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 amendment submitted 10/06/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art does not teach all limitations of the claims since “a trunnion is not the same as a pinion”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In a system serving the purpose of detecting and/or measuring rotation of an object relative to and within another object, a pinion and a trunnion are both merely objects that rotate relative to another object and labeling a rotating object as a trunnion or pinion is merely a matter of semantics to such a system.
Applicant further argues the prior art does not teach all limitations of the claim since the sensor “is attached to the cap of a component selected from the group consisting of the fork driver and the drive plate” (emphasis added) and the sensor of Tayman is connected by a bracket to a “housing”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is clear that in the rejection the cap to which the sensor is attached is analogous to the cap of the drive plate as claimed.
For the reasons above the rejections are hereby maintained.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210291960 to Maresh in view of US 8070090 to Tayman in further view of US 9809303 to Schank.
(a) Regarding claim 1:
(i) Maresh discloses a rotor-hub comprising a rotor hub (hub assembly 201/401, Figs 2B/4) operable to flap relative to a rotational axis of a rotor mast (Par 0026), the rotor hub comprising:
a fork driver (driver member 206/406, Figs 2B/4) fixedly coupled to the rotor mast and operable to rotate about the rotational axis (Par 0027),
wherein the fork driver comprises a cap attached thereto (radially outer cap portion of bearings 209/407, Figs 3-4); and
a drive plate (hub extension 213, pillow blocks 211, Fig 2B; yoke 402, pillow blocks 411, Fig 4) operable to rotate about the rotational axis and to rotate out of a plane perpendicular to the rotational axis, out-of-plane rotation indicating flapping of the rotor hub (Pars 0026/0039),
wherein the drive plate comprises a cap attached thereto (radially outer cap portion of bearings 409, Figs 4-5);
a universal joint coupled to the drive plate and comprising a cross (Hooke’s joint 205/405, Figs 2B-3/4-5), and
the cross comprising four trunnions equally spaced azimuthally about the rotational axis (two pairs of trunnions 208/210, Figs 3/5, Pars 0004-0005).
(ii) Maresh does not disclose:
a magneto-resistive sensor system comprising a magnet and a magneto-resistive sensor,
wherein the magnet is positioned on the cap of a component selected from the group consisting of the fork driver and the drive plate;
wherein the magneto-resistive sensor is carried by a bracket that is attached to the cap of the component,
wherein the magneto-resistive sensor system is coupled to the cross and operable to detect rotation of a first trunnion of the four trunnions.
(iii) Tayman is also in the field of rotor hubs (center section 155, Fig 2) and teaches:
a component (structure supporting housing 285, Fig 3; unlabeled in Fig 4) operable to rotate about a rotational axis (axis of rotation of blade/wing system 200 as indicated by rotation direction 185, Figs 1-2),
wherein component comprises a cap attached thereto (housing 285, Fig 3),
a sensor system comprising a magnet (295, Fig 5) and a sensor (angle sensor 290, Figs 3/5),
wherein the sensor is carried by a bracket (see annotated Figure 3 below) that is attached to the cap of the component (Figs 3/5),
wherein the sensor system is operable to detect rotation of a first trunnion (pinion 265, Figs 3/5; Col 11 Lns 37-38).
PNG
media_image1.png
201
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cross as disclosed by Maresh by coupling the above aforementioned sensor system as taught by Tayman to a first trunnion of the cross for the purpose of determining the angular position of the first trunnion (Col 11 Lns 37-38).
(v) Maresh as modified by Tayman do not teach wherein the sensor is a magneto-resistive sensor.
(vi) Shank is also in the field of sensors (see title) and teaches a magneto-resistive sensor system comprising a magneto-resistive sensor (320/320”, Figs 4B/4D) and a magnet (310, Fig 4B) wherein the magneto-resistive sensor system is operable to detect an angle orientation between the magnet and the magneto-resistive sensor (Col 5 Lns 16-19).
(vii) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor as taught by Maresh as modified by Tayman with the above aforementioned magneto-resistive sensor as taught by Shank for the purpose of operating in saturation mode, allowing for larger changes in magnetic flux strength, thereby enabling the use of smaller and/or fewer magnets, and being less sensitive to the gap between the sensors and the magnets and less sensitive to temperature changes (Col 5 Lns 21-28).
(b) Regarding claim 2:
(i) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank teaches the rotor-hub flap-measurement system of claim 1.
(ii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank further teaches wherein the magnet is connected to the first trunnion (Tayman: Fig 5; see rejection of claim 1 above).
(c) Regarding claim 3:
(i) Maresh as modified by Tayman teaches the rotor-hub flap-measurement system of claim 2.
(ii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank further teaches wherein the magneto-resistive sensor is positioned relative to the magnet (Tayman: Fig 5) and operable to detect rotation of the magnet (Tayman: Col 11 Lns 37-38) connected to the first trunnion (see rejection of claim 1 above).
(d) Regarding claims 4-5:
(i) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank teaches the rotor-hub flap-measurement system of claim 3.
(ii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank do not explicitly teach:
wherein the magneto-resistive sensor is connected to the fork driver; nor
wherein the magneto-resistive sensor is connected to the drive plate.
(iii) The magneto-resistive sensor must be connected to one of the relatively rotating structures and mere rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the magneto-resistive sensor to be connected to the fork driver and/or drive plate as an obvious matter of design choice through mere rearrangement of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
(e) Regarding claim 6:
(i) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank teaches the rotor-hub flap-measurement system of claim 2.
(ii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank further teaches wherein the magnet rotates about a rotational axis of the first trunnion (Tayman: relative to pinion 265 during rotation of pinion 265, Figs 3/5), rotation of the first trunnion indicative of flapping of the rotor hub about the rotational axis of the first trunnion (Maresh: Pars 0026/0039).
(f) Regarding claim 7:
(i) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank teaches the rotor-hub flap-measurement system of claim 4.
(ii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank do not explicitly teach a second magneto-resistive sensor system coupled to the cross and operable to detect rotation of a second trunnion of the four trunnions.
(iii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank already teach a magneto-resistive sensor system coupled to the cross and operable to detect rotation of a trunnion and adding a second magneto-resistive sensor system to detect rotation of a second trunnion requires only mere duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotor-hub flap-measurement system as taught by Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank to have a second magneto-resistive sensor system coupled to the cross and operable to detect rotation of a second trunnion of the four trunnions as an obvious matter of design choice through mere duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
(g) Regarding claim 8:
(i) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank teaches the rotor-hub flap-measurement system of claim 7.
(ii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank further teaches wherein the second magneto-resistive sensor system comprises a magneto-resistive sensor connected to the drive plate (wherein the second trunnion is a trunnion coupled to the drive plate, see rejection of claim 1 above).
(h) Regarding claim 9:
(i) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank teaches the rotor-hub flap-measurement system of claim 8.
(ii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank do not explicitly wherein the second magneto-resistive sensor system comprises a magnet connected to the second trunnion.
(iii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank already teach a magnet connected to a trunnion and adding a magnet to be connected to the second trunnion requires only mere duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotor-hub flap-measurement system as taught by Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank to have a magnet connected to the second trunnion as an obvious matter of design choice through mere duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
(i) Regarding claim 10:
(i) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank teaches the rotor-hub flap-measurement system of claim 9.
(ii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank further teaches wherein the second magneto-resistive sensor system comprises a magneto-resistive sensor (Tayman: angle sensor 290, Figs 2/5) positioned relative to the magnet and operable to detect rotation of the magnet connected to the second trunnion (Tayman: Fig 5).
(j) Regarding claim 11:
(i) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank teaches the rotor-hub flap-measurement system of claim 7.
(ii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank do not explicitly a third magneto-resistive sensor system coupled to the cross and operable to detect rotation of a third trunnion of the four trunnions; and a fourth magneto-resistive sensor system coupled to the cross and operable to detect rotation of a fourth trunnion of the four trunnions.
(iii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank already teach a magneto-resistive sensor system coupled to the cross and operable to detect rotation of a trunnion and adding third and fourth magneto-resistive sensor systems to detect rotation of a respective third and fourth trunnion requires only mere duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotor-hub flap-measurement system as taught by Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank to have third and fourth magneto-resistive sensor systems coupled to the cross and operable to detect rotation of a respective third and fourth trunnion of the four trunnions as an obvious matter of design choice through mere duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
(k) Regarding claim 12:
(i) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank teaches the rotor-hub flap-measurement system of claim 1.
(ii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank further teaches wherein the magneto-resistive sensor is positioned outside the cross (Tayman: angle sensor 290 positioned outside of pinion 265 and magnet 295, Fig 5; see rejection of claim 1 above).
(l) Regarding claim 13:
(i) Maresh discloses a rotor-hub system comprising:
a rotor hub (hub assembly 201/401, Figs 2B/4) comprising a fork driver (driver member 206/406, Figs 2B/4) and a drive plate (hub extension 213, pillow blocks 211, Fig 2B; yoke 402, pillow blocks 411, Fig 4),
wherein the rotor hub is operable to flap relative to a rotational axis of a rotor mast (Par 0026) and comprising a universal joint comprising a cross (Hooke’s joint 205/405, Figs 2B-3/4-5), and
the cross comprising four trunnions equally spaced azimuthally about the rotor-mast rotational axis (two pairs of trunnions 208/210, Figs 3/5, Pars 0004-0005).
(ii) Maresh does not disclose:
a magneto-resistive sensor system comprising a magnet and a magneto-resistive sensor,
wherein the magneto-resistive sensor system is coupled to the cross and operable to detect rotation of a first trunnion of the four trunnions, and
wherein the magnet is positioned on a cap of a component selected from the group consisting of the fork driver and the drive plate;
wherein the magneto-resistive sensor is carried by a bracket that is attached to the cap of the component, wherein the magneto-resistive sensor is operable to detect rotation of the magnet connected to a rotational axis of the cross.
(iii) Tayman is also in the field of rotor hubs (center section 155, Fig 2) and teaches:
a sensor system comprising a magnet (295, Fig 5) and a sensor (angle sensor 290, Figs 3/5),
wherein the sensor system is coupled to a first trunnion (pinion 265, Figs 3/5) and operable to detect rotation of the first trunnion (Col 11 Lns 37-38); and
wherein the magnet is positioned on a cap (housing 285, Fig 3) of a component (structure supporting housing 285, Fig 3; unlabeled in Fig 4),
wherein the sensor is carried by a bracket (see annotated Figure 3 below) that is attached to the cap of the component (Figs 3/5),
wherein the sensor is operable to detect rotation of the magnet (Col 11 Lns 37-38).
PNG
media_image1.png
201
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cross as disclosed by Maresh by coupling the above aforementioned sensor system as taught by Tayman to a first trunnion of the cross for the purpose of determining the angular position of the first trunnion (Col 11 Lns 37-38).
(v) Maresh as modified by Tayman do not teach wherein the sensor is a magneto-resistive sensor.
(vi) Shank is also in the field of sensors (see title) and teaches a magneto-resistive sensor system comprising a magneto-resistive sensor (320/320”, Figs 4B/4D) and a magnet (310, Fig 4B) wherein the magneto-resistive sensor system is operable to detect an angle orientation between the magnet and the magneto-resistive sensor (Col 5 Lns 16-19).
(vii) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensor as taught by Maresh as modified by Tayman with the above aforementioned magneto-resistive sensor as taught by Shank for the purpose of operating in saturation mode, allowing for larger changes in magnetic flux strength, thereby enabling the use of smaller and/or fewer magnets, and being less sensitive to the gap between the sensors and the magnets and less sensitive to temperature changes (Col 5 Lns 21-28).
(m) Regarding claims 14-15:
(i) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank teaches the rotor-hub flap-measurement system of claim 13.
(ii) Maresh further discloses:
wherein the rotor hub comprises a fork driver (driver member 206/406, Figs 2B/4) fixedly coupled to the rotor mast and operable to rotate about the rotor-mast rotational axis (Par 0027); and
wherein the rotor hub comprises a drive plate (hub extension 213, pillow blocks 211, Fig 2B; yoke 402, pillow blocks 411, Fig 4) operable to rotate about the rotor-mast rotational axis and to rotate out of a plane perpendicular to the rotor-mast rotational axis, out-of-plane rotation indicating flapping of the rotor hub (Pars 0026/0039).
(iii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank does not explicitly teach:
wherein the magneto-resistive sensor is connected to the fork driver; nor
wherein the magneto-resistive sensor is connected to the drive plate.
(iv) The magneto-resistive sensor must be connected to one of the relatively rotating structures and mere rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
(v) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the magneto-resistive sensor to be connected to the fork driver and/or drive plate as an obvious matter of design choice through mere rearrangement of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
(n) Regarding claim 16:
(i) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank teaches the rotor-hub flap-measurement system of claim 14.
(ii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank further teaches wherein the magnet rotates about the rotational axis of the cross (Tayman: magnet 295 rotates with pinion 265 during rotation of pinion 265, Fig 5), rotation of the cross indicative of flapping of the rotor hub about the rotational axis of the cross (Maresh: Pars 0026/0039).
(o) Regarding claim 17:
(i) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank teaches the rotor-hub flap-measurement system of claim 15.
(ii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank further teaches wherein the magneto-resistive sensor is positioned external to the cross (Tayman: Fig 5; see rejection of claim 14 above).
(p) Regarding claim 18:
(i) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank teaches the rotor-hub flap-measurement system of claim 13.
(ii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank does not explicitly a second magneto-resistive sensor system coupled to the cross and operable to detect rotation of a second trunnion of the four trunnions.
(iii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank already teach a magneto-resistive sensor system coupled to the cross and operable to detect rotation of a trunnion and adding a second magneto-resistive sensor system to detect rotation of a second trunnion requires only mere duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotor-hub flap-measurement system as taught by Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank to have a second magneto-resistive sensor system coupled to the cross and operable to detect rotation of a second trunnion of the four trunnions as an obvious matter of design choice through mere duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
(q) Regarding claim 19:
(i) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank teaches the rotor-hub flap-measurement system of claim 18.
(ii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank further teaches wherein the second magneto-resistive sensor system comprises a magneto-resistive sensor (see rejection of claim 13 above) connected to a drive plate (Maresh: hub extension 213, pillow blocks 211, Fig 2B; yoke 402, pillow blocks 411, Fig 4; wherein the second trunnion is a trunnion coupled to the drive plate, see rejection of claim 13 above) operable to rotate about the rotational axis and to rotate out of a plane perpendicular to the rotational axis, out-of-plane rotation indicating flapping of the rotor hub (Maresh: Pars 0026/0039).
(r) Regarding claim 20:
(i) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank teaches the rotor-hub flap-measurement system of claim 18.
(ii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank does not explicitly wherein the second magneto-resistive sensor system comprises a magnet connected to the second trunnion.
(iii) Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank already teach a magnet connected to a trunnion and adding a magnet to be connected to the second trunnion requires only mere duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotor-hub flap-measurement system as taught by Maresh as modified by Tayman as further modified by Shank to have a magnet connected to the second trunnion as an obvious matter of design choice through mere duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Justin A Pruitt whose telephone number is (571)272-8383. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30am - 6:30pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN A PRUITT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745