DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 9 improves the clarity of the language, but raises a new issue in claim 9. See U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 14 remedies the U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the office action dated 10/17/2025, therefore this rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remarks state that it is unclear how Markert discloses "a piloting device configured to control the power device according to a movement command for the moving part received from a device for generating the movement command for the moving part". The office action dated 10/17/2025 has mapped structures 16, 22 to be the "piloting device". Motor 16 and pump 22 are configured to control the power device which is a hydraulic cylinder by providing pressurized fluid to chambers of the hydraulic cylinder to move the moving part which is the piston, as stated in the office action.
By selectively supplying pressurized fluid to the hydraulic cylinder based on implicit movement commands from an operator or controller/the implemented commands in light of Anderson, the combination of the motor and the pump meets the limitation of the piloting device. The device must be operated/actuated in some manner, and this is done by controlling operation of the motor which drives the pump to move the piston in the hydraulic cylinder, therefore a movement command is implicit.
The piloting device in the form of the electric motor that drives a pump is controlled according to a command to operate, which causes pressurized fluid to move the piston within the hydraulic cylinder. This is consistent with applicant’s disclosure which recites the piloting device 60 to comprise piloting unit 62 which comprises electronic, mechanical, and/or hydraulic accessories 68, 70, which include a pistons, distributors, etc. which includes pump pistons and motors.
Applicants remarks state that the coupling housing 46 does not present an "external surface of the shaped portion matching the shape of at least one electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessory and/or of at least one of the tubular cavities" as recited in amended claim 1 and that the office action appears to interpret “matching” as being completely non-limiting.
However, examiner disagrees because the language is too broad and it is improper to import limitations from the specification into the claims
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
"matching" is defined as "having the same appearance, design, etc."
"portion" is defined as "an often limited part of a whole"
"shape" is defined as a "spatial form or contour"
Applicant's limitation is so broad that the circled flat external surface on structure 46 constitutes a portion that matches the shape of the circled flat surface on structure 28. The surfaces are matching because they both have a flat shape. They are portions because they are part of the whole respective structure. See annotated Markert Fig. 7’
To overcome this broadest reasonable interpretation, further limitations are required such as language similar to: "wherein a perpendicular distance from an external surface of the body to surface of at least one electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories and/or at least one of the tubular cavities, is equidistant over an area of at least one shaped portion of the body such that the external surface of the body matches a shape of said at least one electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories and/or at least one of the tubular cavities".
PNG
media_image1.png
387
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"a piloting device configured to control the power device according to a movement command for the moving part received from a device for generating the movement command for the moving part," in claim 1.
The specification discloses the following corresponding structure:
[0035] Referring to Figures 2 and 3, the servocontrol 18 comprises a power device 30 configured to move the moving part 12 and a piloting device 60 configured to control the power device 30 according to the movement command for the moving part 12 received from the device 16 of the aircraft 10.
[0036] Advantageously, as illustrated in Figures 2 to 4, the servocontrol 18 further comprises a coupling device 120 between the power device 30 and the piloting device 60.
"a device for generating the movement command for the moving part," in claim 1
The specification discloses the following corresponding structure:
[0029] The control architecture 14 comprises a device 16 for generating a movement command for the moving part 12 configured to generate a movement command for the moving part 12 and a servocontrol 18 for controlling the position of the moving part, according to the movement command for the moving part 12.
[0033] The device 16 is configured to generate the movement command for the moving part 12 based on an actuation of the control system 20 by the pilot.
[0034] The device 16 is e.g. an onboard computer.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9 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.
112(b)
Claim 9, recites "each of the two ends connecting to:
-the at least one first coupling portion;
-the at least one second coupling portion; or
-at least a first of the electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories”
It is unclear whether this means that at least one end or both of the two ends can be connected to “the at least one first coupling portion”, or “the at least one second coupling portion” or “at least a first of the electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories”. The recitation of “each of the two ends connecting to” seems to indicate that both ends can be connected to one of the following structures listed.
Claim 14 repeats "a device for generating a movement command for the moving part configured to generate a movement command for the moving part;", which is already recited in claim 1. It is unclear whether or not this is a different device than the device recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 5-9, 11-14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markert et al. (US 11149763), hereinafter ‘Markert’ in view of Anderson et al. (US 5615593), hereinafter ‘Anderson’.
Markert discloses:
Claim 1 (original): A servocontrol for controlling a position of a moving part of an aircraft, comprising:
a power device configured to move the moving part, the power device comprising at least one hydraulic cylinder (1, 30, etc. ) extending along a cylinder axis; and a piloting device (16, 22) configured to control the power device according to a movement command for the moving part (16, 22 provides hydraulic power to the hydraulic cylinder and which moves the piston rod and the structure its connected to)
the piloting device comprising at least one piloting unit further comprising:
a set of electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories in fluidic communication with the hydraulic cylinder (accessories 22, 18, 16,); and a body (6, 10) delimiting a network of tubular cavities fluidically connecting the electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories as well as the hydraulic cylinder, the body comprising an external surface (see Fig. 6, external surface of body 10 and 6 apparent),
at least one first coupling portion for coupling the network and the hydraulic cylinder and at least one second coupling portion for coupling the network and the hydraulic cylinder (first and second coupling portion 38 and 40), a neutral axis being defined for each tubular cavity; wherein the neutral axis of at least one tubular cavity is curved (Fig. 5, tubular cavity 42 has a curved neutral axis, and connects the fluid network to the hydraulic cylinder 1, 30);
wherein the body comprising at least one shaped portion, the external surface of the shaped portion matching the shape of at least one electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessory and/or of at least one of the tubular cavities (absent further limitations what is required by the term “matching”, 46 appears to be a shaped portion of the body that matches a shape of accessory 28;
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
"matching" is defined as "having the same appearance, design, etc."
"portion" is defined as "an often limited part of a whole"
"shape" is defined as a "spatial form or contour"
Applicant's limitation is so broad that the circled flat external surface on structure 46 constitutes a portion that matches the shape of the circled flat surface on structure 28. The surfaces are matching because they both have a flat shape. They are portions because they are part of the whole respective structure. See annotated Markert Fig. 7’).
Markert does not disclose a moving part of an aircraft that is controlled with the linear actuator and does not disclose receiving a movement command from a device for generating the movement command for the moving part.
However, Anderson discloses a linear actuator similar to Markert and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Anderson discloses a servocontrol for controlling a position of a moving part (Anderson, 10) of an aircraft, comprising:
a power device (Anderson, 12) configured to move the moving part 10, the power device comprising at least one hydraulic cylinder (Anderson, 12) extending along a cylinder axis; and a piloting device (Anderson, Fig. 2) configured to control the power device according to a movement command for the moving part received from a device (Anderson, 22) for generating the movement command for the moving part,
the piloting device comprising at least one piloting unit further comprising: a set of electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories (Anderson, 26, 20, 18, etc.) in fluidic communication with the hydraulic cylinder.
Since using linear actuators to move a component on an aircraft with a command from an device that generates the movement command for the component, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Markert to have been coupled to an aircraft component and controlled with a device as taught by Anderson as a matter of applying known techniques to a known device to yield only the expected result of having a hydraulic linear actuator move an aircraft component as desired by an operator such as a pilot. The piloting device in the form of the electric motor that drives a pump is controlled according to a command to operate, which causes pressurized fluid to move the piston within the hydraulic cylinder. This is consistent with applicant’s disclosure which recites the piloting device 60 to comprise piloting unit 62 which comprises electronic, mechanical, and/or hydraulic accessories 68, 70, which include a pistons, distributors, etc. which includes pump pistons and motors.
The combination of Markert and Anderson further renders obvious:
Claim 2 (original): The servocontrol according to claim 1, wherein the body of the at least one piloting unit is made by additive manufacturing (Col. 2 lines 49-53).
Claim 5 (original): The servocontrol according to claim 1, wherein a radius of curvature of the at least one curved neutral axis is continuously differentiable (see Fig. 5, curvature appears continuously differentiable).
Claim 6 (original): The servocontrol according to claim 1, wherein each tubular cavity has no sharp edge between ends thereof (Col. 2 lines 53-55, see Fig. 5, no sharp edges between ends of the tubular cavity 42).
Claim 7 (original): The servocontrol according to claim 1, wherein at least one tubular cavity has no bifurcation and/or tap-off between ends thereof (see Fig. 5, no bifurcation or tap-off between ends of cavity 42).
Claim 8 (original): The servocontrol according to claim 7, wherein the at least one tubular cavity having no bifurcation and/or tap-off between the ends thereof is the at least one tubular cavity the neutral axis of which being curved (see Fig. 5, no bifurcation or tap-off between ends of cavity 42 that has the curved neutral axis).
Claim 9 (original): The servocontrol according to claim 1, wherein each tubular cavity extends between two ends, each of the two ends connecting to:
- the at least one first coupling portion (tubular cavity 42 extends between the first and second coupling portions 38 and 40);
- the at least one second coupling portion (tubular cavity 42 extends between the first and second coupling portions 38 and 40); or
- at least one of the electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories;
the at least one curved neutral axis extending along a shortest path between two ends thereof that avoids: other tubular cavities, of the electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories and of the external surface.
Claim 11 (original): The servocontrol according to claim 10, wherein the at least one tubular cavity, the shape of which being matched by the external surface of the shaped portion, is the at least one tubular cavity the neutral axis of which being curved (see Fig. 3, absent further limitations what is required by the term “matched”, the shape of 38 and 40 are matched by the external surface of 10, i.e. circular port, kidney shaped ports).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the combination of Markert and Anderson renders obvious the servocontrol according to claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the shaped portion of the body has a thickness, taken orthogonally with respect to the external surface of the shaped portion between the external surface and: a nearest of the tubular cavities; or a nearest of the electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories; the thickness being comprised between 1 mm and 10 mm or between 1 mm and 5 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used these thicknesses as a matter of scale/proportion of the overall device disclosed in the prior art. Since the prior art does not specify the sizing of the device, one of ordinary skill would be able to select a size and scale all components as desired, and it would be obvious to use a thickness between 1 mm and 5 mm as claimed.
Further, since applicant has not disclosed that having the thickness between 1mm and 5 mm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that this thickness is suitable and it appears that the device of Markert would perform equally well with a thickness between 1mm and 5mm as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the thicknesses of Markert by using the thickness of between 1mm and 5mm as claimed for the purpose of having forming a housing of suitable strength/durability and weight.
Claim 14 (original): An architecture for controlling a position of a moving part of an aircraft, comprising: the servocontrol according claim 1, for controlling the position of the moving part according to the movement command for the moving part; and the device for generating a movement command for the moving part configured to generate a movement command for the moving part (Anderson, a piloting device Fig. 2 configured to control the power device according to a movement command for the moving part received from a device 22 for generating the movement command for the moving part, Anderson discloses a moving part 10 of an aircraft).
Claim 19 (new): The servocontrol according to claim 1, wherein the external surface of the shaped portion matches the shape of at least one electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessory and of at least one of the tubular cavities (absent further limitations what is required by the term “matches”, 46 appears to be a shaped portion of the body that matches a shape of accessory 28;
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
"matching" is defined as "having the same appearance, design, etc."
"portion" is defined as "an often limited part of a whole"
"shape" is defined as a "spatial form or contour"
Applicant's limitation is so broad that the circled flat external surface on structure 46 constitutes a portion that matches the shape of the circled flat surface on structure 28. To overcome this reasonable broad interpretation, further limitations are required such as "wherein a perpendicular distance from an external surface of the body to surface of at least one electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories and/or at least one of the tubular cavities, is equidistant over at least one shaped portion of the body such that the external surface matches the shape of said at least one electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories and/or at least one of the tubular cavities").
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markert and Anderson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Afshari (US 10544810) and Brewer et al. (US 11518507), hereinafter ‘Brewer’, and Bayer et al. (US 5117633), hereinafter ‘Bayer’.
Regarding claims 3-4, the combination of Markert and Anderson does not explicitly disclose two different materials used in manufacturing the servocontrol device.
However, Afshari, Brewer, and Bayer all disclose a linear actuators similar to Markert and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Afshari discloses the body of the linear actuator being made form aluminum, and another component such as the pump being made of steel or another appropriate material, and discloses titanium as an appropriate metallic material (Afshar, Col. 49 lines 6-27). Brewer discloses that the output shaft eye end assembly (Brewer, 124) of the linear actuator is known to be made from aluminum to benefit from a lighter weight alloy. Bayer discloses a titanium alloy used to form the housing and valve components of its linear actuator (Bayer, Col. 3 lines 43-50).
Since linear actuators are known to be made from multiple distinct materials as discussed in Afshari, and using aluminum for part of the hydraulic cylinder is a known material choice and using titanium for the piloting unit including the housing/motor/pump is also a known material choice for these structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Markert in view of Anderson to have used wherein at least a part of the hydraulic cylinder is made of a first material, the body of the at least one piloting unit being made of a second material distinct from the first material, wherein the first material is an aluminum alloy and the second material is a titanium alloy in light of the prior art teaches as a matter of simple substitution for one acceptable material for another to yield only predictable results. The benefits to using aluminum as a material for the linear actuator includes being relatively lighter weight when compared to other metallic materials. The benefits to using titanium as a material for the piloting device includes increased strength when compared to other materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Markert and Anderson because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hurd (US 1145065) discloses an external surface of a shaped potion that matches the shape of at least one of the tubular cavities.
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 Dustin T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-0163. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/DUSTIN T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 March 13, 2026