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 (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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 2 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a redundant electric motor”. It is unclear if this motor is redundant to another, separate “motor” or is itself a “motor” designed with redundancy, because claim 1 from which claim 2 depends does not have a “motor”. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8-9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perez-Sanchez (US 7,484,694).
Regarding claim 1, Perez-Sanchez teaches a drive assembly (fig. 2, claim 1) for driving a movable flow device (fig. 2, item 2) of an aircraft, the drive assembly comprising:
a single actuator (fig. 2, item 51) comprising a longitudinal transmission element (fig. 2, item 50; col. 5, line 67 - col. 6, line 6),
the longitudinal transmission element having a first end and a second end (fig. 6);
a first support element (figs. 2-5, items 21 + 11) having a first end (at axis 31
and item 12) and a second end (at axis 32),
the first support element mounted with the first end to a first section of a fixed support structure of the aircraft (col. 5, lines 48-49) and with the second end to a first section of the movable flow device (col. 5, lines 50-52); and
a second support element having a first end and a second end,
the second support element mounted with the first end to a second section of the fixed support structure of the aircraft and with the second end to a second section of the movable flow device (Fig. 2, same structure of items 21 and 11 are shown mirrored on the other left side),
wherein the longitudinal transmission element of the single actuator is configured to be oriented transversely to an extending direction of the movable flow device (see figs. 2 and 3),
wherein the single actuator is configured to be mounted to the fixed support structure of the aircraft (via brackets 11), and
wherein the single actuator is configured to act on the first and second support elements such that the movable flow device is movable between an extended position and a retracted position relative to the fixed support structure (col. 6, lines 7-19,
figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 4, Perez-Sanchez teaches wherein the single actuator is configured to drive the longitudinal transmission element into a translational or a rotational movement (see figs. 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 8, Perez-Sanchez teaches wherein the single actuator is configured to act on the first and second support elements such that the first and second support elements perform a swivel movement (By extension of the actuator 51, the hinge sections rotate and swing about the common folding bearing, see figs. 2-5, item 13, and the respective pivot bearings, see items 12 and 22, from a folded configuration to an expanded configuration).
Regarding claim 9, Perez-Sanchez teaches further comprising: a first connection rod having a first end and a second end; and, a second connection rod having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the first connection rod is coupled to the first support element, wherein the second end of the first connection rod is coupled to the first end of the longitudinal transmission element of the single actuator, wherein the first end of the second connection rod is coupled to the second end of the longitudinal transmission element of the single actuator, and wherein the second end of the second connection rod is coupled to the second support element, such that the single actuator acts on the support elements via the first and second connection rods (connection rods in figs. 6 and 7, items 41 and 42, that fall within the claimed wording: One end of the upper connection rod is coupled to one end of the actuator, the other end is coupled to the hinge wing, see at item 3a, and vice versa, such that the single actuator acts on the support elements, “hinge wings” such as in figs. 2-5 items 11 and 21, via the connection rods, col. 5, line 61 - col. 6, line 5).
Regarding claim 12, Perez-Sanchez teaches a high lift system comprising: the drive assembly according to claim 1, and a movable flow device coupled with the drive assembly (see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Perez-Sanchez teaches an aircraft wing comprising: the high lift system according to claim 12, wherein the high lift system is arranged at a leading edge region of the aircraft wing, or at a trailing edge region of the aircraft wing, or at both (see claim 1; further discloses an aircraft wing with a nose flap, claim 18, the actuating assembly for movement between a retracted position and an extended position spaced in front of the wing box).
Regarding claim 14, Perez-Sanchez teaches an aircraft comprising: the aircraft wing according to claim 13 (see claim 13 above).
Regarding claim 15, Perez-Sanchez teaches a method of actuating a movable flow device of an aircraft (defines a method by using the device of claim 1, see claim 1 above), comprising the following steps: providing a single actuator comprising a longitudinal transmission element, the longitudinal transmission element having a first end and a second end; providing a first support element having a first end and a second end, the first support element mounted with the first end to a first section of a fixed support structure and with the second end to a first section of the movable flow device; and providing a second support element having a first end and a second end, the second support element mounted with the first end to a second section of the fixed support structure and with the second end to a second section of the movable flow device, wherein the single actuator is configured to be oriented transversely to an extending direction of the movable flow device, wherein the single actuator is configured to be mountable to the fixed support structure of the aircraft, and wherein the single actuator acts on the first and second support elements such that the movable flow device is movable between an extended position and a retracted position relative to the fixed support structure. method of actuating a movable flow device of an aircraft, comprising the following steps: providing a single actuator comprising a longitudinal transmission element, the longitudinal transmission element having a first end and a second end; providing a first support element having a first end and a second end, the first support element mounted with the first end to a first section of a fixed support structure and with the second end to a first section of the movable flow device; and providing a second support element having a first end and a second end, the second support element mounted with the first end to a second section of the fixed support structure and with the second end to a second section of the movable flow device, wherein the single actuator is configured to be oriented transversely to an extending direction of the movable flow device, wherein the single actuator is configured to be mountable to the fixed support structure of the aircraft, and wherein the single actuator acts on the first and second support elements such that the movable flow device is movable between an extended position and a retracted position relative to the fixed support structure (see claim 1 above).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez-Sanchez (US 7,484,694) in view of Kracke (US 2011/0001015 A1).
Regarding claims 2, as best understood, Perez Sanchez does not expressly disclose an electric motor, since the actuator is a fluid piston-cylinder unit (claim 12).
However, in an analogous aircraft flap actuator art, Kracke discloses further comprising: a redundant electric motor; and, two motor control electronics coupled with the redundant electric motor and connected to at least one flight control computer, wherein the single actuator is activated by the redundant electric motor (“Referring next to FIG. 3 the drive arrangement shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 is illustrated diagrammatically, and it is clear from FIG. 3 that a separate motor 28 is used to drive the actuators 24 for rotation under the control of an appropriate control unit 30, and also that each of the actuators 24 has a brake 32 associated therewith.”, Para. [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Perez Sanchez further comprising: a redundant electric motor; and, two motor control electronics coupled with the redundant electric motor and connected to at least one flight control computer, wherein the single actuator is activated by the redundant electric motor, as disclosed by Kracke, with a reasonable expectation for success, since electric motor driven and controlled actuators were an art-recognized equivalent for actuating control surfaces before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Perez Sanchez is silent on the use of sensors.
However, in an analogous aircraft flap actuator art, Kracke discloses further comprising: at least one position sensor in the actuator, or at least one load sensor arranged at two opposite sides of the actuator, or both (“In either arrangement, a sensor may be provided to detect the application of a torque between the ends of the synchronisation shaft 36. In the event that such a torque is sensed, this can be used to provide an indication that a failure which could result in a skew condition arising has occurred, which can then be used by the control unit 30 or other controller to terminate the application of drive to the actuators 24 and to operate the brakes 32. Conveniently the sensor may comprise a strain gauge associated with the synchronisation shaft 36 or linkage arrangements 34.”, Para. [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Perez Sanchez further comprising: at least one position sensor in the actuator, or at least one load sensor arranged at two opposite sides of the actuator, or both, as disclosed by Kracke, with a reasonable expectation for success, “to provide an indication that a failure which could result in a skew condition arising has occurred, which can then be used by the control unit 30 or other controller to terminate the application of drive to the actuators 24 and to operate the brakes 32”, as discussed by Kracke in para. [0025].
Regarding claim 5, Perez Sanchez is silent on the use of brakes.
However, in an analogous aircraft flap actuator art, Kracke discloses further comprising: two power-off brakes for breaking either a translational movement or a rotational movement of the longitudinal transmission element of the single actuator (Figs. 3-4, two brakes 32 shown; “In either arrangement, a sensor may be provided to detect the application of a torque between the ends of the synchronisation shaft 36. In the event that such a torque is sensed, this can be used to provide an indication that a failure which could result in a skew condition arising has occurred, which can then be used by the control unit 30 or other controller to terminate the application of drive to the actuators 24 and to operate the brakes 32. Conveniently the sensor may comprise a strain gauge associated with the synchronisation shaft 36 or linkage arrangements 34.”, Para. [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Perez Sanchez further comprising: two power-off brakes for breaking either a translational movement or a rotational movement of the longitudinal transmission element of the single actuator, as disclosed by Kracke, with a reasonable expectation for success, “to provide an indication that a failure which could result in a skew condition arising has occurred, which can then be used by the control unit 30 or other controller to terminate the application of drive to the actuators 24 and to operate the brakes 32”, as discussed by Kracke in para. [0025].
Regarding claim 10, Perez Sanchez is silent on the actuator load path.
However, in an analogous aircraft flap actuator art, Kracke discloses wherein a load path from an electric motor to the single actuator is a single load path or a dual load path (“The use of separate motor driven actuators adjacent each end of each flap has been considered. For example, by using a dual load path type actuator, a separate tie bar is able to transmit applied loadings, preventing uncontrolled movement of the flap, in the event of an actuator failure.”, Para. [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Perez Sanchez wherein a load path from an electric motor to the single actuator is a single load path or a dual load path, as disclosed by Kracke, with a reasonable expectation for success, for “preventing uncontrolled movement of the flap, in the event of an actuator failure”, as discussed by Kracke in para. [0005].
Regarding claim 11, Perez Sanchez teaches a drive system comprising: a plurality of drive assemblies according to claim 1 (Fig. 9 shows two nose flaps; “it is possible to move both nose flaps 2, 2b with a single drive (e.g., linear actuator 51) of the nose flap 2”, col. 6, lines 47-54).
Perez Sanchez is silent on wherein the drive assemblies of the plurality of drive assemblies are independent from each other such that individual movable flow devices are movable independently from each other.
However, in an analogous aircraft flap actuator art, Kracke discloses wherein the drive assemblies of the plurality of drive assemblies are independent from each other such that individual movable flow devices are movable independently from each other (“It will be appreciated that as the flaps 12 associated with the wing 10 are driven independently of one another, the occurrence of a drive failure to one of the flaps 12 need not prevent operation of the other flaps associated with the wing 10.”, Para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Perez Sanchez wherein a load path from an electric motor to the single actuator is a single load path or a dual load path, as disclosed by Kracke, with a reasonable expectation for success, since “the occurrence of a drive failure to one of the flaps 12 need not prevent operation of the other flaps associated with the wing 10”, as discussed by Kracke in para. [0022].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 is 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.
Claim 6 requires further comprising: a rack; and a pinion, wherein the single actuator is configured to act on the first and second support elements via the rack and the pinion. Pinion gear, tracks and such are mechanically divergent solutions to that chosen by Perez Sanchez. While Wildman et al. (US 2011/0253832 A1) and Kuruvilla et al. (US 2019/0329865 A1) discloses a rotatable threaded drive shaft along which a carriage can slide to in turn rotate a lever, the actuator of Perez-Sanchez requires free movement, as the end points are moveable and it would be impossible to replace the actuator by a rack and pinion element without making other major changes to the mechanical arrangement. It would not appear straightforward or reasonable to incorporate the features of claim 6 into Perez-Sanchez. Claim 7, by virtue of its dependency to claim 6, would also appear to be allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights