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 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Irwin et al. fails to teach a value for an angle between a longitudinal axis of the body and a trajectory of the aerial vehicle. However, as previously discussed, Irwin et al. teaches holding a vertical speed at a constant zero or nonzero value. In the case in which the vertical speed is zero, the angle between the longitudinal axis and the trajectory is identical to the angle between the longitudinal axis and the horizon (i.e., the pitch attitude command of Irwin et al.). Furthermore, Eglin et al. teaches the angle between the longitudinal axis and the trajectory in a more general form; the rejection below has been clarified with respect to the teachings of Eglin et al.
Additionally, newly added claim 21 requires new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112 as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. While the original specification provides support for a range of pitch attitudes of the aerial vehicle [0054] and for a range of positions of the input device [0066], the specification fails to disclose comparing a pitch of the blades of the rotor to a range of values.
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 21 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. The claim recites “an input device”; it is unclear whether this is meant to be the same input device as the one recited in claim 1. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the steps performed by the system in claim 21 are meant to be performed in addition to or in place of those of the system of claim 1, as both claims are directed towards systems for commanding collective control of the pitch of the blades, but based on different data (aerial vehicle pitch command in claim 1 and blade pitch command in claim 21).
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) 1-8 and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin, III et al. (US 10877487, previously cited) in view of Eglin (US 20180072411, previously cited) in view of Gillett et al. (US 20200023941, previously cited).
Claim 1.
Irwin, III et al. teaches:
a data processing system comprising one or more processors
(Irwin – Col. 42, lines 43-46) “the method 1500 of FIG. 15 can be initiated or controlled by one or more processors, such as one or more processors included in a control system.”
receive, from a sensor, a velocity of an aerial vehicle along a vertical axis of a body of the aerial vehicle
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 37-44) “The target state may include, or correspond to, a target horizontal state (e.g., an airspeed hold state or an acceleration hold state). The aircraft velocity may include, or correspond to, the aircraft velocity 422 of FIG. 4 or the vertical velocity 534 of FIG. 5, and the pitch attitude deviation from the reference may include, or correspond to, the aircraft pitch attitude command 550 of FIG. 5”
receive, from at least one input device, a value for an angle between a longitudinal axis of the body and a trajectory of the aerial vehicle and an input to maneuver the aerial vehicle to have a non-zero pitch relative to a horizontal axis
(Irwin – Col. 10, lines 18-23) “The processing circuitry 408 is configured to generate a pitch attitude command 454 (e.g., an aircraft pitch attitude command) based on the predicted pitch attitude trim value 442 and one or more other inputs, such as a second pilot input 414 (e.g., a pitch maneuver input as illustrated in FIG. 4).”
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 30-33) “The method 1500 includes, at 1502, generating a predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value for a target state of the aircraft based on an aircraft velocity and a pitch attitude deviation from a reference.”
(Irwin – Col. 30, lines 23-25) “the pitch attitude deviation from the reference may include, or correspond to, the aircraft pitch attitude command 550”
[Examiner’s Note: In a situation in which the aircraft vertical speed is 0, the pitch attitude command of the aircraft is equivalent to the angle between the longitudinal axis and the trajectory.]
generate a command for collective control of a pitch of blades of a rotor of the aerial vehicle based on a comparison of the velocity with the reference velocity
(Irwin – Col. 4, lines 55-58) “vertical acceleration is maintained at zero and rate of climb is maintained at a desired value, where the desired value of rate of climb/descent can be zero or non-zero”
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 30-33) “The method 1500 includes, at 1502, generating a predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value for a target state of the aircraft based on an aircraft velocity and a pitch attitude deviation from a reference.”
[Examiner’s Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a target state of the aircraft would include a target vertical velocity.]
control, via an actuator, the pitch of the blades of the rotor in accordance with the command
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 46-49) “The method 1500 includes, at 1504, adjusting propulsor collective blade pitch angle of a propulsor of the aircraft based on the predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value.”
Irwin, III et al. does not explicitly teach controlling an angle of attack; however, Eglin teaches:
receive, from at least one input device, a value for an angle between a longitudinal axis of the body and a trajectory of the aerial vehicle
(Eglin – [0025]) “the collective pitch of the blades may be controlled automatically so as to control a vertical air speed of the aircraft in such a manner as to maintain the aerodynamic angle of attack of the aircraft equal to a reference angle of attack”
determine a reference velocity of the aerial vehicle along the vertical axis to maintain the angle
(Eglin – [0025]) “the collective pitch of the blades may be controlled automatically so as to control a vertical air speed of the aircraft in such a manner as to maintain the aerodynamic angle of attack of the aircraft equal to a reference angle of attack”
control, via an actuator, the pitch of the blades of the rotor in accordance with the command to maintain the angle between the longitudinal axis of the body and the trajectory of the aerial vehicle while the aerial vehicle maneuvers based on the input
(Eglin – [0025]) “the collective pitch of the blades may be controlled automatically so as to control a vertical air speed of the aircraft in such a manner as to maintain the aerodynamic angle of attack of the aircraft equal to a reference angle of attack”
[Examiner’s Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, in conditions with negligible wind, the angle of attack of an aircraft is the angle between the longitudinal axis of the aircraft body and the aircraft trajectory.]
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the pitch and thrust control system of Irwin, III et al. with the angle of attack control of Eglin. Irwin, III et al. teaches controlling a blade trim value based on a pitch attitude deviation and a vertical velocity, and Eglin teaches controlling the collective pitch to maintain a particular angle of attack; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the two teachings could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to reduce pilot workload and minimize the drag on the aircraft (Eglin – [0019]).
Irwin, III et al. does not explicitly teach memory coupled with the processors; however, Gillett et al. teaches:
one or more processors, coupled with memory
(Gillett – [0045]) “One or more processors 327 are connected to the memories 325”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the pitch and thrust control system of Irwin, III et al. with the rotorcraft control system of Gillett et al. As both systems are directed toward the field of endeavor of controlling a rotorcraft, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this combination could be performed with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this because the system of Gillett et al. allows for reducing pilot workload (Gillett – [0003]).
Claim 2.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Eglin, and Gillett et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. further teaches:
collectively control the pitch of the blades of the rotor in accordance with the command to maintain the constant angle between a trajectory of the aerial vehicle and the longitudinal axis of the body of the aerial vehicle
(Irwin – Col. 12, lines 64-66) “The pitch command model 506 generates the aircraft pitch attitude command 550 based on the selected pitch attitude trim value 546 and the pitch attitude input signal 548.”
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 30-33) “The method 1500 includes, at 1502, generating a predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value for a target state of the aircraft based on an aircraft velocity and a pitch attitude deviation from a reference.”
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 37-44) “The target state may include, or correspond to, a target horizontal state (e.g., an airspeed hold state or an acceleration hold state). The aircraft velocity may include, or correspond to, the aircraft velocity 422 of FIG. 4 or the vertical velocity 534 of FIG. 5, and the pitch attitude deviation from the reference may include, or correspond to, the aircraft pitch attitude command 550 of FIG. 5”
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 46-49) “The method 1500 includes, at 1504, adjusting propulsor collective blade pitch angle of a propulsor of the aircraft based on the predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value.”
Claim 3.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Eglin, and Gillett et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. further teaches:
compare the velocity to the reference velocity to determine an error between the velocity and the reference velocity
(Irwin – Col. 29, lines 42-47) “The speed select circuitry 508 generates the speed error signal 1040 based on subtracting the aircraft velocity 422 from the pitch independent speed command 1038 and applies the velocity error gain F(verr) to the speed error signal 1040 to generate the speed select mode acceleration command 552”
generate the command using the error
(Irwin – Col. 29, lines 42-47) “The speed select circuitry 508 generates the speed error signal 1040 based on subtracting the aircraft velocity 422 from the pitch independent speed command 1038 and applies the velocity error gain F(verr) to the speed error signal 1040 to generate the speed select mode acceleration command 552”
Claim 4.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Eglin, and Gillett et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. further teaches:
the reference velocity is zero
(Irwin – Col. 4, lines 55-58) “vertical acceleration is maintained at zero and rate of climb is maintained at a desired value, where the desired value of rate of climb/descent can be zero or non-zero”
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 37-44) “The target state may include, or correspond to, a target horizontal state (e.g., an airspeed hold state or an acceleration hold state). The aircraft velocity may include, or correspond to, the aircraft velocity 422 of FIG. 4 or the vertical velocity 534 of FIG. 5, and the pitch attitude deviation from the reference may include, or correspond to, the aircraft pitch attitude command 550 of FIG. 5”
the control of the pitch of the blades of the rotor in accordance with the command causes the velocity of the aerial vehicle along the vertical axis of the body of the aerial vehicle to approach zero
(Irwin – Col. 4, lines 55-58) “vertical acceleration is maintained at zero and rate of climb is maintained at a desired value, where the desired value of rate of climb/descent can be zero or non-zero”
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 46-49) “The method 1500 includes, at 1504, adjusting propulsor collective blade pitch angle of a propulsor of the aircraft based on the predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value.”
Claim 5.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Eglin, and Gillett et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 1 below, Irwin, III et al. teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
348
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: A diagram illustrating helicopter controls according to Irwin, III et al. (originally Irwin Fig. 2D)
the vertical axis of the body of the aerial vehicle is perpendicular with the longitudinal axis of the body of the aerial vehicle
As seen in Fig. 1, the vehicle has a longitudinal and a vertical axis, which are perpendicular to each other.
Claim 6.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Eglin, and Gillett et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. further teaches:
receive a velocity of the aerial vehicle along the longitudinal axis of the body of the aerial vehicle
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 37-44) “The target state may include, or correspond to, a target horizontal state (e.g., an airspeed hold state or an acceleration hold state). The aircraft velocity may include, or correspond to, the aircraft velocity 422 of FIG. 4 or the vertical velocity 534 of FIG. 5, and the pitch attitude deviation from the reference may include, or correspond to, the aircraft pitch attitude command 550 of FIG. 5”
determine that the velocity is greater than a threshold
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 37-44) “The target state may include, or correspond to, a target horizontal state (e.g., an airspeed hold state or an acceleration hold state). The aircraft velocity may include, or correspond to, the aircraft velocity 422 of FIG. 4 or the vertical velocity 534 of FIG. 5, and the pitch attitude deviation from the reference may include, or correspond to, the aircraft pitch attitude command 550 of FIG. 5”
[Examiner’s Note: Holding an airspeed necessarily requires determining that the aircraft has exceeded the hold value, in order to determine when it must take steps to bring the aircraft back to the desired airspeed.]
collectively control the pitch of the blades of the rotor in accordance with the command responsive to a determination that the velocity is greater than the threshold
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 30-33) “The method 1500 includes, at 1502, generating a predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value for a target state of the aircraft based on an aircraft velocity and a pitch attitude deviation from a reference.”
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 46-49) “The method 1500 includes, at 1504, adjusting propulsor collective blade pitch angle of a propulsor of the aircraft based on the predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value.”
Claim 7.
T The combination of Irwin, III et al., Eglin, and Gillett et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. teaches:
measure an acceleration along the vertical axis of the body of the aerial vehicle
(Irwin – Col. 4, lines 55-58) “vertical acceleration is maintained at zero and rate of climb is maintained at a desired value, where the desired value of rate of climb/descent can be zero or non-zero”
[Examiner’s Note: Maintaining a constant acceleration requires measurement of the acceleration.]
generate the command for collective control of the pitch of the blades by the rotor of the aerial vehicle based on the velocity
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 30-33) “The method 1500 includes, at 1502, generating a predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value for a target state of the aircraft based on an aircraft velocity and a pitch attitude deviation from a reference.”
Irwin, III et al. does not explicitly teach an inertial measurement unit; however, Gillett et al. further teaches:
an inertial measurement unit to measure an acceleration along the vertical axis of the body of the aerial vehicle
(Gillett – [0052]) “the VM1 signal may be indirectly received by measuring vertical inertial acceleration (e.g., a(t)) of the rotorcraft 101. Vertical inertial acceleration may be measured with a first one of the aircraft sensors 207, such as with an accelerometer.”
The data processing system coupled with the inertial measurement unit
(Gillett – [0052]) “the VM1 signal may be indirectly received by measuring vertical inertial acceleration (e.g., a(t)) of the rotorcraft 101. Vertical inertial acceleration may be measured with a first one of the aircraft sensors 207, such as with an accelerometer.”
receive data from the inertial measurement unit indicating the acceleration along the vertical axis of the body of the aerial vehicle
(Gillett – [0052]) “the VM1 signal may be indirectly received by measuring vertical inertial acceleration (e.g., a(t)) of the rotorcraft 101. Vertical inertial acceleration may be measured with a first one of the aircraft sensors 207, such as with an accelerometer.”
determine the velocity from the acceleration
(Gillett – [0052]) “the VM1 signal may be indirectly received by measuring vertical inertial acceleration (e.g., a(t)) of the rotorcraft 101. Vertical inertial acceleration may be measured with a first one of the aircraft sensors 207, such as with an accelerometer.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 8.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Eglin, and Gillett et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. further teaches:
receive data from a pitch sensor, the data indicating a pitch attitude of the aerial vehicle
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 30-33) “The method 1500 includes, at 1502, generating a predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value for a target state of the aircraft based on an aircraft velocity and a pitch attitude deviation from a reference.”
collectively control the pitch of the blades of the rotor in accordance with the command
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 46-49) “The method 1500 includes, at 1504, adjusting propulsor collective blade pitch angle of a propulsor of the aircraft based on the predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value.”
Irwin, III et al. does not explicitly teach a range of pitch attitudes; however, Eglin teaches:
compare the pitch attitude to a range of pitch attitudes to determine that the pitch attitude is within the range of pitch attitudes
(Eglin – [0054]) “out-of-range or dangerous values are not stored by bounding the reference angle of attack to a range of -4° to +4°, for example.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 10.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Eglin, and Gillett et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. does not explicitly teach determining an input device position; however, Gillett et al. teaches:
determine a position of an input device, the input device to implement collective control to change the pitch of the blades of the rotor
(Gillett – [0039]) “the collective control assembly 219 has a collective detent sensor 237 that determines whether the pilot is holding the collective stick 233.”
determine that a user has not provided an input to the input device based on the position
(Gillett – [0039]) “The FCCs may determine that the stick is in-detent (ID) when the signals from the detent sensors indicate to the FCCs 205 that the pilot has released a particular stick.”
collectively control the pitch of the blades of the rotor responsive to the determination that the user has not provided the input
(Gillett – [0035]) “A collective position sensor 215 detects the position of the collective stick 233 and sends a collective position signal to the FCCs 205, which controls engines 115, swashplate actuators, or related flight control devices according to the collective position signal to control the vertical movement of the aircraft.”
(Gillett – [0039]) “The FCCs may provide different default control or automated commands to one or more flight systems based on the detent status of a particular stick or pilot control.”
Claim 11.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 12.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 13.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 14.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 15.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 16.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 17.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim 18.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 10.
Claim 19.
With respect to Fig. 1 above, Irwin, III et al. teaches:
A rotorcraft, comprising: processing circuitry
(Irwin – Col. 42, lines 43-46) “the method 1500 of FIG. 15 can be initiated or controlled by one or more processors, such as one or more processors included in a control system.”
As seen in Fig. 1 above, the aircraft is a rotorcraft.
The rest is rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 20.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Irwin, III et al., Eglin, and Gillett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Worsham, II et al. (US 10611463, previously cited).
Claim 9.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Eglin, and Gillett et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. does not explicitly teach a back drive; however, Worsham, II et al. teaches:
determine a back drive to move an input device proportionally to a change in the pitch of the blades of the rotor indicated by the command, the input device to implement collective control of the pitch of the blades of the rotor
(Worsham – Col. 10, lines 63-64) “the trim motor back-drives the pilot control device to match the swashplate position.”
operate an actuator of the input device to move the input device using the back drive
(Worsham – Col. 6, lines 41-46) “These trim assemblies may include, among other items, measurement devices for measuring mechanical inputs (e.g., measuring or otherwise determining input position) and trim motors for back-driving center positions of cyclic control assembly 262, collective control assembly 264, or pedal assemblies 266.”
(Worsham – Col. 10, lines 63-64) “the trim motor back-drives the pilot control device to match the swashplate position.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the pitch and thrust control system of Irwin, III et al. with the back-driving motors of Worsham, II et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to ensure that a given control position consistently corresponds to the same collective pitch status (i.e., a neutral control position always corresponds to a neutral rotor pitch angle).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Irwin, III et al., Eglin, and Gillett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Worsham, II, et al. and further in view of Carter, JR., et al. (US 20160257399).
Claim 21.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Eglin, and Gillett teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. further teaches:
receive, from an input device, a change to the pitch of the blades of the rotor of the aerial vehicle
(Irwin – Col. 10, lines 18-23) “The processing circuitry 408 is configured to generate a pitch attitude command 454 (e.g., an aircraft pitch attitude command) based on the predicted pitch attitude trim value 442 and one or more other inputs, such as a second pilot input 414 (e.g., a pitch maneuver input as illustrated in FIG. 4).”
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 30-33) “The method 1500 includes, at 1502, generating a predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value for a target state of the aircraft based on an aircraft velocity and a pitch attitude deviation from a reference.”
[Examiner’s Note: If the blade pitch is changed based on the aircraft pitch attitude, an input which changes aircraft pitch is one which changes blade pitch.]
generate the command for collective control of the pitch of the blades of the rotor of the aerial vehicle based on the comparison of the velocity with the reference velocity
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 30-33) “The method 1500 includes, at 1502, generating a predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value for a target state of the aircraft based on an aircraft velocity and a pitch attitude deviation from a reference.”
Eglin further teaches:
responsive to detecting that the pitch is within the range of values, generate the command for collective control of the pitch of the blades of the rotor of the aerial vehicle based on the comparison of the velocity with the reference velocity
(Eglin – [0025]) “the collective pitch of the blades may be controlled automatically so as to control a vertical air speed of the aircraft in such a manner as to maintain the aerodynamic angle of attack of the aircraft equal to a reference angle of attack”
(Eglin – [0054]) “out-of-range or dangerous values are not stored by bounding the reference angle of attack to a range of -4° to +4°, for example.”
None of the aforementioned references explicitly teaches a back drive; however, Worsham, II et al. teaches:
responsive to generating the command, determine a back drive proportional to the command
(Worsham – Col. 10, lines 63-64) “the trim motor back-drives the pilot control device to match the swashplate position.”
operate a motor disposed within the input device to move the input device according to the back drive
(Worsham – Col. 6, lines 41-46) “These trim assemblies may include, among other items, measurement devices for measuring mechanical inputs (e.g., measuring or otherwise determining input position) and trim motors for back-driving center positions of cyclic control assembly 262, collective control assembly 264, or pedal assemblies 266.”
(Worsham – Col. 10, lines 63-64) “the trim motor back-drives the pilot control device to match the swashplate position.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
While Eglin teaches a angle of attack range of the aircraft, Eglin does not explicitly teach a reference pitch for rotor blades. However, Carter, JR., et al. teaches:
detect that the pitch of the blades of the rotor of the aerial vehicle is within a range of values
(Carter – [0072]) “the rotor blade collective pitch remains substantially constant in the 1.5 degree to minus 0.5 degree range”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the angle of attack range of Eglin with the blade pitch range of Carter et al. Both Eglin and Carter et al. are directed towards collective control; therefore, this modification could be made with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to maintain flapping angle within a safe operating range (Carter – [0071]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669