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 .
Claims 1-21 and 23 are currently pending. Claims 1-21 and 23 are rejected.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 02, 2026, which refers to previous filings, closest being of January 06, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9 of the remarks, filed January 06, 2026, with respect to the objection of the Specification and rejection of Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. The objection of the Specification and rejection of Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 9-10 of the remarks, filed with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Applicant argues Mawle et al. (US 2021/0317849 A1) and Nieto et al. (US 2017/0088249 A1) do not expressly teach the amended limitation of the first mounting surface comprising an aircraft airframe structural member and the first external mounting connector being adjacent to and aligned with a structural rib of the aircraft airframe structural member as claimed. This argument is found be unpersuasive, since the claim is with respect to a rotary actuator that does not require such structure. The actuator is adapted for attachment to the first mounting surface (see Lines 1-5). Thus, the amendment is merely further defining an intended use of the rotary actuator and does not narrow the structure of the actuator to overcome the anticipation by Mawle.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9-10 of the remarks, filed with respect to the rejections of Claims 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Timms et al. (US 2024/0295256 A1) and Decker (US 2020/0070958 A1).
Regarding Claims 8 and 15, Applicant provides the same arguments with respect to Claim 1. These claims positively require the claimed arrangement, therefore the arguments are found to be persuasive. However, the claims are believed to be obvious in view of Timms and Decker as detailed in the rejection below.
No further arguments have been provided with respect to the remaining dependent claims.
Applicant’s request for an interview is noted. This request has already been granted and the interview conducted (see Interview Summary filed January 20, 2026). The Request for Continued Examination filed February 02, 2026 refers to the previous filing and does not include any new request.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 02, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 8-21 and 23 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 8, Line 10 recites “a first mounting surface”. It is unclear if this is the same first mounting surface recited in Line 2 or requiring an additional first mounting surface.
Regarding Claim 15, Line 26 recites “the external mounting connector”. It is unclear which connector this refers to, since there are first and second external mounting connectors within the scope of the claim.
Regarding Claim 21, Line 2 recites “a structural rib”. It is unclear if this is the same structural rib previously introduced in Claim 1 or requiring the introduction of another structural rib.
Regarding Claim 23, Line 2 recites “a structural rib”. It is unclear if this is the same structural rib previously introduced in Claim 15 or requiring the introduction of another structural rib.
Claims 9-14 and 16-20 are subsequently rejected for their dependencies upon a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 4, this claim appears to be a repetition of limitations already present in Lines 18-20 of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 4 is rejected for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, since it merely repeats previously recited limitations.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(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 1-7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mawle et al. (US 2021/0317849 A1), hereinafter Mawle.
Regarding Claim 1, Figures 34A-I of Mawle teach a rotary actuator comprising: a housing (external portion of 3440a which surrounds 3412a, hereinafter 3440a, see Figure 34B) comprising a first mounting assembly (right portion of 3440a in view of Figure 34A); a first mounting bracket (left 3482a) adapted for attachment to the first mounting assembly at a first proximal end (end closest to 3440a), and adapted at a first distal end (end closest to 3484) for attachment to a first external mounting connector of a first mounting surface (not shown); a second mounting bracket (3482b, appears mislabeled the right “a” in Figure 34A) adapted for attachment to the first mounting assembly at a second proximal end (end closest to 3440a), and adapted at a second distal end (end closest to 3484) for attachment to the first external mounting connector; a rotor assembly (comprises 3412a) rotatably journaled in said housing (3440a) and comprising a rotary output shaft (3412a) having a second mounting assembly (right portion of 3412a in view of Figure 34A), the first mounting assembly (right portion of 3440a) disposed about an end of the rotary output shaft (right end of 3412a); a third mounting bracket (left 3452a) adapted for attachment to the rotary output shaft (3412a) at a third proximal end (end closest to 3412a), and adapted at a third distal end (end closest to 3454) for attachment to a second external mounting connector of a second mounting surface (not shown); and a fourth mounting bracket (right 3452a) adapted for attachment to the rotary output shaft (3412a) at a fourth proximal end (end closest 3412a), and adapted at a fourth distal end (end closest 3454) for attachment to the second external mounting connector; wherein the first mounting surface comprises an aircraft airframe structural member (see paragraph [0199]) [0196-0201]. Paragraphs [0199] and [0201], respectively, discuss the mounting to an external surface such as an aircraft frame, and mounting to a bracket on an aircraft control surface. These are interpreted to be the first external mounting connector of a first mounting surface and second external mounting connector of a second mounting assembly.
The limitation of the first external mounting connector is adjacent to and aligned with a structural rib of the aircraft airframe structural member is treated as intended use of the claimed rotary actuator. As noted in the preamble, the claim is with respect to a rotary actuator. Lines 1-5 note that the actuator is “adapted” for “attachment to a first external mounting connector of a first mounting surface”. In other words, the first mounting surface is not structure of the rotary actuator. The recitation with respect to the manner in which a claims apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114, II). As noted above, all the structural features of the rotary actuator are met. Therefore, the claim is anticipated by Mawle.
Regarding Claim 2, Mawle discloses the rotary actuator as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 34A-I of Mawle disclose wherein: (1) the first mounting bracket (3482a) and the second mounting bracket (3482b) are formed as separate bodies; or (2) the third mounting bracket (left 3452a) and fourth mounting bracket (right 3452a) are formed as separate bodies; or (3) both (1) and (2).
Regarding Claim 3, Mawle discloses the rotary actuator as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 34A of Mawle discloses wherein: (1) a major first face (right face) of the first mounting bracket (left 3482a) abuts a second major face (left face) of the second mounting bracket (3482b, appears to be mislabeled “a”); or (2) a third major face (right face) of the third mounting bracket (left 3452a) abuts a fourth major face (left face) of the fourth mounting bracket (right 3452a); or (3) both.
Regarding Claim 4, assuming proper dependency, Mawle discloses the rotary actuator as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 34A-I of Mawle do not explicitly show wherein: the first mounting surface comprises an aircraft airframe structural member; and the first external mounting connector is adjacent a structural rib of the aircraft airframe structural member as claimed. However, the rotary actuator satisfies structure required of the claim. Claim 1 specifies part of the rotary actuator be adapted for attachment to the first external mounting connector of the first mounting surface. The adaptation for attachment to the mounting connector and mounting surface is considered intended use of the claimed structure. Recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114, II). Figure 34A shows (3482a, b) having physical structure with a hole (3484). Paragraph [0119] discusses the adaptation for mounting to an external surface, such as an aircraft frame. The record does not indicate any additional structure would be required to perform the claimed usage. Thus, the disclosed structure is interpreted as satisfying the structure required to perform the claimed intended usage.
Regarding Claim 5, Mawle discloses the rotary actuator as set forth in Claim 1.
While Figures 34A-I of Mawle do not explicitly show wherein: the second mounting surface comprises a mounting feature of an aircraft assembly to be actuated; and the second external mounting connector is adjacent a structural rib of the aircraft assembly as claimed. However, the rotary actuator satisfies structure required of the claim. Claim 1 specifies part of the rotary actuator be adapted for attachment to the second external mounting connector of the second mounting surface. The adaptation for attachment to the mounting connector and mounting surface is considered intended use of the claimed structure. Recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114, II). Figure 34A shows (left and right brackets of 3452a) having physical structure with a hole (3454). Paragraph [0201] discusses the adaptation for mounting to an external feature, such as a mounting bracket on an aircraft control surface. The record does not indicate any additional structure would be required to perform the claimed usage. Thus, the disclosed structure is interpreted as satisfying the structure required to perform the claimed intended usage.
Regarding Claim 6, Mawle discloses the rotary actuator as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 34A-I of Mawle disclose wherein the rotary output shaft comprises a first shaft assembly (3412a) and the second mounting assembly (right end of 3412a in Figure 34A), and the rotor assembly comprises a second rotary output shaft (3412b) comprising a second shaft (shaft portion of 3412b) and a third mounting assembly (left end of 3412b) [0197].
Regarding Claim 7, Mawle discloses the rotary actuator as set forth in Claim 6.
Figures 34-I of Mawle disclose a fifth mounting bracket (left 3452b in view of Figure 34A) adapted for attachment to the second rotary output shaft (3412b) at a fifth proximal end (end closest 3412b), and adapted at a fifth distal end (end closest 3454) for attachment to the second external mounting connector of the second mounting assembly (not shown); and a sixth mounting bracket (right 3452b) adapted for attachment to the second rotary output shaft (at left end of 3412b) at a sixth proximal end (end closest 3412b), and adapted at a sixth distal end (end closest 3454) for attachment to the second external mounting connector [0196-0201]. Paragraph [0201] discusses the mounting to a bracket on an aircraft control surface. This attachment is interpreted to be the second external mounting connector.
Regarding Claim 21, as far as it is definite and understood, Mawle discloses the rotary actuator as set forth in Claim 7.
The limitation of wherein the rotary actuator is configured to carry a load between a surface load and a structural rib through a first load path extending from the third and fourth mounting brackets to the first mounting bracket, and through a second load path extending from the fifth and sixth mounting brackets to the second mounting bracket, each of the first and second load paths being redundant to each other and configured to independently carry the load between the surface load and the structural rib is treated as intended use of the claimed structure. Recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114, II). Figure 34A of Mawle shows third and fourth mounting brackets (two brackets at 3452a) in connection with first mounting bracket (left 3482a) and fifth and sixth mounting brackets (two brackets at 3452b) in connection with the second mounting bracket (right 3482b, mislabeled as a). This may be better seen in the embodiments that show perspective view of a single side of the assembly, such as in Figure 34G. Thus, this is sufficient structure to performed the claimed functions because the respectively claimed brackets are in connection, which allows for the first and second load paths to redundantly and independently carry the load. See also paragraphs [0203-0204] discussing the transfer of load between (3452b) and (3482b). The claimed surface load and structural rib are not required structure of the rotary actuator, only that the rotary actuator be configured to carry the loads between the surface load and structural rib, which is satisfied through being capable of mounting such as through holes (3454, 3848).
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.
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.
Claims 8-20 and 23, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mawle in view of Timms et al. (US 2024/0295256 A1), hereinafter Timms, and Decker (US 2020/0070958 A1), hereinafter Decker.
Regarding Claim 8, Figures 34A-I of Mawle teach an aircraft assembly comprising: an airframe comprising a first mounting surface having a first external mounting connector; an aircraft member configured to be moved relative to the airframe and comprising a second mounting surface having a second external mounting connector (not shown, see paragraph [0201] discussing mounting to a mounting bracket, i.e. second mounting surface having a second external mounting connector, on an aircraft control surface, i.e. aircraft member); and a rotary actuator comprising: a housing (external portion of 3440a which surrounds 3412a, hereinafter 3440a, see Figure 34B) comprising a first mounting assembly (right portion of 3440a in view of Figure 34A); a first mounting bracket (left 3482a) adapted for attachment to the first mounting assembly at a first proximal end (end closest to 3440a), and adapted at a first distal end (end closest to 3484) for attachment to the first external mounting connector of a first mounting surface (not shown), the first mounting surface comprising an aircraft airframe structural member (not shown, see paragraph [0199] discussing mounting to an external surface such as an aircraft airframe, thus the surface interpreted to be part of the airframe and the connector interpreted to be the part of the surface connection occurs); a second mounting bracket (3482b, appears mislabeled the right “a” in Figure 34A) adapted for attachment to the first mounting assembly at a second proximal end (end closest to 3440a), and adapted at a second distal end (end closest to 3484) for attachment to the first external mounting connector; a rotor assembly (comprises 3412a) rotatably journaled in said housing (3440a) and having a rotary output shaft (3412a) and comprising a second mounting assembly (right portion of 3412a in view of Figure 34A), the first mounting assembly (right portion of 3440a) disposed about an end of the rotary output shaft (right end of 3412a); a third mounting bracket (left 3452a) adapted for attachment to the rotary output shaft (3412a) at a third proximal end (end closest to 3412a), and adapted at a third distal end (end closest to 3454) for attachment to the second external mounting connector of a second mounting surface (not shown); and a fourth mounting bracket (right 3452a) adapted for attachment to the rotary output shaft (3412a) at a fourth proximal end (end closest 3412a), and adapted at a fourth distal end (end closest 3454) for attachment to the second external mounting connector [0196-0201].
Mawle does not expressly teach the first external mounting connecting being adjacent to and aligned with a structural rib of the aircraft airframe structural member as claimed. However, such a connection would have been obvious in view of Timms and Decker.
Figure 2 of Timms teaches a rotary actuator assembly (12) with mounting brackets (14, 16, 20) that are for attachment of the output of the actuator portion (100). The mounting surface (for 14) comprises an aircraft airframe structural member (suitable structure), and the external mounting connecting (for 14) being adjacent to and aligned (due to being fixed) with a structural rib (rib or spa (believed to be typo of “spar”)) of the aircraft airframe structural member. Such an attachment helps provide a suitable support in which the actuator may react against when in use. Particularly, there is sufficient strength to resist loads that the actuator will exert [0011, 0057]. While not specifically shown, the aspect of being adjacent to and aligned results from the fixing of the mounting bracket. Figure 2 of Timms shows (14, with flange portion 22) to be a flange with mounting holes (24) arranged transverse to the extension direction [0057-0058]. Decker evidences that to attach objects to such a flange, you would place them adjacent to and aligned. See Figures 5B-C of Decker, where cylindrical hinged portion (526) has flanged portions extending from the cylindrical surface that are adjacent to and aligned with the structural members (504, 514) in order to be attached [0034-0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft assembly taught by Mawle with the first external mounting connecting being adjacent to and aligned with a structural rib of the aircraft airframe structural member as suggested by Timms and evidenced by Decker, to provide the benefit of providing a suitable support for reactions against the actuator that has the strength resist loads of the actuator.
Regarding Claim 9, Mawle, Timms, and Decker teach the aircraft assembly as set forth in Claim 8.
Figures 34A-I of Mawle teach wherein: (1) the first mounting bracket (3482a) and the second mounting bracket (3482b) are formed as separate bodies; or (2) the third mounting bracket (left 3452a) and fourth mounting bracket (right 3452a) are formed as separate bodies; or (3) both (1) and (2).
Regarding Claim 10, Mawle, Timms, and Decker teach the aircraft assembly as set forth in Claim 8.
Figure 34A of Mawle teaches wherein: (1) a major first face (right face) of the first mounting bracket (left 3482a) abuts a second major face (left face) of the second mounting bracket (3482b, appears to be mislabeled “a”); or (2) a third major face (right face) of the third mounting bracket (left 3452a) abuts a fourth major face (left face) of the fourth mounting bracket (right 3452a); or (3) both (1) and (2).
Regarding Claim 11, Mawle, Timms, and Decker teach the aircraft assembly as set forth in Claim 8.
Mawle teaches a movable control surface (external surface) coupled to and movable by the third mounting bracket (left 3452a) and the fourth mounting bracket (right 3452a) such that the movable control surface is pivotable with respect to the other end (at 3482a) [0201].
The modification in Claim 8 by Timms introduces the structural rib (rib or spa(r)) of the aircraft airframe structure (Timms, [0011, 0057]).
Regarding Claim 12, Mawle, Timms, and Decker teach the aircraft assembly as set forth in Claim 8.
Mawle teaches wherein: the second mounting surface comprises a mounting feature of an aircraft assembly to be actuated; and the second external mounting connector is adjacent a structure. Paragraph [0201] discusses mounting to a mounting point of an aircraft assembly to be actuated (control surface).
Similar to the modification of Timms-Decker in Claim 8, it would also be obvious for the structure to be a structural rib of the aircraft assembly. Timms discusses attachment of actuators to ribs and spa(r)s to provide appropriate strength to resist actuator loads (Timms, [0011, 0057]). While the discussion is with respect to the airframe, the teachings are still relevant since they relate to force reactions provided to structures attached to actuators. Figure 5B-C of Decker exemplifies attaching of flange objects to each other involves placing them adjacent (see 512, 514 attaching to flanges of 526) [0035].
Regarding Claim 13, Mawle, Timms, and Decker teach the aircraft assembly as set forth in Claim 8.
Figures 34A-I of Mawle teach wherein the rotary output shaft comprises a first shaft assembly (3412a) and the second mounting assembly (right end of 3412a in Figure 34A), and the rotary assembly comprises a second rotary output shaft (3412b) comprising a second shaft (shaft portion of 3412b) and a third mounting assembly (left end of 3412b) [0197].
Regarding Claim 14, Mawle, Timms, and Decker teach the aircraft assembly as set forth in Claim 13.
Figures 34-I of Mawle teach a fifth mounting bracket (left 3452b in view of Figure 34A) adapted for attachment to the second rotary output shaft (3412b) at a fifth proximal end (end closest 3412b), and adapted at a fifth distal end (end closest 3454) for attachment to the second external mounting connector of the second mounting assembly (not shown); and a sixth mounting bracket (right 3452b) adapted for attachment to the second rotary output shaft (at left end of 3412b) at a sixth proximal end (end closest 3412b), and adapted at a sixth distal end (end closest 3454) for attachment to the second external mounting connector [0196-0201]. Paragraph [0201] discusses the mounting to a bracket on an aircraft control surface. This attachment is interpreted to be the second external mounting connector.
Regarding Claim 15, Figures 34A-I of Mawle teach a method of rotary actuation comprising: providing a rotary actuator comprising: a housing (external portion of 3440a which surrounds 3412a, hereinafter 3440a, see Figure 34B) comprising a first mounting assembly (right portion of 3440a in view of Figure 34A); a first mounting bracket (left 3482a) adapted for attachment to the first mounting assembly at a first proximal end (end closest to 3440a), and adapted at a first distal end (end closest to 3484) for attachment to a first external mounting connector of a first mounting surface (not shown) comprising an aircraft airframe structural member (see paragraph [0199]); a second mounting bracket (3482b, appears mislabeled the right “a” in Figure 34A) adapted for attachment to the first mounting assembly at a second proximal end (end closest to 3440a), and adapted at a second distal end (end closest to 3484) for attachment to the first external mounting connector; a rotor assembly (comprises 3412a) rotatably journaled in said housing (3440a) and having a rotary output shaft (3412a) and comprising a second mounting assembly (right portion of 3412a in view of Figure 34A), the first mounting assembly (right portion of 3440a) disposed about an end of the rotary output shaft (right end of 3412a); a third mounting bracket (left 3452a) adapted for attachment to the rotary output shaft (3412a) at a third proximal end (end closest to 3412a), and adapted at a third distal end (end closest to 3454) for attachment to a second external mounting connector of a second mounting surface (not shown); and a fourth mounting bracket (right 3452a) adapted for attachment to the rotary output shaft (3412a) at a fourth proximal end (end closest 3412a), and adapted at a fourth distal end (end closest 3454) for attachment to the second external mounting connector; energizing the rotor assembly; urging rotation of the rotary output shaft (3412a); urging, by the rotary output shaft (3412a), rotation of the third mounting bracket (left 3452a); urging, by the rotary output shaft (3412a), rotation of the fourth mounting bracket (right 3452a); and urging, by the third mounting bracket (left 3452a) and the fourth mounting bracket (right 3452a), motion of the second external mounting connector to pivot the external mounting connector [0196-0201]. Paragraphs [0199] and [0201], respectively, discuss the mounting to an external surface such as an aircraft frame, and mounting to a bracket on an aircraft control surface. These are interpreted to be the first external mounting connector of a first mounting surface and second external mounting connector of a second mounting assembly. Paragraphs [0195-0197, 0214] discuss energizing assembly (3410a) to urge rotation of the rotary output shaft (3412a). Paragraphs [0215-0216] discuss the subsequent urging of (3450), which the brackets (3452a) are a part of according to paragraph [0200], to move the movable portion it is connected to, i.e. the second external mounting connector.
Mawle does not expressly teach the first external mounting connector being adjacent to and aligned with a structural rib of the aircraft airframe structural member; motion of the second external mounting connector to pivot the external mounting connector with respect to the structural rib of the aircraft as claimed. However, such a method would have been obvious in view of Timm and Decker.
Figure 2 of Timms teaches method of rotary actuation comprising: providing a rotary actuator assembly (12) with mounting brackets (14, 16, 20) that are for attachment of the output of the actuator portion (100). The mounting surface (for 14) comprises an aircraft airframe structural member (suitable structure), and the external mounting connecting (for 14) being adjacent to and aligned (due to being fixed) with a structural rib (rib or spa (believed to be typo of “spar”)) of the aircraft airframe structural member, motion of the external mounting connector (for 20) to pivot (see paragraph [0025] noting actuation) the external mounting connector with respect to the structural rib of the aircraft. Such an attachment helps provide a suitable support in which the actuator may react against when in use. Particularly, there is sufficient strength to resist loads that the actuator will exert [0011, 0057]. While not specifically shown, the aspect of being adjacent to and aligned results from the fixing of the mounting bracket. Figure 2 of Timms shows (14, with flange portion 22) to be a flange with mounting holes (24) arranged transverse to the extension direction [0057-0058]. Decker evidences that to attach objects to such a flange, you would place them adjacent to and aligned. See Figures 5B-C of Decker, where cylindrical hinged portion (526) has flanged portions extending from the cylindrical surface that are adjacent to and aligned with the structural members (504, 514) in order to be attached [0034-0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Mawle with the first external mounting connector being adjacent to and aligned with a structural rib of the aircraft airframe structural member; motion of the second external mounting connector to pivot the external mounting connector with respect to the structural rib of the aircraft as suggested by Timms and evidenced by Decker, to provide the benefit of providing a suitable support for reactions against the actuator that has the strength resist loads of the actuator.
Regarding Claim 16, Mawle, Timms, and Decker teach the method as set forth in Claim 15.
Figures 34A-I of Mawle teach wherein: (1) the first mounting bracket (3482a) and the second mounting bracket (3482b) are formed as separate bodies; or (2) the third mounting bracket (left 3452a) and fourth mounting bracket (right 3452a) are formed as separate bodies; or (3) both (1) and (2).
Regarding Claim 17, Mawle, Timms, and Decker teach the method as set forth in Claim 15.
Figure 34A of Mawle teaches wherein: (1) a major first face (right face) of the first mounting bracket (left 3482a) abuts a second major face (left face) of the second mounting bracket (3482b, appears to be mislabeled “a”); or (2) a third major face (right face) of the third mounting bracket (left 3452a) abuts a fourth major face (left face) of the fourth mounting bracket (right 3452a); or (3) both (1) and (2).
Regarding Claim 18, Mawle, Timms, and Decker teach the method as set forth in Claim 15.
Mawle teaches wherein: the second mounting surface comprises a mounting feature of an aircraft assembly to be actuated. Paragraph [0201] discusses mounting to a mounting point of an aircraft assembly to be actuated (control surface).
Similar to the modification of Timms-Decker in Claim 15, it would also be obvious for the structure to be a structural rib of the aircraft assembly. Timms discusses attachment of actuators to ribs and spa(r)s to provide appropriate strength to resist actuator loads (Timms, [0011, 0057]). While the discussion is with respect to the airframe, the teachings are still relevant since they relate to force reactions provided to structures attached to actuators. Figure 5B-C of Decker exemplifies attaching of flange objects to each other involves placing them adjacent (see 512, 514 attaching to flanges of 526) [0035].
Regarding Claim 19, Mawle, Timms, and Decker teach the method as set forth in Claim 15.
Figures 34A-I of Mawle teach wherein the rotary output shaft comprises a first shaft assembly (3412a) and the second mounting assembly (right end of 3412a in Figure 34A), and the rotor assembly comprises a second rotary output shaft (3412b) comprising a second shaft (shaft portion of 3412b) and a third mounting assembly (left end of 3412b) [0197].
Regarding Claim 20, Mawle, Timms, and Decker teach the method as set forth in Claim 19.
Figures 34-I of Mawle teach a fifth mounting bracket (left 3452b in view of Figure 34A) adapted for attachment to the second rotary output shaft (3412b) at a fifth proximal end (end closest 3412b), and adapted at a fifth distal end (end closest 3454) for attachment to the second external mounting connector of the second mounting assembly (not shown); and a sixth mounting bracket (right 3452b) adapted for attachment to the second rotary output shaft (at left end of 3412b) at a sixth proximal end (end closest 3412b), and adapted at a sixth distal end (end closest 3454) for attachment to the second external mounting connector [0196-0201]. Paragraph [0201] discusses the mounting to a bracket on an aircraft control surface. This attachment is interpreted to be the second external mounting connector.
Regarding Claim 23, Mawle, Timms, and Decker teach the method as set forth in Claim 15.
Figures 34A-I of Mawle teach carrying a load through a first load path from the third and fourth mounting brackets (left and right 3452a) to the first mounting bracket (left 3482a), and through a second load path extending from the fifth and sixth mounting brackets (left and right 3452b) to the second mounting bracket (3482b, appears mislabeled the right “a” in Figure 34A), each of the first and second load paths being redundant to each other and configured to independently carry the load. Mawle shows the appropriate structural connections between the brackets. Thus, the loads experience during use of the method are carried as required of the claim. Note also paragraph [0204] describing the loads for independent operation of a single side (fifth/sixth with second brackets).
The modification in Claim 15 by Timms-Decker results in the load being between a surface load and a structural rib. Timms discusses attachment of actuators to ribs and spa(r)s to provide appropriate strength to resist actuator loads (Timms, [0011, 0057]). Thus, it is between a surface load (other bracket the rib is not attached to) and a structural rib.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (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 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745