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 .
This application is a CON. of 17/374,646, now PAT. No. 12084168, which is a CON. of 15/880,315, now PAT. No. 11091247, which is a CON. of 15/593,819, now PAT. No. 9908616.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 2-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12084168, claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11091247, and claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No.10370099. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are generic to all that are recited in the US. Patents.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims:
Claim 2. A method of controlling flight of an aircraft, comprising:
receiving a set of inputs associated with a requested set of forces and moments to be applied to an aircraft; and
computing a mix of actuators and associated actuator parameters to achieve to an extent practical the requested set of forces and moments, including by taking into consideration dynamically varying effectiveness of one or more actuators based on a dynamic state of the aircraft, wherein the mix is computed at least in part by formulating an associated optimization problem as a quadratic program, wherein formulating the associated optimization problem comprises linearizing a non-linear model for actuator performance.
Claim 18. An aircraft flight control system, comprising:
an interface configured to receive a set of inputs associated with a requested set of forces and moments to be applied to an aircraft; and
a processor coupled to the interface and configured to compute a mix of actuators and associated actuator parameters to achieve to an extent practical the requested set of forces and moments, including by taking into consideration dynamically varying effectiveness of one or more actuators based on a dynamic state of the aircraft, wherein the mix is computed at least in part by formulating an associated optimization problem as a quadratic program, wherein formulating the associated optimization problem comprises linearizing a non-linear model for actuator performance.
Claim 19. A computer program product to control flight of an aircraft, the computer program product being embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for:
receiving a set of inputs associated with a requested set of forces and moments to be applied to an aircraft; and
computing a mix of actuators and associated actuator parameters to achieve to an extent practical the requested set of forces and moments, including by taking into consideration dynamically varying effectiveness of one or more actuators based on a dynamic state of the aircraft, wherein the mix is computed at least in part by formulating an associated optimization problem as a quadratic program, wherein formulating the associated optimization problem comprises linearizing a non-linear model for actuator performance.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method and system including elements and processing steps. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of (e.g., claim 2 and claim 18) “receiving a set of inputs associated with a requested set of forces and moments …” and “computing a mix of actuators and associated actuator parameters to achieve …” This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of by a “control system”. That is, other than reciting by the “controller system” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “control system” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data (“set of forces and movements” received), and computing a mix actuators and parameters to “achieve to an extent practical the requested set …” which is a mathematical concept with a post solution. The mere nominal recitation of by the “control system” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process and mathematical concept grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims recite additional elements such as “an interface” and “a processor” (claim 18); and “a computer” (claim 19), for “receiving a set of inputs”, and “computing a mix of actuators”. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering and the application of a mathematical concept using a generic and well-known component as such a generic computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the computing step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that a conventional flight control system receives input commands such as throttle controls, airspeed from sensor for determining and estimating how the various actuators will be used to act on the aircraft and the specification does not provide any indication that the control system is anything other than a conventional computer within an aircraft. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 3-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 3-17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 2.
Therefore, claim(s) 2-19 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 2-19 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.
Claim 2, recites of “computing a mix of actuators and associated actuator parameters to achieve to an extent practical the requested set of forces and moments …” is indefinite. The phase “to achieve to an extent practical the requested set” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how and what manner the “achieve" is recognized by the system.
Claims 18-19 have same issue above.
Claims 3-17 depended upon rejected claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 2-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahboubi (20210362847).
With regard to claim 2, Mahboubi discloses a method of controlling flight of an aircraft, comprising:
receiving a set of inputs associated with a requested set of forces and moments to be applied to an aircraft (receive inceptor and sensor input, see [0036]+); and
computing a mix of actuators and associated actuator parameters to achieve to an extent practical the requested set of forces and moments, including by taking into consideration dynamically varying effectiveness of one or more actuators based on a dynamic state of the aircraft (compute and determine an optimal mix of actuators associated parameter, see [0036]+ & [0028]-[0030]+)
wherein the mix is computed at least in part by formulating an associated optimization problem as a quadratic program (the control mix optimization problem is modeled as a quadratic program, see [0043]+),
wherein, formulating the associated optimization problem comprises linearizing a non-linear model for actuator performance (see [0025]+).
Although Mahboubi’s disclosure is not described as same world languages but Examiner interprets the processing to control flight as shown in Fig. 3 which is equivalent as the method claim shown above. For this reason, Mahboubi is obvious suggestively, if not anticipatory, of the claimed subject matter.
With regard to claim 4, Mahboubi teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein the mix is computed at least in part by formulating an associated optimization problem comprising a rotor performance matrix, control surface performance matrix, and the requested set of forces and moments to be applied to the aircraft (the effect of actuators in the aircraft on forces and moment are determined based on actuator attributes in a model in the form of a matrix, see [0022]-[0023]+).
With regard to claim 5, Mahboubi teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein computing the mix includes determining a set of thrusts for rotors of the aircraft and a set of angles for control surfaces of the aircraft (controller 106 generates output associated forces and moments to be applied to the aircraft via its control assets such as aerodynamic control surfaces, see [0027]+).
With regard to claim 6, Mahboubi teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein the non-linear model for actuator performance is determined based on the dynamic state (Many non-linear constraints approximated by linear, see [0042] which is determined based on torque, motor speed, and etc., see [0025]+).
With regard to claim 7, Mahboubi teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein the non-linear model for actuator performance is determined based on spatial rotation information (upper and lower bounds be set for actuators performing based rotor rotation, see [0021]-[0023]+).
With regard to claim 8, Mahboubi teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein the mix is computed at least in part by determining a model for rotor performance based on the dynamic state of the aircraft (see [0038]+).
With regard to claim 9, Mahboubi teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein the mix is computed at least in part by determining a model for control surface performance based on the dynamic state of the aircraft (see [0020]+).
With regard to claim 10, Mahboubi teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein the associated optimization problem is computed onboard the aircraft in real time (the model used onboard the aircraft in real time to determine an optimal set of actuators, see [0020]+).
With regard to claim 11, Mahboubi teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein the non-linear model for actuator performance is computed onboard the aircraft in real time (see [0020]+).
With regard to claim 12, Mahboubi teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein computing the mix includes optimizing for an equal utilization of all rotors relative to their maximum and minimum thrusts (see [0021]-[0022]+).
With regard to claim 13, Mahboubi teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein computing the mix includes optimizing for an equal utilization of all control surfaces relative to their maximum and minimum possible angles (see [0034]-[0035]+).
With regard to claim 14, Mahboubi teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein computing the mix includes determining weights to prioritize roll, pitch, yaw, and thrusts in relation to each other (the quadratic program approach in which different weights are applied to give priority to certain axes when one or more actuator are saturated, see [0046]+).
With regard to claim 15, Mahboubi teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein computing the mix includes monitoring actuator health and adjusting an associated optimization problem accordingly (sensor data includes actuator availability, failure and health information, see [0029]+).
With regard to claim 16, Mahboubi teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein a wing tilt angle of the aircraft is determined based on past actuator commands (see [0027]+).
With regard to claim 18, Mohbouhi discloses an aircraft flight control system, comprising:
an interface configured to receive a set of inputs associated with a requested set of forces and moments to be applied to an aircraft (an inceptor 102 provides inceptor input 104 to a flight control computer 106, see [0027]+, and an optimizer/mixer 110 receives forces/movement 108 as inputs, see [0028]+); and
a processor coupled to the interface and configured to compute a mix of actuators and associated actuator parameters to achieve to an extent practical the requested set of forces and moments, including by taking into consideration dynamically varying effectiveness of one or more actuators based on a dynamic state of the aircraft (the flight control computer 106 includes the optimizer/mixer 110 computes dynamically a set of actuators and associated commands/parameter 112 to achieve a desired function given the current state of the system, determines an optimal mix of actuator and associated parameters to achieve a requested set of forces and moments, see [0028]-[0029]+),
wherein the mix is computed at least in part by formulating an associated optimization problem as a quadratic program (the control mix optimization problem is modeled as a quadratic program, see [0043]+),
wherein, formulating the associated optimization problem comprises linearizing a non-linear model for actuator performance (see [0025]+).
Although Mahboubi’s disclosure is not described as same world languages but Examiner interprets the flight control system 100 as shown in Fig. 1 including the controller 106 receives sensor data 118 and input signals 104; the controller 107 and the optimizer/mixer 110 for processing, computing and calculating an optimal mix of actuators associated parameters which are equivalent as claim’s control system as shown above. For this reason, Mahboubi is obvious suggestively, if not anticipatory, of the claimed subject matter.
With regard to claim 19, Mahboudi discloses a computer program product to control flight of an aircraft, the computer program product being embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for:
receiving a set of inputs associated with a requested set of forces and moments to be applied to an aircraft (an optimizer/mixer 110 receives forces/movement 108 as inputs, see [0028]+); and
computing a mix of actuators and associated actuator parameters to achieve to an extent practical the requested set of forces and moments, including by taking into consideration dynamically varying effectiveness of one or more actuators based on a dynamic state of the aircraft (the optimizer/mixer 110 computes dynamically a set of actuators and associated commands/parameter 112 to achieve a desired function given the current state of the system, determines an optimal mix of actuator and associated parameters to achieve a requested set of forces and moments, see [0028]-[0029]+),
wherein the mix is computed at least in part by formulating an associated optimization problem as a quadratic program (the control mix optimization problem is modeled as a quadratic program, see [0043]+),
wherein, formulating the associated optimization problem comprises linearizing a non-linear model for actuator performance (see [0025]+).
Although Mahboubi’s disclosure is not described as same world languages but Examiner interprets the flight control system 100 as shown in Fig. 1 including the controller 106 receives sensor data 118 and input signals 104; the controller 107 and the optimizer/mixer 110 for processing, computing and calculating an optimal mix of actuators associated parameters which is equivalent as claiming a computer program product. For this reason, Mahboubi is obvious suggestively, if not anticipatory, of the claimed subject matter.
Claim(s) 3 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahboubi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kroo (20200156781).
With regard to claim 3, Mahboubi discloses the claimed subject matter but fails to teach that the dynamic state of the aircraft comprises a wing tilt angle or rotor tilt angle.
Kroo discloses an aircraft includes the wings with houses of rotors, there is a rotor specific aerodynamic control surface 712 which assigned angle relative to the wings (see [0035]+) that meets the scope of “the dynamic state of the aircraft comprises a wing tilt angle or rotor tilt angle”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Mahboubi including assigned angle relative to the wings as taught by Kroo for achieving controlling the aircraft efficiency.
With regard to claim 17, Kroo teaches that the method of claim 2, wherein aircraft airspeed is interpolated based on a wing tilt angle of the aircraft (the airspeed is monitored based on the wings are tilted and speed of motors, see [0027]+).
Prior Arts Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chang (20170153650) discloses a multiple rotors aircraft with a control method monitoring motion information of the rotors, adjust a control gain according to the current motion information (see the abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
NGA X. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662