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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “aircraft computers configured for controlling the tertiary lock system without using the local command module” is not supported in the original specification. The specification states that the tertiary lock system is controlled by members 106 such as a lever but that many other means of controlling the system may be provided. See para. [0039]. The members 106 may be aircraft computers, aircraft power supplies, etc. See para. [0020]. However, the specification does not disclose that the computers control the tertiary lock system without the local command module.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-10, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson US 2003/0101712 in view of Calmelat US 2009/0326783 and Halin US 5,508,626.
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a thrust reversal system for an aircraft, see title, comprising:
a thrust reversal cover configured to be selectively moved between a stowed position for leaving unchanged a thrust of a turbine engine of the aircraft, and a deployed position for reversing the thrust of the turbine engine, see para. [0004];
an electric actuator 109, 111 of the cover,
a local command module 105, 107 configured to:
receive a plurality of signals from a global command module 102 via a connection between a global command module and the local command module, see paras. [0026]-[0027], the engine control 102 transmit various command signals to the thrust reverser controller 104,
for each received analogue signal, identify one among a plurality of predefined ranges of values in which the received analogue signal is located at a given instant, so as to obtain a combination of identified predefined ranges of values, see para. [0029], the engine control system 102 provides indication of various parameters for flight critical safety including reverser and locking mechanism position, the control block 124 receives command signals from the engine controller, each signal must provide a value for the thrust reverser to actuate thus providing a range of values,
command the electric actuator to move the cover to the stowed position when a first combination of identified predefined ranges of values has been obtained, and
command the electric actuator to move the cover to the deployed position when a second combination of identified predefined ranges of values has been obtained, referring to para. [0012], the control signals move the thrust reverser from a stowed to a deployed position and thus the controller must provide a first and second combination of identified predefined ranges of values to move the cowl as necessary. Johnson does not disclose that the signals are analogue, referring to para. [0033] states that the electric motors 109 move the thrust reverser components 108, where the controller.
Calmelat teaches a thrust reverser actuation system speed control where the processor may be configured to use one or more analog devices, one or more digital devices, or a combination thereof. See para. [0031].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to provide analogue control signals from the global command module to the local command module of Johnson, as taught by Calmelat, in order to provide the necessary control signals. Id. Johnson, in view of Calmelat, does not expressly teach or state the local command module comprises an ADC to convert the analogue signals to digital data or a digital module configured to process said digital data as claimed.
Halin teaches a contactor for a thruster reverser to determine the position of the thrust reverser including an analog to digital converter 4 that sends signals to provide a signal of position of the thrust reverser and a processor 5 to process the signals from the ADC. See col. 1, lines 50-5.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to provide an ADC on the local command module of Johnson, in view of Calmelat, in order to convert analogue signals of the local command module to digital signals and to provide a digital module 5 to process the digital data as claimed, as taught by Halin, in order to convert analogue signals to digital and to process them. Its noted that the apparatus of Johnson, in view of Calmelat, teach that the control systems of thrust reversers can be analogue, digital or a combination thereof. Thus, an ordinary skilled worker would have found it obvious to provide analogue signals from the thrust reverser, where Halin teaches that an ADC is necessary to process those signals. It is further noted that Halin shows that a local command module, i.e. the thrust reverser position control, is an analogue system consistent with the assertions in the obviousness rejection over Johnson, in view of Calmelat. Additionally, as previously noted, Johnson, in view of Calmalet, discloses all elements except that the local common module comprises: an analogue to digital converter configured to convert the analogue signals to digital data and a digital module configured to process said digital data to carry out steps (ii), (iii), (iv). Johnson, in view of Calmalet is silent to the existence of an ADC to carry out the steps of ii-iv.
Halin teaches an ADC 4 may be used to convert a voltage signal from channels c, a, b to a processing unit 5 (digital module) to determine a position of the thrust reverser. Halin teaches that an ADC may be used for processing a measured signal. See col. 1, lines 50-56.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to provide an ADC to convert the analogue signals to digital data and a digital module to process the digital data to carry out the steps in the apparatus of Johnson, in view of Calmalet, as taught by Halin, in order to provide a means to process the analogue signals of Johnson, in view of Calmalet. Id.
Regarding claim 2, Johnson in view of Calmelat discloses wherein the plurality of analogue signals comprises two analogue voltage signals, see para. [0040], the control signals are electrical signals which must have a voltage, and wherein the connection comprises two electrical connectors 438, 440 and the other lines connecting to the information interface, respectively conveying the two analogue voltage signals.
Regarding claim 6, Johnson, in view of Calmelat, discloses the electric actuator comprises an electric motor 109 for moving the cover and an inverter designed to electrically activate the electric motor from a direct current voltage bus and wherein the local command module is designed to control the inverter. See para. [0032], the actuation mechanism control block 134 inverts the DC signal to provide an AC signal to the actuator 106.
Regarding claim 7, Johnson, in view of Calmelat, discloses a lock system referred to as a primary lock system 112 designed to selectively lock and unlock the electric motor of the electric actuator of the thrust reversal cover and wherein the local command module is designed: when the second combination of identified predefined ranges of values has been obtained, to control the primary lock system to unlock the electric motor of the electric actuator of the thrust reversal cover of the electric actuator of the electric actuator of the thrust reversal cover before the cover is moved to said deployed position; and when the first combination of identified predefined ranges of values has been obtained, to control the primary lock system to lock the electric motor of the electric actuator of the thrust reversal cover, after the cover has been moved to its stowed position. See paras. [0027]-[0028], the primary lock is controlled by power blocks 122. The locks must unlock prior to deploying and lock after stowing.
Regarding claim 8, Johnson, in view of Calmelat, discloses a secondary lock system referred to as a tertiary lock system configured to selectively lock and unlock the cover, wherein the cover is further designed to be selectively moved to an overstowed position facilitating an unlocking of the cover by the secondary lock system and wherein the local command module is configured to, when a third combination of identified predefined ranges of values has been obtained, to control the primary lock system to unlock the electric motor of the electric actuator of the thrust reversal cover prior to controlling the inverter so that the cover is moved to its overstowing position. Johnson discloses a secondary lock 114 as claimed where the thrust reverser must control the inverter to move the cover. The secondary lock and the position it is in is interpreted as an overstowed position.
Regarding claim 9, Johnson, in view of Calmelat, discloses an aircraft comprising: a turbine engine; and a thrust reversal system according to claim 1. See para. [0002].
Regarding claims 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, referring to claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 Johnson, in view of Calmelat, discloses all elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or fairly suggest that the tertiary lock is controlled by aircraft computers without the local command module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Calmelat, and presumably Johnson, does not teach the nature of the thrust reverser position commands being analog or digital. Halin teaches the ADC receives signals from sensors and not a global controller. Additionally, Halin teaches position signals and does not command the electric actuator to move the cover. The Examiner has considered the arguments and respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner does agree that Johnson is silent to the type of signal being sent by the individual controllers. The Examiner also agrees that Halin does not teach actually moving a thrust reverser. However, Halin does teach providing data about a thrust reverser to conclude whether the device is operating properly or whether there are dormant malfunctions. See col. 5, lines 13-16.
However, the references should be considered as a whole. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). While it is true that Johnson does not disclose the nature of the signal being transmitted, Calmelat teaches that it is known in the art to transmit analog, digital or combinations of signals when controlling thrust reversers. Furthermore, while Halin doesn’t teach specifically moving the thrust reverser based on their analog signals, Halin does show that control aspects of a thrust reversers are operated in analog. Thus, it appears that an ordinary skilled worker would have understood that the local command module can obviously be operated on an analog signal. It would also be equally evident that if an analog and digital combination is used, than an ADC is necessary to convert the signals for use. Thus, while Johnson and Calmelat do not individually disclose all aspects of the claimed invention, the use of analog to digital control systems appears to be obvious when considering the references as a whole.
The Examiner notes the claims appear to be reciting the mere use of analog and digital signals in an otherwise known control system. However, it appears that the system comprises a particular wiring of the system that goes beyond the mere use of analog or digital systems. See for example para. [0042].
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 GERALD LUTHER SUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3765. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 PST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571)272-7118. 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.
/GERALD L SUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741