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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “being” are not positive limitations inasmuch as the terms including the word "being" are passive and thus do not serve to clearly limit the structure in an active sense. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 6 objected to because of the following informalities: (thereto). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3, 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error (dependant, stabiliser). 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.
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 3 and 7-9 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. The above identified claims will be examined as best understood.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "type" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed, it was unclear what "type" was intended to convey. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Re claim 3 the term “A control architecture” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear whether A control architecture is the same " A control architecture” recited in claim 2 or additional/different.
Re claims 7-9 the term “An actuator system” is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear whether An actuator system is the same "An actuator system”” recited in claim 4 or additional/different.
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 (RUE) configured to provide control signals to selectively drive either one of a hydraulic actuator or an electric actuator (item 208, ¶ 0023-0025), the generic REU comprising: circuit boards comprising command and monitoring circuits common to both hydraulic actuators and electric actuators (¶ 0023-0025), and being further configured to be programmed 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).
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Babazadeh discloses: A control architecture for operating an electric actuator, the architecture comprising: a generic remote electronic unit as claimed in claim 1, for providing control signals to the actuator and receiving monitoring signals from the actuator; and a power converter module arranged to be 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 a generic remote electronic unit as claimed in claim 1 attached thereto 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 as claimed in claim 4, being an aircraft actuator system (¶ 0017).
Re claim 9 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Babazadeh discloses: An aircraft comprising: an actuator system as claimed in 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: A control architecture as claimed in claim 2, the power converter module being one of a high voltage power converter module or a low voltage power converter module, dependant on the type of actuator to be controlled (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 being one of a high voltage power converter module or a low voltage power converter module, dependant on the type of actuator to be controlled 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 according to 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 a generic remote electronic unit as claimed in claim 1 attached thereto, 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 as claimed in claim 7, the plurality of actuators including 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 stabiliser (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 power converter module being one of a high voltage power converter module or a low voltage power converter module, dependant on the type of actuator to be controlled into the Babazadeh, to control the aircraft around the 3 axes of the aircraft movements/rotations.
Conclusion
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 during office hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 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 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