DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Applicant filing on 10.29.25. Claims 1-13, 15-17 are pending and have been examined.
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 and Amendments
The Applicant has made amendments to the independent claim 1 and its dependents 2-13, 15 which will be examined below.
Examiner thanks Applicant for changing title as recommended by Examiner and therefore Specification objection is withdrawn.
With respect to 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 rejections, the Applicant provides arguments to which the
Examiner will respond accordingly:
Applicant Argument 1: The stabilizer of Latif does not teach or suggest a stabilizer with a harmonic drive disposed between the motor and the output component. This claimed harmonic drive acts as a reduction gear, so that the output torque is significantly higher than the torque supplied by the motor. Thus, due to the transmission ratio, undesirable reversibility of the mechanism is prevented, in other words, a braking function is obtained as it is clearly stated in paragraph [0037]. The stabilizer described in Latif comprises a dedicated braking device and does not mention or suggest a reduction gear. Therefore, this document does not teach or suggest attempting to obtain a compact braking and/or locking mechanism.
Examiner Response 1: As stated in Office Action dated 7.3.25, the teaching of harmonic drive comes from Wang. Further Latif also discloses “an appropriate gear ratio via the motor gear train 124, thereby providing a desired adjustment of the stabilizer 102”. Fig 2 clearly discloses the difference in the mating diameters between motor 120 shaft and gear 124 which shows reduction in speed which is in line with a stabilizer 102 function of Latif. Thus transmission ratio related braking function is also available in Latif. Any other braking or locking function are not recited in the claims with appropriate structure, therefore argument is moot.
Applicant Argument 2: Furthermore, the Wang document does not suggest using the harmonic drive described in this document to modify the transmission ratio between the electric motor and the output component. In fact, the actuator in the Wang document is described solely as a brake and not as a reduction gear, and this braking function is not achieved by any reduction ratio, but solely by deformation of the flexible sleeve 24.
Examiner Response 2: In earlier argument, Applicant has argued “, in other words, a braking function is obtained as it is clearly stated in paragraph [0037]”, however here Applicant’s argument seems to suggest against braking function being an intent of instant application. Nevertheless braking or no braking are not limitations in amended claim 1. Further with respect to “reduction ratio”, Wang Para 0024 , 0029, 0030, 0031 and other places discloses “reduction ratio” in the function of Wang for e.g., Para 0029 discloses “The actual reduction in rotational speed is a function of the relative number of teeth between the flexible sleeve 25 and the drive ring 26 and the number of contact regions between them”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 4 recites “the motor is a fault tolerant motor”. The standard for “fault tolerant” in specification are in Para 0040 and 0041 “a motor (not shown) having a common rotor and two separate stators” and “a multi-phase fault tolerant motor” which will be used by Examiner in claim prosecution.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-3, 7, 9-13, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latif (US10443696B1), in view of Wang (US20070193835A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Latif discloses (Figs 1-2) a trim horizontal stabilizer actuator [Col 3, 49-51] comprising :
an electromechanical linear actuator (110) comprising:
a rotary shaft (116);
a gear arrangement (124,126);
an electric motor (120) positioned radially outwardly (120s) of the
wherein the rotary shaft is configured to be driven by the electric motor via the drive gear arrangement (Fig 2) with a gear ratio magnifying a output torque from the motor [Latif discloses Col 4, 34-36 “an appropriate gear ratio via the motor gear train 124, thereby providing a desired adjustment of the stabilizer 102”. Fig 2 clearly discloses the difference in the mating diameters between motor 120s shaft and gear 124 which shows reduction in speed which is same as magnification of torque which is in line with a stabilizer 102 function of Latif]; and
an output component (108) configured to be driven along the rotary shaft in response to rotation thereof.
Latif does not explicitly disclose a harmonic drive gear arrangement extending radially outwardly of and coaxially with the rotary shaft, an electric motor positioned radially outwardly of the harmonic drive gear arrangement; the rotary shaft is configured to be driven by the electric motor via the harmonic drive gear arrangement with a gear ratio magnifying a output torque from the motor.
Wang discloses (Figs 1-2) a harmonic drive gear arrangement (21,24,25,26 is equivalent to a harmonic gear drive, Para 0022 discloses wave generation typical of harmonic drive which is similar to Para 0036 of instant application) drive extending radially outwardly of and coaxially with the rotary shaft (36), an electric motor (14) positioned radially outwardly of the harmonic drive gear arrangement(21,24,25,26); the rotary shaft is configured to be driven by the electric motor via the harmonic drive gear arrangement (Figs1-2) with a gear ratio magnifying a output torque from the motor [Wang Para 0024 , 0029, 0030, 0031 and other places discloses “reduction ratio” in the function of Wang for e.g., Para 0029 discloses “The actual reduction in rotational speed is a function of the relative number of teeth between the flexible sleeve 25 and the drive ring 26 and the number of contact regions between them”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a trim horizontal stabilizer actuator of Latif with harmonic gear drive arrangement as taught by Wang in order to have a compact, precise way to get high reduction ratios and communicate required torque.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
298
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
514
662
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
508
562
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Latif in view of Wang discloses a trim horizontal stabilizer actuator as claimed in claim 1. Latif in view of Wang does not disclose wherein the electric motor comprises a rotor which is coaxial with and extends around the harmonic drive gear arrangement .
Wang further discloses (Fig 2) wherein the electric motor (14) comprises a rotor (17) which is coaxial with and extends around the harmonic drive gear arrangement (21,24,25,26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed trim horizontal stabilizer actuator of Latif in view of Wang with rotor coaxial with harmonic gear drive arrangement as further taught by Wang in order to have a compact, axially short device to communicate torque.
Regarding Claim 3, Latif in view of Wang discloses a trim horizontal stabilizer actuator as claimed in claim 1. Latif in view of Wang further discloses wherein the rotary shaft (Latif, 116) comprises a ball screw (116) and the output component comprises a ball nut (118).
Regarding Claim 7, Latif in view of Wang discloses a trim horizontal stabilizer actuator as claimed in claim 1. Latif in view of Wang further discloses further comprising: a stop (Latif, 116s which acts as a stop as the thread ends) for limiting the movement of the output component along the rotary shaft(116) in a first direction (AA).
Regarding Claim 9, Latif in view of Wang discloses a trim horizontal stabilizer actuator as claimed in claim 1. Latif in view of Wang further discloses wherein the drive gear arrangement (124,126) is configured to limit or stop rotation of the output shaft (116) when the electric motor (120) is inactive [Col 6, 23-27] but does not disclose the harmonic drive gear arrangement having this configuration.
Wang further discloses [Para0006 discloses back driving being resisted] the harmonic drive gear arrangement having this configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed trim horizontal stabilizer actuator of Latif in view of Wang with harmonic gear drive arrangement resisting back rotation as further taught by Wang in order to not lose control over torque communication.
Regarding Claim 10, Latif in view of Wang discloses a trim horizontal stabilizer actuator as claimed in claim 1. Latif in view of Wang further discloses comprising: a brake (Latif, 112) configured to limit or stop rotation of the output shaft (116) when the brake is engaged[Latif, Col 3,33-34 discloses “braking forces normally applied by a no-back brake device also operatively coupled to the ballscrew assembly” .
Regarding Claim 11, Latif in view of Wang discloses a trim horizontal stabilizer actuator as claimed in claim 9. Latif in view of Wang further discloses further comprising: a brake (Latif, 112) configured to limit or stop rotation of the output shaft when the brake is engaged, wherein the brake will act to limit or stop rotation [Latif, Col 4, 3-6] of the rotary shaft (116) in the event of a failure (“undesired movement” cited in Latif can be a failure) of the harmonic (Wang, 21,24,25,26) drive gear arrangement (Latif, 124) or the harmonic drive gear arrangement will act to limit or stop rotation of the rotary shaft in the event of a failure of the brake.
Regarding Claim 12, Latif in view of Wang discloses a trim horizontal stabilizer actuator as claimed in claim 11. Latif in view of Wang further discloses wherein the brake (Latif, 112) is a passive brake (112 is a No back brake similar to instant invention as recited in instant specification Para 0035).
Regarding Claim 13, Latif in view of Wang discloses a trim horizontal stabilizer actuator as claimed in claim 10. Latif in view of Wang further discloses wherein the brake (Latif, 112) is a passive brake (112 is a No back brake similar to instant invention as recited in instant specification Para 0035).
Regarding Claim 15, Latif in view of Wang discloses a trim horizontal stabilizer actuator as claimed in claim 1. Latif in view of Wang further discloses an actuation system (Latif, Fig 3)comprising: one or more electromechanical linear actuators (110) as claimed in claim 1; and a controller (130) for controlling the one or more electromechanical linear actuators (110)[Col 4, 36-37].
PNG
media_image5.png
320
476
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Latif in view of Wang discloses an electromechanical linear actuator as claimed in claim 1. Latif in view of Wang further discloses an aircraft comprising: a horizontal stabilizer [Latif, Col 3, 49-52]; and an electromechanical linear actuator (110) as claimed in claim 1; wherein the electromechanical linear actuator is configured to move the horizontal stabilizer relative [Latif, Col 3, 49-52] to the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 17, Latif in view of Wang discloses an aircraft comprising: a horizontal stabilizer relative [Latif, Col 3, 49-52]; and an actuation system (Latif, Fig 3) as claimed in claim 15; wherein the one or more electromechanical linear actuators (110) are configured to move the horizontal stabilizer relative to the aircraft [Latif, Col 3, 49-52].
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latif in view of Wang and Sui (CN109687671A English translation).
Regarding Claim 4, Latif in view of Wang discloses a trim horizontal stabilizer actuator as claimed in claim 1. Latif in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the motor is a fault tolerant motor (See 35 U.S.C 112(f) claim interpretation)
Sui discloses wherein the motor is a fault tolerant motor[Abstract discloses a fault tolerant motor with multiple stators and multiple phases similar to instant invention].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed trim horizontal stabilizer actuator of Latif in view of Wang with fault tolerant motor as taught by Sui in order to fail safely and prevent catastrophic failure.
Regarding Claim 5, Latif in view of Wang and Sui discloses a trim horizontal stabilizer actuator as claimed in claim 4. Latif in view of Wang and Sui does not disclose wherein the fault tolerant motor comprises a single rotor and two or more stators.
Sui further discloses wherein the fault tolerant motor (Fig 1) comprises a single rotor (5) and two or more stators (4,6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed trim horizontal stabilizer actuator of Latif in view of Wang with fault tolerant motor having two stators and one rotor as taught by Sui in order to fail safely and prevent catastrophic failure (extra stator provides redundancy).
PNG
media_image6.png
436
406
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Latif in view of Wang and Sui discloses a trim horizontal stabilizer actuator as claimed in claim 4. Latif in view of Wang and Sui does not disclose wherein the fault tolerant motor comprises a multi-phase fault tolerant motor drive system.
Sui further discloses a the fault tolerant motor comprises a multi-phase fault tolerant motor drive system [Para 0007 discloses multi-phase windings].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a trim horizontal stabilizer actuator of Latif in view of Wang with fault tolerant motor with multi phases as taught by Sui in order to fail safely and prevent catastrophic failure (multi phases provides redundancy).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latif in view of Wang and Moulon (US20170335931A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Latif in view of Wang discloses a trim horizontal stabilizer actuator as claimed in claim 7. Latif in view of Wang discloses comprising: limiting the movement of the output component (Latif, 108) along the rotary shaft (116) in a second direction (AA opposite), opposite to the first direction (AA) [This is inherent to Latif’s horizontal stabilizer system as stabilizer 102 has to rotate around pivot 106 both ways and stop at a given point along both directions, for e.g., Col 4, 28-30 discloses translation of nut 118] but does not explicitly disclose a further stop for limiting the movement of the output component.
Moulon discloses (Fig 2A) a further stop (26) for limiting the movement of the output component (22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed trim horizontal stabilizer actuator of Latif in view of Wang with a further stop to limit the movement of output component as taught by Moulon in order to determine free movement of output component [Para 0013].
PNG
media_image7.png
216
546
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834