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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “4” has been used to designate both current control loop and actuating element in Fig. 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 9, 14, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “characterized in that” in line 34 in claim 1 and line 23 in claim 15 respectively should be removed to confirm the current U.S. standard. There are extra white spaces throughout the claim which should be removed. Similarly, the phrase “a current output position” in lines 12 and 24 in claim 8 should be re-written as “the current output position if these are the same current output. Additionally, the phrase “an initialization mode” in line 7 in claim 9 should be re-written as “the initialization mode” if this is the same mode disclosed in line 2. Finally, the phrase “an actuator” in line 2 in claim 14 should be re-written as “the actuator”. Applicant is advised to review the entire claims and make any necessary corrections to address similar issues. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imagawa et al. US 7,187,153 B2.
Regarding claim 15, Imagawa et al. disclose
A program comprising instructions configured, when executed in a processor of an actuator for an aerospace vehicle (column 4, lines 35-44), to perform an actuator control, whose current control loop comprises the following steps: a current first angle (fig. 3, via item 61) from a first angle sensor measuring the first angle of a first rotating element (item 11a inherently has a gear) rotatably connected with a rotor of a motor (item 20) driving the actuating element (column 3, lines 4-14, column 4, lines 3-24, column 5, column 6, lines 14-21); receive a current second angle (via item 62) from a second angle sensor measuring the second angle of a second rotating element (item 11b inherently has a gear) rotatably connected with the rotor of the motor (column 6, lines 5-38); a current output position of the actuating element and a current angle of the rotor based on at least one of the current first angle and the current second angle; compute, based on the current output position and the current rotor angle, motor control signals for driving the motor such that the actuating element is in a target output position; compute a current control information based on at least one of the first angle and the second angle measured in the current control loop, wherein the current control information is configured to allow in combination with the first angle or second angle received in the subsequent control loop to determine the output position of the subsequent control loop; characterized in that the current control loop comprises further to check, if at least one of the first angle sensor and the second angle sensor fails, if it is determined that the first angle sensor fails, the current second angle sensor is used to determine the current rotor angle and to determine in combination with the previous control information the current output position (column 6, lines 14-64) (The bold portion has not given any patentable weight because a claim containing a “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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (refer to mpep 2114).
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.
Claims 1-5, 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imagawa et al. US 7,187,153 B2 in a view of Michael GB 2527819A.
Regarding claim 1, Imagawa et al. disclose
An actuator for aerospace vehicle comprising: an actuating element (fig. 2, item 30) whose output position being movable within an output range of the actuator; a motor (item 20) driving the actuating element within the output range (column 2, lines 58-67, column 3, lines 1-22), wherein the motor comprises a rotor whose rotation causes a movement of the actuating element (column 4, lines 3-24); a first rotating element (item 11a inherently has a gear) rotatably connected with the rotor of the motor; a second rotating element (item 11a inherently has a gear) rotatably connected with the rotor of the motor (column 2, lines 33-57), a first angle sensor (fig. 3, item 61) for measuring a first angle of the first rotating element; a second angle sensor (item 62) for measuring a second angle of the second rotating element (column 6, lines 5-38); an actuator control configured to drive the motor (column 4, lines 35-44), based on a current output position of the actuating element, such that the actuating element will be positioned in a target output position, wherein the actuator control comprises a motor control (item 53) configured to control the motor based on the current angle of the rotor of the motor, wherein the current output position of the actuating element and the current angle of the rotor of a current control loop are determined based on at least one of the first angle and the second angle measured in the current controlloop, wherein a current control information of the current control loop is determined based on at least one of the first angle and the second angle measured in the current control loop, wherein the current control information is configured to allow in combination with the first angle or second angle measured in the subsequent control loop to determine the output position of the subsequent control loop; characterized in that the actuator control is configured that when in the current control loop one of the first angle sensor and the second angle sensor fails, the rotor angle of the rotor of the current control loop is determined based on an angle measured by the other one of the first angle sensor and the second sensor, and the output position of the current control loop is determined based on the angle measured in the current control loop by the other one of the first angle sensor and the second sensor and based on the control information of a previous control loop (previously determined) (column 6, lines 14-64) (The bold portion has not given any patentable weight because a claim containing a “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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (refer to mpep 2114).
Imagawa does not disclose but Michael discloses wherein the first rotating element and the second rotating element have a transmission ratio unequal to one.
PNG
media_image1.png
173
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a transmission ration unequal to one as disclosed by Michael in Imagawa’s teachings for accurate measurement of shaft position (Michael’s page 1, lines 1-3)
Regarding claim 2, Imagawa et al. disclose
, comprising a verification sensor (item 70) configured to sense in one output position of the actuator a verification information configured to verify the proper working of the actuator (column 6, lines 22-31).
Regarding claim 3, Imagawa et al. disclose
, wherein the actuator control is configured to perform a first health check (either normal or abnormal) based on the signal received from the first angle sensor, if the first angle is correctly measured, and to perform a second health check based on the signal received from the second angle sensor, if the second angle is correctly measured, wherein based on the first health check it is determined, if the first angle sensor fails, wherein based on the second health check it is determined, if the second angle sensor fails (column 6, lines 22-60).
Regarding claim 4, Imagawa et al. disclose
, wherein the signal received from the first angle sensor comprises a measured sine value of the first angle and a measured cosine value of the first angle, wherein the first health check is performed based on the sine value and the cosine value of the first angle, wherein the signal received from the second angle sensor comprises a measured sine value of the second angle and a measured cosine value of the second angle, wherein the second health check is performed based on the sine value and the cosine value of the second angle (column 4, lines 14-24. Resolver uses a measured sine and cosine values for its operation).
Regarding claim 5, Michael discloses
, wherein the transmission between the first rotating element and the second rotating element is realized with gears, wherein the gears comprise at least one anti-backlash gear (page 3, lines 4-5).
PNG
media_image2.png
212
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Imagawa et al. disclose
, wherein the first angle sensor is realized as a resolver arranged within or around the first rotational element and/or the second angle sensor is realized as a resolver arranged within or around the second rotational element (column 4, lines 16-24).
Regarding claim 11, Imagawa et al. disclose
, wherein the actuator is a linear actuator with the actuating element performing a linear movement, wherein the rotation of the rotating element and/or rotor is converted with a conversion element into the linear movement of the actuating element (column 3, lines 23-32).
Regarding claim 12, Imagawa et al. disclose
, wherein the conversion element and the rotating element is realized by a screw shaft, wherein the screw shaft has a gear, wherein the first angle sensor measures the first angle of the rotation of the screw shaft or measures the first angle of a first gear wheel connected to the gear of the screw, wherein the second angle sensor measures the second angle of the rotation of a second gear wheel connected to the gear of the screw (column 3, lines 15-48 ).
Regarding claim 14, a combination of Imagawa and Michael discloses
A flight control system comprising a flight control element of an aerospace vehicle and an actuator according to claim 1 (Michael’s page 1, lines 8-15 ) for changing the position of the flight control element, wherein the flight control element is configured to control the movement of the aerospace vehicle based on the position of the flight control element (Michael’s page 1, lines 8-15 ) (see claim 1 rejection for detail).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imagawa et al. US 7,187,153 B2 in a view of Michael GB 2527819A and further in a view of HISANAGA et al. US 2017/0305455 A1.
Regarding claim 6, a combination of Imagawa and Michael does not disclose but HISANAGA discloses, wherein the actuator control (fig. 7, item 133) is configured to determine the output position and/or the control information based on the first angle and the second angle using the Vernier principle [0041].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Vernier principle as taught by HISANAGA in Imagawa and Michal teachings to improve the reliability (HISANAGA’s paragraph 0016)
Regarding claim 7, a combination of Imagawa, Michael and HISANAGA discloses, wherein the actuator control is configured in an initialization mode (using initial value) to determine the control information based on the first angle and the second angle using the Vernier principle, wherein the actuator control is configured in an operation mode to determine the output position based on one of the first angle and the second of the current control loop and based on the control information of the previous control loop [0041].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imagawa et al. US 7,187,153 B2 in a view of Michael GB 2527819A and further in a view of NAKAMURA et al. US 2022/0185250 A1.
Regarding claim 8, a combination of Imagawa and Michel does not disclose but NAKAMURA discloses, wherein the actuator control comprises a first electronic control unit and a second electronic control unit (fig. 1, item 107), wherein the first electronic control unit is configured to receive the first angle measurement from the first angle sensor (item 102), to determine the current rotor angle based on the first angle of the current control loop, to determine the current output position based on the first angle of the current control loop and based on the control information of the previous control loop, to drive the motor, based on a current output position of the actuating element, such that the actuating element will be positioned in the target output position, to control the motor based on the current rotor angle, wherein the second electronic control unit is configured to receive the second angle measurement (item 103) from the second angle sensor, to determine the current rotor angle based on the second angle of the current control loop, to determine the current output position based on the second angle of the current control loop and based on the control information of the previous control loop, to drive the motor, based on a current output position of the actuating element, such that the actuating element will be positioned in the target output position, to control the motor based on the current rotor angle, wherein the actuator is controlled by the first electronic control unit, wherein the first angle sensor or the first electronic control unit fails, the actuator is controlled by the second electronic control unit [0028-0034].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a first electronic control unit and a second electronic control unit along with angle measurements as disclosed by NAKAMURA in Imagawa’s teachings to achieving a redundancy while suppressing an increase the number of the parts and the number of the connection signal lines (NALAMURA’s paragraph 0010)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imagawa et al. US 7,187,153 B2 in a view of Michael GB 2527819A and further in a view of Scotson et al. US 2016/0244089 A1.
Regarding claim 13, a combination of Imagawa and Michael does not disclose but Scotson et al. disclose, wherein the motor has a plurality of motor electric current phases, wherein the motor control is configured, when the failure of one motor electric current phase is detected, to adapt the motor electric current of the remaining motor electric current phases [0080-0083].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the motor electric current of the remaining motor electric current phases as disclosed by Scotson in Imagawa’s teachings to continue drive the motor during the fault mode (Scotson’s paragraph 0083)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 9 is about using the vernier principle on both the control units.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Toko et al. (US 11,095,247 B2) disclose a controller for a motor using two angle sensors.
Rodger et al. (US 2017/0284828 A1) disclose an actuator position sensing using N gears.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights