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Claims 1-4 and 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/2/2026.
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species H in the reply filed on 2/2/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species G and H are similar and related, and Applicant states that the two species are obvious variants of each other. Additionally, Applicant argues that Examiner has not provided a reason why there would be a serious search and/or examination burden. Examiner notes that the Requirement for Restriction dated 12/19/2025 states that a serious search and/or examination burden exists for the patentably distinct species, for example, since a different field of search is required (as evidenced by paragraph (C)). Examiner notes that searching for Species H required search terms such as “flaps” and “spoilers”, while the search for Species G would not. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 introduces the acronym “EMA” which is not defined in the claims. The first introduction of this acronym should be amended to define the acronym, i.e. “electro-mechanical actuator (EMA)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “a third EMA controller in data communication with a third EMA and the flight control computing system, the third EMA being operably connected to a third aerodynamic control surface that, when moved by the second EMA, causes the aircraft to change attitude in a third degree of freedom”, which is indefinite because it is unclear which EMA is moving the third aerodynamic control surface. Examiner believes this may be an error and should read “when moved by the third EMA”. For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as having the third EMA move the third aerodynamic control surface.
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)(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 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Taylor (US 20120205494 A1).
Regarding Claim 5
Taylor teaches a flight control system for an aircraft having a plurality of aerodynamic control surfaces (Abstract, Fig. 6), the system comprising: an operator input means (control stick (12)) configured to receive a mechanical input from an aircraft operator and being connected to at least one sensor (Para. [0061] “In operation, when the pilot applies a force to the inceptor with the intention of moving the control linkage, the force is sensed by force sensor 72”); a flight control computing system comprising a first, a second, and a third flight control computer (controller (80) having computing elements (80, 84, 86, 88)), each flight control computer being in data communication with the at least one sensor (Fig. 6), wherein the computing system receives a signal from the at least one sensor in response to an input by the operator (Para. [0053] “The purpose of each primary computing element is to generate commands to its motor 34 based on the sensed inceptor force and position from its respective force and position sensors 72, 70”); a first EMA controller in data communication with a first EMA and 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), the first EMA being operably connected to at least a first portion of a first aerodynamic control surface (roll link (62)) that, when moved by the first EMA, causes the aircraft to change attitude in a first degree of freedom (Abstract, Para. [0031]-[0032]); and a second EMA controller in data communication with a second EMA and 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), the second EMA being operably connected to at least a first portion of a second aerodynamic control surface (variable-pitch blades on main and tail rotors (18, 20), pitch link (64)) that, when moved by the second EMA, causes the aircraft to change attitude in a second degree of freedom (Abstract, Para. [0031]-[0032]).
Regarding Claim 10
Taylor teaches the system of claim 5, further comprising: a second operator input means (rudder pedals (16)) configured to receive a mechanical input from an aircraft operator and being connected to at least one sensor and an artificial feel system (Para. [0001], Para. [0061] “In operation, when the pilot applies a force to the inceptor with the intention of moving the control linkage, the force is sensed by force sensor 72”), the sensor being in data communication with the flight control computing system (Fig. 6); and a third EMA controller in data communication with a third EMA and the flight control computing system (for example, yaw motor (34Y) controlled by motor drive (96) and computing element (82Y), the motor (34) being defined as an EMA in the Abstract, Fig. 6), the third EMA being operably connected to a third aerodynamic control surface (rudder link (60)) that, when moved by the second EMA, causes the aircraft to change attitude in a third degree of freedom (Abstract, Para. [0031]-[0032]).
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 6-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 20120205494 A1), in view of Lin et al. (US 20110066305 A1), hereinafter Lin.
Regarding Claim 6
Taylor teaches the system of claim 5, but does not teach:
further comprising a third EMA, the third EMA being in data communication with the first EMA controller and being operably connected to a second portion of the first aerodynamic control surface.
However, Lin teaches:
a first and second actuator (actuator/motors (26)) being in data communication with a controller (electronics bay (24)), the second actuator being operably connected to a second portion of the first aerodynamic control surface (Fig. 1).
Lin teaches that it was known to use a plurality of actuators on a single 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 system of Taylor with an additional EMA being in data communication with the first EMA controller and operably connected to a second portion of the first aerodynamic control surface as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing redundancy to the system, as evidenced by Lin. That way, in the event of failure of one of the EMAs, the control surface is still actuatable.
Examiner further notes that adding an additional EMA to the control surface is merely a duplication of parts. Duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 7
Taylor, in view of Lin, teaches the system of claim 6, further comprising a fourth EMA, the fourth EMA being in data communication with the second EMA controller and being operably connected to a second portion of the second aerodynamic control surface (Lin: Fig. 1 shows multiple actuators on a second aerodynamic control surface, Examiner notes it would have been obvious to have applied this teaching to the system of Taylor for the reasons outlined in the rejection to claim 6 above).
Regarding Claim 8
Taylor teaches the system of claim 5, but does not teach:
further comprising a third EMA controller in data communication with a third EMA and the flight control computing system, the third EMA being operably connected to a second portion of the first aerodynamic control surface.
However, Lin teaches:
a first and second actuator (actuator/motors (26)) being in data communication with a controller (electronics bay (24)), the second actuator being operably connected to a second portion of the first aerodynamic control surface (Fig. 1).
Lin teaches that it was known to use a plurality of actuators on a single 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 system of Taylor with an additional EMA controller in data communication with an additional EMA and the flight control computing system, the third EMA being operably connected to a second portion of the first aerodynamic control surface as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing redundancy to the system, as evidenced by Lin. That way, in the event of failure of one of the EMAs, the control surface is still actuatable.
Examiner notes that it is unclear how many EMA controllers are present within the electronics bay 24 shown in Fig. 1, but further notes that adding an additional EMA controller and EMA to the control surface is merely a duplication of parts. Duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 9
Taylor, in view of Lin, teaches the system of claim 8, further comprising a fourth EMA controller in data communication with a fourth EMA and the flight control computing system, the fourth EMA being operably connected to a second portion of the second aerodynamic control surface (Lin: Fig. 1 shows multiple actuators on a second aerodynamic control surface, Examiner notes it would have been obvious to have applied this teaching to the system of Taylor for the reasons outlined in the rejection to claim 8 above).
Regarding Claim 11
Taylor, in view of Lin, teaches the system of claim 7, further comprising: a second operator input means (Taylor: rudder pedals (16)) configured to receive a mechanical input from an aircraft operator and being connected to at least one sensor and an artificial feel system (Taylor: Para. [0001], Para. [0061] “In operation, when the pilot applies a force to the inceptor with the intention of moving the control linkage, the force is sensed by force sensor 72”), the sensor being in data communication with the flight control computing system (Taylor: Fig. 6); and a fifth and sixth EMA, each being in data communication with a third EMA controller and each being operably connected to a third aerodynamic control surface that, when moved in response to an operator input via the second operator input means, causes the aircraft to change attitude in a third degree of freedom (Taylor: for example, yaw motor (34Y) controlled by motor drive (96) and computing element (82Y), the motor (34) being defined as an EMA in the Abstract, the control surface moved in response to operator input via rudder link (60), Para. [0031]-[0032], Lin: Fig. 1 shows multiple actuators on a second aerodynamic control surface, Examiner notes it would have been obvious to have applied this teaching to the system of Taylor for the reasons outlined in the rejection to claim 6 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20230322366 A1 – “Triplex Fully Redundant Fly-by-Wire Architecture”
EP 2840021 B1 – “Redundant Current-sum Feedback Actuator”
US 20170355449 A1 – “Electrical Architecture For Slat/Flap Control Using Smart Sensors And Effectors”
US 20120290153 A1 – “Flight Control System With Alternate Control Path”
US 20100305780 A1 – “Flight Control System And Method Of Separating Control Lever Linkage”
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 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642