Ex Parte Sahasrabudhe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 2018

13396769 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/396,769 02/15/2012 91017 7590 03/29/2018 Cantor Colburn LLP - Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Vineet Sahasrabudhe UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 58403US01 (U330026US) 1087 EXAMINER WOLDEMARYAM, ASSRES H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3647 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VINEET SAHASRABUDHE, AARON L. GREENFIELD, DEREK GEIGER, and JAMES RIGSBY Appeal 2016-004251 Application 13/396,769 Technology Center 3600 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Vineet Sahasrabudhe et al. ("Appellants") seek review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated February 27, 2015 ("Final Act."), and as further explained in the Advisory Action dated July 23, 2015 ("Adv. Act."), rejecting claims 1 and 3-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2016-004251 Application 13/396,769 BACKGROUND The disclosed subject matter "relates generally to control systems, and in particular to a control system for a reconfigurable rotary wing aircraft." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below, with emphasis added: Garcia Ye Yuan Pekar 1. A control system for a rotary wing aircraft having a reconfigurable element, the control system compnsmg: an active operating mode module receiving operator commands and selecting an aircraft mode in response to the operator commands; a model predictive control module receiving operator commands, objectives and constraints, and outputting limited operator commands, wherein the output of the model predictive control module is dependent upon the aircraft mode; a dynamic inversion module receiving the limited operator commands of the model predictive control module, the dynamic inversion module providing control commands to reconfigure the reconfigurable element of the rotary wing aircraft; a constraint compatibility module for dynamically determining constraints on aircraft operation in response to the aircraft mode. EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER US 5,842,19 Nov. 24, 1998 US 2008/0010357 Al US 2009/0112350 Al US 2010/0305719 Al 2 Jan. 10,2008 Apr. 30, 2009 Dec. 2, 2010 Appeal 2016-004251 Application 13/396,769 Eng U. Choo et al., Interpretation of criteria weights in multicriteria decision making, 37 Computers & Indus. Engineering 527-541 (1999) ("Choo"). Jerry M. Wohletz, Retrofit Systems for Reconfiguration in Civil Aviation (February 2000) (Ph.D dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/9264 ("Wohletz"). 1 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 3-10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wohletz. (Final Act., 2-7; Ans., 2-7). 2. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wohletz and Pekar. (Final Act., 7-8). 3. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wohletz and Ye. (Ans. 7-8). 4. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wohletz and Garcia. (Ans. 8-10). 5. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wohletz and Yuan. (Ans. 10-11). 6. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wohletz and Choo. 2 (Ans. 11). 1 The file history contains only excerpts of Wohletz. As noted by the Examiner, the complete document is available online. See Final Act. 4 (providing URL). 2 The Examiner provides Rejections 3 through 6 in the Answer. See Ans. 7-11. 3 Appeal 2016-004251 Application 13/396,769 DISCUSSION Rejection 1 Independent claim 1 recites, among other limitations, "a model predictive control module receiving ... objectives and constraints." Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.). The Examiner identified the "Signal Conditioning and Estimation Module" in Figure 1-2 of Wohletz as the "model predictive control module." Final Act. 3; Ans. 2--4. Figure 1-2 is reproduced below. Wohletz 41. Wohletz describes Figure 1-2 as "illustrat[ing] the proposed [retrofit module] architecture, which consists of three components: adaptive augmentor, reference model, and signal conditioning and estimation." Id. at 40. As the "objectives" recited in claim 1, the Examiner identifies "y(t)." Ans. 4. As the recited "constraints," the Examiner identifies "UrcmÂ·" Id. Appellants argue that "[t]he claimed model predictive control module receives ... [']objectives and constraints"' but that "[t]he Signal Cond. & 4 Appeal 2016-004251 Application 13/396,769 Est. element of Wohletz does not receive these inputs." Appeal Br. 4. According to Appellants, the Examiner's "position is completely unsupported by fact or evidence" because "y( t) is aircraft state information and has absolutely nothing to do with the claimed objectives and Urcm are reconfiguration control module commands having nothing to do with the claimed constraints (the other input)." Reply Br. 2; see also Appeal Br. 5 (asserting that "none of the inputs to the Signal Cond. & Est. element correspond to the claimed constraints"). We agree with Appellants that the record here does not support the findings that the identified aspects of Wohletz provide the recited "objectives" and "constraints." We first address the "objectives." In light of the Specification here, we determine that y(t) in Wohletz ("y" in Figure 1-2 above) does not fall within the scope of the term "objectives." The Specification, in describing Figure 2, discloses that "Objective selection module 112 translates the operator commands into predetermined objectives and prioritizes the objectives in order of importance" and discloses that "[ o ]bjectives are prioritized in module 112 using finite-state logic and variable weightings (fixed and adaptive) based on operator commands, current flight conditions, and predetermined precedence criteria." Spec. i-f 19. In addition, the Specification provides that "[b ]y combining the benefits of [model predictive control] module 110 and dynamic inversion module 116, and compensating their weakness, hybrid control system 100 can arbitrate between competing objectives to enhance vehicle capabilities and avoid system constraints, while maintaining stability." Id. i-f 25. In contrast, y( t) in Wohletz is information relating to the state of an aircraft. As noted by Appellants, Wohletz describes y(t) as "aircraft state 5 Appeal 2016-004251 Application 13/396,769 information." Wohletz 40; Appeal Br. 4. In Figure 1-2, Wohletz proposes an architecture for a retrofit module (i.e., the portion in the dark black box) to add to an existing aircraft control system (the portion below the dark black box). See Wohletz 25-26, 40-41. In the disclosed system, the "aircraft state information" is provided to both the "Nominal Controller" of the existing control system and to the Signal Conditioning and Estimation Module of the retrofit module. See id. at 40-41, Fig. 1-2. The Examiner does not explain how "aircraft state information" satisfies the recited "objectives." See Ans. 4 ("The model predictive control module ('Signal Cond. &Est', Figure 1-2) receives operator commands (r(t)), objectives (y(t)), and constraints (Urcm), Fig. 1-2))."). Based on the disclosures discussed above, the record does not support the finding regarding the recited "objectives." We tum now to the recited "constraints." In light of the Specification here, we determine that Urcm in Wohletz does not fall within the scope of the term "constraints."3 The Specification, in describing Figure 2, discloses that "[ c ]onstraint compatibility module 106 determines constraints on aircraft operation in response to the mode/sub-mode from the active operating mode module 104." Spec. i-f 17. "Through the constraint selection module 106 and objective selection module 112, control system 100 supports the translation of operator commands including mission mode, as well as sub- modes, into a set of objectives and constraints for the [Model predictive control ("MPC")] module 110 which best preserve handling qualities and aircraft safety." Id. i-f 20. The Specification also provides that "MPC 3 Although Appellants and the Examiner discuss Urcm, Wohletz uses the term "urcmcÂ·" See, e.g., Wohletz 40, Fig. 1-2. We will use UrcmÂ· 6 Appeal 2016-004251 Application 13/396,769 module 110 uses feed-forward command shaping and tailors the commands to avoid the applicable system constraints." Id. i-f 21. The Specification explains: "A given control system may have a plurality of goals and a plurality of limits. Limits are inequality constraints on system dynamic variables. An example limit may be to prevent an engine temperature from exceeding a certain temperature in order to prevent meltdown or rapid deterioration." Id. i-f 3. In contrast, Urcm in Wohletz is a set of commands output from the retrofit module shown in the darker black box in Figure 1-2. As noted by Appellants, Wohletz describes Urcm as "reconfiguration control module commands." Wohletz 40; Appeal Br. 4. The Examiner does not explain how "reconfiguration control model commands" satisfy the recited "constraints." See Ans. 4 ("The model predictive control module ('Signal Cond. &Est', Figure 1-2) receives operator commands (r(t)), objectives (y(t)), and constraints (Urcm), Fig. 1-2))."). Based on the disclosures discussed above, the record does not support the finding regarding the recited "constraints." For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or the rejection of claims 3-10, and 12, which depend from claim 1, in the context of Rejection 1. Rejections 2 through 6 Each of claims 6, and 8-11 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). The Examiner's added reliance on Pekar, Ye, Garcia, Yuan, and Choo does not remedy the deficiencies in the rejection based on Wohletz, discussed above (see supra Rejection 1). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain Rejections 2 through 6. 7 Appeal 2016-004251 Application 13/396,769 DECISION We reverse the decision to reject claims 1 and 3-12. REVERSED 8