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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status
This instant application No. 18/053,425 has Claims 1-20 pending.
Priority / Filing Date
Applicant did not claim for any domestic or foreign priority. The effective filing date of this application is November 8, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated November 8, 2022 is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of each of the PTOL-1449s initialed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
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 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jonsson et al. hereafter Jonsson (“Flutter and post-flutter constraints in aircraft design optimization”, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019), pp 1-28), in view of Anil Variyar hereafter Variyar (“DESIGN OPTIMIZATION OF HIGHLY FLEXIBLE AIRCRAFT WITH AEROELASTIC CONSTRAINTS”, Dissertation, Stanford University, 2019, pp 1-107).
Regarding Claim 1, Jonsson disclose a method comprising:
determining, based on flutter data and modal strain energy data, a flutter strain energy distribution of a modeled structure (Jonsson: page 14, section 4.2: a flutter constraint suitable for high fidelity gradient-based optimization including wing planform variables; page 16 section 4.3: gradient- based optimizations with respect to structural, planform, and shape variables need approaches that take into account the derivatives of the mode shapes when computing the derivatives of the flutter constraints);
updating a model to increase a mass, a stiffness, or both, of one or more of the regions to improve a flutter characteristic of the modeled structure (Jonsson: page 14, section 4.2: The optimal design including the flutter constraint showed only a slight mass increase thanks to the appropriate aeroelastic tailoring of the lattice structure; pages 21-22 section 5.3, Table 2: control optimization to suppress the subcritical post-flutter behavior of a two-dimensional airfoil with nonlinear pitch stiffness); and
Jonsson donot explicitly disclose:
Identifying regions of the modeled structure that are determined to have a flutter vector strain energy above a threshold. and
providing indicia including instructions for manufacture or modification of the modeled structure to achieve the improved flutter characteristic.
Variyara disclose:
Identifying regions of the modeled structure that are determined to have a flutter vector strain energy above a threshold (Variyara: pages 65-70 Figures 5.1 and Table 5.1: accurate three-dimensional flutter predictions for wing models; Note the equations (5.1)-(5.5), and Figure 5.1 -where diagram indicates how the strut-braced wing is modelled in pyASWING and ASWING for aeroelastic optimization and shows a threshold structural constraints enforced to prevent structural failure due to maneuver loads, gust loads, buckling and flutter);
providing indicia including instructions for manufacture or modification of the modeled structure to achieve the improved flutter characteristic (Variyara: pages 77-81, section 5.5, Tables 5.2 and 5.3: Note the Full aircraft optimization with the structural constraints, a number of aircraft level design variables and feasibility constraints, which can be construed as instructions for manufacture or modification of the modeled structure to achieve the improved flutter characteristic).
Jonsson and Variyara are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They both relate to custom aircraft design optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above Flutter and post-flutter constraints analysis, as taught by Jonsson, and incorporating the use of threshold structural constraints enforced to prevent structural failure, as taught by Variyara.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide accurate results for three-dimensional flutter predictions, as suggested by Variyara (Variyara: abstract).
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 1 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 2, the combinations of Jonsson and Variyara further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein updating the model includes increasing the mass, the stiffness, or both, at a leading edge portion of the modeled structure, a trailing edge portion of the modeled structure, or both (Jonsson: page 14, section 4.2: The optimal design including the flutter constraint showed only a slight mass increase thanks to the appropriate aeroelastic tailoring of the lattice structure; distributed trailing edge control surfaces; pages 21-22 section 5.3, Table 2: control optimization to suppress the subcritical post-flutter behavior of a two-dimensional airfoil with nonlinear pitch stiffness).
Regarding Claim 3, the combinations of Jonsson and Variyara further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the modeled structure corresponds to a cantilevered structure having a root portion, a tip portion, a leading edge portion, and a trailing edge portion, and wherein updating the model includes increasing the mass, the stiffness, or both at a location that is between the root portion and the tip portion (Jonsson: page 14, section 4.2: The optimal design including the flutter constraint showed only a slight mass increase thanks to the appropriate aeroelastic tailoring of the lattice structure; six different optimal wing structures corresponding to different tailoring schemes, all for the same operating condition and setup. The six tailoring schemes considered for structural design were…… distributed trailing edge control surfaces; approach was verified for a cantilevered planform; pages 21-22 section 5.3, Table 2: control optimization to suppress the subcritical post-flutter behavior of a two-dimensional airfoil with nonlinear pitch stiffness).
Regarding Claim 4, the combinations of Jonsson and Variyara further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the modeled structure includes at least one flight surface of an aircraft (Jonsson: page 16, section 4.3: optimize the aircraft external shape, planform, and internal sizing).
Regarding Claim 5, the combinations of Jonsson and Variyara further disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the modeled structure corresponds to at least a portion of: a wing, a horizontal stabilizer, or a vertical stabilizer (Jonsson: page 14, section 4.2: gradient-based optimization including wing planform variables).
Regarding Claim 6, the combinations of Jonsson and Variyara further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the flutter data indicates displacement in the modeled structure based on an aerodynamic model (Jonsson: page 14, section 4.2: nonlinear aerodynamic models).
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 6 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 7, the combinations of Jonsson and Variyara further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the modal strain energy data indicates strain energy in the modeled structure for one or more bending modes, one or more torsion modes, or a combination thereof (Jonsson: page 7 column 2: asymmetric wing bending modes; elastic bending mode; pitch and bending mode; page 15 column 1: torsion angle constraints).
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 7 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 8, the combinations of Jonsson and Variyara further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the flutter strain energy distribution includes a mapping of flutter strain energy values to points of the modeled structure (Variyara: pages 65-70 Figures 5.1 and Table 5.1: accurate three-dimensional flutter predictions for wing models; Note the equations (5.1)-(5.5), and Figure 5.1 -where diagram indicates how the strut-braced wing is modelled in pyASWING and ASWING for aeroelastic optimization and shows a threshold structural constraints enforced to prevent structural failure due to maneuver loads, gust loads, buckling and flutter).
Motivation to combine Jonsson and Variyara is same here as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 8 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 9, the combinations of Jonsson and Variyara further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the modal strain energy data is determined based on a finite element model and the flutter data is determined based on an aerodynamic model (Jonsson: page 14, section 4.2: finite-element discretization of the Euler equations.; nonlinear aerodynamic models).
Regarding Claim 10, the combinations of Jonsson and Variyara further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the flutter characteristic corresponds to a flutter speed, and wherein increasing the mass, the stiffness, or both increases the flutter speed (Jonsson: page 14-15, section 4.2: flutter speed constraints; The optimal design including the flutter constraint showed only a slight mass increase thanks to the appropriate aeroelastic tailoring of the lattice structure; pages 21-22 section 5.3, Table 2: control optimization to suppress the subcritical post-flutter behavior of a two-dimensional airfoil with nonlinear pitch stiffness).
Regarding Claim 16, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 10 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 11, the combinations of Jonsson and Variyara further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein, after updating the model, the flutter vector strain energy of the one or more of the regions is below the threshold (Variyara: pages 65-70 Figures 5.1 and Table 5.1: accurate three-dimensional flutter predictions for wing models; Note the equations (5.1)-(5.5), and Figure 5.1 -where diagram indicates how the strut-braced wing is modelled in pyASWING and ASWING for aeroelastic optimization and shows a threshold structural constraints enforced to prevent structural failure due to maneuver loads, gust loads, buckling and flutter).
Motivation to combine Jonsson and Variyara is same here as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 11 and is rejected using the same teachings.
5. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jonsson et al. hereafter Jonsson (“Flutter and post-flutter constraints in aircraft design optimization”, Progress in Aerospace Sciences 109 (2019), pp 1-28), in view of John William McGinnis hereafter McGinnis (Pub. No.: US 2015/0048215 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Jonsson disclose an aircraft comprising:
a cantilevered structure having a root portion, a tip portion, a leading edge portion, and a trailing edge portion (Jonsson: pages 13-15 section 4.2: cantilevered planform, similar to the F-5 geometry], where a structure consisting of 10 spars, 10 ribs, and upper and lower skins); and
at least one flight surface that includes a surface of the cantilevered structure (Jonsson: pages 13-15 section 4.2: cantilevered planform, similar to the F-5 geometry], where a structure consisting of 10 spars, 10 ribs, and upper and lower skins).
and
wherein the region is selected to have the increased mass to increase a flutter speed based on a flutter strain energy distribution generated from a model of the cantilevered structure (Jonsson: page 14, section 4.2: The optimal design including the flutter constraint showed only a slight mass increase thanks to the appropriate aeroelastic tailoring of the lattice structure; pages 21-22 section 5.3, Table 2: control optimization to suppress the subcritical post-flutter behavior of a two-dimensional airfoil with nonlinear pitch stiffness).
Jonsson do not explicitly disclose:
wherein a region of the cantilevered structure that is located at substantially a midpoint between the root portion and the tip portion has an increased mass as compared to one or more neighboring regions of the cantilevered structure.
Mcginnis disclose:
wherein a region of the cantilevered structure that is located at substantially a midpoint between the root portion and the tip portion has an increased mass as compared to one or more neighboring regions of the cantilevered structure (Mcginnis: [0028], [0029]: wherein said ailerons are constructed so as to have outboard portions thereof positioned outward of said central plane of reference to a distance at least three-fourths of the distance from said central plane of reference to an outboard end of said at least one wing; [0057], [0080], [0081], Figure 15: wherein the elevon structures are cantilevered (154), or partially cantilevered (152) from the fuselage, as long as they are able to reach out to the wingtip area and are sufficiently strong and rigid, as in the embodiment of FIG. 15. This embodiment utilizes a rearward- swept lifting wing (4), which places the center of lift behind the center of mass, and a slightly forward-swept downforce wing (154), which together enable the prevention of stall in accordance with the method that follows; Examiner’s Remark (ER): increasing the mass of a chosen region in the cantilevered structure compared to the other regions is a design choice).
Jonsson and Mcginnis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They both relate to custom aircraft design optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above Flutter and post-flutter constraints analysis, as taught by Jonsson, and incorporating the use of optimum cantilevered structure, as taught by Mcginnis.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to maintain high levels of aerodynamic efficiency, as suggested by Mcginnis (Mcginnis: [0002]).
Regarding Claim 19, the combinations of Jonsson and Mcginnis further disclose the aircraft of claim 18, wherein the cantilevered structure corresponds to at least a portion of: a wing, a horizontal stabilizer, or a vertical stabilizer (Jonsson: page 14, section 4.2: gradient-based optimization including wing planform variables).
Regarding Claim 20, the combinations of Jonsson and Mcginnis further disclose the aircraft of claim 18, wherein the region is further located at the leading edge portion of the cantilevered structure or the trailing edge portion of the cantilevered structure (Mcginnis: [0028], [0029]: wherein said ailerons are constructed so as to have outboard portions thereof positioned outward of said central plane of reference to a distance at least three-fourths of the distance from said central plane of reference to an outboard end of said at least one wing).
Motivation to combine Jonsson and Mcginnis is same here as Claim 18.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lowe et al. (“Efficient Flutter Prediction Using Reduced-Order Modeling”, 2020, AlAA SciTech, pp 1-35) teaches a model order reduction framework as a step towards flutter-constrained aircraft optimization. The Euler equations linearized about a steady-state solution of the nonlinear Euler equations are used as the governing unsteady flow equations. Using a proper orthogonal decomposition approach, a reduced basis is constructed onto which the governing equations are projected.
Seigneuret et al. (“An efficient implementation of flutter optimisation using a reduced model”, 2001, WIT Press, pp 171-180) propose a displacement basis able to represent the dynamic behavior of each structure occurring during the optimization process, whose property is that it does not require to be updated even if large structural modifications are involved, thus this basis is qualified as a dynamically robust displacement basis.
Bhatia et al. (“Design of Thermally Stressed Panels Subject to Transonic Flutter Constraints”,2017, JOURNAL OFAIRCRAFT, pp 2340-2349) conceptually presents design approach of a two-dimensional panel subject to transonic flutter constraints in the presence of an extreme thermal environment. The unsteady aerodynamic model is based on a high-order stabilized finite element formulation of the Euler equations.
7. Examiner’s Remarks: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFTEKHAR A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00AM-6:00PM (CST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571)272-3652. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187