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 § 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.
Claims 1, 5, 6 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobus (US 5831408 A) in view of Hogan (Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation).
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by Jacobus
Jacobus teaches:
A method of controlling a motor of an aircraft control device:
See at least: “The manipulator levitates an aircraft-type sidearm-grip control stick (or handle) 52…” (Col. 5, lines 20–21) and “The computer implements a closed loop control system for the motors…” (Col. 7, lines 61–64)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly discloses an aircraft-type force-feedback control-stick system with closed-loop control of motors, which maps to A method of controlling a motor of an aircraft control device.
the stick being connected by the mechanical connection to a shaft of the motor;
See at least: “The output shaft 148 of gearbox 142 is affixed normal to the arm of yaw-pitch gimbal bracket 150…” (Col. 6, lines 22–23) and “Other embodiments may use alternative electrical actuators, translational or rotational transmissions…” (Col. 14, lines 5-7)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly discloses a motor output shaft mechanically affixed through gearbox/gimbal structure into the stick/handle mechanism, and further discloses rotational transmissions, which maps to the stick being connected by the mechanical connection to a shaft of the motor.
determining a first intensity
See at least: “Edges/Position Limits… force = −k·(X − XL)” (Col. 11, lines 7–15)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly teaches a stiffness-related coefficient (“k”) in a force law. While Jacobus does not expressly use the phrase “first intensity,” a PHOSITA would understand the disclosed coefficient as a first control intensity/gain, thereby mapping to determining a first intensity.
determining a second intensity
See at least: “Velocity Limits… force = −velocity·d” (Col. 11, lines 21–25)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly teaches a damping-related coefficient (“d”) in a velocity-based force law. While Jacobus does not expressly use the phrase “second intensity,” a PHOSITA would understand the disclosed coefficient as a second control intensity/gain, thereby mapping to determining a second intensity.
and calculating a torque to be controlled on the shaft of the motor
See at least: “Each Servo loop cycle computes new motor torque values…” (Col. 8, lines 3-4) and “These programmed torque values are interfaced to the PWM amplifiers…” (Col. 8, lines 5-6)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly teaches computing motor torque values and interfacing them to PWM amplifiers in the motor-drive control chain, which maps to and calculating a torque to be controlled on the shaft of the motor.
of an angular position of the shaft relative to a stator of the motor,
See at least: “Position sensing per axis is effected by using optical encoderS.” (Col. 7, lines 49–50) and “…rotary position of each DC motor which can be sensed by a position encoder…” (Col. 7, lines 64-65)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly teaches encoder-based sensing of rotary position of each DC motor. A PHOSITA would understand this as angular position of the shaft (rotor) relative to a stator (housing) of the motor, thereby mapping to of an angular position of the shaft relative to a stator of the motor.
of a speed of rotation of the shaft relative to the stator
See at least: “The computer Synthesizes Velocity and acceleration from periodic position readings.” (Col. 8, lines 2-3) and “velocity is computed from the difference between successive joint position measurements.” (Col. 11, lines 27–29)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly teaches computing/synthesizing velocity from position readings, which maps to of a speed of rotation of the shaft relative to the stator.
and of an acceleration of the shaft relative to the stator
See at least: “Velocity and acceleration estimates are made digitally from the Sequence of positional measurements…” (Col. 7, lines 50–52) and “The computer Synthesizes Velocity and acceleration from periodic position readings.” (Col. 8, lines 2-3)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly teaches acceleration estimates/synthesis from positional measurements / position readings, which maps to and of an acceleration of the shaft relative to the stator.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Jacobus
Jacobus does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
representing a stiffness from of a physical stiffness of a mechanical connection
and from a stiffness setpoint to be restored on a stick of the aircraft control device,
representing a damping from a physical damping
between the stick and the motor
and from a damping setpoint to be restored on the stick;
determining a third intensity
representing an inertia from a physical inertia of the stick
and of an inertia setpoint to be restored on the stick;
by linear combination
with respectively the first intensity, the second intensity and the third intensity.
Disclosure by Hogan
Hogan teaches:
representing a stiffness from of a physical stiffness of a mechanical connection
See at least: “Fint = K[X0 − X] + B[V0 − V] − M dV/dt” (Eq. (11), p. 10) and “All of the parameters in this expression are implicitly assumed to be functions of the set of control commands [c] and of time.” (p. 10)
Rationale: Hogan expressly teaches a stiffness parameter K in the impedance relation. In view of Jacobus’s disclosed physical motor/shaft/stick mechanical connection, the combination teaches a first intensity representing a stiffness from of a physical stiffness of a mechanical connection.
and from a stiffness setpoint to be restored on a stick of the aircraft control device,
See at least: “All of the parameters in this expression are implicitly assumed to be functions of the set of control commands [c] and of time.” (p. 10) and “Fint = K[X0 − X] + B[V0 − V] − M dV/dt” (Eq. (11), p. 10)
Rationale: Hogan expressly teaches command-dependent impedance parameters (including K), which supports a commanded stiffness setpoint. In view of Jacobus’s aircraft control stick and force-feedback application at the handle/stick, the combination teaches and from a stiffness setpoint to be restored on a stick of the aircraft control device.
determining a second intensity
See at least: “Fint = K[X0 − X] + B[V0 − V] − M dV/dt” (Eq. (11), p. 10)
Rationale: Hogan expressly discloses a damping parameter B in the impedance relation. While Hogan does not expressly use the phrase “second intensity,” a PHOSITA would understand B as the claimed second control intensity parameter, thereby mapping to determining a second intensity.
representing a damping from a physical damping
See at least: “MdVldl-8[Vo -Vl-K[Xn - Xl = Fint” (Appendix I) and “Fint : K(Xo - XI + BIVo - VI - MdV/ dt” (Eq. (12), p. 18)
Rationale: Hogan expressly discloses damping/viscosity parameter B in the impedance relation and velocity-dependent force behavior. In view of Jacobus’s physical stick/motor linkage and damping-related coefficient (“d”), the combination teaches a second intensity representing a damping from a physical damping.
between the stick and the motor
See at least: Jacobus motor/shaft-to-stick mechanical connection via gearbox/gimbal bracket (Col. 6, lines 22–23) and Jacobus force-feedback stick architecture (Col. 5, lines 20–26), together with Hogan damping parameter framework (Eq. (11)/(12)).
Rationale: Jacobus expressly provides the physical motor-to-stick coupling, and Hogan provides the damping parameter framework. Thus, in the combination, the damping is taught as acting between the stick and the motor.
and from a damping setpoint to be restored on the stick;
See at least: “All of the parameters in this expression are implicitly assumed to be functions of the set of control commands [c] and of time.” (p. 10)
Rationale: Hogan expressly teaches command-dependent impedance parameters, supporting commanded damping behavior. In view of Jacobus’s feedback forces at the stick/handle, the combination teaches and from a damping setpoint to be restored on the stick.
determining a third intensity
See at least: “Fint = K[X0 − X] + B[V0 − V] − M dV/dt” (Eq. (11), p. 10)
Rationale: Hogan expressly discloses an inertia parameter M in the impedance equation. While Hogan does not expressly use the phrase “third intensity,” a PHOSITA would understand M as the claimed third control intensity parameter, thereby mapping to determining a third intensity.
representing an inertia from a physical inertia of the stick
See at least: “M is the inertia tensor in end-point coordinates” (p. 18) and Jacobus aircraft-type stick/handle disclosures (Col. 5, lines 20–22; Col. 1, line 53).
Rationale: Hogan expressly discloses an inertia parameter M (inertia tensor) in the impedance framework, and Jacobus expressly discloses the aircraft control stick/handle. In the combination, a PHOSITA would determine the inertia-related intensity from the physical inertia associated with the stick/interface mechanism, thereby teaching representing an inertia from a physical inertia of the stick.
and of an inertia setpoint to be restored on the stick;
See at least: “All of the parameters in this expression are implicitly assumed to be functions of the set of control commands [c] and of time.” (p. 10)
Rationale: Hogan expressly teaches command-dependent impedance parameters and imposed inertial behavior. In view of Jacobus’s feedback stick/handle device, the combination teaches and of an inertia setpoint to be restored on the stick.
by linear combination
See at least: “Fint = K[X0 − X] + B[V0 − V] − M dV/dt” (Eq. (11), p. 10) and “Fint : K(Xo - XI + BIVo - VI - MdV/ dt” (Eq. (12), p. 18)
Rationale: Hogan expressly teaches a linear additive combination of stiffness-, damping-, and inertia-related terms, which maps to by linear combination.
with respectively the first intensity, the second intensity and the third intensity.
See at least: “Fint = K[X0 − X] + B[V0 − V] − M dV/dt” (Eq. (11), p. 10)
Rationale: Hogan expressly teaches the correspondence of stiffness (K), damping (B), and inertia (M) parameters with position-, velocity-, and acceleration-related terms, respectively, which maps to with respectively the first intensity, the second intensity and the third intensity.
Motivation to Combine Jacobus and Hogan
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Jacobus and Hogan before them, to modify Jacobus’ aircraft control device motor-control method by incorporating Hogan’s impedance-control framework, to enable determination of stiffness-, damping-, and inertia-related intensities and calculation of torque from position-, velocity-, and acceleration-related motor-state variables for restoring tactile feedback on the aircraft control stick, because Jacobus expressly teaches the specific aircraft control device hardware (stick, motor, shaft/mechanical linkage), closed-loop motor control, encoder-based motor rotary position sensing, and derived velocity/acceleration estimation, while Hogan expressly teaches programmable impedance laws using stiffness, damping, and inertia parameters combined with position-, velocity-, and acceleration-related terms for human-machine interfaces, thereby yielding the predictable result of programmable force/torque feedback on the aircraft control stick.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Jacobus and Hogan establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 5.
Disclosure by Jacobus
Jacobus teaches:
Method comprising receiving the angular position of the shaft of the motor from a position sensor,
See at least: "Position sensing per axis is effected by using optical encoders." (Col. 7, ll. 49–50)
See at least: "...rotary position of each DC motor which can be sensed by a position encoder for each motor which can be mounted on each motor housing." (Col. 7, ll. 63–67)
Rationale: Jacobus teaches comprising receiving the angular position of the shaft of the motor from a position sensor by disclosing position sensing using optical encoders / position encoders for each DC motor to sense the rotary position. A PHOSITA would understand the disclosed encoder-on-motor context as receiving the angular position of the motor shaft/rotor from the sensor.
wherein the speed of rotation of the shaft relative to the stator is determined by derivation of the angular position
See at least: "The computer synthesizes velocity and acceleration from periodic position readings." (Col. 7, l. 67 – Col. 8, l. 1); "velocity is computed from the difference between successive joint position measurements." (Col. 11, ll. 27–29)
Rationale: Jacobus teaches wherein the speed of rotation of the shaft relative to the stator is determined by derivation of the angular position by synthesizing/computing velocity from periodic position readings. A PHOSITA would understand the disclosed motor rotary-position sensing as shaft/rotor motion relative to the stator/housing, and the computation of velocity from position differences as numerical derivation.
and the acceleration of the shaft relative to the stator is determined by second derivation of the angular position.
See at least: "Velocity and acceleration estimates are made digitally from the sequence of positional measurements in the software driver." (Col. 7, ll. 50–52); "The computer synthesizes velocity and acceleration from periodic position readings." (Col. 7, l. 67 – Col. 8, l. 1)
Rationale: Jacobus teaches and the acceleration of the shaft relative to the stator is determined by second derivation of the angular position by synthesizing acceleration estimates digitally from the sequence of positional measurements. A PHOSITA would recognize that calculating acceleration from a sequence of position readings corresponds to the second numerical derivation (differentiation) of the angular position with respect to time.
Motivation to Combine Jacobus and Hogan
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Jacobus and Hogan before them, to modify Jacobus’ aircraft-type force-feedback control-stick motor-control method by incorporating Hogan’s impedance-control framework, because Jacobus expressly teaches the specific motorized aircraft control-stick hardware, encoder-based motor position sensing, and derived velocity/acceleration motor-state estimation, while Hogan expressly teaches programmable stiffness, damping, and inertia-based control relations using position, velocity, and acceleration terms for human-machine interfaces, thereby yielding the predictable result of an impedance-controlled haptic aircraft-stick method in which Jacobus’s encoder-derived motor-state variables are used in the Hogan-style control law. In that combined context, Jacobus’s disclosed optical encoder further teaches the added Claim 5 limitations of receiving angular position and deriving speed and acceleration therefrom. After combining the teachings of Jacobus and Hogan, all limitations of Claim 5 are taught or rendered obvious for purposes of a §103 rejection. The exact wording shaft relative to the stator is supported as an articulated PHOSITA understanding of Jacobus’s disclosed encoder-based motor rotary-position sensing, where the encoder is mounted on the housing (stator) to detect shaft (rotor) motion. As reinforcement, Rao’s actuator/interface framework and Krishnan’s motor-drive rotor-position sensing teachings are consistent with the implementation of encoder-based motor-state derivation in a closed-loop control system.
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Jacobus and Hogan establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 6.
Disclosure by Jacobus
Jacobus teaches:
the angular position,
See at least: “Position sensing per axis is effected by using optical encoders.” (Col. 7, lines 49–50); “…rotary position of each DC motor which can be sensed by a position encoder for each motor…” (Col. 7, lines 63–67)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly teaches sensing rotary position using motor position encoders, which maps to the angular position, as an available state variable in the control method.
the speed
See at least: “The computer synthesizes velocity and acceleration from periodic position readings.” (Col. 7, line 67 – Col. 8, line 1); “velocity is computed from the difference between successive joint position measurements.” (Col. 11, lines 27–29)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly teaches synthesizing/computing velocity from position readings, which maps to the speed as an available derived state variable in the control method.
and the acceleration.
See at least: “Velocity and acceleration estimates are made digitally from the sequence of positional measurements in the software driver.” (Col. 7, lines 50–52); “The computer synthesizes velocity and acceleration from periodic position readings.” (Col. 7, line 67 – Col. 8, line 1)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly teaches acceleration estimates/synthesis from positional measurements, which maps to the acceleration, respectively. as an available derived state variable in the control method.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Jacobus
Jacobus does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
wherein the stiffness setpoint, the damping setpoint and the inertia setpoint are determined from respectively the angular position, the speed and the acceleration, respectively.
Disclosure by Hogan
Hogan renders obvious:
wherein the stiffness setpoint, the damping setpoint and the inertia setpoint are determined from respectively the angular position, the speed and the acceleration, respectively.
See at least: “Fint = K[X0 − X] + B[V0 − V] − M dV/dt” (Eq. (11), Part II); “All of the parameters in this expression are implicitly assumed to be functions of the set of control commands [c] and of time.” (Part II, discussion associated with Eq. (11))
Rationale: Hogan expressly teaches stiffness-, damping-, and inertia-related control parameters (K, B, and M) in a control law associated respectively with position-, velocity-, and acceleration-related terms. Hogan further teaches command-dependent/tunable impedance behavior. In view of Jacobus’s expressly available angular position, speed, and acceleration signals, a PHOSITA would implement the combined method so that the stiffness setpoint, the damping setpoint and the inertia setpoint are determined from respectively the angular position, the speed and the acceleration, respectively.
Motivation to Combine Jacobus and Hogan
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Jacobus and Hogan before them, to apply Hogan’s impedance-control framework to the Jacobus aircraft-type force-feedback stick method, because Jacobus expressly provides the motorized control-stick hardware and the available state variables (angular position, speed, and acceleration), while Hogan expressly provides the stiffness/damping/inertia parameter framework associated with position/velocity/acceleration behavior and command-dependent tuning, thereby yielding the predictable result of determining setpoint-related control parameters from the available kinematic state variables to achieve desired tactile behavior at the stick. After combining the teachings of Jacobus and Hogan, all limitations of Claim 6 are taught or rendered obvious, with the exact “respectively” setpoint-determination formulation supported as an articulated PHOSITA implementation of the combined Jacobus/Hogan framework rather than by verbatim recitation of the identical complete claim text in a single reference.
Regarding Claim 8,
Jacobus discloses
An aircraft control device,
see at least Col. 5, lines 20-21: “The manipulator levitates an aircraft-type sidearm-grip control stick (or handle) 52…”
Rationale: Jacobus explicitly identifies an aircraft-type control stick, thus satisfying the claimed aircraft control device as understood by PHOSITA),
the device comprising: a stick
see at least Col. 1, line 53: “handle 12…”
Rationale: Jacobus discloses a stick/handle grasped by the operator, directly meeting the requirement for a control stick
configured to control an aircraft,
see at least Col. 5, line 22: “aircraft-type sidearm-grip control stick (or handle) 52…”:
Rationale: The handle is expressly identified as an aircraft-type stick, thereby configured to control aircraft functions)
a motor
see at least Col. 5, line 25: “six small, brushless, DC servo motors 60…”: Rationale: Jacobus discloses servo motors, directly satisfying the limitation of a motor)
comprising a shaft
see at least Col. 6, line 22: “shaft 184…”:
Rationale: Jacobus explicitly discloses an output shaft of the motor gearbox, satisfying this limitation)
and a stator
see at least Col 7, line 43-44: “multiple back-drivable geared frameless brushless DC motors with rotational sensing…”
Rationale: Frameless brushless DC motors inherently include a stator, meeting this limitation)
the shaft being rotatably mounted in the stator
see at least Col. 7, lines 19-22: “The yaw stage is comprised of the yaw motor 140, which is coupled to the yaw gearbox 142… The output shaft 148…”:
Rationale: Jacobus discloses motor shaft output from gearbox; PHOSITA recognizes this as rotatably mounted in the motor stator)
and the shaft being connected to the stick by a mechanical connection,
see at least Col. 6, lines 22-23: “The output shaft 148 of gearbox 142 is affixed normal to the arm of yaw-pitch gimbal bracket 150…”
Rationale: Jacobus discloses a motor shaft mechanically affixed via a gimbal bracket to the handle, satisfying this limitation)
a processing unit
see at least Col. 7, lines 61-64: “The module includes a computer 200 such as an IBM PC-AT or similar connected to a data bus 202. The computer implements a closed loop control system for the motors…”:
Rationale: Jacobus discloses a computer controlling the motors, which is the claimed processing unit);
and calculate a torque to be controlled on the shaft of the motor
see at least Col. 8, lines 3-7: “Each servo loop cycle computes new motor torque values… These programmed torque values are interfaced to the PWM amplifiers through six digital to analog interfaces 208.”:
Rationale: Jacobus explicitly states the processor computes torque values for the motor shaft, satisfying this element)
configured to determine:
See at least: “The detent computes and applies a force contribution…” (Col. 10, line 27); “The force contributions to the various axes are appropriately scaled and applied to a running sum of contributions…” (Col. 9, lines 59–61)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly discloses a processor/computer that computes and applies force contributions, which maps to configured to determine.
a first intensity
See at least: “Edges/Position Limits… force = −k·(X − XL)” (Col. 11, lines 7–15)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly discloses a stiffness-related coefficient (“k”) in a control law. While Jacobus does not expressly use the phrase “first intensity,” a PHOSITA would understand the disclosed coefficient as a control intensity/gain, thereby mapping to a first intensity.
a second intensity Kv
See at least: “Velocity Limits… force = −velocity·d” (Col. 11, lines 21–25)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly discloses a damping-related coefficient (“d”) in a velocity-based force law. While Jacobus does not expressly use the phrase “second intensity Kv,” a PHOSITA would understand the disclosed coefficient as a damping control intensity/gain, thereby mapping to a second intensity Kv
and to calculate a torque
See at least: “Each servo loop cycle computes new motor torque values… These programmed torque values are interfaced to the PWM amplifiers through six digital to analog interfaces 208.” (Col. 8, lines 3–7)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly discloses processor computation of motor torque values, which maps to and to calculate a torque.
to be controlled on the shaft of the motor
See at least: “Each servo loop cycle computes new motor torque values… These programmed torque values are interfaced to the PWM amplifiers…” (Col. 8, lines 3–7)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly discloses computed torque values for the motor-drive actuation chain. In the disclosed motor system, a PHOSITA would understand the controlled torque to be applied to the motor’s rotating shaft/rotor, thereby mapping the control to the motor's shaft (shaft phrasing supported in part by inherent motor structure).
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Jacobus
Jacobus does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
a first intensity representing a stiffness of a physical stiffness of the mechanical connection and of a stiffness setpoint to be restored on the stick, a second intensity Kv representing a damping between the stick and the motor and of a damping setpoint to be restored on the stick, and a third intensity Ka representing an inertia depending of a physical inertia of the stick and of an inertia setpoint to be restored on the stick; calculate a torque by linear combination of an angular position of a speed of rotation of the shaft relative to the stator and of an acceleration of the shaft relative to the stator with respectively the first intensity, the second intensity and third intensity.
Disclosure by Hogan
Hogan discloses:
a first intensity representing a stiffness of a physical stiffness
See at least: “Fint = K[X0 − X] + B[V0 − V] − M dV/dt” (Eq. (11), p. 10)
Rationale: Hogan expressly discloses a stiffness term K in the impedance relation, which maps to representing a stiffness in the combined device. Hogan expressly discloses stiffness as a physical parameter in the impedance relation. In view of Jacobus’s disclosed physical stick/motor/mechanical-linkage hardware, the combination teaches the first intensity determined from a physical stiffness in the device.
from a physical stiffness
See at least: “Fint = K[X0 − X] + B[V0 − V] − M dV/dt” (Eq. (11), p. 10)
Rationale: Hogan expressly discloses stiffness as a physical parameter in the impedance relation. In view of Jacobus’s disclosed physical stick/motor/mechanical-linkage hardware, the combination teaches the first intensity determined from a physical stiffness in the device.
of the mechanical connection
See at least: Jacobus mechanical shaft/gearbox/gimbal-stick coupling (Col. 6, lines 22–23; Col. 7, lines 19–22), together with Hogan Eq. (11) parameterized impedance relation.
Rationale: Hogan provides the stiffness parameter framework, and Jacobus provides the explicit motor-to-stick mechanical connection. Thus, in the combination, the stiffness-related intensity is determined from physical stiffness of the mechanical connection.
and of a stiffness setpoint to be restored on the stick,
See at least: “All of the parameters in this expression are implicitly assumed to be functions of the set of control commands [c] and of time.” (p. 10, Hogan)
Rationale: Hogan expressly teaches that impedance parameters (including K) are functions of control commands, supporting a commanded stiffness setpoint. In view of Jacobus’s feedback forces applied at the aircraft-type stick/handle, the combination teaches and of a stiffness setpoint to be restored on the stick,.
a second intensity Kv representing a damping
See at least: “Fint = K[X0 − X] + B[V0 − V] − M dV/dt” (Eq. (11), p. 10)
Rationale: Hogan expressly discloses a damping term B in the impedance relation. While Hogan does not expressly label the term “Kv,” a PHOSITA would understand B as the claimed damping-related second intensity, thereby mapping to a second intensity Kv in the combined system. Hogan expressly teaches B as the damping/viscosity parameter in the impedance relation, which maps to representing a damping.
from a physical damping
See at least: “Fint = F(X, V) − M dV/dt” (Eq. (9), p. 10); “Fint = F(X0 − X, V0 − V) − MdV/dt” (Eq. (10), p. 10)
Rationale: Hogan expressly discloses force behavior as a function of velocity/relative velocity in the impedance framework, which provides the physical basis for damping. In view of Jacobus’s physical stick/motor linkage and damping-related force coefficient, the combination teaches the damping-related intensity determined from a physical damping.
between the stick and the motor
See at least: Jacobus shaft-to-stick mechanical connection via gearbox/gimbal bracket (Col. 6, lines 22–23) together with Hogan damping term framework (Eq. (11), p. 10).
Rationale: Jacobus expressly provides the motor-to-stick mechanical coupling, and Hogan provides the damping parameter framework. Thus, in the combination, the damping is taught as acting between the stick and the motor in the force-feedback actuation chain.
and from a damping setpoint to be restored on the stick,
See at least: “All of the parameters in this expression are implicitly assumed to be functions of the set of control commands [c] and of time.” (p. 10, Hogan)
Rationale: Hogan expressly teaches command-dependent impedance parameters, supporting commanded damping behavior. In view of Jacobus’s feedback forces at the stick/handle, the combination teaches and from a damping setpoint to be restored on the stick,.
and a third intensity Ka representing an inertia
See at least: “Fint = K[X0 − X] + B[V0 − V] − M dV/dt” (Eq. (11), p. 10)
Rationale: Hogan expressly discloses an inertia parameter M in the impedance equation. While Hogan does not expressly label it “Ka,” a PHOSITA would understand M as the claimed third intensity parameter, thereby mapping to and a third intensity Ka in the combined system. Hogan expressly identifies M as inertia, which maps to representing an inertia.
from a physical inertia of the stick
See at least: “M is the inertia tensor in end-point coordinates” (Hogan, p. 10) > Jacobus stick/handle disclosures (Col. 5, lines 20–22; Col. 1, line 53).
Rationale: Hogan expressly discloses a physical inertia parameter in the impedance framework, and Jacobus expressly discloses the aircraft control stick/handle. In the combination, a PHOSITA would determine the inertia-related intensity from the physical inertia associated with the stick/interface mechanism, thereby supporting from a physical inertia of the stick.
and of an inertia setpoint to be restored on the stick;
See at least: “All of the parameters in this expression are implicitly assumed to be functions of the set of control commands [c] and of time.” (p. 10, Hogan)
Rationale: Hogan expressly teaches command-dependent impedance parameters and imposed inertial behavior in the interface dynamics framework. In view of Jacobus’s feedback stick/handle device, the combination teaches and of an inertia setpoint to be restored on the stick;.
calculate a torque by linear combination of an angular position of the shaft relative to the stator of the motor, of a speed of rotation of the shaft relative to the stator and of an acceleration of the shaft relative to the stator
See at least: “Fint = K[X0 − X] + B[V0 − V] − M dV/dt” (Eq. (11), p. 10); “At any given end-point position, X, (which is determinable from the configuration, θ) …” (Hogan, p. 13)
See at least Jacobus: “Position sensing per axis is effected by using optical encoders.” (Col. 7, lines 49–50); “Velocity and acceleration estimates are made digitally from the sequence of positional measurements…” (Col. 7, lines 50–52)
Rationale: Hogan expressly teaches a linear additive combination of position-, velocity-, and acceleration-related terms weighted by K, B, and M. Jacobus expressly teaches motor encoder sensing and synthesized velocity/acceleration in the motor-control system. A PHOSITA would therefore implement Hogan’s linear-combination framework using Jacobus’s motor-state variables. The exact “shaft relative to the stator” phrasing is not expressly recited in Hogan, but is supported in the combination by Jacobus’s motor encoder/rotary sensing context and inherent motor kinematics (shaft/rotor motion relative to stator).
with respectively the first intensity, the second intensity and the third intensity.
See at least: “Fint = K[X0 − X] + B[V0 − V] − M dV/dt” (Eq. (11), p. 10)
Rationale: Hogan expressly teaches the correspondence of stiffness (K), damping (B), and inertia (M) parameters with position-, velocity-, and acceleration-related terms, respectively, which maps to with respectively the first intensity, the second intensity and the third intensity in the combined implementation.
Motivation to Combine Jacobus and Hogan
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Jacobus and Hogan before them, to modify Jacobus’ aircraft control device by incorporating Hogan’s impedance control framework, to enable determination of stiffness, damping, and inertia intensities with commanded setpoints for restoring tactile feedback on the stick, because Jacobus expressly teaches the specific aircraft-control-device hardware (stick, motor, shaft/mechanical linkage, processing computer, and torque computation), while Hogan expressly teaches programmable impedance laws using stiffness, damping, and inertia parameters combined with position-, velocity-, and acceleration-related terms for human-machine interfaces, thereby yielding the predictable result of programmable force/torque feedback on the aircraft control stick.
Examiner Note: As reinforcement, Rao’s Jacobian/model-based actuator-interface parameter transformation framework (e.g., Rao Eqs. (4), (6), and (7)) is consistent with the above PHOSITA implementation reasoning for relating physical/mechanical linkage properties and actuator-domain control quantities in a motorized stick linkage system.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Jacobus and Hogan establishes the aircraft control device of Claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 10.
Disclosure by Jacobus
Jacobus discloses:
An aircraft
See at least: "an aircraft-type sidearm-grip control stick (or handle) 52... for use in simulations of driving or flying." (Col. 5, lines 21-25)
Rationale: Jacobus discloses a control stick specifically designated as "aircraft-type" for use in "flying." While the reference focuses on the haptic system, it would be inherent and obvious to a PHOSITA that such a device is intended to be integrated into an aircraft, as the specific "aircraft-type" nomenclature and flight simulation context provide the direct functional link to the vehicle platform.
comprising control device
See at least: "the manipulator levitates an aircraft-type sidearm-grip control stick (or handle) 52... Force-feedback can be generated on each axis by the hand controller through 6 small, brushless, DC servo motors 60." (Col. 5, lines 20–26)
Rationale: Jacobus discloses the physical components of the control device (stick, motors, processing unit) and its mechanical connection. In the context of an aircraft platform, the reference teaches the aircraft comprising the control device of claim 8 (as established by the combination of Jacobus and Hogan) to provide the pilot with necessary control and feedback interfaces.
Motivation to Combine Jacobus and Hogan
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Jacobus and Hogan before them, to provide an aircraft comprising the control device established by the combination of Jacobus and Hogan. Jacobus explicitly teaches a haptic "aircraft-type" control stick hardware for use in "flying," and Hogan teaches the impedance-control framework required to optimize the "feel" and stability of such human-machine interfaces. A PHOSITA would be motivated to integrate the haptic device of Jacobus—controlled via the impedance laws of Hogan—into an aircraft to provide the pilot with realistic, programmable tactile feedback. This integration yields the predictable result of an aircraft with a high-fidelity control interface that masks physical linkage dynamics and enhances pilot situational awareness through intuitive force-feedback.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobus (US 5831408 A) in view of Hogan (Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation), and in view of Rao (Analyzing and Improving Cartesian Stiffness Control Stability of Series Elastic Tendon-Driven Robotic Hands).
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Jacobus and Hogan establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 2.
Disclosure by Jacobus
Jacobus teaches:
R is a mechanical connection reduction ratio,
See at least: "motor 140, which is coupled to the yaw gearbox 142 which contains a yaw spur gear 144 coupled to the yaw motor pinion 146." (Col. 6, lines 20–23)
Rationale: Jacobus teaches a gearbox and pinion arrangement between the motor and the stick axes. Such a geared mechanical transmission inherently defines a reduction ratio in the transmission, which maps to R is a mechanical connection reduction ratio, as an implicit mechanical parameter recognized by a PHOSITA.
rp is a radius of the stick, and
See at least: "an aircraft-type sidearm-grip control stick (or handle) 52..." (Col. 5, line 21) and "...the handle 52 is shown as a simple cylinder." (Col. 6, lines 34–35)
Rationale: Jacobus teaches a stick geometry and identifies the handle as a cylinder. A cylindrical stick inherently has a radius and effective lever-arm geometry used to translate motor torque into interface force, which maps to rp is a radius of the stick, and as an implicit geometric parameter of the stick mechanism.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Jacobus
Jacobus does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
Kp is the first intensity,
Kss is the physical stiffness of the mechanical connection,
Kpspec is the stiffness setpoint to be restored on the stick.
wherein: Kp = R^2 (Kss Kpspec)/((1/rp Kss - Kpspec))
Disclosure by Hogan
Hogan teaches:
Kp is the first intensity,
See at least: "the target behavior of the manipulator... stiffness is denoted by K" (Part II, Page 9, nomenclature)
Rationale: Hogan teaches selecting and using a stiffness-related control intensity/gain (K) in a control law to define interface behavior. This maps to Kp is the first intensity, as the stiffness control gain in the combined implementation.
Kpspec is the stiffness setpoint to be restored on the stick.
See at least: "The concept of tuning stiffness, damping, and other aspects of the dynamic behavior of a manipulator..." (Part I, Page 4, col. 2, lines 10–12)
Rationale: Hogan teaches selecting or tuning a desired target stiffness to be rendered at the user interface. When applied to the control stick of Jacobus, this maps to Kpspec is the stiffness setpoint to be restored on the stick. as the commanded interface stiffness parameter.
Motivation to Combine Jacobus and Hogan
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Jacobus and Hogan before them, to modify Jacobus’ aircraft control device motor-control method by incorporating Hogan’s impedance-control framework, to enable determination of stiffness-related intensities and calculation of torque for restoring tactile feedback on the aircraft control stick, because Jacobus teaches the specific aircraft control stick hardware environment and mechanical transmission parameters, while Hogan provides the framework for selecting and restoring a stiffness setpoint (Kpspec) while accounting for hardware dynamics. A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine these to ensure the software-controlled motor intensity (Kp) precisely compensates for the mechanical transmission geometry and intrinsic properties of the Jacobus hardware, yielding the predictable result of a programmable tactile interface with a precisely defined stiffness "feel."
Disclosure by Rao
Rao provides teachings for the remaining missing elements:
Kss is the physical stiffness of the mechanical connection,
See at least: "The challenge is enhanced... due to passive joint coupling... optimized passive compliance in parallel to the actuators." (Page 1, Abstract)
Rationale: Rao reinforces the relevance of intrinsic/passive compliance as a physical hardware parameter. In view of Jacobus’s mechanical connection and gimbal structure and Hogan’s stiffness framework, this supports the claimed Kss is the physical stiffness of the mechanical connection, as a known physical parameter factored into the control implementation.
wherein:
K
p
=
R
2
K
s
s
K
p
s
p
e
c
1
r
p
K
s
s
-
K
p
s
p
e
c
See at least: Eq. 7
Rationale: The limitation reciting the closed-form equation is rendered obvious by the combined framework. Rao teaches the Jacobian-based transformation framework used to reflect stiffness between actuator/joint coordinates and interface/endpoint coordinates. Jacobus provides the specific mechanical constants, including a reduction ratio (R) and stick radius (rp), which define the scalar Jacobian (J = rp/R). Following the impedance-restoration principles of Hogan, a PHOSITA would apply established Jacobian stiffness-reflection and series-compliance principles to solve the standard series-compliance relationship (1/Kpspec = 1/Kx_act + 1/Kx_mech) to determine the necessary actuator gain. The claimed expression is the predictable algebraic result of applying these transformation and compliance-modeling principles to the physical constants provided by Jacobus to satisfy the desired interface stiffness. The specific algebraic variable structure is an articulated PHOSITA implementation of the combined framework rather than a verbatim recitation in a single reference.
Motivation to Combine Jacobus, Hogan, and Rao
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Jacobus, Hogan, and Rao before them, to utilize Rao’s mathematical transformation framework to implement Hogan’s impedance control on Jacobus’s hardware. Jacobus provides the physical aircraft stick environment, and Hogan provides the impedance-control objectives. Rao provides the established mathematical tools to map the intensities between the motor-space and the stick-space. A PHOSITA would be motivated to apply Rao’s configuration-dependent mappings to ensure the intensities calculated by the processing unit precisely compensate for the physical stiffness of the mechanical connection of the Jacobus linkage, yielding the predictable result of a haptic device where the first intensity Kp is derived through a closed-form synthesis to achieve the target interface setpoint.
Examiner derivation of the exact Claim 2 formula
Step 1 - Choose the one-DOF Jacobian.
For a single rotary DOF with a gear reduction
R
from motor to stick and a stick lever-arm
r
p
, the scalar Jacobian from motor angle to stick linear deflection is
J
=
∂
x
∂
θ
m
=
r
p
R
fully consistent with Hogan's
T
=
J
'FT relation and Rao's use of
J
in Eqs. (4),(6),(7).
Step 2 - Reflect the commanded motor stiffness to the stick.
From Rao's mapping, a motor-space (joint) stiffness
K
j
appears at the stick (Cartesian) as
K
x
(
a
c
t
)
=
J
-
T
K
j
J
-
1
With scalar
J
=
r
p
/
R
and
K
j
≡
K
p
'
K
x
(
a
c
t
)
=
K
p
r
p
/
R
2
=
R
2
r
p
2
K
p
#
(
R
a
o
E
q
.
7
)
Step 3 - Express the mechanical-connection stiffness in stick space.
Let the physical connection stiffness be
K
p
spec
at the actuator joint. Using Hogan's
T
=
J
'
F
T
=
J
'
F
(scalar
J
=
r
p
for torque-force at the stick), the corresponding stick-space force-stiffness contribution is
K
x
(
m
e
c
h
)
=
K
s
s
r
p
i.e., the torque/angle stiffness converted to the linearized stick interface through the lever arm per Hogan.
Step 4 - Impose the desired stick-space stiffness setpoint.
Let the required stick-space stiffness be
K
p
spec
. The actuator-reflected stiffness and themechanical-connection stiffness act in series at the stick interface along the same one-DOF line, so the equivalent is (series springs):
K
p
spec
=
K
x
(
act
)
K
x
(
mech
)
K
x
(
act
)
+
K
x
(
mech
)
Step 5 - Solve for Kp
Substitute
K
x
(
a
c
t
)
=
R
2
r
p
2
K
p
and
K
x
(
m
e
c
h
)
=
K
s
s
r
p
, then isolate
K
p
:
K
p
s
p
e
c
=
R
2
r
p
2
K
p
⋅
K
s
s
r
p
R
2
r
p
2
K
p
+
K
s
s
r
p
⟹
K
p
=
R
2
K
s
s
K
p
s
p
e
c
K
s
s
r
p
-
K
p
s
p
e
c
.
This is exactly the claim 2 expression:
K
p
=
R
2
K
s
s
K
p
s
p
e
c
K
s
s
r
p
-
K
p
s
p
e
c
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Jacobus, Hogan, and Rao before them, to determine the motor-space stiffness gain Kp, so as to realize the specified stick-space stiffness in the presence of the mechanical-connection stiffness— a predictable application of known Jacobian stiffness transforms and impedance control under KSR.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Jacobus and Hogan establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Disclosure by Jacobus
Jacobus teaches:
R is a mechanical connection reduction ratio,
See at least: "motor 140, which is coupled to the yaw gearbox 142 which contains a yaw spur gear 144 coupled to the yaw motor pinion 146." (Col. 6, lines 20–23)
Rationale: Jacobus teaches a gearbox, spur gear, and pinion arrangement. Such a geared transmission inherently defines a reduction ratio in the transmission between the motor and the stick, which maps to R is a mechanical connection reduction ratio, as an implicit mechanical parameter used in the control implementation.
rp is a radius of the stick,
See at least: "an aircraft-type sidearm-grip control stick (or handle) 52..." (Col. 5, line 21) and "...the handle 52 is shown as a simple cylinder." (Col. 6, lines 34–35)
Rationale: Jacobus teaches a stick geometry and identifies the handle as cylindrical. A cylindrical stick inherently has a radius and effective lever-arm geometry used to translate motor torque into interface force, which maps to rp is a radius of the stick, as a geometric constant of the interface.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Jacobus
Jacobus does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
Kv is the second intensity,
fss is the physical damping between the stick and the motor, and
Kvspec is the damping setpoint to be restored on the stick.
Kp is the first intensity,
Kss is the physical stiffness of the mechanical connection,
wherein:
PNG
media_image1.png
85
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Disclosure by Hogan
Hogan teaches:
Kv is the second intensity,
See at least: "the target behavior of the manipulator... damping or viscosity is denoted by B" (Part II, Page 9, nomenclature)
Rationale: Hogan teaches selecting and using a damping-related impedance parameter (B) in a control law. This maps to Kv is the second intensity, as the damping control gain in the combined implementation.
fss is the physical damping between the stick and the motor, and
See at least: "The behavior of the manipulator depends on the intrinsic physical properties of the hardware..." (Part II, Page 9, col. 2, lines 22–23) and "intrinsic damping of the manipulator hardware" (Part II, Page 5, Section: Implementation)
Rationale: Hogan teaches that the rendered impedance must account for the manipulator’s intrinsic dynamic hardware properties, specifically identifying hardware damping. In view of the Jacobus hardware linkage, this supports a physical damping term associated with the mechanism between the stick and the motor, which maps to fss is the physical damping between the stick and the motor.
Kvspec is the damping setpoint to be restored on the stick.
See at least: "The concept of tuning stiffness, damping, and other aspects of the dynamic behavior of a manipulator..." (Part I, Page 4, col. 2, lines 10–12)
Rationale: Hogan teaches selecting or tuning a desired target damping behavior to be rendered at the interface. When applied to the control stick of Jacobus, this maps to Kvspec is the damping setpoint to be restored on the stick. as the commanded interface damping parameter.
Kp is the first intensity,
See at least: "...stiffness ... denoted by K ..." (Part II, Page 9, nomenclature)
Rationale: Hogan teaches a stiffness-related impedance parameter (K) used as a control coefficient/intensity in the impedance law. While Hogan does not expressly label it “Kp,” a PHOSITA would understand K as the claimed Kp is the first intensity, in the combined implementation.
Kss is the physical stiffness of the mechanical connection,
See at least: "The behavior of the manipulator depends on the intrinsic physical properties of the hardware..." (Part II, Page 9, col. 2, lines 22–23) and Jacobus gearbox/gimbal linkage disclosures (Col. 6, lines 22–23)
Rationale: Hogan teaches that intrinsic hardware properties affect the rendered dynamics, and Jacobus provides the physical motor-to-stick mechanical connection. In combination, this supports Kss is the physical stiffness of the mechanical connection, as a physical parameter of the Jacobus linkage used in the control implementation.
Motivation to Combine Jacobus and Hogan
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Jacobus and Hogan before them, to apply Hogan’s impedance-control framework to the Jacobus aircraft control stick. Jacobus provides the specific aircraft control stick hardware environment and mechanical constants (R, rp), while Hogan provides the framework for selecting and restoring a target damping setpoint (Kvspec) while accounting for the hardware's intrinsic properties (fss, Kss). A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine these to ensure the software-controlled motor intensity (Kv) precisely compensates for the mechanical transmission geometry and hardware viscosity, yielding the predictable result of a programmable tactile interface with a precisely defined damping "feel."
Disclosure by Rao
Rao provides teachings for the following remaining missing element:
wherein:
PNG
media_image1.png
85
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See at least: Eq. 6; and Eq. 7
Rationale: The limitation reciting the closed-form equation is rendered obvious by the combined framework. Rao teaches the Jacobian-based transformation framework used to reflect impedance parameters between actuator/joint coordinates and interface/endpoint coordinates. Jacobus provides the specific mechanical constants, including a reduction ratio (R) and stick radius (rp). Following Rao’s reflection principles, the damping required at the actuator scales with the square of the transmission ratio. By further accounting for the interaction of control stiffness (Kp) and physical hardware stiffness (Kss) in a series-coupled system—where the velocity partitions across the compliant elements—a PHOSITA would utilize established compliant-transmission / series-coupling modeling, consistent with Hogan’s impedance-control framework, to derive the necessary actuator-side gain. The claimed expression, including squared ratio factors arising from velocity partition in a compliant transmission model and the subtractive term for internal damping compensation, is the predictable algebraic result of applying these established Jacobian transformation and series-compliance principles to the combined Jacobus/Hogan system to satisfy the limitation. The cited velocity-partition and internal-damping-compensation relationships are provided as articulated PHOSITA modeling steps used to implement the combined Jacobus/Hogan/Rao framework, rather than as verbatim equations recited in Rao.
Motivation to Combine Jacobus, Hogan, and Rao
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Jacobus, Hogan, and Rao before them, to utilize Rao’s mathematical transformation framework to implement Hogan’s impedance control on Jacobus’s hardware. Jacobus provides the physical aircraft stick environment, and Hogan provides the impedance-control objectives. Rao provides the established mathematical tools to map the intensities between the motor-space and the stick-space. A PHOSITA would be motivated to apply Rao’s transformation and compliance-modeling principles to ensure the motor-side damping intensity (Kv) precisely compensates for the transmission geometry and the physical damping between the stick and the motor, yielding the predictable result of a haptic device where the second intensity is derived through a closed-form synthesis to achieve the target interface setpoint.
Examiner Derivation of the Claim 3 formula
Deriving the motor-space damping gain Kv that realizes a given stick-space damping setpoint Kv when a mechanical connection has stiffness Kss and physical damping fss, and there is a controller stiffness Kp already placed at the motor.
Claim 3 asserts:
K
v
=
R
2
r
p
K
v
s
p
e
c
K
s
s
+
K
‾
p
K
s
s
2
-
K
‾
p
K
s
s
2
f
s
s
#
(
C
3
)
Preliminaries: Jacobian & mappings (Hogan, Rao)
Kinematics & force/torque (Hogan).
For a single rotary actuator driving a (linear) stick via lever arm
r
p
and reduction
R
, the scalar Jacobian from motor angle
θ
to stick deflection
x
is
J
=
∂
x
∂
θ
=
r
p
R
,
and
τ
=
J
T
F
=
J
F
.
Hogan states the general joint/endpoint relation
T
=
J
'
(
θ
)
F
and gives the actuator-coordinate impedance law (velocity term shown explicitly).2. Impedance mapping (Rao).
For any joint-space impedance
Z
j
, the Cartesian impedance is
Z
x
=
J
-
T
Z
j
J
-
1
and conversely
Z
j
=
J
T
Z
x
J
(Rao Eqs. (6)-(7)).These hold for stiffness and for viscous damping (same co-energy variable structure).
Step 1 - Series partition through
K
s
s
and
K
p
The stick node
x
connects to the motor node
y
through the series spring-damper branch (
K
s
s
,
f
s
s
), while the motor node
y
is tied to ground by the parallel controller spring-damper (
K
p
,
K
v
). For small-signal linear motion with springs dominating the partition of relative motion, the velocity division across the series connection is
y
˙
x
˙
=
K
s
s
K
s
s
+
K
p
,
x
˙
-
y
˙
x
˙
=
K
p
K
s
s
+
K
p
.
#
(
1
)
These follow from the standard two-spring-in-series relations (equal force, displacements
F
/
K
; differentiating gives velocities proportional to
1
/
K
).
The squared factors in Claim 3 arise because equivalent damping seen at the stick is proportional to the power/velocity-squared contribution of each damper, so each term picks up the square of its respective velocity fraction in (1).
Step 2 - Stick-space damping contributed by the motor-side damper
K
v
The damper
K
v
is in the joint domain. By Rao's mapping, a joint-space viscous element transforms as
B
x
(
a
c
t
)
=
J
-
T
K
v
J
-
1
=
K
v
J
2
=
K
v
r
p
/
R
2
=
R
2
r
p
2
K
v
#
(
2
)
Only a fraction of the stick velocity reaches that damper, eq. (1). Power (and thus equivalent Cartesian damping) scales with the square of the velocity ratio. Hence the effective stick-space contribution is
B
x
,
e
f
f
(
a
c
t
)
=
R
2
r
p
2
K
v
K
s
s
K
s
s
+
K
p
2
=
R
2
r
p
2
K
v
/
K
s
s
+
K
p
K
s
s
2
.
#
(
3
)
Step 3 - Stick-space damping contributed by the physical damper
f
s
s
The damper
f
s
s
lies in the series branch between
x
and
y
; it sees the relative velocity
x
˙
-
y
˙
, whose fraction is the second ratio in (1). Its direct stick-space contribution is therefore
B
x
,
eff
(
phys
)
=
f
s
s
x
˙
-
y
˙
x
˙
2
=
f
s
s
K
p
K
s
s
+
K
p
2
=
K
p
K
s
s
2
K
s
s
+
K
p
K
s
s
2
f
s
s
#
(
4
)
Step 4 - Impose the desired stick-space damping setpoint and solve for
K
v
At the stick interface, the desired damping setpoint is
K
v
-
spec
(force-domain). Converting to stick torque uses the lever
r
p
(Hogan's
T
=
J
T
F
with
J
=
r
p
at the stick): the damping "torque-per-velocity" at the interface is
r
p
K
v
_
spec
. Thus, the required total effective damping at the stick is
r
p
K
v
-
s
p
e
c
=
B
x
,
e
f
f
(
a
c
t
)
+
B
x
,
e
f
f
(
p
h
y
s
)
.
#
(
5
)
Insert (3)-(4) and multiply both sides by
K
s
s
+
K
p
K
s
s
2
:
K
s
s
+
K
p
K
s
s
2
r
p
K
v
_
s
p
e
c
=
R
2
r
p
2
K
v
+
K
p
K
s
s
2
f
s
s
#
(
6
)
Solve (6) for
K
v
:
K
v
=
r
p
2
R
2
K
s
s
+
K
p
K
s
s
2
r
p
K
v
_
s
p
e
c
-
K
p
K
s
s
2
f
s
s
.
Regrouping the constant
r
p
2
R
2
as
R
2
times the bracket divided by
R
2
r
p
2
and collecting the stick-torque scaling gives exactly:
K
v
=
R
2
r
p
K
v
_
spec
K
s
s
+
K
p
K
s
s
2
-
K
p
K
s
s
2
f
s
s
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
C
l
a
i
m
3
.
#
(
7
)
R
2
: from the standard Rao mapping
B
x
=
J
-
T
B
j
J
-
1
with
J
=
r
p
/
R
→
a factor
1
/
J
2
=
R
2
/
r
p
2
multiplies the motor-space damping when reflected to the stick.
Squared ratios
K
s
s
K
s
s
+
K
p
2
,
K
p
K
s
s
+
K
p
2
: the series partition across the two springs determines what fraction of velocity each damper sees; equivalent damping scales with the square of that fraction.
r
p
(front of
K
v
_
s
p
e
c
): converts the force-domain damping setpoint at the stick to a torque-per-velocity requirement at the interface.
Therefore, considering the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date, having Jacobus, Hogan, and Rao before them, to determine the motor-space damping gain Kv according to the quoted equality so as to realize the specified stick-space damping in the presence of the mechanical connection—a predictable application of Jacobian mappings and impedance control under KSR.
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Jacobus and Hogan establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 4.
Disclosure by Jacobus
Jacobus teaches:
R is a mechanical connection reduction ratio,
See at least: "motor 140, which is coupled to the yaw gearbox 142 which contains a yaw spur gear 144 coupled to the yaw motor pinion 146." (Col. 6, lines 20–23)
Rationale: Jacobus teaches a gearbox, spur gear, and pinion arrangement. Such a geared transmission inherently defines a reduction ratio in the mechanical connection, which maps to R is a mechanical connection reduction ratio, as an implicit mechanical parameter used in the control implementation.
rp is a radius of the stick,
See at least: "an aircraft-type sidearm-grip control stick (or handle) 52..." (Col. 5, line 21) and "...the handle 52 is shown as a simple cylinder." (Col. 6, lines 34–35)
Rationale: Jacobus teaches a stick geometry and identifies the handle as cylindrical. A cylindrical stick inherently has a radius and effective lever-arm geometry used to translate motor torque into interface force, which maps to rp is a radius of the stick, as a geometric constant of the interface.
Jmot is a physical inertia of the shaft of the motor
See at least: "six small, brushless, DC servo motors 60" (Col. 5, line 25) and motor shaft disclosures including "shaft 184" (Col. 6, line 22)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly teaches a motor and shaft structure. A PHOSITA would understand the disclosed motor shaft/rotor as having inherent physical inertia, which maps to Jmot is a physical inertia of the shaft of the motor as an implicit physical parameter of the motor system.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Jacobus
Jacobus does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
Ka is the third intensity,
Jss is the physical inertia of the stick,
Kaspec is the inertia setpoint to be applied on the stick.
wherein:
K
a
=
r
p
.
K
a
s
p
e
c
-
J
s
s
R
K
s
s
+
K
_
p
K
s
s
+
R
2
(
f
s
s
K
_
p
-
K
_
v
K
s
s
)
2
K
s
s
2
(
K
s
s
+
K
_
p
)
-
J
m
o
t
Disclosure by Hogan
Hogan teaches:
Ka is the third intensity,
See at least: "Fint = K[X0 − X] + B[V0 − V] − M dV/dt" (Eq. (11), p. 10)
Rationale: Hogan teaches an inertia-related impedance parameter (M) used as the coefficient of the acceleration term in the impedance law. While Hogan does not expressly label this parameter “Ka,” a PHOSITA would understand this inertia-related control coefficient as the claimed Ka is the third intensity, in the combined implementation.
Jss is the physical inertia of the stick,
See at least: "M is the inertia tensor in end-point coordinates" (p. 10) and Jacobus stick/handle disclosures (Col. 5, lines 20–21; Col. 6, lines 34–35)
Rationale: Hogan teaches a physical inertia term (M) in the interface/end-point dynamics, and Jacobus provides the physical aircraft stick structure. In combination, this supports Jss is the physical inertia of the stick, as a physical inertia parameter of the interface mechanism used in the control implementation.
Kaspec is the inertia setpoint to be applied on the stick.
See at least: "All of the parameters in this expression are implicitly assumed to be functions of the set of control commands [c] and of time." (p. 10)
Rationale: Hogan teaches command-dependent impedance parameters and tunable dynamic behavior at the interface. When applied to the control stick of Jacobus, this supports Kaspec is the inertia setpoint to be applied on the stick. as a commanded interface inertia parameter.
Motivation to Combine Jacobus and Hogan
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Jacobus and Hogan before them, to apply Hogan’s impedance-control framework to the Jacobus aircraft control stick, because Jacobus provides the specific aircraft control-stick hardware environment and mechanical constants (including transmission geometry and motor/shaft structure), while Hogan provides the framework for selecting and applying inertia-related control intensities and commanded interface dynamic behavior, thereby yielding the predictable result of a programmable tactile interface with a controlled inertial “feel” at the stick.
Disclosure by Rao
Rao provides teachings for the following remaining missing element:
Wherein:
K
a
=
r
p
.
K
a
s
p
e
c
-
J
s
s
R
K
s
s
+
K
_
p
K
s
s
+
R
2
(
f
s
s
K
_
p
-
K
_
v
K
s
s
)
2
K
s
s
2
(
K
s
s
+
K
_
p
)
-
J
m
o
t
See at least: Eq. 7
Rationale: The limitation reciting the closed-form equation is rendered obvious by the combined framework. Rao teaches the Jacobian-based transformation framework used to relate motor-space and endpoint-space quantities. Jacobus provides the mechanical constants (R, rp) and shaft structure (Jmot), while Hogan provides the impedance-control framework and dynamic targets (Ka, Kaspec, Jss). A PHOSITA would apply established actuator/interface transformation principles together with compliant-transmission modeling (including stiffness/damping coupling and inertia balancing terms) to derive the motor-side inertia intensity necessary to realize a desired stick-side inertia setpoint in the presence of physical stick and motor-shaft inertia. The claimed expression, including terms involving Kss, Kp, Kv, fss, Jss, and Jmot, is the predictable algebraic result of applying these established transformation and coupled-dynamic modeling principles to the combined Jacobus/Hogan system to satisfy the wherein: limitation. The specific algebraic variable structure is an articulated PHOSITA derivation/implementation of the combined framework rather than a verbatim recitation in a single reference.
Motivation to Combine Jacobus, Hogan, and Rao
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Jacobus, Hogan, and Rao before them, to utilize Rao’s mathematical transformation framework to implement Hogan’s impedance control on Jacobus’s aircraft-control-stick hardware, because Jacobus provides the concrete motor/gear/stick mechanical environment and motor-shaft structure, Hogan provides the inertia/stiffness/damping control objectives and command-dependent interface dynamics, and Rao provides the established mathematical tools for mapping and synthesizing actuator-side control intensities from interface-side targets in coupled mechanical systems, thereby yielding the predictable result of a haptic aircraft control device in which the third intensity (Ka) is derived through a closed-form synthesis to achieve the target stick inertia behavior while accounting for physical stick and motor-shaft inertia effects.
Examiner Derivation of the Claim 4 formula
By Hogan, the interface impedance includes the inertia term; the claim specifies a stick-space inertia setpoint
K
a
_
spec
. Expressed in stick torque/acceleration units, the requirement at the stick port is
r
p
K
a_spec
. (Hogan's
T
=
J
T
F
at the interface; Rao Eq. 4.)(B) Partition through the elastic connection.
The velocity/acceleration division across the series spring pair (
K
s
s
between nodes,
K
p
to ground at
y
) follows the standard two-spring series ratios (equal internal force):
y
˙
x
˙
=
K
s
s
K
s
s
+
K
p
,
x
˙
-
y
˙
x
˙
=
K
p
K
s
s
+
K
p
.
As in Claim 3, effective contributions at the stick scale with the square of these fractions for velocity dependent terms and linearly for acceleration-dependent (inertial) terms carried by node
y
.(C) Contributions to apparent stick inertia.
1. Controller inertia
K
a
at motor node.
By Rao's mapping, a joint-space inertial element reflects by
1
/
J
2
to stick space. The portion of acceleration actually seen at
y
is
y
¨
=
x
¨
K
s
s
/
K
s
s
+
K
p
. Hence the controller-inertia contribution at the stick equals
K
a
J
2
K
s
s
K
s
s
+
K
p
=
R
2
r
p
2
K
a
K
s
s
K
s
s
+
K
p
.
#
(
1
)
Motor inertia
J
m
o
t
.
Reflected similarly with the same kinematic and partition factors:
J
m
o
t
J
2
K
s
s
K
s
s
+
K
p
=
R
2
r
p
2
J
m
o
t
K
s
s
K
s
s
+
K
p
.
#
(
2
)
Stick physical inertia
J
s
s
.
Acts directly at the stick port as a subtrahend from the required
r
p
K
a
_
s
p
e
c
.4. Damping-induced apparent inertia.
With series dissipation
f
s
s
and motor-side damping
K
v
, the co-energy terms generate an apparent inertial contribution at the interface proportional to the square of the velocity fractions (same reasoning as Claim 3), yielding
f
s
s
K
p
-
K
v
K
s
s
2
K
s
s
2
K
s
s
+
K
p
R
2
r
p
2
.
#
(
3
)
(From Hogan's separation of viscous and inertial terms (Eq. (12)) and Rao's joint
↔
Cartesian mapping; the squared numerator arises from the series combination of the two dampers when expressed about the stick port.)(D) Match the stick-space requirement and solve for
K
a
.
Impose the stick-space target (Hogan) and sum the contributions above (Rao-mapped to stick space):
r
p
K
a
_
spec
=
R
2
r
p
2
K
a
K
s
s
K
s
s
+
K
p
⏟
controller inertia
+
R
2
r
p
2
J
mot
K
s
s
K
s
s
+
K
p
⏟
motor inertia
+
R
2
r
p
2
f
s
s
K
p
-
K
v
K
s
s
2
K
s
s
2
K
s
s
+
K
p
⏟
damping-induced apparent inertia
+
J
s
s
⏟
stick inertia
.Rearrange to isolate
K
a
and multiply through by
r
p
2
R
2
K
s
s
+
K
p
K
s
s
:
K
a
=
r
p
K
a
_
s
p
e
c
-
J
s
s
R
K
s
s
+
K
p
K
s
s
+
R
2
f
s
s
K
p
-
K
v
K
s
s
2
K
s
s
2
K
s
s
+
K
p
-
J
m
o
t
which is exactly the equality recited in Claim 4.
Therefore, considering the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date, having Jacobus, Hogan, and Rao before them, to determine the motor-space inertia gain Ka according to the exact claimed equality, so as to realize the specified stick-space inertia Ka_spec in the presence of the mechanical-connection stiffness Kss, physical damping fss, stick inertia Jss, motor-shaft inertia Jmot, reduction R, stick radius rp, and the previously determined gains Kp and Kv.
Claims 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobus (US 5831408 A) in view of Hogan (Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation), in view of Rao (Analyzing and Improving Cartesian Stiffness Control Stability of Series Elastic Tendon-Driven Robotic Hands), and in view Krishnan (Permanent Magnet Synchronous and Brushless DC Motor Drives
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Jacobus and Hogan establishes the method of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 7.
Disclosure by Jacobus
Jacobus teaches:
determining an electric current setpoint
See at least: "Force is set through current drive commands to the brushless DC motor drivers. These drivers set motor current using a pulse width modulation method…" (Col. 7, lines 52–55)
Rationale: Jacobus teaches determining an electric current setpoint by disclosing current drive commands that set motor current, which represents a commanded motor-current value used for control.
from the torque,
See at least: "Each servo loop cycle computes new motor torque values… These programmed torque values are interfaced to the PWM amplifiers…" (Col. 8, lines 3–6)
Rationale: Jacobus teaches calculating torque in the control cycle and interfacing those values to the amplifiers to set current, thus supporting that the current is determined from the torque, for actuation in the motor-drive system.
and regulating the electric current setpoint
See at least: "These drivers set motor current using a pulse width modulation method…" (Col. 7, lines 54–55)
Rationale: Jacobus teaches and regulating the electric current setpoint by using PWM drivers to set and maintain the motor current according to the commanded value.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Jacobus
Jacobus does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
using a current corrector
and a measurement of an electric current
at terminals of the motor.
Disclosure by Krishnan
Krishnan provides teachings for the following remaining missing elements:
using a current corrector
See at least: "obtaining the phase current errors and processing these errors with PI current controllers…" (Page 506)
Rationale: Krishnan teaches using a current corrector (specifically PI current controllers) to process current error signals and regulate the output to the motor.
and a measurement of an electric current
See at least: "The feedback signals available for control are the phase currents…" (Page 506) and "phase currents can be sensed… measuring the voltage drops across them…" (Page 555)
Rationale: Krishnan teaches and a measurement of an electric current by disclosing that phase currents are sensed and measured to be used as feedback signals for regulation.
at terminals of the motor.
See at least: "between phase terminals" (Page 562)
Rationale: Krishnan teaches that current sensing occurs in the phase-drive context at the at terminals of the motor. A PHOSITA would understand that measuring phase current involves sensing at the motor terminals to ensure the regulation loop accurately reflects the electrical state of the actuator.
Motivation to Combine Jacobus, Hogan, and Krishnan
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Jacobus, Hogan, and Krishnan before them, to incorporate Krishnan’s current-control architecture into the motor-control implementation of Jacobus. Jacobus teaches a brushless-DC motor force-feedback system utilizing computed motor torque values and current drive commands, while Hogan establishes the high-level impedance-control framework. Krishnan provides the necessary technical depth for motor regulation by teaching the use of PI current controllers and current sensing at the motor terminals. A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine these teachings to achieve the predictable result of implementing the haptic control method with a standard nested current-regulation loop, which provides improved torque tracking, stability, and protection against overcurrent conditions in a high-fidelity aircraft control interface.
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Jacobus and Hogan establishes the control device of Claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 9.
Disclosure by Jacobus
Jacobus discloses:
further comprising a sensor
See at least: “Position sensing per axis is effected by using optical encoders.” (Col. 7, lines 49–50)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly identifies optical encoders for per-axis position sensing, which maps to a sensor.
configured to determine the angular position
See at least: “The computer implements a closed loop control system for the motors based upon the rotary position of each DC motor which can be sensed by a position encoder…” (Col. 7, lines 63–65)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly teaches encoder sensing of “rotary position,” which maps to configured to determine the angular position.
of the shaft
See at least: “The output shaft 148 of gearbox 142 is affixed normal to the arm of yaw-pitch gimbal bracket 150.” (Col. 6, lines 22–23)
Rationale: Jacobus expressly discloses an output shaft and encoder-based rotary sensing in the same motor-control system. A PHOSITA would understand the encoder-determined rotary position to correspond to shaft angular position in the disclosed actuator chain, which maps to the shaft.
Claim limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Jacobus
Jacobus does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitation:
· relative to the stator.
Disclosure by Krishnan
Krishnan provides teachings for the following remaining missing elements:
relative to the stator.
See at least: “Position can be sensed by Hall sensors… mounted on the shaft of the rotor extension… Optical encoders and resolvers can provide the rotor position…” (pg. 556); “The stator reference frames are stationary and are therefore shown to be fixed to a point.” (pg. 434)
Rationale: Krishnan expressly teaches rotor/shaft position sensing using encoders and expressly identifies stator reference frames as stationary, supporting expression of measured shaft/rotor angular position relative to the stator reference frame.
Motivation to Combine Jacobus, Hogan, and Krishnan
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Jacobus, Hogan, and Krishnan before them, to configure Jacobus’s encoder-based control device (in the Jacobus/Hogan Claim 8 system) so that the measured motor rotary position is expressed relative to the stator reference frame as taught by Krishnan, because stator-referenced rotor/shaft position is a routine motor-drive coordinate convention and predictable implementation detail for closed-loop motor control, thereby yielding the claimed sensor configuration for determining angular position of the shaft relative to the stator.
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of Jacobus, Hogan, and Krishnan establishes the control device of Claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 11.
Disclosure by Jacobus
Jacobus discloses:
An aircraft
See at least: "an aircraft-type sidearm-grip control stick (or handle) 52... for use in simulations of driving or flying." (Col. 5, lines 21-25)
Rationale: Jacobus discloses a control stick specifically designated as an aircraft-type device for use in flying. While the reference describes the haptic hardware, it would be inherent and obvious to a PHOSITA that such an interface is intended to be integrated into the vehicle it controls, namely an aircraft, as the "aircraft-type" designation provides the direct functional link to the vehicle platform.
comprising the control device.
See at least: "the manipulator levitates an aircraft-type sidearm-grip control stick (or handle) 52... Position sensing per axis is effected by using optical encoders... mounted on each motor housing." (Col. 5, lines 20–21; Col. 7, lines 49–50, 66–67)
Rationale: Jacobus teaches the vehicle platform comprising the control device of claim 9 by disclosing the physical stick assembly (from claim 8) and the specific sensor (optical encoder) mounted on the motor housing/stator (from claim 9). In the context of an aircraft environment, the reference teaches the platform comprising the control device of claim 9 to facilitate flight operations with sensed state feedback.
Motivation to Combine Jacobus, Hogan, and Krishnan
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Jacobus, Hogan, and Krishnan before them, to provide an aircraft comprising the control device established by the combination of Jacobus, Hogan, and Krishnan. Jacobus explicitly teaches haptic "aircraft-type" control stick hardware for use in "flying," and Hogan teaches the impedance-control framework required to determine the specific intensities that define the "feel" and stability of such interfaces. A PHOSITA would be motivated to integrate the haptic device of Jacobus—equipped with the motor-mounted position sensors of claim 9 and governed by the impedance laws of Hogan—into an aircraft to provide the pilot with realistic, programmable tactile feedback. This integration yields the predictable result of an aircraft comprising the control device of claim 9 to provide a high-fidelity control interface that masks physical dynamics and improves situational awareness through intuitive force-feedback.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s traversal of independent Claim 1 is not persuasive
Applicant mischaracterizes the rejection by treating Jacobus kinematic state variables as the claimed “first,” “second,” and “third” intensities
Applicant argues that Jacobus allegedly teaches only “velocity” and “acceleration,” and that these are not three distinct “intensities” representing stiffness, damping, and inertia. This argument is not responsive to the rejection as made.
The rejection does not rely on Jacobus’ velocity and acceleration signals as the claimed first/second/third intensities. Rather, the rejection relies on:
Jacobus for the aircraft-control-stick hardware environment, motor/shaft/mechanical linkage, closed-loop control architecture, encoder-based rotary position sensing, and derived velocity/acceleration state variables; and
Hogan for the impedance-control framework in which K, B, and M are the stiffness-, damping-, and inertia-related coefficients/intensities associated with position-, velocity-, and acceleration-related terms, respectively (e.g., Eq. (11)).
Thus, Applicant’s argument that Jacobus teaches only “two data” (velocity and acceleration) does not address the actual mapping of the claimed “intensities” to Hogan’s impedance parameters as applied in the Jacobus implementation environment.
Applicant applies an improper express-disclosure standard to an obviousness rejection
Applicant repeatedly argues that neither Jacobus nor Hogan expressly discloses the exact claim language requiring the intensities to be “determined from” the recited physical parameters and setpoints (e.g., physical stiffness + stiffness setpoint; physical damping + damping setpoint; physical inertia + inertia setpoint).
This argument is not persuasive because it applies an anticipation-like standard to a rejection under §103. The rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), not on a requirement that a single reference recite the claim language verbatim.
As set forth in the rejection:
Jacobus teaches the physical motor-stick mechanical connection (including shaft/transmission/stick hardware) and motor-state sensing/estimation context;
Hogan teaches programmable impedance control using stiffness/damping/inertia parameters (K/B/M), including command-dependent parameterization and position/velocity/acceleration-based control structure.
A PHOSITA would have understood that implementation of Hogan’s impedance framework in Jacobus’ haptic aircraft-control-stick system would require selecting/determining the coefficients (claimed intensities) in view of both:
the physical dynamics/mechanical properties of the Jacobus linkage/stick/motor system, and
the desired commanded interface behavior (setpoints/target “feel”) to be rendered at the stick.
Accordingly, Applicant’s insistence that Hogan must expressly enumerate the exact six claimed inputs within control-command set “c” is not required to sustain the §103 rejection.
Applicant’s “linear combination cannot result in torque” argument is premised on an incorrect coefficient mapping
Applicant contends that multiplying angular position, speed, and acceleration by the values identified by the Examiner (which Applicant characterizes as Jacobus velocity/acceleration signals) “cannot result in a torque.”
This argument is not persuasive because it again attacks a mischaracterized rejection. The rejection does not equate the claimed intensities with Jacobus kinematic signals. The rejection maps the claimed intensities to Hogan’s stiffness/damping/inertia coefficients (K, B, M) and maps Jacobus to the hardware and sensed/derived kinematic state variables (position/velocity/acceleration).
Hogan expressly teaches a linear additive impedance law (e.g., Eq. (11)) in which position-, velocity-, and acceleration-related terms are weighted by stiffness-, damping-, and inertia-related coefficients. In the Jacobus motor-control context, a PHOSITA would have implemented the equivalent torque-domain control law using the Jacobus encoder-derived motor-state variables. Thus, Applicant’s dimensional criticism is directed to a strawman interpretation and does not rebut the actual rationale of the rejection.
Applicant’s assertion that Hogan is “too generic” is not persuasive in view of Jacobus supplying the concrete implementation environment
Applicant argues that Hogan does not disclose a stick, motor shaft, or mechanical connection, and is therefore too generic to support the claim.
This is not persuasive because the rejection is based on a combination. Jacobus expressly supplies the concrete aircraft-control-stick hardware environment, including:
stick/handle,
motor(s),
shaft/mechanical linkage/transmission,
processor/computer,
encoder-based motor rotary position sensing,
derived velocity/acceleration signals, and
computed motor torque values.
Hogan supplies the known impedance-control framework (K/B/M on position/velocity/acceleration terms) used in human-machine interfaces. Applying a known impedance-control law to a known haptic aircraft-control-stick motor system to obtain programmable force/torque feedback is a predictable combination and is supported by articulated reasoning in the rejection.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument does not overcome the motivation-to-combine rationale.
Applicant’s arguments directed to Claim 8 (and parallel device claims) are not persuasive for substantially the same reasons
Applicant asserts that independent device claim 8 is distinguished for the same reasons as Claim 1. This argument is not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above.
The rejection of Claim 8 relies on:
Jacobus for the aircraft control device hardware (stick, motor, shaft, stator-inherent motor structure, mechanical connection, processing unit, torque computation, encoder sensing / derived kinematics context), and
Hogan for the programmable impedance-control parameter framework corresponding to stiffness/damping/inertia intensities and their linear-combination use with position/velocity/acceleration-related terms.
Applicant’s arguments do not persuasively address the combined Jacobus/Hogan mapping and instead apply the same improper requirement of verbatim single-reference disclosure and the same mischaracterization of the claimed intensities.
Claims 2–4 (Jacobus + Hogan + Rao) — Applicant’s traversal is not persuasive to the extent it demands verbatim disclosure of the exact closed-form equations
With respect to dependent Claims 2–4, the rejection relies on:
Jacobus for the mechanical hardware/transmission/stick geometry context (including reduction ratio and stick geometry variables),
Hogan for the stiffness/damping/inertia impedance-parameter framework and commanded target behavior, and
Rao for the Jacobian-based actuator/interface transformation framework (including joint-/Cartesian-space parameter mapping) that a PHOSITA would use in deriving the claimed motor-space intensity expressions.
The rejection does not require that Rao (or any single reference) recite the exact closed-form scalar equations verbatim. Rather, the rejection articulates that the claimed formulas are the predictable result of applying known transformation and compliant-coupling modeling principles to the combined Jacobus/Hogan/Rao framework.
To the extent Applicant argues that the exact equations are not expressly written in the cited references, such argument is not persuasive against the §103 rejection because the rejection expressly identifies those equations as PHOSITA derivations/implementations supported by the combined teachings and predictable-results rationale.
Claims 7, 9, and 11 (Jacobus + Hogan + Krishnan) — Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection
For the claims directed to current-control implementation details and sensor-equipped control device integration:
Jacobus teaches the brushless DC motor force-feedback system, current drive commands, PWM-based motor-current setting, motor torque computation, and motor-position sensing architecture;
Hogan provides the overarching impedance-control framework (for the parent claims); and
Krishnan teaches standard motor current-control loop implementation details, including current feedback measurement and PI current regulation.
Applicant has not shown reversible error in the rejection’s finding that incorporating known current-regulation architecture (Krishnan) into Jacobus’ brushless-DC force-feedback system operating under the Jacobus/Hogan control framework would have been obvious as a predictable implementation refinement.
Applicant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the articulated motivation to combine
Applicant’s traversal largely asserts that:
Hogan is generic,
Jacobus does not expressly disclose the claimed intensity semantics, and
the exact claimed parameter computations are not written verbatim.
These arguments do not persuasively rebut the rejection because they do not address the full combination rationale, namely:
Jacobus provides the specific motorized aircraft-control-stick hardware and sensed motor-state environment.
Hogan provides the known programmable impedance-control law (stiffness/damping/inertia coefficients applied to position/velocity/acceleration terms).
Rao (for Claims 2–4 / as applicable) provides established actuator/interface mathematical transformation principles used by a PHOSITA to synthesize actuator-domain control intensities from interface-domain targets in coupled systems.
Krishnan (for Claims 7, 9, 11 / as applicable) provides standard current-regulation implementation architecture for brushless motor drives.
The Office has set forth an articulated rationale with rational underpinning for the combinations, and Applicant has not shown that the results would have been unpredictable or beyond ordinary skill.
Examiner 103 Conclusion
For at least the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are therefore maintained.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 10 remain rejected over Jacobus in view of Hogan.
Claims 2–4 remain rejected over Jacobus in view of Hogan and Rao.
Claims 7, 9, and 11 remain rejected over Jacobus in view of Hogan and Krishnan.
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 OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 5PM).
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662