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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 12/05/2026. The Applicant has amended claims 1-4 and 16-19 and canceled claims 8-15 and 21-26. Claims 27-34 are new claims. Claims 1-7, 16-20 and 27-34 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 12 May 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed 12 May 2026 have avoided the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) previously set forth.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112:
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed 12 May 2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections previously set forth.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 12 May 2026, with regard to the rejections of Claims 1-7, 16-20 and 27-34 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered. Applicant’s argument is moot because the argument is directed toward new limitations that have not been previously considered. As such, Applicant’s amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection set forth in this office action.
Claim Interpretation and Contingent Limitations
Claim 28 contains conditional limitations:
Claim 28: “identifying the commanded rotational direction in a first direction when the current state of the magnitude is greater than the standstill reference magnitude by more than an offset threshold; and identifying the commanded rotational direction in a second direction opposite the first direction when the current state of the magnitude is less than the standstill reference magnitude by more than the offset threshold”
With respect to conditional limitations in process claims, MPEP 2111.04 guides
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
As claims 1-7, 16-20 and 27-29 are process claims, Ex Parte Schulhauser applies to claims 1-7, 16-20 and 27-29. See MPEP 2111.04, Il “contingent claims” ("[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. .. [t]herefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the method steps of claim 28 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim").
For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 28 does not require “identifying the command rotational direction in a first/second direction…” since “when the current state of the magnitude is greater/less than…” introduces a non-required step since the current state of the magnitude is greater/less than the standstill reference magnitude by more than an offset threshold are not required to occur.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
means in claims 30 and 33;
The structure of the “means” is “remote actuation systems… implemented using logic gates, circuitry” (Specification para 0014).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 27-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nao (US5065078) in view of Kelledes (US4624334).
As to claim 1, Nao teaches a method of operating a remote actuation system, the method comprising:
receiving, at the remote actuation system, an analog input command signal having a signal characteristic indicative of a commanded rotation and a commanded rotational direction for a motor associated with the remote actuation system (Nao abstract: the control circuit receives a signal whose pulse width contains information relating to the desired speed and direction in which the motor is to turn…, claim 5: motor control signal…containing speed and direction information of the motor…; also see col 3, lines 4-37, col 4 lines 16-57; Fig. 4);
converting, at the remote actuation system, the analog input command signal to a rotational speed command in the commanded rotational direction based on a relationship between a current state of the signal characteristic of the analog input command signal and a reference state for the signal characteristic of the analog input command signal (Nao claim 7: …generating reference signal…, comparing…first motor control signal with …of the reference signal…generating a motor direction control signal based on …the compared edges…generating a motor speed control signal, claim 8: the generated motor speed control signal is based on the pulse width of the first motor control signal; also see col 3, lines 38-68, col 4 lines 16-57, Fig. 2);
converting, at the remote actuation system, the rotational speed command into a power conversion command based at least in part on the rotational speed command and the current state of the motor (Nao col 4 line 64-col 5 line 8: …a time/voltage converter or pulse width/voltage converter which converts the width of the first control pulse into a voltage level…which is supplied to a plus input of the PWM signal generator…to produce a second motor control pulse…to control the switch of the moto drive circuit…to control the power supply to the DC motor…; claim 8: the generated motor speed control signal is based on the pulse width of the first motor control signal…, also see claims 9 and 10, Fig. 2); and
operating power conversion circuitry at the remote actuation system to provide power to the motor in accordance with the power conversion command to achieve the commanded rotation in the commanded rotational direction (Nao col 4 line 64-col 5 line 8: …a time/voltage converter or pulse width/voltage converter which converts the width of the first control pulse into a voltage level…which is supplied to a plus input of the PWM signal generator…to produce a second motor control pulse…to control the switch of the moto drive circuit…to control the power supply to the DC motor…; claim 8: the generated motor speed control signal is based on the pulse width of the first motor control signal…, also see claims 9 and 10, Figs. 1-2).
Nao does not teach receiving, at the remote actuation system, a direct current (DC) input command signal having a magnitude indicative of a command rotation and a commanded rotational direction for a motor…converting, at the converting, at the remote actuation system, the DC input command signal to a rotational speed command in the commanded rotational direction based on a relationship between a current state of the magnitude of the DC input command signal and a reference state for the magnitude of the DC input command signal.
Kelledes is directed to an electrical power assisted steering system for a vehicle. Kelledes teaches …output from the tuned circuits of sensor 30 is received by sensor logic circuitry 44, which differentially converts the phase shift variations of the tuned circuits into an analog voltage directly proportional to the direction and distance steering wheel 12 is turned …the voltage output of sensor logic 44 is between 0 and 12 volts. If the steering wheel 12 is not turned, the output of sensor logic 44 is about 6 volts. As the steering wheel is turned, the voltage output from sensor logic 44 increases or decreases, depending on which direction the steering wheel is turned. The signal from sensor logic 44 is amplified by amplifier circuit 46 …comparators 48A and 48B simply determine whether the signal is above or below 6 volts so that the motor can be energized to turn in the proper direction…The output from absolute value circuit 52 is then operated on in a series of steps to form a pulse width modulated (PWM) signal to drive the motor 10... (Kelledes col 4, line 16-col 6, line 8; also see Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
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 Nao so as to include receiving, at the remote actuation system, a direct current (DC) input command signal having a magnitude indicative of a command rotation and a commanded rotational direction for a motor…converting, at the converting, at the remote actuation system, the DC input command signal to a rotational speed command in the commanded rotational direction based on a relationship between a current state of the magnitude of the DC input command signal and a reference state for the magnitude of the DC input command signal in view of Kelledes et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Nao and Kelledes because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 2, Nao in view of Kelledes teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the analog input command signal comprises receiving the analog input command signal via an individual electrical cable coupled to an interface associated with the remote actuation system (Nao col 2 line 0059-col 3 line 3: …The receiving circuit 1 includes a detector and a decoder, for detecting a control signal which is a carrier modulated with a motor control signal and a steering signal… and was transmitted by a transmitter 20 and demodulating it to obtain the control signals contained therein. The motor control signal thus demodulated is supplied to a first motor control pulse generator 2 and to a one-shot circuit 2a which has an output connected to a motor operation judging circuit…, Fig. 1).
As to claim 3, Nao in view of Kelledes teaches the method of claim 2, wherein converting the DC input command signal comprises analog motor drive hardware coupled to the interface converting the DC input command signal based on the relationship and providing an output indicative of the rotational speed command and the commanded rotational direction (Nao, col 2 line 0059-col 3 line 3, col 3, lines 38-68, col 4 lines 16-57).
As to claim 4, Nao in view of Kelledes teaches the method of claim 1.
Kelledes further teaches wherein converting the DC input command signal comprises analog motor drive hardware at the remote actuation system determining the commanded rotational direction based on the relationship between the current state of the signal characteristic of the analog input command signal and the reference state for the magnitude, determining the rotational speed command based at least in part on a difference between the current state of the signal characteristic of the analog input command signal and the reference state for the signal characteristic, and generating an output indicative of the rotational speed command in the commanded rotational direction (Kelledes col 4, line 16-col 6, line 8; also see Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
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 Nao so as to include the above limitations in view of Kelledes et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Nao and Kelledes because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 5, Nao in view of Kelledes teaches the method of claim 4, wherein converting the rotational speed command into the power conversion command comprises excitation logic generating one or more pulse-width modulated (PWM) duty cycle commands based at least in part on the commanded rotational direction and the current state of the motor, wherein a respective duty cycle of the one or more PWM duty cycle commands is influenced by the rotational speed command (Nao abstract: …pulse width contains information relating to the desired speed and direction…; claim 9: ...converting the pulse width of the first motor control signal to a voltage level…; also see col 4 lines 16-35, col 5 lines 1-9).
As to claim 27, Nao in view of Kelledes teaches the method of claim 1.
Kelledes further teaches wherein converting the DC input command signal to the rotational speed command in the commanded rotational direction comprises determining the commanded rotational direction based on the relationship between the current state of the magnitude of the DC input command signal and a standstill reference magnitude (Kelledes col 4, line 16-col 6, line 8: …If the signal from sensor logic circuit 44 is below 6 volts, the signal is passed through inverter 54 to energize right gate 56 as described below. If the signal from sensor logic circuit 44 is above 6 volts, comparator 48B passes the signal directly to left gate 58 to activate that gate…; also see Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
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 Nao so as to include the above limitations in view of Kelledes et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Nao and Kelledes because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 28, Nao in view of Kelledes teaches the method of claim 27.
Kelledes further teaches wherein determining the commanded rotational direction comprises: identifying the commanded rotational direction in a first direction when the current state of the magnitude is greater than the standstill reference magnitude by more than an offset threshold; and identifying the commanded rotational direction in a second direction opposite the first direction when the current state of the magnitude is less than the standstill reference magnitude by more than the offset threshold (Kelledes col 5, lines 3-33: …comparators 48A and 48B simply determine whether the signal is above or below 6 volts so that the motor can be energized to turn in the proper direction. If the signal from sensor logic circuit 44 is below 6 volts, the signal is passed through inverter 54 to energize right gate 56 as described below. If the signal from sensor logic circuit 44 is above 6 volts, comparator 48B passes the signal directly to left gate 58 to activate that gate …above 6 volts by an amount directly proportional to the steering wheel displacement and indirectly proportional to the speed of the vehicle…; also see Figs. 1 and 2).
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 Nao so as to include the above limitations in view of Kelledes et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Nao and Kelledes because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 29, Nao in view of Kelledes teaches the method of claim 1.
Kelledes further teaches wherein converting the DC input command signal to the rotational speed command in the commanded rotational direction comprises mapping a relative percentage for the magnitude of the DC input command signal corresponding to the current state to a corresponding percentage of a maximum rotational speed for the motor (Kelledes col 5, line 3-col 6, line 8: …above 6 volts by an amount directly proportional to the steering wheel displacement and indirectly proportional to the speed of the vehicle…The output from absolute value circuit … form a pulse width modulated (PWM) signal to drive the motor. The pulse width modulated signal is generated as a function of the modified steering signal. It is also generated as a function of the amount of current flowing through the motor 10…the maximum duty cycle of the pulse width modulated signal …less than 100%...; also see Figs. 1 and 2).
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 Nao so as to include the above limitations in view of Kelledes et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Nao and Kelledes because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 30, claim 30 an apparatus claim (remote actuation system) includes limitations analogous to claim 1, a process claim (method of operating a remote actuation system). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 30 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nao in combination with Kelledes.
As to claim 31, Nao in view of Kelledes teaches the remote actuation system of claim 30.
Nao further teaches wherein the motor is coupled to a flight control component actuatable to influence at least one of a position and an attitude of an aircraft (Nao, abstract, col 1 lines 6-10: a D.C. motor…driving…automobile…).
As to claim 32, claim 32 an apparatus claim (remote actuation system) includes limitations analogous to claim 2, a process claim (method of operating a remote actuation system). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 2, claim 32 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nao in combination with Kelledes.
As to claim 34, Nao in view of Kelledes teaches the remote actuation system of claim 30.
Kelledes further teaches wherein the reference state for the magnitude of the DC input command signal comprises a standstill reference magnitude for the DC input command signal (Kelledes col 4, line 16-col 6, line 8: …If the signal from sensor logic circuit 44 is below 6 volts, the signal is passed through inverter 54 to energize right gate 56 as described below. If the signal from sensor logic circuit 44 is above 6 volts, comparator 48B passes the signal directly to left gate 58 to activate that gate…; also see Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
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 Nao so as to include the above limitations in view of Kelledes et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Nao and Kelledes because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claims 6-7 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nao in view of Kelledes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatano (US20190372503).
As to claim 6, Nao in view of Kelledes teaches the method of claim 5.
Nao in view of Kelledes does not teach wherein operating the power conversion circuitry comprises operating an inverter coupled to the motor at the remote actuation system in accordance with the one or more PWM duty cycle commands.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hatano teaches motor control apparatus includes an inverter comprising switching elements, current detection means for detecting a phase current value output from the inverter to each phase of a three-phase AC motor, conversion means for converting the phase current value into a digital AD conversion value, and modulation means for comparing a phase voltage command value based on the AD conversion value from the conversion means with a PWM counter value generated using a timer operating at predetermined cycles to generate a PWM signal and outputting the generated PWM signal to the inverter to thereby switch the switching elements of the inverter and control the three-phase AC motor. The conversion means outputs the AD conversion value acquired by converting the phase current value at a timing when a rectangular width of a rectangular wave of a phase voltage value corresponding to the PWM counter value is long (see at least Hatano, abstract, claim 1).
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 Nao so as to include wherein operating the power conversion circuitry comprises operating an inverter coupled to the motor at the remote actuation system in accordance with the one or more PWM duty cycle commands in view of Hatano et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Nao and Hatano because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 7, Nao in view of Kelledes and Hatano teaches the method of claim 6.
Hatano further teaches obtaining, at the excitation logic, measurement data indicative of a current position of a rotor of the motor from a positioning sensing arrangement associated with the remote actuation system, wherein the excitation logic generates the one or more PWM duty cycle commands for respective phases of the inverter based at least in part on the commanded rotational direction and the current position of the rotor (Hatano para 0046-0048).
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 Nao so as to include obtaining, at the excitation logic, measurement data indicative of a current position of a rotor of the motor from a positioning sensing arrangement associated with the remote actuation system, wherein the excitation logic generates the one or more PWM duty cycle commands for respective phases of the inverter based at least in part on the commanded rotational direction and the current position of the rotor in view of Hatano et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Nao and Hatano because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 33, claim 33 an apparatus claim (remote actuation system) includes limitations analogous to claim 7, a process claim (method of operating a remote actuation system). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 7, claim 33 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nao in combination with Kelledes and Hatano.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nao in view of Kelledes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (US20170081019).
As to claim 16, Nao in view of Kelledes teaches the method of claim 1.
Nao further teaches transmits the analog input command signal having the signal characteristic indicative of the commanded rotation and the commanded rotational direction corresponding to the actuation command (Nao abstract).
Nao in view of Kelledes does not teach wherein: the motor is coupled to a flight control component actuatable to influence at least one of a position and an attitude of an aircraft; and a flight control module determines an actuation command for adjusting the at least one of the position and the attitude of the aircraft and transmits the analog input command signal having the signal characteristic indicative of the commanded rotation and the commanded rotational direction corresponding to the actuation command.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches a matrix of parallel flight control surface controllers including stabilizer motor control units (SMCU) and actuator electronics control modules (AECM) define multiple control paths within the single channel, each implemented with dissimilar hardware and which each control the movement of a distributed set of flight control surfaces on the aircraft in response to flight control surface commands of the primary flight control computer… (Lin para 0089-0090, abstract).
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 Nao so as to include the motor is coupled to a flight control component actuatable to influence at least one of a position and an attitude of an aircraft; and a flight control module determines an actuation command for adjusting the at least one of the position and the attitude of the aircraft and transmits the analog input command signal having the signal characteristic indicative of the commanded rotation and the commanded rotational direction corresponding to the actuation command in view of Lin et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Nao and Lin because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 17, Nao in view of Kelledes and Lin teaches the method of claim 16.
Nao further teaches wherein one or more hardware modules are configured to convert a magnitude of a direct current (DC) input current associated with the analog input command signal to the power conversion command based at least in part on a relationship between the magnitude of the DC input current and a reference value for the DC input current (Nao col 3 line 51-col 4 line 2).
As to claim 18, Nao in view of Kelledes and Lin teaches the method of claim 17.
Nao further teaches wherein the power conversion command comprises one or more pulse-width modulated (PWM) duty cycle commands corresponding to the magnitude of the DC input current (Nao abstract: …pulse width contains information relating to the desired speed and direction…; claim 9: ...converting the pulse width of the first motor control signal to a voltage level…; also see col 4 lines 16-35, col 5 lines 1-9).
As to claim 19, Nao in view of Kelledes and Lin teaches the method of claim 16.
Nao further teaches wherein one or more hardware modules are configured to convert at least one of a duty cycle or a frequency associated with the analog input command signal to the power conversion command based at least in part on a relationship between the current state of the least one of the duty cycle or the frequency and a reference value for the least one of the duty cycle or the frequency (Nao claim 7: …generating reference signal…, comparing…first motor control signal with …of the reference signal…generating a motor direction control signal based on …the compared edges…generating a motor speed control signal, claim 8: the generated motor speed control signal is based on the pulse width of the first motor control signal; also see col 4 lines 16-57, col 5 1-8; Fig. 2).
As to claim 20, Nao in view of Kelledes and Lin teaches the method of claim 19.
Nao further teaches wherein the power conversion command comprises a plurality of pulse-width modulated (PWM) duty cycle commands to operate the power conversion circuitry to actuate the motor in the commanded rotational direction corresponding to a difference between the current state of the least one of the duty cycle or the frequency and the reference value for the least one of the duty cycle or the frequency (Nao claim 7: …generating reference signal…, comparing…first motor control signal with …of the reference signal…generating a motor direction control signal based on …the compared edges…generating a motor speed control signal, claim 8: the generated motor speed control signal is based on the pulse width of the first motor control signal; also see col 4 lines 16-57, col 5 1-8; Fig. 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph 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 from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in 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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on 571-272-4896. 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.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights