DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling the application on 08/02/2023.
The application has claims 1-11 present. All present claims have been examined.
The Information Disclosure Statement document (IDS) and references submitted by applicant on 08/02/2023 have been reviewed and taken into consideration by the examiner.
This action is made Non-Final.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 5 and 8 are 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.
In regards to claim 5, the claim recites the limitation "said step of measuring the position (X(t)) of the actuator" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The step does not appear on the claim to which the claim depends on.
In regards to claim 8, the claim recites “wherein the deviation between the minimum position (Xmin) of the actuator and the maximum position (Xmax) of the actuator is between 100mm and 800mm” and the claim also recites “preferably between 500mm and 700mm” and also “preferably equal to 600mm.”. The claim is indefinite because it’s unclear which of these limitations are required or examples. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear as provided on the claim language, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For purposes of examination the examiner is interpreting the range to be set by hardware requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 describes determining a position of an actuating device element of an aircraft seat and calibrating said actuating device. The claim further determines functions, variables and constraints to make calculations and determination. The solving of the calculations, as briefly described above and as recited in claims 1, are mathematical concepts and a mental process (obtaining the positions angle and a desired reference angle and calculating the angular offset. See page. 2-3 paragraph 16 of the specification. Accordingly, claims 1 recites an abstract idea because the particular limitations, as briefly outlined above, fall into at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Limitations under Step 2A, prong 1:
The specific limitations of
- “placing … a predetermine position…”, “measuring…” (mental process)
- “comparing said initial position…” (mental process)
- “calculating the angular offset…” (mathematical process) performing calculations – mathematical concepts (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
Limitations under Step 2A, prong 2:
The limitations of
“Actuating device…”, “calculating unit…”, “angular position encoder…” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, (making the calculations to be applied to an actuating device on a seat) – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B – not significant more.
Thus, the recited “Method” is an abstract idea in that it is not tied to a particular machine or apparatus and it does not transform a particular article into a different state or thing. Furthermore, the additional element of using (calculating unit, angular encoder) computer as a tool to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the recited method is non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 2: measuring the position (X(t)) of the actuator at a given moment…, further describes the abstract idea and mathematical process previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 3: determining a position of at least one element to be actuated of an aircraft seat as a function of said position of the actuator at a given moment X(t), further describes the abstract idea and mathematical process previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 4: determining a minimum angular position (θmin) of the encoder corresponding to minimum position (Xmin) of said actuator, and a maximum angular position (θmax) of the encoder corresponding to a maximum position (Xmax) of said actuator, the maximum angular position (θmax) and the minimum angular position (θmin) having an absolute variance of less than 360 degrees., further describes the abstract idea and mathematical process previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim 5: wherein if (θmin) > (θmax), the method comprises, for 355°<θ< 365°: - a step of detecting the direction of rotation of said angular encoder; - a step of deactivating said step of measuring the position (X(t)) of the actuator at a given moment for a predetermined period, further describes the abstract idea and mathematical process previously identified in the independent claims. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea and are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-7, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhammad et al. (US 20080255788), in view of Kerecsen (US 20200294401), in view of Jacob Davis (https://www.campbellsci.com/blog/simplify-sensor-installation-using-wind-direction-offsets#:~:text=The%20360%20added%20with%20the,lines%20using%20If/Then%20statements.) Available 6/13/2022)
In regards to claim 1, Muhammad teaches a method for determining the position of an actuating device of at least one element for actuating an aircraft seat, the actuating device comprising a calculating unit, an actuator mounted to be movable in translation and/or in rotation on an output shaft so as to actuate the corresponding at least one element of an aircraft seat (see FIG. 2 and at least para 11-12, 16, 18-19: controller calculates positions, actuators and shafts connected to the actuators as shown on PIC 2), the method comprising a preliminary submethod of automatically calibrating said actuating device (see at least para 6, 11, 13-19: teaches calibration process using position/rotation data); the method comprising a preliminary submethod of automatically calibrating said actuating device comprising the following steps: a step of placing the actuator at a predetermined position (Xref) of an encoder; a step of measuring an initial positioning value (θini) of a position encoder when the actuator shaft is in the predetermined position (Xref); a step (103) of comparing said initial positioning value (θini) and said expected value (θatt) (see para 11-20: teaches determining positions of the actuator associated to the seat position using the as reference, comparing and determining a delta).
Although Muhammad mentions rotation data used to measure position (see para 16), it doesn’t specifically teach; (Xref) corresponding to an expected angle value (θatt) of the encoder; position angle value(θini); expected angle value (θatt); output shaft being connected to an angular position encoder so that a position (X) of the actuator on said output shaft corresponds to a single angular position (θ) of the angular position encoder.
Kerecsen teaches output shaft being connected to an angular position encoder so that a position (X) of the actuator on said output shaft corresponds to a single angular position (θ) of the angular position encoder (see para 455: teaches shaft encoder – angular position encoder “an angular position sensor may be based on a rotary encoder (a.k.a. shaft encoder), used for measuring angular position commonly by using a disc, which is rigidly fixed to the measured shaft, and contain conductive, optical, or magnetic tracks”.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Kerecsen combine with the teachings of Muhammad in order to have an angular potion encoder connected to the shaft. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to use a shaft encoder to properly measure the angular data to accomplish a proper calibration of the actuator.
Although Muhammad mentions rotation data used to measure position and determining deltas (interpreted as angular offset)(see para 16-20), it doesn’t specifically teach a step (104) of calculating the angular offset (θdecal) of the angular position encoder signal, with θdécal=(θini−θatt) [MODULO 360°], θdecal being between 0° and 359°.
Davis teaches calculating the angular offset (θdecal) of the angular position encoder signal, with θdécal=(θini−θatt) [MODULO 360°], θdecal being between 0° and 359° (see pages 1-2: teaches using modulo 360 calculation when calculating offset to make sure results are provided between 0-360 with no negative values).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Davis combine with the teachings of Muhammad in order to have an angular value result on offset always between 0-360. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine since by doing so the calibration would not result having erroneous values that can damage the movement of the actuators.
In regards to claim 4, although Muhammad doesn’t specifically mentions further comprising a step of determining a minimum angular position (θmin) of the encoder corresponding to a minimum position (Xmin) of said actuator, and a maximum angular position (θmax) of the encoder corresponding to a maximum position (Xmax) of said actuator the maximum angular position (θmax) and the minimum angular position (θmin) having an absolute variance of less than 360 degrees.
Muhammad does teach having two end positions e.g. a fully extended BED position and a takeoff-taxi-lading positions which are used as the two end positions determined and used in the calibration process which do not extend to more than 360 as the position of the seat do not accommodate to such extend for proper use between the fully extended BED position and a takeoff-taxi-lading positions (see para 11-16).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Muhammad in order to be able to have max and min positions for the actuator. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to have these in order to properly calibrate the movements until specific points in order to work properly without damaging the actuators and parts of the seat.
In regards to claim 6 Muhammad teaches an actuating device of at least one element for actuating an aircraft seat, the actuating device comprising a calculating unit, an actuator provided with an output shaft so as the actuate the corresponding at least one element of an aircraft seat, said device being configured to implement a method for determining the position of the actuating device according to claim 1 (see FIG. 2 and at least para 11-12, 16, 18-19: controller calculates positions, actuators and shafts connected to the actuators as shown on PIC 2),
Although Muhammad mentions rotation data used to measure position (see para 16), it doesn’t specifically teach said output shaft being connected to an angular position encoder so that a position (X) of the actuator on said output shaft corresponds to a single angular position (θ) of the encoder.
Kerecsen teaches said output shaft being connected to an angular position encoder so that a position (X) of the actuator on said output shaft corresponds to a single angular position (θ) of the encoder (see para 455: teaches shaft encoder – angular position encoder “an angular position sensor may be based on a rotary encoder (a.k.a. shaft encoder), used for measuring angular position commonly by using a disc, which is rigidly fixed to the measured shaft, and contain conductive, optical, or magnetic tracks”.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Kerecsen combine with the teachings of Muhammad in order to have an angular potion encoder connected to the shaft. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to use a shaft encoder to properly measure the angular data to accomplish a proper calibration of the actuator.
In regards to claim 7, although Muhammad doesn’t specifically mentions wherein the actuator can be moved between a minimum position (Xmin) corresponding to a single minimum angular position (θmin) of the encoder and a maximum position (Xmax) corresponding to a single maximum angular position (θmax) of the encoder, the deviation between the maximum angular position (θmax) and the minimum angular position (θmin) being less than 360 degrees.
Muhammad does teach having two end positions e.g. a fully extended BED position and a takeoff-taxi-lading positions which are used as the two end positions determined and used in the calibration process which do not extend to more than 360 as the position of the seat do not accommodate to such extend for proper use between the fully extended BED position and a takeoff-taxi-lading positions (see para 11-16).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Muhammad in order to be able to have max and min positions for the actuator. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to have these in order to properly calibrate the movements until specific points in order to work properly without damaging the actuators and parts of the seat.
In regards to claim 9 Muhammad doesn’t specifically teaches wherein the encoder is a magnetic encoder having a periodical proportional increasing or decreasing ramp response, the angular position (θ) at a given moment being measured by measuring the magnetic axis of a radially magnetised magnet attached to the actuator.
Kerecsen teaches wherein the encoder is a magnetic encoder having a periodical proportional increasing or decreasing ramp response, the angular position (θ) at a given moment being measured by measuring the magnetic axis of a radially magnetised magnet attached to the actuator. (see para 455: teaches shaft encoder – angular position encoder “an angular position sensor may be based on a rotary encoder (a.k.a. shaft encoder), used for measuring angular position commonly by using a disc, which is rigidly fixed to the measured shaft, and contain conductive, optical, or magnetic tracks”.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Kerecsen combine with the teachings of Muhammad in order to have an angular potion encoder connected to the shaft. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to use of the available a shaft encoder including magnetic ones to properly measure the angular data to accomplish a proper calibration of the actuator.
In regards to claim 11, Muhammad teaches Aircraft seat, comprising at least one element of a movable seat mobile, wherein the seat is provided with at least one actuating device according to claim 6 (see FIG. 2 and para 10-13: aircraft seat and components).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhammad et al. (US 20080255788), in view of Kerecsen (US 20200294401), in view of Jacob Davis as provided above, in view of Mattes et al. (US20070050111).
In regards to claim 8, Muhammad doesn’t teach wherein the deviation between the minimum position (Xmin) of the actuator and the maximum position (Xmax) of the actuator is between 100mm and 800mm, preferably between 500mm and 700mm, still more preferably equal to 600mm.
Mattes teaches wherein the deviation between the minimum position (Xmin) of the actuator and the maximum position (Xmax) of the actuator is between 100mm and 800mm, preferably between 500mm and 700mm, still more preferably equal to 600mm (As interpreted per 112(b) rejection above: see at least para 43: teaches limiting actuator to fixed lengths based on hardware consideration and movement need).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Mattes combine with the teachings of Muhammad in order to limit the actuator to fixed lengths based on hardware consideration and movement need. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to use these teachings in order to fixed the ranges as required for each of the actuators in order to properly move each part of the seat to the desired locations without exceeding hardware specifications and available spaces and constrains for the seat.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhammad et al. (US 20080255788), in view of Kerecsen (US 20200294401), in view of Davis and in view of Saito (US 7116099).
In regards to claim 10, Muhammad doesn’t teach wherein said calculating unit comprises a hysteresis filter.
Saito teaches wherein said calculating unit comprises a hysteresis filter (see abstract and col 1 lines 45-56, col 12, lines 59-64: using hysteresis compensation for angular sensor to improve accuracy).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings taught by Saito combine with the teachings of Muhammad in order to have means to filter hysteresis. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to use filters since it provides means to increase measurement accuracy (see lines 59-64).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5 are allowable over the prior art, however the 35 USC § 101 and 112(b) rejections above would still need to be overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30am-5:30pm ET.
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 Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. 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.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118