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 .
Claims 1-9 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 4-5 recite “so as to apply said deflection angle to the elevator are only implemented when the current speed value is at least equal to a predetermined speed threshold”. This is improper grammar, particularly due to “so as to apply” being followed by “are only implemented”, where the Examiner also notes that the claim does not clearly indicate what limitation is referred to by “are only implemented”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zambrano et al. (10,086,925).
Regarding Claim 1, Zambrano et al. teaches the claimed flight control system for an aircraft comprising:
at least one flight control computer for the aircraft configured to control an elevator of the aircraft, wherein the at least one flight control computer is further configured to repeatedly implement, during an acceleration phase of the aircraft when the aircraft is taxiing in preparation for take-off (“Using the example non-limiting approach, it is possible to adjust the relationship between acceleration and/or brake pedals with elevator 108 deflection to always keep at least a minimum vertical load on the nose landing gear 13 to provide adequate directional handing qualities during take-off and landing”, see col.2, particularly lines 14-24 and “In more detail, FIG. 2 shows an example control system 50 including a fly-by-wire controller 52 (which may be one or more processors executing software stored in non-transitory memory) that implements a control law. In particular, the controller 52 receives an input Acc.sub.x indicating the longitudinal acceleration (e.g., negative acceleration, or deceleration, measured by a conventional linear accelerometer or other acceleration measuring sensor) and the brake pedal position (pedal.sub.pos) from a conventional brake pedal position sensor. Controller 52 may also receive a speed signal from a pilot tube or other sensor that measures speed of the aircraft. The controller 52 does not require a measurement of nose loading or force as an input”, see col.2, particularly liens 25-37 and “The process is repeated continually by repetitively reading acceleration (block 102), brake pedal position (block 104) and speed (block 106) and repetitively performing the calculations and steps of blocks 108, 110 and 112”, see col.2, particularly lines 50-63), the following steps:
determining a deflection angle of the elevator, the deflection angle corresponding to a load applied by the aircraft to a nose gear such that the load is within a predetermined load range (“…In response to some or all of these inputs, the controller 52 produces an output δ.sub.elev which is applied to change the position of the elevator 108 or other pitch-control-surface. Controller 52 outputs a parameter δ.sub.elev to control a rear control surface (e.g., an elevator 108) which generates a rear downward lift force L.sub.HT. Downward lift force L.sub.HT executes a rotational moment on the aircraft that at least partially counteracts the nose-down moment generated by brake forces on the main landing gear 11. This countervailing moment has the effect of increasing the local load on the main landing gear 11 and decreasing the load on the nose landing gear 13”, see col.2, particularly lines 38-49); and
controlling an actuator of the elevator so as to apply said deflection angle to the elevator (“…In response to some or all of these inputs, the controller 52 produces an output δ.sub.elev which is applied to change the position of the elevator 108 or other pitch-control-surface. Controller 52 outputs a parameter δ.sub.elev to control a rear control surface (e.g., an elevator 108) which generates a rear downward lift force L.sub.HT. Downward lift force L.sub.HT executes a rotational moment on the aircraft that at least partially counteracts the nose-down moment generated by brake forces on the main landing gear 11. This countervailing moment has the effect of increasing the local load on the main landing gear 11 and decreasing the load on the nose landing gear 13”, see col.2, particularly lines 38-49).
Regarding Claim 5, Zambrano et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method for controlling an elevator of an aircraft, the aircraft comprising a flight control system comprising at least one flight control computer designed to control the elevator, wherein the method comprises the following steps, repeatedly implemented by the at least one flight control computer during an acceleration phase of the aircraft when the aircraft is taxiing in preparation for take-off (“Using the example non-limiting approach, it is possible to adjust the relationship between acceleration and/or brake pedals with elevator 108 deflection to always keep at least a minimum vertical load on the nose landing gear 13 to provide adequate directional handing qualities during take-off and landing”, see col.2, particularly lines 14-24 and “In more detail, FIG. 2 shows an example control system 50 including a fly-by-wire controller 52 (which may be one or more processors executing software stored in non-transitory memory) that implements a control law. In particular, the controller 52 receives an input Acc.sub.x indicating the longitudinal acceleration (e.g., negative acceleration, or deceleration, measured by a conventional linear accelerometer or other acceleration measuring sensor) and the brake pedal position (pedal.sub.pos) from a conventional brake pedal position sensor. Controller 52 may also receive a speed signal from a pilot tube or other sensor that measures speed of the aircraft. The controller 52 does not require a measurement of nose loading or force as an input”, see col.2, particularly lines 25-37 and “The process is repeated continually by repetitively reading acceleration (block 102), brake pedal position (block 104) and speed (block 106) and repetitively performing the calculations and steps of blocks 108, 110 and 112”, see col.2, particularly lines 50-63):
determining a deflection angle of the elevator, the deflection angle corresponding to a load applied by the aircraft to a nose gear such that said load is within a predetermined load range (“…In response to some or all of these inputs, the controller 52 produces an output δ.sub.elev which is applied to change the position of the elevator 108 or other pitch-control-surface. Controller 52 outputs a parameter δ.sub.elev to control a rear control surface (e.g., an elevator 108) which generates a rear downward lift force L.sub.HT. Downward lift force L.sub.HT executes a rotational moment on the aircraft that at least partially counteracts the nose-down moment generated by brake forces on the main landing gear 11. This countervailing moment has the effect of increasing the local load on the main landing gear 11 and decreasing the load on the nose landing gear 13”, see col.2, particularly lines 38-49); and,
controlling an actuator of the elevator so as to apply said deflection angle to the elevator (“…In response to some or all of these inputs, the controller 52 produces an output δ.sub.elev which is applied to change the position of the elevator 108 or other pitch-control-surface. Controller 52 outputs a parameter δ.sub.elev to control a rear control surface (e.g., an elevator 108) which generates a rear downward lift force L.sub.HT. Downward lift force L.sub.HT executes a rotational moment on the aircraft that at least partially counteracts the nose-down moment generated by brake forces on the main landing gear 11. This countervailing moment has the effect of increasing the local load on the main landing gear 11 and decreasing the load on the nose landing gear 13”, see col.2, particularly lines 38-49).
Regarding Claim 9, Zambrano et al. teaches the claimed aircraft comprising: the flight control system as claimed in claim 1 (see FIG. 1).
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.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zambrano et al. (10,086,925) in view of Wang et al. (H. Wang, Y. Wang and M. Wang, "On the development of a landing gear design method in aircraft multidisciplinary design environment," 2016 IEEE International Conference on Aircraft Utility Systems (AUS), Beijing, China, 2016, pp. 403-407, doi: 10.1109/AUS.2016.7748083).
Regarding Claim 2, Zambrano et al. teaches the claimed flight control system as claimed in claim 1, wherein, with the elevator forming a part of a set of elevators of the aircraft,
wherein the step of determining the deflection angle of the elevator comprises the following sub-steps:
estimating a total moment about a pitch axis of the aircraft (“Downward lift force L.sub.HT executes a rotational moment on the aircraft that at least partially counteracts the nose-down moment generated by brake forces on the main landing gear 11. This countervailing moment has the effect of increasing the local load on the main landing gear 11 and decreasing the load on the nose landing gear 13”, see col.2, particularly lines 38-49);
estimating a moment about the pitch axis induced by the elevators of the set of elevators (“Downward lift force L.sub.HT executes a rotational moment on the aircraft that at least partially counteracts the nose-down moment generated by brake forces on the main landing gear 11. This countervailing moment has the effect of increasing the local load on the main landing gear 11 and decreasing the load on the nose landing gear 13”, see col.2, particularly lines 38-49); and
computing the deflection angle of the elevator as a function of the total moment, the moment induced by the elevators of the set of elevators, the load to be applied to the nose gear…(“…In response to some or all of these inputs, the controller 52 produces an output δ.sub.elev which is applied to change the position of the elevator 108 or other pitch-control-surface. Controller 52 outputs a parameter δ.sub.elev to control a rear control surface (e.g., an elevator 108) which generates a rear downward lift force L.sub.HT. Downward lift force L.sub.HT executes a rotational moment on the aircraft that at least partially counteracts the nose-down moment generated by brake forces on the main landing gear 11. This countervailing moment has the effect of increasing the local load on the main landing gear 11 and decreasing the load on the nose landing gear 13”, see col.2, particularly lines 38-49).
Zambrano et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
computing the deflection angle of the elevator as a function of the total moment, the moment induced by the elevators of the set of elevators, the load to be applied to the nose gear, and a distance between a center of gravity of the aircraft and the nose gear.
However, it was conventional in the art to determine a load for a nose landing gear based on a distance from a center of gravity of an aircraft and the nose landing gear, as seen in Wang et al. (H. Wang, Y. Wang and M. Wang, "On the development of a landing gear design method in aircraft multidisciplinary design environment," 2016 IEEE International Conference on Aircraft Utility Systems (AUS), Beijing, China, 2016, pp. 403-407, doi: 10.1109/AUS.2016.7748083), (Wang et al.; see section “A. General layout” and Figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zambrano et al. with the teachings of Wang et al., and computing the deflection angle of the elevator as a function of the total moment, the moment induced by the elevators of the set of elevators, the load to be applied to the nose gear, and a distance between a center of gravity of the aircraft and the nose gear, as rendered obvious by Wang et al., in order to determine a load ratio for a nose landing gear.
Regarding Claim 6, Zambrano et al. teaches the claimed method as claimed in claim 5, wherein, with the elevator forming a part of a set of elevators of the aircraft, the step of determining the deflection angle of the elevator comprises the following sub-steps:
estimating a total moment about a pitch axis of the aircraft (“Downward lift force L.sub.HT executes a rotational moment on the aircraft that at least partially counteracts the nose-down moment generated by brake forces on the main landing gear 11. This countervailing moment has the effect of increasing the local load on the main landing gear 11 and decreasing the load on the nose landing gear 13”, see col.2, particularly lines 38-49);
estimating a moment about the pitch axis induced by the elevators of the set of elevators (“Downward lift force L.sub.HT executes a rotational moment on the aircraft that at least partially counteracts the nose-down moment generated by brake forces on the main landing gear 11. This countervailing moment has the effect of increasing the local load on the main landing gear 11 and decreasing the load on the nose landing gear 13”, see col.2, particularly lines 38-49); and
computing the deflection angle of the elevator as a function of the total moment, the moment induced by the elevators of the set of elevators, the load to be applied to the nose gear…(“…In response to some or all of these inputs, the controller 52 produces an output δ.sub.elev which is applied to change the position of the elevator 108 or other pitch-control-surface. Controller 52 outputs a parameter δ.sub.elev to control a rear control surface (e.g., an elevator 108) which generates a rear downward lift force L.sub.HT. Downward lift force L.sub.HT executes a rotational moment on the aircraft that at least partially counteracts the nose-down moment generated by brake forces on the main landing gear 11. This countervailing moment has the effect of increasing the local load on the main landing gear 11 and decreasing the load on the nose landing gear 13”, see col.2, particularly lines 38-49).
Zambrano et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
computing the deflection angle of the elevator as a function of the total moment, the moment induced by the elevators of the set of elevators, the load to be applied to the nose gear, and a distance between a center of gravity of the aircraft and the nose gear.
However, it was conventional in the art to determine a load for a nose landing gear based on a distance from a center of gravity of an aircraft and the nose landing gear, as seen in Wang et al. (H. Wang, Y. Wang and M. Wang, "On the development of a landing gear design method in aircraft multidisciplinary design environment," 2016 IEEE International Conference on Aircraft Utility Systems (AUS), Beijing, China, 2016, pp. 403-407, doi: 10.1109/AUS.2016.7748083), (Wang et al.; see section “A. General layout” and Figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zambrano et al. with the teachings of Wang et al., and computing the deflection angle of the elevator as a function of the total moment, the moment induced by the elevators of the set of elevators, the load to be applied to the nose gear, and a distance between a center of gravity of the aircraft and the nose gear, as rendered obvious by Wang et al., in order to determine a load ratio for a nose landing gear.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zambrano et al. (10,086,925) in view of Mathieu et al. (2008/0188999).
Examiner’s Note:
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “so as to apply said deflection angle to the elevator only when the current speed value is at least equal to a predetermined speed threshold” is directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim, as indicated by the words “so as to” in the limitation.
Regarding Claim 3, Zambrano et al. teaches the claimed flight control system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one flight control computer is further configured to acquire a current speed value of the aircraft and to implement the steps of determining the deflection angle of the elevator and of controlling the actuator of the elevator so as to apply said deflection angle to the elevator…(“FIG. 3 shows example non-limiting control law steps performed by controller 52. In this example, controller 52 reads acceleration (block 102), brake pedal position (block 104) and speed (block 106). The controller 52 calculates the parameter δ.sub.elev from one, some or all of these parameters to control a rear control surface 108 as discussed above (block 108)”, see col.2, particularly lines 50-63).
Zambrano et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
so as to apply said deflection angle to the elevator only when the current speed value is at least equal to a predetermined speed threshold.
However, because Zambrano et al. teaches the use of speed to control elevators, to merely associate a particular value of speed as a threshold to perform a corresponding control of elevators would be obvious, such as any non-zero speed.
Furthermore, the use of speed thresholds to control elevator angles is known from Mathieu et al. (2008/0188999) (Mathieu et al.; see P[0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zambrano et al. with the teachings of Mathieu et al., and wherein the at least one flight control computer is further configured to acquire a current speed value of the aircraft and to implement the steps of determining the deflection angle of the elevator and of controlling the actuator of the elevator so as to apply said deflection angle to the elevator only when the current speed value is at least equal to a predetermined speed threshold, as rendered obvious by Mathieu et al., in order to provide an “assisted take-off method for aircraft” (Mathieu et al.; see P[0001]).
Examiner’s Note:
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “so as to apply said deflection angle to the elevator are only implemented when the current speed value is at least equal to a predetermined speed threshold” is directed to an intended use that does not further limit the claim, as indicated by the words “so as to” in the limitation.
Regarding Claim 7, Zambrano et al. teaches the claimed method as claimed in claim 5, further comprising a step of:
acquiring a current speed value of the aircraft, wherein the steps of determining the deflection angle of the elevator and of controlling the actuator of the elevator so as to apply said deflection angle to the elevator…(“FIG. 3 shows example non-limiting control law steps performed by controller 52. In this example, controller 52 reads acceleration (block 102), brake pedal position (block 104) and speed (block 106). The controller 52 calculates the parameter δ.sub.elev from one, some or all of these parameters to control a rear control surface 108 as discussed above (block 108)”, see col.2, particularly lines 50-63).
Zambrano et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
so as to apply said deflection angle to the elevator are only implemented when the current speed value is at least equal to a predetermined speed threshold.
However, because Zambrano et al. teaches the use of speed to control elevators, to merely associate a particular value of speed as a threshold to perform a corresponding control of elevators would be obvious, such as any non-zero speed.
Furthermore, the use of speed thresholds to control elevator angles is known from Mathieu et al. (2008/0188999) (Mathieu et al.; see P[0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zambrano et al. with the teachings of Mathieu et al., and acquiring a current speed value of the aircraft, wherein the steps of determining the deflection angle of the elevator and of controlling the actuator of the elevator so as to apply said deflection angle to the elevator are only implemented when the current speed value is at least equal to a predetermined speed threshold, as rendered obvious by Mathieu et al., in order to provide an “assisted take-off method for aircraft” (Mathieu et al.; see P[0001]).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zambrano et al. (10,086,925) in view of Mahmulyin (EP2944566A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Zambrano et al. does not expressly recite the claimed flight control system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of determining the deflection angle of the elevator comprises a sub-step of limiting said deflection angle of the elevator between a minimum deflection angle value and a maximum deflection angle value.
However, the use of upper and lower elevator position limits was known, as seen in Mahmulyin (EP2944566A1) (Mahmulyin; “…pivotably move the elevator 360 between an upper elevator position limit 374 and a lower elevator position limit 376”, see P[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zambrano et al. with the teachings of Mahmulyin, and wherein the step of determining the deflection angle of the elevator comprises a sub-step of limiting said deflection angle of the elevator between a minimum deflection angle value and a maximum deflection angle value, as rendered obvious by Mahmulyin, in order to provide for “optimizing tail loads on an aircraft” (Mahmulyin; see P[0001]).
Regarding Claim 8, Zambrano et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method as claimed in claim 5, wherein the step of determining the deflection angle of the elevator comprises a sub-step of limiting said deflection angle of the elevator between a minimum deflection angle value and a maximum deflection angle value.
However, the use of upper and lower elevator position limits was known, as seen in Mahmulyin (EP2944566A1) (Mahmulyin; “…pivotably move the elevator 360 between an upper elevator position limit 374 and a lower elevator position limit 376”, see P[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zambrano et al. with the teachings of Mahmulyin, and wherein the step of determining the deflection angle of the elevator comprises a sub-step of limiting said deflection angle of the elevator between a minimum deflection angle value and a maximum deflection angle value, as rendered obvious by Mahmulyin, in order to provide for “optimizing tail loads on an aircraft” (Mahmulyin; see P[0001]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-5PM.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights