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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 5-14
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 5-14 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new references Dahl (US 5531402) and Mezzino (US 11852171).
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/17/2026, with respect to the U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the office action dated 03/17/2026 has been withdrawn.
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) in claim 1 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 § 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, 19is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl (US 5531402) in view of Mezzino et al. (US 11852171), hereinafter 'Mezzino'.
Regarding claim 1, Dahl discloses a servocontrol for controlling a position of a moving part of an aircraft (see Fig. 3-4), comprising:
a power device (45) configured to move the moving part, the power device comprising at least one hydraulic cylinder (45) extending along a cylinder axis (inherent to a cylinder); and a piloting device (28) configured to control the power device according to a movement command (Col. 7 lines 37-40, "pilot-generated flight control signals") for the moving part received from a device for generating the movement command for the moving part (Col. 7 discloses a pilot generating flight commands using devices and sending signals to hydraulic actuators with computer 28), 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 (manifold 42 including valves, reservoirs 40, pumps 41, etc.);
Dahl does not explicitly disclose the structure of the manifold and thus does not disclose a body 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, 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, a neutral axis being defined for each tubular cavity;
wherein the neutral axis of at least one tubular cavity is curved,
wherein the body comprises at least one shaped portion, a geometry of the external surface of the at least one shaped portion comprising a non-planar body surface that conforms to an outer geometry of at least one electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessory and/or of at least one of the tubular cavities.
However, Mezzino discloses a servocontrol for controlling a position of a moving part of an aircraft similar to Dahl and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Mezzino discloses "systems for use with such control modules can include aerospace applications such as aircraft...the hydraulic fluid in such examples may be used to control (e.g., actuator) various components, such as landing gear, flight control surfaces, actuators for rotors..." (Col. 1), comprising:
a power device configured to move the moving part, the power device comprising at least one hydraulic cylinder extending along a cylinder axis (Col. 2 lines 65-67, Col. 3 lines 1-13, a hydraulic system is disclosed to be used with the piloting device 100 and hydraulic actuators that control aircraft components); and
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 piloting device comprising at least one piloting unit (100) further comprising:
a set of electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories in fluidic communication with the hydraulic cylinder (accessories include valves 115 and the fluid tank 112, etc.); and
a body (114) delimiting a network of tubular cavities (120a, 112b) fluidically connecting the electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories (115a, 115b, 112, 100 etc.) as well as the hydraulic cylinder, the body comprising an external surface (see Fig. 3), 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 portions include valves 115 that are fluidly connected to a hydraulic fluid system that actuates aircraft components, Col. 5 lines 4-27;), a neutral axis being defined for each tubular cavity (see Fig. 4, each tubular cavity 120a, 120b have an inherent neutral axis);
wherein the neutral axis of at least one tubular cavity is curved (see Fig. 4, curved tubular cavities have a curved neutral axis),
wherein the body comprises at least one shaped portion (see Figures), a geometry of the external surface of the at least one shaped portion comprising a non-planar body surface that conforms to an outer geometry of at least one electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessory and/or of at least one of the tubular cavities (external surface of the body includes portions that conform the an outer geometry of the tubular cavities and/or the accessories, Col. 2 lines 50-58 discloses the entire housing formed as a single piece using additive manufacturing). Mezzino discloses that its device provides for a manifold that reduces weight by avoiding the need for an insulating piece around the tank (Col. 2 lines 43-49, Col. 4 lines 35-44) and provides fluid passages that reduces pressure losses by avoiding sharp bends and intersections (Col. 4 lines 57-63), and discloses supplying pressurized fluid to aircraft components including landing gears actuators, flight control surface actuators, etc. (Col. 5 lines 1-39).
Since Dahl does remains silent pertaining to the specific structures of its manifold, and since Mezzino discloses a suitable manifold structure that reduces weight, has improved heat dispersion, and reduces pressure losses due to sharp bends in fluid paths which are beneficial, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Dahl to have implemented a piloting device in the form of the fluid control module (Mezzino 100) which includes at least one piloting unit which includes a body 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, 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, a neutral axis being defined for each tubular cavity; wherein the neutral axis of at least one tubular cavity is curved, wherein the body comprises at least one shaped portion, a geometry of the external surface of the at least one shaped portion comprising a non-planar body surface that conforms to an outer geometry of at least one electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessory and/or of at least one of the tubular cavities as taught by Mezzino in place of the originally disclosed hydraulic manifold 42 and associated structures.
The combination of Dahl and Mezzino 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 (Mezzino, Col. 2 lines 50-58, Col. 4 lines 28-34, implemented device of Mezzino is formed by additive manufacturing).
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 implemented device Mezzino Fig. 3-5, tubes 120a, 120b each have implicit curved neutral axes which is the center axis of each respective tube).
Claim 6 (original): The servocontrol according to claim 1, wherein each tubular cavity has no sharp edge between ends thereof (see Mezzino Figs. 3-5, tubes 120a, 120b do not have sharp edges; Mezzino Col. 4 lines 57-63 discloses its device provides fluid passages that reduces pressure losses by avoiding sharp bends and intersections).
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 Mezzino Figs. 3-5, tubers 120a, 120b do not appear to have any bifurcation and/or tap-off between ends thereof).
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 Mezzino Figs. 3-5, curved tubes 120a, 120b do not appear to have any bifurcation and/or tap-off between ends thereof)..
Claim 9 (currently amended): The servocontrol according to claim 1, wherein each tubular cavity (Mezzino 120a, 120b) extends between a first end and a second end, the first end being configured for being connected to:
- the at least one first coupling portion (Mezzino first end of tubes 120a, 120b extends to a coupling portion 115a);
- the at least one second coupling portion (Mezzino first end tubes 120a, 120b extends to a coupling portions 115a); or
- at least one of the electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories (see Mezzino Col. 4-5);
the second end being designed to be connected to:
- the at least one first coupling portion or at least one of the electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories if the first end is connected to the at least one second coupling portion (Mezzino other end of tube connected to the tank 112, Col. 4 lines 57-63);
- the at least one second coupling portion or at least one of the electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories if the first end is connected to the at least one first coupling portion (see Mezzino Col. 4-5); or
- at least one of the electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories (see Mezzino Col. 4-5);
the at least one curved neutral axis extending along a shortest path between two ends thereof, the shortest path being constrained by a presence of the other tubular cavities, of the electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories and of the external surface, wherein the external surface matches the shape of the electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories and/or each tubular cavity respectively (Mezzino, the housing seen in Fig. 3 appear to have external surfaces that match the fluid tubes 120a, 120b, at least one of which appears to extend along a shortest path between its two ends thereof when the shortest path is constrained by the presents of the other structures such as the tank and other tubes and valves and etc.)
Claim 11 (Previously Presented): The servocontrol according to claim 1, 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 Mezzino tubes 120a, 120b).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the combination of Dahl and Mezzino renders obvious the servocontrol according to claim 1, 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 Dahl in view of Mezzino 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 Dahl and Mezzino by using the thickness of between 1mm and 5mm as claimed for the purpose of having forming a manifold housing of suitable strength/durability and weight.
Claim 14 (currently amended): An architecture for controlling a position of a moving part of an aircraft, comprising: the servocontrol according to claim 1; and the device for generating a movement command for the moving part configured to generate the movement command for the moving part; and the servocontrol configured for controlling the position of the moving part according to the movement command for the moving part (Dahl, Col. 7 discloses a pilot generating flight commands using devices and sending signals to hydraulic actuators with computer 28 to move the position of the moving part in accordance with the movement command, and discloses controlling the hydraulic system valves and etc.; see Col. 7-8).
Claim 19 (Previously Presented): The servocontrol according to claim 1, 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 of at least one of the tubular cavities (Mezzino, implemented body includes at least one shaped portion as seen in Mezzino Fig. 3 that matches the shape of at least the tubular cavities, etc.).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahl in view of Mezzino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Afshari (US10544810) and Brewer et al. (US 11518507), hereinafter 'Brewer', and Bayer et al. (US5117633), hereinafter 'Bayer'.
Regarding claims 3-4, the combination of Dahl in view of Mezzino does not explicitly disclose 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 or wherein the first material is an aluminum alloy and the second material is a titanium alloy.
However, Afshari, Brewer, and Bayer all disclose a linear actuators similar to the linear actuators used in the aircraft system of Dahl 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 Dahl in view of Mezzino 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 Dahl in view of Mezzino 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
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 July 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights