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 .
1. This action is responsive to application filed Sep. 22, 2025.
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.
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.
2. Claim 1 is 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.
3. Claim 1 recites “determine an equilibrium condition at the initial point; the FO is in steady equilibrium when total forces and moments acting on it are zero; by solving a pitch channel's moment balance equation set to zero, an angle of attack and a control surface deflection angle under equilibrium can be found. It is unclear whether the method claimed determines equilibrium condition by solving a pitch channel's moment balance equation set to zero, an angle of attack and a control surface deflection angle under equilibrium.
4. Claim 1 also recites “step 4: linearize the FO at the initial point; …variations of the FO are small compared to an equilibrium state”.
The term “small compared to an equilibrium state” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small compared to an equilibrium state” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
5. Claim 1 recites “step 5: define a control criteria; three positive parameters used for computing the controller are as follows: an open-loop cutoff frequency,…however, it may cause a larger overshoot and higher oscillation frequency; conversely, a larger τ leads to a slower system response; additionally, control selection criteria are determined”.
The claim limitations above are recited in a narrative form and are indefinite. It is not clear “it may cause a larger overshoot” refers to.
In addition, the terms “larger overshoot and higher oscillation frequency” in claim 1 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “larger overshoot and higher oscillation frequency” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
6. Claim 1 recites “step 2: linearize the FO model at the design points; perform this step in the same manner as step 4 of part I, but now apply it to all design points, the result is an array of linearized models”.
The claim limitations above are recited in a narrative form and are indefinite. It is unclear how to “linearize the FO model at the design points” by performing the step “in the same manner as step 4 of part I, but now apply it to all design points”.
7. Claim 1 recites “step 5: determine control criteria for all design points; these criteria can either remain the same as those defined in step 5 of part I or be customized depending on the controller's performance at the set of design points; however, in part II, the control criteria are divided into two types: hard constraint and soft constraint;”.
The claim limitations above are recited in a narrative form and are indefinite. It is unclear how the control criteria can be customized as defined in step 5 of part I or be customized depending on the controller's performance. In addition, stating “however, in part II, the control criteria are divided into two types”. Using the term “however”, it is unclear whether the control criteria are divided into two types is a result of the method or a step that is being performed.
8. Claim 1 recites “coefficients should be re-tuned accordingly; this step requires the use of specialized software for evaluating the control performance of the FO”. Claim 1 recites “coefficients should be re-tuned”. It is unclear whether the method retunes the coefficients. In addition, “this step requires the use of specialized software for evaluating the control performance of the FO”. The claim does not define a specialized software for evaluating the control performance of the FO and therefore the claim recites a software beyond the scope of the claim.
9. Similarly, Claim 1 recites “assess control performance on a nonlinear simulation model by designing ideal test scenarios and conducting Monte Carlo simulations to assess the robustness of the controller; this step requires simulation software capable of modeling the FO dynamics”. It is unclear whether the method designing ideal test scenarios and conducting Monte Carlo simulations. In addition, “this step requires simulation software capable of modeling the FO dynamics”. The claim does not define a simulation software for ideal testing and therefore the claim recites a software beyond the scope of the claim.
10. Claim 1 recites “if any of the four steps above fail, consider revising the selection of adaptive variables, the adaptive function, or the set of design points”. The limitation “consider revising the selection” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether the selection is revised and if it is revised, the claim does not define how/steps to revise the selection. In addition “if any of the four steps above fail”, it is unclear which four steps is being referred to.
11. The prior art of record does not teach the limitations of claim 1.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights