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 § 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Schmidt (US Patent No. 11,878,790).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt teaches A nose landing gear assembly steering feedback system, the nose landing gear assembly steering feedback system comprising:
a static indicator; (126 figure 4 and 5 first magnetometer main fitting fixed)
a rotating sensor; (128 figure 4 and 5 2nd magnetometer rotates relative to first in turning tube)
a nose wheel steering control unit, the static indicator and the rotating sensor communicatively coupled to the nose wheel steering control unit, wherein the nose wheel steering control unit is configured to: (128 figure 4 controller)
responsive to receiving a first input signal from the static indicator and a second input signal from the rotating sensor, determine at least one of a relative angular position, a steering direction, or a towing angle; and
provide an indication of at least one of the relative angular position, the steering direction, or the towing angle to at least one of a pilot, air traffic control, or a ground crew. (120 figure 4 and 5 column 6 line 35-40 calculates steering angle theta of nose wheel assembly).
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt teaches wherein the static indicator is at least one of aircraft orientation data received from a flight control system or a static sensor. (124 senses orientation of first magnetometer and associated structure column 6 line 25-40)
Regarding claim 3, Schmidt teaches wherein the static sensor is mechanically coupled to a nose shock strut assembly of a nose landing gear assembly, wherein the static sensor is at least one of a tilt sensor, a yaw-measuring electronic compass (E-Compass) feedback sensor, or a yaw measuring high-accuracy micro electro-mechanical system (MEMS) (column 7 line 25-35 MEMS) -based inertial navigation systems (INS) sensors operating via a global navigation satellite system (GNSS), and wherein the static sensor is aligned with an axis of rotation of at least one of a strut cylinder or main fitting of the nose landing gear assembly.
Regarding claim 4, Schmidt teaches wherein the rotating sensor is mechanically coupled to a nose wheel assembly of a nose landing gear assembly and wherein the rotating sensor is at least one of a tilt sensor, a yaw-measuring electronic compass (E-Compass) feedback sensor, or a yaw measuring high-accuracy micro electro-mechanical system (MEMS)-based inertial navigation systems (INS) sensors operating via a global navigation satellite system (GNSS). (column 7 line 25-35)
Regarding claim 5, Schmidt teaches wherein the rotating sensor (126 figure 4 and 5) is aligned with an axis of rotation of a strut piston of the nose landing gear assembly and an axis of rotation of a wheel of the nose landing gear assembly. (column 6 line 25-45 figure 3).
Regarding claims 11-16, see the rejection of claims 1-5 as the limitations are substantially similar.
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 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.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US Patent No. 11,878,790) in view of Benmoussa (US Patent No. 9,139,95)
Regarding claim 6, Schmidt teaches wherein the nose wheel steering control unit is further configured to: provide the indication of at least one of the relative angular position, the steering direction, or the towing angle to a flight control system of an aircraft; (column 6 line 25-55 determine steering angle of aircraft)
Schmidt does not explicitly teach however Benmoussa teaches responsive to the at least one of the relative angular position, the steering direction, or the towing angle being different than a commanded relative angular position, a commanded steering direction, or a commanded towing angle, cause a corrective action to correct at least one of the relative angular position, the steering direction, or the towing angle to match at least one of the commanded relative angular position, the commanded steering direction, or the commanded towing angle. (column 3 line 10-25 PID feedback to make command angle and current angle be equal)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Schmidt based on the teachings of Benmoussa to teach responsive to the at least one of the relative angular position, the steering direction, or the towing angle being different than a commanded relative angular position, a commanded steering direction, or a commanded towing angle, cause a corrective action to correct at least one of the relative angular position, the steering direction, or the towing angle to match at least one of the commanded relative angular position, the commanded steering direction, or the commanded towing angle. The motivation would be to improve steering of aircraft (column 1 line 45-50 Benmoussa)
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 6 as the limitations are substantially similar.
Claim(s) 7-10, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (US Patent No. 11,878,790) in view of Read et al (US PG Pub No. 2009/0040072).
Regarding claim 7, Schmidt does not explicitly teach however Read teaches wherein the indication of at least one of the relative angular position, the steering direction, or the towing angle to at least one of the pilot, the air traffic control, or the ground crew is displayed on a display of at least one of the pilot, the air traffic control, or the ground crew (paragraph 47 steering angle warning system is located in cockpit )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Schmidt based on the teachings of Read to teach wherein the indication of at least one of the relative angular position, the steering direction, or the towing angle to at least one of the pilot, the air traffic control, or the ground crew is displayed on a display of at least one of the pilot, the air traffic control, or the ground crew. The motivation would be to provide simple reliable means to prevent excessive steering angle (Read paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 8, Schmidt does not explicitly teach however Read teaches wherein the indication of at least one of the relative angular position, the steering direction, or the towing angle to at least one of the pilot, the air traffic control, or the ground crew is an alert, wherein the alert is at least one of an audio alert or a visual alert. (paragraph 56 warning system is a red strobe light paragraph 58 strobe light on landing gear)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Schmidt based on the teachings of Read to teach wherein the indication of at least one of the relative angular position, the steering direction, or the towing angle to at least one of the pilot, the air traffic control, or the ground crew is an alert, wherein the alert is at least one of an audio alert or a visual alert. The motivation would be to provide simple reliable means to prevent excessive steering angle (Read paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 9, Schmidt does not explicitly teach however Read teaches wherein the nose wheel steering control unit is further configured with predefined orientation angle limits for a nose landing gear assembly and wherein the nose wheel steering control unit is further configured to:
responsive to at least one of the relative angular position, the steering direction, or the towing angle meeting one predefined orientation angle limit of the predefined orientation angle limits, provide at least one of a corrective feedback, an alert, or a corrective command to at least one of the pilot, the air traffic control, or the ground crew indicating that the one predefined orientation angle limit has been met. (paragraph 59 when steering angle exceeds 60 degrees alarm paragraph 56, 58, 64 alarm and buzzer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Schmidt based on the teachings of Read to teach wherein the nose wheel steering control unit is further configured with predefined orientation angle limits for a nose landing gear assembly and wherein the nose wheel steering control unit is further configured to: responsive to at least one of the relative angular position, the steering direction, or the towing angle meeting one predefined orientation angle limit of the predefined orientation angle limits, provide at least one of a corrective feedback, an alert, or a corrective command to at least one of the pilot, the air traffic control, or the ground crew indicating that the one predefined orientation angle limit has been met. The motivation would be to provide simple reliable means to prevent excessive steering angle (Read paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt does not explicitly teach however Read teaches wherein the nose wheel steering control unit is further configured with approaching predefined orientation angle limits for the nose landing gear assembly and wherein the nose wheel steering control unit is further configured to:
responsive to at least one of the relative angular position, the steering direction, or the towing angle being between one predefined orientation angle limit of the predefined orientation angle limits and one approaching predefined orientation angle limit of the approaching predefined orientation angle limits, provide at least one of the corrective feedback, the alert, or the corrective command to at least one of the pilot, the air traffic control, or the ground crew. (paragraph 63 limit is 60 degrees alarm being generated at 55 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Schmidt based on the teachings of Read to teach wherein the nose wheel steering control unit is further configured with approaching predefined orientation angle limits for the nose landing gear assembly and wherein the nose wheel steering control unit is further configured to: responsive to at least one of the relative angular position, the steering direction, or the towing angle being between one predefined orientation angle limit of the predefined orientation angle limits and one approaching predefined orientation angle limit of the approaching predefined orientation angle limits, provide at least one of the corrective feedback, the alert, or the corrective command to at least one of the pilot, the air traffic control, or the ground crew. The motivation would be to provide simple reliable means to prevent excessive steering angle (Read paragraph 5).
Regarding claims 17-20, see the rejection of claims 7-10 above as the limitations are substantially similar.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights