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 .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 10/17/2025.
In the amendments to the claims dated 17 October 2025:
Claims 1-10 are indicated as cancelled.
Claims 11-21 are new claims.
Claims 17 and 18 are dependent claims of Claim 3, which is a cancelled claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3, and its dependent claim 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 is dependent on claim 3, which has been cancelled. Claim 18 is dependent on claim 17. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, and their dependent claims, 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.
Claims 11, 16, 19, 20, 21 recites the limitation "the electrical de-icing members”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12 and 21: in “the electrical de-icing switch or switches” it is unclear if “switches” is related to “at least one electrical switch” or something else.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the at least one electrical de-icing switch”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13, 14, 15, 16 recites the limitation " the electrical de-icing switches”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14, 15 recites the limitation “a plurality of electrical de-icing members” but it is unclear if it is related to “a plurality of electrical de-icing members” recited in claim 11.
Claims 14 and 15: in “a given longitudinal reference de-icing position […] the reference de-icing position,” it is unclear if “the reference de-icing position” is related to “a given longitudinal reference de-icing position”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the upstream section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " the downstream section”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16: the limitation “to at least one of the electrical de-icing members” appears twice in claim 16, but it is unclear if they refer to the same electrical de-icing members or different ones, or something else.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “said at least one electrical de-icing switch”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Given the large number of 112(b) rejections discussed above, it is possible that additional issues may be present in the claims. Applicant’s assistance in further evaluating the claims is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams 3657514 in view of Gerardi 6102333.
Regarding claim 11, Adams teaches:
A propeller for an aircraft (Title) turbine engine comprising
a cone (spinner housing 16, Col 2 ll. 15-25, Fig. 1) and a plurality of blades (propeller blades 13, 14, 15, Fig. 1),
the cone extending along a longitudinal axis oriented from upstream to downstream (longitudinal axis from left to right, passing through the center of 16 in Fig. 1) and being configured to be driven in rotation by a shaft of the aircraft (propeller shaft 11)
the cone comprising a wall (spinner bulkhead 17, Col 2 ll. 24-26) with an inner face (inner part of “circle” representation of 17, Fig. 2) and an outer face (outer part of “circle” representation of 17, Fig. 2), the propeller comprising:
a plurality of electrical de-icing members (inter alia, “an inboard or first heater 43 and an outboard or second heater 44” Col 2 ll. 44-50) secured to a wall of the blades in order to de-ice them (see 19 and 20 in Fig 1, and “Each of the deicer boots 18, 19 and 20 which are shown in dotted lines in FIG. 3 has an inboard or first heater 43 and an outboard or second heater 44” Col 2 ll. 43-50);
a control system (inter alia, 32, 36 Fig. 3, 47, 48 Fig. 2) electrically connected to the electrical de-icing members (See Figs. 3 and 2) and comprising at least one electrical switch (inter alia, 47, 48, 32) having a variable switching duty cycle configured (“timer” 32, Col 3, ll 1-20), using an input electrical power (35, Fig. 3), to distribute an output electrical power to the electrical de-icing members (see Fig. 2 and 3) and to emit a dissipated electrical power in the form of heat (“inboard or first heater 43 and an outboard or second heater 44” Col 2 ll. 43-50); and
Adams teaches the “The slip ring assembly 21 is mounted securely on the propeller drive shaft 11 at a position adjacent the spinner bulkhead 17.” Col 2 ll. 30-35, and teaches the electrical switch of the control system is within the cone (see Fig. 2), but does not explicitly teach:
turbine engine
wherein at least one of the at least one electrical switch of the control system, is an electrical de-icing switch mounted on the inner face of the wall of the cone so as to transfer the dissipated electrical power by thermal conduction into the wall of the cone.
However, Gerardi teachesa de-icing system for an aircraft (abstract) and “Electro-thermal systems use resistive elements embedded within thin sheets of material placed over and/or under the ice prone surfaces” Col 1 ll. 55-58, and:
turbine engine (jet aircraft, Col 1 ll. 39),
wherein at least one of the at least one electrical switch of the control system (inter alia, 110), is an electrical de-icing switch mounted (“de-icing system further includes driver electronics 110 that houses for each actuator or desired group of actuators, a capacitive storage bank 120, a silicon control rectifier (SCR) switch 130, a charging circuit 140 and a control module 145” Col 5 ll. 30-35) on the inner face of the wall (170, 110 is within the wall as seen in Figs. 1, 27; “Some or all of the components of driver electronics 110 may be mounted or integrated with the airfoil” Col 5 ll. 34-37) of the cone (cone as already discussed above) so as to transfer the dissipated electrical power by thermal conduction into the wall of the cone (Gerardi teaches “The de-icing system further includes driver electronics 110 that houses for each actuator or desired group of actuators, a capacitive storage bank 120, a silicon control rectifier (SCR) switch 130, a charging circuit 140 and a control module 145” Col 5 ll. 30-35, and the components listed above, as well as those taught by Adams, and electrical and electronic components in general, are known wo dissipate heat during operation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Adams with Gerardi's teachings discussed above, mounting the electrical switches of the control system to the inner surface wall of the cone, in order to provide a de-icing system to a surface prone to icing, because “undetected airborne icing has contributed to a number of catastrophic crashes and continues to threaten general aviation and high performance jet aircraft” Col 1 ll. 35-40.
Regarding claim 12, Adams in view of Gerardi teaches the invention as discussed for claim 11.
Adams further teaches:
The propeller according to claim 11, wherein the electrical de-icing switch or switches have an overall center of inertia (inter alia, Adams Fig. 2 indicate the components of the system, including the de-icing switches, formed in a triangular shape, leading to a center of inertia at the center of the triangle) belonging to the longitudinal axis (axis of 11, through the center of Fig. 2 and coinciding with the center of inertia discussed above).
Regarding claim 13, Adams in view of Gerardi teaches the invention as discussed for claim 11.
Adams further teaches:
The propeller according to claim 11, wherein the at least one electrical de-icing switch comprises a plurality of electrical de-icing switches (Figs. 2, 3, shows a plurality of 47, 48), the electrical de-icing switches being arranged (arranged in a ‘triangular’ shape as seen in Fig. 2, as required by its operation with the 3 propellers) on at least one section of the cone (cone as discussed above, and the triangular formation would be maintained as required for the operation of the system with 3 propellers seen in Fig. 2) extending transversely with respect to the longitudinal axis (this formation would extend traversely with respect to the longitudinal axis, which is seen as ‘going into the page” in Fig 2, at 11).
Regarding claim 19, Adams in view of Gerardi teaches the invention as discussed for claim 11.
Adams further teaches:
The propeller according to claim 11, wherein the electrical de-icing members are in the form of resistive elements (“These deicers contain electrical resistance heaters” Col 1 ll. 6-9) or piezoelectric elements.
Regarding claim 20, Adams in view of Gerardi teaches the invention as discussed for claim 11.
Adams further teaches:
A method for de-icing a propeller for an aircraft turbine engine according to claim 11, wherein:
from an input electrical power (inter alia, 35, Fig. 3), each of the at least one electrical switch (as already discussed) distributes an output electrical power to the electrical de-icing members (as already discussed) to de-ice the blades (“These deicers contain electrical resistance heaters” Col 1 ll. 6-9) and emits a dissipated electrical power in the form of heat (“These deicers contain electrical resistance heaters which are cyclically heated to release the ice which accumulates on the propeller blades” Col 1 ll. 6-12); and
said at least one electrical de-icing switch transfers the dissipated electrical power by thermal conduction into the wall of the cone to ensure the cooling of the control system and the de-icing of the wall of the cone (as already discussed for claim 11) simultaneously (as discussed, heat is generated and transferred to the wall when the system is operating, due the reasons already discussed above).
Regarding claim 21, Adams teaches:
A propeller for an aircraft (title) turbine engine comprising
a cone (spinner housing 16, Col 2 ll. 15-25, Fig. 1) and a plurality of blades (propeller blades 13, 14, 15, Fig. 1),
the cone extending along a longitudinal axis oriented from upstream to downstream (longitudinal axis from left to right, passing through the center of 16 in Fig. 1) and being configured to be driven in rotation by a shaft of the aircraft (propeller shaft 11)
the cone comprising a wall (spinner bulkhead 17, Col 2 ll. 24-26) with an inner face (inner part of “circle” representation of 17, Fig. 2) and an outer face (outer part of “circle” representation of 17, Fig. 2), the propeller comprising:
a plurality of electrical de-icing members (inter alia, “an inboard or first heater 43 and an outboard or second heater 44” Col 2 ll. 44-50) secured to a wall of the blades in order to de-ice them (see 19 and 20 in Fig 1, and “Each of the deicer boots 18, 19 and 20 which are shown in dotted lines in FIG. 3 has an inboard or first heater 43 and an outboard or second heater 44” Col 2 ll. 43-50);
a control system (inter alia, 32, 36 Fig. 3, 47, 48 Fig. 2) electrically connected to the electrical de-icing members (See Figs. 3 and 2) and comprising at least one electrical switch (inter alia, 47, 48, 32) having a variable switching duty cycle configured (“timer” 32, Col 3, ll 1-20), using an input electrical power (35, Fig. 3), to distribute an output electrical power to the electrical de-icing members (see Fig. 2 and 3) and to emit a dissipated electrical power in the form of heat (“inboard or first heater 43 and an outboard or second heater 44” Col 2 ll. 43-50);
wherein the electrical de-icing switch or switches have an overall center of inertia (inter alia, Adams Fig. 2 indicate the components of the system, including the de-icing switches, formed in a triangular shape, leading to a center of inertia at the center of the triangle) belonging to the longitudinal axis (axis of 11, through the center of Fig. 2 and coinciding with the center of inertia discussed above).
wherein the electrical de-icing members are in the form of resistive elements (“These deicers contain electrical resistance heaters” Col 1 ll. 6-9) or piezoelectric elements.
Adams teaches the “The slip ring assembly 21 is mounted securely on the propeller drive shaft 11 at a position adjacent the spinner bulkhead 17.” Col 2 ll. 30-35, and teaches the electrical switch of the control system is within the cone (see Fig. 2), but does not explicitly teach:
turbine engine
wherein at least one of the at least one electrical switch of the control system, is an electrical de-icing switch mounted on the inner face of the wall of the cone so as to transfer the dissipated electrical power by thermal conduction into the wall of the cone.
However, Gerardi teachesa de-icing system for an aircraft (abstract) and “Electro-thermal systems use resistive elements embedded within thin sheets of material placed over and/or under the ice prone surfaces” Col 1 ll. 55-58, and:
turbine engine (jet aircraft, Col 1 ll. 39),
wherein at least one of the at least one electrical switch of the control system (inter alia, 110), is an electrical de-icing switch mounted (“de-icing system further includes driver electronics 110 that houses for each actuator or desired group of actuators, a capacitive storage bank 120, a silicon control rectifier (SCR) switch 130, a charging circuit 140 and a control module 145” Col 5 ll. 30-35) on the inner face of the wall (170, 110 is within the wall as seen in Figs. 1, 27; “Some or all of the components of driver electronics 110 may be mounted or integrated with the airfoil” Col 5 ll. 34-37) of the cone (cone as already discussed above) so as to transfer the dissipated electrical power by thermal conduction into the wall of the cone (Gerardi teaches “The de-icing system further includes driver electronics 110 that houses for each actuator or desired group of actuators, a capacitive storage bank 120, a silicon control rectifier (SCR) switch 130, a charging circuit 140 and a control module 145” Col 5 ll. 30-35, and the components listed above, as well as those taught by Adams, and electrical and electronic components in general, are known wo dissipate heat during operation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Adams with Gerardi's teachings discussed above, mounting the electrical switches of the control system to the inner surface wall of the cone, in order to provide a de-icing system to a surface prone to icing, because “undetected airborne icing has contributed to a number of catastrophic crashes and continues to threaten general aviation and high performance jet aircraft” Col 1 ll. 35-40.
Claim(s) 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams 3657514 in view of Gerardi 6102333 and “Marshall” GB 627885.
Regarding claim 14, Adams in view of Gerardi teaches the invention as discussed for claim 13.
Adams in view of Gerardi, as discussed so far, is silent about:
The propeller according to claim 13, comprising: a plurality of electrical de-icing members secured to the wall of the cone and arranged on at least one section of the cone extending transversely with respect to the longitudinal axis and having a given longitudinal reference de-icing position; and
the electrical de-icing switches being arranged on an upstream section of the cone extending upstream of the reference de-icing position, or on a downstream section of the cone extending downstream of the reference de-icing position.
However, Marshall teaches a De-Icing means for Spinners for Aircraft Screw Propellers (title), and
a plurality of electrical de-icing members (16, Fig.1) secured to the wall of the cone (Fig. 1) and arranged on at least one section of the cone (Fig. 1 , and “16 are secured, such elements extending from near the front of the nose portion rearwardly to positions adjacent the annular entry 17”, page 3 ll. 60-100) extending transversely with respect to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1, where the axis is from left to right passing through the center of the figure, through shaft 24) and having a given longitudinal reference de-icing position (the position of the center of the electrical de-icing switches on the nose cone discussed above); and
the electrical de-icing switches (the electrical de-icing switches as already discussed above; but in the case of Marshall, the switches are considered to be, inter alia, 47, 25, 26, 48) being arranged on an upstream section of the cone extending upstream of the reference de-icing position, or on a downstream section of the cone extending downstream of the reference de-icing position (Fig. 1; it is noted that, as already discussed, the switches are located in the nose cone and they will are on an upstream section of the cone or on a downstream section of the cone).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Adams in view of Gerardi with Marshall's teachings discussed above in order to provide “de-icing means comprising electrical resistance elements associated with the inner and/or outer shells at least adjacent said 45 entry, means being provided for leading current to said elements“ page 1 ll. 40-50, to provide “improvements in or relating to de-icing means for spinners for aircraft screw propellers” (title) as taught by Marshall
Regarding claim 15, Adams in view of Gerardi teaches the invention as discussed for claim 13.
Adams in view of Gerardi, as discussed so far, is silent about:
The propeller according to claim 13, comprising:
a plurality of electrical de-icing members secured to the wall of the cone and arranged on at least one section of the cone extending transversely with respect to the longitudinal axis and having a given longitudinal reference de-icing position; and
the electrical de-icing switches being arranged on an upstream section of the cone extending upstream of the reference de-icing position, and on a downstream section of the cone extending downstream of the reference de-icing position.
However, Marshall teaches a De-Icing means for Spinners for Aircraft Screw Propellers (title), and
a plurality of electrical de-icing members (16, Fig.1) secured to the wall of the cone (Fig. 1) and arranged on at least one section of the cone (Fig. 1 , and “16 are secured, such elements extending from near the front of the nose portion rearwardly to positions adjacent the annular entry 17”, page 3 ll. 60-100) extending transversely with respect to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 1, where the axis is from left to right passing through the center of the figure, through shaft 24) and having a given longitudinal reference de-icing position (the position of the center of the electrical de-icing switches on the nose cone discussed above); and
the electrical de-icing switches (the electrical de-icing switches as already discussed above; but in the case of Marshall, the switches are considered to be, inter alia, 47, 25, 26, 48) being arranged on an upstream section of the cone extending upstream of the reference de-icing position, and on a downstream section of the cone extending downstream of the reference de-icing position (the electrical de-icing switches discussed here are on an upstream section and also on a downstream section of the cone in relation to the reference de-icing position.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Adams in view of Gerardi with Marshall's teachings discussed above in order to provide “de-icing means comprising electrical resistance elements associated with the inner and/or outer shells at least adjacent said 45 entry, means being provided for leading current to said elements“ page 1 ll. 40-50, to provide “improvements in or relating to de-icing means for spinners for aircraft screw propellers” (title) as taught by Marshall.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams 3657514 in view of Gerardi 6102333, “Marshall” GB 627885 and Droandi 20260723.
Regarding claim 16, Adams in view of Gerardi and Marshall teaches the invention as discussed for claim 15. Also see 112(b) rejections above.
Adams in view of Gerardi and Marshall is silent about:
The propeller according to claim 15, wherein:
the electrical de-icing switches arranged on the upstream section are configured to supply electrical power intermittently to at least one of the electrical de-icing members; and
the electrical de-icing switches arranged on the downstream section are configured to supply electrical power continuously to at least one of the electrical de-icing members.
However, Droandi teaches systems and methods for anaging ice accretions that may develop during flight of an aircraft (abstract) with, and “he electrically conductive portion 1831 may be, e.g., affixed to an inner surface of spinner 1801, or it may be embedded within spinner 1801. The electrically conductive portion may be located at a lateral side of the spinner as seen in FIG. 18A. For example, a lateral side of the spinner may refer to a portion of the spinner 1801 that faces more radially outward toward a propeller blade 1820 than toward a forward flight direction. In some embodiments, the sheet of metal may wrap continuously around an inner surface of the spinner, as illustrated at the top left corner of FIG. 18A (electrically conductive portion 1831a is illustrated in “unrolled” form as a continuous strip spanning a full circular path from 0 to 2π). In some embodiments, a plurality of magnetic field sensors 1835 may be arrayed alongside the electrically conductive portion 1831” [0168]; Droandi also teaches multiple zones of operation “In some embodiments, a plurality of switches may be provided to selectively enable or disable heating over different zones of the propeller assembly. For example, the different zones may comprise, e.g., spinner 1801 or a region of spinner 1801, an individual blade 1820 or a region of an individual blade 1820, all blades 1820. BY targeting different zones, it may be possible to selectively concentrate the heating power where it is needed depending on icing conditions” [0175], and:
the electrical de-icing switches (as already discussed) arranged on the upstream section (upstream of a point of reference located downstream of the electrical de-icing switches)are configured to supply electrical power intermittently (as already discussed above, Adams teaches the timer 32) to at least one of the electrical de-icing members (inter alia, 1831); and
the electrical de-icing switches (as already discussed) arranged on the downstream section (downstream of a point of reference located upstream of the electrical de-icing switches) are configured to supply electrical power continuously (“a default “on” setting, that is, the switch may be configured to connect the wiring path 1817 and the electrically conductive portion 1831 by default, and to disable this connection when the switch is activated. In this way, a failure of the switch or its control architecture is more likely to result in an “always on” mode and is less likely to disable ice management capabilities” [0174]) to at least one of the electrical de-icing members (inter alia, 1831).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Adams in view of Gerardi and Marshall with Droandi's teachings discussed above in order to provide safety so “a failure of the switch or its control architecture is more likely to result in an “always on” mode and is less likely to disable ice management capabilities” [0174]
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights