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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “monitor an input impedance of the heating elements” should have the word “of” added. 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 14, 19, and 20 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.
Please see circled limitations in attached appendix
Claim 14 recites the limitation "wherein detecting the fault" in Line 1 and then goes on the further define the steps of “obtaining” and “detecting” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the method steps of Claim 14 are required at all times of the apparatus or how these steps are to be interpreted in the apparatus claims. Claim 13 correctly uses the phrase “configured to”. It’s not clear if this configured to language is being carried over from Claim 13 to Claim 14, since Claim 14 uses a slightly different phrasing. The examiner suggests simply continuing to use “configured to” and probably restating portions of Claim 13 in Claim 14 to make it clear exactly is involved in the detecting portion of claim 14.
Claim 19 similarly recites method steps of detecting which are indefinite in an apparatus claim set.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a mechanical change to the skin" in Line 5 which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if a new mechanical change is being defined or if the mechanical change from Claim 17 is being further limited.
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 13-20 and 46-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (US 10167550 B2) in view of Medelius (US 8593153 B2).
1-12. (cancelled)
Regarding Claim 13, Wen discloses:
13. A system for heating an exterior of an aircraft (“as well as other wing structures (e.g., body panels and skins)”; Col 20 Line 49), the system comprising:
a series of individual heating elements (“heater elements”; Col 24 Line 15) arranged on a skin (700 and also 218, referred to as “core” throughout) of the aircraft; and
a control system (“heater control system”; Col 21 Line 61) connected to the heating elements, the control system configured to control power (“adjustable so as to control the amount of power”; Col 21 Line 57) supplied to the heating elements,
Wen further discloses “temperature monitoring” in Col 8 Line 3 and using “resistance readings as a data feed input to certain systems” in Col 6 Line 66, along with mentioning “impedance matching” in Col 11 Line 20. Wen falls short on specifically using a subsystem to detect from the input impedance, a fault.
Medelius teaches a similar control system for an exterior of an aircraft (“exterior surface of an aircraft or spacecraft”; Col 11 Line 46)
wherein the control system comprises an impedance monitoring sub-system (8) connected to the heating elements, the impedance monitoring sub-system configured to:
monitor (via 41) an input impedance (generated by 31) the heating elements; and
detect (“The reflected pulse of voltage V.sub.R that is less than V.sub.o and may be of opposite sign from V.sub.o moves back toward the origin at distance zero, and can be detected there”; Col 6 Line 31-33), from the input impedance, a fault (“possible to determine the distance of the discontinuity”; Col 6 Line 35) in a heating element.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the control system of Wen with the impedance monitoring subsystem of Medelius. The motivation for doing so would have been reduce accidents because of faulty wiring as taught by Medelius in the background section of Column 1.
Regarding Claims 14-16, Medelius further teaches:
14. The system of claim 13, wherein detecting the fault in the heating element comprises:
obtaining a first impedance (Z_t; Col 6 Line 44) vs frequency pattern of the heating element; and
detecting the fault by comparing (via Equation 1 and 2; Col 6 Line 40) the first impedance vs frequency pattern with a second impedance vs frequency pattern (Z_o; Col 6 Line 43) that indicates an expected impedance without any faults.
15. The system of claim 13, wherein the impedance monitoring sub-system comprises a passive system (“standing wave reflectometry… and resistive methods”; Col 6 Line 53) configured to detect impedance of the heating elements based on electrical characteristics of the heating elements in response to power signals applied to the heating elements.
16. The system of claim 13, wherein the impedance monitoring sub-system comprises an active system configured to transmit a test signal (Z_o; Col 6 Line 43) to the heating elements and detect impedance of the heating elements based on electrical characteristics (“discontinuities”; Col 6 Line 28) of the heating elements in response to the test signal.
Regarding Claim 17, Wen discloses:
17. A system for heating an exterior of an aircraft (“as well as other wing structures (e.g., body panels and skins)”; Col 20 Line 49), the system comprising:
a series of individual heating elements (“heater elements”; Col 24 Line 15) arranged on a skin (700 and also 218, referred to as “core” throughout) of the aircraft; and
a control system (“heater control system”; Col 21 Line 61) connected to the heating elements, the control system configured to control power (“adjustable so as to control the amount of power”; Col 21 Line 57) supplied to the heating elements,
Wen further discloses “structural health monitoring” in Col 6 Line 59 and using “resistance readings as a data feed input to certain systems” in Col 6 Line 66, along with mentioning “impedance matching” in Col 11 Line 20. Wen fall short on specifically using a subsystem to detect from the input impedance, a mechanical change.
Medelius teaches a similar control system for an exterior of an aircraft (“exterior surface of an aircraft or spacecraft”; Col 11 Line 46)
wherein the control system comprises an impedance monitoring sub-system (8) connected to the heating elements, the impedance monitoring sub-system configured to:
monitor (via 41) an input impedance (generated by 31) of the heating elements; and
detect (“The reflected pulse of voltage V.sub.R that is less than V.sub.o and may be of opposite sign from V.sub.o moves back toward the origin at distance zero, and can be detected there”; Col 6 Line 31-33), from the input impedance, a mechanical change (“detect damage”; Col 6 Line 23) to the skin of the aircraft.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the control system of Wen with the impedance monitoring subsystem of Medelius. The motivation for doing so would have been reduce accidents because of faulty wiring as taught by Medelius in the background section of Column 1.
Regarding Claims 18-20 and 48, Medelius further teaches:
18. The system of claim 13, wherein the control system comprises a Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) monitoring sub-system connected to the heating elements, the TDR monitoring sub-system configured to:
monitor (via 41) a time domain electrical pulse response (Z_t; Col 6 Line 44) of the heating elements; and
detect, from the time domain electrical pulse response, a fault (“discontinuities”; Col 6 Line 28) in a heating element.
19. The system of claim 18, wherein detecting the fault in the heating element comprises:
obtaining a first Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) pattern (Z_t; Col 6 Line 44) of the heating element; and
detecting the fault (“discontinuities”; Col 6 Line 28) by comparing the first TDR pattern with a second TDR pattern (Z_o; Col 6 Line 43) that indicates an expected TDR pattern for a heating element without any faults.
20. The system of claim 17, wherein the control system comprises Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) monitoring sub-system connected to the heating elements, the TDR monitoring sub-system configured to: monitor a time domain electrical pulse response (Z_t; Col 6 Line 44) of the heating elements; and detect, from the time domain electrical pulse response, a mechanical change (“discontinuities”; Col 6 Line 28) to the skin of the aircraft.
48. The system of claim 13, wherein the control system is configured to alternately remove heating power from a particular heating element for a period of time while maintaining heating power to at least one heating element located immediately next to the particular heating element, and
wherein the impedance monitoring sub-system configured to perform an impedance measurement of the particular heating element during the period of time (“adapted to switch the wire connecting the power source and the load device from the test wire to a different wire in the plurality of wires if damage to the test wire is detected”; Col 15 Line 50-54).
21-43. (canceled)
Regarding Claims 46, 47, and 49, Wen discloses:
46. The system of claim 13, wherein each of the heating elements extend from a forward end of a wing towards an aft end of the wing (see Fig. 7d, from leading edge and around toward trailing edge).
47. The system of claim 13, wherein a width of each heating element is less than a spacing between heating elements and a length of each heating element is greater than the spacing between heating elements (See Fig. 7d, elements are narrow strips with larger gaps between).
49. The system of claim 46, wherein the heating elements are spaced apart along a direction from a base of the wing towards a tip of the wing (see spacing in Fig. 7d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 44, 45, and 50-55 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dardona (US 10815902 B2) also uses TDR monitoring subsystem to find faults in many different electrical systems of an aircraft. Dardona could be useful for a 103 type rejection with a base wing heating or damage detection reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M O'HARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5224. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM eastern.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/BRIAN M O'HARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights