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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18-20 are currently pending.
3. Claims 5 and 17 are canceled.
4. Claims 1 and 14 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennell (US 20140232568 A1) in view of Eggold (US 8352099 B1).
9. Regarding Claim 1, Pennell teaches a system for displaying roll rate on a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft display comprising (Pennell: [0014], [0039], and [0092] Note that Pennell teaches applying the system to a rotorcraft for the benefit of providing roll rate data to the pilots on additional aircraft types. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that a rotorcraft is capable of vertical take-offs and landings, and is therefore a type of VTOL.):
At least one geospatial sensor of a VTOL aircraft (Pennell: [0071]);
A display device of the VTOL aircraft (Pennell: [0061]);
A flight control system (FCS) of the VTOL aircraft (Pennell: [0035]);
And a controller communicatively coupled to the at least one geospatial sensor, the display device, and the FCS, the controller being configured to (Pennell: [0073] and [0155]):
Receive aircraft roll data from the at least one geospatial sensor (Pennell: [0092]);
Generate a roll rate scale associated with a desirable roll rate range of the VTOL aircraft… (Pennell: [0099] Note that ends 418 and 420 indicate the generated roll rate scale for the aircraft in Figs. 4-7.);
Determine an aircraft roll rate of the VTOL aircraft based on the aircraft roll data (Pennell: [0092] and [0097]);
And generate the VTOL aircraft display comprising a graphical representation of the roll rate scale and the aircraft roll rate with respect to the roll rate scale for display on the display device (Pennell: [0093], [0097], and [0099]).
Pennell fails to explicitly teach to receive an operational status of a component of the FCS; and wherein the desirable roll rate range is based on the operational status of the component of the FCS and the roll rate scale is asymmetrical about a roll rate marker indicative of a zero-roll rate when the component of the FCS is non-operational.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Eggold teaches to receive an operational status of a component of the FCS (Eggold: [Column 4, Lines 16-20] and [Column 4, Lines 36-46]);
Wherein the desirable roll rate range is based on the operational status of the component of the FCS and the roll rate scale is asymmetrical about a roll rate marker indicative of a zero-roll rate when the component of the FCS is non-operational (Eggold: [Column 10, Lines 16-27]).
Pennell and Eggold are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pennell to incorporate the teachings of Eggold for the desirable roll rate range to be based on the operational status of the component of the FCS because it provides the benefit of improving directional control during roll maneuvers for an aircraft experiencing engine thrust asymmetry, as explained in [Column 1, Lines 8-11] of Eggold.
10. Regarding Claim 3, Pennell and Eggold remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Pennell teaches to receive at least one control input from the at least one geospatial sensor (Pennell: [0065] and [0073]);
And generate the desirable roll rate range based on the at least one control input (Pennell: [0099]).
11. Regarding Claim 4, Pennell and Eggold remains as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Pennell teaches the at least one control input comprises at least one of airspeed data, groundspeed data, vertical speed data, vertical acceleration data, altitude data, pitch data, yaw data, heading data, atmospheric condition data, wind speed data, wind direction data, flight path data, radar altitude data, and geometric altitude data (Pennell: [0066]).
12. Regarding Claim 6, Pennell and Eggold remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Pennell teaches to generate the graphical representation of the roll rate scale as a horizonal roll rate scale; and overlay the graphical representation of the aircraft roll rate on the graphical representation of the horizontal roll rate scale (Pennell: [0092] and [0097] Note that the graphical representation of the aircraft roll rate and the graphical representation of the horizontal roll rate are broadly interpreted as the same, and therefore, overlaid on the display.).
13. Regarding Claim 7, Pennell and Eggold remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Pennell teaches to generate the graphical representation of the roll rate scale as a horizonal roll rate scale bar; and overlay the graphical representation of the aircraft roll rate as a… circle on the graphical representation of the horizontal roll rate scale bar (Pennell: [0092] and [0097]).
Pennell discloses the claimed invention except for overlaying the graphical representation of the aircraft roll rate as a donut shaped circle. However, it would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to use different shapes for the graphical representation absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the aircraft roll rate graphical representation being display as a circle without a donut hole (e.g., solid circle 413).
14. Regarding Claim 8, Pennell and Eggold remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Pennell teaches to generate the VTOL aircraft display to include numerical values associated with at least one of the desirable roll rate range and the aircraft roll rate (Pennell: [0099] and [0102]).
15. Regarding Claim 9, Pennell and Eggold remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Pennell teaches to determine whether the aircraft roll rate is greater than a roll rate threshold; and generate the graphical representation of the aircraft roll rate in one of a first graphical format and a second graphical format based on the determination (Pennell: [0062] and [0123]).
16. Regarding Claim 10, Pennell and Eggold remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Pennell teaches to generate a roll rate threshold based on at least one of a control input received from the at least one geospatial sensor and an operational status of a component of an FCS of the VTOL aircraft (Pennell: [0065] and [0066]).
17. Regarding Claim 11, Pennell and Eggold remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Pennell teaches to determine whether the aircraft roll rate is greater than a roll rate threshold; and generate at least one of a visual alert, a haptic alert, and an audio alert based on the determination (Pennell: [0062] and [0070]).
18. Regarding Claim 13, Pennell and Eggold remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Pennell teaches to receive aircraft body rotation data from the at least one geospatial sensor; and determine the aircraft roll rate of the VTOL aircraft based on the aircraft roll data and the aircraft body rotation data (Pennell: [0035], [0037], and [0092]).
19. Regarding Claim 14, Pennell teaches a method for displaying roll rate on a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft display comprising (Pennell: [0014], [0039], and [0092] Note that Pennell teaches applying the system to a rotorcraft for the benefit of providing roll rate data to the pilots on additional aircraft types. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that a rotorcraft is capable of vertical take-offs and landings, and is therefore a type of VTOL.):
Receiving aircraft roll data from at least one geospatial sensor of a VTOL aircraft (Pennell: [0092]);
Generating a roll rate scale associated with a desirable roll rate range of the VTOL aircraft… (Pennell: [0099] Note that ends 418 and 420 indicate the generated roll rate scale for the aircraft in Figs. 4-7.);
Determining an aircraft roll rate of the VTOL aircraft based on the aircraft roll data (Pennell: [0092] and [0097]);
And generating the VTOL aircraft display comprising a graphical representation of the roll rate scale and the aircraft roll rate with respect to the roll rate scale for display on a display device (Pennell: [0093], [0097], and [0099]).
Pennell fails to explicitly teach to receiving an operational status of a component of a flight control system (FCS) of the VTOL aircraft; and wherein the desirable roll rate range is based on the operational status of the component of the FCS and the roll rate scale is asymmetrical about a roll rate marker indicative of a zero-roll rate when the component of the FCS is non-operational.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Eggold teaches to receive an operational status of a component of the FCS (Eggold: [Column 4, Lines 16-20] and [Column 4, Lines 36-46]);
Wherein the desirable roll rate range is based on the operational status of the component of the FCS and the roll rate scale is asymmetrical about a roll rate marker indicative of a zero-roll rate when the component of the FCS is non-operational (Eggold: [Column 10, Lines 16-27]).
Pennell and Eggold are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pennell to incorporate the teachings of Eggold for the desirable roll rate range to be based on the operational status of the component of the FCS because it provides the benefit of improving directional control during roll maneuvers for an aircraft experiencing engine thrust asymmetry, as explained in [Column 1, Lines 8-11] of Eggold.
20. Regarding Claim 16, Pennell and Eggold remains as applied above in Claim 14, and further, Pennell teaches generating the desirable roll rate range based on at least one control input received from the at least one geospatial sensor (Pennell: [0065], [0073], and [0099]).
21. Regarding Claim 18, Pennell and Eggold remains as applied above in Claim 14, and further, Pennell teaches determining whether the aircraft roll rate is greater than a roll rate threshold; and generating the graphical representation of the aircraft roll rate in one of a first graphical format and a second graphical format based on the determination (Pennell: [0062] and [0123]).
22. Regarding Claim 19, Pennell and Eggold remains as applied above in Claim 14, and further, Pennell teaches generating the graphical representation of the roll rate scale as a horizonal roll rate scale; and overlaying the graphical representation of the aircraft roll rate on the graphical representation of the horizontal roll rate scale (Pennell: [0092] and [0097] Note that the graphical representation of the aircraft roll rate and the graphical representation of the horizontal roll rate are broadly interpreted as the same, and therefore, overlaid on the display.).
23. Regarding Claim 20, Pennell and Eggold remains as applied above in Claim 14, and further, Pennell teaches receiving aircraft body rotation data from the at least one geospatial sensor; and determining the aircraft roll rate of the VTOL aircraft based on the aircraft roll data and the aircraft body rotation data (Pennell: [0035], [0037], and [0092]).
24. Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennell (US 20140232568 A1), in view of Eggold (US 8352099 B1), and in further view of Lissajoux (US 20160363459 A1).
25. Regarding Claim 2, Pennell and Eggold remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Pennell and Eggold fail to explicitly teach to determine an aircraft roll angle of the VTOL aircraft based on the aircraft roll data received from the at least one geospatial sensor; and generate the VTOL aircraft display to include a graphical representation of the aircraft roll angle in an aircraft roll angle indicator for display on the display device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lissajoux teaches to determine an aircraft roll angle of the VTOL aircraft based on the aircraft roll data received from the at least one geospatial sensor (Lissajoux: [0079]);
And generate the VTOL aircraft display to include a graphical representation of the aircraft roll angle in an aircraft roll angle indicator for display on the display device (Lissajoux: [0190]).
Pennell, Eggold, and Lissajoux are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pennell and Eggold to incorporate the teachings of Lissajoux to determine an aircraft roll angle and generate a graphical representation of the aircraft roll angle because it provides the benefit of rendering additional information for the pilot to increase awareness and improving flight safety. Lissajoux explains that rendering the actual roll angle of the aircraft may be used to avoid stalling conditions for the aircraft.
26. Regarding Claim 15, Pennell and Eggold remains as applied above in Claim 14.
Pennell and Eggold fail to explicitly teach determining an aircraft roll angle of the VTOL aircraft based on the aircraft roll data received from the at least one geospatial sensor; and generating the VTOL aircraft display to include a graphical representation of the aircraft roll angle in an aircraft roll angle indicator for display on the display device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lissajoux teaches determining an aircraft roll angle of the VTOL aircraft based on the aircraft roll data received from the at least one geospatial sensor (Lissajoux: [0079]);
And generating the VTOL aircraft display to include a graphical representation of the aircraft roll angle in an aircraft roll angle indicator for display on the display device (Lissajoux: [0190]).
Pennell, Eggold, and Lissajoux are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pennell and Eggold to incorporate the teachings of Lissajoux to determine an aircraft roll angle and generate a graphical representation of the aircraft roll angle because it provides the benefit of rendering additional information for the pilot to increase awareness and improving flight safety. Lissajoux explains that rendering the actual roll angle of the aircraft may be used to avoid stalling conditions for the aircraft.
27. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennell (US 20140232568 A1), in view of Eggold (US 8352099 B1), and in further view of Roberts (US 20180237124 A1).
28. Regarding Claim 12, Pennell and Eggold remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Pennell and Eggold fail to explicitly teach the VTOL aircraft is an electric VTOL (EVTOL) aircraft
However, in the same field of endeavor, Roberts teaches the VTOL aircraft is an electric VTOL (EVTOL) aircraft (Roberts: [0007]).
Pennell, Eggold, and Roberts are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pennell and Eggold to incorporate the teachings of Roberts for the VTOL aircraft to be an electric VTOL aircraft because it provides the benefit of alternate form for powering rotor systems, as explained in [0007] of Roberts.
Response to Arguments
29. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Eggold (US 8352099 B1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of the desirable roll rate range is based on the operational status of the component of the FCS and the roll rate scale is asymmetrical when the component of the FCS is non-operational in the rejection above as cited in at least [Column 10, Lines 16-27]. Eggold teaches that the roll rate gain passes through when turning in the direction toward the operating engine and the roll rate gain does not pass through when turning in the direction toward the failed engine.
30. Pennell (US 20140232568 A1), in view of Eggold (US 8352099 B1), and in further view of Lissajoux (US 20160363459 A1) and Pennell (US 20140232568 A1), in view of Eggold (US 8352099 B1), and in further view of Roberts (US 20180237124 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
31. Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18-20 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
32. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dadkhah Tehrani (US 20230059421 A1)
Dupre (US 20090055037 A1)
Shapiro (US 20120239227 A1)
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights