DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to an application filed May 7th, 2024. Claims 17-32 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 7th, 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIG. 15 are a series of unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings which should be provided with descriptive text labels.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites the implied phrase “[T]he invention relates to”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 29-32 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims are dependent claims that are written in independent form. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 30 is a method which is dependent upon claim 17 which is an apparatus. Both claims 30 and 17 recite three when limitations which are interpreted as contingent limitations:
“when the at least one angular position corresponds to an angle of the aircraft control stick lever with respect to a prescribed neutral position, less than or equal in absolute value to a prescribed virtual stop threshold, control the at least one force motor to apply to the aircraft control stick lever a first resistive force as a function of the angle of the aircraft control stick lever and deactivate the at least one rheological brake, the first resistive force having a first determined value, which is non-zero at the prescribed virtual stop threshold,
when the at least one angular position corresponds to an angle of the aircraft control stick lever with respect to the prescribed neutral position, which increases in absolute value beyond the prescribed virtual stop threshold, control the at least one force motor and activate the at least one rheological brake to apply to the aircraft control stick lever a second resistive force greater than the first value, and
when the at least one angular position corresponds to an angle of the aircraft control stick lever with respect to the prescribed neutral position, which in absolute value decreases and is greater than the prescribed virtual stop threshold, control the at least one force motor to apply to the aircraft control stick lever a third return force as a function of the angle of the aircraft control stick lever and deactivate the at least one rheological brake”.
As these limitations are contingent limitations the examiner interprets that, as according to MPEP 2111.04(II), the BRI of apparatus claim 17 requires structure that can perform all three contingent limitations while the BRI of method claim 30 only requires that only the steps of the three limitations that are required be performed but does not require all three contingent limitations to be taught. The examiner further notes, though, as claim 30 does depend upon claim 17 claim 30 does require structure that can perform all three contingent limitations even if they do not need to be performed in the prior art.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “calculator is configured to control” in claims 17, 25-27, 30, and 31.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 19 recites “the second resistive force is equal to a resistive force plateau, which is constant as a function of the angle of the aircraft control stick lever with respect to the prescribed neutral position, which increases beyond the prescribed virtual stop threshold” (emphasis added) which is unclear as the claim is stating that a value that is at a constant, plateaued value is changing in response to a function of the angle that is increasing. It is unclear how a value can be both a constant and also a value that is changing as a function. For the sake of applying prior art below, the examiner interprets that the resistive force is increasing in proportion to a function of the angle but plateaus and becomes a constant when a virtual stop threshold is exceeded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed towards a product which is a computer program per se.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 18, and 20-28 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: It is deemed novel and unobvious for a control stick of an aircraft to have a rheological brake that is controlled according to a position and direction of travel the control stick with the claimed limitations of “when the at least one angular position corresponds to an angle of the aircraft control stick lever with respect to a prescribed neutral position, less than or equal in absolute value to a prescribed virtual stop threshold, control the at least one force motor to apply to the aircraft control stick lever a first resistive force as a function of the angle of the aircraft control stick lever and deactivate the at least one rheological brake, the first resistive force having a first determined value, which is non-zero at the prescribed virtual stop threshold, when the at least one angular position corresponds to an angle of the aircraft control stick lever with respect to the prescribed neutral position, which increases in absolute value beyond the prescribed virtual stop threshold, control the at least one force motor and activate the at least one rheological brake to apply to the aircraft control stick lever a second resistive force greater than the first value, and when the at least one angular position corresponds to an angle of the aircraft control stick lever with respect to the prescribed neutral position, which in absolute value decreases and is greater than the prescribed virtual stop threshold, control the at least one force motor to apply to the aircraft control stick lever a third return force as a function of the angle of the aircraft control stick lever and deactivate the at least one rheological brake”. The closest prior art of record, Battlogg; Stefan (US Pub. No. 20220283602 A1), herein after Battlogg, teaches a joystick for an aircraft that has a resistive force applied to the joystick using a magnetorheological brake where the resistive force of the brake is proportional to the angle of the joystick. The claimed invention differs from Battlogg as the claimed invention requires that the rheological brake be turned on or off depending on a virtual stop threshold and the direction the control stick is moving while Battlogg has the magnetorheological brake is always active and the resistive force from the magnetorheological brake is stronger the closer the joystick is from the neutral position.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lawniczak et al. (US Pub. No. 20220348310 A1) discloses a force application device for an aircraft where a control stick has a resistive force applied to it using a rheological brake.
Mohning et al. (US Pub. No. 20090198414 A1) discloses a joystick that has a resistive force applied to it using a magneto-rheological or an electro-rheological brake fluid.
Carlson et al. (US Patent No. 5513543 A) discloses an aircraft control lever that has a variable resistive force applied to it using detents in the control lever assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights