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 .
Status of the Claims
This office action is made in response to applicant’s arguments filed on 12/23/2025 wherein, claims 1, 11, 13, and 20 have been amended, claims 21-23 have been added, and no claims have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites “each respective trim map corresponds to a different operational state”. However, claim 23 depends from claim 1, which in turn recites “trim maps”, however, does not explicitly recite respective trim maps (i.e. trim maps respective to specific parameters, conditions, states, or values). Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “each respective trim map” in the claim nor in the claim from which it depends. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are considered indefinite. For examination purposes, claim 23 is broadly interpreted in view of the teachings of the prior art reference considered herein.
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.
Claims 1- 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin (US-20190332125-A1) in view Hagerott1 (US1096097B1) and Hagerott2 (US 20170284856 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, Irwin discloses a method for controlling an aircraft, the method comprising:
accessing input data indicative of at least airspeed of the aircraft; determining trim values based at least in part on the input data, accessing data indicative of the trim values by a flight controller; and controlling, using the flight controller, operation of the aircraft based at least in part on the trim values ([0042]-[0045]; [0051]; [0061]).
However, Irwin does not explicitly state a trim scheduler, the trim values comprising an angle of attack trim value for the aircraft, wherein the trim scheduler is configured to utilize one or more predetermined schedules or trim maps to determine the trim values based at least in part on input data.
On the other hand, Hagerott1 teaches the trim values comprising an angle of attack trim value for the aircraft ([0016];[0020]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Irwin reference and include features from the Hagerott1 reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides a more complete and robust set of trim values reflective of the aircraft’s aerodynamic condition.
Furthermore, Hagerott2 teaches a trim scheduler, wherein the trim scheduler is configured to utilize one or more predetermined schedules or trim maps to determine the trim values based at least in part on input data ([0053]: “Specifically, method 300 uses a “trim map” of historical flight data that provides horizontal control surface angles versus dynamic pressure values for a range of aircraft weights. Method 300 is for example executed by an air data computer onboard the aircraft, such as air data computer 550 , FIG. 5 for example.”; [0058]; [0062]; [0067]: “CLα lookup table 534 is used to determine CLα , based on airspeed and flap position and used for example in step 234 , FIG. 2.”; [0068]: “Angle of attack (AOA) indicator 535 is provided to indicate the aircraft's calibrated AOA, α, which is used to determine the lift coefficient, CL , as shown in Equation 1, for example. AOA indicator 535 is for example an AOA vane or a multi-port probe used to provide AOA information in steps 135 and 235 , FIGS. 1 and 2, respectively”).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Irwin reference and include features from the Hagerott2 reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides a more complete and robust set of trim values reflective of the aircraft’s aerodynamic condition.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Irwin discloses the trim values further comprise a respective tilt angle trim value for each tilt propulsion unit of the aircraft ([0051]: Nacelle angle; [0056]).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Irwin discloses the trim values further comprise at least one of: a respective rotational speed trim value for each tilt propulsion unit of the aircraft; a respective propeller pitch angle trim value for each tilt propulsion unit of the aircraft; a respective expected torque trim value for each tilt propulsion unit of the aircraft; or a respective angle trim value for each control surface of the aircraft ([0056]).
Regarding claim 4, Irwin discloses flight regimes of the aircraft comprise a wing-borne flight regime, a thrust-borne flight regime, and a transition flight regime; and controlling operation of the aircraft comprises controlling operation of the aircraft based at least in part on the trim values while the aircraft is in the transition flight regime ([0042]; [0050]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Irwin does not explicitly state the input data is further indicative of one or both of commanded longitudinal acceleration and commanded normal acceleration.
On the other hand, Hagerott1 teaches the input data is further indicative of one or both of commanded longitudinal acceleration and commanded normal acceleration ([0017]-[0020]; [0022]; [0024]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Irwin reference and include features from the Hagerott1 reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides a more complete and robust set of trim values reflective of the aircraft’s aerodynamic condition.
Regarding claim 6, Irwin does not explicitly state determining the trim values comprises computing the angle of attack trim value based at least in part on the airspeed, the commanded longitudinal acceleration, and the commanded normal acceleration.
On the other hand, Hagerott1 teaches determining the trim values comprises computing the angle of attack trim value based at least in part on the airspeed, the commanded longitudinal acceleration, and the commanded normal acceleration ([0016]: “Accelerometer 121 may include three accelerometers oriented orthogonally along all three axes (e.g., X, Y, and Z axes). Rate indicator 123 measures rotational rates, and is for example, a gyroscope-based device that measures a rotational rate of aircraft motion in all axes to determine rates of yaw, pitch, and roll. For the purposes of automatic yaw enhancement system 100 , avionics suite 120 may optionally include (as indicated by dashed lines in FIG. 1) an airspeed indicator 124 , an angle of attack (AOA) indicator 125 , a thrust indicator 126 , and a sideslip angle indicator 127 . Information from avionics suite 120 may be transmitted to automatic yaw controller 112 and autopilot flight controller 114 by a wired and/or wireless communication media”; Note: Acceleration measured along all three axes implies longitudinal and normal acceleration valuesl [0020]; [0022]-[0024]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Irwin reference and include features from the Hagerott1 reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides a more complete and robust set of trim values reflective of the aircraft’s aerodynamic condition.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Irwin discloses flight regimes of the aircraft comprise a wing-borne flight regime, a thrust-borne flight regime, and a transition flight regime ([0050]); and determining the trim values comprises computing the trim value from a monotonic set of trim values that are inversely related with the airspeed in the transition flight regime such that the trim values in the monotonic set of trim value increase as the airspeed decreases in the transition flight regime ([0042]; [0050]-[0054]; [0061]: Tilt decreasing with increasing airspeed, is broadly interpreted as monotonic relationship between trim values and airspeed).
However, Irwin does not explicitly state the angle of attack trim value.
On the other hand, Hagerott1 teaches the angle of attack trim value ([0068]: “Angle of attack (AOA) indicator 535 is provided to indicate the aircraft's calibrated AOA, α, which is used to determine the lift coefficient, CL , as shown in Equation 1, for example. AOA indicator 535 is for example an AOA vane or a multi-port probe used to provide AOA information in steps 135 and 235 , FIGS. 1 and 2, respectively”).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Irwin reference and include features from the Hagerott1 reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides a more complete and robust set of trim values reflective of the aircraft’s aerodynamic condition.
Regarding claim 8, Irwin does not explicitly state the angle of attack trim values in the monotonic set of angle of attack trim values are no greater than twelve degrees and no less than negative twelve degrees.
On the other hand, Hagerott1 teaches the angle of attack trim values in the monotonic set of angle of attack trim values are no greater than twelve degrees and no less than negative twelve degrees ([0016]; [0020]; [0027]; and [0030]; Note: The +/- 12 degrees is implicit from the ability of the Hagerott reference to impose practical limits on the desired values).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Irwin reference and include features from the Hagerott1 reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides a safe operation during transition.
Regarding claim 9, Irwin discloses determining the trim values comprises computing a tilt rate for each tilt propulsion unit of the aircraft that does not exceed a tilt rate limit for each tilt propulsion unit ([0042]; [0087]; [0118]; [0120]; [0152]).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Irwin discloses the flight regimes of the aircraft comprise a wing-borne flight regime, a thrust-borne flight regime, and a transition flight regime; and determining the trim values further comprises computing the trim value ([0042]; [0051]-[0054]; [0056]).
However, Irwin does not explicitly state angle of attack trim values and determining the trim values such that a longitudinal acceleration of the aircraft is substantially constant in a nominal flight path of the transition flight regime.
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a person in the art to perform the determination step on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of maintaining the longitudinal acceleration constant as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416
On the other hand, Hagerott1 teaches angle of attack trim values ([0016]; [0020]; [0022]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Irwin reference and include features from the Hagerott1 reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides a safe operation during transition.
Regarding claim 11, Irwin does not explicitly state, the longitudinal acceleration of the aircraft is no greater than one-half gravitational force equivalent and no less than negative one-half gravitational force equivalent during the transition.
On the other hand, Hagerott1 teaches the longitudinal acceleration of the aircraft is no greater than one-half gravitational force equivalent and no less than negative one-half gravitational force equivalent during the transition ([0016]; [0020]; [0022]; Note: The +/- 0.5 gravitational force is implicit from the ability of the Hagerott1 reference to impose practical limits on the desired values).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Irwin reference and include features from the Hagerott1 reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides a safe operation during transition.
Regarding claim 12, Irwin discloses each tilt propulsion unit of the aircraft comprises a variable pitch propeller ([0041]: collective blade pitch trim, which requires variable pitch propellers).
Regarding claim 16, Irwin discloses controlling operation of the aircraft comprises controlling operation of the aircraft based at least in part on the trim values while the aircraft is in a transition flight regime ([0042]; [0050]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 17, Irwin does not explicitly state the input data is further indicative of one or both of commanded longitudinal acceleration and commanded normal acceleration, and determining the trim values comprises computing the angle of attack trim value based at least in part on the airspeed and the commanded longitudinal acceleration, and the commanded normal acceleration.
On the other hand, Hagerott1 teaches the input data is further indicative of one or both of commanded longitudinal acceleration and commanded normal acceleration, and determining the trim values comprises computing the angle of attack trim value based at least in part on the airspeed and the commanded longitudinal acceleration, and the commanded normal acceleration ([0042]; [0050]-[0054]; [0061]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Irwin reference and include features from the Hagerott1 reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides a more complete and robust set of trim values reflective of the aircraft’s aerodynamic condition.
Regarding claim 23, Irwin does not explicitly state each respective trim map corresponds to a different operational state.
On the other hand, Hagerott2 teaches each respective trim map corresponds to a different operational state ([0053];[0058]: “The trim map is a series of curves from historical flight data relating Q with horizontal control surface position, such as a horizontal stabilizer angle for example, as a function of Mach number, M, and optionally the calibrated AOA, α. The trim map may optionally include horizontal control surface position as a function of CG . FIG. 4, described below, shows an exemplary plot of horizontal stabilizer angle versus dynamic pressure values for a range of aircraft weight and CG positions.”; [0061]; [0062]; See 112(b) rejection above).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Irwin reference and include features from the Hagerott2 reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so provides a more complete and robust set of trim values reflective of the aircraft’s aerodynamic condition.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin (US-20190332125-A1), Hagerott1 (US1096097B1), and Hagerott2 (US 20170284856 A1), in further view of JIANG (CN 117246511 A; Examiner relied on english translation attached).
Regarding claim 21, Irwin discloses the aircraft is adjustable between a wing-borne flight regime and a thrust-borne flight regime ([0042]; [0050]-[0054]).
However, Irwin does not explicitly state the aircraft comprises six tilt propulsion units, and
On the other hand, jiang teaches the aircraft comprises six tilt propulsion units, and the aircraft is adjustable between a wing-borne flight regime and a thrust-borne flight regime (Page 2, Lines 35-43: “In the initial state, the rotating surfaces of these four propellers are horizontal, and the direction of lift generated is vertically upward; the direction of the lift generated by the unconventional six-rotor aircraft is vertically upward”).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Irwin reference and include features from the JIANG reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Implementing a greater number of tilt propulsion units as a matter of design choice improves redundancy and load distribution.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin (US-20190332125-A1), Hagerott1 (US1096097B1), and Hagerott2 (US 20170284856 A1), in further view of Varriale (NPL attached).
Regarding claim 22, Irwin does not explicitly state the aircraft is underdetermined, and the trimvalues constrain the aircraft to a single trim solution.
On the other hand, Varriale teaches the aircraft is underdetermined (Pages 2-3, “under-determined…due to control effectors redundancy”, and the trimvalues constrain the aircraft to a single trim solution (Page 3, “a constrained optimization problem”; Page 4, “linear equality and inequality constraints”, pages 5 and 6: control forces are mapped to actuator deflections through control allocation).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Irwin reference and include features from the Varriale reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Constraining trim solution selection to the aircraft control system resolves the redundancy of control effectors and ensures a stable trim condition.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vos (US-20030191561-A1) discloses a method and apparatus are provided for controlling a dynamic device having multi-inputs and operating in an environment having multiple operating parameters. A method of designing flight control laws using multi-input, multi-output feedback LTI'zation is also provided. The method includes steps of: (i) determining coordinates for flight vehicle equations of motion; (ii) transforming the coordinates for the flight vehicle equations of motion into a multi-input linear time invariant system; (iii) establishing control laws yielding the transformed equations of motion LTI; (iv) adjusting the control laws to obtain a desired closed loop behavior for the controlled system; and (v) converting the transformed coordinates control laws to physical coordinates.
MASEFIELD (US-20230234718-A1) discloses a lift augmentation system for a blown lift aircraft includes a blown lift tailplane operatively coupled to the blown lift aircraft. The blown lift tailplane may include a leading edge and a trailing edge, an upper surface and a lower surface, and a first side and a second side. The lift augmentation system may include one or more tailplane thrust-producing devices on the first side and the second side of the blown lift tailplane operatively coupled to the leading edge of the blown lift tailplane. The one or more tailplane thrust-producing devices on the first side and the second side of the blown lift tailplane may produce a plurality of slipstreams corresponding to each of the tailplane thrust-producing devices. The plurality of slipstreams corresponding to each of the tailplane thrust-producing devices may blow over the upper surface and the lower surface of the blown lift tailplane.
Burrage (US-20070158494-A1) discloses A tilt-rotor aircraft ( 1 ) comprising a pair of contra-rotating co-axial tiltable rotors ( 11 ) on the longitudinal centre line of the aircraft. The rotors ( 11 ) may be tiltable sequentially and independently. They may be moveable between a lift position and a flight position in front of or behind the fuselage ( 19 ).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/S.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666