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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1-45 are currently pending.
3. Claims 1, 6, 9-10, 12, 15, 20, 23-24, 26, 31, 36, 39-40, and 42 are currently amended.
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.
4. Claims 1-45 are 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 2-14 16-30, and 32-45 have been included based on its dependency.
5. The limitation in Claim 1 with new matter recites: “a second set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a second inceptor, a third actuation axis, and a fourth actuation axis, such that one or more displayed proximities of a third graphical element of the second set relative to a fourth graphical element of the second set indicates an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the third actuation axis and an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the fourth actuation axis.”
There does not appear to be a written description of the amended claim limitation “displayed proximities of a third graphical element of the second set relative to a fourth graphical element of the second set indicates an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the third actuation axis and an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the fourth actuation axis” in the application filed. The amendment narrows the displayed graphical elements. The specification gives only one example in [0099] to display the determined proximities of the thrust and pitch. Further, [0124] and Fig. 12D of the present application illustrate an example of displaying proximities of a graphical element relative to another graphical element. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is only one set of graphical elements associated with a first and second actuation axis. As such, there is no indication in the specification that the invention had possession of displaying proximities of a third graphical element relative to a fourth graphical element indicating an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the third and fourth actuation axis.
Claims 15 and 31 have the same limitations as Claim 1 except for they are separate independent claims but are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fortenbaugh (US 9216816 B2) in view of Seiferth (US 20220043464 A1).
10. Regarding Claim 1, Fortenbaugh teaches a method of dynamically moving graphical elements of a user interface of a flight control system of an over-actuated aircraft, the method comprising (Fortenbaugh: [Column 2, Lines 26-30]):
Determining aircraft authority limits based on at least one state signal indicating an aircraft state, wherein the aircraft authority limits indicate an extent to which one or more control signals can command an aircraft (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18] and [Column 5, Lines 29-33]);
Determining one or more proximities between the aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority limits (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 11-13], [Column 4, Lines 59-76; Column 5, Lines 1-6], and [Column 5, Lines 55-58] Note that displaying the actuator positioning relative to the control limits of the aircraft is equivalent determining the proximities between the aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority. Also, note the determination of proximities of aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority limits is equivalent to the symbol 405 displayed relative to the control limits 409 and impending hazardous conditions in Figs. 4A-4C.);
And automatically moving the graphical elements of the user interface to one or more positions on the user interface based on the determined one or more proximities… and wherein a first set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a first inceptor, a first actuation axis, and a second actuation axis… (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 1-5], [Column 4, Lines 41-48], and [Column 5, Lines 58-60] Note that morphing the envelope is equivalent to automatically moving the graphical elements of the user interface based on determined proximities.).
Fortenbaugh fails to explicitly teach such that one or more displayed proximities of a first graphical element of the first set relative to a second graphical element of the first set indicates an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the first actuation axis and an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the second actuation axis, and wherein a second set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a second inceptor, a third actuation axis, and a fourth actuation axis, such that one or more displayed proximities of a third graphical element of the second set relative to a fourth graphical element of the second set indicates an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the third actuation axis and an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the fourth actuation axis.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seiferth teaches wherein a first set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a first inceptor, a first actuation axis, and a second actuation axis (Seiferth: [0023] and [0059]),
Such that one or more displayed proximities of a first graphical element of the first set relative to a second graphical element of the first set indicates an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the first actuation axis and an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the second actuation axis (Seiferth: [0017], [0023], and [0057] Note that Figs. 2A and 2B indicate the available authority in each actuation axis.),
And wherein a second set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a second inceptor, a third actuation axis, and a fourth actuation axis (Seiferth: [0023] and [0059]),
Such that one or more displayed proximities of a third graphical element of the second set relative to a fourth graphical element of the second set indicates an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the third actuation axis and an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the fourth actuation axis (Seiferth: [0017], [0023], and [0031] Note that Figs. 2A and 2B indicate the available authority in each actuation axis.).
Fortenbaugh and Seiferth are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fortenbaugh to incorporate the teachings of Seiferth to include a first and second set of graphical elements to indicate an amount of available authority in the axes relative to the other axes because it provides the benefit of informing the pilot(s) in a compact representation of the available control limits and maneuvering reserves in each axis, as explicitly explained in [0009] and [0017] of Seiferth. Seiferth improves on Fortenbaugh because each control axis affects the other axes, as explained in [0023], and each of the remaining maneuvering reserves in the four axes are displayed for the pilot.
11. Regarding Claim 2, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Seiferth teaches receiving, via one or more inceptors, the one or more control signals to control an aircraft; converting the one or more control signals to one or more actuator commands based at least in part on feedback received from one or more aircraft sensors; and outputting the one or more actuator commands to control the aircraft (Seiferth: [0026] and [0059]).
12. Regarding Claim 3, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Seiferth teaches converting the one or more control signals comprises: mapping the one or more control signals to one or more desired commands; and inputting the one or more desired commands into a control law algorithm (Seiferth: [0026], [0040], and [0059]).
13. Regarding Claim 4, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches determining the aircraft authority limits is further based on one or more of: inverting a control allocation function; an engine status; envelope protection limits; a flight status; and one or more actuator commands (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18]).
14. Regarding Claim 5, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied above in Claim 4, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches inverting the control allocation function comprises solving one or more optimization problems based on one or more of: achieved forces; achieved moments; and actuator limits (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 49-52] and [Column 4, Lines 59-63]).
15. Regarding Claim 6, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Seiferth teaches the first graphical element and the third graphical element each include one or more polygons; and the second graphical element and the fourth graphical element each include one or more points associated with the one or more polygons (Seiferth: [0051] Note that each segment indicating the first, second, third, and fourth axes each include at least one polygon graphical element and a point graphical element associated with the polygons.).
16. Regarding Claim 7, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Seiferth teaches each of the one or more polygons comprise: one or more outer polygons; and one or more inner polygons within the one or more outer polygons (Seiferth: [0052] Note that 2aa1 and 2aa3 are equivalent to inner polygons and the rectangular border of 2aa is equivalent to the outer polygon.).
17. Regarding Claim 8, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Seiferth teaches the one or more polygons are rectangles (Seiferth: [0052] Note that the outer polygon of 2aa is a rectangle (Fig. 2A).).
18. Regarding Claim 9, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Seiferth teaches each side of each of the one or more polygons correspond to control limits of one of the first actuation axis, the second actuation axis, the third actuation axis, or the fourth actuation axis (Seiferth: [0052] and [0053] Note that the ends of the output segments 2aa and 2ab indicate the control limits according to one of the actuation axes.).
19. Regarding Claim 10, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied above in Claim 9, and further, Seiferth teaches each actuation axis comprises one of: a longitudinal thrust axis; a vertical thrust axis; a lateral thrust axis; and a roll-, pitch-, or yaw-rate axis (Seiferth: [0052] and [0053] Note that the ends of the output segments 2aa and 2ab indicate the control limits according to one of the actuation axes.).
20. Regarding Claim 11, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Seiferth teaches a distance between one of the one or more points and a side of one of the one or more polygons corresponds to an amount of authority for control limits of a corresponding actuation axis (Seiferth: [0052] Note the distance of 2aa1 to 2aa3 indicates the maneuvering reserve, which is equivalent to the amount of authority for control limits corresponding to an actuation axis.).
21. Regarding Claim 12, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Seiferth teaches the first graphical element and the third graphical element each include one or more closed curvilinear shapes; and the second graphical element and the fourth graphical element each include one or more points associated with the one or more closed curvilinear shapes (Seiferth: [0051], [0052], and [0053] Note that the pitch and roll segments indicating include at least one curvilinear shape. Also, the diamond-shaped output elements 2aa1 and 2ab1 are without limitation, and therefore may include other shapes (ex: curvilinear shapes). It would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art for the graphical element to include a curvilinear shape absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally substituting a curvilinear shape for a diamond shape.).
22. Regarding Claim 13, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Seiferth teaches the one or more closed curvilinear shapes are ovals (Seiferth: [0054] Note that the output segment 2ac is a circle, which is a type of oval (curvilinear).).
23. Regarding Claim 14, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Seiferth teaches outputting an alert to a pilot of the aircraft when the one or more proximities exceed a predetermined threshold (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 25-33] and [Column 4, Lines 41-48] Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cueing the pilot to exercise caution by changing the flight envelope and displaying dashed lines to indicate when the aircraft is operating in impending hazardous conditions is equivalent to outputting an alert.).
24. Regarding Claim 15, Fortenbaugh teaches a system for dynamically moving graphical elements of a user interface of a flight control system of an over-actuated aircraft, comprising (Fortenbaugh: [Column 2, Lines 26-30]):
Determining aircraft authority limits based on at least one state signal indicating an aircraft state, wherein the aircraft authority limits indicate an extent to which one or more control signals can command the aircraft (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18] and [Column 5, Lines 29-33]);
Determining one or more proximities between the aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority limits (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 11-13], [Column 4, Lines 59-76; Column 5, Lines 1-6], and [Column 5, Lines 55-58] Note that displaying the actuator positioning relative to the control limits of the aircraft is equivalent determining the proximities between the aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority. Also, note the determination of proximities of aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority limits is equivalent to the symbol 405 displayed relative to the control limits 409 and impending hazardous conditions in Figs. 4A-4C.);
And automatically moving the graphical elements of the user interface to one or more positions on the user interface based on the determined one or more proximities… and wherein a first set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a first inceptor, a first actuation axis, and a second actuation axis… (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 1-5], [Column 4, Lines 41-48], and [Column 5, Lines 58-60] Note that morphing the envelope is equivalent to automatically moving the graphical elements of the user interface based on determined proximities.).
Fortenbaugh fails to explicitly teach at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations comprising… such that one or more displayed proximities of a first graphical element of the first set relative to a second graphical element of the first set indicates an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the first actuation axis and an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the second actuation axis, and wherein a second set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a second inceptor, a third actuation axis, and a fourth actuation axis, such that one or more displayed proximities of a third graphical element of the second set relative to a fourth graphical element of the second set indicates an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the third actuation axis and an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the fourth actuation axis.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seiferth teaches at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations comprising (Seiferth: [0015]):
Wherein a first set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a first inceptor, a first actuation axis, and a second actuation axis (Seiferth: [0023] and [0059]),
Such that one or more displayed proximities of a first graphical element of the first set relative to a second graphical element of the first set indicates an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the first actuation axis and an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the second actuation axis (Seiferth: [0017], [0023], and [0057] Note that Figs. 2A and 2B indicate the available authority in each actuation axis.),
And wherein a second set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a second inceptor, a third actuation axis, and a fourth actuation axis (Seiferth: [0023] and [0059]),
Such that one or more displayed proximities of a third graphical element of the second set relative to a fourth graphical element of the second set indicates an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the third actuation axis and an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the fourth actuation axis (Seiferth: [0017], [0023], and [0031] Note that Figs. 2A and 2B indicate the available authority in each actuation axis.).
Fortenbaugh and Seiferth are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fortenbaugh to incorporate the teachings of Seiferth to include a first and second set of graphical elements to indicate an amount of available authority in the axes relative to the other axes because it provides the benefit of informing the pilot(s) in a compact representation of the available control limits and maneuvering reserves in each axis, as explicitly explained in [0009] and [0017] of Seiferth. Seiferth improves on Fortenbaugh because each control axis affects the other axes, as explained in [0023], and each of the remaining maneuvering reserves in the four axes are displayed for the pilot.
25. Regarding Claim 16, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Seiferth teaches receiving, via one or more inceptors, the one or more control signals to control an aircraft; and converting the one or more control signals to one or more actuator commands based at least in part on feedback received from one or more aircraft sensors; and outputting the one or more actuator commands to control the aircraft (Seiferth: [0026] and [0059]).
26. Regarding Claim 17, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Seiferth teaches converting the one or more control signals comprises: mapping the one or more control signals to one or more desired commands; and inputting the one or more desired commands into a control law algorithm (Seiferth: [0026], [0040], and [0059]).
27. Regarding Claim 18, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches determining the aircraft authority limits is further based on one or more of: inverting a control allocation function; an engine status; envelope protection limits; a flight status; and one or more actuator commands (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18]).
28. Regarding Claim 19, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remains as applied above in Claim 18, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches inverting the control allocation function comprises solving one or more optimization problems based on one or more of: achieved forces; achieved moments; and actuator limits (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 49-52] and [Column 4, Lines 59-63]).
29. Regarding Claim 20, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Seiferth the first graphical element and the third graphical element each include one or more polygons; and the second graphical element and the fourth graphical element each include one or more points associated with the one or more polygons (Seiferth: [0051] Note that each segment indicating the first, second, third, and fourth axes each include at least one polygon graphical element and a point graphical element associated with the polygons.).
30. Regarding Claim 21, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remains as applied above in Claim 20, and further, Seiferth teaches each of the one or more polygons comprise: one or more outer polygons; and one or more inner polygons within the one or more outer polygons (Seiferth: [0052] Note that 2aa1 and 2aa3 are equivalent to inner polygons and the rectangular border of 2aa is equivalent to the outer polygon.).
31. Regarding Claim 22, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remains as applied above in Claim 20, and further, Seiferth teaches the one or more polygons are rectangles (Seiferth: [0052] Note that the outer polygon of 2aa is a rectangle (Fig. 2A).).
32. Regarding Claim 23, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remains as applied above in Claim 20, and further, Seiferth teaches each side of each of the one or more polygons correspond to control limits of one of the first actuation axis, the second actuation axis, the third actuation axis, or the fourth actuation axis (Seiferth: [0052] and [0053] Note that the ends of the output segments 2aa and 2ab indicate the control limits according to one of the actuation axes.).
33. Regarding Claim 24, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remains as applied above in Claim 23, and further, Seiferth teaches the actuation axis comprises one of: a longitudinal thrust axis; a vertical thrust axis; a lateral thrust axis; and a roll-, pitch-, or yaw-rate axis (Seiferth: [0052] and [0053] Note that the ends of the output segments 2aa and 2ab indicate the control limits according to one of the actuation axes.).
34. Regarding Claim 25, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remains as applied above in Claim 20, and further, Seiferth teaches a distance between one of the one or more points and a side of one of the one or more polygons corresponds to an amount of authority for control limits of a corresponding actuation axis (Seiferth: [0052] Note the distance of 2aa1 to 2aa3 indicates the maneuvering reserve, which is equivalent to the amount of authority for control limits corresponding to an actuation axis.).
35. Regarding Claim 26, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Seiferth teaches the first graphical element and the third graphical element each include one or more closed curvilinear shapes; and the second graphical element and the fourth graphical element each include one or more points associated with the one or more closed curvilinear shapes (Seiferth: [0051], [0052], and [0053] Note that the pitch and roll segments indicating include at least one curvilinear shape. Also, the diamond-shaped output elements 2aa1 and 2ab1 are without limitation, and therefore may include other shapes (ex: curvilinear shapes). It would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art for the graphical element to include a curvilinear shape absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally substituting a curvilinear shape for a diamond shape.).
36. Regarding Claim 27, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remains as applied above in Claim 26, and further, Seiferth teaches the one or more closed curvilinear shapes are ovals (Seiferth: [0054] Note that the output segment 2ac is a circle, which is a type of oval (curvilinear).).
37. Regarding Claim 28, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches the operations further comprise: outputting an alert to a pilot of the aircraft when the one or more proximities exceed a predetermined threshold (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 25-33] and [Column 4, Lines 41-48] Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cueing the pilot to exercise caution by changing the flight envelope and displaying dashed lines to indicate when the aircraft is operating in impending hazardous conditions is equivalent to outputting an alert.).
38. Regarding Claim 29, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Seiferth teaches the aircraft state is based on at least two of: a sensor measurement, a response received from at least one actuator, and a signal from an input device (Seiferth: [0042]).
39. Regarding Claim 30, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Seiferth teaches the aircraft state is based on at least two of: a sensor measurement, a response received from at least one actuator, and a signal from an input device (Seiferth: [0042]).
40. Regarding Claim 31, Fortenbaugh teaches a method of dynamically moving graphical elements of a user interface of a flight control system of an over-actuated aircraft, the method comprising (Fortenbaugh: [Column 2, Lines 26-30]):
Determining aircraft authority limits based on at least one state signal indicating an aircraft state, wherein: the aircraft authority limits indicate an extent to which one or more control signals can command an aircraft… (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18] and [Column 5, Lines 29-33]),
And the aircraft state includes at least one of: a force experienced by the aircraft, an orientation of the aircraft, a position of the aircraft, or a movement of the aircraft (Fortenbaugh: [Column 2, Lines 46-51] and [Column 4, Lines 49-52]);
Determining one or more proximities between the aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority limits (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 11-13], [Column 4, Lines 59-76; Column 5, Lines 1-6], and [Column 5, Lines 55-58] Note that displaying the actuator positioning relative to the control limits of the aircraft is equivalent determining the proximities between the aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority. Also, note the determination of proximities of aircraft state and the determined aircraft authority limits is equivalent to the symbol 405 displayed relative to the control limits 409 and impending hazardous conditions in Figs. 4A-4C.);
And automatically moving the graphical elements of the user interface to one or more positions on the user interface based on the determined one or more proximities… and wherein a first set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a first inceptor, a first actuation axis, and a second actuation axis… (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 1-5], [Column 4, Lines 41-48], and [Column 5, Lines 58-60] Note that morphing the envelope is equivalent to automatically moving the graphical elements of the user interface based on determined proximities.).
Fortenbaugh fails to explicitly teach such that one or more displayed proximities of a first graphical element of the first set relative to a second graphical element of the first set indicates an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the first actuation axis and an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the second actuation axis, and wherein a second set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a second inceptor, a third actuation axis, and a fourth actuation axis, such that one or more displayed proximities of a third graphical element of the second set relative to a fourth graphical element of the second set indicates an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the third actuation axis and an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the fourth actuation axis.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seiferth teaches wherein a first set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a first inceptor, a first actuation axis, and a second actuation axis (Seiferth: [0023] and [0059]),
Such that one or more displayed proximities of a first graphical element of the first set relative to a second graphical element of the first set indicates an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the first actuation axis and an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the second actuation axis (Seiferth: [0017], [0023], and [0057] Note that Figs. 2A and 2B indicate the available authority in each actuation axis.),
And wherein a second set of one or more of the graphical elements is associated with a second inceptor, a third actuation axis, and a fourth actuation axis (Seiferth: [0023] and [0059]),
Such that one or more displayed proximities of a third graphical element of the second set relative to a fourth graphical element of the second set indicates an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the third actuation axis and an amount of available authority the aircraft has in the fourth actuation axis (Seiferth: [0017], [0023], and [0031] Note that Figs. 2A and 2B indicate the available authority in each actuation axis.).
Fortenbaugh and Seiferth are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fortenbaugh to incorporate the teachings of Seiferth to include a first and second set of graphical elements to indicate an amount of available authority in the axes relative to the other axes because it provides the benefit of informing the pilot(s) in a compact representation of the available control limits and maneuvering reserves in each axis, as explicitly explained in [0009] and [0017] of Seiferth. Seiferth improves on Fortenbaugh because each control axis affects the other axes, as explained in [0023], and each of the remaining maneuvering reserves in the four axes are displayed for the pilot.
41. Regarding Claim 32, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remains as applied above in Claim 31, and further, Seiferth teaches receiving, via one or more inceptors, the one or more control signals to control an aircraft converting the one or more control signals to one or more actuator commands based at least in part on feedback received from one or more aircraft sensors; and outputting the one or more actuator commands to control the aircraft (Seiferth: [0026] and [0059]).
42. Regarding Claim 33, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remains as applied above in Claim 32, and further, Seiferth teaches converting the one or more control signals comprises: mapping the one or more control signals to one or more desired commands; and inputting the one or more desired commands into a control law algorithm (Seiferth: [0026], [0040], and [0059]).
43. Regarding Claim 34, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied as above in Claim 31, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches determining the aircraft authority limits is further based on one or more of: inverting a control allocation function; an engine status; envelope protection limits; a flight status; and one or more actuator commands (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 14-18]).
44. Regarding Claim 35, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied as above in Claim 34, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches inverting the control allocation function comprises solving one or more optimization problems based on one or more of: achieved forces; achieved moments; and actuator limits (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 49-52] and [Column 4, Lines 59-63]).
45. Regarding Claim 36, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied as above in Claim 31, and further, Seiferth teaches the first graphical element and the third graphical element each include one or more polygons; and the second graphical element and the fourth graphical element each include one or more points associated with the one or more polygons (Seiferth: [0051] Note that each segment indicating the first, second, third, and fourth axes each include at least one polygon graphical element and a point graphical element associated with the polygons.).
46. Regarding Claim 37, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied as above in Claim 36, and further, Seiferth teaches each of the one or more polygons comprise: one or more outer polygons; and one or more inner polygons within the one or more outer polygons (Seiferth: [0052] Note that 2aa1 and 2aa3 are equivalent to inner polygons and the rectangular border of 2aa is equivalent to the outer polygon.).
47. Regarding Claim 38, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied as above in Claim 36, and further, Seiferth teaches the one or more polygons are rectangles (Seiferth: [0052] Note that the outer polygon of 2aa is a rectangle (Fig. 2A).).
48. Regarding Claim 39, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied as above in Claim 36, and further, Seiferth teaches each side of each of the one or more polygons correspond to control limits of one of the first actuation axis, the second actuation axis, the third actuation axis, or the fourth actuation axis (Seiferth: [0052] and [0053] Note that the ends of the output segments 2aa and 2ab indicate the control limits according to one of the actuation axes.).
49. Regarding Claim 40, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied as above in Claim 39, and further, Seiferth teaches the actuation axis comprises one of: a longitudinal thrust axis; a vertical thrust axis; a lateral thrust axis; and a roll-, pitch-, or yaw-rate axis (Seiferth: [0052] and [0053] Note that the ends of the output segments 2aa and 2ab indicate the control limits according to one of the actuation axes.).
50. Regarding Claim 41, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied as above in Claim 36, and further, Seiferth teaches a distance between one of the one or more points and a side of one of the one or more polygons corresponds to an amount of authority for control limits of a corresponding actuation axis (Seiferth: [0052] Note the distance of 2aa1 to 2aa3 indicates the maneuvering reserve, which is equivalent to the amount of authority for control limits corresponding to an actuation axis.).
51. Regarding Claim 42, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied as above in Claim 31, and further, Seiferth teaches the first graphical element and the third graphical element each include one or more closed curvilinear shapes; and the second graphical element and the fourth graphical element each include one or more points associated with the one or more closed curvilinear shapes (Seiferth: [0051], [0052], and [0053] Note that the pitch and roll segments indicating include at least one curvilinear shape. Also, the diamond-shaped output elements 2aa1 and 2ab1 are without limitation, and therefore may include other shapes (ex: curvilinear shapes). It would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art for the graphical element to include a curvilinear shape absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally substituting a curvilinear shape for a diamond shape.).
52. Regarding Claim 43, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied as above in Claim 42, and further, Seiferth teaches the one or more closed curvilinear shapes are ovals (Seiferth: [0054] Note that the output segment 2ac is a circle, which is a type of oval (curvilinear).).
53. Regarding Claim 44, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied as above in Claim 31, and further, Fortenbaugh teaches outputting an alert to a pilot of the aircraft when the one or more proximities exceed a predetermined threshold (Fortenbaugh: [Column 4, Lines 25-33] and [Column 4, Lines 41-48] Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cueing the pilot to exercise caution by changing the flight envelope and displaying dashed lines to indicate when the aircraft is operating in impending hazardous conditions is equivalent to outputting an alert.).
54. Regarding Claim 45, Fortenbaugh and Seiferth remain as applied as above in Claim 31, and further, Seiferth teaches the aircraft state is based on at least two of: a sensor measurement, a response received from at least one actuator, and a signal from an input device (Seiferth: [0042]).
Response to Arguments
55. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-45 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Seiferth (US 20220043464 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of the displayed proximities of the first and third graphical elements are relative to a second and fourth graphical element indicative of the amount of available authority in each axis in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0017], [0023], and [0057]. Seiferth teaches to display the remaining maneuver reserves for each axis which are dependent on the other axes.
56. Fortenbaugh (US 9216816 B2) in view of Seiferth (US 20220043464 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
57. Claims 1-45 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
58. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alexander (US 5912627 A)
59. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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 T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights