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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-13, 15-17 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits of these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-13, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the lever and motor are mechanically linked by a linkage such that rotation of the lever is transmitted to the motor, wherein the linkage constrains movement of the motor, and wherein the linkage comprises a gear that mechanically couples to a pinion of the motor” fails to comply with the written description requirement because the specification discloses embodiments with a linkage constrains movement of the motor (linkage 640 in Figure 6, 740 in Figure 7) and embodiments where a linkage comprising a gear mechanically links the lever and motor (gears 106, 206, 306, 406, 506, 606, 706, 806), there is no disclosure of a linkage that both comprises a gear and constrains movement of the motor.
Furthermore, the limitations “a lever…configured to rotate about a pivot point at a second end” and “wherein a center of gravity of the system is approximately at the pivot point” in Figure 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement because there is no disclosure of the lever configured to rotate about a pivot point at a second end, and if the pivot point were at a second end, then the center of gravity would be around the middle of the lever, not the second end.
Claim 10 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and fail to comply with the written description requirement for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claims 2-3, 5, 6, 8-9 are dependent on claim 1 and claims 11-13 and 15-17 are dependent on claim 10 and do not correct the written description issues of claims 1 and 10.
Claim 5 further fails to comply with the written description requirement because embodiments where the linkage comprises a gear couples the center of the gear to the lever at the pivot point, not one end of the gear, and embodiments with a linkage that constrains movement of the motor couples at a first end to what appears to be a pivot point of the pinion of the motor, not the pivot point of the lever.
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 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the limitation “the motor may pivot about an axis” renders the claim indefinite because “may” suggests that the following limitation is optional, therefore it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Number 2017/0050721 by Voiles.
Regarding claim 1¸ Voiles, as best understood, discloses an inceptor system for an aircraft, comprising:
A lever (rotary member 703) having a grip at a first end (grip assembly 716) and configured to rotate about a pivot point at a second end (axis 718);
A motor coupled to the lever (feedback assembly 706, paragraph 7 discloses “The feedback assembly can include a motor configured to drive the first interface device”) such that the motor acts as a counterbalance to the lever (paragraph 58 discloses “The rotary member 703 is substantially mass-balanced about the x-axis 719” and Figure 7 shows feedback assembly 706 attached at the bottom of the lever, which would counterbalance the top of the lever);
Wherein the lever and motor are mechanically linked by a linkage (track 708) such that rotation of the lever is transmitted to the motor, wherein the linkage constrains movement of the motor (paragraph 57 discloses “The interface device 704 is configured to travel along the track 708 in response to movement of the lower elongate portion 702b partly about the axis 718”), and wherein the linkage comprises a gear (Figure 7 shows track 708 comprising a teethed gear) that mechanically couples to a pinion of the motor (interface device 704); and
Wherein a center of gravity of the system is approximately at the pivot point (paragraph 58 discloses “The rotary member 703 is substantially mass-balanced about the x-axis 719”).
Regarding claims 2 (dependent on claim 1), 17 (dependent on claim 10), Voiles, as best understood, discloses the motor is stationary as the lever rotates about the pivot point. Figure 3 shows an embodiment where feedback assembly 306 is stationary and track 308 moves.
Regarding claims 3 (dependent on claim 1), 13 (dependent on claim 10), Voiles, as best understood, discloses the motor may pivot about an axis of the lever as the lever rotates about the pivot point. Figure 2 shows an embodiment where feedback assembly 206 moves with rotary member 203.
Regarding claims 6 (dependent on claim 1), 12 (dependent on claim 10), Voiles, as best understood, discloses a force sensor coupled to the linkage and configured to measure a reaction torque resulting form an input force to the lever. Paragraph 10 discloses “The method also includes sensing, by the first sensor, at least one of (1) a first movement of the second elongate portion along the track and (2) a first torque developed about the first axis”.
Regarding claims 8 (dependent on claim 1), 15 (dependent on claim 10), Voiles, as best understood, discloses the motor is non-backdriveable. Paragraph 21 discloses “by incorporating the mass of such mechanisms into the balance of the control stick, the control stick can provide increased neutrality to acceleration without using additional counterweights, thereby providing increased neutrality without substantially increasing weight”.
Regarding claim 10¸ Voiles, as best understood, discloses a control lever for an aircraft, comprising:
An upper portion (above axis 718) having a first mass (grip assembly 716) and comprising a control stick (rotary member 703) that is configured to rotate about a first axis (axis 718);
A lower portion (below axis 718) having a second mass (feedback assembly 706) and comprising a motor (paragraph 7 discloses “The feedback assembly can include a motor configured to drive the first interface device”) mechanically linked to the control lever via a linkage (track 708) such that rotation of the lever is transmitted to the motor, wherein the linkage constrains movement of the motor (paragraph 57 discloses “The interface device 704 is configured to travel along the track 708 in response to movement of the lower elongate portion 702b partly about the axis 718”), and wherein the linkage comprises a gear (Figure 7 shows track 708 comprising a teethed gear) that mechanically couples to a pinion of the motor (interface device 704); and
Wherein a torque at the first axis due to the first mass of the upper portion is approximately equal and opposite to the torque at the first axis due to the second mass of the lower portion (paragraph 58 discloses “The rotary member 703 is substantially mass-balanced about the x-axis 719” and paragraph 9 discloses “acceleration of the mass of the second elongate portion and the first feedback assembly substantially creates a torque about the first axis member that offsets a torque about the first axis member created by acceleration of the mass of the first elongate portion”).
Regarding claim 11 (dependent on claim 10), Voiles discloses the motor acts as a counterbalance to the control lever, such that a center of gravity of the system is at the first axis. paragraph 58 discloses “The rotary member 703 is substantially mass-balanced about the x-axis 719” and Figure 7 shows feedback assembly 706 attached at the bottom of the lever, which would counterbalance the top of the lever.
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 5, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Application Number 2017/0050721 by Voiles.
Regarding claim 5 (dependent on claim 1)¸ Voiles, as best understood, does not disclose a first end of the linkage couples to the lever at the pivot point. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to move the attachment point for the track to wherever is desired, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claims 9 (dependent on claim 1), 16 (dependent on claim 10)¸ Voiles, as best understood, does not explicitly disclose the lever comprises a sensor configured to detect an acceleration of the lever. However, Voiles does discloses a sensor configured to measure movement of the device (paragraph 11) or the rotation of the device (paragraph 28). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to measure acceleration of the lever as one component of the movement or rotation of the lever.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
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, Josh Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642