DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bean (US 11755056 B2) in view of Thornberg (US 11275373 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Bean discloses:
1. A control system for an aircraft, the control system comprising:
an inceptor (110) operable by a pilot;
an actuator (150) configured to generate a force (“The force feedback circuitry 160 may cause mechanism 150 to apply a force to the user input device 110”; Col 2 Line 3) on the inceptor;
a first sensor (130) configured to measure an acceleration (“the acceleration information is obtained 330”; Col 3 Line 12) of the control system; and
a control unit configured to:
determine an acceleration force on the inceptor based on the measured acceleration (“inertial force information may be obtained, 340, based on the acceleration information”; Col 3 Line 14) of the control system; and
modify the force generated by the actuator based on the acceleration force (“damping force information and inertial force information are combined 350 by summing to produce total compensation force information 360”; Col 3 Line 16).
Bean is silent on newly added claim language of “a first sensor configured to measure an acceleration of the control system that is caused by forces other than from a pilot or autopilot of the aircraft”. Bean does disclose “compensation force information 520” which is added to the sensed forces. While these forces are talked about very broadly, one of ordinary skill in the art could presume that forces on the aircraft or control surfaces are being included to compensate for how the vehicle is traveling. Thornberg teaches a similar control system (30) with an inceptor (“a joystick, a printer, etc. The I/O device(s) 38”, Col. 4 Line 1). Thornberg then further teaches incorporating “body angular acceleration, body linear acceleration, mass” into the calculations for controlling the aircraft and providing feedback “the tactile cuing system 64 may provide feedback to the pilot in the form of vibration, or added resistance, such as generated by a servo or active controller 66 coupled to the pilot control”. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include acceleration sensors and data on the aircraft as part of the compensation forces of Bean in view of the teaching of Thornberg. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide real time feedback on what is occurring to the aircraft.
2. The control system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first sensor is an accelerometer (“acceleration sensors”; Col 2 Line 46).
3. The control system as claimed in claims 1, comprising a second sensor configured to measure a total force (130 is called a force sensor) on the inceptor.
4. The control system as claimed in claim 3, wherein the control unit is configured to modify the force generated by the actuator based (at 350 in Fig. 4) on the total force.
5. The control system as claimed in claim 3, wherein the control unit is configured to modify the force generated by the actuator based on a difference between the total force and the acceleration force (at 530 in Fig. 5).
6. The control system as claimed in claim 3, further comprising a third sensor configured to measure a position (“position sensor located close or on the grip portion”; Col 3 Line 29) of the inceptor.
7. The control system as claimed in claim 6, wherein the control unit is configured to determine the acceleration force based on the measured inceptor position (“In some examples obtaining, 310, velocity information of the user input device and/or grip portion may comprise obtaining acceleration information”; Col 3 Line 32).
8. The control system as claimed in claim 6, wherein the control unit is configured to modify the force generated by the actuator based on the measured inceptor position (“obtaining, 320, the damping force information may comprise multiplying the velocity information with a damping constant”; Col 3 Line 43).
9. The control system as claimed in claim 6, wherein the control unit is configured to (via 160) modify the force generated by the actuator by modifying a current through the actuator.
10. The control system as claimed in claim 9, wherein the control unit is configured to modify the current (via 160) based on the acceleration force.
11. The control system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the modified force counteracts the acceleration force on the inceptor (“cause mechanism 150 to apply a force to the user input device 110”; Col 2 Line 3).
12. The control system as claimed in claim 6, wherein the first sensor is located within the inceptor (“located on the grip portion 140”, Col 1 Line 63).
13. The control system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first sensor is located externally to the inceptor (“positioned in any location that still enables the user input force to be determined”; Col 1 Line 61).
14. An aircraft (“control of flight surfaces of aircraft”; Col 1 Line 36) comprising: a control system of claim 1.
15. A method of operating a control system for an aircraft, the control system comprising an inceptor operable by a pilot; an actuator configured to generate a force on the inceptor, and a first sensor configured to measure an acceleration of the control system, the method comprising:
determining (the acceleration information is obtained 330. The inertial force information may be obtained, 340, based on the acceleration information”; Col 3 Line 12) an acceleration force on the inceptor based on the measured ; and
modifying (“The damping force information and inertial force information are combined 350 by summing to produce total compensation force information 360”; Col 3 Line 15) the force generated by the actuator based on the acceleration force.
The above combination of Bean and Thornberg and accompanying motivation regarding claim 1 are applied to claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the skilled artisan would not modify the prior art to arrive at the amended claims without a teaching. A further search found a teaching in Thornberg to arrive at the current claim limitations as written above. Bean alludes to the idea that there are additional forces being compensated for in system 500. Thornberg goes into more detail about what those forces could include and teaches to the new limitations.
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 BRIAN M O'HARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5224. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM eastern.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/BRIAN M O'HARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights