DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on February 18, 2026. Upon further review of the claims and applicant’s arguments, the examiner hereby withdraws the election/restriction requirement filed December 18, 2026.
Status of the Claims
As a result of applicant’s filing on February 18, 2026, claims 14 and 15 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
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 limitations are: a flight control system, a health and usage monitoring system, and a configuration and maintenance system in claim 16.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0115938 A1 to Conzachi et al. (herein after “Conzachi” or “Conzachi et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 16 and 20,
the Conzachi et al. publication discloses a rotorcraft (102) comprising:
a flight control system (200) configured to execute control laws that control flight of the rotorcraft (202)(see FIG. 2 and ¶22, where the Conzachi et al. publication discloses a flight control system configured to execute control laws that control flight of the rotorcraft):
a health and usage monitoring system (208) configured to collect usage and maintenance data for the rotorcraft (102)(see FIG. 2 and ¶22 and ¶28 – ¶29, where the Conzachi et al. publication discloses a health and usage monitoring system configured to collect usage and maintenance data for the rotorcraft); and
a configuration and maintenance system (208, 326) configured to (see FIGS. 2 – 3 and ¶33 – ¶36):
send the usage and maintenance data to a fleet management server (306, 336, 338)(see FIG. 3 and ¶33 – ¶36, where the Conzachi et al. publication discloses sending the usage and maintenance data to a fleet management server);
receive individualized equipment data for the rotorcraft (102) from the fleet management server, the individualized equipment data comprising a lightweight digital representation of the rotorcraft (102), the lightweight digital representation comprising a list of components of the rotorcraft (102)(see FIG. 3; ¶22 – ¶24 and ¶28, where the Conzachi et al. publication implicitly discloses receiving individualized equipment data for the rotorcraft from the fleet management server 306, 336, 338, the individualized equipment data comprising a lightweight digital representation of components and/or connectivity of the rotorcraft, the lightweight digital representation implicitly comprising a list of components of the rotorcraft); and
update the control laws based on the list of the components of the rotorcraft (see FIG. 2 and ¶28, where the Conzachi et al. publication implicitly discloses updating the control laws based on the list of the components of the rotorcraft 102).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0115938 A1 to Conzachi et al. (herein after “Conzachi” or “Conzachi et al. publication") in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,064,357 B1 to McCormick (herein after “McCormick patent").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 8 and 13,
the Conzachi et al. publication discloses a method comprising:
receiving individualized equipment data for a rotorcraft (102), the individualized equipment data comprising a lightweight digital representation of the rotorcraft, the lightweight digital representation comprising a list of components of the rotorcraft (102)(see FIG. 3; ¶22 – ¶24 and ¶28, where the Conzachi et al. publication implicitly discloses receiving individualized equipment data for the rotorcraft from the fleet management server 306, 336, 338, the individualized equipment data comprising a lightweight digital representation of components and/or connectivity of the rotorcraft, the lightweight digital representation implicitly comprising a list of components of the rotorcraft).
The Conzachi et al. publication fails to disclose
detecting a change in configuration of the rotorcraft using the individualized equipment data, the change in configuration of the rotorcraft being detected based on whether components that affect handling of the rotorcraft are present or absent within the list of the components of the rotorcraft;
updating control laws executed by a flight control system of the rotorcraft in response to detecting the change in configuration of the rotorcraft (see Col. 10, lns 30 – 34); and
controlling flight of the rotorcraft using the control laws (see Col. 10, lns 30 – 34).
The concept of detecting a change in structural configuration of a rotorcraft and updating the control laws thereof in response to detecting changes in the structural configuration of the rotorcraft is considered old and well-known, as demonstrated by the McCormick patent who discloses “a plurality of anomaly detector structural members 404 (350 in FIG. 3)” embedded in the structure of the rotorcraft and configured to detect a change in structural configuration of the rotorcraft using individualized equipment data, the changes being detected based on whether components that affect handling of the rotorcraft are present or absent within the list of the components of the rotorcraft. (See Col. 6, lns 25 through Col. 7, ln 25.)
The McCormick patent also discloses updating control laws executed by a flight control system of the rotorcraft in response to detecting the change in configuration of the rotorcraft (see Col. 10, lns 30 – 34); and
controlling flight of the rotorcraft using the control laws (see Col. 10, lns 30 – 34).
Such disclosure suggests detecting a change in configuration of the rotorcraft using the individualized equipment data, the change in configuration of the rotorcraft being detected based on whether components that affect handling of the rotorcraft are present or absent within the list of the components of the rotorcraft, updating control laws executed by a flight control system of the rotorcraft in response to detecting the change in configuration of the rotorcraft, and controlling flight of the rotorcraft using the control laws.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Conzachi et al. publication to perform the steps of detecting a change in configuration of the rotorcraft using the individualized equipment data, the change in configuration of the rotorcraft being detected based on whether components that affect handling of the rotorcraft are present or absent within the list of the components of the rotorcraft, updating control laws executed by a flight control system of the rotorcraft in response to detecting the change in configuration of the rotorcraft, and controlling flight of the rotorcraft using the control laws, as suggested by the McCormick patent, in order to provide a system for alleviating an anomaly in a structural configuration of the rotorcraft.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Conzachi et al. publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0004512 A1 to Liu et al. (herein after “Liu et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 17,
the Conzachi et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
sensors, wherein the health and usage monitoring system collects the usage and maintenance data from the sensors, wherein the flight control system controls flight of the rotorcraft based on signals received from the sensors.
The Liu et al. publication discloses “a flight control module to control flight of UAVs.” (See ¶3.) “One or more sensors of the same type may be provided on board the UAV. For example, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or more TOF sensors may be provided at left, right, front, rear and top sides of the UAV such that the distance information to obstacles in various directions relative to the UAV can be obtained. The different sensors of the same type may all be coupled to a same processing module. For example, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or more TOF sensors may be coupled to the real-time sensing module. Alternatively, different sensors of the same type may be coupled to different processing modules. For example, some of the TOF sensors may be coupled to the real-time sensing module while other TOF sensors may be coupled to the flight control module.” (See ¶97.)
The Liu et al. publication also discloses that “[t]he flight control module may be coupled to other sensors or devices. The one or more sensors coupled to the flight control module may be sensors that aid in maintenance of flight of the UAV. In some instances, sensors or devices coupled to the flight control module may be configured to indicate a state of the UAV, e.g., with minimal processing required by the flight control module. In some instances, the state of the UAV may comprise a position, orientation, and/or velocity of the UAV. For example, inertial sensors, barometers, global positioning units may be coupled to the flight control module. In some instances, sensors or devices coupled to the flight control module may be configured to indicate a position of the UAV relative to an object or obstacle (e.g., ground, obstacle, etc). For example, ultrasonic sensors or time of flight sensors may be coupled to the flight control module for indicating a position of the UAV relative to an object or the ground.” (See ¶104.)
Such disclosures suggest sensors, wherein the health and usage monitoring system collects the usage and maintenance data from the sensors, wherein the flight control system controls flight of the rotorcraft based on signals received from the sensors.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify and provide the Conzachi et al. publication with sensors, wherein the health and usage monitoring system collects the usage and maintenance data from the sensors, wherein the flight control system controls flight of the rotorcraft based on signals received from the sensors, as suggested by the Liu et al. publication, in order to provide a system for alleviating an anomaly in a structural configuration of the rotorcraft.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Conzachi et al. publication in view of the McCormick patent.
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 19,
the Conzachi et al. publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the lightweight digital representation of the rotorcraft further comprising usage and maintenance history of the rotorcraft.
The McCormick patent takes into consideration usage and maintenance history of the rotorcraft 102. (See Col. 14, lns 11 – 15.) Such disclosure suggests the lightweight digital representation of the rotorcraft further comprising usage and maintenance history of the rotorcraft.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Conzachi et al. publication so that the lightweight digital representation of the rotorcraft further comprises usage and maintenance history of the rotorcraft, as suggested by the McCormick patent, in order to provide a system for alleviating an anomaly in a structural configuration of the rotorcraft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 7 are allowed.
Claims 9 – 12, 14, 15 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note: The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application' s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights