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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/1/2026.
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.
Claims 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagerott et al. (US 9340278 B2), hereinafter Hagerott, in view of Taylor (US 20120205494 A1).
Regarding Claim 13
Hagerott teaches a hybrid flight control system for an aircraft having a plurality of control surfaces (Abstract), the system comprising: an operator input means configured to receive mechanical inputs from an aircraft operator (control means (304)), the operator input means being connected to a sensor (force sensors (305)); a flight control computing system comprising a first flight control computer (computing device (310)), the flight control computer being in data communication with the sensor (force signals (312a)), wherein the computing system receives a signal from at least one sensor in response to an input by the operator (Col. 4 Lines 34-38 “The computing device 310 is also coupled to the control means 304 by a signal connection 312. In this configuration, the computing device 310 receives the force measurement from the control means 304 by way of the force signals 312a”); a first control surface for controlling a first axis of the aircraft (flight control surface (302)), the first control surface having a first portion connected to the operator input via a mechanical linkage (segment (302(b) attached via mechanical linkage (306)) and a second portion connected to and moveable by at least one servo actuator configured to receive signals from the flight control computing system (Col. 6 Lines 17-19 “The servo actuators 308 are coupled to a computing device 310 by command signal connections 312b”); and a second control surface for controlling a second axis of the aircraft (control surfaces (108) or ailerons (112), for example), the second control surface having a first portion connected to the operator input via a mechanical linkage and second portion connected to and moveable by at least one servo actuator configured to receive signals from the flight control computing system (Col. 3 Lines 32-35 “The present invention is applicable to a variety of control surfaces, and FIG. 1 shows one possible configuration of the present invention as applied to control surfaces such as rudders, elevators, and ailerons”, Examiner notes that although the invention is only shown for generic control surface (302), the invention is disclosed as being used with any and all control surfaces on the aircraft (100), and therefore has a first and second connecting portion as claimed, Fig. 4), but does not teach:
a flight control computing system comprising a first and a second flight control computer;
a first control surface having a second portion connected to and moveable by at least one EMA in data communication with a first EMA controller configured to receive signals from the flight control computing system;
a second control surface having a second portion connected to and moveable by at least one EMA in data communication with a second EMA controller configured to receive signals from the flight control computing system.
Taylor teaches:
a flight control computing system comprising a first and a second flight control computer (controller (80) having computing elements (80, 84, 86, 88));
a first control surface having a second portion connected to and moveable by at least one EMA in data communication with a first EMA controller configured to receive signals from the flight control computing system (for example, roll motor (34R) controlled by motor drive (94) and computing element (88), the motor (34) being defined as an EMA in the Abstract, Fig. 6);
a second control surface having a second portion connected to and moveable by at least one EMA in data communication with a second EMA controller configured to receive signals from the flight control computing system (for example, pitch motor (34P) controlled by motor drive (92P) and computing element (86), the motor (34) being defined as an EMA in the Abstract, Fig. 6).
While Hagerott discloses a generic computing device, Taylor teaches a specific computing structure, namely a controller comprising a plurality of computing elements that are used to monitor and control a respective control surface. 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 the flight control system of Hagerott with the teachings of Taylor with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of having computing elements for each set of control surfaces that generate commands based on a given input from an operator, which could, for example, allow for better load sharing, thereby reducing the risk of a single point of failure.
Examiner further notes that Hagerott teaches the use of servo actuators to articulate the control surfaces. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the noted features of Taylor with the teachings of Hagerott since the combination of the two references is merely simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is, in the substitution of the EMAs of the secondary reference(s) for the servo actuators of the primary reference. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding Claim 14
Hagerott, in view of Taylor, teaches the flight control system of claim 13, further comprising: a second operator input means connected to an artificial feel system and a sensor (Hagerott: cockpit controls (714) connected to sensors (705) and artificial feel system (718)), the sensor being in communication with the flight control computing system (Hagerott: sensor (705) in communication with computing device (710)); and a third control surface for controlling a third axis of the aircraft, the third control surface being operable in response to an input via the second operator input means (Hagerott: Col. 8 Lines 19-21 “Cockpit controls 704 are shown as being hand operated in FIG. 7, but could alternatively be a foot-operated arrangement”, Col. 4 Lines 14-17 “Typical control means include, but are not limited to, hand-operated controls for pitch and roll such as a yoke or stick, and foot-operated controls for yaw, such as pedals”).
Regarding Claim 15
Hagerott, in view of Taylor, teaches the flight control system of claim 14, wherein the third control surface is connected to and moveable by at least one EMA in data communication with a third EMA controller configured to receive signals from the flight control computing system (Taylor: for example, yaw motor (34Y) controlled by motor drive (92Y) and computing element (84), the motor (34) being defined as an EMA in the Abstract, Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 17
Hagerott, in view of Taylor, teaches the flight control system of claim 13, wherein the mechanical linkage connecting the first portion of the first control surface to the operator input includes an autopilot servo (Hagerott: Col. 5 Lines 35-38 “The present invention can also receive and act on other control commands such as from trim, autopilot, and stability augmentation system”, as best understood by Examiner, this disclosure indicates that any portion of the control surface may be controlled by autopilot).
Regarding Claim 18
Hagerott, in view of Taylor, teaches the flight control system of claim 17, wherein the mechanical linkage connecting the first portion of the second control surface to the operator input includes an autopilot servo (Hagerott: Col. 5 Lines 35-38 “The present invention can also receive and act on other control commands such as from trim, autopilot, and stability augmentation system”, as best understood by Examiner, this disclosure indicates that any portion of the control surface may be controlled by autopilot).
Regarding Claim 19
Hagerott, in view of Taylor, teaches the flight control system of claim 13, further comprising a third control surface, the third control surface being configured to control the first axis of the aircraft (Hagerott: Examiner notes that the third control surface can be defined as the flight control surface on the opposite side of the aircraft as the first control surface. For example, the first control surface (302) could be the left aileron (102), while the third control surface is the right aileron (102), Fig. 1 & 4) and being connected to at least one EMA in data communication with a third EMA controller configured to receive signals from the flight control computing system (Hagerott: Col. 3 Line 54 – Col. 4 Line 5 discusses control surfaces on either side of the aircraft moving in opposition to one another, Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in order to achieve this, each control surface of Hagerott, in view of Taylor, would have its own EMA and EMA controller).
Regarding Claim 20
Hagerott, in view of Taylor, teaches the flight control system of claim 19, but does not teach:
wherein the at least one EMA in data communication with the third EMA controller is in data communication with a fourth EMA controller configured to receive signals from the flight control computing system.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a fourth EMA controller, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Examiner further notes that modifying Hagerott, in view of Taylor, to include an additional EMA controller would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing redundancy to the system. In the event the third EMA controller fails, the fourth EMA controller could still be configured to receive signals from the flight control computing system, and vice versa if the fourth EMA controller were to fail.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230125050 A1 – “Systems, Methods, And Apparatus To Control Aircraft Roll Operations Using Wing Actuators”
US 20190072952 A1 – “Automatic Envelope Limiting Based On Detected Hydraulic Failures”
US 20180099739 A1 – “Electric Control Member, A Rotary Wing Aircraft, And A Method”
US 20170253320 A1 – “Fly-By-Wire Retrofit Kit”
US 20100116929 A1 – “Hybrid Electromechanical/Hydromechanical Actuator And Actuation Control System”
US 7600715 B2 – “Local Backup Hydraulic Actuator For Aircraft Control Systems”
US 6241182 B1 – “Hybrid Control System For An Aircraft Aerodynamic Surface”
US 5875818 A – “Opto-Electric/Hydraulic Servoactuation”
US 5100082 A1 – “Hydraulic Power Supplies”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine June Walter whose telephone number is (571)272-6150. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights