DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in response to the reply filed 24 June 2026, which was in reply to the non-final action, dated 30 March 2026.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-15, 17-21 and 23-25 are pending. Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 15 and 17-20 have been amended and claims 2, 11, 16 and 22 have been canceled.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-25 (pgs. 3-30, Action) applicant’s amendment, particular the “does not provide dynamic adjustment ... is not based on real-time control from the operator” limitation, in claims 1 and 15, in particular, necessitated additional searching and consideration. Accordingly, after additional search the new grounds of rejection are: claims 1, 4-10, 12, 13, 15, 18-25 in view of Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies and Antraygue; claims 3 and 17 in view of Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies, Antraygue and Horner; and Claim 14 in view of Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies, Antraygue and Fountain, as discussed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 9 April 2026 complies with 35 C.F.R. 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy of the 1449 Form is enclosed herewith.
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12, 13, 15, 19-21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2007/0164168 to Hirvonen et al. (hereafter Hirvonen) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0198770 to Wulff et al. (hereafter Wulff), U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0355251 to Davies, and French Patent Publication Number FR 2952447 A1 to Antraygue.
As per claim 1, Hirvonen discloses [a]n Electronic Unit (EU) for a tactile cueing apparatus system for a vehicle (see at least Hirvonen, Abstract),
the tactile cueing apparatus configured to augment feel for an operator of the vehicle (see at least Hirvonen, Abstract, disclosing that the processing unit may receive a sensed backup control stick signal and generate a backup control signal. The processing unit may also generate tactile signal for use by the actuated control stick to adjust the feel of a pilot's control stick), the EU comprising:
a channel configured to monitor communication for determining a control mode of the channel (see at least Hirvonen, Fig. 2 showing communication links 126 and 127, [0035] disclosing that the backup control signals from each backup partitions may be fed to the cross-side backup partition via communication links 126 and 127 for processing. The backup partition 120, may be configured to transmit the backup control signals to the left side actuator channels. Likewise, the backup partition 121 may transmit the backup control signals to the right side actuator channels),
wherein the control mode includes a Reversionary Active Mode and an Active Mode (see at least Hirvonen, [0034] disclosing that the backup control system shown in FIG. 2 may effectively act as a "hot spare" for the primary control system <interpreted as the Active Mode>. The backup system may be implemented through the active control sticks 110 and 111 and the backup partitions 120 and 121. In the event that the primary control system experiences a generic fault, the backup partitions 120 and 121 shown in FIG. 2 may be configured to perform the necessary functions to drive the "active feel" of the control sticks and to process the inputs from the control sticks 114 and 115 for the backup control system <interpreted as the Reversionary Active Mode>. The backup system may also be employed in the event that the aircraft experiences a fault, such as a total loss of electrical power to the primary control system) ... (1) ... , ... (2) ... ;
if the fault in the signal message is detected, then setting the control mode to the Reversionary Active Mode (see at least Hirvonen, Fig. 1; Fig. 2, [0035]) ; ... (3) ... ; ... (4) ... , ... (5) ... , ... (6) ... , ... (7) ... ; ... (8) ... . But, Hirvonen does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Antraygue:
(1) wherein the channel is configured to monitor communication by: receiving a signal message, the signal message including a vehicle control command (see at least Antraygue, , pg. 5, 1st full para. disclosing that FIG. 6 represents the architecture of the computer links 20 of the electronic microcontrollers 52, 53, 54, 55 of the different channels of the electronic control / monitoring units 47, 48 of the different control elements. The four microcontrollers 52, 53, 54, 55 are connected to each other two by two by six serial buses, including the two internal serial buses 97,98 and four external serial buses 99, 100, 101, 102 connected to the serial ports 75. , 76 of the connectors 41, a pair of such serial ports 75, 76 being provided for each microcontroller. A first external serial bus 99 connects the microcontroller 52 of the first channel 42 of the electronic control / monitoring unit 47 associated with the mini-stick 21of the pilot-in-command, to the microcontroller 54 of the first channel 44 of the control unit / electronic monitoring 48 associated with the co-pilot's mini-stick 22 30. A second external serial bus 100 connects the microcontroller 53 of the second channel 43 of the electronic control / monitoring unit 47 associated with the mini-stick 21 of the pilot-in-command, to the microcontroller 55 of the second channel 45 of the control unit / electronic monitoring 48 associated with the co-pilot's mini-stick 22);
(2) monitoring the signal message for detecting a fault in the signal message (see at least Antraygue, pg. 7, 2nd full para., disclosing that each microcontroller is multifunctional and performs on the one hand control functions of an engine for each degree of freedom according to position and speed control loops for the generation of force return sensations, and, monitoring functions of the control signals to prevent drift and detect faults); ... . But, the combination of Hirvonen as modified by Antraygue, does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Wulff;
(3) the Reversionary Active Mode configured to provide a control characteristic for limited augmented feel capability to the operator of the vehicle (see at least Wulff, [0051] disclosing that At block 408 (Fig. 4), the FCC 75 (or a sub-component thereof, such as the damage detection module 304) implements a second action when it is determined at decision block 404 that the health condition is a damage condition. Depending on the severity of the damage, different actions can be implemented to enable the aircraft 10 to make a safe landing, to fly back to a safe location (e.g., an airfield), and/or to complete a mission. Examples of actions (i.e., the second action) to enable continued safe operation of the aircraft can include adjusting command bandwidth to limit maneuverability, adjusting feedback gains to accommodate a modified aircraft dynamic, issuing an alert (e.g., a tactile cue, an alert message, etc.) to a pilot to the detected aircraft damage, issuing an updated feed forward command to accommodate modified aircraft dynamics and reconfiguring aircraft control inputs to mitigate the effect of the damage);
(7) the Active Mode configured to provide a control characteristic for fully augmented feel capability to the operator of the vehicle (see at least Wulff, [0050] disclosing that at block 406 (Fig. 4), the FCC 75 (or a sub-component thereof, such as the fatigue management module 302) implements a first action when it is determined at decision block 404 that the health condition is a fatigue condition. Examples of actions (i.e., the first action) to lower flight loads can include adjusting command bandwidth to limit maneuverability, adjusting feedback gains to lower fatiguing loads, and issuing an alert (e.g., a tactile cue, an alert message, etc.) to a pilot to alert the pilot to the fatigue condition) ... . But, the combination of Hirvonen as modified by Antraygue and further by Wulff does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Davies:
(4) using a default setting for each of a plurality of control axes of the vehicle (see at least Davies, [0038] disclosing that as defined by box 66, Fig. 2, a default force/feel characteristic is implemented by the active side stick 10 in the event that force/feel commands from the Flight Control Computer are unavailable),
(5) wherein the EU is configured to control the tactile cueing apparatus for continued operation of the vehicle with the limited augmented feel capability using the default setting (see at least Davies, [0035]; [0041] disclosing that if in a second mode of operation, in the event that no signal is received from the vehicle condition indicator 40, either because it is not operating or there is an interruption of the signal between the Flight Control Computer 40 and the user feedback generator 28, the user feedback generator 28 is operable to generate tactile feedback to the user via the control stick 15 in dependence upon signals received from the first vehicle condition sensor 54 <interpreted as the default setting>),
(6) which does not provide dynamic adjustment of the tactile cueing apparatus and is not based on real-time control from the operator (see at least Davies, [0032] disclosing that the Active Control Stick apparatus 10 comprises a first vehicle condition sensor 54 dedicated to the operation of the inceptor. Optionally, there may be provided a second vehicle condition sensor 56, which is also dedicated to the operation of the inceptor apparatus 10; [0035] disclosing that If the inceptor apparatus (i.e. Active Controller Stick) 10 is not operating, for example because the servo motor 28 is non operable, then the “feel” of the stick is determined by the geometry of the stick 15 and the mass 20, as defined by box 60 in FIG. 2. That is to say, a passive reversionary feel system is provided by springs and dampers. This provides minimum handling qualities in the event that power to the active side stick is lost. Put another way, if the user feedback generator 28 is not operational, the stick will operate as a passive mass balanced device <interpreted as not providing dynamic adjustment of the tactile cueing> ; [0039]),
(8) wherein the EU is configured to control the tactile cueing apparatus for continued operation of the vehicle with the fully augmented feel capability based on the sensing data from the one or more sensors (see at least Davies, [0040] disclosing that in a first mode of operation, if the inceptor apparatus 10 is operational, and it is determined that the vehicle condition indicator 40 (i.e. Flight Control Computer) is operational, then the user feedback generator 28 is operable to generate tactile feedback to the user via the control stick 15 in dependence upon signals received from the vehicle condition indicator 40; [0041] disclosing that If in a second mode of operation, in the event that no signal is received from the vehicle condition indicator 40, either because it is not operating or there is an interruption of the signal between the Flight Control Computer 40 and the user feedback generator 28, the user feedback generator 28 is operable to generate tactile feedback to the user via the control stick 15 in dependence upon signals received from the first vehicle condition sensor 54).
Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies and Antraygue are analogous art to claim 1 because they are in the same field of a tactile cueing for a vehicle. Hirvonen relates to a control system, with a processing unit that receives a sensed primary control stick signal and communicate with a primary processor, and generates tactile signal for use by the actuated control stick to adjust the feel of a pilot's control stick (see at least Hirvonen, Abstract). Wulff relates to a system for controlling an aircraft based on detecting and mitigating fatiguing conditions and aircraft damage condition (see at least Wulff, [0001]). Davies relates to an aircraft and a control stick operated by a user and a user feedback generator coupled to the control stick that to receive signals from a vehicle condition indicator remote from the inceptor apparatus (see Davies, Abstract). Antraygue relates to a device for the electronic control of the operation of an aircraft piloting device with two connected steering members, comprising main monitoring electronic circuits based on signals delivered by sensors associated with one of the control members (see at least Antraygue, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, to provide the benefit of Antraygue, to provide the benefit of (1) receiving a signal message, the signal message including a vehicle control command and (2) monitoring the signal message for detecting a fault in the signal message, as disclosed in Antraygue, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.)
It would further have been obvious to modify the system as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified Antraygue, to provide the benefit of (3) having the Reversionary Active Mode configured to provide a control characteristic for limited augmented feel capability to the operator of the vehicle, and (7) having the Active Mode configured to provide a control characteristic for fully augmented feel capability to the operator of the vehicle, as disclosed in Wulff, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of safe continued flight enhances vehicle safety, reliability, and availability with reduced maintenance costs (see at least Wulff, [0002]).
If would still further have been obvious to modify the system as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Antraygue and Wulff, to provide the benefit of (4) using a default setting for each of a plurality of control axes of the vehicle, (5) controlling the tactile cueing apparatus for continued operation of the vehicle with the limited augmented feel capability using the default setting, (6) which does not provide dynamic adjustment of the tactile cueing apparatus and is not based on real-time control from the operator and (8) controlling the tactile cueing apparatus for continued operation of the vehicle with the fully augmented feel capability based on the sensing data from the one or more sensors, disclosed in Davies, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving flight control by of providing tactile feedback to the pilots in the event that the Flight Control Computer is no longer able to provide an envelope protection function (see Davies, [0012]).
As per claim 4, the combination of Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Hirvonen, as modified by Wulff, Davies and Antraygue further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the signal message is originated from a vehicle management system (see at least Antraygue, pg. 4, para. 3, Each control box 37, 38 is also provided with connectors 41 enabling its connection to the control box 38, 37 associated with the other control unit (in particular for the transmission of signals allowing the cross-monitoring described hereinafter), and with various other electrical and / or computer systems of the aircraft, including a computer system for autopilots <interpreted as the vehicle management system>. FIG. 4 schematically represents the general architecture of an electronic control / monitoring unit 47, 48 integrated in one of the control boxes 37, 38. In this figure, the electromechanical housing 23, 24 is shown schematically on the right, and the external connectors 41 are schematized on the left).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue, to provide the benefit of having the signal message is originated from a vehicle management system, as further disclosed in Antraygue, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.).
As per claim 5, the combination of Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Hirvonen, as modified by Wulff, Davies and Antraygue further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the channel is configured to monitor communication for determining availability of other signal message (see at least Hirvonen, [0036] disclosing that the health of the overall backup control paths may be monitored on a continuous basis during the normal operation <interpreted as determining availability of other signal message>, so that its availability and even accuracy can be verified even when not in use),
wherein if the other signal message is not available then set the control mode to the Reversionary Active Mode (see at least Hirvonen, [0036] disclosing that if all of the primary control command sources become unavailable or in the event of a general fault in the primary control system renders it unavailable, the control system 200 may be configured to switch to the backup control signals generated by the backup control system ).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue, to provide the benefit of monitoring communication for determining availability of other signal message and if the other signal message is not available then setting the control mode to the Reversionary Active Mode, as further disclosed in Hirvonen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.).
As per claim 6, the combination of Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Hirvonen, as modified by Wulff, Davies and Antraygue further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the channel is further configured to monitor communication for determining availability of other signal message (see at least Hirvonen, [0036]),
wherein if the other signal message is available, then the channel is further configured to:
receive the other signal message (see at least Hirvonen, [0036]);
monitor the other signal message for detecting a fault in the other signal message (see at least Hirvonen, [0036]),
if the fault in the other signal message is detected then set the control mode to the Reversionary Active Mode (see at least Hirvonen, [0034] disclosing that the backup control system shown in FIG. 2 may effectively act as a "hot spare" for the primary control system <interpreted as the Active Mode>. The backup system may be implemented through the active control sticks 110 and 111 and the backup partitions 120 and 121. In the event that the primary control system experiences a generic fault, the backup partitions 120 and 121 shown in FIG. 2 may be configured to perform the necessary functions to drive the "active feel" of the control sticks and to process the inputs from the control sticks 114 and 115 for the backup control system <interpreted as the Reversionary Active Mode>. The backup system may also be employed in the event that the aircraft experiences a fault, such as a total loss of electrical power to the primary control system); and
if no fault in the other signal message is detected then set the control mode to the Active Mode (see at least Hirvonen, [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue, to provide the benefit of monitoring communication for determining availability of other signal message, if the other signal message is available, receive the other signal message, monitor the other signal message for detecting a fault in the other signal message, and if the fault in the other signal message is detected then setting the control mode to the Reversionary Active Mode, as further disclosed in Hirvonen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.).
As per claim 7, the combination of Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 5, as shown above. Hirvonen, as modified by Wulff, Davies and Antraygue further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the other signal message is originated from a second vehicle management system (see at least Hirvonen, [0032] disclosing that multiple processors or processing units 101 may be used as the primary flight control computers as shown in FIG. 2. As understood by those of skill in the art, these multiple processors may be packaged in individual enclosures, often referred to as flight control computers ("FCCs"); [0034] disclosing that backup control system shown in FIG. 2 may effectively act as a "hot spare" for the primary control system. The backup system may be implemented through the active control sticks 110 and 111 and the backup partitions 120 and 121. In the event that the primary control system experiences a generic fault, the backup partitions 120 and 121 shown in FIG. 2 may be configured to perform the necessary functions to drive the "active feel" of the control sticks and to process the inputs from the control sticks 114 and 115 for the backup control system ).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue, to provide the benefit of having the other signal message be originated from a second vehicle management system, as further disclosed in Hirvonen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.).
As per claim 8, the combination of Hirvonen, Davies, Wulff and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Hirvonen further discloses the following limitations:
channel is configured to: determine a second control mode of other channel (see at least Hirvonen, [0034] disclosing that the backup control system shown in FIG. 2 may effectively act as a "hot spare" for the primary control system <interpreted as the Active Mode>. The backup system may be implemented through the active control sticks 110 and 111 and the backup partitions 120 and 121. In the event that the primary control system experiences a generic fault, the backup partitions 120 and 121 shown <interpreted as other channel> in FIG. 2 may be configured to perform the necessary functions to drive the "active feel" of the control sticks and to process the inputs from the control sticks 114 and 115 for the backup control system <interpreted as the Reversionary Active Mode, or the second control mode>. The backup system may also be employed in the event that the aircraft experiences a fault, such as a total loss of electrical power to the primary control system);
if the second control mode of the other channel is the Active Mode then relinquish control to maintain the Active Mode for the vehicle (see at least Hirvonen, [0034] disclosing that the backup control system shown in FIG. 2 may effectively act as a "hot spare" for the primary control system <interpreted as the Active Mode>. The backup system may be implemented through the active control sticks 110 and 111 and the backup partitions 120 and 121. In the event that the primary control system experiences a generic fault, the backup partitions 120 and 121 shown <interpreted as other channel> in FIG. 2 may be configured to perform the necessary functions to drive the "active feel" of the control sticks and to process the inputs from the control sticks 114 and 115 for the backup control system <interpreted as the Reversionary Active Mode, or the second control mode>. The backup system may also be employed in the event that the aircraft experiences a fault, such as a total loss of electrical power to the primary control system; [0036] disclosing that if smart actuators are used, the smart actuators may be configured to automatically switch between the primary and backup control signals if the primary control signal is determined to be invalid or absent <interpreted as also switching between backup and primary control, fi it is determined that the signals are valid and exist>); and
if the second control mode of the other channel is the Reversionary Active Mode then activate the Reversionary Active Mode (see at least Hirvonen, disclosing that the backup control system shown in FIG. 2 may effectively act as a "hot spare" for the primary control system <interpreted as the Active Mode>. The backup system may be implemented through the active control sticks 110 and 111 and the backup partitions 120 and 121. In the event that the primary control system experiences a generic fault, the backup partitions 120 and 121 shown <interpreted as other channel> in FIG. 2 may be configured to perform the necessary functions to drive the "active feel" of the control sticks and to process the inputs from the control sticks 114 and 115 for the backup control system <interpreted as the Reversionary Active Mode, or the second control mode>. The backup system may also be employed in the event that the aircraft experiences a fault, such as a total loss of electrical power to the primary control system; [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue, to provide the benefit of determining a second control mode of other channel, , if the second control mode of the other channel is the active mode then relinquishing control to maintain the active mode, and if the second control mode of the other channel is the reversionary active mode then activating the reversionary active mode , as further disclosed in Hirvonen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.).
As per claim 9, the combination of Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 8, as shown above. Hirvonen, as modified by Wulff, Davies and Antraygue further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the signal message is a first signal message, the vehicle control command is a first vehicle control command, and the fault is a first vehicle fault (see at least, Hirvonen, [0034]; [0035] ; [0036] <interpreted as the first vehicle fault> ; [0037]; [0045]; [0046]),
wherein the other channel is configured to: monitor communication for determining the second control mode of the other channel (see at least Hirvonen, [0034] ; [0035] disclosing that the backup partition 120, may be configured to transmit the backup control signals to the left side actuator channels. Likewise, the backup partition 121 may transmit the backup control signals to the right side actuator channels; [0036] disclosing that the health of the overall backup control paths may be monitored on a continuous basis during the normal operation <interpreted as determining availability of other signal message>, so that its availability and even accuracy can be verified even when not in use. And further that all of the primary control command sources become unavailable or in the event of a general fault in the primary control system renders it unavailable, the control system 200 may be configured to switch to the backup control signals generated by the backup control system. If smart actuators are used, the smart actuators may be configured to automatically switch between the primary and backup control signals if the primary control signal is determined to be invalid or absent ; [0037] disclosing that the processor units 101 shown in FIG. 2 may be configured to perform other aircraft functions, such as outputting signals for cockpit display, such as crew alerting system (CAS) or maintenance signals; [0045]; [0046])
by: receiving a second signal message, the second signal message including a second vehicle control command (see at least Hirvonen, [0033] disclosing that the backup control system may be monitored by the primary control system by sending the backup control signal, as received by a smart actuator, back to the primary control system; [0035] disclosing that the backup partition 120, may be configured to transmit the backup control signals to the left side actuator channels. Likewise, the backup partition 121 may transmit the backup control signals to the right side actuator channels; [0037]; [0038]; [0045]; [0046] ), and
monitoring the signal message for detecting a second fault in the second signal message (Hirvonen, [0036] disclosing that if smart actuators are used, the smart actuators may be configured to automatically switch between the primary and backup control signals if the primary control signal is determined to be invalid or absent <interpreted as detecting a fault in the signal message>; [0045] disclosing that FIG. 5 illustrates an alternative embodiment of an augmented backup control system where the standby instruments 670 and 680, as with the sensors 520 and 540 shown in FIG. 4, may provide the required augmentation sensor data to the backup controller in aircraft designed with a relaxed static stability or in aircraft with a particular natural dynamic motion. As shown in FIG. 5, the backup control system 600 includes the backup controllers 620 and 640 positioned within the active control sticks 610 and 630. The backup controller 620 receives input signals from the control stick 612 and the backup sensor 614. The backup controller 640 receives input signals from the control stick 632 and the backup sensor 634; [0046] disclosing that as shown in FIG. 5, the standby instrument 670 is configured to provide both backup controllers 620 and 640 with augmentation signals <interpreted as first signals>. The standby instrument 680 is configured to provide both the backup controllers 620 and 640 with augmentation signals <interpreted as first signals>).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue, to provide the benefit of having the signal message is a first signal message, having the vehicle control command is a first vehicle control command, having the fault is a first vehicle fault, and having another channel monitor communication for determining the second control mode of the other channel by receiving a second signal message, the second signal message including a second vehicle control command, and monitoring the signal message for detecting a second fault in the second signal message, as further disclosed in Hirvonen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.).
As per claim 10, the combination of Hirvonen, Davies, Wulff and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 8, as shown above. Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the first channel and the other channel are segregated (see at least Hirvonen, [0034] disclosing that backup control system shown in FIG. 2 may effectively act as a "hot spare" for the primary control system. The backup system may be implemented through the active control sticks 110 and 111 and the backup partitions 120 and 121 <interpreted as segregated channels>. In the event that the primary control system experiences a generic fault, the backup partitions 120 and 121 shown in FIG. 2 may be configured to perform the necessary functions to drive the "active feel" of the control sticks and to process the inputs from the control sticks 114 and 115 for the backup control system; [0035]; [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue, to provide the benefit of having the first channel and the other channel be segregated, as further disclosed in Hirvonen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.).
As per claim 12, the combination of Hirvonen, Davies, Wulff and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the control characteristic for the Reversionary Active Mode and/or the control characteristic for the Active Mode is/are stored in the EU (see at least Hirvonen, [0024] disclosing that a centralized Fly-By-Wire control system using Actuator Control Electronics (ACE) units (not shown in the figures), which typically receive their augmented commands from the primary flight control computers could also receive commands from a backup control system or controller integrated with an active control stick; [0032] disclosing that multiple processors or processing units 101 may be used as the primary flight control computers as shown in FIG. 2. As understood by those of skill in the art, these multiple processors may be packaged in individual enclosures, often referred to as flight control computers ("FCCs"). The processors may also be combined together in one or more enclosures, in which the enclosures are often called control channels. Regardless, each processing element may be divided into a self-checking pair of processors, called a command-monitor type of architecture; [0035] ; [0037] disclosing that the processor units 101 shown in FIG. 2 may be configured to perform other aircraft functions, such as outputting signals for cockpit display, such as crew alerting system (CAS) or maintenance signal ; [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue, to provide the benefit of having the control characteristic for the Reversionary Active Mode and/or the control characteristic for the Active Mode is/are stored in the EU, as further disclosed in Hirvonen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.).
As per claim 13, the combination of Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Hirvonen, as modified by Wulff, Davies and Antraygue further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the vehicle comprises an airplane or a helicopter (see at least Hirvonen, Abstract ... <aircraft interpreted as an airplane>.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue, to provide the benefit of having the vehicle comprise an airplane or a helicopter, as further disclosed in Hirvonen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.).
As per claim 15, similar to claim 1, Hirvonen discloses [a] computer-implemented method for an Electronic Unit (EU) for a tactile cueing apparatus for a vehicle (see at least Hirvonen, Abstract), the method comprising:
monitoring communication for determining a control mode of a channel (see at least Hirvonen, Fig. 2 showing communication links 126 and 127, [0035]),
wherein the control mode includes a Reversionary Active Mode and an Active Mode (see at least Hirvonen, [0034] ) ... (1) ... , ... (2) ... ;.
if the fault in the signal message is detected, then setting the control mode to the Reversionary Active Mode (see at least Hirvonen, Fig. 1; Fig. 2, [0035]) ; ... (3) ... ; ... (4) ... , ... (5) ... , ... (6) ... , ... (7) ... ; ... (8) ... . But, Hirvonen does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Antraygue:
But, Hirvonen does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Antraygue:
(1) wherein the channel is configured to monitor communication by: receiving a signal message, the signal message including a vehicle control command (see at least Antraygue, , pg. 5, 1st full para.);
(2) monitoring the signal message for detecting a fault in the signal message (see at least Antraygue, pg. 7, 2nd full para., disclosing that each microcontroller is multifunctional and performs on the one hand control functions of an engine for each degree of freedom according to position and speed control loops for the generation of force return sensations, and, monitoring functions of the control signals to prevent drift and detect faults); ... . But, the combination of Hirvonen as modified by Antraygue, does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Wulff;
(3) the Reversionary Active Mode configured to provide a control characteristic for a limited augmented feel capability to the operator of the vehicle (see at least Wulff, [0051] disclosing that At block 408 (Fig. 4), the FCC 75 (or a sub-component thereof, such as the damage detection module 304) implements a second action when it is determined at decision block 404 that the health condition is a damage condition. Depending on the severity of the damage, different actions can be implemented to enable the aircraft 10 to make a safe landing, to fly back to a safe location (e.g., an airfield), and/or to complete a mission. Examples of actions (i.e., the second action) to enable continued safe operation of the aircraft can include adjusting command bandwidth to limit maneuverability, adjusting feedback gains to accommodate a modified aircraft dynamic, issuing an alert (e.g., a tactile cue, an alert message, etc.) to a pilot to the detected aircraft damage, issuing an updated feed forward command to accommodate modified aircraft dynamics and reconfiguring aircraft control inputs to mitigate the effect of the damage);
(7) the Active Mode configured to provide a control characteristic for fully augmented feel capability to the operator of the vehicle (see at least Wulff, [0050] disclosing that at block 406 (Fig. 4), the FCC 75 (or a sub-component thereof, such as the fatigue management module 302) implements a first action when it is determined at decision block 404 that the health condition is a fatigue condition. Examples of actions (i.e., the first action) to lower flight loads can include adjusting command bandwidth to limit maneuverability, adjusting feedback gains to lower fatiguing loads, and issuing an alert (e.g., a tactile cue, an alert message, etc.) to a pilot to alert the pilot to the fatigue condition) ... . But, the combination of Hirvonen as modified by Antraygue and further by Wulff does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Davies:
(4) using a default setting for each of a plurality of control axes of the vehicle (see at least Davies, [0038]),
(5) wherein the EU is configured to control the tactile cueing apparatus for continued operation of the vehicle with the limited augmented feel capability using the default setting (see at least Davies, [0035]; [0041]),
(6) which does not provide dynamic adjustment of the tactile cueing apparatus and is not based on real-time control from the operator (see at least Davies, [0032]; [0035] <interpreted as not providing dynamic adjustment of the tactile cueing> ; [0039]),
(8) wherein the EU is configured to control the tactile cueing apparatus for continued operation of the vehicle with the fully augmented feel capability based on the sensing data from the one or more sensors (see at least Davies, [0040]; [0041]).
Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies and Antraygue are analogous art to claim 15 because they are in the same field of a tactile cueing for a vehicle. Hirvonen relates to a control system, with a processing unit that receives a sensed primary control stick signal and communicate with a primary processor, and generates tactile signal for use by the actuated control stick to adjust the feel of a pilot's control stick (see at least Hirvonen, Abstract). Wulff relates to a system for controlling an aircraft based on detecting and mitigating fatiguing conditions and aircraft damage condition (see at least Wulff, [0001]). Davies relates to an aircraft and a control stick operated by a user and a user feedback generator coupled to the control stick that to receive signals from a vehicle condition indicator remote from the inceptor apparatus (see Davies, Abstract). Antraygue relates to a device for the electronic control of the operation of an aircraft piloting device with two connected steering members, comprising main monitoring electronic circuits based on signals delivered by sensors associated with one of the control members (see at least Antraygue, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, to provide the benefit of Antraygue, to provide the benefit of (1) receiving a signal message, the signal message including a vehicle control command and (2) monitoring the signal message for detecting a fault in the signal message, as disclosed in Antraygue, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.)
It would further have been obvious to modify the system as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified Antraygue, to provide the benefit of (3) having the Reversionary Active Mode configured to provide a control characteristic for limited augmented feel capability to the operator of the vehicle, and (7) having the Active Mode configured to provide a control characteristic for fully augmented feel capability to the operator of the vehicle, as disclosed in Wulff, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of safe continued flight enhances vehicle safety, reliability, and availability with reduced maintenance costs (see at least Wulff, [0002]).
If would still further have been obvious to modify the system as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Antraygue and Wulff, to provide the benefit of (4) using a default setting for each of a plurality of control axes of the vehicle, (5) controlling the tactile cueing apparatus for continued operation of the vehicle with the limited augmented feel capability using the default setting, (6) which does not provide dynamic adjustment of the tactile cueing apparatus and is not based on real-time control from the operator and (8) controlling the tactile cueing apparatus for continued operation of the vehicle with the fully augmented feel capability based on the sensing data from the one or more sensors, disclosed in Davies, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving flight control by of providing tactile feedback to the pilots in the event that the Flight Control Computer is no longer able to provide an envelope protection function (see Davies, [0012]).
As per claim 18, similar to claim 6, the combination of Hirvonen Wulff, Davies and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 15, as shown above. Hirvonen, as modified by Wulff, Davies and Antraygue further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the monitoring communication further comprises: determining availability of other signal message (see at least Hirvonen, [0036]);
if the other signal message is available, then receiving the other signal message (see at least Hirvonen, [0036]);
monitoring the other signal message for detecting a fault in the other signal message (see at least Hirvonen, [0036]);
if the fault in the other signal message is detected then setting the control mode to the Reversionary Active Mode (see at least Hirvonen, [0034]); and
if no fault in the other signal message is detected then setting the control mode to the Active Mode (see at least Hirvonen, [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue, to provide the benefit of monitoring communication for determining availability of other signal message, if the other signal message is available, receive the other signal message, monitor the other signal message for detecting a fault in the other signal message, and if the fault in the other signal message is detected then setting the control mode to the Reversionary Active Mode, as further disclosed in Hirvonen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.).
As per claim 19, similar to claim 8, the combination of Hirvonen, Davies, Wulff and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 15, as shown above. Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the channel is a first channel and the control mode is a first control mode, the method comprising: determining a second control mode of other channel (see at least Hirvonen, [0034]; [0036]);
if the second control mode of the other channel is the Active Mode, then relinquishing control to maintain the Active Mode for the vehicle (see at least Hirvonen, [0034]; [0036]); and
if the second control mode of the other channel is the Reversionary Active Mode, then activating the Reversionary Active Mode (see at least Hirvonen, [0034]; [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue, to provide the benefit of determining a second control mode of other channel, , if the second control mode of the other channel is the active mode then relinquishing control to maintain the active mode, and if the second control mode of the other channel is the reversionary active mode then activating the reversionary active mode , as further disclosed in Hirvonen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.).
As per claim 20, similar to claim 9, the combination of Hirvonen Wulff, Davies and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 19, as shown above. Hirvonen, as modified by Wulff, Davies and Antraygue further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the signal message is a first signal message, the vehicle control command is a first vehicle control command, and the fault is a first vehicle fault (see at least, Hirvonen, [0034]; [0035] ; [0036] <interpreted as the first vehicle fault> ; [0037]; [0045]; [0046]),
comprises monitoring communication for determining the second control mode of the other channel (see at least Hirvonen, [0034]-[0037])
by: receiving a second signal message, the second signal message including a vehicle control command (see at least Hirvonen, [0033]; [0037]; [0038]; [0045]; [0046]); and
monitoring the signal message for detecting a second fault in the second signal message (see at least Hirvonen, [0036]; [0045]; [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue, to provide the benefit of having the signal message is a first signal message, having the vehicle control command is a first vehicle control command, having the fault is a first vehicle fault, and having another channel monitor communication for determining the second control mode of the other channel by receiving a second signal message, the second signal message including a second vehicle control command, and monitoring the signal message for detecting a second fault in the second signal message, as further disclosed in Hirvonen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.).
As per claim 21, similar to claim 10, the combination of Hirvonen , Davies, Wulff and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 19, as shown above. Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the first channel and the other channel are segregated (see at least Hirvonen, [0034]; [0035]; [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue, to provide the benefit of having the first channel and the other channel be segregated, as further disclosed in Hirvonen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.).
As per claim 23, similar to claim 12, the combination of Hirvonen , Davies, Wulff and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 15, as shown above. Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the control characteristic for the Reversionary Active Mode and/or the control characteristic for the Active Mode is/are stored in the EU (see at least Hirvonen, [0024]; [0032]; [0035] ; [0037]; [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue, to provide the benefit of having the control characteristic for the Reversionary Active Mode and/or the control characteristic for the Active Mode is/are stored in the EU, as further disclosed in Hirvonen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.).
As per claim 24, the combination of Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Hirvonen, as modified by Wulff, Davies and Antraygue further discloses the following limitations:
one or more actuators configured to control force being applied on axes of a controller of the vehicle (see at least Hirvonen, [0024] disclosing that In FIG. 1, redundant sensors 10 and 20 may be configured to receive control inputs from a pilot or copilot, as discussed above. The primary control system includes the sensor 10 and the primary controller 14 connected by a transmission media 12. The primary control system also includes a transmission media 16, which connects the primary controller 14 with the smart actuator 30); and
one or more sensors for detecting force being applied to the controller (see at least Hirvonen, [0031] disclosing that the primary partitions 130 and 131 of the smart cockpit controllers 110 and 111 may be simply configured to pass the primary sensor signals in an analog format to the primary processors 101 for processing and signal output by the primary flight controller 101; [0040] disclosing that the backup partition 430 may be configured to include active control stick electronics and backup control system electronics. As shown in FIG. 3, the backup partition 430 includes a demodulator and analog to digital converter 432, a processor 434, and force feedback electronics 436. The backup partition may also include a data bus receiver and transmitter device 438 for communicating with other backup control system components and with the FCC for other information, such as force gradients and soft stops, etc.),
wherein the EU is configured to control the actuator for continued operation of the vehicle with augmented feel for the operator based on the sensing data from the one or more sensors (see at least Hirvonen, [0031] disclosing that the primary partitions 130 and 131 of the smart cockpit controllers 110 and 111 may be simply configured to pass the primary sensor signals in an analog format to the primary processors 101 for processing and signal output by the primary flight controller 101. Alternatively, primary partition 130 could process the analog signals form the sensor 140. For example, the primary partition 130 may validate and vote on the redundant primary sensor signals from the sensors 140 and pass a validated pilot control position signal to the primary control system processors 101 in a digital format. The primary controller 101 may take the pilot control inputs and process the inputs in accordance with the aircraft level control laws. The signals 104 may include parameters for the basic stick force gradient, any possible soft stops or activation command of a pilot awareness function, such as a stick shaker, and may be used by the primary partition 130 to adjust the feel characteristics of the control stick for the pilot. The primary partition 131 may function in the same way to provide signals to the primary processors 101 and adjust the feel of the control stick 115 using the signals 10).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue, to provide the benefit of having one or more actuators configured to control force being applied on axes of a controller of the vehicle, having one or more sensors for detecting force being applied to the controller, and controlling the actuator for continued operation of the vehicle with augmented feel for the operator based on the sensing data from the one or more sensors, as further disclosed in Hirvonen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.).
As per claim 25, the combination of Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Hirvonen, as modified by Wulff, Davies and Antraygue further discloses the following:
[a] vehicle comprising at least one EU (see at least Hirvonen, Abstract, disclosing flight control system for controlling an aircraft <interpreted as a vehicle> in flight having a backup control system integrated into an active control stick; [0025] disclosing that a backup control system is shown in FIG. 1 including the sensor 20 and the backup controller 24, which are connected by a transmission media 22. The backup control system also includes a transmission media 26, which connects the backup controller with the smart actuator 30 <interpreted as at least one EU).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Davies, Wulff and Antraygue, to provide the benefit of having the vehicle comprising at least one EU, as further disclosed in Hirvonen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improved control reliability (see at least Antraygue, pg. 1, last para.).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies and Antraygue as applied to claim 1 and 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0232161 to Horner et al. (hereafter Horner).
As per claim 3, the combination of Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, Hirvonen, as modified by Wulff, Davies and Antraygue does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Horner:
wherein the fault in the signal message is detected in occurrences of:
receiving the signal message intermittently;
not receiving the signal message;
not receiving the signal message at an expected rate;
receiving the signal message that has been corrupted; and/or
receiving the signal message that does not have an expected integrity (see at least Horner, [0034] disclosing that Integrity checking or integrity means using data from one or more sensor(s) to verify whether command(s) and control signal(s) provided respectively to and from the first processing system (e.g., the travel control application 120) may result a danger to the vehicle 101 such as a crash, loss of control, and/or other undesirable event. If the integrity checking determines that such commands and/or control signals would cause danger to the vehicle, then the commands are disregarded and/or control signals are not issued; [0057]; [0058] disclosing that the method of any of Examples 8-10, further comprising: upon generating one or more vehicle control signals, verifying the integrity of the one or more vehicle control signals using data received from one or more other sensors coupled to the interface circuitry; and disregarding at least one vehicle control signal that is not verified so that the unverified vehicle control signal is not issued from the second processing circuitry).
Note that the examiner interprets the “and/or” as “or”.
Hirvonen, Davies, Wulff, Antraygue and Horner are analogous art to claim 3 because they are in the same field of a tactile cueing for a vehicle. Hirvonen relates to a control system, with a processing unit that receives a sensed primary control stick signal and communicate with a primary processor, and generates tactile signal for use by the actuated control stick to adjust the feel of a pilot's control stick (see at least Hirvonen, Abstract). Davies relates to an aircraft and a control stick operated by a user and a user feedback generator coupled to the control stick that to receive signals from a vehicle condition indicator remote from the inceptor apparatus (see Davies, Abstract). Wulff relates to a system for controlling an aircraft based on detecting and mitigating fatiguing conditions and aircraft damage condition (see at least Wulff, [0001]). Antraygue relates to a device for the electronic control of the operation of an aircraft piloting device with two connected steering members, comprising main monitoring electronic circuits based on signals delivered by sensors associated with one of the control members (see at least Antraygue, Abstract). Horner relates to a travel control system including fault tolerant processing circuitry (see Homer, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Wulff, Davies and further by Antraygue, to provide the benefit of receiving the signal message that does not have an expected integrity, as disclosed in Horner, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving reliability and safety (at least Horner, [0034]).
As per claim 17, similar to claim 3, the combination of Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies and Antraygue discloses all of the limitations of claim 15, as shown above. But, Hirvonen, as modified by Wulff, Davies and Antraygue does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Horner:
wherein the fault in the signal message is detected in occurrences of:
receiving the signal message intermittently;
not receiving the signal message;
not receiving the signal message at an expected rate;
receiving the signal message that has been corrupted; and/or
receiving the signal message that does not have an expected integrity (see at least Horner, [0034]; [0057]; [0058]).
Note that the examiner interprets the “and/or” as “or”.
Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies, Antraygue and Horner are analogous art to claim 17 because they are in the same field of a tactile cueing for a vehicle. Hirvonen relates to a control system, with a processing unit that receives a sensed primary control stick signal and communicate with a primary processor, and generates tactile signal for use by the actuated control stick to adjust the feel of a pilot's control stick (see at least Hirvonen, Abstract). Wulff relates to a system for controlling an aircraft based on detecting and mitigating fatiguing conditions and aircraft damage condition (see at least Wulff, [0001]). Davies relates to an aircraft and a control stick operated by a user and a user feedback generator coupled to the control stick that to receive signals from a vehicle condition indicator remote from the inceptor apparatus (see Davies, Abstract). Wulff relates to a system for controlling an aircraft based on detecting and mitigating fatiguing conditions and aircraft damage condition (see at least Wulff, [0001]). Antraygue relates to a device for the electronic control of the operation of an aircraft piloting device with two connected steering members, comprising main monitoring electronic circuits based on signals delivered by sensors associated with one of the control members (see at least Antraygue, Abstract).Horner relates to a travel control system including fault tolerant processing circuitry (see Horner, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Wulff, Davies and further by Antraygue, to provide the benefit of receiving the signal message that does not have an expected integrity, as disclosed in Horner, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving reliability and safety (at least Horner, [0034]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies and Antraygue as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2003/0054324 to Fountain.
As per claim 14, the combination of Hirvonen, Wulff, Davies, Antraygue and Wulff discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, Hirvonen, as modified by Wulff, Davies, and Antraygue, does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Fountain:
wherein the EU provides a warning on a control panel of the vehicle notifying a detection of a failure of a vehicle management system (see at least Fountain, Claim 35, disclosing the cockpit having a plurality of aircraft simulator controls and display panels, the aircraft simulator controls including at least an engine throttle and a yoke, the plurality of display panels including a warning light panel with a plurality of indicators each providing a visual signal indicative of an associated fault condition).
Hirvonen, Davies, Wulff, Antraygue and Fountain are analogous art to claim 14 because they are in the same field of a tactile cueing and response to faults for a vehicle. Hirvonen relates to a control system, with a processing unit that receives a sensed primary control stick signal and communicate with a primary processor, and generates tactile signal for use by the actuated control stick to adjust the feel of a pilot's control stick (see at least Hirvonen, Abstract). Davies relates to an aircraft and a control stick operated by a user and a user feedback generator coupled to the control stick that to receive signals from a vehicle condition indicator remote from the inceptor apparatus (see Davies, Abstract). Wulff relates to a system for controlling an aircraft based on detecting and mitigating fatiguing conditions and aircraft damage condition (see at least Wulff, [0001]). Antraygue relates to a device for the electronic control of the operation of an aircraft piloting device with two connected steering members, comprising main monitoring electronic circuits based on signals delivered by sensors associated with one of the control members (see at least Antraygue, Abstract). Fountain relates to a fault analysis guide to aid a pilot in the identification of a fault condition, the location of a corresponding fault procedure to be performed by the pilot (see at least Fountain, [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Hirvonen, as modified by Wulff, to provide the benefit of having the EU provide a warning on a control panel of the vehicle notifying a detection of a failure of a vehicle management system, as disclosed in Fountain, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of tailoring the warning to the severity of the problem.
Conclusion
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 PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4;30 pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/PATRICK M BRADY/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
