DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 received on 12/19/2024 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-15 are pending for examination.
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 12/19/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the figures lack descriptive text for each respective component in the drawing. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: generated control vector should read generated thrust control vector.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: generated thrust vector should read generated thrust control vector.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
Claims 1, 6 and 12: flight control unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “flight control unit”, it is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of computer and equivalents thereof as supported by claim 2 and paragraph [0053] of the specification reproduced below:
[0053] Preferably, as illustrated in the example in Figure 1, the flight control unit 20 comprises at least four redundant flight control computer 38
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12252236 in view of TAMIR (US 20210387741 A1), and further in view of HEDRICK (US20190047715A1).
Claims 2 and 10-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12252236 in view of TAMIR (US 20210387741 A1), and further in view of HEDRICK (US20190047715A1), respectively.
Table has been created to compare claims 1-15 of the instant application and claims 1, 8, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 U.S. Patent No. 12252236 side-by-side. All matching elements of the claim limitations appear in bold while non-matching elements of the claim limitations are not bolded.
Instant Application (App. No. 18/987,088)
U.S. Patent No. 12252236
1. A piloting system of an aircraft comprising: a throttle operable by a pilot of the aircraft, the throttle including at least one lever and a base body, the lever being movable relative to the base body, the throttle being configured to emit a signal representative of a position of the lever relative to the base body,
the throttle further comprising a motor configured to move the lever relative to the base body;
a sensor system for flight parameters of the aircraft;
an engine calculator configured for controlling thrust parameters of at least one engine of the aircraft by actuating control members of the engine; and
a flight control unit connected to the engine calculator, the sensors of the sensor system and the throttle,
the flight control unit being configured to generate at least one thrust control vector from at least one flight control law, the flight control law having at least the signals received from the throttle and/or from the sensors of the sensor system as input data;
wherein the flight control unit has an automatic thrust mode and a manual thrust mode, configured so that: - in manual thrust mode, the or each generated thrust control vector is generated at least from the signals received from the throttle;
- in automatic thrust mode, the or each thrust control vector is generated without taking into account any actuation of the throttle,
the flight control unit being configured to control the motor of the throttle to order a movement of the lever relative to the base body depending on the generated thrust control vector; and
the flight control unit being configured to send a digital signal comprising the generated thrust control vector to the engine calculator, the engine calculator being configured to receive the digital signal and to control said thrust parameters of the engine depending on the generated thrust control vector received.
1. A piloting system of an aircraft comprising:
a throttle operable by a pilot of the aircraft, the throttle including at least one lever and a base body, the lever being movable relative to the base body, the throttle being configured to emit a signal representative of the lever position relative to the base body; […]
[…] a sensor system for flight parameters of the aircraft;
an engine calculator configured for controlling thrust parameters of at least one engine of the aircraft by actuating control members of the engine; and
a flight control unit connected to the engine calculator, the sensors of the sensor system and the throttle,
the flight control unit being configured to generate at least one thrust control vector from at least one flight control law, the flight control law having at least the signals received from the throttle and/or from the sensors of the sensor system as input data;
the flight control unit being configured to send a digital signal comprising the generated thrust control vector to the engine calculator, and
the engine calculator being configured to receive the digital signal and to control said thrust parameters of the engine depending on the generated thrust control vector received
[…]
2. The piloting system according to claim 1, wherein, in the automatic thrust mode, each thrust control vector is generated solely from signals received from the sensors of the sensor system depending on at least one selected flight setpoint.
8. The piloting system according to claim 1, wherein the flight control unit has […] an automatic thrust mode in which the or each thrust control vector is generated solely from signals received from the sensors of the sensor system, depending on a selected flight setpoint.
10. The piloting system according to claim 1, wherein each thrust control vector comprises a command for actuating the control members of the engine and at least one additional item of information.
6. The piloting system according to claim 1, wherein each thrust control vector comprises a command for actuating the control members of the engine and at least one additional item of information.
11. The piloting system according to claim 10, wherein the or each additional item of information is an anemometric parameter.
7. The piloting system according to claim 6, wherein the or each additional item of information is an anemometric parameter.
12. The piloting system according to claim 1, wherein the flight control unit is configured to process signals received from the throttle to apply overspeed and/or stall avoidance protection to the aircraft.
9. The piloting system according to claim 1, wherein the flight control unit is configured to process signals received from the throttle to apply overspeed and/or stall avoidance protection to the aircraft.
13. The piloting system according to claim 1, wherein the thrust parameters controlled by the engine calculator include at least fuel flow rate, ignition, and fuel/air mixture ratio.
10. The piloting system according to claim 1, wherein the thrust parameters controlled by the engine calculator include at least fuel flow rate, ignition, and fuel/air mixture ratio.
14. An aircraft comprising the piloting system according to claim 1.
12. An aircraft comprising the piloting system according to claim 1.
15. A method for piloting an aircraft comprising: providing the piloting system according to claim 1;
generating, by the flight control unit, at least one thrust control vector from at least said flight control law having at least the signals received from the throttle and/or from the sensors of the sensor system as input data;
sending a digital signal comprising the generated thrust control vector to the engine calculator; and
receiving, by the engine calculator, the digital signal and controlling the thrust parameters of the engine, depending on the received generated thrust control vector.
13. A method for piloting an aircraft comprising:
providing the piloting system according to claim 1;
generating, by the flight control unit, at least one thrust control vector from at least said flight control law having at least the signals received from the throttle and/or from the sensors of the sensor system as input data;
sending a digital signal comprising the generated thrust control vector to the engine calculator; and
receiving, by the engine calculator, the digital signal and controlling the thrust parameters of the engine, depending on the received generated thrust control vector.
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12252236 fails to specifically teach the throttle further comprising a motor configured to move the lever relative to the base body; wherein the flight control unit has an automatic thrust mode and a manual thrust mode, configured so that: - in manual thrust mode, the or each generated thrust control vector is generated at least from the signals received from the throttle; - in automatic thrust mode, the or each thrust control vector is generated without taking into account any actuation of the throttle, the flight control unit being configured to control the motor of the throttle to order a movement of the lever relative to the base body depending on the generated thrust control vector.
However, TAMIR the throttle further comprising a (TAMIR para. [0094]: “the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command”);
wherein the flight control unit has an automatic thrust mode and a manual thrust mode (FIG. 2; para. [0150]: “obtaining a command from an actuating element controllable by a pilot, such as lever 110, or from the auto-throttle system of the aircraft”, wherein auto-throttle system of the aircraft controlling the thrust indicates automatic thrust mode and pilot controlling lever indicates manual thrust mode), configured so that:
- in manual thrust mode, the or each generated thrust control vector is generated at least from the signals received from the throttle (FIG. 2; para. [0091]: “System 100 can comprise (or can be operatively connected to) an actuating element, such as a throttle or lever 110 controllable in particular by a pilot of the aircraft. In the following, it will be referred to a lever”; para. [0150]-[152]: “This command transmitted by the lever can be generated e.g. by the lever, or a by a processing unit in communication with the lever, based e.g. on a level of displacement of the lever by the pilot. This command can be transmitted to the common controlling unit 130. This command can be representative of a thrust level desired by the pilot or auto-throttle for the engines 101”);
- in automatic thrust mode, the or each thrust control vector is generated without taking into account any actuation of the throttle, the flight control unit being configured to control the (para. [0150] -[152]: “obtaining a command from an actuating element controllable by a pilot, such as lever 110, or from the auto-throttle system of the aircraft […] This command can be representative of a thrust level desired […] auto-throttle for the engines 101” para. [0094]: “In some embodiments, the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command.”, wherein auto-throttle system command is generated instead of the lever position which indicates thrust control vector is generated without taking into account any actuation of the throttle); and
U.S. Patent No. 12252236 and TAMIR are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of piloting aircrafts via the throttle lever which can be adjusted via auto-throttle system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified U.S. Patent No. 12252236 to incorporate the teachings of TAMIR and provide a manual mode and auto-throttle mode. Doing so would allow automated control of the throttle of the aircraft, thus allowing auto-throttle systems to assist the pilot in controlling the aircraft, thus decreasing the workload as well as enhancing safety (TAMIR, para. [0094]). U.S. Patent No. 12252236 in view of TAMIR fails to specifically teach a motor configured to move the lever.
However, in the same field of endeavor, HEDRICK teaches a motor configured to move the lever (FIG. 1; Abstract: “An autothrottle system for an aircraft includes a motor, actuator assembly, and position sensor operatively connected between the motor and a moving portion of the actuator assembly. An electronic controller is configured to control the motor to move the actuator assembly to actuator positions based at least on position information from the position sensor to move the throttle lever to lever positions”).
HEDRICK is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of piloting aircrafts via the throttle lever which can be adjusted via auto-throttle system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified U.S. Patent No. 12252236 in view of TAMIR to incorporate the teachings of HEDRICK and provide a motor to adjust the throttle lever according to the desired position. Doing so would allow automated control the lever of the throttle of the aircraft, thus allowing auto-throttle system to be synced with the lever to control the throttle.
Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 12252236 in view of TAMIR and further in view of HEDRICK teaches the piloting system according to claim 2. TAMIR further teaches wherein, in the automatic thrust mode, an actuation of the throttle by the pilot is not taken into account in generating the thrust control vectors (TAMIR para. [0092]: “Depending on commands provided by the pilot on this lever 110, and/or by thrust commands provided by an auto-throttle and/or auto-pilot of the aircraft,”; para. [0094]: “the auto-throttle can generate data representative of a thrust command based e.g. on inputs of a pilot (e.g. the pilot sets a desired speed, or thrust, if necessary with some additional parameters such as altitude, and the auto-throttle generates data representative of a thrust command which corresponds to the pilot's input). In some embodiments, the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command”; para. [0154]: “the common controlling unit 130 can take into account various data in order to perform this conversion, such as: […] data representative of the flight conditions (altitude, temperature, pressure, speed, etc.)”, wherein “auto-throttle and/or auto-pilot of the aircraft” and “modify a physical position of the lever” indicates that the actuation of the throttle by the pilot is not taken into account).
Regarding claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 12252236 in view of TAMIR and further in view of HEDRICK teaches the piloting system according to claim 2. TAMIR further teaches wherein the at least one selected flight setpoint is a heading and/or a route and/or an airspeed and/or a Mach, and/or an altitude, and/or a climb or descent gradient, and/or a climb instruction as large as possible without decelerating, or a descent instruction as small as possible without accelerating (TAMIR para. [0094]: “the auto-throttle can generate data representative of a thrust command based e.g. on inputs of a pilot (e.g. the pilot sets a desired speed, or thrust, if necessary with some additional parameters such as altitude, and the auto-throttle generates data representative of a thrust command which corresponds to the pilot's input). In some embodiments, the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command”; para. [0154]: “the common controlling unit 130 can take into account various data in order to perform this conversion, such as: […] data representative of the flight conditions (altitude, temperature, pressure, speed, etc.)”).
Regarding claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 12252236 in view of TAMIR and further in view of HEDRICK teaches the piloting system according to claim 1. TAMIR further teaches wherein, in the automatic thrust mode, the ordered movement of the lever corresponds to a movement that the lever would have had if the pilot had ordered thrust corresponding to the generated control vector (para. [0094]: “In some embodiments, the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command.”; para. [0002]: “a pilot controls a plurality of levers, wherein a position of each lever indicates a desired thrust (or power) for each one of the plurality of engines”).
Regarding claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 12252236 in view of TAMIR and further in view of HEDRICK teaches the piloting system according to claim 1. TAMIR and HEDRICK further teaches wherein, in the automatic thrust mode, the flight control unit is configured to control the motor of the throttle, depending on a predetermined control rule, to move the lever relative to the base body (TAMIR para. [0094]: “In some embodiments, the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command.”; HEDRICK Abstract: “An autothrottle system for an aircraft includes a motor, actuator assembly, and position sensor operatively connected between the motor and a moving portion of the actuator assembly. An electronic controller is configured to control the motor to move the actuator assembly to actuator positions based at least on position information from the position sensor to move the throttle lever to lever positions”, wherein “in accordance with the thrust command” indicates a predetermined control rule).
Regarding claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12252236 in view of TAMIR and further in view of HEDRICK teaches the piloting system according to claim 6. TAMIR and HEDRICK further teaches wherein the predetermined control rule is based on each generated thrust vector, so that the motor is controlled depending on the predetermined control rule to move the lever of a movement representative of the thrust ordered (TAMIR para. [0094]: “In some embodiments, the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command.”; HEDRICK Abstract: “An autothrottle system for an aircraft includes a motor, actuator assembly, and position sensor operatively connected between the motor and a moving portion of the actuator assembly. An electronic controller is configured to control the motor to move the actuator assembly to actuator positions based at least on position information from the position sensor to move the throttle lever to lever positions”).
Regarding claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 12252236 in view of TAMIR and further in view of HEDRICK teaches the piloting system according to claim 7. TAMIR and HEDRICK further teaches wherein the lever is angularly or translationally movable relative to the base body (TAMIR FIG. 1A) and the predetermined control rule includes a mapping table linking a generated thrust control vector to an angle or distance of the lever relative to the base body (TAMIR para. [0094]: “the auto-throttle can generate data representative of a thrust command […] the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command”; HEDRICK para. [0089]: “A mapping of throttle position and power identifies the problem issues and regulates the response to avoid surge conditions.”, wherein “modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command” indicates mapping table linking a generated thrust control vector to an angle or distance of the lever relative to the base body).
Regarding claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 12252236 in view of TAMIR and further in view of HEDRICK teaches the piloting system according to claim 6. TAMIR further teaches wherein the predetermined control rule is stored in a memory (TAMIR para. [0085]: “The invention contemplates a computer program being readable by a computer for executing one or more methods of the invention. The invention further contemplates a machine-readable memory tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the machine for executing one or more methods of the invention”; TAMIR para. [0094]: “the auto-throttle can generate data representative of a thrust command […] the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command”, wherein auto-throttle modifying the lever is a method performed by a computer, thus stored in memory).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the sensors of the sensor system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-15 are dependent on claim 1 and fail to cure the deficiencies thereof, thus are rejected on the same basis.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAMIR (US 20210387741 A1), in view of HEDRICK (US20190047715A1).
Regarding claim 1, TAMIR teaches a piloting system of an aircraft (FIG. 1; para. [0067]: “FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment of a system for controlling a plurality of engines of an aircraft”) comprising:
a throttle operable by a pilot of the aircraft, the throttle including at least one lever and a base body, the lever being movable relative to the base body, the throttle being configured to emit a signal representative of a position of the lever relative to the base body (FIG. 1 element 110: “Lever”; FIG. 1A; para. [0091]: “System 100 can comprise (or can be operatively connected to) an actuating element, such as a throttle or lever 110 controllable in particular by a pilot of the aircraft . In the following, it will be referred to a lever, but this is not limitative and other kinds of actuating elements controllable by a pilot can be used (different examples will be provided)”; para. [0092]: “Depending on commands provided by the pilot on this lever 110, and/or by thrust commands provided by an auto-throttle and/or auto-pilot of the aircraft, thrust of the plurality of engines can be controlled. In other words, the pilot indicates, using this lever 110, a level of thrust desired for the engines of the aircraft”; para. [0115]: “The controller 140 of an engine is for example a FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine), an “electronic engine controller” (EEC) or an “engine control unit” (ECU). This is however not limitative. A FADEC generally receives a position of the lever which represents a thrust level”; para. [0002]: “In a conventional multi-engine aircraft, a pilot controls a plurality of levers, wherein a position of each lever indicates a desired thrust (or power) for each one of the plurality of engines”, wherein “lever” inherently indicates a pivot point, thus indicating a base body, the lever being angularly or translationally movable relative to the base body, as shown in FIG. 1A, and “commands” generated by lever indicate being configured to emit a signal representative of the lever position relative to the base body),
the throttle further comprising a (TAMIR para. [0094]: “the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command”);
a sensor system for flight parameters of the aircraft (FIG. 1 element 160; para. [0125]-[0132]: “According to some embodiments, the common controlling unit 130 can communicate with various other systems 160 and exchange data with them. These systems 160 include at least one of: [0126] sensors of the aircraft (such as altitude sensor, pressure sensor, temperature sensor, fire detector, all engine parameters, etc.); [0127] flight control system of the aircraft (data such as data representative of flight phase, commands transmitted to flight actuators, etc. can be exchanged); [0128] autopilot system of the aircraft (data generated by the autopilot system can be exchanged); [0129] auto throttle system of the aircraft (data such as target speed, target thrust, etc., can be exchanged); [0130] air data system of the aircraft, and/or Air Data Inertial Reference Unit (data such as calibrated airspeed, Mach number, altitude, and altitude trend data, etc., can be exchanged); [0131] environmental control system (ECS) of the aircraft (data representative of e.g. air supply, thermal control and cabin pressurization for the crew and passengers, avionics cooling, smoke detection, etc., can be exchanged); and [0132] de-icing systems of the aircraft (e.g. of body, wing and engine nacelle) can also exchange data with the system”);
an engine calculator configured for controlling thrust parameters of at least one engine of the aircraft by actuating control members of the engine (FIG. 1 element 140: “Controller”; para. [0117]: “According to some embodiments, the controller 140 (e.g. FADEC) converts a command received from the common controlling unit 130 into at least one command pertaining to engine operating parameters such as fuel flow, stator vane position, air bleed valve position, rotation speed of the fan, etc. In other words, the controller 140 can translate data representative of a thrust command received from the common controlling unit 130 into a command for the engine which ensures that the engine complies with the thrust command”); and
a flight control unit connected to the engine calculator, the sensors of the sensor system and the throttle (FIG. 1 elements 130), the flight control unit being configured to generate at least one thrust control vector from at least one flight control law, the flight control law having at least the signals received from the throttle and/or from the sensors of the sensor system as input data (FIG. 1; FIG. 2; FIG. 3; para. [0134]: “the common controlling unit 130 stores in at least one memory one or more predefined operations to be applied for each of a plurality of predefined flight/ground scenarios (e.g. malfunction/failure of an engine, etc.). For each scenario, the common controlling unit 130 can execute these instructions in order to appropriately convert the commands communicated by the pilot via the lever 110, or transmitted by the auto-throttle, into commands to be sent to the controllers 140 of the engines 101”; para. [0154]-[0159]: “The method can comprise converting (operation 210), by the common controlling unit 130, the received command into at least one first command and at least one second command. As explained hereinafter in the specification, the common controlling unit 130 can take into account various data in order to perform this conversion, such as: [0155] data representative of the state of the engines (e.g. normal operation, underperforming, partial failure, total failure, etc.); [0156] data representative of the flight conditions (altitude, temperature, pressure, speed, etc.); [0157] data representative of e.g. air supply, thermal control and cabin pressurization for the crew and passengers, avionics cooling, smoke detection, etc.; [0158] data sent by the autopilot system; and [0159] data sent by the auto throttle system, etc”; para. [0165]: “the first command and/or the second command can be different from the command generated by the lever 110 based on the pilot input, or from the auto-throttle command. Examples will be provided hereinafter, in which the common controlling unit 130 generates a first and/or second command which is new and differs from the command 120 based on other data that it receives, such as level of operability of an engine, status of the aircraft, etc”, wherein “predefined operations to be applied for each of a plurality of predefined flight/ground scenarios” indicate at least one flight control law, which results in different command of thrust);
wherein the flight control unit has an automatic thrust mode and a manual thrust mode (FIG. 2; para. [0150]: “obtaining a command from an actuating element controllable by a pilot, such as lever 110, or from the auto-throttle system of the aircraft”, wherein auto-throttle system of the aircraft controlling the trhus indicates automatic thrust mode and pilot controlling lever indicates manual thrust mode), configured so that:
- in manual thrust mode, the or each generated thrust control vector is generated at least from the signals received from the throttle (FIG. 2; para. [0091]: “System 100 can comprise (or can be operatively connected to) an actuating element, such as a throttle or lever 110 controllable in particular by a pilot of the aircraft. In the following, it will be referred to a lever”; para. [0150]-[152]: “This command transmitted by the lever can be generated e.g. by the lever, or a by a processing unit in communication with the lever, based e.g. on a level of displacement of the lever by the pilot. This command can be transmitted to the common controlling unit 130. This command can be representative of a thrust level desired by the pilot or auto-throttle for the engines 101”);
- in automatic thrust mode, the or each thrust control vector is generated without taking into account any actuation of the throttle, the flight control unit being configured to control the (para. [0150] -[152]: “obtaining a command from an actuating element controllable by a pilot, such as lever 110, or from the auto-throttle system of the aircraft […] This command can be representative of a thrust level desired […] auto-throttle for the engines 101” para. [0094]: “In some embodiments, the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command.”, wherein auto-throttle system command is generated instead of the lever position which indicates thrust control vector is generated without taking into account any actuation of the throttle); and
the flight control unit being configured to send a digital signal comprising the generated thrust control vector to the engine calculator (FIG .1 element 130[Wingdings font/0xE0]140; para. [0160]: “Assume the aircraft has two engines (right engine and left engine), or more. The first command can be computed so as to be received by a first controller 140 (e.g. FADEC) of the right engine, and the second command can be computed so as to be received by a second controller 140 (e.g. FADEC) of the left engine”; para. [0081]: “The term “processing unit” as disclosed herein should be broadly construed to include any kind of electronic device with data processing circuitry, which includes for example a computer processing device operatively connected to a computer memory (e.g. digital signal processor (DSP)”; para. [0106]: “The common controlling unit 130 is operable on a processing unit and can comprise in some embodiments data circuitry and a memory. In some embodiments, the common controlling unit 130 can include an embedded system (or unit) with one or more lanes. It can include an analog or digital input/output (I/O) interface. According to some embodiments, the common controlling unit 130 comprises complex hardware (e.g. FPGA, ASIC) or computer hardware (e.g. CPU, RAM, ROM)”), the engine calculator being configured to receive the digital signal and to control said thrust parameters of the engine depending on the generated thrust control vector received (para. [0166]: “As already explained with respect to FIG. 1, the controller 140 of each engine 101 can control the corresponding engine 101 based on the command it has received from the common controlling unit 130”; para. [0167]: “Engine operating parameters such as fuel flow, stator vane position, air bleed valve position, rotation speed of the turbine, etc. can be controlled by the controller of each engine to reflect the thrust command it has received from the common controlling unit 130”), but fails to specifically teach a motor configured to move the lever.
However, in the same field of endeavor, HEDRICK teaches a motor configured to move the lever (FIG. 1; Abstract: “An autothrottle system for an aircraft includes a motor, actuator assembly, and position sensor operatively connected between the motor and a moving portion of the actuator assembly. An electronic controller is configured to control the motor to move the actuator assembly to actuator positions based at least on position information from the position sensor to move the throttle lever to lever positions”).
TAMIR and HEDRICK are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of piloting aircrafts via the throttle lever which can be adjusted via auto-throttle system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified TAMIR to incorporate the teachings of HEDRICK and provide a motor to adjust the throttle lever according to the desired position. Doing so would allow automated control of the aircraft, thus allowing autopilot systems to assist the pilot in controlling the aircraft, thus decreasing the workload as well as enhancing safety.
Regarding claim 5, TAMIR in view of HEDRICK teaches the piloting system according to claim 1. TAMIR further teaches wherein, in the automatic thrust mode, the ordered movement of the lever corresponds to a movement that the lever would have had if the pilot had ordered thrust corresponding to the generated control vector (para. [0094]: “In some embodiments, the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command.”; para. [0002]: “a pilot controls a plurality of levers, wherein a position of each lever indicates a desired thrust (or power) for each one of the plurality of engines”).
Regarding claim 6, TAMIR in view of HEDRICK teaches the piloting system according to claim 1. TAMIR and HEDRICK further teaches wherein, in the automatic thrust mode, the flight control unit is configured to control the motor of the throttle, depending on a predetermined control rule, to move the lever relative to the base body (TAMIR para. [0094]: “In some embodiments, the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command.”; HEDRICK Abstract: “An autothrottle system for an aircraft includes a motor, actuator assembly, and position sensor operatively connected between the motor and a moving portion of the actuator assembly. An electronic controller is configured to control the motor to move the actuator assembly to actuator positions based at least on position information from the position sensor to move the throttle lever to lever positions”, wherein “in accordance with the thrust command” indicates a predetermined control rule).
Regarding claim 7, TAMIR in view of HEDRICK teaches the piloting system according to claim 6. TAMIR and HEDRICK further teaches wherein the predetermined control rule is based on each generated thrust vector, so that the motor is controlled depending on the predetermined control rule to move the lever of a movement representative of the thrust ordered (TAMIR para. [0094]: “In some embodiments, the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command.”; HEDRICK Abstract: “An autothrottle system for an aircraft includes a motor, actuator assembly, and position sensor operatively connected between the motor and a moving portion of the actuator assembly. An electronic controller is configured to control the motor to move the actuator assembly to actuator positions based at least on position information from the position sensor to move the throttle lever to lever positions”).
Regarding claim 8, TAMIR in view of HEDRICK teaches the piloting system according to claim 7. TAMIR and HEDRICK further teaches wherein the lever is angularly or translationally movable relative to the base body (TAMIR FIG. 1A) and the predetermined control rule includes a mapping table linking a generated thrust control vector to an angle or distance of the lever relative to the base body (TAMIR para. [0094]: “the auto-throttle can generate data representative of a thrust command […] the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command”; HEDRICK para. [0089]: “A mapping of throttle position and power identifies the problem issues and regulates the response to avoid surge conditions.”, wherein “modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command” indicates mapping table linking a generated thrust control vector to an angle or distance of the lever relative to the base body).
Regarding claim 9, TAMIR in view of HEDRICK teaches the piloting system according to claim 6. TAMIR further teaches wherein the predetermined control rule is stored in a memory (TAMIR para. [0085]: “The invention contemplates a computer program being readable by a computer for executing one or more methods of the invention. The invention further contemplates a machine-readable memory tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by the machine for executing one or more methods of the invention”; TAMIR para. [0094]: “the auto-throttle can generate data representative of a thrust command […] the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command”, wherein auto-throttle modifying the lever is a method performed by a computer, thus stored in memory).
Regarding claim 10, TAMIR in view of HEDRICK teaches the piloting system according to claim 1. TAMIR further teaches wherein each thrust control vector comprises a command for actuating the control members of the engine and at least one additional item of information (para. [0117]: “According to some embodiments, the controller 140 (e.g. FADEC) converts a command received from the common controlling unit 130 into at least one command pertaining to engine operating parameters such as fuel flow, stator vane position, air bleed valve position, rotation speed of the fan, etc. In other words, the controller 140 can translate data representative of a thrust command received from the common controlling unit 130 into a command for the engine which ensures that the engine complies with the thrust command”, wherein “command pertaining to engine operating parameters” indicate command for actuating the control members of the engine and the specifics, such as the position or speed, is indicates at least one additional item of information).
Regarding claim 11, TAMIR in view of HEDRICK teaches the piloting system according to claim 10. TAMIR further teaches wherein the or each additional item of information is an anemometric parameter (para. [0117]: “According to some embodiments, the controller 140 (e.g. FADEC) converts a command received from the common controlling unit 130 into at least one command pertaining to engine operating parameters such as fuel flow, stator vane position, air bleed valve position, rotation speed of the fan, etc. In other words, the controller 140 can translate data representative of a thrust command received from the common controlling unit 130 into a command for the engine which ensures that the engine complies with the thrust command”, wherein the specifics such as fuel flow and rotation speed of the fan are examples corresponding to information which is an anemometric parameter)..
Regarding claim 12, TAMIR in view of HEDRICK teaches the piloting system according to claim 1. HEDRICK further teaches wherein the flight control unit is configured to process signals received from the throttle to apply overspeed and/or stall avoidance protection to the aircraft (HEDRICK para. [0064]: “if the controller 48 determines that the aircraft's increasing airspeed is approaching a predetermined safety limit value (e.g. the maximum structural cruising speed of the aircraft), or that its decreasing airspeed is approaching a predetermined minimum limit value (such as the minimum controllable airspeed or stall speed of the aircraft), motor 26 can be operated to cause the throttle lever to oscillate or shake and thereby alert the pilot to the impending unsafe overspeed or underspeed condition. Similarly, by monitoring engine torque, controller 48 can likewise provide a warning to the pilot by applying like haptic feedback through the throttle handle 12 if it is determined that the engine is at or approaching an unsafe operating condition, e.g. excessive torque”, wherein the system is aware of overspeed based on input throttle).
Regarding claim 13, TAMIR in view of HEDRICK teaches the piloting system according to claim 1. TAMIR further teaches, wherein the thrust parameters controlled by the engine calculator include at least fuel flow rate, ignition, and fuel/air mixture ratio (para. [0117]: “According to some embodiments, the controller 140 (e.g. FADEC) converts a command received from the common controlling unit 130 into at least one command pertaining to engine operating parameters such as fuel flow, stator vane position, air bleed valve position, rotation speed of the fan, etc. In other words, the controller 140 can translate data representative of a thrust command received from the common controlling unit 130 into a command for the engine which ensures that the engine complies with the thrust command”).
Regarding claim 14, TAMIR further teaches an aircraft (FIG. 4; para. [0001]: “The invention is in the field of controlling an aircraft. In particular, the invention pertains, according to some embodiments, to control of engines of an aircraft”) comprising the piloting system according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, it recites a method claim with claim limitations similar to those performed by the piloting system according to claim 1, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAMIR, in view of HEDRICK, and further in view of RAMOS (US 20090326745 A1).
Regarding claim 2, TAMIR in view of HEDRICK teaches the piloting system according to claim 1, wherein, in the automatic thrust mode, each thrust control vector is generated solely from signals received from the sensors of the sensor system depending on at least one selected flight setpoint (para. [0092]: “Depending on commands provided by the pilot on this lever 110, and/or by thrust commands provided by an auto-throttle and/or auto-pilot of the aircraft,”; para. [0094]: “the auto-throttle can generate data representative of a thrust command based e.g. on inputs of a pilot (e.g. the pilot sets a desired speed, or thrust, if necessary with some additional parameters such as altitude, and the auto-throttle generates data representative of a thrust command which corresponds to the pilot's input). In some embodiments, the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command”; para. [0154]: “the common controlling unit 130 can take into account various data in order to perform this conversion, such as: […] data representative of the flight conditions (altitude, temperature, pressure, speed, etc.)”), but fails to specifically teach in the automatic thrust mode, each thrust control vector is generated solely from signals received from the sensors of the sensor system depending on at least one selected flight setpoint.
However, in the same field of endeavor, RAMOS teaches in the automatic thrust mode, each thrust control vector is generated solely from signals received from the sensors of the sensor system depending on at least one selected flight setpoint (FIG. 1; para. [0003]-[0004]: “The Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) is an electronic system used for controlling aircraft engine performance. The FADEC receives a signal from the throttle lever or the autopilot system and, among other things, digitally calculates and precisely controls the fuel flow rate to the engines providing precise thrust. An autopilot system generally automates the aircraft handling during take-off, ascent, level, descent, approach and landing phases of flight. Typical autopilot systems incorporate an auto-throttle for controlling the speed of the aircraft”; para. [0015]: “The Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) then engages cruise control mode in step 18 if and only if certain aircraft flight conditions, altitude and attitude for example”; para. [0017]: “While cruise control mode (step 18) is activated, a misalignment of thrust setting-to-throttle lever angle may gradually grow until the authority assigned to the CCL is no longer adequate to maintain the target speed, i.e. the thrust setting exceeds the given permitted range (step 20)”, wherein autopilot system generally automates the aircraft handling during take-off, ascent, level, descent, approach and landing phases of flight indicates piloting based on signals received from the sensors of the sensor system, depending on a selected flight setpoint).
RAMOS is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of piloting aircrafts via the throttle lever which can be adjusted via auto-throttle system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the autopilot of TAMIR in view of HEDRICK to incorporate the teachings of RAMOS and autopilot based on solely from signals received from the sensors of the sensor system, depending on a selected flight setpoint. Doing so will automate the flight processes, thus increasing efficiency and performance, and also reduce workload on human pilots.
Regarding claim 3, TAMIR in view of HEDRICK and further in view of RAMOS teaches the piloting system according to claim 2. TAMIR and RAMOS further teaches wherein, in the automatic thrust mode, an actuation of the throttle by the pilot is not taken into account in generating the thrust control vectors (TAMIR para. [0092]: “Depending on commands provided by the pilot on this lever 110, and/or by thrust commands provided by an auto-throttle and/or auto-pilot of the aircraft,”; TAMIR para. [0094]: “In some embodiments, the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command.”; RAMOS para. [0003]-[0004]: “The Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) is an electronic system used for controlling aircraft engine performance. The FADEC receives a signal from the throttle lever or the autopilot system”, wherein “auto-throttle and/or auto-pilot of the aircraft” and “modify a physical position of the lever” indicates that the actuation of the throttle by the pilot is not taken into account).
Regarding claim 4, TAMIR in view of HEDRICK and further in view of RAMOS teaches the piloting system according to claim 2. TAMIR further teaches wherein the at least one selected flight setpoint is a heading and/or a route and/or an airspeed and/or a Mach, and/or an altitude, and/or a climb or descent gradient, and/or a climb instruction as large as possible without decelerating, or a descent instruction as small as possible without accelerating (para. [0094]: “the auto-throttle can generate data representative of a thrust command based e.g. on inputs of a pilot (e.g. the pilot sets a desired speed, or thrust, if necessary with some additional parameters such as altitude, and the auto-throttle generates data representative of a thrust command which corresponds to the pilot's input). In some embodiments, the auto-throttle can modify a physical position of the lever 110 in accordance with the thrust command”; para. [0154]: “the common controlling unit 130 can take into account various data in order to perform this conversion, such as: […] data representative of the flight conditions (altitude, temperature, pressure, speed, etc.)”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miller (US4651954A) teaches autothrottle automatically disengages and remains latched in place until throttle lever is returned to flight idle.
DeLuca (US5039037A) teaches engine thrust is determined as a function of a speed selected by the pilot or as a function of a speed or thrust set forth in a flight plan located in the aircraft's flight management computer when the throttle lever is commanding an automatic mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 5PM.
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, James J Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/ANDREW SANG KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights