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 .
Status of claims
The following claims have been rejected or allowed for the following reasons:
Claim(s) 1-21 is rejected under 35 USC § 103
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 63/504,958, filed on 5/30/23.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement/statements (IDS) were filed on 11/28/25. The submission 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 § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, 13-14, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Nguyen (US 11059569 B1), in further view of Bensch (US 20090171634 A1), in further view of Irwin (US 20190332125 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Nguyen teaches A flight control system of an aircraft comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform one or more operations, the operations comprising: receiving one or more signals to control movement of the aircraft; (Nguyen [0023] reads “For example, to pitch the aircraft up or down, the pilot applies a stick command which issues a signal to a prior art flight control system to perform a feedback control action using the elevator to track the pilot's stick input.”);
determining, using a plurality of sensors included in the aircraft, at least one flight condition of the aircraft; (Nguyen [0055] reads “Sensor data 164 may also include all available flight data in aircraft 100 to provide various aircraft performance parameters and states such as flight speed, angle of attack, pitch rate, and the like. In addition, sensor data 164 may also include all relevant engine performance parameters such as fuel flow and engine shaft speeds which could be used to estimate thrust and fuel consumption.”);
determining a flight configuration to alleviate loads on one or more components of the aircraft based on the received one or more signals and the calculated one or more loads, (Nguyen [0030] reads “With a multi-functional distributed flight control surface design, structural loads can be actively alleviated. Maneuver load alleviation control objective can be considered to provide a capability in a flight control system design to reduce the wing structural loads during a maneuver. Gust load alleviation control objective is a capability that aims at reducing the wing structural loads during a gust encounter. Together, both control objectives could be combined into a single gust load alleviation objective since the maneuver load alleviation objective could be considered as a subset of the gust load alleviation objective.” And [0040] reads “(44) Multi-objective flight control system 160 may individually configure each of flaps 132, which imparts loads onto aircraft wing 110 to be tailored dynamically as determined by multi-objective flight control system 160.”);
generating one or more effector commands based on the determined flight configuration; and actuating one or more aircraft effectors based on the one or more effector commands. (Nguyen [0046] reads “(46) To appreciate these flap segments in greater detail, consider FIG. 3, which is an illustration of a three-segment variable chamber flap of a multi-functional flight control surface system 120 of an aircraft wing 110 which may be used by an embodiment of the invention. The three chordwise flap segments 220, 230, and 240 can be individually commanded or actuated in unison when a flap deflection command is given.”);
Nguyen does not teach wherein the at least one flight condition includes respective tilt angles of a plurality of propellers; calculating at least one or more loads associated with the aircraft based on the determined at least one flight condition;
Bensch in analogous art, teaches calculating at least one or more loads associated with the aircraft based on the determined at least one flight condition; (Bensch [0035] reads “The internal loads p c int (bending moments and shear forces) at the observation locations of the aircraft structure are calculated in a sub-system “structural loads”. These signals are the target quantities for the load calculation process.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nguyen with that of Bensch to include a method for calculating the loads on an airframe. This would allow the system to better monitor itself which would lead to decreases maintenance costs. (Bensch [0006] reads “An advantage of the method according to the invention is that it allows rapid estimates to be made as to whether particular inspections and/or repairs to a structure are necessary or not following gusts and/or maneuvers in the limiting region or other excitations. This possibility ensures an increased safety standard, minimizes ground times as well as operating costs and at the same time increases the availability of aircraft.”);
Nguyen/Bensch does not teach wherein the at least one flight condition includes respective tilt angles of a plurality of propellers;
Irwin in analogous art, teaches wherein the at least one flight condition includes respective tilt angles of a plurality of propellers; (Irwin [0093] reads “ The nacelle angle feedback 664 indicates a nacelle angle value and may include or correspond to a previous value of the nacelle angle command 652 or a measured nacelle angle (e.g., indicated by sensor data).”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nguyen/Bensch with that of Irwin to include a sensor to measure the angle of tilt on a tilt rotor aircraft. Nguyen already discusses in detail that the control system that they would intend to implement would take in various forms of flight data and performance parameters including all relevant engine performance parameters. For an aircraft that has the capabilities to tilt its engines this tilt angle would be considered a relevant parameter to the aircraft. Furthermore, the addition of a an additional sensor to measure a subsequent parameter of the aircraft would be considered a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin teaches The flight control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more signals to control movement of the aircraft are received from one or more pilot inceptors. (Nguyen [0023] reads “For example, to pitch the aircraft up or down, the pilot applies a stick command which issues a signal to a prior art flight control system to perform a feedback control action using the elevator to track the pilot's stick input. This prior art flight control design is a single-objective design with the sole purpose of tracking the pilot's stick input command to pitch the aircraft.”);
Regarding claim 8 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin teaches The flight control system of claim 1, wherein determining the flight configuration comprises inputting candidate effector commands into a state space model configured to output the flight configuration of the aircraft based on the candidate effector commands. (Nguyen [0143 – 0144] reads “Aircraft 100 with flexible aircraft wing 110 having multi-functional flight control surface system 120 can be described by a mathematical model as {dot over (x)}=Ax+Bu+w (44) where x is the full state information that describes the rigid-body dynamics of aircraft 100 and structural dynamics of aircraft wing 110 as well as unsteady aerodynamics associated with the dynamic motion of flexible aircraft wing 110, u is a collection of deflections of flap 132 of multi-functional flight control surface system 120, w is the gust input vector comprising the rigid gust contribution and elastic gust contribution, and A and B are some appropriate matrices.“);
Regarding claim 9 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin teaches The flight control system of claim 8, wherein the state space model utilizes information from the plurality of sensors to output the flight configuration of the aircraft. (Nguyen [0146] reads “The state x is reconstructed from the state estimate {circumflex over (x)} by state observer 314 as depicted in FIG. 8 using measurements from sensor data 164. The unknown gust input w is approximated by the gust estimate w using the various embodiments previously described.”);
Regarding claim 13 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin teaches The flight control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more aircraft effectors comprise one or more of propellers, engines, flaperons or a tail. (Nguyen [0040] reads “(44) Multi-objective flight control system 160 may individually configure each of flaps 132, which imparts loads onto aircraft wing 110 to be tailored dynamically as determined by multi-objective flight control system 160.”);
Regarding claim 14 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin teaches The flight control system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise detecting, using at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors, dynamic gusts acting on the aircraft, (Nguyen [0053] reads “When aircraft 100 encounters an atmospheric turbulence or gust, changes in the air flow over aircraft wing 110 are registered as changes in pressure readings on the surface of aircraft wing 110. These pressure readings can be processed by multi-objective flight control system 160 for gust estimation according to an embodiment.”);
Regarding claim 17 Nguyen teaches A computer-implemented method for flight control of an aircraft, the method comprising: receiving one or more signals to control movement of the aircraft; (Nguyen [0023] reads “For example, to pitch the aircraft up or down, the pilot applies a stick command which issues a signal to a prior art flight control system to perform a feedback control action using the elevator to track the pilot's stick input.”);
determining, using a plurality of sensors included in the aircraft, at least one flight condition of the aircraft; (Nguyen [0055] reads “Sensor data 164 may also include all available flight data in aircraft 100 to provide various aircraft performance parameters and states such as flight speed, angle of attack, pitch rate, and the like. In addition, sensor data 164 may also include all relevant engine performance parameters such as fuel flow and engine shaft speeds which could be used to estimate thrust and fuel consumption.”);
determining a flight configuration to alleviate loads on one or more components of the aircraft based on the received one or more signals and the calculated one or more loads, (Nguyen [0030] reads “With a multi-functional distributed flight control surface design, structural loads can be actively alleviated. Maneuver load alleviation control objective can be considered to provide a capability in a flight control system design to reduce the wing structural loads during a maneuver. Gust load alleviation control objective is a capability that aims at reducing the wing structural loads during a gust encounter. Together, both control objectives could be combined into a single gust load alleviation objective since the maneuver load alleviation objective could be considered as a subset of the gust load alleviation objective.” And [0040] reads “(44) Multi-objective flight control system 160 may individually configure each of flaps 132, which imparts loads onto aircraft wing 110 to be tailored dynamically as determined by multi-objective flight control system 160.”);
generating one or more effector commands based on the determined flight configuration; and actuating one or more aircraft effectors based on the one or more effector commands. (Nguyen [0046] reads “(46) To appreciate these flap segments in greater detail, consider FIG. 3, which is an illustration of a three-segment variable chamber flap of a multi-functional flight control surface system 120 of an aircraft wing 110 which may be used by an embodiment of the invention. The three chordwise flap segments 220, 230, and 240 can be individually commanded or actuated in unison when a flap deflection command is given.”);
Nguyen does not teach wherein the at least one flight condition includes respective tilt angles of a plurality of propellers; calculating at least one or more loads associated with the aircraft based on the determined at least one flight condition;
Bensch in analogous art, teaches calculating at least one or more loads associated with the aircraft based on the determined at least one flight condition; (Bensch [0035] reads “The internal loads p c int (bending moments and shear forces) at the observation locations of the aircraft structure are calculated in a sub-system “structural loads”. These signals are the target quantities for the load calculation process.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nguyen with that of Bensch to include a method for calculating the loads on an airframe. This would allow the system to better monitor itself which would lead to decreases maintenance costs. (Bensch [0006] reads “An advantage of the method according to the invention is that it allows rapid estimates to be made as to whether particular inspections and/or repairs to a structure are necessary or not following gusts and/or maneuvers in the limiting region or other excitations. This possibility ensures an increased safety standard, minimizes ground times as well as operating costs and at the same time increases the availability of aircraft.”);
Nguyen/Bensch does not teach wherein the at least one flight condition includes respective tilt angles of a plurality of propellers;
Irwin in analogous art, teaches wherein the at least one flight condition includes respective tilt angles of a plurality of propellers; (Irwin [0093] reads “ The nacelle angle feedback 664 indicates a nacelle angle value and may include or correspond to a previous value of the nacelle angle command 652 or a measured nacelle angle (e.g., indicated by sensor data).”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nguyen/Bensch with that of Irwin to include a sensor to measure the angle of tilt on a tilt rotor aircraft. Nguyen already discusses in detail that the control system that they would intend to implement would take in various forms of flight data and performance parameters including all relevant engine performance parameters. For an aircraft that has the capabilities to tilt its engines this tilt angle would be considered a relevant parameter to the aircraft. Furthermore, the addition of a an additional sensor to measure a subsequent parameter of the aircraft would be considered a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20 Nguyen teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: receiving one or more signals to control movement of an aircraft; (Nguyen [0023] reads “For example, to pitch the aircraft up or down, the pilot applies a stick command which issues a signal to a prior art flight control system to perform a feedback control action using the elevator to track the pilot's stick input.”);
determining, using a plurality of sensors included in the aircraft, at least one flight condition of the aircraft; (Nguyen [0055] reads “Sensor data 164 may also include all available flight data in aircraft 100 to provide various aircraft performance parameters and states such as flight speed, angle of attack, pitch rate, and the like. In addition, sensor data 164 may also include all relevant engine performance parameters such as fuel flow and engine shaft speeds which could be used to estimate thrust and fuel consumption.”);
determining a flight configuration to alleviate loads on one or more components of the aircraft based on the received one or more signals and the calculated one or more loads, (Nguyen [0030] reads “With a multi-functional distributed flight control surface design, structural loads can be actively alleviated. Maneuver load alleviation control objective can be considered to provide a capability in a flight control system design to reduce the wing structural loads during a maneuver. Gust load alleviation control objective is a capability that aims at reducing the wing structural loads during a gust encounter. Together, both control objectives could be combined into a single gust load alleviation objective since the maneuver load alleviation objective could be considered as a subset of the gust load alleviation objective.” And [0040] reads “(44) Multi-objective flight control system 160 may individually configure each of flaps 132, which imparts loads onto aircraft wing 110 to be tailored dynamically as determined by multi-objective flight control system 160.”);
generating one or more effector commands based on the determined flight configuration; and actuating one or more aircraft effectors based on the one or more effector commands. (Nguyen [0046] reads “(46) To appreciate these flap segments in greater detail, consider FIG. 3, which is an illustration of a three-segment variable chamber flap of a multi-functional flight control surface system 120 of an aircraft wing 110 which may be used by an embodiment of the invention. The three chordwise flap segments 220, 230, and 240 can be individually commanded or actuated in unison when a flap deflection command is given.”);
Nguyen does not teach wherein the at least one flight condition includes respective tilt angles of a plurality of propellers; calculating at least one or more loads associated with the aircraft based on the determined at least one flight condition;
Bensch in analogous art, teaches calculating at least one or more loads associated with the aircraft based on the determined at least one flight condition; (Bensch [0035] reads “The internal loads p c int (bending moments and shear forces) at the observation locations of the aircraft structure are calculated in a sub-system “structural loads”. These signals are the target quantities for the load calculation process.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nguyen with that of Bensch to include a method for calculating the loads on an airframe. This would allow the system to better monitor itself which would lead to decreases maintenance costs. (Bensch [0006] reads “An advantage of the method according to the invention is that it allows rapid estimates to be made as to whether particular inspections and/or repairs to a structure are necessary or not following gusts and/or maneuvers in the limiting region or other excitations. This possibility ensures an increased safety standard, minimizes ground times as well as operating costs and at the same time increases the availability of aircraft.”);
Nguyen/Bensch does not teach wherein the at least one flight condition includes respective tilt angles of a plurality of propellers;
Irwin in analogous art, teaches wherein the at least one flight condition includes respective tilt angles of a plurality of propellers; (Irwin [0093] reads “ The nacelle angle feedback 664 indicates a nacelle angle value and may include or correspond to a previous value of the nacelle angle command 652 or a measured nacelle angle (e.g., indicated by sensor data).”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nguyen/Bensch with that of Irwin to include a sensor to measure the angle of tilt on a tilt rotor aircraft. Nguyen already discusses in detail that the control system that they would intend to implement would take in various forms of flight data and performance parameters including all relevant engine performance parameters. For an aircraft that has the capabilities to tilt its engines this tilt angle would be considered a relevant parameter to the aircraft. Furthermore, the addition of a an additional sensor to measure a subsequent parameter of the aircraft would be considered a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 3-4, 11, 15-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin, in further view of Reynolds (US US9751614 B1).
Regarding claim 3 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin teaches The flight control system of claim 1, wherein calculating the one or more loads comprises calculating one or more bending moments, bending loads, or torsional loads, (Bensch [0035] reads “The internal loads p c int (bending moments and shear forces) at the observation locations of the aircraft structure are calculated in a sub-system “structural loads”. These signals are the target quantities for the load calculation process.”);
Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin does not teach based on a force of at least a first propeller and a distance of at least the first propeller from a midline of the aircraft.
Reynolds in analogous art, teaches based on a force of at least a first propeller and a distance of at least the first propeller from a midline of the aircraft. (Reynolds [0014] reads “In another embodiment thereof, the aircraft further includes at least one propulsion device configured to impart a lateral thrust force to create bending moment to change the shape of the wings to improve L/D during at least one of takeoff, cruise, and landing of the aircraft while maintaining aeroelastic stability.” It would also be appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art that the calculation that involves bending moment fundamentally depends on the distance from the centerline.);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin with that of Reynolds to include a method for calculating loads based on the engines and control surfaces of the aircraft. This would allow the system to have increased fuel efficiency. (Reynolds [0004 – 0005] reads “(4) The Wright brothers who invented the first aircraft realized the advantages of shape changing bird wings in flight control. They designed a wing warping flight control system to warp a wing by cables to change aircraft directions. In modern time, NASA had developed a shape changing wing technology in the 1980's under the Mission Adaptive Wing program, which demonstrated a variable camber technology on the F-111 aircraft. The variable camber design allows the wing shape to change in order to adapt to different missions.”);
Regarding claim 4 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin teaches The flight control system of claim 1.
Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin does not teach wherein the at least one flight condition includes a torque of each propulsion unit of a plurality of propulsion units.
Reynolds in analogous art, teaches wherein the at least one flight condition includes a torque of each propulsion unit of a plurality of propulsion units. (Reynolds [0015] reads “In another embodiment of the disclosure, a method of changing flight dynamics during flight of an aircraft, comprises providing an aircraft having: at least one inboard propulsion device connected to each wing; at least one outboard propulsion device connected to each wing, the at least one outboard propulsion device positioned closer to a wing tip of the wing to which it is connected than the at least one inboard propulsion device; two wings each configured to twist during flight along a portion of a length of the wing using the at least one outboard propulsion device; and a controller configured to independently control thrust of the at least one outboard propulsion device and the at least one inboard propulsion device, including controlling thrust of at least the at least one outboard propulsion device to cause the twist during flight.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin with that of Reynolds to include a method for calculating loads based on the engines and control surfaces of the aircraft. This would allow the system to have increased fuel efficiency. (Reynolds [0004 – 0005] reads “(4) The Wright brothers who invented the first aircraft realized the advantages of shape changing bird wings in flight control. They designed a wing warping flight control system to warp a wing by cables to change aircraft directions. In modern time, NASA had developed a shape changing wing technology in the 1980's under the Mission Adaptive Wing program, which demonstrated a variable camber technology on the F-111 aircraft. The variable camber design allows the wing shape to change in order to adapt to different missions.”);
Regarding claim 11 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin teaches The flight control system of claim 1.
Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin does not teach wherein actuating one or more aircraft effectors based on the one or more effector commands includes modifying a revolutions-per-minute (RPM) of each propeller of the aircraft.
Reynolds in analogous art, teaches wherein actuating one or more aircraft effectors based on the one or more effector commands includes modifying a revolutions-per-minute (RPM) of each propeller of the aircraft. (Reynolds [0009] reads “To turn the Helios aircraft in flight, yaw control is applied by applying differential power on the motors—speeding up the motors on one outer wing panel while slowing down motors on the other outer panel.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin with that of Reynolds to include a method for calculating loads based on the engines and control surfaces of the aircraft. This would allow the system to have increased fuel efficiency. (Reynolds [0004 – 0005] reads “(4) The Wright brothers who invented the first aircraft realized the advantages of shape changing bird wings in flight control. They designed a wing warping flight control system to warp a wing by cables to change aircraft directions. In modern time, NASA had developed a shape changing wing technology in the 1980's under the Mission Adaptive Wing program, which demonstrated a variable camber technology on the F-111 aircraft. The variable camber design allows the wing shape to change in order to adapt to different missions.”);
Regarding claim 15 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin teaches The flight control system of claim 1.
Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin does not teach wherein the flight control system is communicatively coupled to at least one high voltage electrical power source of the aircraft.
Reynolds in analogous art, teaches wherein the flight control system is communicatively coupled to at least one high voltage electrical power source of the aircraft. (Reynolds [0122] reads “In FIG. 23, an embodiment uses a high voltage battery to drive an AC motor. The components are the same as described for FIG. 22, however a DC transformer 150 is provided to reduce the DC voltage as required by motor 120A. In FIG. 24, an embodiment uses a low voltage battery to drive a DC motor. The components are the same as described for FIG. 22, however a DC to DC motor controller 148B is provided to drive a DC motor 120B, a DC embodiment of motor 120. In FIG. 25, an embodiment uses a high voltage battery to drive a DC motor. The components are as described with respect to FIG. 24, however DC transformer 150 is provided to reduce voltage for DC to DC motor controller 148B.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin with that of Reynolds to include a method for calculating loads based on the engines and control surfaces of the aircraft. This would allow the system to have increased fuel efficiency. (Reynolds [0004 – 0005] reads “(4) The Wright brothers who invented the first aircraft realized the advantages of shape changing bird wings in flight control. They designed a wing warping flight control system to warp a wing by cables to change aircraft directions. In modern time, NASA had developed a shape changing wing technology in the 1980's under the Mission Adaptive Wing program, which demonstrated a variable camber technology on the F-111 aircraft. The variable camber design allows the wing shape to change in order to adapt to different missions.”);
Regarding claim 16 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin/Reynolds teaches The flight control system of claim 15, wherein actuating one or more aircraft effectors based on the one or more effector commands causes reduced power draw (Reynolds [0081] reads “Further in accordance with the disclosure, wing shaping can be performed throughout the flight envelope to affect local angle of attack as the wing loading changes with air vehicle weight during cruise. … The reduction in fuel burn can be attributed to a reduction in lift-dependent drag throughout the flight envelope by actively tailoring the spanwise lift distribution using distributed propulsion. The disclosure enables synergistic interactions between lightweight materials, electric propulsion, and active aeroelastic tailoring for reducing the environmental impact of future air vehicles.” It would be appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art that a reduction in fuel burn and increased efficiency would be equivalent to a decrease in the power drawn on an electric aircraft.);
from the at least one high voltage electrical power source. (Reynolds [0122] reads “In FIG. 23, an embodiment uses a high voltage battery to drive an AC motor. The components are the same as described for FIG. 22, however a DC transformer 150 is provided to reduce the DC voltage as required by motor 120A. In FIG. 24, an embodiment uses a low voltage battery to drive a DC motor. The components are the same as described for FIG. 22, however a DC to DC motor controller 148B is provided to drive a DC motor 120B, a DC embodiment of motor 120. In FIG. 25, an embodiment uses a high voltage battery to drive a DC motor. The components are as described with respect to FIG. 24, however DC transformer 150 is provided to reduce voltage for DC to DC motor controller 148B.”);
Regarding claim 18 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin teaches The flight control system of claim 1.
Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin does not teach wherein the at least one flight condition includes a torque of each propulsion unit of a plurality of propulsion units.
Reynolds in analogous art, teaches wherein the at least one flight condition includes a torque of each propulsion unit of a plurality of propulsion units. (Reynolds [0015] reads “In another embodiment of the disclosure, a method of changing flight dynamics during flight of an aircraft, comprises providing an aircraft having: at least one inboard propulsion device connected to each wing; at least one outboard propulsion device connected to each wing, the at least one outboard propulsion device positioned closer to a wing tip of the wing to which it is connected than the at least one inboard propulsion device; two wings each configured to twist during flight along a portion of a length of the wing using the at least one outboard propulsion device; and a controller configured to independently control thrust of the at least one outboard propulsion device and the at least one inboard propulsion device, including controlling thrust of at least the at least one outboard propulsion device to cause the twist during flight.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin with that of Reynolds to include a method for calculating loads based on the engines and control surfaces of the aircraft. This would allow the system to have increased fuel efficiency. (Reynolds [0004 – 0005] reads “(4) The Wright brothers who invented the first aircraft realized the advantages of shape changing bird wings in flight control. They designed a wing warping flight control system to warp a wing by cables to change aircraft directions. In modern time, NASA had developed a shape changing wing technology in the 1980's under the Mission Adaptive Wing program, which demonstrated a variable camber technology on the F-111 aircraft. The variable camber design allows the wing shape to change in order to adapt to different missions.”);
Claim(s) 5-7, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin, in further view of Kearney (US 20210011488 A1).
Regarding claim 5 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin teaches The flight control system of claim 1.
Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin does not teach wherein the at least one flight condition includes at least a phase of flight, and wherein the phase of flight is hover, cruise, or transition.
Kearney in analogous art, teaches wherein the at least one flight condition includes at least a phase of flight, and wherein the phase of flight is hover, cruise, or transition. (Kearney [0002] reads “As used herein, the term “vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft” is an aircraft which is capable of taking off or landing vertically, including fixed-wing aircraft that can hover and take off and land vertically as well as rotorcraft and tilt-rotor aircraft.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin with that of Kearney to include a system that could adapt to different phases of flight. This would allow the system to better land in a variety of environments and locations (Kearney [0005] reads “In the context of VTOL and STOL aircraft, current gust load alleviation during takeoff and landing is a combination of: (a) restricting the locations of landing sites to areas not prone to gusty winds; and (b) aircraft operations in the few places that can tolerate being bounced around. The problem addressed by the innovative technology disclosed herein is how to consistently execute smooth vertical or short-runway takeoffs and landings at landing sites that are prone to gusty conditions (such as a helipad that is in the wind wake of buildings in an urban setting).”);
Regarding claim 6 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin/Kearney teaches The flight control system of claim 5, wherein, when the aircraft is in a hover phase of flight, the flight control system is configured to cause the aircraft to perform a roll movement based on at least one of the one or more effector commands configured to cause one or more inboard propellers to generate more thrust than one or more outboard propellers, or perform a flaperon movement. (Kearney [0043] reads “In certain aspects, the aircraft processor 120 and the flight controller 122 may be integrated into a single computer or processor. In operation, the flight controller 122 may dynamically (i.e., in real-time or near real-time) and independently adjust thrust during the various stages of flight via the electronic speed controllers 110 or engine controller 114 (as the case may be) to control roll, pitch, or yaw of the aircraft. When rotors with rotor blades (e.g., propellers) are used, the flight controller 122 may vary the revolutions per minute of a rotor and, where desired, vary the pitch of the rotor blades.”);
Regarding claim 7 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin/Kearney teaches The flight control system of claim 5, wherein, when the aircraft is in a hover phase of flight, the flight control system is configured to cause the aircraft to perform a yaw movement using at least one of: one or more effector commands for nacelle tilt; or differential torque on propellers. (Kearney [0043] reads “In certain aspects, the aircraft processor 120 and the flight controller 122 may be integrated into a single computer or processor. In operation, the flight controller 122 may dynamically (i.e., in real-time or near real-time) and independently adjust thrust during the various stages of flight via the electronic speed controllers 110 or engine controller 114 (as the case may be) to control roll, pitch, or yaw of the aircraft. When rotors with rotor blades (e.g., propellers) are used, the flight controller 122 may vary the revolutions per minute of a rotor and, where desired, vary the pitch of the rotor blades.”);
Regarding claim 19 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin teaches The flight control system of claim 1.
Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin does not teach wherein the at least one flight condition includes at least a phase of flight, and wherein the phase of flight is hover, cruise, or transition.
Kearney in analogous art, teaches wherein the at least one flight condition includes at least a phase of flight, and wherein the phase of flight is hover, cruise, or transition. (Kearney [0002] reads “As used herein, the term “vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft” is an aircraft which is capable of taking off or landing vertically, including fixed-wing aircraft that can hover and take off and land vertically as well as rotorcraft and tilt-rotor aircraft.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin with that of Kearney to include a system that could adapt to different phases of flight. This would allow the system to better land in a variety of environments and locations (Kearney [0005] reads “In the context of VTOL and STOL aircraft, current gust load alleviation during takeoff and landing is a combination of: (a) restricting the locations of landing sites to areas not prone to gusty winds; and (b) aircraft operations in the few places that can tolerate being bounced around. The problem addressed by the innovative technology disclosed herein is how to consistently execute smooth vertical or short-runway takeoffs and landings at landing sites that are prone to gusty conditions (such as a helipad that is in the wind wake of buildings in an urban setting).”);
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin, in further view of Osder (US 20040093130 A1).
Regarding claim 10 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin teaches The flight control system of claim 1.
Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin does not teach wherein the operations further comprise comparing the flight configuration to an actual state of the aircraft, and wherein generating one or more effector commands includes minimizing a difference between the flight configuration and the actual state.
Osder in analogous art, teaches wherein the operations further comprise comparing the flight configuration to an actual state of the aircraft, and wherein generating one or more effector commands includes minimizing a difference between the flight configuration and the actual state. (Osder [0053] reads “[0053] In the augmented helicopter mode, the mast value 202 is fully open and the cruise nozzle 204 is partially open for auxiliary thrust. The engine 200 is throttled to provide constant rotor speed via closed loop control of the rotor speed error, which is the difference between the reference rotor speed and the actual measured rotor speed.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin with that of Osder to include a control loop for better controlling the flight surfaces of an aircraft. This would allow the aircraft to perform better in a variety of different situations. (Osder [0009] reads “One drawback of the '608 patent relates to the diverter valve being unable to adequately exit the engine exhaust during the compound mode causing the engine to experience a choke condition, thus resulting in the engine stalling. The problem is fatally intolerable for an aircraft. Another drawback of the '608 patent is the difficulty in determining and maintaining the flight envelope for jet-powered tri-mode aircraft. This is because the flight envelope for multi-flight mode aircrafts is different depending on the flight mode. For example, the flight path and the maximum aircraft speed differ when in the helicopter mode compared to the fixed-wing mode. Also, when in the compound mode, the flight envelope will be different depending on the extent of the unloading of the rotor blade.”);
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin, in further view of Kendall (US 20100308161 A1).
Regarding claim 12 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin teaches The flight control system of claim 1.
Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin does not teach wherein actuating one or more aircraft effectors based on the one or more effector commands includes modifying a revolutions-per-minute (RPM) of each propeller of the aircraft.
Kendall in analogous art, teaches wherein actuating one or more aircraft effectors based on the one or more effector commands includes modifying a revolutions-per-minute (RPM) of each propeller of the aircraft. (Reynolds [0009] reads “To turn the Helios aircraft in flight, yaw control is applied by applying differential power on the motors—speeding up the motors on one outer wing panel while slowing down motors on the other outer panel.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin with that of Kendall to include a method for controlling the speed of each propeller independently. This would allow the system to better reduce the loads that it experiences form these engines. Kendall [0010] reads “There exists a definite need for a multipurpose aircraft that can remain airborne for long durations. Preferably, such an aircraft should be able to operate up to very high, suborbital altitudes. Importantly, it is desirable for such an aircraft to have the capability to meet larger payload and/or power supply requirements. Furthermore, there exists a need for such an aircraft to be structurally light weight and well controlled. Various embodiments of the present invention can meet some or all of these needs, and provide further, related advantages.”);
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin, in further view of Vidy (US 20220234763 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin teaches The flight control system of claim 1, and selecting the flight configuration from the plurality of sets of candidate effector commands based on the predicted resulting distribution of loads. (Nguyen [0030] reads “With a multi-functional distributed flight control surface design, structural loads can be actively alleviated. Maneuver load alleviation control objective can be considered to provide a capability in a flight control system design to reduce the wing structural loads during a maneuver. Gust load alleviation control objective is a capability that aims at reducing the wing structural loads during a gust encounter. Together, both control objectives could be combined into a single gust load alleviation objective since the maneuver load alleviation objective could be considered as a subset of the gust load alleviation objective.” And [0040] reads “(44) Multi-objective flight control system 160 may individually configure each of flaps 132, which imparts loads onto aircraft wing 110 to be tailored dynamically as determined by multi-objective flight control system 160.”);
Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin does not teach wherein determining the flight configuration comprises: predicting, for each set of a plurality of sets of candidate effector commands, a resulting distribution of loads associated with the aircraft based on the received one or more signals and the calculated one or more loads;
Vidy in analogous art, teaches wherein determining the flight configuration comprises: predicting, for each set of a plurality of sets of candidate effector commands, a resulting distribution of loads associated with the aircraft based on the received one or more signals and the calculated one or more loads; (Vidy [0014] reads “Maneuver loads can be calculated by a maneuver load model, wherein control signals or control commands obtained from the control computer are used as the basis for expected maneuver loads. Using the control commands, the maneuver model can calculate loads which are to be expected from a maneuver which is carried out from an instantaneous position of the aircraft, the control commands, knowledge of all relevant aerodynamic and mass parameters as well as from environmental conditions.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nguyen/Bensch/Irwin with that of Vidy to include a method that would allow for the aircraft to estimate the resultant actions of given input commands. This would allow for the aircraft to better understand its own structural integrity, thus increasing the safety of it passengers or cargo. (Vidy [0005] reads “It is therefore an object of the disclosure herein to provide an aircraft with an alternative way of detecting and storing load information for the assessment of the structural integrity of the aircraft, with which also dynamic and in particular gust-induced loads can be detected reliably, without having to provide excessive computing and analysis capabilities and at the same time great individuality in the original equipment and modification of the equipment of aircraft is possible.”);
Response to arguments
Applicant argues < Bensch explains that the calculated structural loads allow rapid estimates as to whether inspections or repairs are necessary and can minimize ground time and operating costs (Bensch at 1 [0006]). Thus, Bensch may calculate or reconstruct loads, but it does not disclose the claimed use of calculated loads as an input to determining a flight configuration for load alleviation. In other words, the Office appears to rely on Bensch for a generalized load- calculation function (Bensch at 1 [0035]) and relies on Nguyen for a separate control function, but does not identify where the asserted combination actually performs the claimed integration between the two. The Office does not identify how the calculated loads of Bensch could be used in Nguyen's determination of a flight configuration, as recited by the claims.> [Remarks Page 8 fourth paragraph]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The current rejection of record relies upon Bensch only for the ability to calculate loads on the given aircraft at a given moment while Nguyen is relied upon for the understanding of taking any applied loads and preforming a method to alleviate the loads on the airframe. To further that explanation Nguyen does the process of load alleviation as presented in the claimed invention but uses an input of purely sensor data taken from the aircraft itself. Though these sensor may provide much of the needed data to perform the given load alleviation further calculation of more data is needed by Bensch to provide the claimed invention. Therefore, the combination teaches the claimed invention.
Applicant argues < Nguyen discloses, at best, determining generic flight conditions based on sensor data such as flight speed, angle of attack, pitch rate, fuel flow, and engine shaft speeds (Nguyen, T [0055]), but not using this information to calculate loads, and fails to disclose or suggest "wherein the at least one flight condition includes respective tilt angles of a plurality of propellers" as recited in amended claim 1. > [Remarks Page 9 Last paragraph]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Nguyen already discusses in detail that the control system that they would intend to implement would take in various forms of flight data and performance parameters including all relevant engine performance parameters. For an aircraft that has the capabilities to tilt its engines this tilt angle would be considered a relevant parameter to the aircraft. Additionally Irwin is relied upon by the office action to teach the addition of sensors to tilt rotor aircraft. Furthermore, the addition of a an additional sensor to measure a subsequent parameter of the aircraft would be considered a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the combination teaches the claimed invention.
Other references not Cited
Throughout examination other references were found that could read onto the prior art. Though these references were not used in this examination they could be used in future examination and could read on the contents of the current disclosure. These references are, WildSchek (US 9446837 B2); English (US 20200333805 A1);
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6228. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270 - 5744. 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.
/JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights