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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s amendment dated January 6, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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: “flight control inceptor” in claim 15.
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 § 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 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 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peters et al., U.S. Patent 12,422,866 B2 (2025).
As to claim 1, Peters et al. discloses a digital surface position sensor, the digital surface position sensor comprising:
a position sensor adapted to be coupled to an aircraft flight control surface, the position sensor configured to sense a position of the aircraft flight control surface and supply a surface position signal representative thereof (Column 6, Lines 20-46);
an adaptable hardware input that provides an identification signal that identifies the aircraft flight control surface to which the position sensor is coupled (Column 7, Lines 3-40); and
a processing circuit coupled to receive the surface position signal and the identification signal, and adapted to receive flight control surface actuator position command data indicative of a commanded position of a flight control surface actuator, the processing circuit configured to:
(i) process the surface position signal and the identification signal to generate sensor actuator position data representative of flight control surface actuator position,
(ii) process the sensor actuator position data and the flight control surface actuator position command data to determine flight control surface actuator position error, and (iii) generate a fault signal when the flight control surface actuator position error exceeds a predetermined threshold (Column 6, Line 47 – Column 7, Line 2).
As to claim 2, Peters et al. discloses the digital surface position sensor of claim 1, and further discloses wherein:
the processing circuit is further adapted to receive actuator controller position data from an actuator controller, the actuator controller position data indicative of actual flight control surface actuator position (Column 6, Lines 20-46);
the processing circuit is further configured to process the sensor actuator position data and the actuator controller position data to determine an actuator-to-surface position error (Column 6, Lines 20-46); and
generate a disconnection fault signal when the actuator-to-surface position error exceeds a predetermined threshold (Column 6, Line 47 – Column 7, Line 2).
As to claim 3, Peters et al. discloses the digital surface position sensor of claim 1, and further discloses wherein:
the processing circuit implements a conversion algorithm to generate the sensor actuator position data (Column 6, Lines 20-46); and
the conversion algorithm is specific to the aircraft flight control surface to which the position sensor is coupled (Column 6, Lines 20-46).
As to claim 4, Peters et al. discloses the digital surface position sensor of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the processing circuit is further configured to:
implement a digital filter, the digital filter operable to filter the flight control surface actuator position command data to thereby supply filtered flight control surface actuator position command data; and process the sensor actuator position data and the filtered flight control surface actuator position command data to determine the flight control surface actuator position error (Column 4, Line 60 – Column 5, Line 8, Column 5, Lines 24-46).
As to claim 5, Peters et al. discloses the digital surface position sensor of claim 4, and further discloses wherein the digital filter is adapted to receive a reset signal (Column 5, Lines 24-46).
As to claim 6, Peters et al. discloses the digital surface position sensor of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the processing circuit is further configured to implement a fault persistence time, the fault persistence time corresponding to a predetermined amount of time to wait before generating the fault signal when the actual actuator position exceeds the predetermined threshold (Column 8, Lines 46-67).
Claims 8-13 are rejected for the same reasoning as the rejection of claims 1-6.
Claims 15-17 are rejected for the same reasoning as the rejection of claims 1-3.
As to claim 18, Peters et al. discloses the system of claim 15, and further discloses wherein:
the flight control surface actuator controller is further configured to implement a validation and selection logic scheme whereby, upon receipt of the flight control surface actuator position command data, the flight control surface actuator controller validates and selects the flight control surface actuator position command data from which to generate the flight control surface actuator commands (Column 9, Lines 1-15); and
the processing circuit implements the validation and selection logic scheme (Column 9, Lines 1-15).
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasoning as the rejection of claims 4 and 5.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasoning as the rejection of claim 6.
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.
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.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al., U.S. Patent 12,422,866 B2 (2025).
As to claim 7, Peters et al. discloses the digital surface position sensor of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the processing circuit is further configured to process the position signal and the identification signal and generate (i) a first digital position signal representative of the position of, and the identification of, the aircraft flight control surface and (ii) and independent second digital signal representative of the position of, and the identification of, the aircraft flight control surface (Column 7, Lines 3-40, repeating the second digital signal).
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of claim 1, as disclosed by Peters et al., with the use of an independent second digital signal, as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a second signal for redundancy and comparison.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasoning as the rejection of claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued Peters et al. did not even remotely suggest the limitations of the independent claims. Applicant argued the position sensors disclosed by Peters et al. were not the same as the position sensor adapted to be coupled to an aircraft flight control surface of claim 1 of the present invention. Peters et al. discloses a control loop that may be a position loop (Column 6, Line 5) to utilize hardware devices associated with individual sensor inputs (Column 6, Line 45). This is interpreted as position sensors used to sense a position and correct the position according to the flight instructions. Applicant argues the Peters et al. description of individual sensors for position loop correction are insufficient to disclose “position sensor adapted to be coupled to an aircraft flight control surface”. The limitation of claim 1 is broad in merely claiming a “position sensor”, which is disclosed by Peters et al. in reciting an individual sensor and hardware to measure the position and correct it in the position loop.
Applicant did not respond to the interpretation of claim limitation “flight control inceptor” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666