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 .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 5 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, line 4, there should be a comma at the end of the line.
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(s) 1-9 and 11-16 is/are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the first connection portion” and “the third connection portion”. Claim 1 previously recites one or more connection portions in line 3. It is unclear whether the first and third connection portions are referring to the same or different one or more connection portions of line 3.
All other claims are rejected due to their dependence on one of the above rejected claims.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dickman et al. (hereafter Dickman – US 20130209252).
Claim 1 recites “a flight control system.” Dickman teaches such a flight control system, as will be shown.
Dickman teaches (Figs. 1-4) a flight control system for controlling collective and cyclic pitch of a helicopter comprising:
a swashplate 125 having one or more connection portions 143;
a first control assembly 115a coupled to the first connection portion and having at least two first servo-actuators (139a-c);
a third control assembly 115c coupled to the third connection portion 143 and having means for controlling the collective and cyclic pitch in a third manner (para. 0019) by movement of third components arranged opposite each other in a facing relationship and moving within parallel planes (see Fig. 3, pistons 139a, 139b, 139c are facing opposite each other depending on reference point and move within parallel plane).
Regarding Claim 2, Dickman teaches (Figs. 1-4) the flight control system of claim 1, wherein the first control assembly includes means for controlling the collective and cyclic pitch in a first manner by movement of first components in a first common plane (Fig. 3, and par. 0019).
Regarding Claim 5, Dickman teaches (Figs. 1-4) the flight control system of claim 1, wherein the means for controlling the collective and cyclic pitch in the third manner comprise: at least two third servo-actuators (139a, 139b, 139c), wherein the at least two third servo-actuators are arranged in the facing relationship across the vertical midline of the helicopter (applicant’s specification is silent so the vertical midline may be interpreted to be located between two of the servo actuators 139a, 139b, 139c) a first servo arm is attached to one of the at least two third servo-actuators (see Fig. 3), and a second servo arm (see Fig. 3) attached to the other of the at least two third servo-actuators, wherein the first servo arm and the second servo arm move within the parallel planes (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Dickman teaches (Figs. 1-4) the flight control system of claim 1, further comprising: a second control assembly 115b connected to a second connection portion 143 of the more than one connection portions of the swashplate and including means for controlling the collective and cyclic pitch in a second manner by movement of second components in a second common plane (see Fig. 3, para. 0019).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickman in view of Goette et al. (hereafter Goette – US 20150050148).
Regarding Claim 3, Dickman teaches (Figs. 1-4) the flight control system of claim 2, wherein the means for controlling the collective and cyclic pitch in the first manner comprise: a first servo arm (portion of piston 139a connected to linkage 141), a second servo arm (portion of piston 139b connected to yoke 141), a linkage assembly 141 connecting the second servo arm to the first servo arm, and wherein the linkage assembly operatively couples the first and the second servo arms to the first connection portion of the swashplate such that the first servo arm and the second servo arm move in unison to control the swashplate.
However, Dickman does not teach the first servo arm and the second servo arm rotate in unison to control the swashplate.
Goette teaches (Figs. 1, 2) a flight control system having electromechanical servo arms 16, 17 that rotate (para. 0004) to control the swashplate 1.
Goette further teaches actuators are typically actuated hydraulically, but increasingly, electromechanical actuators are used, due to disadvantages with the hydraulic actuators, such as additional weight, the possibility of leakages, high maintenance costs, as well as fire danger and toxicity (para. 0005). That is rotating servo arms are a known alternative to hydraulic servo arms.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Goette to the flight control system of Dickman to have the first servo arm and the second servo arm rotate in unison to control the swashplate, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to flight control systems. Doing so would result in reducing disadvantages with the hydraulic actuators, such as additional weight, the possibility of leakages, high maintenance costs, as well as fire danger and toxicity, as recognized by Goette.
Regarding Claim 4, Dickman, as modified with Goette in Claim 3 above, teaches (Dickman Figs. 1-4) the flight control system of claim 3, wherein the at least two first servo-actuators are arranged in parallel and move in the first common plane (Dickman Fig. 3).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickman in view of Linden (US 3574483).
Regarding Claim 6, Dickman teaches (Figs. 1-4) the flight control system of claim 1. However, Dickman does not teach the third connection portion includes an anti-rotation boss extending radially outward from the swashplate and a linkage assembly is coupled to the anti-rotation boss and the third control assembly.
Linden teaches (Fig. 7) a flight control system comprising an anti-rotation boss (see Fig. 7) extending radially outward (boss is radially outward due to angle of swashplate 106) from the swashplate 106 and a linkage assembly 94 is coupled to the anti-rotation boss and the control assembly.
Linden further teaches this arrangement prevent rotation of ring 106 about axis 22, while permitting tilting action thereof in a conventional fashion to enable desired pitch control (col. 6, ln. 8-13).
Dickman merely teaches a nonrotating swashplate but is silent as to how it is prevented from rotating. A person having ordinary skill in the art applying the invention of Dickman would look to the prior art for suitable swashplate arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Linden to the flight control system of Dickman to the third connection portion includes an anti-rotation boss extending radially outward from the swashplate and a linkage assembly is coupled to the anti-rotation boss and the third control assembly, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to flight control systems. Doing so would result in preventing rotation while permitting tilting of the swashplate to enable pitch control, as recognized by Linden.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickman in view of Linden, and further in view of Goette.
Regarding Claim 8, Dickman, as modified with Linden in Claim 3 above, teaches (Dickman Figs. 1-4) the flight control system of claim 6.
However, modified Dickman does not teach the means for controlling the collective and cyclic pitch in the second manner comprise at least two second servo-actuators connected to rotate in unison; and wherein the second control assembly directly moves the second connection portion by the unified rotation of the at least two second servo-actuators.
Goette teaches (Figs. 1, 2) a flight control system having electromechanical servo arms 16, 17 that rotate (para. 0004) to control the swashplate 1.
Goette further teaches actuators are typically actuated hydraulically, but increasingly, electromechanical actuators are used, due to disadvantages with the hydraulic actuators, such as additional weight, the possibility of leakages, high maintenance costs, as well as fire danger and toxicity (para. 0005). That is rotating servo arms are a known alternative to hydraulic servo arms.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Goette to the flight control system of Dickman to have the means for controlling the collective and cyclic pitch in the second manner comprise at least two second servo-actuators connected to rotate in unison; and wherein the second control assembly directly moves the second connection portion by the unified rotation of the at least two second servo-actuators, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to flight control systems. Doing so would result in reducing disadvantages with the hydraulic actuators, such as additional weight, the possibility of leakages, high maintenance costs, as well as fire danger and toxicity, as recognized by Goette.
Claims 9-11, 13, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickman in view of Sahasrabudhe et al. (hereafter Sahasrabudhe – US 20110057071).
Regarding Claim 9, Dickman teaches (Figs. 1-4) the flight control system of claim 1.
However, Dickman does not teach a control signal generator electrically coupled to the first control assembly by a first output and electrically coupled to the third control assembly by a third output; and wherein the control signal generator manipulates both of the two or more servo-actuators of the first control assembly or the third control assembly with a single signal output.
SAHASRABUDHE teaches a flight control system (title, Abstract, Figs. 1-8) for a helicopter (Fig. 1) that includes an output signal generator (Primary Flight Control System 42, ¶ 0021, lines 6-9, Figs. 1, 2A, and 2B) including cyclic/collective pitch mixing software (mixing function 74, ¶ 0024, especially lines 3-13, Fig. 2A; SAHASRABUDHE describes bus 70 and flight control system commands provided to the mixing function 74 and the mixing function 74 communicates the commands on lines 76 which are all indicative of software mixing of the control signals) that mixes control inputs for roll, pitch, and collective (roll, pitch, yaw, and lift as show as part of 42 in Fig. 2A), and generates a first signal output (along output lines 76, § 0024, line 4) based on the control inputs (roll, pitch, yaw, and lift as shown as part of 42 in Fig. 2A), wherein the first signal output (76) is connected to the two or more servo-actuators (Servo systems 78, 84, ¶ 0024, lines 9-18) of the first control assembly to control the swashplate (manipulation of control surfaces as described in ¶ 0024, last five lines which includes swashplate control, ¶s 0037 and 0041). The PHOSITA would understand that the various control assemblies can be manipulated with their own output signal.
It would be obvious to the PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a control signal generator having a output signal generator/single output signal as taught by SAHASRABUDHE and incorporate such features into the modified system of Dickman for at least the benefits of having improved fly-by-wire control to produce cockpit controller displacement commands to attain the desired aircraft/helicopter state(s) and further control the aircraft’s other systems in response thereto and as expressly described by SAHASRABUDHE (Abstract and ¶ 0021, lines 1-5).
Claim 10 recites a flight control system for a helicopter comprising the same features of Claims 1 and 9 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 11 recites the same features of claim 5 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 13 recites the same features of claim 9 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 14, Dickman, as modified above, teaches (Dickman Figs. 1-4) the flight control system of claim 11, wherein the single signal output includes the individual controls for roll, pitch, and collective control of the swashplate (SAHASRABUDHE: roll, pitch, yaw, and lift as shown as part of 42 in Fig. 2A).
Claim 16 recites the same features of claim 3 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 18 recites an aerial vehicle comprising the same features of claims 1, 5, and 9 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 12 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickman in view of Sahasrabudhe, and further in view of Goette.
Regarding Claim 12, Dickman, as modified above, teaches (Dickman Figs. 1-4) the flight control system of claim 11, wherein the at least two third servo-actuators are coaxially arranged (when Dickman is modified to have electromechanical actuator they would be coaxially arranged as shown in Goette Fig. 2).
Claim 17 recites the same features of claim 3 which are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickman in view of Sahasrabudhe, and further in view of Vickers (US2003/0030582).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Dickman teaches the flight control system of claim 11.
However, modified Dickman does not teach the control signal generator generates a known input signal and at least one of the at least two first servo-actuators or the at least two third servo-actuators are positioned in a known configuration to calibrate the flight control system.
VICKERS teaches systems for control processing system (68, Fig. 2) in airborne vehicles (¶ 0053, Fig. 3) where at least a portion of the system includes a control signal generator generating a known input signal and devices are positioned in a known configuration to calibrate the flight control system (known calibration signal is inserted into a signal generator 226 to calibrate/balance I-channel and Q-channel signals, ¶ 0169).
It would be obvious to the PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a known input signal and devices/signals being calibrated positioned in a known configuration to calibrate the system as taught by VICKERS and incorporate such a feature to calibrate the at least two first servo-actuators of the modified flight control system of modified Dickman for at least the benefit of providing a control system that performs to produce data that accurately reflects a representation of an environment as explicitly described by VICKERS (Abstract, last sentence).
Claims 19 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickman in view of Sahasrabudhe, and further in view of Lui et al. (hereafter Lui - CN204223182U).
Regarding Claim 19 and 20, modified Dickman teaches Claim 18.
However, modified Dickman does not teach a plurality of frame structures, each of the plurality of frame members coupled together by a plurality of connection members; and wherein each of the plurality of connection members include a base portion having tabs extending from opposing ends of the base portion, each of the tabs attached to an interior surface of the plurality of frame members, wherein the swashplate, the rotor assembly, the two or more control assemblies, and the control signal generator are received in an interior cavity defined by the interior surface of one of the plurality of frame members.
In regard to (m) above, LUI teaches a plurality of frame members (R, Examiner’s ANNOTATED Fig. 1 of LUI, for each servo) coupled together by a plurality of connection members (like S, Examiner’s ANNOTATED Fig. 1 of LUI, for each servo) and tabs (T, Examiner’s ANNOTATED Fig. 1 of LUI) attached to an interior surface of the frame members (R, Claim 19) and that the swashplate (2), the rotor assembly (includes 4), the two or more control assemblies (3 control assemblies) are received in an interior cavity defined by the interior surface of one of the plurality of frame members (R; Claim 20).
It would be obvious to the PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a plurality of frame members as taught by LUI and incorporate/receive the modified components of the system of modified Dickman into the interior cavity using similar frame members/structure to package the modified components that replace LUI’s components for at least the benefits of constructing a robust system for rotor adjustment in a single location of the helicopter that also has compact size as expressly described by LUI (last four lines of the English Abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s ANNOTATED Fig. 1 of LUI
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0685. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached on (571) 270-3508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ANDREW THANH BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745