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 .
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 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11-12, 16, 18 & 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 and 102(a)2 as being anticipated by Goupil et al.,.: US 20130026287 A1.
Regarding claims 1 & 9; Goupil et al., discloses an electrical servo system for a flight control surface ([0060] “to detect at least one uncontrolled movement of a control surface 3 (aileron, spoiler, horizontal rudder, rudder) of an aircraft, in particular a transport airplane, which is servo-controlled in position by a feedback control loop 2 (represented on FIG. 1) & a method of detecting sensor failure in an aerial vehicle, the aerial vehicle, comprising:
a flight control surface moveable with respect to a mounting portion ([0062] said control surface 3 being mobile … and the position of which is adjusted with respect to the structure of the aircraft by at least one usual actuator 5”);
an electric actuator configured to actuate the flight control surface ([0063] “said actuator 5 adjusting the position of said control surface 3, for example thru a rod 6 acting on the latter, as a function of at least one actuating order received thru a connection 7” & [0082]-[0083] “said actuator 5 which adjusts the position of said control surface 3 is a usual electrical power actuator, i.e. an actuator using electrical power to operate.”);
at least one (a first) movement-related flight control surface sensor, which is configured to acquire a quantity related to a movement of the flight control surface ([0064]-[0068] at least one sensor 8, 9 measuring the effective position of said control surface 3. Indeed, it can be a sensor 8 being directly associated with the control surface 3”);
at least one (a second) movement-related actuator sensor, which is configured to acquire a quantity related to a movement of the electric actuator ([0064]-[0068] at least one sensor 8, 9 measuring the effective position of said control surface 3. … a sensor 9 measuring for example the movement of the rod 6 of the actuator 5” & [0068] “the effective position measured by the sensor(s) 8 and 9”); and
PNG
media_image1.png
221
363
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one controller configured to control according to a cascaded closed loop control ([0060] The device 1 … intended to detect at least one uncontrolled movement of a control surface 3 (aileron, spoiler, horizontal rudder, rudder) of an aircraft, in particular a transport airplane, which is servo-controlled in position by a feedback control loop 2 (represented on FIG. 1).),
wherein the at least one movement-related flight control surface sensor is used in an outer closed loop control for movement control of the flight control surface, and the at least one movement-related actuator sensor is used in an inner closed loop control for movement control of the electric actuator ([0057] FIG. 1 illustrates schematically a feedback loop in position of an aircraft control surface, comprising a detection device” & [0060] “detect at least one uncontrolled movement of a control surface 3 … which is servo-controlled in position by a feedback control loop 2 (represented on FIG. 1).” & [0068]-[0079] “receiving the effective position measured by the sensor(s) 8 and 9 thru a connection 13 via an input 14 of the analogue or digital type; [0069] calculating from preceding information (control surface command order and effective position being measured) said actuating order thru an integrated calculation means 17 taking a predetermined gain into account; and [0070] transmitting this actuating order (under the form of a feedback command) to control means 18 (for example, a servovalve or an electrical engine) of the actuator 5 thru the connection 7 via an input 15 of the analogue or digital type. & [0071] “beside said feedback loop 2, the device 1… to detect at least one uncontrolled movement of the control surface 3” & [0078] Consequently, said device 1 compares the actual operation of the feedback loop being monitored (which is illustrated by the effective feedback current measured by the auxiliary sensor 21) relative to the command of the control surface 3” & [0079] “Consequently, said device 1 is in a position to detect very quickly, in the feedback loop being monitored, every uncontrolled movement type (i.e. every dynamical profile) of the control surface being servo-controlled”).
(claim 9 only) the method comprising determining sensor failure based on an output of the movement-related flight control surface sensor and an output of the movement-related actuator sensor ((see para.[0078]-[0079] & [0117]-[0118], discloses claim elements:[0079] “It is thus possible to passivate such failure very quickly”).
Regarding claims 2; Goupil et al., discloses the electrical servo system of claim 1, wherein: the at least one movement-related flight control surface sensor is used in a position control of the flight control surface, and the at least one movement-related actuator sensor is used in a speed control of the actuator (As in claim 1, see para. [0064]-[0068] at least one sensor 8, 9 measuring the effective position of said control surface 3. … a sensor 9 measuring for example the movement of the rod 6 of the actuator 5”… a sensor 8 being directly associated with the control surface 3”).
Regarding claims 4; Goupil et al., discloses the electrical servo system of claim 1, wherein the electric actuator comprises a rotary electric machine ([0082] “said actuator 5 which adjusts the position of said control surface 3 is a usual electrical power actuator, i.e. an actuator using electrical power to operate. In this case, said auxiliary sensor 21 is arranged at the level of an electrical engine of the latter (and it measures the rotation speed of said electrical engine, as a parameter).”).
Regarding claims 6; Goupil et al., discloses the electrical servo system of claim 1, wherein the movement-related flight control surface sensor is configured to acquire a quantity related to movement of a most downstream portion of a drive path from the electric actuator to the flight control surface ([0064] at least one sensor 8, 9 measuring the effective position of said control surface 3. … a sensor 8 being directly associated with the control surface 3 and/or a sensor 9 measuring for example the movement of the rod 6 of the actuator 5” & [0118] “A so-called "master" calculator performs the feedback control by sending a control current to an actuator which is active. The other actuator, associated with a second so-called "slave" calculator is forced into a passive mode so as to follow the movement of the control surface 3. If the device 1 detects a failure (leading to an uncontrolled movement of the control surface 3), the means 43 switch the active actuator into a passive mode and hand over to the slave calculator which controls the second actuator switched into an active mode.).
Regarding claims 7 & 20; Goupil et al., discloses the electrical servo system of claim 1,
(claim 7) wherein the electric actuator is coupled to the mounting portion ([0062] said control surface 3 being mobile while being able to be pointed as illustrated by a double arrow E on FIG. 1 and the position of which is adjusted with respect to the structure of the aircraft by at least one usual actuator 5; [0063] said actuator 5 adjusting the position of said control surface 3, for example thru a rod 6 acting on the latter, as a function of at least one actuating order received thru a connection 7”),
(claim 20) wherein the movement-related actuator sensor is configured to acquire a quantity related to movement of an output portion of the electric actuator ([0063] said actuator 5 adjusting the position of said control surface 3, for example thru a rod 6 acting on the latter, as a function of at least one actuating order received thru a connection 7; [0064] at least one sensor 8, 9 measuring the effective position of said control surface 3. ... a sensor 8 being directly associated with the control surface 3 and/or a sensor 9 measuring for example the movement of the rod 6 of the actuator 5”).
Regarding claims 8; Goupil et al., discloses the electrical servo system of claim 1, wherein at least two movement-related flight control surface sensors are provided for a same flight control surface ([0068] “the effective position measured by the sensor(s) 8 and 9”).
Regarding claims 11 & 22; Goupil et al., discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: (claim 11) determining a correlation between a relative movement of the electric actuator based on the output of the movement-related actuator sensor and a relative movement of the flight control surface based on the output of the movement-related flight control surface sensor; and comparing the correlation against a predetermined correlation, (claim 22) wherein the predetermined correlation is constant over a movable range of the flight control surface (See para. [0071]-[0078], [0086], [0095], [0106], [0122] , determining and comparing the calculated movement with measured displacement of actuators and control surface, with the certain parameters , to form an error signal according to the threshold value ..discloses correlation and all claim elements.).
Regarding claims 12; Goupil et al., discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: disabling movement of the flight control surface upon determining failure of one of the first or second movement-related flight control surface sensors; or using only one of the first or second movement-related flight control surface sensors in movement control of the flight control surface upon determining failure of one of the first or second movement-related flight control surface sensors (see para.[0078]-[0079] & [0117]-[0118], discloses claim elements:[0079] “It is thus possible to passivate such failure very quickly, ... this allows the maximum value reached by the control surface 3 to be limited.” & [0117] Once the failure is detected and locked, the failing actuator 5 is passivated and a reconfiguration (by means 43) is carried out on the adjacent actuator which becomes then active.” & [0118] “a second so-called "slave" calculator is forced into a passive mode so as to follow the movement of the control surface 3. If the device 1 detects a failure (leading to an uncontrolled movement of the control surface 3), the means 43 switch the active actuator into a passive mode and hand over to the slave calculator which controls the second actuator switched into an active mode.).
Regarding claims 16; Goupil et al., discloses the electrical servo system of claim 1, wherein an aerial vehicle comprises the electrical servo system. ([0079] “every uncontrolled movement type (i.e. every dynamical profile) of the control surface being servo-controlled, and this, whatever the origin of the failure.”).
Regarding claims 18; Goupil et al., discloses the electrical servo system of claim 1, wherein at least one movement- related flight control surface sensor is configured to acquire a quantity related to a position of the flight control surface (As in claim 1, see para. [0064]-[0068] at least one sensor 8, 9 measuring the effective position of said control surface 3. Indeed, it can be a sensor 8 being directly associated with the control surface 3”);, and the at least one movement-related actuator sensor, which is configured to acquire a quantity related to a position of the electric actuator (As in claim 1, see para. [0064]-[0068] at least one sensor 8, 9 measuring the effective position of said control surface 3. … sensor 9 measuring the movement of the rod 6 of the actuator 5” & [0068]“the effective position measured by the sensor(s) 8 and 9”).
Regarding claims 21; Goupil et al., discloses the electrical servo system of claim 1, wherein the flight control surface is a surface that enables attitude control around at least one axis of an aerial vehicle ([0060]-[0065] “a control surface 3 (aileron, spoiler, horizontal rudder, rudder) of an aircraft, in particular a transport airplane, which is servo-controlled in position by a feedback control loop 2 (represented on FIG. 1).”).
Remarks: By default, the attitude ( yaw/roll/pitch controls around x, y, z axes), are enabled by control surfaces like aileron, rudder, elevator.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over , Goupil et al., Pub. No.: US 20130026287 A1 in view of Watkins`369, Pub. No.: US 20160046369 A1.
Regarding claims 3; Goupil et al., discloses the electrical servo system of claim 1.
Goupil et al. is not explicit on “pivotable flight control surface”, however, Watkins`369, US 20160046369 A1, teaches AIRCRAFT AND METHODS FOR OPERATING AN AIRCRAFT and discloses, wherein the flight control surface is pivotable with respect to the mounting portion ([0130] “Both left and right sides of the horizontal stabilizer 80 comprise a fixed front flying surface 81 and pivotable large span elevon control surfaces 82.” & [0146] “the horizontal stabilizer 80 comprises a fixed central portion 81 and pivotable lateral portions 83 each having a pivotable elevon 82.” & [0196] In the modified stabilizer 80b, both left and right sides similarly comprise a fixed front flying surface 81 and a pivotable control surface 82” & [0199] The extended portions 86 are full flying control surfaces ... Each extended portion 86 is pivotable about the hinge line 88 with its adjacent inner portion 84, with a range of travel of 90 degrees up and 40 degrees down..).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by Watkins`369 with the system disclosed by Goupil et al. to provide a pivotable control surface, each control surface having an inner portion extending within the lateral extremities of the fixed front flying surface and an extended portion disposed laterally beyond the lateral extremities of the fixed front flying surface (see Abstract & para. [0048]).
Claims 5 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over , Goupil et al.,.: US 20130026287 A1 in view of Bacon et al., Pub. No.: US 20030127569 A1.
Regarding claims 5 & 19; Goupil et al., discloses the electrical servo system of claim 1.
Goupil et al. is not explicit on “speed reducing transmission”, however, Bacon et al., US 20030127569 A1, teaches Aircraft Flight Surface Control System and discloses, wherein the flight control surface is pivotable with respect to the mounting portion
(claim 5) further comprising a transmission interposed between the electric actuator and the flight control surface, (claim 19) wherein the transmission comprises a speed reducing transmission ([0100] “A continuous transmission system runs from the power drive unit along each wing to the rotary actuators. This ensures symmetrical operation of the flap surfaces. The rotary actuators are in the form of high ratio reduction gearboxes. At each actuator there is torque limiter which protects the flap support structure in the case of a jam in the crank/slider mechanism by locking the transmission system. The system includes transmission brakes between the actuators on the outboard flap panels. They actively prevent flap movement in the unlikely event of mechanical disconnection between the drive unit 220 and any of the actuators.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by Bacon et al. with the system disclosed by Goupil et al. to provide a distributed control system for flight control surfaces by an arrangement having redundancy in the actuator system, different controllers may control different actuators, operating on the same flight surface, each controller is provided with data concerning the load acting on the actuator and uses this to implement a reduction algorithm (see Abstract & para. [0019] & [0047]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over , Goupil et al.,.: US 20130026287 A1 in view of Konyndyk et al., Pub. No.: US 20220260361 A1.
Regarding claims 10; Goupil et al., discloses the method of claim 9.
Goupil et al. is not explicit on “calibrating sensors”, however, Konyndyk et al., US 20220260361 A1, teaches Method and Apparatus for Remote Optical Measurement of the Position of a Surface and discloses;
further comprising calibrating the movement-related actuator sensor and the movement-related flight control surface sensor against each other at a position within a moveable range of the flight control surface thereby obtaining an actuator reference position and a flight control surface reference position ([0023] FIG. 4 is a diagram representing a three-dimensional view of a zeroing jig that can be used to calibrate the sensor module depicted in FIG. 1. [0068] “Before the sensor module 2 is ready for use … the sensor module 2 should be calibrated. FIG. 4 is a diagram representing a three-dimensional view of a zeroing jig 194 that can be used to calibrate the sensor module 2.” ).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by Konyndyk et al. with the system disclosed by Goupil et al. to provide systems and methods for optically measuring a position of a measurement surface relative to a reference position. Each sensor module is mounted to a clamp that is made specific to a control surface location and embedded with an RFID tag to denote clamp location. Calibration restores the relationship by establishing an alignment feature as part of the control surface which may be aligned to a rigging point on the vehicle associated with a known control setting (see Abstract & para. [0003] & [0007]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jalal C CODUROGLU whose telephone number is (408)918-7527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8-6 PT.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/Jalal C CODUROGLU/Examiner, Art Unit 3665