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 Amendment
The amendments filed 11/19/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-8 remain pending. Claims 1, 4, 6, & 8 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Regarding “Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 4 of 14 line 12 to page 5 of 14 line 6, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to independent claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 4 of 14 lines 20-22):
“Claim 1 is meaningfully limited by and uses any judicial exception in a meaningful way by reciting “generating a reference profile curve that is representative of a required demand of the EMA, defining upper and lower tolerance limits of said reference profile curve, … determining whether the generated measured profile curve lies within the upper and lower tolerance limits …””
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.”
&
“The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
Analysis:
Limitations such as “generating a reference profile curve” or “defining upper and lower tolerance limits of said reference profile curve” are either mathematical relationships or mental processes generally recited.
Conclusion:
The claims are not meaningfully limited at least because the limitations such as “generating a reference profile curve” are judicial exceptions generally recited. Note, a judicial exception doesn’t become patentable subject matter by reciting the judicial exception generally, and omitting the explicit recitation of an equation doesn’t mean that a limitation is not directed towards the abstract idea grouping of mathematical relationships.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 5 of 14 line 7 to page 5 of 14 line 23, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to independent claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 5 of 14 lines 7-9):
“In addition, any supposed abstract idea and/or concepts in claim 1 are incorporated into a practical application and/or address a number of technical problems to improve the existing technology.”
& (page 5 of 14 lines 20-23):
The claimed features provide for “provid[ing] advanced notice of oncoming faults and which reduce Aircraft on Ground (AOG) and dispatch interruption.” While advantageously “utilize[ing] existing system hardware without the requirement for additional sensing.”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
The claims are directed towards mathematical concepts and mental processes without additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. As the Applicant says, “using existing sensors that are normally found on an EMA” and “without the requirement for additional sensing”; the claims do not recite additional elements (beyond that which is a field of use limitation) which would integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application at revised step 2A prong two of the 35 U.S.C. §101 analysis.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 5 of 14 line 24 to page 6 of 14 line 13, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to independent claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 5 of 14 lines 24-29):
“Still further, the features of the claimed method are not performed in isolation, but as part of a practical process performed by a computer or a controller … This integration into a system and a practical application satisfies the requirements of step 2A Prong 2.”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” & “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, … or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);”
Analysis:
That the judicial exception(s) are performed by a computer or computing elements does not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application. Limitations directed towards performing the judicial exception(s) on a computer or on computing elements is not significantly more than reciting “apply it” to the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “process performed by a computer or a controller” does not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application. These limitations are no more ‘practical’ than many judicial exceptions (such as equations) with instructions to a computer to perform the judicial exception(s).
Regarding “§103 Rejections”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 6 of 14 line 14 to page 8 of 14 line 16, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to independent claims 1-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 5 of 14 lines 24-29):
“The cited references, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest at least the italicized features of claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
The obvious combination of Deller in view of Bharadwaj teaches the limitations of the of the claims filed 11/19/2025 as shown in the 35 U.S.C. §103 section below. Note 1: limitations are interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation. Note 2: the limitations of the instant application are directed towards processes performed by physical elements whereas the references are more directed towards physical elements which perform the processes, but substantively these are the same teachings.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 8 of 14 line 14 to page 9 of 14 line 20, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to independent claims 1-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 8 of 14 lines 21-25):
“First, as acknowledged at p. 17 of the Office Action. Deller does not disclose accounting for measured speed versus position of an EMA … Deller does not disclose “defining upper and lower tolerance limits of said reference profile curve, wherein the upper and lower tolerance limits are associated with a measurable speed versus position of the EMA for monitoring the health of the EMA.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
The claims are examined under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Bharadwaj teaches in the Abstract: “If the EMA has experienced a fault, a fault-based position limit and a fault-based rate limit of the EMA are determined, based on the fault. A design position limit and a design rate limit of the EMA are supplied”, Fig. 3 rate limit 308, & Fig. 4 limit determination 404). At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the ‘speed versus position of the EMA’ and “design position limit and a design rate limit of the EMA” is taught by Bharadwaj. Further, “integrated values” of Deller at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation means that the speed/rate and position values are considered together in determining whether a threshold has been exceeded.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 9 of 14 line 20 to page 10 of 14 line 26, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to independent claims 1-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 10 of 14 lines 17-20):
“Nowhere does the Subroutine 8 of Deller teach or suggest “defining upper and lower tolerance limits of said reference profile curve, wherein the upper and lower tolerance limits are associated with a measurable speed versus position of the EMA for monitoring the health of the EMA.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation Deller teaches “defining upper and lower tolerance limits”, see Fig. 2B “Setting thresholds for the system parameter values” 220, tolerance limits/(thresholds)). Tolerance limits of the instant application and thresholds of Deller are interpreted as equivalent.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 10 of 14 line 27 to page 14 of 14 line 10, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to independent claims 1-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 12 of 14 lines 31-36):
“The fault-based position limit and fault-based rate limit in Bharadwaj are individual values, not functions or profiles. The fault-based position limit and fault-based rate limit in Bharadwaj are different from “a reference profile curve representative of a required demand of the EMA for monitoring the health of the EMA”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
The reference of Bharadwaj Fig. 2- 204 shows a fault determination module. The fault determination takes in data regarding position and speed/rate date of the EMA and with threshold on those functions or values uses it to determine if there is a fault. There is disclosure of thresholds on y values for particular x values. For a particular value of x the threshold would be a scalar value but for a range of x values the limit/threshold is a function.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 10 of 14 line 27 to page 14 of 14 line 10, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to independent claims 1-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 13 of 14 lines 16-19):
“The concept of speed versus position implies a measured or modeled relationship between actuator speed and its position – i.e., a profile or curve showing how speed varies as a function of position.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Bharadwaj teaches at least in the Abstract: “If the EMA has experienced a fault, a fault-based position limit and a fault-based rate limit of the EMA are determined, based on the fault. A design position limit and a design rate limit of the EMA are supplied”, Fig. 3 rate limit 308, & Fig. 4 limit determination 404). Additionally, in column 6 lines 56-59: “The fusion module 204 may thus receive the design position, rate, and bandwidth limits from the memory 202, and the fault-based position, rate, and bandwidth limits from the fault determination module 204.” Indicating that position data and speed/rate data are combined and that this data comes from a “Fault Determination Module” 205 (see Fig. 2).
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 10 of 14 line 27 to page 14 of 14 line 10, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to independent claims 1-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 13 of 14 lines 23-24):
“The Applicant further submits the Examiner uses impermissible hindsight to support the obviousness rejection over Deller in view of Bharadwaj.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2145(X)(A): “However, "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper."”
Analysis:
The 35 USC 103 rejections were made using the references of US 7283934 B2 (Deller) published 2007-10-16 and US 7877231 B2 (Bharadwaj) published 2011-01-25 and the instant application was filed 2022-09-30. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the necessary teachings before the filing of the instant applications. Further, there would be motivation to combine the teachings of Deller with the teachings of Bharadwaj because (as explained in the 103 rejection of the independent claim 1) ‘the speed versus position may be able to indicate a fault’ in the system of Deller.
Conclusion:
Therefore, a 35 USC 103 rejection using Deller in view of Bharadwaj is not impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & MPEP 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
“generating a reference profile curve that is representative of a required demand of the EMA, defining upper and lower tolerance limits of said reference profile curve,”
“and generating a measured curve profile based on said measurement;”
“determining whether the generated measured profile curve lies within the upper and lower tolerance limits of said reference profile curve;”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
&
“It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.”
Analysis:
These limitations directed towards “generating” and “determining” are at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation within either the mathematical concepts grouping or the mental processes grouping.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites abstract ideas.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim additionally recites:
“wherein the upper and lower tolerance limits are associated with a measurable speed versus position of the EMA for monitoring the health of the EMA,”
“providing, by a power converter, power to the EMA according to one or more test conditions for monitoring the health of the EMA;
measuring, by a speed sensor and a position sensor of said EMA, said speed versus position of said EMA”
“and in response to determining said generated measured profile curve does not lie within the upper and lower tolerance limits, providing an indication that said EMA needs attention,”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.”
Analysis:
These limitations (at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation) are not significantly more than that which is necessary to gather the data necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s) (i.e., pre-solution activity) or application of the judicial exception(s) necessarily implied by the judicial exception (i.e., post-solution activity).
Conclusion:
Therefore, any additional elements or limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Any additional elements (elements listed in revised step 2A prong two) are not significantly more than extra solution activity of either pre-solution or post solution
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(II): “Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).”
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I): “2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018).”
Analysis:
The prior art of at least
US 7283934 B2 (previously cited, henceforth Deller) Abstract “An improved technique of acceptance testing an actuator system” as well as Fig. 2A and Fig. 2B establish that these elements and limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
US 20200091841 A1 (previously cited, henceforth Benarous) Fig. 1 & Fig. 3 establish that these elements and limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the additional elements and limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 2 additionally recites:
“wherein said method of providing an indication that the EMA needs attention comprises providing a flag warning into a maintenance computer.”
Explanation:
This limitation is not significantly more than the extra solution (post solution) activity recited in claim 1.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
the claim does not recite additional elements beyond those addressed regarding claim 1.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“wherein if said generated measured profile curve does lie within the upper and lower tolerance limits, repeating said method.”
Explanation:
This limitation is not significantly more than a further judicial exception of evaluating if “profile curve does lie within the upper and lower tolerance limits” (mathematical concepts or mental processes) and instruction to apply the judicial exception(s) recited in claim 1.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
the claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“further comprising: generating a second reference profile curve that is representative of a required demand of the EMA;”
“defining upper and lower tolerance limits of said second reference profile curve, wherein the upper and lower tolerance limits of said second reference profile curve are associated with a measurable characteristic of the EMA for monitoring the health of the EMA, wherein said characteristic comprises one or more of speed versus time, current versus time, or voltage versus time;”
“and in response to determining said generated second measured profile curve does not lie within the upper and lower tolerance limits of said second reference profile curve,”
Explanation:
These limitation is not significantly more than further limitations directed towards the abstract idea groupings of ‘mathematical concepts’ and ‘mental processes’.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The additional limitation of:
“providing the indication that said EMA needs attention.”
Is not significantly more than the extra solution activity addressed in the claim 1 analysis.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
the claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 5 recites the additional limitation of:
“further comprising: storing said reference profile curve in a memory of a computer.”
Is not significantly more than the extra solution (post solution) activity addressed in the claim 1 analysis. And further, is no more than recitation of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I): “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine.”)
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
the claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 6 additionally recites:
“further comprising: defining a frequency and/or the test conditions for monitoring the EMA, wherein the frequency and/or the test conditions are at which future health tests are to be performed.”
Explanation:
This limitation is not significantly more than saying that values (judicial exception abstract idea category of ‘mathematical concepts’) are chosen to be input into the previously recited judicial exceptions.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
the claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 7 recites the additional limitation of:
“wherein said method is performed by a computer.”
Is not significantly more than the extra solution (post solution) activity addressed in the claim 1 analysis. And further, is no more than recitation of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I): “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine.”)
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
the claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 8 additionally recites:
“A system for monitoring the health of an electromechanical actuator (EMA), said system being configured to perform the method of claim 1.”
Explanation:
This limitation is not significantly more than instruction to apply the judicial exception(s) recited in claim 1.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“system for monitoring the health”
This limitation is not significantly more than
a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I): “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine.”)
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
the claim does not recite additional elements beyond those in the step 2A prong 2 analysis.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101
Note:
See MPEP 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7283934 B2 (previously cited, Deller) in view of US 7877231 B2 (previously cited, Bharadwaj).
Regarding claim 1, Deller teaches a method for monitoring a health of an electromechanical actuator (EMA) comprising: generating a reference profile curve that is representative of a required demand of the EMA (Fig. 1 actuator system 130, column 2 lines 6-13: “Aspects of the present invention are directed to systems, methods, and computer-readable media for measuring-wear and load parameters of an actuator, e.g., an EMA, in its working environment. Because the actual total service life of an actuator system may be primarily determined by the load environment to which it has been exposed, such parameters better relate to the remaining service life of the actuator than measuring only the elapsed time of operation of the actuator.”), defining upper and lower tolerance limits of said reference profile curve (Fig. 2B “Setting thresholds for the system parameter values” 220, tolerance limits/(thresholds)), … , said speed versus position of said EMA and generating a measured curve profile based on said measurement (column 8 lines 44-51: “thresholds 148 can be put back into the database 140 and then conveyed into the non-volatile memory 112 of the controller 110 (or downloaded directly into the non-volatile memory 112 of the controller 110), as described at step 222. When the subsequently measured and computed system parameters 138 exceed the thresholds 148 for such system parameters 138 that are stored in the controller 110”); determining whether the generated measured profile curve lies within the upper and lower tolerance limits of said reference profile curve (column 8 lines 49-51: “system parameters 138 exceed the thresholds 148 for such system parameters 138 that are stored in the controller 110”, ); and in response to determining said generated measured profile curve does not lie within the upper and lower tolerance limits, providing an indication that said EMA needs attention (Fig. 2B step 224, column 8 lines 51-53: “a warning indicating imminent failure and/or need for service may be announced or issued, as described at step 224.”, needs attention/(warning)).
Deller does not as explicitly teach … wherein the upper and lower tolerance limits are associated with a measurable speed versus position of the EMA for monitoring the health of the EMA, providing, by a power converter, power to the EMA according to one or more test conditions for monitoring the health of the EMA; measuring, by a speed sensor and a position sensor of said EMA.
Bharadwaj teaches … wherein the upper and lower tolerance limits are associated with a measurable speed versus position of the EMA for monitoring the health of the EMA (Abstract: “If the EMA has experienced a fault, a fault-based position limit and a fault-based rate limit of the EMA are determined, based on the fault. A design position limit and a design rate limit of the EMA are supplied”, Fig. 3 rate limit 308, & Fig. 4 limit determination 404), providing, by a power converter, power to the EMA according to one or more test conditions for monitoring the health of the EMA (Fig. 1-105 & Fig 1- 104: “power drive unit”, system provides power to the EMA for application of tests); measuring, by a speed sensor and a position sensor of said EMA (Abstract: “If the EMA has experienced a fault, a fault-based position limit and a fault-based rate limit of the EMA are determined, based on the fault. A design position limit and a design rate limit of the EMA are supplied”, Fig. 3 rate limit 308, & Fig. 4 limit determination 404).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Deller with the teachings of Bharadwaj. One would have modified the “actuator system involves measuring system parameters of the actuator system during operation of the actuator system” of Deller with the “a fault-based position limit and a fault-based rate limit of the EMA are determined, based on the fault” of Bharadwaj. The motivation would have been that the speed versus position may be able to indicate a fault (see Bharadwaj column 6 lines 20-23: “The condition-effects mapping function 302 receives various types of data and, based on these data, determines which of the above-describe limits (e.g., position, rate, bandwidth, torque) need to be valuated/reevaluated”)
Regarding claim 2, Deller in view of Bharadwaj teaches the method of claim 1.
Deller further teaches wherein said method of providing an indication that the EMA needs attention comprises providing a flag warning into a maintenance computer (Fig. 1 controller 110, Fig. 2B step 224, column 8 lines 51-53: “a warning indicating imminent failure and/or need for service may be announced or issued, as described at step 224.”, needs attention/(warning), maintenance computer/(controller)).
Regarding claim 3, Deller in view of Bharadwaj teaches the method of claim 1,
Deller further teaches wherein if said generated measured profile curve does lie within the upper and lower tolerance limits, repeating said method (column 6 lines 55-62: “Those parameter values 138 can be restored for continued data collection when the control unit 110 is powered up again. This allows the stored system parameters 138 to reflect the entire life of the actuator system 130. The non-volatile memory 112 may also be used to periodically save a "snapshot" of the parameters so that the rates of change of the parameter values can also be evaluated.”, within tolerance limits and repeating/(system continues to collect data even while remaining active)).
Regarding claim 4, Deller in view of Bharadwaj teaches the method of claim 1,
Deller further teaches wherein said characteristic comprises one or more of speed versus time, current versus time, or voltage versus time (column 7 lines 57-64: “the following state data may be taken from the DAQ means 120 and appropriately scaled: an indication of weight on wheels; controller temperature; motor temperature; motor position, for example as given in Hall state counts; output position, typically a potentiometer or LVDT signal scaled to match motor position; motor current; illegal Hall state flag; and watchdog events flag”, current versus time/(motor current)); and in response to determining said generated second measured profile curve does not lie within the upper and lower tolerance limits of said second reference profile curve, providing the indication that said EMA needs attention (Fig. 1 controller 110, Fig. 2B step 224, column 8 lines 51-53: “a warning indicating imminent failure and/or need for service may be announced or issued, as described at step 224.”, needs attention/(warning), maintenance computer/(controller)).
Deller does not as explicitly teach further teaches further comprising: generating a second reference profile curve that is representative of a required demand of the EMA; defining upper and lower tolerance limits of said second reference profile curve, wherein the upper and lower tolerance limits of said second reference profile curve are associated with a measurable characteristic of the EMA for monitoring the health of the EMA.
Bharadwaj further teaches further comprising: generating a second reference profile curve that is representative of a required demand of the EMA; defining upper and lower tolerance limits of said second reference profile curve, wherein the upper and lower tolerance limits of said second reference profile curve are associated with a measurable characteristic of the EMA for monitoring the health of the EMA (Fig. 2-204: “determination module 204”, column 6 lines 56-62: “The fusion module 204 may thus receive the design position, rate, and bandwidth limits from the memory 202, and the fault-based position, rate, and bandwidth limits from the fault determination module 204. The fusion module 206, upon receipt of the design limits and the fault-based limits, determines, as appropriate, updated position, rate, and bandwidth limits of the EMA assembly 102.”, system generates curves and compares limits in the determination of the health of an EMA),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Deller with the teachings of Bharadwaj. One would have modified the “Acceptance Testing Of Actuators Using Predetermined Thresholds” of Deller with the “updated position limit, rate limit, bandwidth” (Fig. 2 & 3) of Bharadwaj. The motivation would have been that these additional measurements with their limits would better enable the detection of health issues with an electromechanical actuator (see Bharadwaj column 5 lines 41-47: “As will be described further below, in some embodiments the fault determination module 204, upon determining that the EMA assembly 102 has experienced a fault, causes an appropriate test signal to be transmitted to the EMA assembly 102 in order to confirm the presence of the fault. This confirmation also improves the accuracy of the fault-based position, rate, and/or bandwidth limits.”).
Regarding claim 5, Deller in view of Bharadwaj teaches the method of claim 1.
Deller further teaches further comprising: storing said reference profile curve in a memory of a computer (Fig. 1 controller 110 & non-volatile memory 112, column 7 lines 48-51: “the DAQ 120 means, see FIG. 1) operate to collect for the selected actuator system parameter data from an actuator system 130 in its working environment (e.g., an aircraft working environment)”, maintenance computer/(controller) and memory(non-volatile memory 112)).
Regarding claim 6, Deller in view of Bharadwaj teaches the method of claim 1,
Deller further teaches further comprising: defining a frequency and/or the test conditions for monitoring the EMA, wherein the frequency and/or the test conditions are at which future health tests are to be performed (column 6 lines 55-62: “Those parameter values 138 can be restored for continued data collection when the control unit 110 is powered up again. This allows the stored system parameters 138 to reflect the entire life of the actuator system 130. The non-volatile memory 112 may also be used to periodically save a "snapshot" of the parameters so that the rates of change of the parameter values can also be evaluated.”, system can be analyzed with a frequency/(periodically)).
Regarding claim 7, Deller in view of Bharadwaj teaches the method of claim 1.
Deller further teaches wherein said method is performed by a computer (Fig. 1 controller 110, computer/(controller), column 2 lines 29-33: “The technique further involves electronically indicating whether the actuator system is in acceptable condition based on an electronic comparison of the set of measured system parameters stored in the computerized memory and the set of predetermined thresholds”).
Regarding claim 8, Deller in view of Bharadwaj teaches … the method of claim 1.
Deller further teaches a system for monitoring the health of an electromechanical actuator (EMA), said system being configured to perform … (Fig. 1 a system 100, column 5 lines 25-27: “FIG. 1 depicts representative functional components of a system 100 for predicting actuating system failure by measuring selected actuator system parameters”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7449858 B2 "Variable-Structure Diagnostics Approach Achieving Optimized Low-frequency Data Sampling For EMA Motoring Subsystem" (Chang) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2 & Fig. 4-64.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858