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 . This office action is in response to an application filed on 08/29/2024. The applicant submits two Information Disclosure Statements dated 08/29/2024. The applicant does not make a claim for Foreign priority. The applicant makes a claim for Domestic priority to applications filed on 09/16/2021 and 06/30/2022.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 , and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claim clauses are separated by either a comma or a semi-colon. Therefore, there is inconsistency between the independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 – 8, 10, 11, 14, 16 – 18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,623,738. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same inventive concept of identifying an actuator of a vehicle malfunctioning and then adjusting the operation of the actuators to execute stable coordinated flight.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3, 5, 8, 10 – 13, 15, 18, 20, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,077,281. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same inventive concept of identifying an actuator of a vehicle malfunctioning and then adjusting the operation of the actuators to execute stable coordinated flight.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,077,281. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same inventive concept of identifying an actuator of a vehicle malfunctioning and then adjusting the operation of the actuators to execute stable coordinated flight.
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 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental concept of evaluation and/or observation without significantly more. The claims are evaluated with respect to the MPEP and the 2019 Subject Matter Guidance, herein guidance. Example 40 of the Guidance is used as the threshold for evaluating the claims.
Step 1
The claims recite a system, a method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium string executable instruction. The claims are identified to one of the four statutory categories. Therefore, the claims pass Step 1.
Step 2A Prong I
The independent claims 1 is reproduced below with the abstract idea in italics and the pre/post solution activity in bold. The analysis of claim 1 is applied to the other independent claims 8 and 14.
Claim 1
A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory with instructions executable on the processor, the instructions configured to: receive pilot control selection data and receive aircraft angle data based on a sensor,
identify a malfunctioning actuator of an electric aircraft based on the pilot control selection data and the aircraft angle data, and
in response to identifying the malfunctioning actuator, generate an actuator command to control an additional actuator.
With respect to the MPEP the inventive concept is determined pursuant to section 2106.07. The invention evaluates whether the actuators are operating properly and then takes action based upon the evaluation. The claims do not define with specificity pursuant to the section 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) how the evaluation is performed. The claims contain a generic structure of a processor, memory, and sensor without detailing features that a human mind cannot perform. A human is able to observe the actuators and evaluate the performance. The generating of a command is generic and does not specify a command that a basic computer code isn’t able to perform. The dependent claims do not identify a specific malfunction that cannot be observed and evaluated with the human mind. In addition, the dependent claims do not identify structure that is so specific that the human mind is unable to perform. Therefore, with respect to the MPEP the features fail Step 2A Prong I.
With respect to the Guidance, the claims do not define what is sensed to determine a malfunction is or did occur. In example 40, the claims identify what specific data is collected and based upon the collected data determining performance. Therefore, since the claims in the claimed invention fail to comply with the standards established in the example. The claims fail Step 2A Prong I based upon the guidance.
Step 2A Prong II
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not identify a new or improved way to control an actuator pursuant to MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.04(d)(1). The claims do not identify a new or improved sensing of a malfunction. In addition, the claims do not identify a new or improved manner of generating commands for an actuator. Therefore, the claims fail step 2A Prong II.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims fail to satisfy the thresholds established in the MPEP 2106.05 (a-h). The claims do not satisfy the guidance thresholds of example 40. Therefore, the claims are not eligible for patent protection.
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)(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, 4, 6, 8 – 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McCullough US 10,227,133.
As per claim 1, A system comprising:
a processor; (McCullough Col 9 lines 41 – 44) and
a memory with instructions executable on the processor, the instructions configured to:
receive pilot control selection data and receive aircraft angle data based on a sensor, (McCullough Col 20 lines 37 – 40)
identify a malfunctioning actuator of an electric aircraft based on the pilot control selection data and the aircraft angle data, (McCullough Col 5 lines 40 – 44) and
in response to identifying the malfunctioning actuator, generate an actuator command to control an additional actuator. (McCullough Col 11 lines 51 – 67, Col 12 lines 1, 2)
As per claim 3, The system of claim 1, wherein the actuator command to the additional actuator compensates for the malfunctioning actuator. (McCullough Col 11 lines 51 – 67, Col 12 lines 1, 2)
As per claim 4, The system of claim 1, wherein identifying the malfunctioning actuator of the electric aircraft further comprises comparing an expected actuator performance model to an actual actuator performance. (McCullough Col 20 lines 64 – 67 and Col 21 line 1)
As per claim 6, The system of claim 1, wherein the pilot control selection data comprises an attitude command. (McCullough Col 11 lines 3 – 14, where pitch is the functional equivalent to attitude)
As per claim 8, A method comprising:
receiving pilot control selection data and receive aircraft angle data based on a sensor; (McCullough Col 20 lines 37 – 40)
identifying a malfunctioning actuator of an electric aircraft based on the pilot control selection data and the aircraft angle data; (McCullough Col 5 lines 40 – 44) and
in response to identifying the malfunctioning actuator, generating an actuator command to control an additional actuator. (McCullough Col 11 lines 51 – 67, Col 12 lines 1, 2)
As per claim 10, The method of claim 8, wherein the actuator command to the additional actuator compensates for the malfunctioning actuator. (McCullough Col 11 lines 51 – 67, Col 12 lines 1, 2)
As per claim 12, The method of claim 8, wherein the pilot control selection data comprises an attitude command. (McCullough Col 11 lines 3 – 14, where pitch is the functional equivalent to attitude)
As per claim 14, A non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computing device to:
receive pilot control selection data and receive aircraft angle data based on a sensor, (McCullough Col 20 lines 37 – 40)
identify a malfunctioning actuator of an electric aircraft based on the pilot control selection data and the aircraft angle data, (McCullough Col 5 lines 40 – 44) and
in response to identifying the malfunctioning actuator, generate an actuator command to control an additional actuator. (McCullough Col 11 lines 51 – 67, Col 12 lines 1, 2)
As per claim 16, The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein the actuator command to the additional actuator compensates for the malfunctioning actuator. (McCullough Col 11 lines 51 – 67, Col 12 lines 1, 2)
As per claim 17, The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein identifying the malfunctioning actuator of the electric aircraft further comprises comparing an expected actuator performance model to an actual actuator performance. (McCullough Col 20 lines 64 – 67 and Col 21 line 1)
As per claim 19, The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein the pilot control selection data comprises an attitude command. (McCullough Col 11 lines 3 – 14, where pitch is the functional equivalent to attitude)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCullough US 10,227,133 in view of Crandall US 5,552,984.
As per claim 2, The system of claim 1, wherein the malfunctioning actuator and the additional actuator are ailerons. (Crandall Col 5 lines 10 – 14)
McCullough discloses a vertical transportation system, apparatus, and method for performing corrective actions when an actuator malfunctions. McCullough does not disclose the actuator is an aileron that malfunctions. Crandall teaches of a system operating when an aileron is malfunctioning. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Crandall et.al. into the invention of McCullough. Such incorporation is motivated to maintain safe operation of an aerial vehicle during flight operations.
As per claim 5, The system of claim 1, wherein the additional actuator includes an electric motor for an aileron. (Crandall Col 5 lines 10 – 14)
McCullough discloses a vertical transportation system, apparatus, and method for performing corrective actions when an actuator malfunctions. McCullough does not disclose the actuator is an aileron that malfunctions. Crandall teaches of a system operating when an aileron is malfunctioning. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Crandall et.al. into the invention of McCullough. Such incorporation is motivated to maintain safe operation of an aerial vehicle during flight operations.
As per claim 7, The system of claim 1, wherein the malfunctioning actuator and the additional actuator control a split surface. (Crandall Col 5 lines 10 – 14)
McCullough discloses a vertical transportation system, apparatus, and method for performing corrective actions when an actuator malfunctions. McCullough does not disclose the actuator is an aileron that malfunctions. Crandall teaches of a system operating when an aileron is malfunctioning. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Crandall et.al. into the invention of McCullough. Such incorporation is motivated to maintain safe operation of an aerial vehicle during flight operations.
As per claim 9, The method of claim 8, wherein the malfunctioning actuator and the additional actuator are ailerons. (Crandall Col 5 lines 10 – 14)
McCullough discloses a vertical transportation system, apparatus, and method for performing corrective actions when an actuator malfunctions. McCullough does not disclose the actuator is an aileron that malfunctions. Crandall teaches of a system operating when an aileron is malfunctioning. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Crandall et.al. into the invention of McCullough. Such incorporation is motivated to maintain safe operation of an aerial vehicle during flight operations.
As per claim 11, The method of claim 8, wherein the additional actuator includes an electric motor for an aileron. (Crandall Col 5 lines 10 – 14)
McCullough discloses a vertical transportation system, apparatus, and method for performing corrective actions when an actuator malfunctions. McCullough does not disclose the actuator is an aileron that malfunctions. Crandall teaches of a system operating when an aileron is malfunctioning. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Crandall et.al. into the invention of McCullough. Such incorporation is motivated to maintain safe operation of an aerial vehicle during flight operations.
As per claim 13, The method of claim 8, wherein the malfunctioning actuator and the additional actuator controls a split surface. (Crandall Col 5 lines 10 – 14)
McCullough discloses a vertical transportation system, apparatus, and method for performing corrective actions when an actuator malfunctions. McCullough does not disclose the actuator is an aileron that malfunctions. Crandall teaches of a system operating when an aileron is malfunctioning. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Crandall et.al. into the invention of McCullough. Such incorporation is motivated to maintain safe operation of an aerial vehicle during flight operations.
As per claim 15, The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein the malfunctioning actuator and the additional actuator are ailerons. (Crandall Col 5 lines 10 – 14)
McCullough discloses a vertical transportation system, apparatus, and method for performing corrective actions when an actuator malfunctions. McCullough does not disclose the actuator is an aileron that malfunctions. Crandall teaches of a system operating when an aileron is malfunctioning. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Crandall et.al. into the invention of McCullough. Such incorporation is motivated to maintain safe operation of an aerial vehicle during flight operations.
As per claim 18, The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein the additional actuator includes an electric motor for an aileron. (Crandall Col 5 lines 10 – 14)
McCullough discloses a vertical transportation system, apparatus, and method for performing corrective actions when an actuator malfunctions. McCullough does not disclose the actuator is an aileron that malfunctions. Crandall teaches of a system operating when an aileron is malfunctioning. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Crandall et.al. into the invention of McCullough. Such incorporation is motivated to maintain safe operation of an aerial vehicle during flight operations.
As per claim 20, The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 14, wherein the malfunctioning actuator and the additional actuator controls a split surface. (Crandall Col 5 lines 10 – 14)
McCullough discloses a vertical transportation system, apparatus, and method for performing corrective actions when an actuator malfunctions. McCullough does not disclose the actuator is an aileron that malfunctions. Crandall teaches of a system operating when an aileron is malfunctioning. Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Crandall et.al. into the invention of McCullough. Such incorporation is motivated to maintain safe operation of an aerial vehicle during flight operations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER D PAIGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am - 6:00pm (mst).
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 5712703921. 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.
/TYLER D PAIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664