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 .
Non-Responsive Amendment - 37 CFR 1.121
The supplemental 4/6/2026 version of claims fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.121 in a manner similar to that noted in the previous 2/26/2026 Notice of non-compliant amendment. More particularly, the 4/6/2026 version of claim 6 is identical to the previous 1/7/2026 version and thus should not repeat the claim status identifier “(Currently Amended)”, i.e., the 4/6/2026 version of claim 6 should be “(Previously Presented)” and should depend from claim 1 in clean form without repeating the underlining and double bracketing previously enacted in the 1/7/2026 version.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner takes the 4/6/2026 amendment on it’s face regardless of the improperly shown changes therein. However, all subsequent amendments going forward must properly show ALL changes from previous versions with correct claim status identifiers in order to avoid a notice of non-compliant amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 6-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The last line of Claim 1 states “while allowing for axial motion between first and second.” Such that it is unclear whether applicant intends to refer to the previously recited first and second --portions-- or to additional elements.
The remaining claims depend from claim 1 and are thus similarly unclear/rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Damas US4660432.
Claims 1 and 11. A gear assembly for a side stick on an aircraft (in that the gear assembly is capable of performing such intended functional use in accordance with MPEP 2112.01 and 2114), the gear assembly comprising: a first gear (6, 8, 10); a second gear (2) configured to engage with the first gear; and a viscoelastic material (13, or 17) provided in the first gear; wherein the first gear includes a first portion (6) and as second portion (8 and/or 10), and wherein the first portion and the second portion are separate and distinct parts that are configured to move axially relative to each other during operation (e.g., via loosening/tightening of V), and wherein each of the first portion and the second portion comprises an engagement surface (12a, 12b and/or 12c) configured to engage with an engagement surface (4) of the second gear, wherein the first portion and the second portion are separated by a gap (gap between 6 and 8; or gap between 6 and 10), wherein the viscoelastic material is provided in the form of one single annulus (any one single annulus of 13 or 17) in the gap; at least one fixation device (14 and/or 15 and V), wherein the at least one fixation device passes completely through the viscoelastic material between an inner and outer radius of the viscoelastic material (via 14), wherein the at least one fixation device also passes through the first portion, the second portion and the gap between the first portion and the second portion and connects the first and second portions while allowing for axial motion between the first and second portions (via at least portion 14 of 14/15/V).
Claim 6. The gear assembly of claim 1, wherein the at least one fixation device is a bolt (V is a bolt within the broadest reasonable interpretation since it is a threaded fastener for holding parts together) or a rivet (14 is a rivet within the broadest reasonable interpretation since it is a pin for holding parts together).
Claim 7. The gear assembly of claim 1, wherein the first gear includes a plurality of first gear teeth (teeth of 12a, 12b and/or 12c).
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 of this title, 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 6 and 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damas US4660432.
Claim 6. As detailed in the 35 USC 102 rejections elsewhere above, the Damas fixation device is a bolt or rivet within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms. In the interest of compact prosecution, if applicant intends to limit toward a --deformed-- rivet and/or a bolt with a --nut threaded thereon--, the examiner previously took Official Notice (see previous 9/18/2025 Office Action) that such was known to be desirable in the fixation art for increasing fastening force/strength. Applicant’s subsequent 1/7/2026 response did not adequately traverse the official notice by specifically pointed out why the noticed fact was not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. Accordingly, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03C, 37 CFR 1.111(b), Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 and In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 429 (CCPA 1970). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as such.
Claim 8. The gear assembly of claim 7, wherein the examiner previously took Official Notice (see previous 9/18/2025 Office Action) that helical gear teeth were known to be non-parallel to the gear axis and to be quieter in operation than parallel teeth. Applicant’s subsequent 1/7/2026 response did not adequately traverse the official notice by specifically pointed out why the noticed fact was not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. Accordingly, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03C, 37 CFR 1.111(b), Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241 and In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 429 (CCPA 1970). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as such.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damas US4660432 in view of Breuning DE19713245 and Voiles US10118688.
Damas does not expressly disclose using the gear assembly with a side stick of a side stick assembly of an aircraft. However:
Breuning teaches that it was well known to be desirable for aircraft to have a side stick assembly (para.3 of the English translation attached to this Office Action) and for side stick assemblies to use gear assemblies (11, 12, 13) with a side stick (2); and/or
Voiles teaches that it was well known to be desirable for gear assemblies (305/311, 205, 209) to have utility with the side stick (203) of a side stick assembly of an aircraft (col.4, ll.20-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Damas gear assembly to be used with a side stick of a side stick assembly of an aircraft, as taught by Breuning and/or Voiles, for the purpose of increasing the utility of the Hetzel gear assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues (2nd to last paragraph on p.5 of the 4/6/2026 remarks) that the newly added feature that the viscoelastic material is “in the form of one single annulus” is lacking in the prior art. This is not persuasive. As is detailed in the reworded rejections above, Damas discloses that “the viscoelastic material is provided in the form of one single annulus (any one single annulus of 13 or 17) in the gap”.
Applicant argues (last paragraph on p.5 – 1st paragraph on p.6) that the Damas fixation device 14/15 and V fail to allow for axial movement, and copies/pastes some text without express citation (e.g., presumably from some portion of Damas?). This is not persuasive. The section of text copied/pasted by Applicant fails to expressly state that Damas 14/15/V is incapable of axial movement. To the contrary, applicant’s argued/copied/pasted text expressly states that “a middle rib 17 of resilient material which ensures that a gap remains between metal sleeves 15” such that the resilient material inherently allows for some axial movement in as much as applicant’s own resilient material does. Applicant has failed to obtain/test the prior art and submit evidence proving the contrary as is required by MPEP 2112.01 and 2114. Furthermore, applicant later concedes that this argument is without merit (last three paragraphs on p.6, where applicant “now understands” that in Damas discloses such features thereby motivating applicant to introduce a new limitation “one single annulus” in order to attempt to otherwise overcome Damas. Again, as is detailed in the reworded rejections above, Damas discloses that “the viscoelastic material is provided in the form of one single annulus (any one single annulus of 13 or 17) in the gap”.
Applicant argues that Damas intends for element V to be removed from the system after assembly and is thus would not be present in Damas’s preferred/intended operation. This is not persuasive. The claims do not expressly forbid reliance on the embodiment of Damas prior to removal of V. Further, the embodiment of Damas still containing element V is fully capable of inherently meeting the claimed functions/properties in accordance with MPEP 2112.01 and 2114 regardless of whether or not Damas expressly intends such functioning for that stage of assembly. Applicant has failed to obtain/test Damas to prove otherwise as is required by MPEP 2112.01 and 2114.
Applicant argues (p.7) numerous features (e.g., more compact, lighter, simpler, particularly interesting, etc.) that are not present in the claims. This is not persuasive. Features that are not expressly recited in the claims cannot be relied upon to persuasively argue that the prior art does not suggest the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues, regarding claim 10, that one would not use Damas in an aircraft side stick due to its large radial footprint and weight. This is not persuasive. The claims fail to set forth any particular footprint or weight not present in Damas. Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Still further, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR L MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7085.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VICTOR L MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights