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 non- final action is in response to applicant's amendment filed on Sept. 09, 2026. Claims 2- 3 and 15-17 have been cancelled. Claim 25 has been newly added. Claims 1, 4- 14 and 18- 25 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
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, 14, 18- 20 and 22- 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hagerott (US2016194074A1) in view of Pennell (US 20140232568 A1) in view of Puissacq (US 20260037007 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Hagerott teaches A method of monitoring motion of an aircraft during flight, the method comprising:
determining sensed motion of the flight of the aircraft about an axis during the flight ([0032]- [0033] [0016] In some embodiments, the parameter of motion is the roll rate of the aircraft, and one of the control surfaces is a spoiler and the other control surface is an aileron;[0047] aircraft operates the control means of the aircraft to command a roll movement of the aircraft- during the flight);
determining predictive motion of the flight of the aircraft about the axis during the flight (based on a digital model of the aircraft, determining predictive motion of the aircraft about the axis during the flight [ 0032]"ln one embodiment of the invention, the systems and methods of the invention utilize a model of the aircraft response to calculate a predicted roll rate based on pilot (or autopilot) input);
determining an error based on the sensed motion and the predictive motion ([0032] "The predicted roll rate is compared to the actual roll rate of the aircraft);
determining from a plurality of effectors on the aircraft that control the flight, the one effector on the aircraft that controls the motion of the aircraft about the axis ([0033] In other embodiments of the inventive control law, the quantity 202 may be another measure of aircraft movement such as yaw rate, pitch rate, or other parameters of aircraft movement. The roll rate 202 may be determined by directly measuring the roll rate using a variety of sensors or by calculating the roll rate (axis) based on various other sensed attributes of aircraft motion [0015] ailerons and spoilers for aircraft roll rate, or rudder for yaw rate. The actual value of the parameter is measured. Then an error signal is calculated representing the difference between the expected value and the actual value of the parameter of the aircraft's motion. Either one or the other of the two control surfaces are then operated to counteract the error signal. In some embodiments this happens continuously throughout aircraft operation. [0016] The parameter of motion is the roll rate of the aircraft, and one of the control surfaces is a spoiler and the other control surface is an aileron; [0032] "The control law automatically counteracts discrepancies between the predicted roll rate and the actual roll rate);
performing dynamic inversion by equating the error into an amount of necessary movement of the effector to correct the error in the flight of the aircraft ([0039] The measured roll rate 202 is subtracted from the output of filter 224 and time delay 229 at step 226. This produces an error signal 227 that represents the difference between the expected roll rate 220 , as modified by the prior steps, and the measured roll rate 202;[0042] The modified error signal 227 is then summed with the spoiler gearing command 206 at step 232 to produce spoiler command 234; an optional limiter 233 is applied to spoiler command 234 . Limiter 233 imposes maximum values on the spoiler command 234 to keep the signal with the applicable spoiler ranges for the aircraft. The spoiler command 234 is then modified similarly to the traditional process described with reference to FIG. 1. If spoiler command 234 is positive, then signal 236 is used to actuate right spoiler 238 . If spoiler command 234 is negative, then the absolute value 242 of the negative signal 240 is used to actuate left spoiler 244; Fig. 2 and corresponding paragraphs.
Please note, more references (e.g. using PID control) in Prior Art session teach the limitation of performing dynamic inversion by equating the error into an amount of necessary movement of the effector to correct the error in the flight of the aircraft.
Hagerott does not explicitly teach but 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, an aircraft monitoring system, as taught by Hagerott, using normalized value, as taught by Pennell, as Hagerott and Pennell are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using normalized value and predictably applied it to ensures fair, stable, and efficient model training across diverse datasets.
Hagerott as modified by Pennell does not explicitly 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 is 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]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, an aircraft monitoring system, as taught by Hagerott as modified by Pennell, terminating the motion of the aircraft when the error being above a predetermined amount, as taught by Puissacq, as Hagerott, Pennell, and Puissacq are directed to vehicle control (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using terminating the motion of the aircraft when the error being above a predetermined amount and predictably applied it to prevent a loss of control.
Regarding claims 14 and 18, please look at the rejection to claim 1 as above. Please note, Hagerott teaches additional limitations of processing circuitry and memory circuitry ([0038] controller) in claim 18.
Regarding claim 4, Hagerott teaches further comprising determining the error as a difference between the sensed motion and the predictive motion (Fig. 2 and corresponding paragraphs).
Regarding claim 5, Hagerott does not explicitly but Pennell teaches the limitation of 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)).
The same motivation to combine as the parent claim applies here.
Regarding claim 6, Hagerott 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 ([0033] The roll rate 202 may be determined by directly measuring the roll rate using a variety of sensors).
Regarding claim 7, Hagerott 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 (Fig. 2 and corresponding paragraphs including at least [0034]- [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Hagerott teaches obtaining data during the flight from sensors on the aircraft ([0033]); applying the data to the digital model of the aircraft; and determining the predictive motion (Fig. 2 and corresponding paragraphs including at least [0034]- [0037]).
Regarding claim 9, Hagerott teaches further comprising determining the error in real- time during the flight of the aircraft ([0049] operation of the control laws during normal aircraft operation).
Regarding claim 10, Hagerott 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 (Fig. 2 and corresponding paragraphs including [0042]- [0046], applied to left and right spoilers).
Regarding claim 11, Hagerott does not explicitly but Pennell teaches comprising determining a percentage that the second amount of movement is to a total amount of movement of the second effector ([0111]).
The same motivation to combine as the parent claim applies here.
Regarding claim 12, Hagerott does not explicitly but 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).
The same motivation to combine as the parent claim applies here.
Regarding claim 19, Hagerott wherein the computing device is positioned on the aircraft (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Hagerott does not explicitly but 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).
The same motivation to combine as the parent claim applies here.
Regarding claim 22, Hagerott teaches further comprising controlling the effector and controlling the motion of the aircraft along one axis ([0036] The expected roll rates 210 [0042] control spoilers).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Hagerotas teach further determining the amount of movement of the effector to correct the difference during the flight of the aircraft (Fig. 2 and corresponding paragraphs).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hagerott (US2016194074A1) in view of Pennell (US 20140232568 A1) in view of Puissacq (US 20260037007 A1) in view of Boggs (US 20230222684 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Hagerott teaches determining error for controlled surfaces, suitable type of control surface system of aircraft ([0033]- [0034]).
Hagerott as modified by 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 Hagerott as modified by 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 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hagerott (US2016194074A1) in view of Pennell (US 20140232568 A1) in view of Puissacq (US 20260037007 A1) in view of Feyereson (US 20150308833 A1)
Regarding claim 21, Hagerott as modified by Pennell as modified by Puissacq 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 Hagerott as modified by Pennell as modified by Puissacq’s teaching to obtain a user friendly interface by displaying the graph on a flight deck of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 25, please look at the rejection to claim 21 above.
Prior Art
Please refer to form 892 for cited references.
For example, Kim (US20230099083A1) teaches aircraft control mode transition smoothing. It uses Proportional–Integral–Derivative (PID, comparing the aircraft’s current state (e.g., pitch angle, altitude, speed) to the desired setpoint and computes a corrective action) control (Fig. 14A) for performing dynamic inversion by equating the error into an amount of necessary movement of the effector to correct the error in the flight of the aircraft. Proportional (P): Responds to the current error, providing immediate correction amount.
Noest (US 20240318964 A1) teaches ([0194]) the error vector includes normalized error magnitude expressed as a percentage of a magnitude the first movement vector.
Whitmer (US 2016/0195874A1 “Vehicle Heading Error Compensation”), which discloses a method for controlling an aircraft by converting a measured heading error into a specific movement command for the aircraft’s effector (e.g., control surfaces)
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
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