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 .
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.
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.
Claims 4-12 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.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear whether a single combustion engine”, “a single-engine rotorcraft”, “a controller”, “a nominal mode”, “at least one flight speed”, “a driving power”, “at least one rotor”, “an idling speed”, “an arming button”, and “at least one activation button” are the same elements as those claimed in independent claim 1 or are different elements. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, they are construed as the same as those recited in independent claim 1. Dependent claims 5-12 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the at least one arming button" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4, from which claim 8 depends, recites “an arming button”, not “at least one arming button”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hamers et al. (US 2025/0319964, hereinafter referred to as Hamers).
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Hamers teaches a method for simulating a failure of a combustion engine of a single-engine rotorcraft (Hamers, Title, Rotorcraft with an Autorotation Training Mode Control System; para. 37, “the helicopter 1 comprises at least one engine 1g for powering the at least one main rotor 1a”), the rotorcraft comprising a controller controlling the combustion engine (Hamers, para. 9, “at least one main control element that is manually operable for activating the autorotation training mode control system and switching the rotorcraft operation from the normal flight mode to the autorotation training mode to engage the autorotation training mode.”), the combustion engine being able to operate on command from the controller in a nominal mode at at least one flight speed in order to provide a driving power to at least one rotor (Hamers, para. 9, “normal flight mode”), the combustion engine being able to operate on command from the controller at an idling speed (Hamers, para. 9, “autorotation training mode”; para. 5, “Steady autorotation is usually started at about 2000 ft above ground level (AGL) or above by setting the rotorcraft's engines to IDLE condition, performing a descent in autorotation”),
wherein the method comprises a simulation phase comprising the following steps:
arming a training mode by operating an arming button in communication with the controller, the controller controlling an operation of the combustion engine at the at least one flight speed (Hamers, Fig. 3, ARM switch 41), the training mode not being able to be activated in the absence of the arming of the training mode (Hamers, Fig. 3, ENGAGE switch 44 activates the training mode after ARM switch 41);
subject to the arming of the training mode, activating the training mode by operating an activation button that is in communication with the controller and is different from the arming button (Hamers, Fig. 3, ENGAGE switch 44 activates the training mode after ARM switch 41), the controller consequently controlling a deceleration of the combustion engine to reach the idling speed (Hamers, Fig. 3, processing unit – check of request – 45, engine control – confirmation of request – 46); and
deactivating the training mode by operating the activation button again, the controller consequently controlling an acceleration of the combustion engine to reach the at least one flight speed, the training mode being able to be reset only during a new simulation phase (Hamers, Fig. 3, DISENGAGE switch 61, processing unit – disengage request – 62, engine control – confirmation of disengage – 63; para. 20, “at least one auxiliary control element that is manually operable for activating the autorotation training mode control system and switching the rotorcraft operation from the normal flight mode to the autorotation training mode to engage the autorotation training mode, and/or for deactivating the autorotation training mode control system and disengaging the autorotation training mode for switching the rotorcraft operation from the autorotation training mode to the normal flight mode.”).
Regarding claim 2, Hamers teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the simulation phase comprises disarming by operating the arming button at any time after the arming of the training mode, the disarming ending the simulation phase, and if the combustion engine is at idling speed, then, following the disarming, the controller controls an acceleration of the combustion engine in order to reach the at least one flight speed (Hamers, para. 48, “at least one auxiliary control element that is manually operable for activating the autorotation training mode control system and switching the rotorcraft operation from the normal flight mode to the autorotation training mode to engage the autorotation training mode, and/or for deactivating the autorotation training mode control system and disengaging the autorotation training mode for switching the rotorcraft operation from the autorotation training mode to the normal flight mode.”).
Regarding claim 3, Hamers teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein the method comprises generating an arming alert with an alerter as long as the training mode is armed (Hamers, Fig. 3, crew indication – ARM status – 43; para. 60-61, “Preferably, the data processing unit 19 triggers initially indication of a respective activated or armed status of the autorotation training mode control system 7 to the flight instructor and/or the flight student in the helicopter 1, at step 43. By way of example, the data processing unit 19 triggers illumination of the display indicator 21 and/or one or more of the displays 8a to 8d of FIG. 2 of the autorotation training mode control system 7, e.g., in a predetermined first color. The display indicator 21 may e.g., comprise display of the letter "A" or the letters "AR" or "AR TRAIN", and the predetermined first color may e.g., be orange or amber to indicate an ARMED status.”).
Regarding claim 4, Hamers teaches a single-engine rotorcraft comprising a single combustion engine for setting in motion a drive chain connected to at least one rotor (Hamers, Title, Rotorcraft with an Autorotation Training Mode Control System; para. 37, “the helicopter 1 comprises at least one engine 1g for powering the at least one main rotor 1a”), the rotorcraft comprising a controller controlling the combustion engine (Hamers, para. 37, “Preferably, the at least one engine 1g is controlled and monitored in operation using e.g., a Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC-20 in FIG. 2).”), the combustion engine being able to operate on command from the controller in a nominal mode at at least one flight speed in order to provide a driving power to at least one rotor (Hamers, para. 9, “normal flight mode”), the combustion engine being able to operate on command from the controller at an idling speed (Hamers, para. 9, “autorotation training mode”; para. 5, “Steady autorotation is usually started at about 2000 ft above ground level (AGL) or above by setting the rotorcraft's engines to IDLE condition, performing a descent in autorotation”),
wherein the rotorcraft comprises an arming button and at least one activation button connected to the controller in order to implement the method according to claim 1 (Hamers, Fig. 3, ARM switch 41, ENGAGE switch 44 activates the training mode after ARM switch 41).
Regarding claim 5, Hamers teaches the rotorcraft according to claim 4,
wherein the rotorcraft comprises an alerter connected to the controller in order to generate an arming alert following the arming of the training mode (Hamers, Fig. 3, crew indication – ARM status – 43; para. 60-61, “Preferably, the data processing unit 19 triggers initially indication of a respective activated or armed status of the autorotation training mode control system 7 to the flight instructor and/or the flight student in the helicopter 1, at step 43. By way of example, the data processing unit 19 triggers illumination of the display indicator 21 and/or one or more of the displays 8a to 8d of FIG. 2 of the autorotation training mode control system 7, e.g., in a predetermined first color. The display indicator 21 may e.g., comprise display of the letter "A" or the letters "AR" or "AR TRAIN", and the predetermined first color may e.g., be orange or amber to indicate an ARMED status.”).
Regarding claim 6, Hamers teaches the rotorcraft according to claim 4,
wherein the rotorcraft comprises two activation buttons configured to be operable respectively by two pilots (Hamers, at least para. 51-53 describe activation buttons one the controls of each of two pilots).
Regarding claim 9, Hamers teaches the rotorcraft according to claim 4,
wherein the controller comprises an engine computer controlling the combustion engine (Hamers, para. 23, “the autorotation training mode control system comprises a data processing unit configured to control execution of the autorotation training mode”), the arming button and the activation button communicating with the engine computer in order to implement the simulation phase (Hamers, at least Fig. 3 illustrates this).
Regarding claim 10, Hamers teaches the rotorcraft according to claim 4,
wherein the controller comprises an avionics computer and an engine computer controlling the combustion engine, the arming button and the activation button communicating with the avionics computer, the avionics computer communicating with the engine computer in order to implement the simulation phase (Hamers, at least Fig. 3 illustrates this).
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.
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hamers et al. (US 2025/0319964, hereinafter referred to as Hamers) as applied to claim 4, in view of Dumur et al. (US 2024/0404424, hereinafter referred to as Dumur).
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 7, Hamers teaches the rotorcraft according to claim 4.
Hamers does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one activation button is a monostable button.
However, in an analogous art, Dumur teaches the control buttons can be monostable buttons (Dumur, para. 64, “the first control member and the second control member are, for example, monostable buttons arranged on an instrument panel or on a control lever of the rotorcraft.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one activation button in Hamers to be a monostable button because monostable and bistable are the two main options for such buttons. Thus, it is merely choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Hamers teaches the rotorcraft according to claim 4.
Hamers does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one arming button is a monostable button or a bistable button.
However, in an analogous art, Dumur teaches the control buttons are monostable buttons or bistable buttons (Dumur, para. 62, “the first control member and the second control member are, for example, bistable buttons that can be actuated one after another.” Para. 64, “the first control member and the second control member are, for example, monostable buttons arranged on an instrument panel or on a control lever of the rotorcraft.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one arming button in Hamers to be a monostable button or a bistable button because monostable and bistable are the two main options for such buttons. Thus, it is merely choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hamers et al. (US 2025/0319964, hereinafter referred to as Hamers) as applied to claim 4.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Hamers teaches the rotorcraft according to claim 4.
Hamers does not explicitly teach wherein the controller comprises an electromechanical relay mechanism and an engine computer controlling the combustion engine, the arming button and the activation button communicating with the electromechanical relay mechanism, the electromechanical relay mechanism communicating with the engine computer in order to implement the simulation phase as claimed in claim 11.
Hamers also does not explicitly teach wherein the arming button closes a first arming contact and a second arming contact in a first arming position, the arming button closing a third arming contact in a second arming position, the activation button closing a first activation contact and a second activation contact in a first activation position, the activation button closing a third activation contact in a second activation position, the electromechanical relay mechanism comprising:
a first relay provided with a first coil electrically connected to a first output arming terminal of the first arming contact;
a second relay provided with a second coil electrically connected to a second output arming terminal of the third arming contact;
a third relay provided with a third coil electrically connected to the second arming contact and to the second output arming terminal via a contact of the second relay controlled by the second coil;
a fourth relay provided with a fourth coil electrically connected to a first output activation terminal of the first activation contact, a first input activation terminal of the first activation contact being electrically connected to the first output arming terminal via a contact of the first relay controlled by the first coil;
a fifth relay provided with a fifth coil electrically connected to a second output activation terminal of the third activation contact; and
a sixth relay provided with a sixth coil electrically connected to an output deactivation terminal of the second activation contact and to the second output activation terminal via a contact of the fifth relay controlled by the fifth coil, an electrical disarming line being electrically connected to the first coil and comprising a contact of the third relay controlled by the third coil and a contact of the sixth relay controlled by the sixth coil as claimed in claim 12.
However, Hamers teaches an engine computer controlling the combustion engine directly and an avionics computer and engine computer controlling the combustion engine as identified with respect to claims 9 and 10 above.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Hamers to substitute an electromechanical relay mechanism as claimed in claims 11 and 12 would have been an obvious matter of design choice since applicant has not disclosed that the electromechanical relay solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the claimed embodiments of claims 9 and 10 that do not include the electromechanical relay.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Packer et al. (US 3,001,299) discloses multiple pilots each having a set of controls is old and well-known.
Ye et al. (CN 111223346) discloses a separate arming button as a safety switch that prevents inadvertent activation.
Dumur et al. (US 12,437,668 B2) is the patent associated with the secondary reference used in the rejections of claims 7 and 8.
Dumur (US 2025/0182646) provides a closely related disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights