Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-22 remain withdrawn.
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 1-5 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbanec (US 11442471 B2) in view of Selwa (US 10144504 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Urbanec discloses An aircraft system controller enabling an operator to control an aircraft system, the aircraft system controller comprising:
a knob (210), wherein:
the knob is rotatable about a rotation axis (“central axis”; Column 7 Line 66) in a first direction from a neutral angular position (starting position) of the knob to a first angular position (“increment”; Column 3 Line 11) associated with a first input (“target altitude”; Col 3 Line 09) to the aircraft system;
the knob is rotatable about the rotation axis in a second direction from the neutral angular position of the knob to a second angular position (“decrement”; Column 3 Line 11) associated with a second input (“vertical speed mode”; Column 8 Line 53) to the aircraft system;
the knob is biased toward the neutral angular position (“indexed positions”; Column 7 Line 3) to
the knob is movable (“pushing along a central axis”; Column 7 Line 66) along the rotation axis, movement of the knob along the rotation axis being associated with a third input (flight path angle “FPA” Col 8 Line 36) to the aircraft system;
and an annunciator (204) displaying a visual indication (“textual indications”; Col 8 Line 36 and “highlighted, e.g. by coloring or other graphical emphasis”; Col 10 Line 6) associated with the aircraft system, the visual indication being visible within a periphery of the knob (See Figs. 3A-5).
Urbanec is silent on the knob returning the neutral position. Selwa teaches a similar knob 540 used to control an aircraft (“multicopter”; Col 2 Line 58) wherein the knob is biased toward the neutral angular position to automatically return to the neutral angular position (“spring centering will cause both hand controls to return to a neutral or centered position”; Col 10 Line 17) from the first angular (504) position and from the second angular position (506). At the time of invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the knob of Urbanec with the spring centering of Selwa. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide “a good safety feature to have because the multicopter will not fly off in an uncontrolled manner should (as an example) the pilot panic or pass out”; Col 10 Line 22 of Selwa.
Regarding Claims 2-5 Urbanec discloses:
2. The aircraft system controller as defined in claim 1, wherein the visual indication is configured to indicate a currently active state (“upper section 206A indicates the currently selected controllable function”; Col 7 Line 38) of the aircraft system commanded via the knob or commanded via another source different from the knob.
3. The aircraft system controller as defined in claim 1, wherein a radially outer surface of the knob is non-axisymmetric about the rotation axis (“a knurled, or otherwise textured, outer surface for enhanced grip”; Col 6 Line 63) and defines a tactile cue (“indexed positions”; Col 7 Line 3) indicating a current angular position of the knob.
4. The aircraft system controller as defined in claim 1, wherein the knob includes two (many) diametrically-opposed recesses (a knurled, or otherwise textured, outer surface for enhanced grip”; Col 6 Line 63) for accommodating parts of a hand of the operator.
5. The aircraft system controller as defined in claim 1, wherein the knob is rotatable separately of the visual indication (“mechanically defined by an interface between a mount (not shown) for the touch control display 204 and the rotatable element 202”; Col 7 Line 3).
Regarding Claims 9-14 Urbanec discloses:
9. The aircraft system controller as defined in claim 1, wherein the annunciator displays a first indication (206A) to indicate a first state of the aircraft system, and a second indication (206B) different from the first indication to indicate a second state of the aircraft system.
10. The aircraft system controller as defined in claim 9, wherein the annunciator displays a third indication (206C) to indicate a third state of the aircraft system.
11. The aircraft system controller as defined in claim 1, wherein:
the visual indication is a first visual indication (ALT in Fig. 3A) indicating a first state of the aircraft system;
the annunciator includes a first region (206A) for displaying the first visual indication;
the annunciator includes a second region (206B) different from the first region, for displaying a second visual indication (VS in Fig. 3A) indicating a second state of the aircraft system; and
the annunciator includes a third region (206C) different from the first region and from the second region, for displaying a third visual indication (FPA in Fig. 3A) indicating a third state of the aircraft system.
12. The aircraft system controller as defined in claim 1, including a detent providing a tactile cue indicative of an angular positioning of the knob (“indexed positions”; Col 7 Line 3).
13. The aircraft system controller as defined in claim 12, wherein the detent indicates a third angular position (many different positions around the rotation of the knob) of the knob between the neutral angular position and the first angular position, the third angular position being associated with a fourth input (e.g. increasing the ALT to a altitude between the first position and initial altitude) to the aircraft system.
14. The aircraft system controller as defined in claim 1, wherein rotation of the knob and movement of the knob along the rotation axis are mutually exclusive (as required to meet the phrase “additionally actuated by pushing”; Col 8 Line 45).
Regarding Claims 15 - 17, Urbanec further discloses A vehicle having the knob as an aircraft (100), with a flight deck (108), and an overhead panel (120; locations can be changed; Col 5 Line 42)
Claims 6-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbanec and Selwa as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US 9212740 B2).
Urbanec discloses the knob and push button as described above but is silent on a stop or lock. Watanabe teaches a knob having:
6. The aircraft system controller as defined in claim 1, comprising one or more hard stops limiting an angular displacement range (“rotation knob reaches a limit position in a predetermined rotation range”; Col 1 Line 20) of the knob to less than or equal to 180 degrees.
7. The aircraft system controller as defined in claim 1, comprising a releasable lock (82) preventing rotation of the knob from the neutral angular position of the knob.
8. The aircraft system controller as defined in claim 7, wherein the lock is releasable by (81) movement of the knob along the rotation axis.
18. The vehicle as defined in claim 15, wherein an angular displacement range (“rotation knob reaches a limit position in a predetermined rotation range”; Col 1 Line 20) of the push button is limited to less than or equal to 180 degrees.
At the time of invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the knob of Urbanec and Selwa with the limit and lock of Watanabe. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide limits of the different parameters of Urbanec, i.e. to limit the altitude or vertical speed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Urbanec with Selwa to include the automatic return spring of Selwa would render the knob of Urbanec unsatisfactory for it’s intended purpose because setting a value after rotating the knob would not be possible if the knob returns back to center. This is not found persuasive since Urbanec specifically teaches that pressing the touch sensitive areas of the knob can be used as a way to select different things. A user would twist the knob to the desired value, and then press on one of the touch sensitive displays to confirm the value. Then the knob could spin back to place. Confirmation of the value would add extra safety, as taught by the Selwa reference. The rejection from 02/27/2025 is maintained as written above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
the prior art of Figard (US 10108189 B2) shows a very similar knob control device however the visual indicators are outside of the knob instead of within the periphery of the knob.
US 20250033472 A1 is newly cited. A knob with multiple touch sensitive areas.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M O'HARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5224. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM eastern.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/BRIAN M O'HARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642