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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 27-29, 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomas et al (US 20110251739, Tomas) in view of Keating et al (US 20140281752, Keating).
As to claim 27, Tomas discloses an aircraft (fig. 2-3), comprising:
a flight control computer system (fig. 4, DACU 440-446);
a bus system, wherein the bus system is a redundant electronic or optoelectronic bus system (par. 48 “redundancy”) comprising:
a first independent bus sub-system (par. 48 “COM lane”) comprising a first plurality of busses configured to communicate with the flight control system (one to the left and one to the right); and
a second independent bus sub-system (par. 48 “MON lane”) comprising a second plurality of busses configured to communicate with the flight control system (one to the left and one to the right);
a plurality of bus nodes (fig. 4 plurality of “actuator”) configured to control an associated flight control surface or propulsion unit based on command messages received from the flight control computer system over the bus system (par. 45, 50),
wherein each of the bus nodes is connected to the flight control computer system via a unique combination of a first bus or busses of the first plurality of busses and a second bus or busses of the second plurality of busses (fig. 4).
Tomas does not disclose a first and second communication protocol. In the same field of art (redundant connection), Keating discloses a method of monitoring redundant communication buses using timers to assure at least one data path exists to physical units from a controller (par. 8). In one embodiment, Keating further discloses a first independent bus sub-system (fig. 1 bus 102) comprising configured to communicate with a control system (central unit 106) over a first communication protocol (par. 19 “CAN bus”) and a second independent bus sub-system (bus 104) comprising configured to communicate with the control system over a second communication protocol (par. 19 “CAN bus”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tomas and Keating, by configuring the first independent bus sub-system to communicate with the flight control system over a first communication protocol and the second independent bus sub-system to communicate with the flight control system over a second communication protocol. The motivation is to standardize the system, to improve the compatibility of the system (par. 23).
As to claim 28, Tomas/Keating discloses the aircraft according to claim 27, wherein the bus nodes associated with a first common independent communication bus of the first independent bus sub-system are configured to communicate via the first common independent communication bus with the flight control computer system, and wherein the bus nodes associated with a second common independent communication bus of the second independent bus sub-system are configured to communicate via the second common independent communication bus with the flight control computer system (Tomas, par. 53).
As to claim 29, Tomas/Keating discloses the aircraft according to claim 27 wherein the first communication protocol is a first CAN communication protocol and the second communication protocol is a second CAN communication protocol (Keating, par. 24, “redundant CAN bus”);
wherein the bus nodes are CAN bus nodes (par. 19); and
wherein the first independent bus sub-system is a first CAN bus sub-system and the second independent bus sub-system is a second CAN bus sub- system (fig. 1, 2b).
As to claim 31, Tomas/Keating discloses the aircraft according to claim 27, wherein the flight control computer system is a redundant flight control computer system comprising plural independent flight control computers (Tomas, DACU 440-446, par. 36), wherein the plural independent flight control computers differ in at least one of the flight control computer hardware or the flight control computer software (par. 98).
As to claim 32, Tomas/Keating discloses the aircraft according to claim 31, wherein at least a first flight control computer of the plural independent flight control computers is connected via the first independent bus sub-system with each of the bus nodes and at least a second flight control computer of the plural independent flight control computers is connected via the second independent bus sub-system with each of the bus nodes (Tomas, fig. 4 solid line and dash line).
As to claim 33, Tomas/Keating discloses the aircraft according to claim 31, wherein the first flight control computer and the second flight control computer are connected via the first independent bus sub-system with each of the bus nodes (Tomas, COM LANEs 440-446), and wherein a third flight control computer (MON LANE 440) of the plural independent flight control computers is connected via the second independent bus sub-system with each of the bus nodes (fig. 4).
As to claim 34, Tomas/Keating discloses the aircraft according to claim 31, wherein the plural independent flight control computers are configured to elect one of the flight control computers to be the flight control computer in control and therewith to elect the other two flight control computers to be a supervising flight control computer (Tomas, par. 48-49).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomas in view of Keating and further in view of Publication FR3089651A1 (Mothais).
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner relies on the U.S Publication No. 20210397575 as the translation of the Publication No. FR3089651A1.
As to claim 30, Tomas/Keating discloses the aircraft according to claim 27, but does not disclose the limitations in claim 30. In the same field of art (bus expansion), Mothais discloses a method for managing frames in an onboard computer of a motor vehicle of the type suitable for jointly ensuring at least one operational function and a gateway function between at least two data communication buses (par. 15). In one embodiment, Mothais further discloses one of a first or second CAN communication protocols conforms to an ISO 11888 standard and the other of the first or second CAN communication protocols conforms to an SAE J2284-5:2016 standard (par. 27, 81). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tomas/Keating and Mothais, by comprising one of the first or second CAN communication protocols conforms to an ISO 11888 standard and the other of the first or second CAN communication protocols conforms to an SAE J2284-5:2016 standard. The motivation is to improve the performance of the system (par. 13).
Claims 35-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomas in view of Keating and further in view of Giannini et al (US 20170203839).
As to claim 35, Tomas/Keating discloses the aircraft according to claim 32, but does not disclose wherein the aircraft is at least one of a single pilot aircraft, an aircraft having vertical take-off and landing capability, or an aircraft of the canard type. In the same field of art (aircraft), Giannini discloses a hybrid propulsion aircraft; even more particularly, to a hybrid propulsion aircraft having a tilt-wing configuration. The vertical takeoff and landing aircraft may be manned or unmanned (par. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tomas/Keating and Giannini, by having the aircraft preferably at least one of a single pilot aircraft, an aircraft having a vertical take-off and landing capability and an aircraft of the canard type. The motivation is to improve the performance of the system (par. 4 “deployed from confined spaces”).
As to claim 36, Tomas/Keating/Giannini discloses the aircraft according to claim 35, wherein aircraft has plural flight control surfaces of a common type (Giannini, surfaces 406) and plural propulsion units of a common type (ducted fans 108, 110) which each have associated a respective bus node of the bus system, wherein the flight control surfaces and propulsion units are arranged in a number and configuration at one or both of the fuselage of the aircraft and wings of the aircraft to achieve a resiliency against failures, such that at least one of each of a flight control surface and propulsion unit of the common type may fail without endangering the flight capability and the controllability of the aircraft (par. 103).
As to claim 37, Tomas/Keating/Giannini discloses the aircraft according to claim 36, wherein the bus nodes of the propulsion units or flight control surfaces of the common type are associated in such a number and manner to a respective independent communication bus of the first bus sub-system (Tomas, fig. 4) and are associated in such a number and manner to a respective independent communication bus of the second bus sub-system, that any combination of two independent communication busses of the flight control system may fail without substantially compromising the flight capability and the controllability of the aircraft (par. 34, 57).
As to claim 38, Tomas/Keating/Giannini discloses the aircraft according to claim 36, wherein the flight control surfaces of a common type are flaps having air control surfaces (Giannini, par. 86, control surfaces 406), wherein the flaps are mounted in a moveable manner to wings of the aircraft (“controlled to adjusted the thrust nozzle’s area”), wherein each flap has associated at least one flap actuator (nozzle actuators 628) and a bus node, which is configured to control a deflection angle of the flap by controlling the at least one flap actuator based on command messages received from the flight control computer system (Tomas, par. 50).
As to claim 39, Tomas/Keating/Giannini discloses the aircraft according to claim 36, wherein the plural propulsion units of the common type are propulsion engines (Giannini, par. 74-75 “motors”), wherein each propulsion engine has associated a bus node, which is configured to control the operation of the propulsion engine based on command messages received from the flight control computer system (Tomas, par. 50).
As to claim 40, Tomas/Keating/Giannini discloses the aircraft according to claim 38, wherein the propulsion engines are mounted to or integrated with an associated one of the flaps (Giannini, par. 62, motors in thrust assemblies 500), so that a thrust direction of the propulsion engines can be controlled by controlling the deflection angle of the respective flap by means of the respective at least one flap actuator and the respective bus node associated thereto (fig. 6b flap 406).
As to claim 41, Tomas/Keating/Giannini discloses the aircraft according to claim 40, wherein plural or all flaps which serve to control a thrust direction each have associated only one of the propulsion engines, which is mounted to or integrated with the respective flap (Giannini, par. 79, fig. 6b flap 406).
As to claim 42, Tomas/Keating/Giannini discloses the aircraft according to claim 40, wherein plural or all flaps which serve to control a thrust direction each have associated plural the propulsion engines, which are mounted to or integrated with the respective flap (Giannini, par. 79-80); wherein a propulsion module comprising plural propulsion engines is mounted to or integrated with the respective flap (fig. 6b flap 406).
As to claim 43, Tomas/Keating/Giannini discloses the aircraft according to claims 40, wherein for each flap having associated one propulsion engine or plural propulsion engines the at least one flap actuator of the flap (Giannini, fig. 6b, flap 406) and the associated propulsion engine or plural propulsion engines have associated a common bus node, which is configured to control the propulsion engine or propulsion engines and the at least one flap actuator based on command messages received from the flight control computer system (Tomas, par. 50).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEAN PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1002. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Henry Tsai can be reached at 571-272-4176. 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.
/D.P/ Examiner, Art Unit 2184
/HENRY TSAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights