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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,752,339 B2 to Hreha et al. in view of US 10,882,631 B2 to Granier et al.
Regarding claim 1: Hreha teaches an aircraft flight control apparatus (c. 1, ℓ. 6-9) comprising:
a control input device comprising a moveable control input component (inceptor) arranged to generate one or more electrical input signals based on movement of said control input component (inceptor displacements — as described in c. 7, ℓ. 19-61, see in particular c. 7, ℓ. 35-61 copied below, with added emphasis);
…In more detail, a typical command computations module will convert the sensed cockpit inceptor (e.g., pitch/roll stick and rudder pedal) displacements or forces into aircraft performance parameters that are processed by the non-customizable model tracking control laws module 312. For example, the pitch stick displacement or force is shaped according to the pilot's customizable sensitivity/deadband parameters and converted to a desired load factor, angle of attack, or pitch rate command, which in turn affects the rate at which an aircraft can turn, climb, or in combat scenarios, acquire a target.
By way of example and not of limitation, the parameters that are provided to the reference models module 310 include references for damping, frequency, rise time, settling time, command overshoot, and command undershoot. Furthermore, an output signal from the autopilot control modes module 306 and the command computations module 308 are both provided to the reference models module 310, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. Here, at the reference models module 310, the signals from the autopilot control modes module 306 and the command computations module 308 are processed together with the pilot customized control system parameters for the reference models, and a pilot customized control signal is outputted from the pilot customizable control system module 302, and provided to the non-customizable parameter module 304.
an input interface (buttons 208, 210; options user interfaces 401, 402) for receiving user information of a user of the aircraft flight control apparatus (c. 5, ℓ. 5-27: buttons 208 used to enter autopilot parameter selections; c. 5, ℓ. 35-54: buttons 210 used; c. 8, ℓ. 21-35: user interfaces 401, 402); and
a processing apparatus (command computations module 308) arranged to:
receive user information via the input interface (fig. 4, steps 401-403), and use said user information to determine a control input profile (c. 5, ℓ. 55–c. 6, ℓ. 15; c. 8, ℓ. 21-35);
receive one or more electrical input signals from the control component (fig. 4, at step 404) and generate at least one aircraft control signal (fig. 4, step 408: aggregate control signals) based on said one or more electrical input signals (fig. 4, see also c. 8, ℓ. 16-49);
wherein the processing apparatus is arranged to generate the at least one aircraft control signal based at least partially on the control input profile (c. 6, ℓ. 39-43: using both user-specific and non-customizable parameters, “the resulting combined control signal is provided to the flight actuators”, see also c. 8, ℓ. 10-15).
Hreha teaches that the various parameters a user may input as user information via the input interface to be processed by the processor include stick feel (c. 5, ℓ. 42-49), and stick feel is listed among the examples of subjective parameters embedded in prior art control systems (c. 2, ℓ. 44-52), though Hreha is silent to how the stick feel is applied.
While stick feel is among the user information used to shape control outputs, Hreha does not specifically teach a feeling feedback apparatus arranged or controlled to apply force to the control input component and actively apply a restoring force that urges the control input component towards a neutral position. Hroha does not specifically teach that a feeling feedback apparatus is controlled to apply force to the control input component.
Granier teaches an aircraft flight control apparatus (mechanical energy management device 12) comprising:
a control input device (shown in fig. 2) comprising a moveable control input component (moving lever 30) arranged to generate one or more electrical input signals based on movement of said control input component (c. 7, ℓ. 27-30: “The position sensor 42 is able to determine information relative to the angular position of the moving lever 30 around the axis 70, and to send this signal to the flight control unit 18”, see also c. 6, ℓ. 55-62, c. 14, ℓ. 4-13; the signals transmitted by the position sensor are considered as electrical input signals based on movement of the control input component) and
a feeling feedback apparatus (active system 44) arranged to apply force to the control input component (c. 6, ℓ. 35-40 and c. 7, ℓ. 31-37, copied below); and
from c. 6, ℓ. 35-40:
The main energy management system 32 further includes an active system 44 for applying a force on the moving lever 30, piloted by the flight control unit 18, and advantageously an auxiliary assembly 46 for applying a mechanical force on the moving lever 30, able to operate in case of malfunction of the active system 44.
from c. 7, ℓ. 31-37:
The active system for applying a force 44 includes an actuator 80, and a mechanism 82 for transmitting movement between the actuator 80 and the moving lever 30. It comprises a control unit 84 of the actuator 80, visible in FIG. 1, connected to the flight control unit 18, to control the force applied on the moving lever 30 and the movement of the moving lever 30 in the guide 58.
a processing apparatus (the control unit 84) arranged to receive one or more electrical input signals from the control component and generate at least one aircraft control signal based on said one or more electrical input signals; and/or control the feeling feedback apparatus to apply force to the control input component (c. 7, ℓ. 65–c. 8, ℓ. 2: “control unit 84 of the actuator 80 is able to receive, in real-time, the control signals developed by the control module 28 of the position of the moving lever 30, and to transcribe these control signals into a movement of the moving lever 30 in the guide 58”; c. 8, ℓ. 3-20: “the control unit 84 is able to pilot the actuator 80 to generate a force shifting the moving lever 30”);
wherein the feeling feedback apparatus is arranged to actively apply a restoring force that urges the control input component towards a neutral position (c. 7, ℓ. 65–c. 8, ℓ. 20: “the control unit 84 is able to pilot the actuator 80 to generate a force shifting the moving lever 30 between its rear extreme and forward extreme positions, following the calculated movable neutral position”, see also c. 14, ℓ. 14-21; in the example of fig. 10, the control lever is urged toward stable detent around position P1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the aircraft flight control apparatus of Hreha to provide a feeling feedback apparatus arranged to apply force to the control input component and actively apply a restoring force that urges the control input component towards a neutral position, and to arrange the processing apparatus to control the feeling feedback apparatus to apply force to the control input component, using the teachings of Granier, in order to provide the pilot with tactile feedback and the control stick feel Hreha is disclosed to provide.
In the process of so doing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have arranged the user interface and processing apparatus of Hreha to include the received pilot requirements for control input responsiveness with the other received user information in determining the control input profile, since Hreha has disclosed that the received user information may include stick feel (Hreha c. 5, ℓ. 42-52), for the purpose of performing all pilot customization using the same, existing control system. As a result, the processing apparatus would be arranged to control the feeling feedback apparatus based at least partially on the control input profile.
Regarding claim 2: Hreha, as modified, provides the aircraft flight control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control input profile includes information relating to one or more of the following group:
a neutral position of the control input component, a stroke of the control input component, a spring constant of a restoring force, a frictional force, a breakout force, a damping coefficient (Hreha c. 5, ℓ. 35-54: information relating to stick feel and damping; c. 5, ℓ. 19-46: information relating to inceptor displacement, inceptor sensitivity, and control stick deadband).
Regarding claim 3: Hreha, as modified, provides the aircraft flight control apparatus of claim 1.
Hreha teaches that the aircraft control system is configured to store first and second pilot profiles comprising customized parameters of first and second pilots (c. 11, ℓ. 25-34) and that the user interface is configured to receive customized parameters from a pilot (c. 10, ℓ. 28-62). Further, Hreha discloses that pilots may store their customized parameters in a user account and log-in to their account to retrieve the stored parameters (c. 5, ℓ. 55–c. 6, ℓ. 15) and that the user interface may have a database for storing information for user profiles (c. 9, ℓ. 10-27).
Accordingly, the aircraft flight control system of Hreha is considered to be arranged to:
receive second user information via the input interface, and
use said second user information to determine a second control input profile that is different to the first control input profile (since the control system is configured to use retrieved user information to determine a control input profile, it is configured to retrieve user information from a second pilot profile; see also Hreha c. 10, ℓ. 45-54: the same inceptor input is associated with different values depending on the input parameter);
wherein the processing apparatus is arranged to generate the at least one aircraft control signal and/or control the feeling feedback apparatus based at least partially on the second control input profile (since the control system is arranged to generate aircraft control signals based on user information from a stored pilot profile and to retrieve the user profile by a pilot logging into a user account, it is arranged to generate the control signal based on user information from a second pilot profile).
Regarding claim 4: Hreha, as modified, provides the aircraft flight control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the user information received via the input interface comprises information identifying a user, and the processing apparatus is arranged to determine the control input profile by retrieving information associated with the user identified (Hreha c. 5, ℓ. 55–c. 6, ℓ. 15: saved system parameters may be retrieved by logging in to a user account and selecting a set of saved parameters, the pilot may enter a code to retrieve previously stored parameters).
Regarding claim 8: Hreha, as modified, provides the aircraft flight control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing apparatus is arranged to scale a movement required to generate a particular aircraft control signal to a stroke specified in the control input profile (Hreha c. 7, ℓ. 19-61, c. 10, ℓ. 35-54).
Regarding claim 10: Hreha, as modified, provides the aircraft flight control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control input profile comprises one or more look-up tables (in reference models module 310) linking control input component displacements and/or movement speeds with forces that should be applied to the control input component (Hreha c. 7, ℓ. 19-61).
Regarding claim 11: Hreha, as modified, provides the aircraft flight control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control input component is a rudder pedal, a control stick (Hreha c. 7, ℓ. 19-23: rudder pedals and control stick) or a thrust lever (Hreha c. 5, ℓ. 17-27: speed control levers which set the throttle position).
Regarding claim 12: Hreha, as modified, provides the aircraft flight control apparatus of claim 1, wherein an aircraft control signal generated by the processing apparatus is for actuating one or more aerodynamic control surfaces (Hreha c. 6, ℓ. 39-43, c. 8, ℓ. 35-49: the generated aggregate aircraft control signal is provided to primary flight actuators and secondary surface actuators) or for controlling engine thrust (Hreha c. 5, ℓ. 17-27: throttle settings).
Regarding claim 13: Hreha, as modified, provides the aircraft flight control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control input profile defines one or more control movement thresholds which trigger the processing apparatus to perform one or more actions (Hreha c. 7, ℓ. 19-46: the customizable parameters include parameters such as sensitivity and deadband of the control stick; the deadband of a control stick is the minimum displacement required to trigger the processing apparatus to perform one or more actions).
Regarding claim 14: Hreha, as modified, provides the aircraft flight control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing apparatus is arranged to generate the at least one aircraft control signal based at least partially on the control input profile (Hreha c. 8, ℓ. 35-49) and to control the feeling feedback apparatus based at least partially on the control input profile (as modified; see the discussion above regarding claim 1).
Regarding claim 16: Hreha, as modified, provides an aircraft (fig. 1: 100) comprising:
the aircraft flight control apparatus of claim 1 (as discussed above regarding claim 1).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,752,339 B2 to Hreha et al. in view of US 10,882,631 B2 to Granier et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 11,738,856 B2 to Dee et al. (hereinafter referred to as Dee I).
Regarding claims 5-7: Hreha teaches the aircraft flight control apparatus of claim 1.
Hreha teaches that the processing apparatus is arranged to determine and use a different control input profile for first and second users (c. 11, ℓ. 25-34), but Hreha does not specifically teach determining and use a different control input profile for each control input device of a pair of control input devices configured for use by the first and second users.
Dee I teaches an aircraft flight control apparatus comprising:
a pair of control input devices (control systems 300, 300A) configured for use by a corresponding pair of users (c. 5, ℓ. 45-51: pilot and co-pilot control systems with inceptors; see also fig. 4: pilot and co-pilot force inputs 204 to respective pilot and co-pilot inceptors, c. 6, ℓ. 3-6, 36-40), and a feeling feedback apparatus arranged to apply force to the control input components (c. 5, ℓ. 45-51: both control systems 300, 300A receive feedback forces; a specific motor providing a force-feel characteristic to the pilot through the inceptor is disclosed in c. 3, ℓ. 36-43);
wherein different force gradient feels are provided to each control input device (c. 5, ℓ. 45-51, c. 7, ℓ. 16-27);
wherein the processing apparatus is arranged to control the feeling feedback apparatus of a first control input device of the pair to cause a control input component of the first control input device to mirror movements of a control input component of the second control input device of the pair, scaled and/or offset based on the control input profiles (c. 7, ℓ. 16-27: the pilot's and co-pilot's inceptors “will link in position whilst providing an asymmetric force-gradient feel to the pilot and co-pilot”); and
wherein the control input devices of the pair of control input devices have control input components of the same type (c. 5, ℓ. 45-51: “FIG. 4 shows the linked pilot and co-pilot control systems 200 and 200A of FIG. 2” with the functionality disclosed with respect to the control systems 300, 300A of figs. 3-4; c. 3, ℓ. 64–c. 4, ℓ. 15: the control systems 200, 200A have control systems of the same type, using the same function parameters).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the aircraft flight control apparatus of Hreha, as modified, to have a pair of control input devices configured for use by a corresponding pair of users, as taught by Dee I, for the purpose of enabling the aircraft to have a co-pilot.
In the process of so doing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have arranged the processing apparatus of Hreha to determine and use a different control input profile for each control input device, using the related teachings of Dee I, in order to provide the pilot and co-pilot with respective control system parameters, or in order to provide asymmetric roll axis forces between inboard and outboard movements (Dee I c. 5, ℓ. 1-13).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,752,339 B2 to Hreha et al. in view of US 10,882,631 B2 to Granier et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2024/013482 A1 to Dee (hereinafter referred to as Dee II).
Regarding claim 15: Hreha teaches the aircraft flight control apparatus of claim 1.
Hreha discloses that the pilot may enter customized parameters if desired and if no custom parameters are entered, default values are used (Hreha c. 8, ℓ. 24-32). Hreha does not specifically teach that the processing apparatus is configured to apply a default control input profile if the user information indicates that the user does not currently have an associated control input profile and/or if one or more errors or failures are detected.
Dee II teaches an aircraft flight control apparatus with a processing apparatus arranged to apply a default control input profile if one or more errors or failures are detected (bottom of page 9 to page 10, paragraph 2: if a fault is detected, channel 307A switches to a control mode using default settings; examples of fault detection given in page 10, paragraph 3 to page 11, paragraph 1). Advantageously, the aircraft flight control apparatus of Dee provides continuous augmented feel such that the vehicle does not lose all augmented feel if there is a failure of all vehicle management systems (page 6, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the aircraft flight control apparatus of Hreha, as modified, such that the processing apparatus is arranged to apply a default control input profile if one or more errors or failures are detected, as taught by Dee II, in order to provide continuous augmented feel, reducing the potential for the pilot and co-pilot controllers from acting separately from each other (Dee II, top of page 14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 10-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8,527,173 B2 to Lacoste et al. is incorporated by reference into US 10,882,631 B2 to Granier et al. (Granier c. 5, ℓ. 35-42).
US 2023/0025868 A1 to Beaucamp et al. teaches an aircraft control system with an active system which returns the control lever to a neutral configuration and which is disclosed to share control elements with FR 3 058 806 A1 to Granier et al. (Beaucamp ¶ 0055, 0059), a member of the same patent family as US 10,882,631 B2 to Granier et al.
US 11,745,856 B2 to Liscouet teaches an aircraft control system generating a resistive force as a distance from a neutral point which may receive force profiles from a user input device.
US 10,287,001 B2 to Reichert et al. teaches an aircraft control system which dynamically adjusts a neutral position of the flight control inceptor.
US 2023/0227151 A1 to Gauci et al. teaches an aircraft control system which returns a side stick to a neutral position.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Richard Green whose telephone number is (571)270-5380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00 to 7:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/Richard Green/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights