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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 04/29/2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which claims 9 and 12-13, have been amended, claim 8 has been cancelled, and claims 21-24 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 9-24 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 8-15, filed 04/29/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim objections, the amendments have rendered the objections moot. Therefore, the objections to the claims are withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the cancelled claim in the amendment renders this rejection moot, the amended claims are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
With respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the argument that dampening device connote sufficiently definite structure is not persuasive. The specification has structural support, but the claim does not. The term device could be the simple actuator or the actuator and a processor combined, or could encompass any number of damping structures which may be combined with additional elements. Therefore, the amended claims are still interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
With respect to the claim rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant’s argument that Gallet provides only moderate structural movement and does not disclose any vibration cancellation function, the position can be controlled by an actuator which is supported by the damper in Gallet. The use of the damper to provide flexible and continuous deformation, without any jolt [0012], suggests the consideration of vibrational impact. This need creates space for optimization using Heverly’s vibration damper; which provides a cancellation vibration at an opposite phase using an actuated damper device. The Heverly device is designed to cancel the vibration between an engine and fuselage and would be required to be attached through the coupling points of the engine to do so. The claim language in claim 1 does not support the structural integration of the dampener being on the hydraulic actuator. The term unit is generally a nonce term, that does have clear structural bounds. The hydraulic actuator and the damping device can exist within the unit, but the entire coupling including multiple rods, control devices that may be in communication but not directly coupled, could also be included in the described unit. that is used by Gallet to manual control the position of the engine [0013]. This would result in the LIVE device being on the actuators of Gallet. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 pertaining to claim 1 are maintained. Additionally, the search necessitated by the change in scope of claim 13 resulted in more relevant prior art which has been applied as an alternative rejection to further prosecution.
With respect to the claim rejections of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previously applied prior art does not appear to disclose the linear actuator of the damping device being coupled to the hydraulic actuator, as amended in claim 13. However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art and further search found that Legrand in view of Guering did disclose this limitation as mapped in the final office action below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1, the “dampening device” in the limitation “a dampening device operable to cancel a vibration” invokes 112(f) as device is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the vibration to be canceled.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification to these claim limitations:
“[0065]… a dampening device embodied as an electrically activated linear actuator 240.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 24 recites the limitation “the electrically activated linear actuator.” As it is reliant on claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallet et al. (US 2015/0239569 A1), hereinafter Gallet, in view of Heverly et al. (US 2016/0280363 A1), hereinafter Heverly.
With respect to claim 1, Gallet discloses a tail-rotor vibration dampener system for an aircraft, the system comprising: a fuselage; (see at least [0002] “Propulsion engines on aircraft may be mounted at various points on the fuselage”)
an open rotor assembly including: a powerplant operable to provide an output torque; (see at least [0021] “a turboshaft engine 10 of the “open rotor” type can be seen - this expression designates a pair of unducted propellers.”)
and rotor blades receiving to receive the output torque and rotate about a longitudinal axis of the open rotor assembly; (see at least Fig. 1, [0021] “The turbines are each connected to one of the rotors 22, 24 of the propeller that they drive.”)
at least one actuator unit connecting the open rotor assembly to the fuselage, the actuator unit including: a hydraulic actuator to control a position of the open rotor assembly in relation to the fuselage; (see at least Fig. 1, [0025] “This connection means comprises, according to the embodiment of this example, two rigid connecting rods 36 and 37…so as to form a deformable trapezoidal quadrilateral. The lengths of these connecting rods will be calculated according to the type of movement required for the engine.” [0013] “the deformation of the connection means is controlled by an actuator.”)
Gallet discloses an aircraft with an open rotor engine connected to the fuselage with multiple connecting rods with a device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose the dampening device being used to cancel a vibration from the rotor assembly.
However, Heverly teaches a dampening device operable to cancel a vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly; (see at least [0002] “A vibration isolation system is used in rotorcrafts such as helicopters and tiltrotor aircrafts to damp or isolate vibrations between two bodies of a rotorcraft, for example, between the rotor system and the fuselage.”)
and a computerized vibration dampening controller, including programming to: determine a frequency of the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly; and control the dampening device to cancel the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly based on the frequency. (see at least [0026-0027] “The vibration isolation system 200 can use inertia of the tuning fluid within the LIVE™ unit 202 and/or actuation of the servo valve 204 to generate a desired frequency response (e.g., desired frequency, amplitude, and/or phase)… At some frequency, these inertial forces become substantially equal and opposite to the force of the elastomeric seal and spring member 106 acting on the piston 104 such that cancellation occurs.”)
As both pertain to aircraft engine movement, 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 movement damper of Gallet to include the vibration eliminator disclosed in Heverly, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for cancelling vibrational impact for the different levels of vibration experienced by different bodies of the aircraft, see Heverly [0002].
With respect to claim 2, Gallet discloses an aircraft with an open rotor engine connected to the fuselage with multiple connecting rods with a device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose the dampening device being used to cancel a vibration within the hydraulic fluid.
However, Heverly teaches the dampening device includes an electrically activated linear actuator operable to create canceling vibrations within hydraulic fluid of the hydraulic actuator. (see at least [0022] “The pumper unit transmits hydraulic motion of actuator fluid in the servo valve into hydraulic motion of tuning fluid in the vibration isolator, while keeping separate the tuning fluid and the actuator fluid.”)
As both pertain to aircraft engine movement, 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 movement damper of Gallet to include the vibration eliminator disclosed in Heverly, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for cancelling vibrational impact for the different levels of vibration experienced by different bodies of the aircraft, see Heverly [0002].
With respect to claim 3, Gallet discloses an aircraft with an open rotor engine connected to the fuselage with multiple connecting rods with a device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose the dampening device being used to cancel a vibration using an opposite phase frequency.
However, Heverly teaches the canceling vibrations are controlled based on the frequency of the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly and to an opposite phase of the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly. (see at least [0027] “A passive LIVE™ unit employs acceleration of the tuning fluid and displacement of the elastomeric spring member at the same frequency to produce forces of the same amplitude but opposite phase to reduce vibration between bodies connected by the passive LIVE™ unit.”)
As both pertain to aircraft engine movement, 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 movement damper of Gallet to include the vibration eliminator disclosed in Heverly, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for cancelling vibrational impact for the different levels of vibration experienced by different bodies of the aircraft, see Heverly [0002].
With respect to claims 4, Gallet discloses an aircraft with an open rotor engine connected to the fuselage with multiple connecting rods with a device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose the dampening device connecting the actuators.
However, Heverly teaches the electrically activated linear actuator connects a piston arm on the hydraulic actuator with a piston arm extension. (see at least [0026] “The housing 212 can rigidly attach to a first moving body (e.g., fuselage of a helicopter), and the piston body 216 can rigidly attach to a second moving body (e.g., main rotor gearbox of a helicopter)”)
As both pertain to aircraft engine movement, 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 movement damper of Gallet to include the vibration eliminator disclosed in Heverly, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for cancelling vibrational impact for the different levels of vibration experienced by different bodies of the aircraft, see Heverly [0002].
With respect to claims 5, Gallet discloses the piston arm extension includes a revolute joint. (see at least [0024] “The first attachment means (32) is represented here by yokes articulated to the strut 31, which is itself fixed at various points to the casing of the engine.”)
With respect to claim 6, Gallet discloses an aircraft with an open rotor engine connected to the fuselage with multiple connecting rods with a device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose a sensor to monitor a vibration within a connected body.
However, Heverly teaches a sensor on the piston arm extension configured to monitor vibrations within the piston arm extension. (see at least [0029] “the example active vibration isolation system 200 includes movement-based sensors on… the piston body 216 of the LIVE™ unit 202, and/or other bodies to identify movement (e.g., vibration, oscillation, displacement, acceleration, and/or other) of the bodies.”)
As both pertain to aircraft engine movement, 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 movement damper of Gallet to include the vibration eliminator disclosed in Heverly, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for cancelling vibrational impact for the different levels of vibration experienced by different bodies of the aircraft, see Heverly [0002].
With respect to claim 7, Gallet discloses a plurality of actuator units connecting the open rotor assembly to the fuselage. (see at least Fig. 1, [0025] “This connection means comprises, according to the embodiment of this example, two rigid connecting rods 36 and 37…so as to form a deformable trapezoidal quadrilateral. The lengths of these connecting rods will be calculated according to the type of movement required for the engine.” [0002] “Propulsion engines on aircraft may be mounted at various points on the fuselage”)
With respect to claim 9, Gallet discloses an aircraft with an open rotor engine connected to the fuselage with multiple connecting rods with a device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose a sensor to monitor a vibration within a connected body.
However, Heverly teaches a sensor operable to monitor the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly; (see at least [0029] “the example active vibration isolation system 200 includes movement-based sensors on… the second body” [0026] “a second moving body (e.g., main rotor gearbox of a helicopter)”)
and the programming of the computerized vibration dampening controller to monitor the sensor. (see at least [0029] “In some implementations, relative movements between bodies correlate to substantially instantaneous pressure differentials or future pressure differentials of a LIVE™ unit connected to the bodies.”)
As both pertain to aircraft engine movement, 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 movement damper of Gallet to include the vibration eliminator disclosed in Heverly, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for cancelling vibrational impact for the different levels of vibration experienced by different bodies of the aircraft, see Heverly [0002].
With respect to claim 10, Gallet discloses an aircraft with an open rotor engine connected to the fuselage with multiple connecting rods with a device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose a sensor to monitor a vibration within a connected body.
However, Heverly teaches the sensor is disposed within the open rotor assembly. (see at least [0029] “the example active vibration isolation system 200 includes movement-based sensors on… the second body” [0026] “a second moving body (e.g., main rotor gearbox of a helicopter)”)
As both pertain to aircraft engine movement, 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 movement damper of Gallet to include the vibration eliminator disclosed in Heverly, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for cancelling vibrational impact for the different levels of vibration experienced by different bodies of the aircraft, see Heverly [0002].
With respect to claim 11, Gallet discloses an aircraft with an open rotor engine connected to the fuselage with multiple connecting rods with a device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose a sensor to monitor a vibration within a connected body.
However, Heverly teaches the sensor is disposed upon a piston arm connected to the actuator unit. (see at least [0029] “the example active vibration isolation system 200 includes movement-based sensors on… the piston body 216 of the LIVE™ unit 202, and/or other bodies to identify movement (e.g., vibration, oscillation, displacement, acceleration, and/or other) of the bodies.”)
As both pertain to aircraft engine movement, 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 movement damper of Gallet to include the vibration eliminator disclosed in Heverly, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for cancelling vibrational impact for the different levels of vibration experienced by different bodies of the aircraft, see Heverly [0002].
With respect to claim 12, Gallet discloses an aircraft with an open rotor engine connected to the fuselage with multiple connecting rods with a device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose a sensor to monitor a vibration within a connected body.
However, Heverly teaches a sensor operable to monitor a resulting vibration in the fuselage, the programming of the computerized vibration dampening controller to tune the dampening device based on minimizing the resulting vibration in the fuselage. (see at least [0028] “The servo valve 204 tunes the LIVE™ unit 202 to isolate vibration of the moving bodies by selectively altering the frequency response characteristics of the LIVE™ unit 202, for example, to maximize vibration isolation across the LIVE™ unit 202. For example, the servo valve 204 regulates the amplitude and phase of the frequency response”)
As both pertain to aircraft engine movement, 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 movement damper of Gallet to include the vibration eliminator disclosed in Heverly, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for cancelling vibrational impact for the different levels of vibration experienced by different bodies of the aircraft, see Heverly [0002].
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallet in view of Heverly as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Legrand (US 3,477,665 A1), hereinafter Legrand.
With respect to claim 21, Gallet discloses an aircraft with an actuator to position an open rotor engine in relation to the fuselage with multiple connecting rods and a device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose the dampening device being integrated with the actuator to provide active counter-vibration.
However, Legrand teaches the dampening device is integrated with the hydraulic actuator and operable to actively generate a counter-vibration within hydraulic fluid of the hydraulic actuator to cancel the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly. (see at least Figs. 2 and 6, [7:7-20 (column 7, lines 7-20)] “A device for attenuating vibrations… an electronic control network… electrically connected to an electrohydraulic servo-valve for supplying pressure-fluid to a jack member which is supported by a structural member forming a tie between the aircraft fuselage and the means for securing the rotor thereto.” [2:47-49] “The jack and the servo-valve forming the hydraulic relay system constitute a block rigidly connected to said strut.” [6:35-37] “enable natural vibrations to be effectively countered and their effects on the fuselage to be substantially cancelled out”)
As both pertain to rotor attachment and control with relation to the fuselage of aircraft, 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 engine positioning actuator and corresponding damper of Gallet to include the active damping device disclosed in Legrand, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a complete structural device that could replace a preexisting strut of an engine system, to attenuate the alternating frequencies cause by the variation in speed of the rotor, rather than just reducing the vibration/jolt of the repositioning, see Legrand [1:25-40, 6:37-41].
With respect to claim 22, Gallet discloses an aircraft with an actuator to position an open rotor engine in relation to the fuselage with multiple connecting rods and a device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose the dampening device being integrated with the actuator to provide active counter-vibration.
However, Legrand teaches the vibration dampening controller controls the dampening device to cancel the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly based on the frequency by generating the counter-vibration within the hydraulic actuator. (see at least Fig. 6, [6:21-28] “The differential pressure sensor… intended to measure the pressure differential across the two jack chambers and convert it into an alternating voltage modulated at the reference frequency, the amplitude of which is a function of said differential and the phase dependent on the sense of this differential.” [6:35-37] “enable natural vibrations to be effectively countered and their effects on the fuselage to be substantially cancelled out”)
As both pertain to rotor attachment and control with relation to the fuselage of aircraft, 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 engine positioning actuator and corresponding damper of Gallet to include the active damping device disclosed in Legrand, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a complete structural device that could replace a preexisting strut of an engine system, to attenuate the alternating frequencies cause by the variation in speed of the rotor, rather than just reducing the vibration/jolt of the repositioning, see Legrand [1:25-40, 6:37-41].
Gallet discloses an aircraft with an actuator to position an open rotor engine in relation to the fuselage with multiple connecting rods and a device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose the dampening device being integrated with the actuator to provide active counter-vibration.
However, Legrand teaches the canceling vibrations are controlled to the frequency of the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly to an opposite phase of the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly. (see at least [6:35-7:7] “enable natural vibrations to be effectively countered and their effects on the fuselage to be substantially cancelled out… applying these amplified signals to a servo-valve for distributing hydraulic pressure-fluid to a jack member… to the summed in-phase and out-phased signals.”)
As both pertain to rotor attachment and control with relation to the fuselage of aircraft, 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 engine positioning actuator and corresponding damper of Gallet to include the active damping device disclosed in Legrand, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a complete structural device that could replace a preexisting strut of an engine system, to attenuate the alternating frequencies cause by the variation in speed of the rotor, rather than just reducing the vibration/jolt of the repositioning, see Legrand [1:25-40, 6:37-41].
Gallet discloses an aircraft with an actuator to position an open rotor engine in relation to the fuselage with multiple connecting rods and a device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose the dampening device being integrated with the actuator to provide active counter-vibration.
However, Legrand teaches the electrically activated linear actuator is mechanically coupled to the hydraulic actuator and disposed in-line with a piston of the hydraulic actuator. (see at least [2:47-49] “The jack and the servo-valve forming the hydraulic relay system constitute a block rigidly connected to said strut.” [4:46-53] “in FIGURE 6, the jack casting 3 on which are mounted the servo-valve unit 22 and the differential pressure sensor 23 is rigid with a tubular element 54 which forms, respectively on either side of a partition wall, a guide 55 for one of the ends of piston-rod 53 and a hollow extension screwed into a ferrule 56 for coupling one end of strut section 4b.”)
As both pertain to rotor attachment and control with relation to the fuselage of aircraft, 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 engine positioning actuator and corresponding damper of Gallet to include the active damping device disclosed in Legrand, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a complete structural device that could replace a preexisting strut of an engine system, to attenuate the alternating frequencies cause by the variation in speed of the rotor, rather than just reducing the vibration/jolt of the repositioning, see Legrand [1:25-40, 6:37-41].
Claims 13-24 are rejected, and 1-7, 9, and 11-12 are alternatively rejected, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legrand, in view of Guering et al. (US 2011/0192933 A1), hereinafter Guering.
With respect to claim 1, Legrand discloses a tail-rotor vibration dampener system for an aircraft, the system comprising: a fuselage; (see at least [1:31-32] “the fuselage of an aircraft”)
an open rotor assembly including: a powerplant operable to provide an output torque; (see at least [1:32] “the rotor” [2:45-46] “the main gearbox used to transmit power to the rotor”)
and rotor blades receiving to receive the output torque and rotate about a longitudinal axis of the open rotor assembly; (see at least [1:36] “the revolving rotor blades of rotary-wing aircraft”)
at least one actuator unit connecting the open rotor assembly to the fuselage, the actuator unit including: a hydraulic actuator to control a position of the open rotor assembly in relation to the fuselage; (see at least [1:63-65] “a double-acting jack carried by a structural member interconnecting the rotor support and the fuselage”)
a dampening device operable to cancel a vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly; (see at least [1:57-65] “provide an electrohydraulic vibration attenuating method consisting in generating, on the basis of the dynamic accelerations measured on the aircraft, suitably adjusted and phase-shifted electrical signals which are transmitted to an electrohydraulic servo-controlled valve which converts them into changing hydraulic pressures communicated to a double-acting jack carried by a structural member interconnecting the rotor support and the fuselage” [6:35-36] “enable natural vibrations to be effectively countered and their effects on the fuselage to be substantially cancelled out.”)
and a computerized vibration dampening controller, including programming to: determine a frequency of the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly; (see at least [1:57-65] “provide an electrohydraulic vibration attenuating method consisting in generating, on the basis of the dynamic accelerations measured on the aircraft, suitably adjusted and phase-shifted electrical signals which are transmitted to an electrohydraulic servo-controlled valve which converts them into changing hydraulic pressures communicated to a double-acting jack carried by a structural member interconnecting the rotor support and the fuselage”
and control the dampening device to cancel the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly based on the frequency. (see at least [6:35-7:7] “enable natural vibrations to be effectively countered and their effects on the fuselage to be substantially cancelled out… applying these amplified signals to a servo-valve for distributing hydraulic pressure-fluid to a jack member… to the summed in-phase and out-phased signals.”)
Legrand discloses an aircraft with rotor connected to the fuselage with a hydraulic power jack including an attached device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose the rotor being a tail rotor and the jack being used to control the position of an open rotor assembly.
However, Guering teaches a hydraulic actuator to control a position of the open rotor assembly in relation to the fuselage; (see at least [0028] “each of the segments 101, 102 of the securing mast 100 is equipped with two jacks 107, 108, each fastened to the engine 1” [0029] “the connection between the engine 1 and the wing 3 can be modified in height H by lengthening or shortening the jacks 107,108 and by rotation of said jacks 107, 108 at the hinged connecting points 113 between said jacks 107,108 and the engine 1”)
As both pertain to rotor attachment and control with relation to the fuselage of aircraft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the aircraft rotor vibration attenuation of Legrand to be included on a hydraulically adjustable rotor of an aircraft as disclosed in Guering, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the resistance of the imbalance by providing the jacks within the mast with the vibration attenuation of Legrand as the method for using phase opposition relative to the vibrations induced by the autorotation of the engine [0006]. It would further be obvious to integrate the engine position control in a tail rotor to improve the noise shielding effect and safety of rear mounted motors while leveraging the well-known reduced fuel consumption of an open rotor, see Chao et al. [Conclusion section, “A Conceptual Analysis of an Aircraft with Rear-mounted Open Rotor Engines”, 2016].
With respect to claim 2, Legrand discloses the dampening device includes an electrically activated linear actuator operable to create canceling vibrations within hydraulic fluid of the hydraulic actuator. (see at least [3:43-46] “the unit 3 includes an exciter jack cylinder, an electrohydraulic servo-valve, a relay slide-valve between the servo-valve and the jack, and a differential pressure sensor mounted on the jack cylinder itself.” [8:17-19] “whereby said slide-valve relay effects a regulated distribution of hydraulic fluid among said jack member chambers and said discharge duct.” [6:35-36] “enable natural vibrations to be effectively countered and their effects on the fuselage to be substantially cancelled out.”)
With respect to claim 3, Legrand discloses the canceling vibrations are controlled based on the frequency of the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly and to an opposite phase of the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly. (see at least [6:35-7:7] “enable natural vibrations to be effectively countered and their effects on the fuselage to be substantially cancelled out… applying these amplified signals to a servo-valve for distributing hydraulic pressure-fluid to a jack member… to the summed in-phase and out-phased signals.”)
With respect to claims 4 and 16, Legrand discloses the electrically activated linear actuator connects a piston arm on the hydraulic actuator with a piston arm extension. (see at least [4:46-53] “In the constructional form illustrated in FIGURE 6, the jack casting 3 on which are mounted the servo-valve unit 22 and the differential pressure sensor 23 is rigid with a tubular element 54 which forms, respectively on either side of a partition wall, a guide 55 for one of the ends of piston-rod 53 and a hollow extension screwed into a ferrule 56 for coupling one end of strut section 4b.”)
With respect to claims 5 and 17, Legrand discloses the piston arm extension includes a revolute joint. (see at least [4:59-60] “Rod 53 is securely screwed into a further attachment clevis 58.”)
With respect to claims 6 and 18, Legrand discloses a (second) sensor on the piston arm extension configured to monitor vibrations within the piston arm extension. (see at least “The differential pressure sensor… intended to measure the pressure differential across the two jack chambers and convert it into an alternating voltage modulated at the reference frequency, the amplitude of which is a function of said differential and the phase dependent on the sense of this differential.”)
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Legrand discloses an aircraft with rotor connected to the fuselage with a hydraulic power jack including an attached device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose there being a plurality of hydraulic jacks.
However, Guering teaches a plurality of actuator units connecting the open rotor assembly (see at least Fig. 2, [0028] “each of the segments 101, 102 of the securing mast 100 is equipped with two jacks 107, 108, each fastened to the engine 1”)
As both pertain to rotor attachment and control with relation to the fuselage of aircraft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the aircraft rotor vibration attenuation of Legrand to be included on a hydraulically adjustable rotor of an aircraft as disclosed in Guering, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the resistance of the imbalance by providing the jacks within the mast with the vibration attenuation of Legrand as the method for using phase opposition relative to the vibrations induced by the autorotation of the engine, see Guering [0006].
With respect to claim 9, Legrand discloses a sensor operable to monitor the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly; (see at least [5:53-69] “The comparison between the signals, effected in summing network 19, enables excitation forces to be obtained at the output of jack 3 that are proportional to said signals, with suitable correction for linearity defects in the response obtained in electronic unit 18 and sensor 23” [6:21-28] “The differential pressure sensor… intended to measure the pressure differential across the two jack chambers and convert it into an alternating voltage modulated at the reference frequency, the amplitude of which is a function of said differential and the phase dependent on the sense of this differential.”)
and the programming of the computerized vibration dampening controller to monitor the sensor. (see at least [5:53-69] “The comparison between the signals, effected in summing network 19, enables excitation forces to be obtained at the output of jack 3 that are proportional to said signals, with suitable correction for linearity defects in the response obtained in electronic unit 18 and sensor 23” [6:21-28] “The differential pressure sensor… intended to measure the pressure differential across the two jack chambers and convert it into an alternating voltage modulated at the reference frequency, the amplitude of which is a function of said differential and the phase dependent on the sense of this differential.”)
With respect to claim 11, Legrand discloses the sensor is disposed upon a piston arm connected to the actuator unit. (see at least [5:53-69] “The comparison between the signals, effected in summing network 19, enables excitation forces to be obtained at the output of jack 3 that are proportional to said signals, with suitable correction for linearity defects in the response obtained in electronic unit 18 and sensor 23” [6:21-28] “The differential pressure sensor… intended to measure the pressure differential across the two jack chambers and convert it into an alternating voltage modulated at the reference frequency, the amplitude of which is a function of said differential and the phase dependent on the sense of this differential.”)
With respect to claim 12, Legrand discloses a sensor operable to monitor a resulting vibration in the fuselage, the computerized vibration dampening controller including programming to tune the dampening device based on minimizing the resulting vibration in the fuselage. (see at least [5:23-24] “The vibrations are measured at the selected location on the fuselage by the accelerometer 1” [6:35-36] “enable natural vibrations to be effectively countered and their effects on the fuselage to be substantially cancelled out”)
With respect to claim 13, Legrand discloses a tail-rotor vibration dampener system for an aircraft, the system comprising: a fuselage; (see at least [1:31-32 (column 1, lines 31-32)] “the fuselage of an aircraft”)
an open rotor assembly including: a powerplant operable to provide an output torque; (see at least [1:32] “the rotor” [2:45-46] “the main gearbox used to transmit power to the rotor”)
and rotor blades to receive the output torque and rotate about a longitudinal axis of the open rotor assembly; (see at least [1:36] “the revolving rotor blades of rotary-wing aircraft”)
a sensor operable to monitor a vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly;
at least one actuator unit connecting the open rotor assembly to the fuselage, the actuator unit including: a hydraulic actuator (see at least [1:63-65] “a double-acting jack carried by a structural member interconnecting the rotor support and the fuselage” [2:25-28] “the electrohydraulic servo-valve supplying pressure-fluid to the hydraulic power jack.”)
and an electrically activated linear actuator coupled to the hydraulic actuator to control an overall length of the actuator unit and operable to cancel the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly by actively generating a counter-vibration within the actuator that is out of phase with the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly; (see at least Fig. 6, [1:57-65] “provide an electrohydraulic vibration attenuating method consisting… phase-shifted electrical signals which are transmitted to an electrohydraulic servo-controlled valve which converts them into changing hydraulic pressures communicated to a double-acting jack” [2:47-49] “The jack and the servo-valve forming the hydraulic relay system constitute a block rigidly connected to said strut.” [6:35-7:7] “enable natural vibrations to be effectively countered and their effects on the fuselage to be substantially cancelled out… applying these amplified signals to a servo-valve for distributing hydraulic pressure-fluid to a jack member… to the summed in-phase and out-phased signals.”)
Legrand discloses an aircraft with rotor connected to the fuselage with a hydraulic power jack including an attached device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose the rotor being a tail rotor and the jack being used to control the position of an open rotor assembly.
However, Guering teaches a hydraulic actuator to control a position of the open rotor assembly in relation to the fuselage; (see at least [0028] “each of the segments 101, 102 of the securing mast 100 is equipped with two jacks 107, 108, each fastened to the engine 1” [0029] “the connection between the engine 1 and the wing 3 can be modified in height H by lengthening or shortening the jacks 107,108 and by rotation of said jacks 107, 108 at the hinged connecting points 113 between said jacks 107,108 and the engine 1”)
As both pertain to rotor attachment and control with relation to the fuselage of aircraft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the aircraft rotor vibration attenuation of Legrand to be included on a hydraulically adjustable rotor of an aircraft as disclosed in Guering, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the resistance of the imbalance by providing the jacks within the mast with the vibration attenuation of Legrand as the method for using phase opposition relative to the vibrations induced by the autorotation of the engine [0006]. It would further be obvious to integrate the engine position control in a tail rotor to improve the noise shielding effect and safety of rear mounted motors while leveraging the well-known reduced fuel consumption of an open rotor, see Chao et al. [Conclusion section, “A Conceptual Analysis of an Aircraft with Rear-mounted Open Rotor Engines”, 2016].
With respect to claim 15, Legrand discloses an aircraft with rotor connected to the fuselage with a hydraulic power jack including an attached device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose there being a plurality of hydraulic jacks.
However, Guering teaches each of the plurality of actuator units includes a dampening device. (see at least Fig. 2, [0028] “each of the segments 101, 102 of the securing mast 100 is equipped with two jacks 107, 108, each fastened to the engine 1”)
As both pertain to rotor attachment and control with relation to the fuselage of aircraft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the aircraft rotor vibration attenuation of Legrand to be included on each of the jacks of a hydraulically adjustable rotor of an aircraft as disclosed in Guering, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the resistance of the imbalance by providing each of the jacks within the mast with the vibration attenuation of Legrand as the method for using phase opposition relative to the vibrations induced by the autorotation of the engine, see Guering [0006]. Since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 19, Legrand discloses a second sensor to monitor a second vibration in the fuselage, the programming of the computerized vibration dampening controller to tune the electrically activated linear actuator based on minimizing the second vibration in the fuselage. (see at least [5:23-24] “The vibrations are measured at the selected location on the fuselage by the accelerometer 1” [6:35-36] “enable natural vibrations to be effectively countered and their effects on the fuselage to be substantially cancelled out”)
With respect to claim 20, Legrand discloses a linear displacement motor disposed on a piston arm of the hydraulic actuator, the linear displacement motor to create a second vibration in the piston arm, the second vibration to be out of phase with the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly. (see at least [1:55-68] “phase-shifted electrical signals which are transmitted to an electrohydraulic servo-controlled valve which converts them into changing hydraulic pressures… to produce pulsations opposing the natural vibrations”)
With respect to claim 21, Legrand discloses the dampening device is integrated with the hydraulic actuator and operable to actively generate a counter-vibration within hydraulic fluid of the hydraulic actuator to cancel the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly. (see at least Fig. 6, [7:7-20] “A device for attenuating vibrations… an electronic control network… electrically connected to an electrohydraulic servo-valve for supplying pressure-fluid to a jack member which is supported by a structural member forming a tie between the aircraft fuselage and the means for securing the rotor thereto.” [2:47-49] “The jack and the servo-valve forming the hydraulic relay system constitute a block rigidly connected to said strut.” [6:35-37] “enable natural vibrations to be effectively countered and their effects on the fuselage to be substantially cancelled out”)
With respect to claim 22, Legrand discloses the vibration dampening controller controls the dampening device to cancel the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly based on the frequency by generating the counter-vibration within the hydraulic actuator. (see at least Fig. 6, [6:21-28] “The differential pressure sensor… intended to measure the pressure differential across the two jack chambers and convert it into an alternating voltage modulated at the reference frequency, the amplitude of which is a function of said differential and the phase dependent on the sense of this differential.” [6:35-37] “enable natural vibrations to be effectively countered and their effects on the fuselage to be substantially cancelled out”)
With respect to claim 23, Legrand discloses the canceling vibrations are controlled to the frequency of the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly to an opposite phase of the vibration emanating from the open rotor assembly. (see at least [6:35-7:7] “enable natural vibrations to be effectively countered and their effects on the fuselage to be substantially cancelled out… applying these amplified signals to a servo-valve for distributing hydraulic pressure-fluid to a jack member… to the summed in-phase and out-phased signals.”)
With respect to claim 24, Legrand discloses the electrically activated linear actuator is mechanically coupled to the hydraulic actuator and disposed in-line with a piston of the hydraulic actuator. (see at least [4:46-53] “in FIGURE 6, the jack casting 3 on which are mounted the servo-valve unit 22 and the differential pressure sensor 23 is rigid with a tubular element 54 which forms, respectively on either side of a partition wall, a guide 55 for one of the ends of piston-rod 53 and a hollow extension screwed into a ferrule 56 for coupling one end of strut section 4b.”)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legrand in view of Guering as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Heverly.
With respect to claim 10, Legrand discloses an aircraft with rotor connected to the fuselage with a hydraulic power jack including an attached device to dampen the movement, but does not explicitly disclose there being a sensor disposed within the rotor assembly.
However, Heverly teaches the sensor is disposed within the open rotor assembly. (see at least [0029] “the example active vibration isolation system 200 includes movement-based sensors on… the second body” [0026] “a second moving body (e.g., main rotor gearbox of a helicopter)”)
As both pertain to aircraft engine movement, 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 vibrational sensors of Legrand to include the rotor assembly sensor disclosed in Heverly, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method for cancelling vibrational impact for the different levels of vibration experienced by different bodies of the aircraft, see Heverly [0002].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schelfaut et al. (US 2021/0261263 A1) discloses control system and methods of controlling an engine-mounting link system.
Bottasso et al. (US 2020/0391857 A1) discloses a helicopter kit, that connects the rotor using connecting rods each having their own damping device.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights