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 .
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.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Response to Amendment
Applicants Amendment did not overcome the previous, 35 USC 103(a) rejections.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered and are not persuasive.
This office action is made final.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “to be” is not a positive limitation inasmuch as the term is in future tense and implies a change in condition in the future. This does not serve to limit the structure in the present tense. Appropriate correction is required.
The above are only examples of such informalities. The Applicant is required to review the entire claims and correct all such informalities.
Reference of prior art
Babazadeh. (US 20190100299, FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD OF USE).
Bai et al. (US 20240270100, HIGH EFFICIENCY WIRELESS CHARGING SYSTEM FOR IN PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES).
Benson. (US 20060043242, Aircraft Flight Control Surface Actuation System Communication Architecture).
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, 2, 4, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1), (a)(2) as being anticipated by Babazadeh.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Babazadeh discloses: A generic remote electronic unit (REU), the generic REU comprising: circuit boards comprising command and monitoring circuits common to both hydraulic actuators and electric actuators (¶ 0023-0025), and wherein the circuit boards are further programmable with with software specific to an actuator to be controlled (¶ 0023-0025, the generic remote electronic capable of being programmed with software specific to an actuator to be controlled).
wherein the generic REU is configured to provide control signals to selectively drive either one of a hydraulic actuator or an electric actuator as the actuator to be controlled (item 208, ¶ 0023-0025).
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Babazadeh discloses: A control architecture for operating an electric actuator, the architecture comprising: the generic REY of claim 1, configured to provide control signals to the actuator and to receive monitoring signals from the actuator; and a power converter module integrated into a housing of the actuator (¶ 0030).
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Babazadeh discloses: An actuator system comprising: a plurality of actuators, each actuator having the generic REU of claim 1 attached to the actuator for providing control signals to the actuator and receiving monitoring signals from the actuator (abstract).
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Babazadeh discloses: An actuator system of claim 4, wherein the actuator system is an aircraft actuator system (¶ 0017).
Re claim 9 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Babazadeh discloses: An aircraft comprising: the actuator system of claim 7 (abstract and ¶ 0017).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babazadeh and further in view of Bai.
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Babazadeh fails to teach as disclosed by Bai: the control architecture of claim 2, wherein the power converter module is one of a high voltage power converter module or a low voltage power converter module, dependent on whether the actuator controlled by the generic REU is the hydraulic actuator or the electric actuator (claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Bai teachings of the power converter module is one of a high voltage power converter module or a low voltage power converter module, dependent on whether the actuator controlled by the generic REU is the hydraulic actuator or the electric actuator into the Babazadeh, to provide the appropriate power according to the requirement of the actuator.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babazadeh.
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Babazadeh discloses: The actuator system of claim 4, wherein the plurality of actuators includes at least one electric actuator having a power converter module (¶ 0017, 0030).
However Babazadeh discloses the claimed invention except for the power converter module integrated with a housing of the actuator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the power converter module integrated with a housing of the actuator to ensure directly providing the electric power to each of the at least one electric actuators, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Also, it has been held that the term "integral" is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973).
Re claim 6 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Babazadeh discloses: The actuator system of claim 4, wherein the plurality of actuators comprises at least one hydraulic actuator and at least one electric actuator (¶ 0017), each actuator having the generic REU of claim 1 attached to the actuator, and the or each of the at least one electric actuators having a power conversion module (¶ 0030).
However Babazadeh discloses the claimed invention except for the power conversion module integrated with a housing of the actuator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the power conversion module integrated with a housing of the actuator to ensure directly providing the electric power to each of the at least one electric actuators, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Also, it has been held that the term "integral" is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babazadeh and further in view of Benson.
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Babazadeh fails to teach as disclosed by Benson: An actuator system of claim 7, the plurality of actuators comprise one or more of: an actuator to control an aircraft rudder; an actuator to control an aircraft elevator control surface; an actuator to control an aircraft spoiler; an actuator to control an aircraft aileron; and an actuator to control an aircraft trimmable horizontal stabilizer (fig. 1 and ¶ 0014-0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Benson teachings of the plurality of actuators comprise one or more of: an actuator to control an aircraft rudder; an actuator to control an aircraft elevator control surface; an actuator to control an aircraft spoiler; an actuator to control an aircraft aileron; and an actuator to control an aircraft trimmable horizontal stabilizer into the Babazadeh, to control the aircraft around the 3 axes of the aircraft movements/rotations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/30/2018 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, in addition the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant made the following arguments:
Applicant argues that “Babazadeh does not describe that the disclosed REUs are specifically adapted to selectively control both a hydraulic actuator and an electric actuator, such that a single remote electronic unit is suitable for both purposes”
Examiner respectfully disagrees; Babazadeh discloses REU 108, which controls the STCM 110, including the electric actuator or hydraulic actuator (¶0017); thus the REUs are specifically adapted to selectively control both a hydraulic actuator and an electric actuator depending on which actuator is used with the same REU without any further modification, therefore, the structural limitations of the claims have been met.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TIEN DINH can be reached on 571-272-6899. 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.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights