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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that that claim 1 recite the limitation “wherein at least a part of the at least one hydraulic cylinder is made of a first material” is extremely broad. The hydraulic cylinder as defined by the claim appears to include a piston and seal at least (in order to meet the claim language of extending/movement). As such, it appears to be inherent that this claim would be met with any cylinder valve system because as discussed the seal would qualify as the first material. Examiner does not believe the claim is so broad that it is creates an indefinite issue under 35 USC § 112(b).
Claim 14 recites the language “the piloting device of the second servocontrol being different from the piloting device of the first servocontrol”. Examiner note that this limitation is extremely broad as any difference, even those that can be considered a design choice would be sufficient to meet the claim language. Therefore, such a limitation does not provide much patentable weight as given its breadth pretty much would render the limitation to be automatically be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1,3,4,6-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji et al., Japanese Patent Publication JP 2012017839 (hereinafter “Koji”) in view of Kuhnle et al., German Patent Publicaiton DE102017211238 (hereinafter “Kuhnle”)
In Refrence to claim 1:
Koji discloses a servocontrol (Figure 2:10) for controlling a position of a moving part of an aircraft (Figure 1), comprising: a power device (Figure 2: 20) configured to move the moving part (72-75), the power device comprising at least one hydraulic cylinder(21 or 22) extending along a cylinder axis (no shown but implicit); and a piloting device (11) configured to control the power device (20) according to a movement command for the moving part (72-75) received from a device for generating the movement command for the moving part, the piloting device comprising at least one piloting unit comprising: a set of electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories (spool 4; 51-) in fluidic communication with the hydraulic cylinder; and a body (1-3)) delimiting a network of tubular cavities (1a; 1b; 2a; 2b; 3a; 3b) fluidically connecting the electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories (4,54, 56, 57) as well as the hydraulic cylinder, a neutral axis (not shown but inherent from Figure 2) being defined for each tubular cavity; wherein at least a part of the at least one hydraulic cylinder is made of a first material (22-24 are made of different materials, 24 being a seal is made of typically a thermoplastic or rubber; housing 23 is typically made of a durable lightweight material such as aluminum, composite titanium furthermore pistons in the field of endeavor are often composed of, the body of the at least one piloting unit being made of a second material (grooved manifold 3 is made of stainless steel or martensitic steel per the specification or spool 4 made of high carbon chrome bearing steel) distinct from the first material is made of. See, Paragraph [0031]. Koji further discloses a coupling device between the power device and the piloting device, the coupling device comprising at least one coupling piece (40) between the network of tubular cavities and the hydraulic cylinder.
Koji fails to explicitly disclose the at least one coupling piece being movable with respect to the body of the piloting unit and/or with respect to the hydraulic cylinder so as to permit a differential expansion of the body of the piloting unit and of the hydraulic cylinder with respect to each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor, hydraulic servo devices, Kuhnle disclose at least one coupling piece 33 wherein the coupling is movable with the respect of the body of the so as to permit a differential expansion of the body. See, Figure 3 which shows that the fluid line 36 in the coupling is shorter than the fluid line connection interface 44 to allow for thermal expansion. See also, Paragraph [0090-92]: “The length of the fluid line 36 is preferably matched to the clear distance of the mutually facing stop surfaces 85 such that this clear distance is slightly larger than the length of the fluid line 36, so that the fluid line retains an axial clearance by which thermal expansion-related length changes of the fluid line 36 are compensated. The fluid line 36 can be made of any material. In principle, it can also be formed from a flexible hose. However, the particular advantages of the fluid transfer device 33 are that the fluid line 36 can be designed as a rigid pipe, so that the fluid transfer measures are particularly resistant to external influences. This can be described as rigid piping. In this context, the fluid line 36 consists in particular of metal, preferably stainless steel.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the coupling of Koji with the teachings of of Kuhnle, specifically to allow the end fittings of the fluid line of Koji (coupling device 40) to have clearances to account for thermal expansion joints as taught by Kuhnle because as mentioned n Kuhnle it is well known to place thermal expansion tolerances in hydraulic actuators given the environment in which they operate.
In Reference to Claim 3:
The limitation recited in claim 3 is a product by process claim and as such are not limited by the process or method but only the structure. Therefore, If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See, MPEP 2113. As such, Koji discloses wherein the body of the at least one piloting unit is made by additive manufacturing.
In Reference to Claim 4:
Koji as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first material is an aluminum alloy and the second material is a titanium alloy.
Examiner notes it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the field of endeavor, hydraulic actuators with servo control for aircrafts to modify Koji such that the materials used for the cylinder is aluminum, and the pilot unit be made of titanium because use of such materials (titanium and aluminum) are well known and established in the field of aeronautics because these metals provide sufficient rigidity and are extremely light weight (critical to airplanes).
In Reference to Claim 6:
Koji further discloses wherein the hydraulic cylinder further comprising a cylinder barrel extending along the cylinder axis (Figure 2, 3 and 7) and delimiting a chamber, a rod (62) extending along the cylinder axis in the chamber and a piston(22) mounted on the rod in the chamber, at least one amongst the cylinder barrel of the hydraulic cylinder and the body of the piloting unit comprising a cylindrical coupling cavity in fluidic communication with the network of tubular cavities or the chamber of the hydraulic cylinder respectively, the at least one coupling piece (40) being arranged so as to be movable in translation in the cylindrical coupling cavity(3) during the differential expansion of the body of the piloting unit and of the hydraulic cylinder with respect to each other.
In Reference to Claim 7:
Koji further discloses wherein the cylindrical coupling cavity (4) extends along an axis substantially parallel to the cylinder axis, the at least one coupling piece (40) being movable in translation in the cylindrical coupling cavity along the cylinder axis. See, Figure 2 and 7.
In Reference to Claim 8:
Koji further discloses herein the cylindrical coupling cavity is delimited by an inner wall, the at least one coupling piece comprising a cylindrical portion delimiting a coupling pipe and extending into the cylindrical coupling cavity, and at least one annular protrusion cooperating with the inner wall of the cylindrical coupling cavity so as to couple in a leak-tight way the network of tubular cavities of the piloting unit and the hydraulic cylinder. See, Figure 2 and Figure 7.
In Reference to Claim 10:
Koji further discloses wherein the moving part is for an aircraft. See, Figure 1.
Claim(s) 2 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji et al., Japanese Patent Publication JP 2012017839 (hereinafter “Koji”) in view of Kuhnle et al., German Patent Publication DE102017211238 (hereinafter “Kuhnle”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Collins U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0131165 (hereinafter “Collins”).
In Reference to Claim 2:
Koji as modified discloses all the limitations set forth in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the neutral axis of at least one tubular cavity is curved.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Collins discloses a servo valve manifold wherein the neutral axis of at least one of the tubular cavities is curved for the purpose of reducing the size and weight of the manifold by creating curved paths, improving fluid flow (traditional manifolds would have two bores which meet at a specific angle typically perpendicular), and reducing the material required to produce the manifold. See, Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to further modify Koji such that the valve manifold of Koji contain tubular cavity which are curved as taught by Collins because as discussed in Collins such a modification would allow for improved fluid dynamics (reduces coefficient of friction by having curved paths instead of two bores joined at a specific angle) for the actuator and reduce the size and cost of the manifold (requires less material to construct a manifold with curved connections).
In Reference to Claim 11:
Koji as modified discloses a method for making the servocontrol valve comprising: forming the at least one cylinder (21a) of the power device by machining at least one block of the first material; a body of the at least one piloting unit made from a second material; making the body (2) of the at least one piloting unit by machining the blank; forming the at least one piloting unit of the piloting device by installing of the electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories in the body (4,11, 54-57) ; and assembling the power device (21) and the piloting device to form the servocontrol.
Koji fails to disclose making a blank of the body of the at least one piloting unit by additive manufacturing.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Collins discloses a servo valve manifold wherein the manifold of the valve (fluid pathways) are manufactured by the process of additive manufacturing
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Koji such that the piloting unit is made by the process of additive manufacturing instead of traditional subtractive manufacturing because such a method is a simple substitution of one known method of manufacturing a part for another providing the same predictable results of producing a part.
In Reference to Claim 12:
Koji as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the blank of the body comprises at least one tubular cavity the neutral axis of which is curved.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Collins *further discloses a servo valve manifold wherein the neutral axis of at least one tubular cavity is curved for the purpose of reducing the size and weight of the manifold by creating curved paths, improving fluid flow (traditional manifolds would have two bores which meet at a specific angle typically perpendicular), and reducing the material required to produce the manifold. See, Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Koji such that the valve manifold of Koji contain tubular cavity which are curved as taught by Collins because as discussed in Collins such a modification would allow for improved fluid dynamics (reduces coefficient of friction by having curved paths instead of two bores joined at a specific angle) for the actuator and reduce the size and cost of the manifold (requires less material to construct a manifold with curved connections).
In Reference to Claim 13:
Koji as modified further discloses a coupling device between the power device and the piloting device, the coupling device comprising at least one coupling piece (40) between the network of tubular cavities and the hydraulic cylinder, the at least one coupling piece being movable with respect to the body of the piloting unit and/or with respect to the hydraulic cylinder so as to permit a differential expansion of the body of the piloting unit and of the hydraulic cylinder with respect to each other. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the duct 50 that is external the housing connecting to cylinder chamber 21 to the pilot device 4 specifically cavity 3b of body 3 with the conduit 40 containing tubing significantly beyond the clearance in the axial direction (see, Figure 2 or 7) for the purposes of a differential thermal expansion between the cylinder and the distribution body, otherwise it would be built into the housing. Thereby also further supporting the cylinder and distribution are composed of different metallurgical construction (specifically with regards to thermal expansion).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji et al., Japanese Patent Publication JP 2012017839 (hereinafter “Koji”) in view of Kuhnle et al., German Patent Publication DE102017211238 (hereinafter “Kuhnle”) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Wallischeck, GB1584939A (hereinafter “Wallischeck”)
In Reference to Claim 9:
Koji as modified discloses all the limitations set forth in claim 1, but fails to disclose the power device comprises at least one additional hydraulic cylinder identical to the hydraulic cylinder and extending along an additional cylinder axis substantially parallel to the cylinder axis; and the piloting device comprises at least one additional piloting unit identical to the piloting unit, the at least one additional piloting unit being associated with the at least one additional hydraulic cylinder.
However, in the same field of endeavor, hydraulic flight control systems, Wallischeck discloses wherein the power device (Figure 1) comprises one additional hydraulic cylinder (14) identical to the hydraulic cylinder (12) and extending along an additional cylinder axis substantially parallel to the cylinder axis; and the piloting device comprises at least one additional piloting unit (Hydraulic controls: 48) identical to the piloting unit, the at least one additional piloting unit being associated with the at least one additional hydraulic cylinder.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Koji with the teaching of Wallischeck, specifically to modify Koji such that it has a duplicate cylinder and piloting device as taught by Wallischeck in Figure 1 because such a modification of a redundant and duplicate hydraulic actuator circuit is well established in the field of aeronautics for purposes of safety should one actuator experience an abnormality or fail.
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji et al., Japanese Patent Publication JP 2012017839 (hereinafter “Koji”) in view of Kuhnle et al., German Patent Publication DE102017211238 (hereinafter “Kuhnle”) in view of Wallischeck, British Patent Publication GB1584939A (hereinafter “Wallischeck”) and in further view of Rumpel, German Patent Publication DE102019210622A (hereinafter “Rumpel”).
In Reference to Claim 14, 17 and 18:
Koji discloses all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and 14, but fails to disclose wherein each servocontrol is configured to control the position of a moving part of the aircraft, each servocontrol comprising the power device and the piloting device, said piloting device and said power device being assemblable so as to form, in an assembled configuration, said servocontrol, the series comprising: a first servocontrol and a second servocontrol distinct from the first servocontrol, the power device of the second servocontrol being identical to the power device of the first servocontrol, the piloting device of the second servocontrol being different from the piloting device of the first servocontrol, and/or the series comprising a third servocontrol distinct from the first servocontrol, the power device of the third servocontrol being different from the power device of the first servocontrol, the piloting device of the third servocontrol being identical to the piloting device of the first servocontrol.
However, in the same field of endeavor, hydraulic aircraft actuators, Wallischeck discloses a series of servocontrollers configured to control the position of a moving part of the aircraft, each servocontrol comprising the power device and the piloting device, said piloting device and said power device being assemblable so as to form, in an assembled configuration, said servocontrol, the series comprising: a first servocontrol and a second servocontrol, the power device of the second servocontrol being identical to the power device of the first servocontrol. See, Figure 1 which illustrates a redundant hydraulic actuator featuring two independent servocontrollers in parallel each comprising a power device and their own respective piloting device, the power device being identical.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Koji with the teaching of Wallischeck, specifically to modify Koji such that it has a duplicate cylinder and piloting device as taught by Wallischeck in Figure 1 because such a modification of a redundant and duplicate hydraulic actuator circuit is well established in the field of aeronautics for purposes of safety should one actuator experience an abnormality or fail.
Koji as modified by Wallischeck fails to explicitly disclose wherein the piloting device of the second servocontrol being different from the piloting device of the first servocontrol and the method of manufacturing such distinct servocontrollers.
However, in the same field of endeavor, hydraulic actuators for aeronautics, Rumpel discloses wherein the pilot drive (control block) via an insert is specifically designed depending on the design of the hydraulic cylinder and interface allowing for a control block high degree of variance with easy modification. In addition, Rumpel also suggest that the mounting part of the cylinder can be adjusted and changed to meet the requirements of the hydraulic cylinder. See, Paragraph [0009 and 00010].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to further modify Koji with the teachings of Rumpel, specifically to modify the control block (manifold) of Koji to include an insert that can be variably adjusted to meet the needs of the cylinder requirement instead of having to alter the entire control block itself because as discussed by Rumpel such modification of the control block for a specific cylinder is significantly easier and more cost effective by utilizing a custom insert.
In light of the teachings of Rumpel it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to therefore modify the pilot control (manifold) and connection of said pilot control to the hydraulic cylinder of redundant or secondary cylinder (as taught by Wallischeck) to be different from the piloting device of the primary cylinder due to the differing mechanics given a different connection point of the cylinder.
In Reference to Claim 15:
Koji as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 14, and further discloses herein the hydraulic cylinder of each power device comprises a first ball joint fixed in translation along the cylinder axis and a second ball joint configured to be connected to the moving part and movable in translation along the cylinder axis, the first ball joint being movable in rotation about a first axis of rotation substantially orthogonal to the cylinder axis, the second ball joint being movable in rotation about a second axis of rotation substantially orthogonal to the cylinder axis, the first and second axes of rotation being separated along the cylinder axis by a center distance, the power device of the first servocontrol having at least one differentiating feature with respect to the power device of the third servocontrol, the at least one differentiating feature being taken from the following group of differentiating features: a diameter of the hydraulic cylinder; a stroke of the hydraulic cylinder; and the center distance. See, Figure 2 which illustrate the same ball joint (eye joint) as Applicants on the hydraulic actuator.
In Reference to Claim 16:
Koji as modified wherein the body of the piloting unit of the first servocontrol is identical to the body of the piloting unit of the second servocontrol and the set of electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories of the piloting unit of the first servocontrol being distinct from the set of electronic, mechanical and/or hydraulic accessories of the piloting unit of the second servocontrol. See, Wallischeck which disclose individualized hydraulic controls 48 including valve for each respective cylinder.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S. COLLINS whose telephone number is (313)446-6535. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:30.
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 Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-4648. 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.
/DANIEL S COLLINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights