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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Durand (US 5,722,616).
Regarding Claim 1, Durand discloses a rotary actuator assembly (see Fig. 2) for moving a first relatively movable part relative to a second relatively movable part (see Fig. 2), the assembly comprising:
A rotary actuator (see Fig. 3) having a plurality of annular earth members (62) for attachment to one of the first and the second relatively movable parts and one or more annular output members (36) for attachment to the other of the first and second relatively movable parts (see Fig. 3)
Wherein the annulus of the earth members and the one or more output members are coaxial defining a lumen through the rotary actuator along an actuator axis A (see Fig. 3, showing axis “x”).
At least one rotary motor (30) (see Col. 6 Lines 1-26, disclosing a hydraulic motor for driving the actuator) arranged to rotate the annular output member relative to the annular earth members (see Figs. 2-5), about the actuator axis A (see Fig. 3), the rotary actuator assembly further comprising:
A rod (32) extending through the lumen and extending axially beyond the earth members (see Fig. 3).
Wherein the at least one rotor motor is mounted around (see Fig. 5, showing the fins of the hydraulic motor are mounted around the rod), and engages the rod such that rotation of the at least one rotor motor causes corresponding rotation of the rod (see Col. 6 Lines 26-31).
Wherein the rod is connected to the one or more output members such that rotation of the rod causes rotation of the output member (see Figs. 2-5).
Regarding Claim 3, Durand further disclose the assembly of claim 1, comprising two or more rotary motors (see Figs. 2 and 3, showing a hair of hydraulic lines 55 for supplying power to the two hydraulic motors), at least one rotary motor provided either side of the rotary actuator (see Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Durand further discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the one or more output members are positioned between one or more pairs of earth members (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Durand further discloses the assembly of claim 1, further comprising:
An anti-rotation feature between one or more earth members and one or more of the at least one rotary motor to prevent rotation of the motor relative to the earth member (see Fig. 3, showing the earth members are mounted on the outer housing of the motor, and accordingly relative rotation is prevented).
Regarding Claim 7, Durand further discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the rod extends from the assembly such that it can be manually rotated from one end (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Durand further discloses the assembly of claim 1, comprising a joint connecting the rod to the or each motor (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Durand further discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the earth members and/or the one or more output members are provided with radially outwardly extending locking features around their circumference configured to be received in a mounting sleeve having complementary locking features to engage with the radially extending locking features (see Fig. 5, showing splines).
Regarding Claim 12, Durand further discloses the assembly of claim 11, wherein the radially extending locking features are splines (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 13, Durand further discloses the assembly of claim 12, wherein both the earth members and the one or more output members are provided with the radially extending locking features (see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 14, Durand further discloses a mounting assembly comprising:
A rotary actuator assembly as claimed in claim 11.
A mounting sleeve (see Fig. 2, part of elements 20, 26) having a plurality of radially inwardly extending circumferential locking features positioned along the length of the sleeve so as to engage with the radially outwardly extending locking features of the rotary actuator assembly when inserted in the mounting sleeve (see Figs. 2 and 5).
Claims 1-2, 5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harrison (US 2023/0150652)
Regarding Claim 1, Harrison discloses a rotary actuator assembly (see Fig. 1) for moving a first relatively movable part (1) relative to a second relatively movable part (2) (see Fig. 1), the assembly comprising:
A rotary actuator (100) having a plurality of annular earth members (1120) for attachment to one of the first and the second relatively movable parts and one or more annular output members (1140) for attachment to the other of the first and second relatively movable parts (see [0022]).
Wherein the annulus of the earth members and the one or more output members are coaxial defining a lumen through the rotary actuator along an actuator axis A (see Figs. 1 and 2).
At least one rotary motor (see [0013]) arranged to rotate the annular output member relative to the annular earth members (see [0013]), about the actuator axis A (see [0013]), the rotary actuator assembly further comprising:
A rod (3) extending through the lumen and extending axially beyond the earth members (see Fig. 2).
Wherein the at least one rotor motor is mounted around (see [0011]), and engages the rod such that rotation of the at least one rotor motor causes corresponding rotation of the rod (see [0011]).
Wherein the rod is connected to the one or more output members such that rotation of the rod causes rotation of the output member (see [0011]).
Regarding Claim 2, Harrison further discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the rod is connected to the output member via a gear assembly (see [0013]).
Regarding Claim 5, Durand further discloses the assembly of claim 1, further comprising:
An anti-rotation feature between one or more earth members and one or more of the at least one rotary motor to prevent rotation of the motor relative to the earth member (see Fig. 3, showing the earth members are mounted on the outer housing of the motor, and accordingly relative rotation is prevented).
Regarding Claim 8, Harrison further discloses the assembly of claim 1, comprising a joint connecting the rod to the or each motor (see Fig. 1 showing splines; see also [0013]).
Regarding Claim 9, Harrison further discloses the assembly of claim 8, wherein the joint is in the form of mating splines on the rod and the motor (see Fig. 1; see also [0013]).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US 2023/0150652)
Regarding Claim 6, Durand does not explicitly disclose an anti-rotation pin for the assembly of claim 5.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily appreciated that the motor would be fixed rotationally relative to either the first or second relatively movable parts (e.g. the wing portion), and that it would be fixed using typical means such as bolts or pins, and according the anti-rotation feature is an anti-rotation pin.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the assembly disclosed in Durand with an anti-rotation pin to fix the motor to the wing of the aircraft such that the motor does not rotate relative to the first relatively movable part (i.e. the wing) so that the motor is securely fastened to the aircraft so that it can perform its intended function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Neither Durand nor Harrison disclose that, wherein the location of the joint on the rod can be varied to vary the motor stiffness with respect to the actuator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY WEBER whose telephone number is (571)272-3307. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, MINNAH SEOH can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/GREGORY ROBERT WEBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618