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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed 10/15/2024. This IDS has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to. It appears line 3 should read --according to claim 1--.
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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Utermoehlen (DE 102018213405; see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 12, Utermoehlen discloses in at least figure 1 a method of using an electromechanical actuator (EMA) (¶¶ [0006]-[0007]) comprising a stationary body portion (122) (¶ [0037]), a movable body portion (116) (¶ [0037]), an actuation element (114) (¶ [0037]), a surface acoustic wave (SAW) sensor (142) disposed on the actuation element (114) (¶ [0042]), a first interface component (128, right) and a second interface component (128, left), both the first (128, right) and second interface component (128, left) being disposed at an interface between the stationary body portion (122) and the movable body portion (116) (¶¶ [0038]-[0041]), the method comprising sending a first signal component at a first frequency to the first interface component (128) (¶ [0041]), transmitting the first signal component from the first interface (128, right) component to the SAW sensor (142) through a second interface component (128, left), so as to cause the SAW sensor (142) to produce surface acoustic waves and return a signal indicative of a property of the actuation element (114) to the first interface component (128, right) (¶¶ [0040]-[0043]), sending a second signal component at a second frequency to the first interface component (128, right) (¶ [0046]) and determining a position of the second interface component (128, left) relative to the first interface component (128, right) based on an inductive interaction between the first interface component (128, right) and the second interface component (128, left) due to the first and second signal components (¶¶ [0044]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 13, Utermoehlen discloses wherein transmitting the first signal component comprises transmitting the first signal component from a stationary body portion SAW antenna (138) of the first interface (128, right) component to a movable body portion SAW antenna (140) of the second interface component (128, left) (¶¶ [0038]-[0041]).
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utermoehlen (DE 102018213405; see attached machine translation) in view of Lohr et al. (USPN 8,015,886; “Lohr”).
Regarding claim 1, Utermoehlen discloses in at least figure 1 an electromechanical actuator (EMA) (¶¶ [0006]-[0007]) comprising a stationary body portion (122) (¶ [0037]), a movable body portion (116) configured to move relative to the stationary body portion (122) (¶ [0037]), an actuation element (114) connecting the stationary body portion (122) and the movable body portion (116) and configured to actuate the movable body portion (116) relative to the stationary body portion (122) (¶ [0037]), a surface acoustic wave (SAW) sensor (142) disposed on the actuation element (114) (¶ [0042]) a first interface component (128) disposed at an interface between the stationary body portion (122) and the movable body portion (116) (¶ [0038]) and a second interface component (128) disposed at the interface between the stationary body portion (122) and the movable body portion (¶ [0041]), wherein the second interface component (128) is configured to transmit signals between the SAW sensor (142) and the first interface component (128) (¶ [0041]) and wherein the first interface component (128) and the second interface (128) component define an inductive position sensor (124), such that the first interface component (128) produces a signal suitable for determination of the position of the second interface component (128) (¶¶ [0037], [0039], [0041]).
Utermoehlen’s arrangement is such that the first interface component is located on the movable body portion and the second interface component is located on the stationary body portion.
However, this is only one arrangement of a finite number of arrangements available to a skilled artisan and one having ordinary skill in the art could readily appreciate and infer that the first interface component could be disposed on the stationary body portion and the second interface components could be disposed on the movable without changing the purpose of functionality of the position sensing with a reasonable chance of success. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007).
For instance, Lohr teaches in figure 13 that a known configuration of SAW sensors on a rotor/stator arrangement is for the SAW sensor and the interface component used to transmit signals to the interrogation unit to both be arranged on the moveable component (analogous to the claims second interface component) (col. 13, line 51 through col. 14, line 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to arrange Utermoehlen’s elements such that the first interface component is located on the stationary body portion and the second interface component is located on the movable body portion as claimed and as suggested by Lohr for the purpose of keeping the SAW sensor and the transmitter on the same element to improve accuracy associated with changes in relative location between the components.
Regarding claim 2, Utermoehlen in view of Lohr discloses the first interface component comprises a stationary body portion SAW antenna (140) and the second interface component comprises a movable body portion SAW antenna (138) configured to transmit signals between the stationary body portion SAW antenna (140) and the SAW sensor (142) and the first interface component comprises a position detection antenna (164) and the second interface component comprises a position target (158) configured to interact with the position detection antenna (164) to produce a signal indicative of the position of the position target (158) (¶¶ [0037], [0041]-[0042], [0046]).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Utermoehlen discloses the position target (158) is a passive position target device (¶¶ [0034], [0046]).
Regarding claim 4, Utermoehlen in view of Lohr discloses wherein the first interface component comprises a planar array of conductors configured to transmit and receive signals to and from the position target (158), wherein the position detection antenna (164) comprises the planar array of conductors configured to transmit and receive signals to and from the position target (158) (¶¶ [0043], [0048]).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Utermoehlen discloses the actuation element comprises a motor and a gearbox, and wherein the SAW sensor (142) is disposed on a rotating shaft (114) of the motor or on a component of the gearbox (¶ [0052]).
Regarding claim 6, Utermoehlen discloses the SAW sensor (142) is configured to measure a property of the actuation element (114), wherein the property comprises at least one of a torque, a temperature, a rotation speed and a strain (¶ [0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Utermoehlen in view of Lohr discloses the stationary body portion SAW antenna (140) and the position detection antenna (164) are disposed adjacent each other (¶¶ [0041], [0048]), optionally, wherein the stationary body portion SAW antenna is radially inwards of the position detection antenna (Examiner notes the limitation following “optionally” is not given patentable weight as it is not explicitly required by the claim).
Regarding claim 11, Utermoehlen discloses the EMA is a rotary actuator configured to provide rotary actuation of the movable body portion (116) relative to the stationary body portion (122) (¶ [0006]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utermoehlen in view of Lohr and Stoelting (US 2023/0089853).
Regarding claim 15, Utermoehlen in view of Lohr discloses an EMA according to claim 1.
Utermoehlen and Lohr are silent to an aerial vehicle.
Stoelting teaches that it is known to use an EMA in an aerial vehicle, wherein the EMA is configured to control the flight control surface (¶¶ [0014]-[0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to use Utermoehlen’s modified EMA in Stoelting’s aerial vehicle since it has been held that using a known device in a known apparatus with a reasonable change of success is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007). Doing so would provide the benefit of having an EMA with a multipurpose sensor in order to simply design.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, and 14 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious an EMA as claimed wherein the interrogation signal comprises a first signal component at a first frequency and a second signal component at a second, different frequency in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Utermoehlen which represents the closest prior art discloses using two signals, one for each sensing component.
Claims 9 and 10 would be allowable based on their dependence on claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a method of using an EMA as claimed wherein an interrogation unit sends the first signal component and the second signal component to the first interface component in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Utermoehlen which represents the closest prior art discloses placing the SAW sensor on the movable body portion to detect a temperature of the movable component and placing the position sensor on the stationary component so that the rotary encoder can be used as a target. It would not be possible to arrange Utermoehlen’s elements such that both signals are sent to the same interface component since both sensors cannot be placed the same interface component.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and represents the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights