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 . Claims 1-14 are pending.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
According to Claim 6, “the free end of the one or more moving soft stop members extend radially outwards relative to their first end, and wherein the free end of the one or more stationary soft stop members extend radially inwards relative to their first end.” (emphasis added). However, the disclosure does not show such radial extensions.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations stated in claims 13 and 14 are simply an application or intended use of the EMA of claim 1 and do not the scope of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mohler, D. (US 20080238348 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
497
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
453
645
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Mohler discloses a rotary electromechanical actuator (see the title: “ROTARY, LIMITED ROTATION BI-DIRECTIONAL, DIRECT CURRENT ACTUATOR”, and also fig. 3), EMA, comprising a rotary part (rotary part, annotated fig. 2B) for rotation about an axis (28, figs. 2B and 3) and a fixed part (housing 30, fig. 3) relative to which the rotary part rotates; the EMA further comprising:
a hard stop assembly (hard stop assembly, annotated fig. 2B) comprising one or more hard stop members (hard stop members, annotated fig. 2B) mounted to the EMA fixed part (see fig. 3) and one or more abutment members (abutment members, annotated fig. 2B) mounted to the rotary part and arranged to contact the one or more hard stop members at a hard stop end rotary position of the rotary part relative to the fixed part (implied; see annotated fig. 2B); and
a soft stop assembly comprising one or more moving soft stop members (soft stop members, annotated fig. 2B) mounted to the rotary member and one or more stationary soft stop members mounted to the fixed part (via the hard stops), the one or more moving soft stop members arranged to contact the one or more soft stop members at a soft stop end position of the rotary part relative to the fixed part (see fig. 2B), wherein
the circumferential distance between the moving soft stop members and the stationary soft stop members is less than that between the one or more abutment members and the one or more hard stop members (implied, see annotated fig. 2B; the soft members come in to contact first), and wherein
the one or more moving soft stop members and the one or more stationary soft stop members have a greater flexibility than the one or more hard stop members (see para [0011]: “The rebound dampening means can take the form of an elastomeric pad on one of the contacting members (on one of the rotor stop arm and the boundaries) and one or more protrusions on the other of the contacting members (the other of the rotor stop arm and the boundaries).”).
Regarding claim 2, Mohler discloses the EMA of claim 1, wherein the rotary part is an output ring of the EMA (see the circular rotary part in annotated fig. 2B) and the one or more fixed parts comprises one or more EMA housing parts (see fig. 3; the fixed part is attached to the housing 30) or earth rings.
Regarding claim 3, Mohler discloses the EMA of claim 1, wherein the one or more hard stop members comprises a rigid beam (implied- the stop arm is padded by the soft stop members for dampening purpose).
Regarding claim 4, Mohler discloses the EMA of claim 1, wherein the one or more abutment members comprise one or more flanges extending radially outwards from the rotary part (see two flanges in annotated fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 9, Mohler discloses the EMA of claim 1, having two moving soft stop members and two stationary soft stop members (see eight soft stop members in annotated fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 10, Mohler discloses the EMA of claim 1, including a first hard stop member at a first hard stop end position in a first direction of rotation of the rotary member and a second hard stop member at a second hard stop end position in a second direction of rotation of the rotary member (see four hard stop members in annotated fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 11, Mohler discloses the EMA of claim 1, further comprising: a drive shaft (the rotor shaft drives the rotary part; see fig. 3 and the abstract: “The rotor (22) comprises a rotor shaft”) engaged to rotate the rotary part relative to the fixed part.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohler, D. (US 20080238348 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Mohler discloses the EMA of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising: a gearbox in engagement with the rotary part for geared rotation of the rotary part relative to a rotary input to the EMA.
Using a gearbox to adjust the rotation speed or torque of rotary part is known to those having ordinary skills in the art.
For adjusting the torque or the rotation speed of the rotary part, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the EMA in claim in such a way that it further comprises a gearbox in engagement with the rotary part for geared rotation of the rotary part relative to a rotary input to the EMA.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Mohler discloses the EMA claim 1 but does not disclose the EMA in combination with a moveable aircraft surface, wherein the aircraft surface is an aircraft spoiler.
Mohler discloses the Inertial Load 34 in fig. 3 that could be a moveable aircraft surface. However, the additional limitations in claims 13 and 14 are simply an intended use for the EMA of claim 1 and do not further narrow the scope of EMA. Furthermore, per Applicant’s own admission, such applications are already known (see para [0006] in the specification.)
For an aircraft spoiler, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the EMA of claim 1 could have been used in combination with a moveable aircraft surface, wherein the aircraft surface is an aircraft spoiler.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASOUD VAZIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-2340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, the examiner’s supervisor, SEYE IWARERE can be reached on (571) 270-5112. 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.
/MASOUD VAZIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights