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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 28 August 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 22-31 and 33-42 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 22-31 and 33-42 depend on rejected claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 22-31 are being interpreted by the examiner as “the aircraft control system of claim 21”.
Claims 33-42 are being interpreted by the examiner as “the computer-readable medium of claim 32”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“Longitudinal control module” in claim 21 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: memory and one or more processing units to perform the various functions attributed to the systems/modules, flight control system 200 includes a guidance module 215, a longitudinal control module 300m an engine torque control module 302, an actuator control system 218, torque limit determination module 700, and the flight control system 200 (Para. 52, 82, 118).
“Engine torque control module” in claims 21 and 28-29 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: memory and one or more processing units to perform the various functions attributed to the systems/modules, flight control system 200 includes a guidance module 215, a longitudinal control module 300m an engine torque control module 302, an actuator control system 218, torque limit determination module 700, and the flight control system 200 (Para. 52, 82, 118).
“Guidance module” in claim 22 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: memory and one or more processing units to perform the various functions attributed to the systems/modules, flight control system 200 includes a guidance module 215, a longitudinal control module 300m an engine torque control module 302, an actuator control system 218, torque limit determination module 700, and the flight control system 200 (Para. 52, 82, 118).
“Torque limit determination module” in claims 27 and 30-31 where a review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: memory and one or more processing units to perform the various functions attributed to the systems/modules, flight control system 200 includes a guidance module 215, a longitudinal control module 300m an engine torque control module 302, an actuator control system 218, torque limit determination module 700, and the flight control system 200 (Para. 52, 82, 118).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-22, 26, 28-31, 32-33, 37, and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
[Broadest Reasonable Interpretation] The applicant claims an aircraft system that calculates a power lever position for the desired torque, airspeed, and altitude of the aircraft given current values. The claim is automating a process that has been done by pilots at least partly through mental determination.
[Step 1] Representative claim 21 teaches a system for computing the desired power level command based on current data and desired future values of the aircraft. This falls under “machine”, which is a statutory invention category.
[Step 2A: Prong 1] This is a mental process. But for the aircraft, flight control system, and sensors required to carry out the steps which are not explicitly recited in the claims, claim 21 is merely drawn to a series of steps:
a longitudinal control module configured to compute a desired torque value and a desired elevator value for an aircraft based on at least one of: a desired airspeed value, a desired altitude value, an actual airspeed value, and an actual altitude value
an engine torque control module configured to: access an air temperature outside the aircraft
compute a torque limit based on the air temperature outside the aircraft
compute a desired power lever value based on the desired torque value, the torque limit, and a measured engine torque value indicative of a measured engine torque in the aircraft
an actuator control system configured to compute a power lever command and an elevator command for the aircraft based on the desired power lever value and the desired elevator value
The steps are, essentially, an aircraft system for determining a power lever command based on current aircraft data and desired torque, elevator, airspeed, and altitude values for the aircraft. This is an abstract idea or ideas characterized under mental process.
[Step 2A: Prong 2] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the above-cited abstract idea, claim 21 doesn’t explicitly claim a specific type of aircraft and flight control system that would be necessary to carry out the steps. There are no special hardware features of the process recited in the claims as presented. The hardware of an aircraft and flight control system are recited in the specification at a high-level of generality, (see [Specification Para. 18]) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions of the judicial exception linked to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These limitations essentially linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP2106.05(h), MPEP2106.04(d)). This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
[Step 2B] This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into an aircraft and a flight control system to no more than mere instructions of the judicial exception linked to a particular technological environment. There is no inventive concept in the aircraft and the slight control system. Mere linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment cannot provide an integrated inventive concept. This claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 22, 26, 28-31 have been rejected on the same grounds and recite substantially similar abstract ideas to the cited independent claim 21.
22. The aircraft control system of claim 1, further comprising a guidance module configured to compute the desired airspeed value and the desired altitude value for the aircraft based on flight pattern data, wherein the flight pattern data includes a sequence of waypoints that each indicate a target location for the aircraft over time.
26. The aircraft control system of claim 1, further comprising an engine torque sensor configured to compute the measured engine torque value. (These additional elements merely link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.)
28. The aircraft control system of claim 1, wherein the engine torque control module is configured to store aircraft conditions when the measured engine torque value reaches a maximum torque value, and wherein the aircraft conditions include at least one of a power lever, the air temperature outside the aircraft, airspeed, and altitude.
29. The aircraft control system of claim 8, wherein the engine torque control module is configured to compute the desired power lever value based on the stored aircraft conditions in the event the engine torque value is unavailable.
30. The aircraft control system of claim 1, further comprising a torque limit determination module configured to: compute a current phase of flight for the aircraft; and compute a maximum torque value based on the current phase of flight.
31. The aircraft control system of claim 1, further comprising a torque limit determination module configured to compute a maximum torque value based on a change in aircraft flap position.
The 101 analysis for claim 21 would apply similarly to the dependent claims above. Therefore, dependent claims 22, 26, and 28-31 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
[Step 1] Representative claim 32 teaches the computer-executable instructions for computing the desired power level command based on current data and desired future values of the aircraft. This falls under “method”, which is a statutory invention category.
[Step 2A: Prong 1] This is a mental process. But for the aircraft, flight control system, and sensors required to carry out the steps which are not explicitly recited in the claims, claim 32 is merely drawn to a series of steps:
compute a desired torque value and a desired elevator value for an aircraft based on a desired airspeed value, a desired altitude value, an actual airspeed value, and an actual altitude value
access an air temperature outside the aircraft
compute a torque limit based on the air temperature outside the aircraft
compute a desired power lever value based on the desired torque value, the torque limit, and a measured engine torque value that indicates a measured engine torque in the aircraft
compute a power lever command and an elevator command for the aircraft based on the desired power lever value and the desired elevator value
The steps are, essentially, a process of determining a power lever command based on current aircraft data and desired torque, elevator, airspeed, and altitude values for the aircraft. This is an abstract idea or ideas characterized under mental process.
[Step 2A: Prong 2] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the above-cited abstract idea, claim 32 doesn’t explicitly claim a specific type of aircraft and flight control system that would be necessary to carry out the steps. There are no special hardware features of the process recited in the claims as presented. The hardware of an aircraft and flight control system are recited in the specification at a high-level of generality, (see [Specification Para. 18]) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions of the judicial exception linked to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These limitations essentially linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP2106.05(h), MPEP2106.04(d)). This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
[Step 2B] This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into an aircraft and a flight control system to no more than mere instructions of the judicial exception linked to a particular technological environment. There is no inventive concept in the aircraft and the slight control system. Mere linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment cannot provide an integrated inventive concept. This claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 33, 37, and 39-42 have been rejected on the same grounds and recite substantially similar abstract ideas to the cited independent claim 32.
33. The computer-readable medium of claim 12, further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to compute the desired airspeed value and the desired altitude value for the aircraft based on flight pattern data, wherein the flight pattern data includes a sequence of waypoints that each indicate a target location for the aircraft over time.
37. The computer-readable medium of claim 12, further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to receive the measured engine torque value from an engine torque sensor. (These additional elements merely link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.)
39. The computer-readable medium of claim 12, further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to store aircraft conditions when the measured engine torque value reaches a maximum torque value, and wherein the aircraft conditions include at least one of a power lever position, the air temperature outside the aircraft, airspeed, and altitude.
40. The computer-readable medium of claim 19, further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to compute the desired power lever value based on stored aircraft conditions in the event the engine torque value is unavailable.
41. The computer-readable medium of claim 12, further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to: compute a current phase of flight for the aircraft; and compute a maximum torque value based on the current phase of flight.
42. The computer-readable medium of claim 12, further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to determine a maximum torque value based on a change in aircraft flap position.
The 101 analysis for claim 32 would apply similarly to the dependent claims above. Therefore, dependent claims 33, 37, and 39-42 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
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 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.
Claims 21, 23-26, 28, 30-32, 34-37, 39, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedrick (US Publication 2019/0047715 A1) in view of Antraygue (US Publication 2015/0198930 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Hedrick teaches an aircraft control system comprising: a longitudinal control module configured to compute a desired torque value and a desired elevator value for an aircraft based on at least one of: a desired airspeed value, a desired altitude value, an actual airspeed value, and an actual altitude value (Hedrick: Para. 38; the aircraft autopilot's SPEED-ON-ELEVATOR; autothrottle protects the engine from over temperature and/or over torque); an engine torque control module configured to: access an air temperature outside the aircraft (Hedrick: Para. 20; outside temperature can be monitored); compute a torque limit based on the air temperature outside the aircraft (Hedrick: Para. 20; outside temperature can be monitored to determine if a wind shear condition exists).
Hedrick doesn’t explicitly teach compute a desired power lever value based on the desired torque value, the torque limit, and a measured engine torque value indicative of a measured engine torque in the aircraft.
However, Hedrick is deemed to disclose an equivalent teaching. Hedrick teaches a stepper motor used to selectively rotate coupled shaft in a desired direction which increases or decreases engine thrust. The engine varies the power output or thrust of the aircraft engine associated with the throttle lever by the displacement of the throttle lever (Hedrick: Para. 58). Hedrick teaches one or more sensors to monitor the engine performance including the torque. The system compares the measured engine performance to the preferred engine performance in order to determine engine controls (Hedrick: Para. 21, 35). In order for Hedrick’s system to produce the desired thrust, the system must figure out the position of the power lever that produces the desired thrust.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have generate a desired power lever position with a reasonable expectation of success because changing linear displacement of the throttle lever causing the engine to vary the power out or thrust of the aircraft engine associated with the throttle lever (Hedrick: Para. 58).
Hedrick doesn’t explicitly teach an actuator control system configured to compute a power lever command and an elevator command for the aircraft based on the desired power lever value and the desired elevator value.
However Antraygue, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an actuator control system configured to compute a power lever command and an elevator command for the aircraft based on the desired power lever value and the desired elevator value (Antraygue: Para. 24, 31; determines a thrust of the means of propulsion that is necessary for the flight phase currently being executed, and deduces therefrom a desired position of the lever of the throttle lever).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the control of an aircraft throttle in an automated operating mode (Hedrick: Para. 58) with the control of an operating lever by a drive motor (Antraygue: Para. 24) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining the desired position of the lever of the throttle lever and moving the lever by a drive motor (Antraygue: Para. 24, 31).
Regarding claim 23, Hedrick teaches the aircraft control system of claim 1, wherein the power lever command is configured to control an aircraft engine included on the aircraft (Hedrick: Para. 35; autothrottle computer uses this data to control the thrust; power lever controls the engine thrust to control speed).
Regarding claim 24, Hedrick teaches the aircraft control system of claim 1, wherein the power lever command is configured to control a power lever actuator that actuates a power lever in the aircraft (Hedrick: Para. 34; disclosed autothrottle is configured to move an aircraft's power throttles using independent linear actuators).
Regarding claim 25, Hedrick teaches the aircraft control system of claim 1, wherein the elevator command is configured to control an elevator actuator that actuates an elevator on the aircraft (Hedrick: Para. 38; the aircraft autopilot's SPEED-ON-ELEVATOR; autothrottle protects the engine from over temperature and/or over torque).
Regarding claim 26, Hedrick teaches the aircraft control system of claim 1, further comprising an engine torque sensor configured to compute the measured engine torque value (Hedrick: Para. 21, 35; sensors monitor engine performance; the turboprop's torque or EPR/N1 in a turbofan engine).
Regarding claim 28, Hedrick teaches the aircraft control system of claim 1, wherein the engine torque control module is configured to store aircraft conditions when the measured engine torque value reaches a maximum torque value (Hedrick: Para. 42, 57; throttle position is accurately mapped and recorded; haptic vibration is direction sensitive, such that it will increase the force necessary to further advance the throttle in over speed, over-torque or over-temperature), and wherein the aircraft conditions include at least one of a power lever, the air temperature outside the aircraft, airspeed, and altitude (Hedrick: Para. 20; outside temperature can be monitored to determine if a wind shear condition exists).
Regarding claim 30, Hedrick teaches the aircraft control system of claim 1, further comprising a torque limit determination module configured to: compute a current phase of flight for the aircraft (Hedrick: Para. 115; there are seven segments between A and B; as plane reaches each of these segments, and each location within each segment, plane's autothrottle, using the ADSB data from plane, mimics plane); and compute a maximum torque value based on the current phase of flight (Hedrick: Para. 70; controller monitors (at least) the current airspeed (and, preferably, the acceleration) of the multi-engine aircraft and continuously calculates, for single engine operation, the maximum safe or allowable thrust that should or can be placed on the remaining engine under current flight and operating conditions).
Regarding claim 31, Hedrick doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising a torque limit determination module configured to compute a maximum torque value based on a change in aircraft flap position.
However, Hedrick is deemed to disclose an equivalent teaching. Hedrick teaches one or more sensors to monitor the engine performance including the flap configuration. The system compares the measured engine performance to the preferred engine performance in order to determine engine controls (Hedrick: Para. 21, 35, 82). Hedrick includes a speed control mode of the autothrottle that monitors the current airspeed, engine performance and then continuously calculates, for single engine operation, the maximum safe or allowable thrust that should or can be placed on the remaining engine under current flight and operating conditions (Hedrick: Para. 70, 82).These calculations create a maximum torque value based on the engine performance and the current flap configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to determine the maximum torque value based on the flap position with a reasonable expectation of success because continuously calculating the maximum safe or allowable thrust for current flight and operating conditions (Hedrick: Para. 70).
Regarding claim 32, Hedrick teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer- executable instructions configured to cause one or more processing units of an aircraft to: (Hedrick: Para. 51; an electronic controller having a processor and memory dedicated to the operation of motor; incorporated in or as a part of the control system or elements of an autopilot system) compute a desired torque value and a desired elevator value for an aircraft based on a desired airspeed value, a desired altitude value, an actual airspeed value, and an actual altitude value (Hedrick: Para. 38; the aircraft autopilot's SPEED-ON-ELEVATOR; autothrottle protects the engine from over temperature and/or over torque); access an air temperature outside the aircraft (Hedrick: Para. 20; outside temperature can be monitored); compute a torque limit based on the air temperature outside the aircraft (Hedrick: Para. 20; outside temperature can be monitored to determine if a wind shear condition exists).
Hedrick doesn’t explicitly teach compute a desired power lever value based on the desired torque value, the torque limit, and a measured engine torque value that indicates a measured engine torque in the aircraft.
However, Hedrick is deemed to disclose an equivalent teaching. Hedrick teaches a stepper motor used to selectively rotate coupled shaft in a desired direction which increases or decreases engine thrust. The engine varies the power output or thrust of the aircraft engine associated with the throttle lever by the displacement of the throttle lever (Hedrick: Para. 58). Hedrick teaches one or more sensors to monitor the engine performance including the torque. The system compares the measured engine performance to the preferred engine performance in order to determine engine controls (Hedrick: Para. 21, 35). In order for Hedrick’s system to produce the desired thrust, the system must figure out the position of the power lever that produces the desired thrust.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to have generate a desired power lever position with a reasonable expectation of success because changing linear displacement of the throttle lever causing the engine to vary the power out or thrust of the aircraft engine associated with the throttle lever (Hedrick: Para. 58).
Hedrick doesn’t explicitly teach compute a power lever command and an elevator command for the aircraft based on the desired power lever value and the desired elevator value.
However Antraygue, in the same field of endeavor, teaches compute a power lever command and an elevator command for the aircraft based on the desired power lever value and the desired elevator value (Antraygue: Para. 24, 31; determines a thrust of the means of propulsion that is necessary for the flight phase currently being executed, and deduces therefrom a desired position of the lever of the throttle lever).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the control of an aircraft throttle in an automated operating mode (Hedrick: Para. 58) with the control of an operating lever by a drive motor (Antraygue: Para. 24) with a reasonable expectation of success because determining the desired position of the lever of the throttle lever and moving the lever by a drive motor (Antraygue: Para. 24, 31).
Regarding claim 34, Hedrick teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the power lever command is configured to control an aircraft engine included on the aircraft (Hedrick: Para. 35; autothrottle computer uses this data to control the thrust; power lever controls the engine thrust to control speed).
Regarding claim 35, Hedrick teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the power lever command is configured to control a power lever actuator that actuates a power lever in the aircraft (Hedrick: Para. 34; disclosed autothrottle is configured to move an aircraft's power throttles using independent linear actuators).
Regarding claim 36, Hedrick teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the elevator command is configured to control an elevator actuator that actuates an elevator on the aircraft (Hedrick: Para. 38; the aircraft autopilot's SPEED-ON-ELEVATOR; autothrottle protects the engine from over temperature and/or over torque).
Regarding claim 37, Hedrick teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 12, further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to receive the measured engine torque value from an engine torque sensor (Hedrick: Para. 21, 35; sensors monitor engine performance; the turboprop's torque or EPR/N1 in a turbofan engine).
Regarding claim 39, Hedrick teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 12, further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to store aircraft conditions when the measured engine torque value reaches a maximum torque value (Hedrick: Para. 42, 57; throttle position is accurately mapped and recorded; haptic vibration is direction sensitive, such that it will increase the force necessary to further advance the throttle in over speed, over-torque or over-temperature), and wherein the aircraft conditions include at least one of a power lever position, the air temperature outside the aircraft, airspeed, and altitude (Hedrick: Para. 20; outside temperature can be monitored to determine if a wind shear condition exists).
Regarding claim 41, Hedrick teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 12, further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to: compute a current phase of flight for the aircraft (Hedrick: Para. 115; there are seven segments between A and B; As plane reaches each of these segments, and each location within each segment, plane's autothrottle, using the ADSB data from plane, mimics plane); and compute a maximum torque value based on the current phase of flight (Hedrick: Para. 70; controller monitors (at least) the current airspeed (and, preferably, the acceleration) of the multi-engine aircraft and continuously calculates, for single engine operation, the maximum safe or allowable thrust that should or can be placed on the remaining engine under current flight and operating conditions).
Regarding claim 42, Hedrick doesn’t explicitly teach further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to determine a maximum torque value based on a change in aircraft flap position.
However, Hedrick is deemed to disclose an equivalent teaching. Hedrick teaches one or more sensors to monitor the engine performance including the flap configuration. The system compares the measured engine performance to the preferred engine performance in order to determine engine controls (Hedrick: Para. 21, 35, 82). Hedrick includes a speed control mode of the autothrottle that monitors the current airspeed, engine performance and then continuously calculates, for single engine operation, the maximum safe or allowable thrust that should or can be placed on the remaining engine under current flight and operating conditions (Hedrick: Para. 70, 82).These calculations create a maximum torque value based on the engine performance and the current flap configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to determine the maximum torque value based on the flap position with a reasonable expectation of success because continuously calculating the maximum safe or allowable thrust for current flight and operating conditions (Hedrick: Para. 70).
Claims 22, 29, 33, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedrick (US Publication 2019/0047715 A1) in view of Antraygue (US Publication 2015/0198930 A1) and in further view of Gariel et al. (US Publication 2015/0198930 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Hedrick teaches the aircraft control system of claim 1, further comprising a guidance module configured to compute the desired airspeed value and the desired altitude value for the aircraft based on flight pattern data (Hedrick: Para. 114; maintain a desired distance, spacing, path, airspeed, and/or operating maneuvers between the first and second planes; flightpath of plane matching speed, altitude, heading).
Hedrick and Antraygue don’t explicitly teach wherein the flight pattern data includes a sequence of waypoints that each indicate a target location for the aircraft over time.
However Gariel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the flight pattern data includes a sequence of waypoints that each indicate a target location for the aircraft over time (Gariel: Para. 23; a sequence of waypoints that each indicate a target location for the aircraft over time).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the control of an aircraft throttle in an automated operating mode (Hedrick: Para. 58) with the control of an operating lever by a drive motor (Antraygue: Para. 24) and the lever control (Gariel: Para. 59) with a reasonable expectation of success because generating the flight pattern data based on the waypoint sequence during AFMS data stored prior to takeoff (Gariel: Para. 68, 70).
Regarding claim 29, Hedrick and Antraygue don’t explicitly teach wherein the engine torque control module is configured to compute the desired power lever value based on the stored aircraft conditions in the event the engine torque value is unavailable.
However Gariel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the engine torque control module is configured to compute the desired power lever value based on the stored aircraft conditions in the event the engine torque value is unavailable (Gariel: Para. 59, 67-68, 70; AFMS may include a runway-pattern selector module, a leg sequencer module, a pattern planner module; pattern planner module may generate the flight pattern data structure based on the selected runway, selected left/right pattern, and the selected waypoint/leg sequence; AFMS data may be stored prior to takeoff; engine controller can be integrated into the autopilot system; a lever may control the pitch/RPM of the propeller).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the control of an aircraft throttle in an automated operating mode (Hedrick: Para. 58) with the control of an operating lever by a drive motor (Antraygue: Para. 24) and the lever control (Gariel: Para. 59) with a reasonable expectation of success because generating the flight pattern data based on the waypoint sequence during AFMS data stored prior to takeoff (Gariel: Para. 68, 70).
Regarding claim 33, Hedrick teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 12, further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to compute the desired airspeed value and the desired altitude value for the aircraft based on flight pattern data (Hedrick: Para. 114; maintain a desired distance, spacing, path, airspeed, and/or operating maneuvers between the first and second planes; flightpath of plane matching speed, altitude, heading).
Hedrick and Antraygue don’t explicitly teach data includes a sequence of waypoints that each indicate a target location for the aircraft over time.
However Gariel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches data includes a sequence of waypoints that each indicate a target location for the aircraft over time (Gariel: Para. 23; a sequence of waypoints that each indicate a target location for the aircraft over time).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the control of an aircraft throttle in an automated operating mode (Hedrick: Para. 58) with the control of an operating lever by a drive motor (Antraygue: Para. 24) and the lever control (Gariel: Para. 59) with a reasonable expectation of success because generating the flight pattern data based on the waypoint sequence during AFMS data stored prior to takeoff (Gariel: Para. 68, 70).
Regarding claim 40, Hedrick and Antraygue don’t explicitly teach further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to compute the desired power lever value based on stored aircraft conditions in the event the engine torque value is unavailable.
However Gariel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to compute the desired power lever value based on stored aircraft conditions in the event the engine torque value is unavailable (Gariel: Para. 59, 67-68, 70; AFMS may include a runway-pattern selector module, a leg sequencer module, a pattern planner module; pattern planner module may generate the flight pattern data structure based on the selected runway, selected left/right pattern, and the selected waypoint/leg sequence; AFMS data may be stored prior to takeoff; engine controller can be integrated into the autopilot system; a lever may control the pitch/RPM of the propeller).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the control of an aircraft throttle in an automated operating mode (Hedrick: Para. 58) with the control of an operating lever by a drive motor (Antraygue: Para. 24) and the lever control (Gariel: Para. 59) with a reasonable expectation of success because generating the flight pattern data based on the waypoint sequence during AFMS data stored prior to takeoff (Gariel: Para. 68, 70).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27 and 38 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights