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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Recksiek (US 20130181089 A1) in view of Harrington (US 20190152583 A1) and Tzabari (US 20200070953 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Recksiek (US 20130181089 A1) teaches a method of preventing excessive loads in an actuation system comprising a plurality of actuators (Recksiek, figure 1, items A11-A22 and B11-B22), a common power drive unit for driving the actuators (Recksiek, figure 1, item 1P) and a transmission line transmitting drive from the power drive unit to the plurality of actuators (Recksiek, figure 1, items 11 and 12), the method comprising:
sensing an abnormal load within the actuation system (Recksiek, ¶26-¶38) using at least one sensor configured to sense a parameter indicative of load (Recksiek, ¶35, load sensor detecting loads) wherein the at least one sensor is located at an actuator (Recksiek, ¶63 load sensor at input and output of actuator; also figure 2, item 26, position sensor) and in response to an abnormal load being sensed, applying a braking force to the disconnected actuators (Recksiek, ¶83 and ¶101, wing tip brake is actuated by a signal from control and monitoring device), except:
in response to an abnormal load being sensed, disconnecting the power drive unit from the plurality of actuators;
wherein disconnecting the power drive unit from the plurality of actuators comprises disengaging a clutch located in the transmission line upstream of a point at which the transmission line splits into two sections, such that the disengaging of the clutch disconnects power from all of the plurality of actuators.
Harrington (US 20190152583 A1) teaches disconnecting the power drive unit from the plurality of actuators comprises disengaging a clutch a clutch located in a transmission line upstream of a point at which the transmission line splits into two sections such that the disengaging of the clutch disconnects power from all of the plurality of actuators (Harrington, figure 1, items 230a and 290; ¶38, clutch disengages slat system from the gearbox and thus the gearbox).
Recksiek and Harrington are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft control surface drive systems. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the transmission line of Recksiek with a clutch disengaging a power drive unit located on a transmission line upstream of where the transmission line splits into two sections of Harrington with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent asymmetric deployment of slats/flaps.
Tzabari (US 20200070953 A1) teaches a method wherein, in response to an abnormal load within the actuation system being sensed (Tzabari, figure 3, item 312, ¶53, control signals used to activate/deactivate clutches based on feedback signals from sensors), disconnecting the power drive unit from the plurality of actuators (Tzabari, ¶25, control signals used to activate/deactivate clutches based on feedback signals from sensors).
Recksiek as modified by Harrington and Tzabari are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft control surface drive systems. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Recksiek as modified by Harrington with the clutches disconnecting a power drive unit in response to an abnormal load of Tzabari with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent damage to the actuation system and moved surfaces in the event of excess force or a jam.
Regarding claim 2, Recksiek as modified by Harrington and Tzabari teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the actuation system is provided in an aircraft comprising a plurality movable surfaces arranged on respective wings (Recksiek, abstract, flaps on each wing of aircraft);
wherein the plurality of movable surfaces are driven by respective actuators operating the movable surfaces (Recksiek, figure 1, items A1, A2, B1, B2, actuators drive movable surfaces);
wherein applying the braking force comprises controlling wing tip brakes associated with the actuators of each wing (Recksiek, figure 1, item WTB, ¶83, wing tip brakes are actuated to lock up drive shaft and controlled by control and monitoring device).
Regarding claim 3, Recksiek as modified by Harrington and Tzabari teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the disconnecting the power drive unit comprises controlling operation of a clutch (Harrington, figure 3, item 230a, ¶38; Tzabari, ¶53, control signals used to activate/deactivate clutches based on feedback signals from sensors) arranged between the power drive unit (Harrington, figure 3, item 250) and the plurality of actuators (Harrington, figure 3, item 58; Recksiek, figure 1, items A11-A22 and B11-B22).
Regarding claim 5, Recksiek as modified by Harrington and Tzabari teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
sensing a parameter indicative of system load (Recksiek, ¶94, load sensor detects load); and
determining whether the sensed parameter indicates an abnormal load (Recksiek, ¶94 and ¶108, overload detected when load is above a threshold).
Regarding claim 6, Recksiek as modified by Harrington and Tzabari teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the system load is one of: a system torque (Recksiek, ¶94, load sensor detects load),
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Recksiek (US 20130181089 A1) in view of Harrington (US 20190152583 A1) and Tzabari (US 20200070953 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ochtman (US 2465601 A).
Regarding claim 4, Recksiek as modified by Harrington and Tzabari teaches the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein applying the braking force comprises controlling a brake (Recksiek, figure 1, item WTB, ¶83, wing tip brakes are actuated to lock up drive shaft and controlled by control and monitoring device), wherein the clutch is arranged between the power drive unit and the plurality of actuators (Harrington, figure 1, items 230a and 290), except:
wherein the brake is arranged between the power drive unit and the plurality of actuators, and
wherein the brake is integrated into the clutch.
Ochtman (US 2465601 A) teaches a method wherein braking is effected by means of a brake (Ochtman, figure 7, item 222) integrated into the clutch (Ochtman, figure 7, clutch).
Recksiek as modified by Harrington and Tzabari and Ochtman are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of actuation system design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the clutch of Recksiek as modified by Harrington and Tzabari with the brake integrated into the clutch of Ochtman with a reasonable expectation of success in order to automatically brake the system when the drive is disengaged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Darby (US 12134374 B2) teaches an actuation system with a brake
Harrington (US 20190152583 A1) teaches an actuation system with a monitoring system and clutches
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 RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 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, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights