DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 1, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This first final action is in response to applicant's amendment filed on May 18, 2026. Claims 2-3 and 15-16 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4-14 and 17-24 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejections to claims under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections to claims under 35 U.S.C 101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to claim(s) under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-12, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pennell ( US 20140232568 A1) ) in view of Puissacq (US 20260037007 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Pennell teaches a method of monitoring motion of an aircraft during flight ([0084] graphical elements 300 provide situational awareness to a pilot; [0037] A flight monitor also may monitor movement for maneuvers by aircraft 100. For example, the flight monitor may monitor a roll performed by aircraft 100), the method comprising:
determining sensed motion of the aircraft about an axis during the flight ([0037] the flight monitor may monitor a roll performed by aircraft 100) ;
determining predictive motion of the aircraft about the axis during the flight ([0031] control laws may be used to predict the desired result from moving controls in the control system. [0052]-[0056]) ;
determining an error based on the sensed motion and the predictive motion ([0054] flight control laws 232 monitor sensor data 250 to determine the error between commanded aircraft response and actual aircraft response. Flight control model 230 then adjusts command 228 to reduce the aircraft response error to zero);
determining an effector on the aircraft that controls the motion of the aircraft about the axis ([0031] The software may generate commands to the control surface that cause the control surface to move more or less than may be indicated by the position of the control manipulated by the pilot. [0054] Flight control model 230 then adjusts command 228 to reduce the aircraft response error to zero; [0038] control surfaces 122 include control surfaces such as aileron 124, aileron 126, aileron 128, aileron 130, aileron 132, and aileron 134. Control surfaces 122 also may include, for example, elevator 136, elevator 138, and rudder 140 (effector). Of course, these are only examples of some types of main control surfaces for aircraft 100. Aircraft 100 may include other control surfaces such as, for example, without limitation, spoilers, air brakes, slats, control tabs, and other suitable types of control surfaces that may be used to control the movement of aircraft 100); and
converting the error into an amount of necessary movement of the effector to correct the error ([0031]The software may generate commands to the control surface that cause the control surface to move more or less (amount of necessary) than may be indicated by the position of the control manipulated by the pilot. Flight control model 230 then adjusts command 228 to reduce the aircraft response error to zero; flight control laws 232 interpret pilot control input signal 224 as a commanded aircraft response in generating command 228. As a result, configuration 226 for control surface system 206 may be different than expected by operator 214 based on the manipulation of control 212. [0056] For example, if control 212 is a column, operator 214 may move the column such that the column does not reach the limit of movement for the column. However, control system 218 using flight control laws 232 and flight control model 230 may generate command 228 that causes an elevator in control surface system 206 to move to the physical limit of the elevator. In other words, flight control laws 232 may cause the control surface to move up to the physical limit and remain there in an attempt to reduce the response error),
Pennell teaches ([0111]) these fields display modified values as a normalized value in the form of a percentage based on a predetermined range and Field 457 displays the stabilizer position in degrees. Pennell does not teach but Puissacq teaches determining a normalized percentage of the error as the amount of necessary movement of the effector to correct the error versus available control power of the effector that is needed to correct the error; outputting on a display the error (normalized percentage) ( [0115] then the detection and protection system 101 could generate a warning message for the pilots and transmit it to the warning and/or communication systems of the aircraft 100. This warning message would be intended to notify the pilots of the activation of the protective measure for protecting against inappropriate piloting of the aircraft 100. the warning message would also announce the execution of the corrective measure for correcting the inappropriate piloting action. The detection and protection system 101 would transmit this warning message to warning and/or communication systems of the aircraft 100, such as the ECAM, the PFD or the FWC, etc., so that this warning message is displayed and/or broadcast on a human-machine interface in the cockpit of the aircraft 100. In one example, this warning message would be a visual and/or audible notification in the form of a warning or advisory caution. Thus, the activation of this protective measure, as well as, if necessary, the execution of the corrective measure for correcting the inappropriate piloting action, would be accompanied by displaying and/or broadcasting a warning message for the pilots in order to warn them of the activation of this protective measure and, if necessary, to prompt the pilots to stop applying inappropriate dive commands); and
terminating the motion of the aircraft when the error (normalized percentage) is above a predetermined amount ( [0018] determine, when the difference between the current value of the perceived longitudinal attitude (Θ.sub.perceived) and the current value of the actual longitudinal attitude (Θ.sub.actual) is greater than or equal to a predetermined longitudinal attitude deviation threshold, whether a piloting action performed by said at least one pilot is inappropriate based on the obtained status information of the aircraft; and then [0019] activate, when the performed piloting action is inappropriate, a protective measure against inappropriate piloting. [0078]-[0081],[0086] ).
As such, based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify Pennell’s aircraft monitoring system of terminating the motion of the aircraft when the error being above a predetermined amount as taught by Puissacq to prevent a loss of control.
Pennell as modified by Puissacq does not explicitly teach sensed motion of the aircraft about an axis during the flight, but it is well known that an aircraft rolls around its longitudinal axis — the axis that runs from the nose to the tail, through the center of gravity.
As such, based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify Pennell as modified by Puissacq’s aircraft monitoring system to obtain sensed motion and predictive motion to detect key differences in actual aircraft behavior versus the predicted results.
Regarding claim 18, please look at the rejection to claim 1 as above. Please note, Fig. 11 in Pennell teaches additional limitation of processing circuitry (Fig. 11) and memory circuitry (Fig. 11) in claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, Pennell teaches normalize the amount of necessary movement of the effector to correct the error relative to a total amount of effector movement ( [0111] These fields display modified values as a normalized value in the form of a percentage based on a predetermined range. Field 457 displays the stabilizer position in degrees).
Regarding claim 4, Pennell teaches further comprising determining the error as a difference between the sensed motion and the predictive motion ([0054]-[0057] flight control laws 232 monitor sensor data 250 to determine the error between commanded aircraft response predictive and actual aircraft response (sensed). Flight control model 230 then adjusts command 228 to reduce the aircraft response error to zero).
Regarding claim 5, Pennell teaches wherein determining the error comprises determining that the sensed motion varies from the predictive motion by more than a predetermined threshold ([0054] Flight control model 230 then adjusts command 228 to reduce the aircraft response error to zero (a predetermined threshold)).
Regarding claim 6, Pennell teaches wherein determining the sensed motion of the aircraft about the axis during the flight comprises determining the sensed motion based on data from sensors on the aircraft (Fig.2 and corresponding paragraphs, sensor data [Wingdings font/0xE0] Flight control Laws).
Regarding claim 7, Pennell teaches wherein determining the predictive motion of the aircraft about the axis during the flight comprises determining the predictive motion based on motion calculated using a digital model of the aircraft ([0056] control system 218 using flight control laws 232 and flight control model 230 may generate command 228 that causes an elevator in control surface system 206 to move to the physical limit of the elevator. In other words, flight control laws 232 may cause the control surface to move up to the physical limit and remain there in an attempt to reduce the response error).
Regarding claim 8, Pennell teaches obtaining data during the flight from sensors on the aircraft (Fig. 2, obtaining sensor data);
applying the data to the digital model of the aircraft ([0053] Control system 218 uses flight control model 230 to identify command 228 that will cause a predicted aircraft response that matches the commanded aircraft response. Flight control model 230 uses the current aircraft configuration and flight conditions to determine command 228 that will result in the commanded aircraft response); and
determining the predictive motion (determine command 228 that will result in the commanded aircraft response).
Regarding claim 9, Pennell teaches further comprising determining the error in real-time during the flight of the aircraft ([0073] flight monitor 204 may receive sensor data 250 in real time. [0121] , data integrity is continuously monitored and indicated in each section of graphical user interface 400; [0086] graphical elements 300 also may provide data integrity for the pilot. For example, data integrity is continuously monitored and indicated in each section of the graphical user interface using graphical elements 300; real time awareness).
Regarding claim 10, Pennell teaches wherein the effector is a first effector and further comprising converting the error into a first amount of movement of the first effector and a second amount of movement of a second effector to correct the error ([0044] control surface system 206 includes one or more control surfaces in control surfaces 210[0045] Control surfaces 210 in control surface system 206 are comprised of one or more control surfaces that move in response to manipulation of control 212 by operator 214. Control surface system 206 may be, for example, a roll control surface system, a yaw control surface system, a pitch control surface system, or some other suitable type of control surface system).
Regarding claim 11, Pennell teaches comprising determining a percentage that the second amount of movement is to a total amount of movement of the second effector ([0111]).
Regarding claim 12, Pennell teaches wherein the error is a first error and the method further comprising: after determining the error along the axis, determining a second error of motion along another axis ( [0045] Control surfaces 210 in control surface system 206 are comprised of one or more control surfaces that move in response to manipulation of control 212 by operator 214. Control surface system 206 may be, for example, a roll control surface system, a yaw control surface system, a pitch control surface system, or some other suitable type of control surface system ).
Regarding claim 19, Pennell teaches wherein the computing device is positioned on the aircraft (Fig. 2).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pennell ( US 20140232568 A1) in view of Puissacq (US 20260037007 A1) in view of Boggs (US 20230222684 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Pennell teaches determining error for controlled surfaces, suitable type of control surface system of aircraft ([0045] Control surfaces 210 in control surface system 206 are comprised of one or more control surfaces that move in response to manipulation of control 212 by operator 214. Control surface system 206 may be, for example, a roll control surface system, a yaw control surface system, a pitch control surface system, or some other suitable type of control surface system).
Pennell as modified by Puissacq does not explicitly teach but Boggs teaches six degrees of freedom of the aircraft ([0051] candidate pose estimate 220 (e.g., an estimate in at least six degrees of freedom (6DoF) of the optical pose)[0068] feasible deviations may include orientation errors (e.g., pitch error 68, roll error, yaw error); extrinsic pose errors (e.g., based on error models 214 associated with the pose of the camera 102 or with other auxiliary sensors of the aircraft 100, in the platform frame).
As such, based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify Pennell as modified by Puissacq’s aircraft monitoring system to use six degrees of freedom of the aircraft as taught by Boggs to enable realistic, physically accurate movement.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pennell (US 20140232568 A1) in view of Puissacq (US 20260037007 A1) in view of Klüßendorf (US 20200226934 A1)
Regarding claim 14, please look at the rejection to claim 1 as above. While Pennell teaches
based on a (digital) model of the aircraft (flight control model 230), determining predictive motion of the aircraft about the axis, Pennell does not explicitly teach but Klüßendorf teaches a based on a digital model of the aircraft ([0015] This model may be referred to as a digital twin. The model may be used in order to simulate and to predict the behavior of the aircraft under different weather conditions. [0050] This state information may be applied to the digital model of the aircraft. The behavior of the digital model may be forecast continuously or in time intervals. These forecasts of the behavior of the digital model may then be compared with the behavior of the aircraft).
As such, based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify Klüßendorf’s digital model of aircraft to Pennell as modified by Puissacq’s teaching to obtain predicted motion to detect key differences in actual aircraft behavior versus the predicted results because the digital model may drastically reduce development time and costs by replacing physical prototypes with simulations, enabling faster, more efficient, and safer design, testing, and maintenance.
Regarding claim 17, Pennell teaches further comprising determining the effector on the aircraft that controls the motion of the aircraft about the axis ([0054] flight control laws 232 monitor sensor data 250 to determine the error between commanded aircraft response and actual aircraft response. Flight control model 230 then adjusts command 228 to reduce the aircraft response error to zero).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pennell (US 20140232568 A1) in view of Puissacq (US 20260037007 A1) in view of Klüßendorf (US 20200226934 A1) in view of Feyereson (US 20150308833 A1)
Regarding claim 21, Pennell as modified by Puissacq as modified by Klüßendorf does not explicitly teach but Feyereson teach further comprising displaying the graph on a flight deck of the aircraft (FIG. 3 is a graph suitable for flight deck display system 100.)
As such, based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify Feyereson’s displaying the graph on a flight deck of the aircraft to Pennell as modified by Puissacq as modified by Klüßendorf’s teaching to obtain a user friendly interface by displaying the graph on a flight deck of the aircraft.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pennell (US 20140232568 A1) in view of Puissacq (US 20260037007 A1) in view of Klüßendorf (US 20200226934 A1) in view of Morellec (US 20190122572 A1)
Regarding claim 22, Pennell as modified by Puissacq as modified by Klüßendorf does not explicitly teach but Morellec teach further controlling the effector and controlling the motion of the aircraft along one axis (0092] The longitudinal movement devices 11 are intended to control the movement of the aircraft 1 on the ground along the longitudinal direction of the aircraft. The lateral movement devices 13 are intended to control the movement of the aircraft on the ground along a lateral direction, around the yaw axis Z.sub.1-Z.sub.1).
As such, based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify Morellec’s controlling the effector and controlling the motion of the aircraft along one axis to Pennell as modified by Puissacq’ as modified by Klüßendorf’s teaching to accurately control the aircraft.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pennell (US 20140232568 A1) in view of Puissacq (US 20260037007 A1) in view of Klüßendorf (US 20200226934 A1) in view of Chen (US 20090177339 A1)
Regarding claim 23, Pennell as modified by Puissacq as modified by Klüßendorf does not explicitly teach but Chen teach further determining the amount of movement of the effector to correct the difference during the flight of the aircraft ([0006] means of transmitting the modified control signals to the aircraft for the purpose of correcting the difference between the nominal and estimated states may be provided in a distributed system. Air vehicle states may be measured or derived to assess the estimated trajectory and to develop control corrective signals. One or more processing units may be employed for providing the one or more steering or control effector commands by taking in at least one state estimate, where the processor executes steps to compare the state estimate to the nominal or preferred state using at least one prescribed index time and thereby may generate corrective signals for the one or more control effectors. In executing these steps, the apparatus may refine or optimize the actual trajectory of the air vehicle to enhance endurance, (i.e., loiter time,) or range, by outputting the determined command to the air vehicle or aircraft control system. [0008] As trajectory corrective determinations are made, corrective command signals may be sent to effectors onboard the air vehicle typically for purposes of changing the magnitude and direction of the velocity vector of the air vehicle).
As such, based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify Chen’s determining the amount of movement of the effector to correct the difference during the flight of the aircraft to Pennell as modified by Puissacq as modified by Klüßendorf’s teaching to accurately control the aircraft.
Claims 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pennell ( US 20140232568 A1) ) in view of Puissacq (US 20260037007 A1) in view of Chen (US 20090177339 A1)
Regarding claim 24, Pennell as modified by Puissacq does not explicitly teach but Chen teach further determine the amount of necessary movement of the effector to correct the error during flight of the aircraft ([0006] means of transmitting the modified control signals to the aircraft for the purpose of correcting the difference between the nominal and estimated states may be provided in a distributed system. Air vehicle states may be measured or derived to assess the estimated trajectory and to develop control corrective signals. One or more processing units may be employed for providing the one or more steering or control effector commands by taking in at least one state estimate, where the processor executes steps to compare the state estimate to the nominal or preferred state using at least one prescribed index time and thereby may generate corrective signals for the one or more control effectors. In executing these steps, the apparatus may refine or optimize the actual trajectory of the air vehicle to enhance endurance, (i.e., loiter time,) or range, by outputting the determined command to the air vehicle or aircraft control system. [0008] As trajectory corrective determinations are made, corrective command signals may be sent to effectors onboard the air vehicle typically for purposes of changing the magnitude and direction of the velocity vector of the air vehicle).
As such, based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify Chen’s controlling the effector and controlling the motion of the aircraft along one axis to Pennell as modified by Puissacq’s teaching to accurately control the aircraft.
Prior Art
Please refer to form 892 for cited references.
For example, Noest (US 20240318964 A1) teaches ([0194]) the error vector includes normalized error vector magnitude expressed as a percentage of a magnitude the first movement vector.
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm 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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 86-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-100.
/J.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights