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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30October2024, and 16January2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Pending
1-20
103
1-20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keir US 20210171187 in view of Hay US 5550736.
Keir discloses,
Claims 1, 12, and 19; One or more non-transitory, machine-readable media having machine-readable instructions thereon which, when executed by one or more processing devices, cause a system to perform operations comprising([0015] each flight control computer 110, 112, 114 may include or access a data storage element (or memory) capable of storing programming instructions for execution that, when read and executed by the flight control computer 110, 112, 114, cause the flight control computer 110, 112, 114 to support operations of the fly-by-wire system 100): controlling an actuator that is communication with the one or more processing devices based at least in part on([0018] the respective flight control components and generating corresponding commands for operating the motor or other actuator associated therewith to adjust or otherwise control the respective flight control component to track the commands provided by one or more of the flight control computers 110, 112, 114): outputting, with a first command module([0013] 120 is a controller that manages flight control components), a first control signal to control the actuator([0013] 120 can manage flight control components which provide lift, propulsion, and/or attitude control for the aircraft, such as, for example, a flight control surface actuator), wherein the first command module comprises a first electronic configuration([0018] The controllers 120, 122, 124, 126, 128, 130 generally represent the processing system, processing device, hardware, circuitry, logic, software, firmware and/or other components which means 120 does comprise of a electronic configuration, Fig. 1 shows that 120 contains CAN bus A1 and B1 which is a first electronic configuration); outputting, with a second command module([0013] 122 is a controller that manages flight control components), a second control signal to control the actuator([0013] discloses that second controller 122 connects to different buses which means it sends a different signal than the first controller 120 meaning it's sending a second signal) wherein the second command module comprises a second electronic configuration that is different from the first electronic configuration(Fig. 1 shows the second command module 122 contains CAN bus A1 and C1 which is different from the first); and monitoring, with a monitor module([0020] Each of the controllers 120, 122, 124, 126, 128, 130 continually monitors the respective CAN buses 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 it is connected to for messages identifying its associated flight control component as the intended recipient, the monitoring module can be 124), at least one of (i) one or more commands generated by the first command module, or (ii) one or more system response signals that are based at least in part on one or more sensors(Fig. 1 shows that 124 monitors one or more commands that are output from the first and second controllers), wherein the monitor module comprises a third electronic configuration that is different from the first electronic configuration and the second electronic configuration(Fig. 1 shows 124 contains CAN Bus C1 and B1 which is different from the first and second controllers).
Claim 4; Further comprising: a propulsion system that comprises the actuator(210 is a lift fan with controller 212 which contains an actuator), wherein the controller at least partially controls the propulsion system based at least in part on the first control signal or the second control signal(210 contains 212 that uses A1 and B1 to control the fan).
Claim 5; Wherein the propulsion system further comprises a propeller, and the actuator is coupled to the propeller(210 is a lift fan which means it must contain propeller blades and 212 is connected to 210 which contains an actuator).
Claims 10, and 17; Wherein the second command module receives the set of one or more input signals from the set of sensors and generates the second control signal based at least in part on the set of one or more input signals([0020] 110, 112, 114 continually analyzes the outputs of the user interface sensors which are received by 120 and 122, the controller 120, 122 decodes, parses, or otherwise analyzes the message to identify the commanded adjustment for its associated flight control component and generates corresponding commands).
However, Keir fails to disclose:
Claim 1; When the first command module is deactivated or malfunctioning, wherein the actuator is controlled using the second control signal when the first command module is deactivated or malfunctioning.
Claims 3, and 14; Wherein the first electronic configuration is a first software configuration, and wherein the second electronic configuration is a second software configuration that is different from the first software configuration.
Claim 7; Wherein the controller is configured to select the second command module for controlling the actuator in response to determining that the first command module is deactivated or malfunctioning.
Hay teaches a similar device in the same field of aircraft control.
Hay teaches,
Claims 1, 12, and 19; When the first command module is deactivated or malfunctioning(Col. 10, Lines 62-7 to Col. 11, lines 1-2 discloses that when the primary controller or signal fails, the system reverts to the backup), wherein the actuator is controlled using the second control signal when the first command module is deactivated or malfunctioning(Col. 10, Lines 62-7 to Col. 11, lines 1-2 discloses that when the primary controller or signal fails, the system reverts to the backup).
Claims 3, and 14; Wherein the first electronic configuration is a first software configuration, and wherein the second electronic configuration is a second software configuration that is different from the first software configuration(Col. 11, Lines 3-12 discloses utilizing dissimilar software in different controllers).
Claim 7; Wherein the controller is configured to select the second command module for controlling the actuator in response to determining that the first command module is deactivated or malfunctioning(Col. 10, Lines 62-7 to Col. 11, lines 1-2 discloses that when the primary controller or signal fails, the system reverts to the backup).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include when the first command module is deactivated or malfunctioning, wherein the actuator is controlled using the second control signal when the first command module is deactivated or malfunctioning, and the controller is configured to select the second command module for controlling the actuator in response to determining that the first command module is deactivated or malfunctioning as taught by Hay, for the purpose of automatically compensating for failed components or signals.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first electronic configuration is a first software configuration, and wherein the second electronic configuration is a second software configuration that is different from the first software configuration as taught by Hay, for the purpose of Col. 11, Lines 3-12 minimiz.
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keir US 20210171187 in view of Hay US 5550736 further in view of Avritch US 20140303812.
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 13, Keir and Hay discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim(s) 1 and 12.
However, Keir and Hay fails to disclose:
Claims 2 and 13; Wherein the first electronic configuration is a first hardware configuration, and wherein the second electronic configuration is a second hardware configuration that is different from the first hardware configuration.
Avritch teaches a similar device in the same field of aircraft controls.
Avritch teaches,
Claims 2 and 13; Wherein the first electronic configuration is a first hardware configuration, and wherein the second electronic configuration is a second hardware configuration that is different from the first hardware configuration([0018] The control processors within the effector module 30 and the primary control module 40 utilize different hardware architecture. The different hardware architecture allows the processor in the effector module 30 to act as a backup control path without propagating certain types of failures within the primary control module 40 to the effector module 30 in the event of a primary control module 40 failure).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first electronic configuration is a first hardware configuration, and wherein the second electronic configuration is a second hardware configuration that is different from the first hardware configuration as taught by Avritch, for the purpose of reducing the chances of having the same failure as the primary controller by having a different setup.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keir US 20210171187 in view of Hay US 5550736 further in view of DE CASTRO PAIVA US 20230322366 .
Regarding claim(s) 6, Keir and Hay discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim(s) 1.
However, Keir and Hay fails to disclose:
Claim 6; Wherein the aircraft is an autonomous aircraft.
DE CASTRO PAIVA teaches a similar device in the same field of aircraft control.
DE CASTRO PAIVA teaches,
Claim 6; Wherein the aircraft is an autonomous aircraft([0006] discloses that fly by wire architecture can be used in an unmanned vehicle).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aircraft is an autonomous aircraft as taught by DE CASTRO PAIVA, for the purpose of having a redundant system in an aircraft controlled by a remote pilot.
Claim(s) 8-9, 11, 15-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keir US 20210171187 in view of Hay US 5550736 further in view of Takats US 4807516.
Regarding claim(s) 8-9, 11, 15-16, and 18, Keir and Hay discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim(s) 1 and 12.
Keir further discloses,
Claims 8, and 15; Wherein: the first command module receives a set of one or more input signals from a set of sensors corresponding to the one or more sensors([0020] discloses that 120, 122, 124, 126, 128, 130 all receive input from the user interface sensors), and generates the first control signal based at least in part on the set of one or more input signals([0020] In response to identifying a message intended for its associated flight control component, the controller 120, 122, 124, 126, 128, 130 decodes, parses, or otherwise analyzes the message to identify the commanded adjustment for its associated flight control component and generates corresponding commands for operating a motor or other actuator to achieve the desired response from the flight control component); the monitor module receives the set of one or more input signals from the set of sensors(124 receives the same signals as 120 and 122).
However, Keir and Hay fails to disclose:
Claims 8, and 15; The monitor module generates a monitor signal based at least in part on the set of one or more input signals, compares the first control signal generated by the first command module to the monitor signal, and transmits the first control signal to the actuator if the first control signal matches the monitor signal.
Claims 9, and 16; Wherein the monitor module suppresses the first control signal when the first control signal differs from the monitor signal, wherein the second control signal is transmitted to the actuator when the first control signal is suppressed.
Claims 11, and 18; Wherein the system is configured to generate an alert when the actuator is controlled using the second control signal when the first command module is deactivated or malfunctioning.
Takats teaches a similar device in the same field of aircraft controls.
Takats teaches,
Claims 8, and 15; The monitor module generates a monitor signal based at least in part on the set of one or more input signals, compares the first control signal generated by the first command module to the monitor signal, and transmits the first control signal to the actuator if the first control signal matches the monitor signal(Col. 11, Lines 23-29 Discloses that if the monitor signal doesn't match with 100, 100 will be deactivated and the standby channel 106 is activated, meaning if the monitor signal does match with 100 the signal will just be transmitted).
Claims 9, and 16; Wherein the monitor module suppresses the first control signal when the first control signal differs from the monitor signal, wherein the second control signal is transmitted to the actuator when the first control signal is suppressed(Col. 11, Lines 23-29 Discloses that if the monitor signal doesn't match with 100, 100 will be deactivated and the standby channel 106 is activated).
Claims 11, and 18; Wherein the system is configured to generate an alert when the actuator is controlled using the second control signal when the first command module is deactivated or malfunctioning(Col. 11, Lines 29-32 Additionally, the control logic circuit 124 provides an enable signal to control logic 126 to notify the loss of the 1B channel 100).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the monitor module generates a monitor signal based at least in part on the set of one or more input signals, compares the first control signal generated by the first command module to the monitor signal, and transmits the first control signal to the actuator if the first control signal matches the monitor signal, and the monitor module suppresses the first control signal when the first control signal differs from the monitor signal, wherein the second control signal is transmitted to the actuator when the first control signal is suppressed as taught by Takats, for the purpose of automatically switching to a backup if a failure is detected.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the system is configured to generate an alert when the actuator is controlled using the second control signal when the first command module is deactivated or malfunctioning. as taught by Takats, for the purpose of making the system aware there is a failure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Merino whose telephone number is (703)756-4721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/John C Merino/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669