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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34 and 36-37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16 line 7, “…input from the first and the second inceptor…” should read “…inputs from the first inceptor and the second inceptor…”.
In claim 16 line 8, “…the aircraft…” should read “…an aircraft…”.
In claim 20 line 3, “…its neutral position.” should read “…the neutral position.”.
In claim 22 line 2, “…controlling the thrust…” should read “…controlling thrust…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 26 line 5, “…input from the first and the second inceptor…” should read “…inputs from the first inceptor and the second inceptor…”.
In claim 26 line 6, “…of the aircraft…” should rea “…of an aircraft…”.
In claim 30 line 3, “…its neutral position.” should read “…the neutral position.”.
In claim 34 lines 2-3, “…both a thrust of at least one propulsion unit…” should read “…both the thrust of the at least one propulsion unit…”.
In claim 36 line 9, “…input from the first and the second inceptor…” should read “…inputs from the first inceptor and the second inceptor…”.
In claim 36 line 14, “…of at least one propulsion unit.” should read “…of the at least one propulsion unit.” as positively recited in line 2.
In claim 37 line 1, “…a VTOL aircraft…” should read “…a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft…” for the purpose of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kroo et al. (US 2018/0086448).
Regarding claim 26, Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) a flight control system (200), comprising:
a first inceptor (202) (Para 0019; a set of inceptors comprise at least two inceptors); and
a second inceptor (202) (Para 0019; a set of inceptors comprise at least two inceptors); and
a flight control computer/controller (206) (Para 0019), configured to
receive inputs (204s) from the first inceptor (202) and the second inceptor (202) (Para 0019); and
control a vertical motion/ vertical flight mode of the aircraft based on the input from the second inceptor (Para 0019-0020; an inceptor which controls a vertical motion of the aircraft is a second inceptor),
wherein controlling the vertical motion/vertical flight mode comprises:
controlling the aircraft to increase its climb rate based on a first input received from the second inceptor (Para 0020; thrust command controls the speed of the aircraft in vertical direction during vertical flight modes); and
controlling the aircraft to maintain the climb rate upon the second inceptor returning to its neutral position (returning inceptor to the neutral position maintains the constant climb rate).
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) 16-17, and 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroo et al. (US 2018/0086448) in view of Yoeli (US 2010/0076625).
Regarding claim 16, Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) a flight control system (200), comprising:
a first inceptor (202) (Para 0019; a set of inceptors comprise at least two inceptors); and
a second inceptor (202) (Para 0019; a set of inceptors comprise at least two inceptors); and
a flight control computer/controller (206) (Para 0019), configured to
receive inputs (204s) from the first inceptor (202) and the second inceptor (202) (Para 0019); and
control a vertical motion/ vertical flight mode of the aircraft based on the input from the second inceptor (Para 0019-0020; an inceptor which controls a vertical motion of the aircraft is a second inceptor),
wherein controlling the vertical motion/vertical flight mode comprises controlling a combination of pitch of the aircraft through differential control of flaps/control surfaces (712) on a main wing/aft wing (706) and canard wings/forward wings (704) and thrust of at least one propulsion unit/rotor assembly (710) (Para 0014, 0027, 0036; pitch of an aircraft is a component of attitude of the aircraft)
but it is silent about the flight control system wherein a neutral position of the second inceptor is tilted in a range of 30 degrees to 60 degrees with respect to a neutral position of the first inceptor.
Yoeli ‘625 teaches (figure 44) a cockpit control configuration including two sticks i.e., cyclic control and collective control in neutral positions wherein stick/cyclic control is at an angle is within the range of 30 to 60 degrees with respect to a neutral position of the stick/collective control (clearly seen in figure 44) (Para 0170)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroo et al. ‘448 to incorporate the teachings of Yoeli ‘625 to configure the flight control system wherein a neutral position of the second inceptor is tilted in a range of 30 degrees to 60 degrees with respect to a neutral position of the first inceptor.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide easy access of inceptors to a pilot.
Regarding claim 17, modified Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system wherein the neutral position of the second inceptor is tilted at substantially 45 degrees with respect to the neutral position of the first inceptor (as modified by Yoeli ‘625 figure 44).
Regarding claim 36, Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) an aircraft (700), comprising
at least one propulsion unit/rotor assembly (710) (Para 0035);
at least one control surface (712) (Para 0035);
a first inceptor (202) (Para 0019; a set of inceptors comprise at least two inceptors); and
a second inceptor (202) (Para 0019; a set of inceptors comprise at least two inceptors); and
a flight control computer/controller (206) (Para 0019), configured to
receive inputs (204s) from the first inceptor (202) and the second inceptor (202) (Para 0019); and
control a vertical motion/ vertical flight mode of the aircraft based on the input from the second inceptor (Para 0019-0020; an inceptor which controls a vertical motion of the aircraft is a second inceptor,
wherein controlling the vertical motion/vertical flight mode comprises controlling a combination of pitch of the aircraft through differential control of flaps/control surfaces (712) on a main wing/aft wing (706) and canard wings/forward wings (704) and thrust of the at least one propulsion unit/rotor assembly (710) (Para 0014, 0027, 0036; pitch of an aircraft is a component of attitude of the aircraft)
but it is silent about the aircraft wherein a neutral position of the second inceptor is tilted in a range of 30 degrees to 60 degrees with respect to a neutral position of the first inceptor.
Yoeli ‘625 teaches (figure 44) a cockpit control configuration including two sticks i.e., cyclic control and collective control in neutral positions wherein stick/cyclic control is at an angle is within the range of 30 to 60 degrees with respect to a neutral position of the stick/collective control (clearly seen in figure 44) (Para 0170)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroo et al. ‘448 to incorporate the teachings of Yoeli ‘625 to configure the aircraft wherein a neutral position of the second inceptor is tilted in a range of 30 degrees to 60 degrees with respect to a neutral position of the first inceptor.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide easy access of inceptors to a pilot.
Regarding claim 37, modified Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) the aircraft wherein the aircraft is a VTOL aircraft (Para 0027; aircraft can take off and land vertically).
Regarding claim 38, Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) a method of controlling an aircraft (700), comprising:
receiving input (204) from a first inceptor (202) (Para 0019; a set of inceptors comprise at least two inceptors);
receiving input (204) from a second inceptor (202) (Para 0019; a set of inceptors comprise at least two inceptors); and
controlling a vertical motion/ vertical flight mode of the aircraft based on the input from the second inceptor (Para 0019-0020; an inceptor which controls a vertical motion of the aircraft is a second inceptor),
wherein controlling the vertical motion/vertical flight mode comprises controlling a combination of pitch of the aircraft through differential control of flaps/control surfaces (712) on a main wing/aft wing (706) and canard wings/forward wings (704) and thrust of at least one propulsion unit/rotor assembly (710) (Para 0014, 0027, 0036; pitch of an aircraft is a component of attitude of the aircraft)
but it is silent about the method wherein a neutral position of the second inceptor is tilted in a range of 30 degrees to 60 degrees with respect to a neutral position of the first inceptor.
Yoeli ‘625 teaches (figure 44) a cockpit control configuration including two sticks i.e., cyclic control and collective control in neutral positions wherein stick/cyclic control is at an angle is within the range of 30 to 60 degrees with respect to a neutral position of the stick/collective control (clearly seen in figure 44) (Para 0170)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroo et al. ‘448 to incorporate the teachings of Yoeli ‘625 to configure the method wherein a neutral position of the second inceptor is tilted in a range of 30 degrees to 60 degrees with respect to a neutral position of the first inceptor.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide easy access of inceptors to a pilot.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroo et al. (US 2018/0086448) and Yoeli (US 2010/0076625) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Appleford (US 4,862,372).
Regarding claims 18-19, modified Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system of claim 16 but it is silent about the flight control system wherein the flight control computer is configured to control the vertical motion by outputting an altitude rate command over an entire airspeed range of the aircraft.
Appleford ‘372 teaches implementation of altitude rate commands during an aircraft autopilot to cause the aircraft to transition to a non-level flight path which corresponds to a portion of a calculated flight path profile (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kroo et al. ‘448 to incorporate the teachings of Appleford ‘372 to configure the flight control system wherein the flight control computer is configured to control the vertical motion by outputting an altitude rate command over an entire airspeed range of the aircraft (altitude rate command controls aircraft’s vertical speed allowing aircraft to climb or descend to a specific altitude at a commanded rate).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to control climb and descend rate of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 20, modified Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system wherein the flight control computer is configured to set the altitude rate command to zero when the second inceptor is in the neutral position (an initial neutral position of the second inceptor has zero impact on the altitude rate command thus at the initial neutral position of the second inceptor the altitude rate command is zero and actuating the second inceptor from the neutral position inputs the altitude rate command).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroo et al. (US 2018/0086448) and Yoeli (US 2010/0076625) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Appleford (US 4,862,372) and Depenbusch et al. (US 11,702,191).
Regarding claim 21, modified Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system of claim 16 but it is silent about the flight control system wherein the flight control computer is configured to control the vertical motion by, depending on an airspeed of the aircraft, alternating between outputting an altitude rate command and a flight path angle rate command.
Appleford ‘372 teaches implementation of altitude rate commands during an aircraft autopilot to cause the aircraft to transition to a non-level flight path which corresponds to a portion of a calculated flight path profile (Abstract).
Depenbusch et al. ‘191 further teaches (figure 5) the flight control computer adapted to derive and output the flight instructions for the vertical motion control as flight path angle rate instruction/command (clearly seen in figure 5) (Col. 11 Lines 24-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kroo et al. ‘448 to incorporate the teachings of Appleford ‘372 and Depenbusch et al. ‘191 to configure the flight control system wherein the flight control computer is configured to control the vertical motion outputting an altitude rate command and a flight path angle rate command.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would ensure smooth climb and descent of the aircraft.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kroo et al. ‘448 to configure the flight control system wherein the flight control computer is configured to control the vertical motion by, depending on an airspeed of the aircraft, alternating between outputting an altitude rate command and a flight path angle rate command.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide a choice between prioritizing precise trajectory maintenance using flight path angle rate command versus vertical speed stability using altitude rate command, as needed.
Claim(s) 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroo et al. (US 2018/0086448) and Yoeli (US 2010/0076625) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Harris et al. (US 2021/0047052).
Regarding claim 22, modified Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system of claim 16 but it is silent about the flight control system wherein the flight control system is configured to control the vertical motion of the aircraft by controlling thrust of the at least one propulsion unit in a hover condition.
Harries et al. ‘052 a hybrid aircraft system uses a combination of direct propeller driven gas engine and electric motor power to provide vertical thrust and control for hover of the aircraft (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kroo et al. ‘448 to incorporate the teachings of Harries et al. ‘052 to configure the flight control system wherein the flight control system is configured to control the vertical motion of the aircraft by controlling thrust of the at least one propulsion unit in a hover condition.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide needed vertical thrust to maintain hover position.
Regarding claim 23, modified Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system of claim 22 but it is silent about the flight control system wherein the flight control system is configured to control the vertical motion of the aircraft by controlling the pitch of the aircraft in forward flight.
Kroo et al. ‘448 further teaches in vertical flight modes the control surfaces may be used to provide attitude control (Para 0036; vertical flight modes are modes in which aircraft is in vertical motion; in vertical flight modes attitude of the aircraft is controlled and since pitch of an aircraft is a component of attitude of the aircraft, the pitch is controlled in vertical flight modes i.e. during vertical motion by the control surfaces).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kroo et al. ‘448 to configure the flight control system wherein the flight control system is configured to control the vertical motion of the aircraft by controlling the pitch of the aircraft in forward flight.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would ensure controlled and smooth movement of the aircraft in vertical direction during forward flight of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 24, modified Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system wherein the flight control system is configured to control the vertical motion of the aircraft by controlling both the thrust of the at least one propulsion unit/rotor assembly (701) and the pitch of the aircraft during transition flight (Para 0027).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroo et al. (US 2018/0086448) and Yoeli (US 2010/0076625) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Davies et al. (US 2016/0041561).
Regarding claim 25, modified Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system of claim 16 but it is silent about the flight control system wherein the flight control system is configured to perform flight envelop protection by setting at least one of an upper or lower limit for at least one of angle of attack, climb rate, sink rate, load factor, pitch angle or flight path angle.
Davies et al. ‘561 teaches (fig. 10B) a graphical illustration of a maximum angle of attack limit and a minimum angle of attack limit for an aircraft (Para 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kroo et al. ‘448 to incorporate the teachings of Davies et al. ‘561 to configure the flight control system wherein the flight control system is configured to perform flight envelop protection by setting an upper or lower limit for angle of attack.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance safety.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroo et al. (US 2018/0086448) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Yoeli (US 2010/0076625).
Regarding claim 27, Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system of claim 26 but it is silent about the flight control system wherein the neutral position of the second inceptor is tilted at substantially 45 degrees with respect to the neutral position of the first inceptor.
Yoeli ‘625 teaches (figure 44) a cockpit control configuration including two sticks i.e., cyclic control and collective control in neutral positions wherein stick/cyclic control is tilted at substantially 45 degrees with respect to a neutral position of the stick/collective control (clearly seen in figure 44) (Para 0170).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroo et al. ‘448 to incorporate the teachings of Yoeli ‘625 to configure the flight control system wherein the neutral position of the second inceptor is tilted at substantially 45 degrees with respect to the neutral position of the first inceptor.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide easy access of inceptors to a pilot.
Claim(s) 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroo et al. (US 2018/0086448) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Appleford (US 4,862,372).
Regarding claims 28-29, Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system of claim 26 but it is silent about the flight control system wherein the flight control computer is configured to control the vertical motion by outputting an altitude rate command over an entire airspeed range of the aircraft.
Appleford ‘372 teaches implementation of altitude rate commands during an aircraft autopilot to cause the aircraft to transition to a non-level flight path which corresponds to a portion of a calculated flight path profile (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroo et al. ‘448 to incorporate the teachings of Appleford ‘372 to configure the flight control system wherein the flight control computer is configured to control the vertical motion by outputting an altitude rate command over an entire airspeed range of the aircraft (altitude rate command controls aircraft’s vertical speed allowing aircraft to climb or descend to a specific altitude at a commanded rate).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to control climb and descend rate of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 30, modified Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system wherein the flight control computer is configured to set the altitude rate command to zero when the second inceptor is in the neutral position (an initial neutral position of the second inceptor has zero impact on the altitude rate command thus at the initial neutral position of the second inceptor the altitude rate command is zero and actuating the second inceptor from the neutral position inputs the altitude rate command).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroo et al. (US 2018/0086448) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Appleford (US 4,862,372) and Depenbusch et al. (US 11,702,191).
Regarding claim 31, modified Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system of claim 26 but it is silent about the flight control system wherein the flight control computer is configured to control the vertical motion by, depending on an airspeed of the aircraft, alternating between outputting an altitude rate command and a flight path angle rate command.
Appleford ‘372 teaches implementation of altitude rate commands during an aircraft autopilot to cause the aircraft to transition to a non-level flight path which corresponds to a portion of a calculated flight path profile (Abstract).
Depenbusch et al. ‘191 further teaches (figure 5) the flight control computer adapted to derive and output the flight instructions for the vertical motion control as flight path angle rate instruction/command (clearly seen in figure 5) (Col. 11 Lines 24-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kroo et al. ‘448 to incorporate the teachings of Appleford ‘372 and Depenbusch et al. ‘191 to configure the flight control system wherein the flight control computer is configured to control the vertical motion outputting an altitude rate command and a flight path angle rate command.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would ensure smooth climb and descent of the aircraft.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroo et al. ‘448 to configure the flight control system wherein the flight control computer is configured to control the vertical motion by, depending on an airspeed of the aircraft, alternating between outputting an altitude rate command and a flight path angle rate command.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide a choice between prioritizing precise trajectory maintenance using flight path angle rate command versus vertical speed stability using altitude rate command, as needed.
Claim(s) 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroo et al. (US 2018/0086448) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Harris et al. (US 2021/0047052).
Regarding claim 32, modified Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system of claim 26 but it is silent about the flight control system is configured to control the vertical motion of the aircraft by controlling thrust of the at least one propulsion unit in a hover condition.
Harries et al. ‘052 a hybrid aircraft system uses a combination of direct propeller driven gas engine and electric motor power to provide vertical thrust and control for hover of the aircraft (Abstract),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroo et al. ‘448 to incorporate the teachings of Harries et al. ‘052 to configure the flight control system is configured to control the vertical motion of the aircraft by controlling thrust of the at least one propulsion unit in a hover condition.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide needed vertical thrust to maintain hover position.
Regarding claim 33, modified Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system of claim 26 but it is silent about the flight control system is configured to control the vertical motion of the aircraft by controlling the pitch of the aircraft in forward flight.
Kroo et al. ‘448 further teaches in vertical flight modes the control surfaces may be used to provide attitude control (Para 0036; vertical flight modes are modes in which aircraft is in vertical motion; in vertical flight modes attitude of the aircraft is controlled and since pitch of an aircraft is a component of attitude of the aircraft, the pitch is controlled in vertical flight modes i.e. during vertical motion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kroo et al. ‘448 to configure the flight control system is configured to control the vertical motion of the aircraft by controlling the pitch of the aircraft in forward flight.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would ensure controlled and smooth movement of the aircraft in vertical direction during forward flight of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 34, modified Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system wherein the flight control system is configured to control the vertical motion of the aircraft by controlling both the thrust of the at least one propulsion unit/rotor assembly (710) and the pitch of the aircraft during transition flight (Para 0027).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroo et al. (US 2018/0086448) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Davies et al. (US 2016/0041561)
Regarding claim 35, Kroo et al. ‘448 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system of claim 26 but it is silent about the flight control system wherein the flight control system is configured to perform flight envelop protection by setting at least one of an upper or lower limit for at least one of angle of attack, climb rate, sink rate, load factor, pitch angle or flight path angle.
Davies et al. ‘561 teaches (fig. 10B) a graphical illustration of a maximum angle of attack limit and a minimum angle of attack limit for an aircraft (Para 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kroo et al. ‘448 to incorporate the teachings of Davies et al. ‘561 to configure the flight control system wherein the flight control system is configured to perform flight envelop protection by setting an upper or lower limit for angle of attack.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance safety.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's argument regarding Yoeli (US 2010/0076625), 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). Thus, Yoeli ‘625 teaches the relative positioning of the two control sticks.
Applicant’s other arguments are explained in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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 ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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 J Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642