DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-10 of the claim set 1/17/2025 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maalioune (US 2011/0088369) in view of Breit (US 2009/0157234).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Maalioune discloses in Fig. 1, a method of actuation, comprising:
urging movement of a first electromechanical device 9a (electric actuator comprising a motor and ball screw as read at paras. 0033-0034; urging movement as read in para. 0033);
urging, by the first electromechanical device 9a, movement of a first portion of a flexible structure 1 which is a translating cowl 1 of an aircraft turbine engine thrust reverser system (read paras. 0030-0031);
urging movement of a second electromechanical device 9b;
urging, by the second electromechanical device 9b, movement of a second portion of the flexible structure 1;
identifying an alignment between the first portion and the second portion (read para. 0040); and
controlling operation of at least one of the first electromechanical device or the second electromechanical device based on the identified alignment (read, e.g., para. 0044).
Maalioune does not disclose the urging movement of the first and second electromechanical devices is provided by a power inverter.
Breit discloses in Figs. 3 and 4, drive systems for electromechanical devices 26 controlling movement of aircraft structure 18 (see also Fig. 2). Breit teaches in the figures that the drive systems comprise a power inverter 28 and that the electromechanical devices 26 receive their power from the power inverter 28.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Maalioune to include urging movement of the electromechanical devices by a power inverter as taught by Breit in order to provide a means for efficient operation of the motors/electromechanical devices (Breit paras. 0028-0029).
Regarding Claim 5, Maalioune in view of Breit discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. Maalioune further discloses in Fig. 1, wherein the first electromechanical device 9a is mechanically linked to the second electromechanical device 9b through the flexible structure 1 (each device 9a, 9b is necessarily linked to the flexible structure/cowl because they physically move the structure 1).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Maalioune in view of Breit discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. Maalioune further discloses in Fig. 1, wherein identifying an alignment between the first portion and the second portion comprises measuring one or more of a first position output, a first velocity, a first torque, or a first coil current of the first electromechanical device 9a, and one or more of a second position output, a second velocity, a second torque, or a second coil current of the second electromechanical device 9b; and wherein identifying an alignment between the first portion and the second portion comprises identifying one or more of a position difference, a velocity difference, a torque difference, or a coil current difference between the first electromechanical device 9a and the second electromechanical device 9b (measuring respective positions of the devices 9a, 9b as discussed in at least para. 0040 and using that to identify a position difference as discussed in paras. 0040-0044).
Regarding Claim 10, Maalioune in view of Breit discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. Maalioune further discloses in Fig. 1, wherein controlling operation of at least one of the first electromechanical device 9a and the second electromechanical device 9b comprises performing one or more of position control, velocity control, torque control, or power control of at least one of the first electromechanical device or the second electromechanical device (read paras. 0044-0045).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maalioune (US 2011/0088369) in view of Breit (US 2009/0157234) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Hyde (US 2011/0285256).
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, Maalioune in view of Breit discloses the claimed invention as discussed above. Maalioune does not disclose wherein controlling operation of at least one of the first electromechanical device or the second electromechanical device comprises modifying an in-line impedance of at least one of the first electromechanical device or the second electromechanical device or wherein at least one of the first electromechanical device or the second electromechanical device is an electrical induction motor.
Hyde discloses in Fig. 1, an electromechanical device 100 (motor 26 and ball and screw 24) similar to that of Maalioune. Hyde teaches the electromechanical device is an electrical induction motor and modifying an electrical impedance of the electromechanical device using rotor mounted circuitry to control the operation of the electromechanical device (read para. 0030). From the instant application para. 0036, the in-line impedances can be the impedance of one or more rotor windings which is what is taught by Hyde as discussed above. Therefore, the electrical impedance, which is the impedance of one or more rotor winding, is the claimed in-line impedance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Maalioune such that at least one of the first electromechanical device or the second electromechanical device is an electrical induction motor and to include modifying an in-line impedance of at least one of the first electromechanical device or the second electromechanical device as taught by Hyde in order to limit or regulate, for example, starting torque, starting-current drawn from the utility mains, and/or peak electromechanical stresses on some motor component (Hyde para. 0030).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose or form a reasonable combination teaching the following in combination with the limitations of claim 1 -
Regarding Claim 3, “wherein controlling operation of at least one of the first electromechanical device or the second electromechanical device comprises modifying a first effective impedance of a first stator winding or a first rotor winding of the first electromechanical device relative to a second effective impedance of a second stator winding or a second rotor winding of the second electromechanical device.”
Regarding Claim 9, “wherein identifying an alignment between the first portion and the second portion comprises measuring structural stress of the flexible structure.”
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)272-8140. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights