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 .
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 9-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20210039770 A1) in view of Moser et al. (US 20150083855 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Thomas teaches a drive assembly for driving a movable flow body of an aircraft, comprising: a power drive unit (Fig. 7 element 101), a first flex shaft connecting the power drive unit to an inboard drive station (Fig. 7 element 109 between element 101 and element 104A), a second flex shaft connecting the inboard drive station to an outboard drive station (Fig. 7 element 109 between element 104A and 104B), a first non-hydraulic actuator (Fig. 7 element 104A) connected to the inboard drive station and being couplable with the movable flow body (“The actuator may be of a ballscrew type, geared rotary actuator type, or other such mechanical device converting drive shaft 109 motion to flap motion” Par. [0079] lines 8-10), a second non-hydraulic actuator (Fig. 7 element 104B) connected to the outboard drive station and being couplable with the movable flow body (“The actuator may be of a ballscrew type, geared rotary actuator type, or other such mechanical device converting drive shaft 109 motion to flap motion” Par. [0079] lines 8-10), the second non-hydraulic actuator including a position feedback sensor (Fig. 7 element 106), wherein the power drive unit includes a first electric motor (“the power drive unit of FIG. 7 specifically has a first motor 510 and a second motor 520 associated with it” Par. [0166] lines 5-6), and wherein the position feedback sensor is configured to send a position feedback signal to the flight control computer (Fig. 7 element 106), the power drive unit is configured to drive a single movable flow body (“whilst the lost motion device is enabled, operating the power drive unit to move the first actuator to the first actuator desired position such that the second actuator remains at the second actuator desired position, and using the second position sensor to determine the position of the first part relative to the second part” Par. [0006] lines 10-15).
Thomas fails to explicitly teach a flight control computer; the power drive unit includes a power off brake, and the flight control computer is configured to control the power drive unit.
However, Moser teaches a flight control computer (Fig. 6 element 450); the power drive unit includes a power off brake (“The VCTU 302 may include the above-mentioned power-off brake 310 which may be coupled to the VCTU electric motor 304” Par. [0067] lines 5-7), and the flight control computer is configured to control the power drive unit (“upon detection by the flight control computer 450 of an gap-command condition 512, the edge control system 452 may automatically command the VCTU motor controller 303 to activate the electric motor 304 in a manner causing the outboard slats 156 to be extended from the sealed position 182 (FIG. 4) to the gapped position 184 (FIG. 5)” Par. [0062] lines 10-16).
Thomas and Moser are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft movable surface actuation. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuation system of Thomas to have the flight controller and power of brake as disclosed by Moser. Power off brakes are known in the art to increase the safety of the aircraft as they act as a failsafe brake applied in a situation where power is unavailable. It also would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a flight control computer as disclosed by Moser as flight control computers are known in the art to control the motion of the movable surface.
Regarding Claim 3, Thomas and Moser teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Thomas further discloses at least one separate gearbox is attached to an input of the first and second non-hydraulic actuators (“The first and second motors are connected to a speed summing differential gearbox, the output of which drives shaft system 109” Par. [0166] lines 7-10).
Regarding Claim 5, Thomas and Moser teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Thomas further discloses the power drive unit is positioned inboard of the first and second non-hydraulic actuators (Fig. 7 element 101).
Regarding Claim 6, Thomas and Moser teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Thomas further discloses the plurality of drive assemblies are independent from each other, such that individual flow bodies can be moved independently from each other (Shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 9, Thomas and Moser teach the limitations set forth in Claim 6.
Thomas further discloses the first and second non-hydraulic actuators are ball screw actuators or geared rotational actuators; and wherein the first and second non-hydraulic actuators further include a no-back device. (“The actuator may be of a ballscrew type, geared rotary actuator type, or other such mechanical device converting drive shaft 109 motion to flap motion” Par. [0079] lines 8-10).
Regarding Claim 10, Thomas and Moser teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Thomas further discloses a high lift/flap system comprising: at least one movable flow body; wherein the at least one movable flow body is couplable to at least one drive assembly according to claim 1 (Shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 11, Thomas and Moser teach the limitations set forth in Claim 6.
Thomas further discloses a high lift/flap system comprising: at least one movable flow body; wherein the at least one movable flow body is couplable to at least one drive system according to claim 6 (Shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 12, Thomas and Moser teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Thomas further discloses an aircraft wing comprising: at least one drive assembly according to claim 1 (Shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 13, Thomas and Moser teach the limitations set forth in Claim 6.
Thomas further discloses an aircraft wing comprising: at least one drive system according to claim 6 (Shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 18, Thomas and Moser teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Thomas further discloses each of the first non-hydraulic actuator and the second non-hydraulic actuator is a ball screw actuator (“The actuator may be of a ballscrew type, geared rotary actuator type, or other such mechanical device converting drive shaft 109 motion to flap motion” Par. [0079] lines 8-10).
Regarding Claim 19, Thomas and Moser teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Thomas further discloses each of the first non-hydraulic actuator and the second non-hydraulic actuator is a geared rotational actuator (“The actuator may be of a ballscrew type, geared rotary actuator type, or other such mechanical device converting drive shaft 109 motion to flap motion” Par. [0079] lines 8-10).
Regarding Claim 20, Thomas and Moser teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Thomas further discloses each of the first non-hydraulic actuator and the second non-hydraulic actuator is a ball screw actuator or a geared rotational actuator (“The actuator may be of a ballscrew type, geared rotary actuator type, or other such mechanical device converting drive shaft 109 motion to flap motion” Par. [0079] lines 8-10).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20210039770 A1) in view of Moser et al. (US 20150083855 A1) and further in view of Tzabari (EP 3653494 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Thomas and Moser teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Thomas and Moser fail to explicitly teach the first and second non-hydraulic actuators are acme screw actuators, respectively.
However, Tzabari teaches the first and second non-hydraulic actuators are acme screw actuators, respectively (“the actuators 214A, 214B may be reversible actuators such as the aforementioned ball-screw actuator, irreversible actuators such as lead or ACME screw actuators, or reversible actuators having a no-back mechanism” Col. 11 lines 57 – Col. 12 line 3).
Thomas, Moser and Tzabari are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft movable surface actuation. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuators of Thomas in view of Moser to be acme screw actuators as disclosed by Tzabari. Doing so would provide a cost efficient, reliable linear actuator that can withstand high loads. Acme screw actuators are known in the art and are not considered novel.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20210039770 A1) in view of Moser et al. (US 20150083855 A1) and further in view of Teubner (US 20170158348 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Thomas and Moser teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Tomas and Moser fail to explicitly teach a load sensor integrated on the drive station of at least one of the first and second non-hydraulic actuators.
However, Teubner teaches a load sensor integrated on the drive station of at least one of the first and second non-hydraulic actuators (“In a further method load sensors are arranged on the struts connecting the output of a drive station and the respective flap such that the load applied to the struts can be measured during holding and positioning of the flap” Par. [0008] lines 1-4).
Thomas, Moser and Teubner are considered analogous to the claims invention as they are in the same field of aircraft movable surface actuation. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Thomas in view of Moser to have the load sensors as disclosed by Teubner. Doing so would increase the safety of the system as the load measurements would be used to determine when a load threshold has been exceeded.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20210039770 A1) in view of Moser et al. (US 20150083855 A1), in view of Teubner (US 20170158348 A1)and further in view of Tzabari (EP 3653493 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Thomas and Moser teach the limitations set forth in Claim 6.
Thomas and Moser fail to explicitly teach each of the plurality of drive assemblies further comprises a second electric motor, a torque summing gear and at least one load sensor on a drive station actuator.
However, Teubner teaches at least one load sensor on a drive station actuator (“load sensors are arranged on the struts connecting the output of a drive station and the respective flap such that the load applied to the struts can be measured during holding and positioning of the flap” Par. [0008] lines 1-4).
Thomas, Moser and Teubner are considered analogous to the claims invention as they are in the same field of aircraft movable surface actuation. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Thomas in view of Moser to have the load sensors as disclosed by Teubner. Doing so would increase the safety of the system as the load measurements would be used to determine when a load threshold has been exceeded.
Thomas, Moser and Teubner fail to explicitly teach a second electric motor, a torque summing gear
However, Tzabari teaches a second electric motor (Fig. 3A elements 304) and a torque summing gear (Fig. 3A element 306) on a drive station actuator (Fig. 3A elements 214).
Thomas, Moser, Teubner and Tzabari are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of aircraft actuation system design. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuation system of Thomas to have the torque summing gear as disclosed by Tzabari. Doing so would increase the reliability of the drive system by combining the torque from multiple inputs in order to move the movable surface. This would decrease the stress of a single electric motor and would provide redundancy in a situation where a single motor would break.
Regarding Claim 8, Thomas, Moser, Teubner and Tzabari teach the limitations set forth in Claim 7.
Tzabari further discloses each of the plurality of drive assembly further comprising a brake located downstream after the torque summing gear and between the inboard and outboard drive station actuators; wherein the brake is a constant friction brake (“The brake 220 may comprise, for example, a frictional power-off brake to lock the drive device 300 unless a power signal is applied, which also results in a locked PDU 302 and high-lift surface 202 upon complete power failure” Col. 15 lines 32-36).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-17 are allowed. Regarding Claim 14, there is no prior art nor any reasons to modify any prior art to have sending an activation command from the redundant flight control computer to a power drive unit of at least one of the drive assemblies, sending a direction command and a speed command from the redundant flight control computer to the power drive unit, wherein the speed command is either "high speed" or "low speed", and wherein the "high speed" or "low speed" commands correspond to pre-programmed speed values in a motor control electronics of the power drive unit. The limitations stated along with the other limitations of the independent claim give reason for allowance. Claims 15-17 are allowable as being dependent on Claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the power drive unit of Thomas is not configured to drive a single movable flow body. The examiner respectfully disagrees as Thomas states that the power drive unit can operate a first actuator while maintaining the position of a second actuator as cited in the above rejection. By being able to move a first actuator while not moving a second actuator, the power drive unit is configured to move a single movable flow body.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights