DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 8-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “a computer according to claim 1”. Since claim 1 already recited “a computer” claim 8 should instead recite “the computer according to claim 1.” For examination purposes, that is how claim 8 will be interpreted.
Claim 13 recites:
The aircraftClaim 8
Claim 13 is a dependent claim. It depends on claim 8 because it claims the “an avionics system according to claim 8.” Since claim 8 already recites “an avionics system” claim 13 should not recite that identical phrase again but should instead recite “the avionics system”. For examination purposes, that is how the claim will be interpreted.
Claim 14 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In this case, claim 8 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 begins by reciting “An avionics system comprising…” This suggests an independent claim. Yet it seems to the examiner that the applicant does not want claim 8 to be considered an independent claim. Partly, that is because the applicant stated on the fee worksheet dated November 10, 2025, that there is one independent claim in the application. More importantly, claim 8 goes on to recite the “computer according to claim 1”.
According to the MPEP 608.01(n), applicants are allowed to structure dependent system claims that claim an element according to another upstream claim as part of the system. Yet that section pf the MPEP lays out rules for doing so. The section states that: “Following the statute, the test as to whether a claim is a proper dependent claim is that it shall include every limitation of the claim from which it depends and specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. For example, if claim 1 recites the combination of elements A, B, C, and D, a claim reciting the structure of claim 1 in which D was omitted or replaced by E would not be a proper dependent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements.” That is the case in claim 8.
Claim 1 recites at least “a computer,” “an aircraft” and “at least one flight control actuator”. Yet claim 8 omits at least the aircraft. Therefore claim 8 does not “include every limitation of the claim from which it depends.” Claim 8 therefore does not pass the test of being a proper dependent claim as defined in the MPEP 608.01(n).
Claim 8 re-recites the “at least one flight control actuator,” as if it was the first time this element was claimed, even though claim 1 already recited “at least one flight control actuator.” This indicates that in claiming “a computer according to claim 1” the statement did not include elements such as the flight control actuator recited in claim 1.
Only later in claim 9, which depends on claim 8, do the claims dependent on claim 8 recite “the aircraft” and “the flight control actuator”.
For examination purposes, claim 8 will be examined as written.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mercer et al. (US2014/027564).
Regarding claim 1, Mercer discloses:
A computersee paragraph 0032 for a “main unit electronics 66,” which is a computer. See paragraph 0002 for a rotorcraft. See paragraph 0032 for flight control actuators 60a and 60b.),
the computer comprising a housing in which at least three processing pathwayssee paragraph 0032 for the electronics 66 being inside an “enclosure”. See Fig. 5 and paragraph 0036 for the “motor Control Processors (MCP), including MCP A, MCP B, and MCP C.):
a first modulein the present disclosure the modules can be interpreted as functions of the MCPs, in the disclosure and claims the modules are defined by what they do, such as acquire, check, and generate. With that in mind, see Mercer paragraph 0036 for each MCP accessing a dedicated sensor suite, including accelerometers.)
to acquire measurements produced by at least one sensorsee paragraph 0036 for each MCP accessing a dedicated sensor suite, including accelerometers),
to estimate navigation parameters on the basis of these measurements (see paragraph 0037 for “filtered outputs” “gyro data outputs”.), and
to check a first validity of the navigation parameters by comparing them with those estimated by the first modules of the other processing pathways (see paragraph 0037 for “sensor data determined to be erroneous is eliminated from having an influence on the median….filtered outputs are compared against one another for consistency, if one of the filtered results is significantly different (e.g., outside of a predetermined threshold) from the other two results, the sensor associated with the data can be declared to have failed.”);
a second modulesee Fig. 5 and paragraph 0036 for the “motor Control Processors (MCP), including MCP A, MCP B, and MCP C. These have the functions that define them as indicated in the hollow bullet below.)
to generate commands on the basis of an aircraft trajectory setpoint and navigation parameters estimated by the first module of said processing pathway and whose first validity has been verified (see paragraph 0045 for “The MCPs convert required autopilot commands from the ADP into actuator control signals”);
a third modulesee Fig. 5 and paragraph 0036 for the “motor Control Processors (MCP), including MCP A, MCP B, and MCP C. These have the functions that define them as indicated in the hollow bullet below)
check a second validity of the commands by comparing them with those generated by the second modules of the other processing pathways (see paragraph 0040 for Each MCP compares its PWM command signal and rotation direction for the pitch and roll actuators with commands generated by the other two MCPs for agreement”);
the computer being arranged to transmit the commands, the second validity of which has been verified, to control the flight control actuator(s)see paragraph 0036, especially that the MCPs provide commands to the motors that control the actuators, and paragraph 0050);
the computer being arranged such that, at a time T, the processing pathwayssee Fig. 4 and paragraph 0042 for the “MCP B controls motor B” but if MCP B is “voted out from control” than it will not be the master and another MCP will take over.),
the computer
if the second validity of the commands generated by the second modulesee Figs. 4 and 6 and paragraph 0051 for cases in which the system “does not disable driver 600 to maintain Motor B of actuator 60B in a normal operational status”.);
otherwise, deactivate the current master pathway (see paragraph 0042 for the MCP B in some cases being “voted out from control”. See paragraph 0051 and Figs. 4 and 6 for “motor B of roll actuator 60b is deactivated.”) and
designate a new master pathway (see paragraph 0042 for another MCP taking over if MCP B is voted out from control. See paragraph 0050 and Fig. 4 for “motor driver 604 drives Motor A of roll actuator 60b.).
Regarding claim 2, Mercer discloses the computer according to claim 1.
Mercer further discloses:
The computer according to Claim 1, wherein,
for each processing pathway
at least one external sensorin the present disclosure, page 11 states that there is “at least one external sensor 8…with at least one internal sensor…in a GNSS 14 and IMU 15”. Page 8 teaches that the external sensor 8 can be a barometer or a magnetometer. With that in mind, see Mercer Fig. 5 for an external magnetometer.), and/or
at least one internal sensor integrated into said processing pathway (see Fig. 10 for each MCP having its own sensor suite, which are internal sensors.).
Regarding claim 3, Mercer discloses the computer according to claim 2.
Mercer further discloses:
The computer according to Claim 2, wherein,
for each processing pathway
one pressure sensor and one magnetometer (see Mercer Fig. 5 for an external magnetometer.), and
wherein the navigation parameters comprise an air speed, an altitude and a magnetic heading (see Figs. 5 and 10 and paragraph 0060 for the sensor suite 1010, 1012, and 1014 having data sources for airspeed and pressure-based altitude. See claim 56. For a magnetometer providing a magnetic heading signal).
Regarding claim 4, Mercer discloses the computer according to claim 2.
Mercer further discloses:
The computer according to Claim 2
for each processing pathwaysee Fig. 10 for item 142 having a triaxial accelerometer, which is an IMU. See paragraph 0038 for the MCP “integrate” yaw heading and “a GPS that produces GPS course...data.”), and
wherein the navigation parameters comprise a position and an attitude (see paragraph 0045 for “position, altitude” etc.).
Regarding claim 5, Mercer discloses the computer according to claim 1.
Mercer further discloses:
The computer according to Claim 1,wherein,
for each processing pathwayprocessing pathway is not verified, it is no longer possible to use a sensor that is associated with said processing pathway and that has been used to estimate said navigation parameter (see paragraph 0042 for another MCP taking over if MCP B is voted out from control. See paragraph 0037 for a gyro producing an outlying value can be declared to have failed.).
Regarding claim 6, Mercer discloses the computer according to claim 2.
Mercer further discloses:
The computer according to Claim 2
for each processing pathwaysee paragraph 0040 for “disable control input capability of any MCP that is in disagreement with the other two MCPs”.).
Regarding claim 8, Mercer discloses the computer of claim 1.
Mercer further discloses:
An avionics systemsee Fig. 1, 5, and 10): [[-]]
at least three items of measurement equipmentsee Fig. 10 for sensor suites A-C and sensors 1010, 1012, and 1014. These items also receive GPS data.)
at least one external sensorsee Mercer Fig. 5 for an external magnetometer); [[-]]
a computerClaim 1see paragraph 0032 for the electronics 66 and the rejection of claim 1), each processing pathwaysee Fig. 10 for three MCPs, which are processing pathways. These are connected to the sensor suites mentioned above. ); [[-]]
at least one flight control actuatorsee Fig. 10 and paragraph 0032 for flight control actuators 60a and 60b); [[-]]
distinct interface equipmensee paragraph 0036 for communication being performed through a serial bus. In Fig. 10, lines drawn between boxes are serial bus connections),
each interface equipmensee Fig. 10 and paragraph 0036 for a serial bus connecting the computer and the actuators.)
being arranged to
acquire a command emitted by the computersee Fig. 10 and paragraph 0036 for a serial bus connecting the computer and the actuators. See paragraph 0045 for “The MCPs convert required autopilot commands from the ADP into actuator control signals”), and to
relay, to the computer, uplink signals representative of an operation of said flight control actuator (see Fig. 10 and paragraph 0036 for a serial bus connecting the computer and the actuators. See the fact that Fig. 10 has arrows going in both directions between the actuators 60 and the computer 66. See paragraph 0041 for monitoring the actuator output position.).
Regarding claim 9, Mercer discloses the computer according to claim 8.
Mercer further discloses:
The avionics system according to Claim 8, said interface equipment
be connected to a power supply sourcesee paragraph 0055 and Fig. 8), and
to provide a power supply voltagesee paragraph 0055 and Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 10, Mercer discloses the computer according to claim 8.
Mercer further discloses:
The avionics system according to Claim 8
the uplink signals comprise monitoring signals representative of a state of the flight control actuator (see paragraph 0041 for monitoring the actuator output position.).
Regarding claim 11, Mercer discloses the computer according to claim 8.
Mercer further discloses:
The avionics system according to Claim 8
the uplink signals comprise return signals which are used by the second modulessee paragraph 0041 for monitoring the actuator output position.).
Regarding claim 12, Mercer discloses the computer according to claim 11.
Mercer further discloses:
The avionics system according to Claim 11, wherein
the return signalssee paragraph 0041 for monitoring the actuator output position. See paragraph 0042 for the MCPs controlling the pitch and roll actuators. These two paragraphs leave little doubt that the system operates on as a closed-loop control system in which sensor data is fed back into the controller to determine an error because the actual and commanded actuator positions.).
Regarding claim 13, Mercer discloses the computer according to claim 8.
Mercer further discloses:
The aircraft
an avionics systemClaim 8see paragraph 0002 for a rotorcraft comprising the contents of the disclosure, including Fig. 10.).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer in view of Ahmad et al. (U.S. 8,690,101).
Regarding claim 7, Mercer discloses the computer according to Claim 1
Mercer further teaches:
The computer according to Claim 1
for each processing pathwaycomprises
a majority vote (see paragraph 0040 for “voting section 200”. See paragraph 0051 and Fig. 6.).
Yet Mercer does not explicitly further teach:
The computer according to Claim 1
for each processing pathway
a bit-by-bit comparison.
However, Ahmad teaches:
for each processing pathway
a bit-by-bit comparison (see col 12, lines 22-25 for “The voted normal mode command or augmented normal mode command is monitored in the second monitor 104 to determine if the command is valid or corrupted. This output is a high integrity output with bit by bit compare.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Mercer, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Ahmad. The motivation for doing so would be to maintain a high integrity output, as recognized by Ahmad (see col 12, lines 22-25).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer in view of Naiman et al. (US2024/0231359).
Regarding claim 14, Mercer discloses the computer according to claim 13.
Yet Mercer does not further teach:
The aircraft according to Claim 13, the aircraft being a drone.
However, Naiman teaches:
The aircraft according to Claim 13, the aircraft being a drone (see the abstract for an “autonomous aircraft”. See paragraph 0018 for the variety of aircraft including a rotorcraft and helicopter. An autonomous rotorcraft is one type of drone.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Mercer, to add the additional features indicated as taught by Naiman. The motivation for doing so would be to have an autonomously controlled aircraft, as recognized by Naiman (see Abstract).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
This combination is especially obvious because Mercer teaches autopilot control and Mercer and Naiman share the same assignee.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Jaggi et al. (US 10,599,534). See col. 4 lines 43-45 for performing a “bit-for-bit comparison”. See col. 4, lines 50-54 for this being done to “ensure that the…integrity require of not transmitting erroneous data…is met.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights