuit protection of White, modified by the mechanical reset system of Belisle, with the counter incrementing of Lazarovich with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to determine that the aircraft entering its startup phase in order to activate/reset power sources.
Regarding claim 7, White does not explicitly teach, but Lazarovich teaches wherein the counter value is reset based on an engine shutdown or a transition to an air mode. See for example paragraph [0030] or [0033], where the system is triggered by shut down of an auxiliary power unit (APU) or main engine,
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the circuit protection of White, modified by the mechanical reset system of Belisle, with the counter incrementing of Lazarovich with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to determine that the aircraft entering its startup phase in order to activate/reset power sources.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20140103990 by Holley et al. teaching tripped circuit remaining off even on next power-up; see, e.g., ¶¶ [0021], [0029].
US5715124 by Votava et al. teaching BPCU to detect undervoltage and overvoltage protection.
US20130111914 by Kempinski et al. teaching a crowbar circuit for over/undervoltage fault protection.
US20190135206 by Struza et al. teaching short circuit detection in vehicle power supplies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights