DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remark entered June 23rd, 2026.
Claims 1, 9 and 19 are amended.
Claims 2 – 8 and 11 – 17 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 18 and 19 are pending in current application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recited claim limitation regarding, “a pilot-specified priority”, “a set of commands”, ”deselect an input signal” and “a failed control device” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 1,10 and 19 are 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is also noted that dependent claims based upon the rejected claims are also rejected based upon dependency.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “first input signal…second input signal…standardized signals are compatible with one another and interchangeable ” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for what or which exactly is the one another claimed as whether referring to first input, second input signal, or standardized signals that ought to be point out particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention. Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “the same or similar set of essential eVTOL functions” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for what or which exactly is similar in terms of degree and to which degree is similar that ought to be ascertained particularly and distinctly regards applicant’s invention.
Please also see MPEP 2173.05(b).III. Similar. The term "similar" in the preamble of a claim that was directed to a nozzle "for high-pressure cleaning units or similar apparatus" was held to be indefinite since it was not clear what applicant intended to cover by the recitation "similar" apparatus. Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
It is also further noted that applicant recited “the same…set of essential eVTOL functions” does not provide sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate further clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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, 9, 10, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated over Wiegman (US Pat Pub No. 2023/0023907).
Regarding claim 1, Wiegman shows an evtol aircraft flight control system (See at least Para 0109 for flight control system 900 for evtol 800 shown on figure 8) comprising:
input circuitry that receives a first input signal from a first manipulable control device and a second input signal from a second manipulatable control device (See at least Para 0031 and 0064 for pilot input including leveler, inceptor stick, steering wheel, joystick, pedal or touch screen display as first and second manipulable control device along with sensor circuitry 104 for detect and capture input datum on Para 0027; also on Para 0064 with touch screen as pilot input circuitry for mode switch and pilot control);
conditioning circuitry that processes each of the first input signal and the second input signal (See at least figure 1 and Para 0040 for higher level flight controller 124 comprised operational amplifier as the conditioning circuity for analog signal processing received sensor signal on figure 3; also on at least Para 0049 for diode and transistor electronic components process signal input along with MOSFET for signal rectification and gain adjusting) to enable either the first input signal or the second input signal to generate evtol aircraft commands (See at least figure 1 for processed signal further provided to central flight controller 140 for flight command to actuator),
a selector circuit that selects between the first input signal and the second input signal for controlling an evtol aircraft (See at least Para 0049 and 0050 for central flight controller 140 with multiplexer logic circuit for receiving plurality binary input including user input as incoming signal and produce only one single binary output as selector; also on at least Para 0032 for pilot control with remote communicatively connection as the selector circuit for selecting between switch and lever for aircraft control; Para 0035 and 0064 for 4 way hat switch stick and touch screen selecting user input);
the first manipulable control device is graspable (See at least Para 0035 for 4 way hat switch stick for aircraft control as first manipulable control device with pilot control as graspable) and the second manipulable control device is hand- operable but not graspable (See at least Para 0064 for touch screen display 156 receives pilot control input using hand yet not graspable),
the first manipulable control device and the second manipulable control device are independent and dissimilar command sources (See at least Para 0035 and 0046 for two different control device as stick and touch screen independent and dissimilar command source );
the conditioning circuitry (See at least figure 1 and Para 0040 for higher level flight controller 124 with operational amplifier as the conditioning circuity for analog signal processing received sensor signal) comprises a normalizing circuit (See at least figure 1 and Para 0040 for higher level flight controller 124 with operational amplifier as the conditioning circuity for analog signal processing received sensor signal; also at least Para 0049 for diode and transistor electronic components process signal input for trimming input signal)
to enable either the first input signal or the second input signal (See at least Para 0049 and 0050 for central flight controller 140 with multiplexer logic circuit for receiving plurality binary input including user input as incoming signal and produce only one single binary output as selector) to generate evtol aircraft commands (See at least figure 1 for processed signal further provided to central flight controller 140 for flight command to actuator)
and a dead zone and gain adjusting circuit configured to normalize the first input signal and the second input signal into standardized signals having common dynamic amplitude ranges (See at least Para 0049 for MOSFET along with diode provide signal rectification and gain adjusting as signal conditioning where the MOSFET has saturation effect; also at least Para 0049 for diode and transistor electronic components process signal input for trimming input signal amplitude for all input signal preprocessing recitation attenuated into one range command for processing)
such that the standardized signals are compatible with one another and interchangeable for controlling the same or similar set of essential eVTOL functions (also at least Para 0049 for diode and transistor electronic components process signal input for trimming input signal amplitude for all input signal preprocessing recitation attenuated into one range command for processing; also on figure 4 for higher level flight controller provide signal toward each modular flight controller 408 with input signal toward each modular controller interchangeable);
the selector circuit selects only one of the first input signal and the second input signal at a time (See at least Para 0064 for touch screen boot button selected as the only one to power up the system at a time and kill switch as the only one selected to disable power to all actuator at a time),
the generated eVTOL aircraft commands comprise a set of commands essential to second-to-second piloting of the eVTOL aircraft (See at least Para 0051 for generated priority command optimization for a set of actuator to be commanded for aircraft piloting as required essential),
during taxiing (See at least Para 0033 for ground speed velocity control as command during taxiing), hovering (See at least Para 0039 for minimum hover thrust control), and cruising (See at least for Para 0030 for cruise airspeed control), the selector circuit is configured to apply a pilot-specified priority ( See at least Para 0021 for pilot input to choose priority for flight assembly),
and to monitor health of the first manipulable control device and the second manipulable control device (See at least Para 0022 for flight control assembly safeguarded against failure; also on Para 0027 for sensor 104 connect to the flight control assembly including first/second manipulator; also Para 0034 for sensor detecting single point failure relate to pilot input using flight control assembly identified),
and automatically deselect an input signal of a failed control device (See at least Para 0044 for flight controller 124 has mode switch of flight control system in the event of malfunction in flight controller/irregularity detected; also on Para 0022 for redundancy forming for the flight control assembly server as the switch from failed control device to another redundancy backup).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Wiegman shows an evtol aircraft comprising at least one processor (See at least Para 0024 for processor) configured to execute instructions from non-transitory memory that control the at least one processor to perform operations (See at least Para 0112 for non-volatile memory with machine readable instruction for processor) comprising:
receiving a first input signal from a first manipulable control device (See at least Para 0035 for 4 way hat switch stick for aircraft control as first manipulable control device with pilot control as first pilot input signal);
receiving a second input signal from a second manipulatable control device (See at least Para 0064 for touch screen display 156 receives pilot control input as second manipulatable control device receiving mode switch, pilot control with button and switch as second input signal);
processing each of the first input signal and the second input signal to enable either the first input signal or the second input signal to generate evtol aircraft commands (See at least figure 1 and Para 0040 for higher level flight controller 124 with operational amplifier as the conditioning circuity for analog signal processing received sensor signal; also on at least Para 0049 for diode and transistor electronic components process signal input along with MOSFET for signal rectification and gain adjusting; also on at least figure 1 for processed signal further provided to central flight controller 140 for flight command to actuator);
selecting between the first input signal and the second input signal for controlling the evtol aircraft (See at least Para 0049 and 0050 for central flight controller 140 with multiplexer logic circuit for receiving plurality binary input including user input as incoming signal and produce only one single binary output as selector; also on at least Para 0032 for pilot control with remote communicatively connection as the selector circuit selecting between switch and lever for aircraft control; Para 0035 and 0064 for 4 way hat switch stick and touch screen as user input selector circuit),
the first manipulable control device is graspable (See at least Para 0035 for 4 way hat switch stick for aircraft control as first manipulable control device with pilot control as graspable) and the second manipulable control device is hand- operable but not graspable (See at least Para 0064 for touch screen display 156 receives pilot control input using hand yet not graspable),
the first manipulable control device and the second manipulable control device are independent and dissimilar command sources (See at least Para 0035 and 0046 for two different control device as stick and touch screen independent and dissimilar command source );
the conditioning circuitry (See at least figure 1 and Para 0040 for higher level flight controller 124 with operational amplifier as the conditioning circuity for analog signal processing received sensor signal) comprises a normalizing circuit (See at least figure 1 and Para 0040 for higher level flight controller 124 with operational amplifier as the conditioning circuity for analog signal processing received sensor signal; also at least Para 0049 for diode and transistor electronic components process signal input for trimming input signal)
to enable either the first input signal or the second input signal (See at least Para 0049 and 0050 for central flight controller 140 with multiplexer logic circuit for receiving plurality binary input including user input as incoming signal and produce only one single binary output as selector) to generate evtol aircraft commands (See at least figure 1 for processed signal further provided to central flight controller 140 for flight command to actuator),
and a dead zone and gain adjusting circuit configured to normalize the first input signal and the second input signal into standardized signals having common dynamic amplitude ranges (See at least Para 0049 for MOSFET along with diode provide signal rectification and gain adjusting as signal conditioning where the MOSFET has saturation effect; also at least Para 0049 for diode and transistor electronic components process signal input for trimming input signal amplitude for all input signal preprocessing recitation attenuated into one range command for processing)
such that the standardized signals are compatible with one another and interchangeable for controlling the same or similar set of essential eVTOL functions (also at least Para 0049 for diode and transistor electronic components process signal input for trimming input signal amplitude for all input signal preprocessing recitation attenuated into one range command for processing; also on figure 4 for higher level flight controller provide signal toward each modular flight controller 408 with input signal toward each modular controller interchangeable);
the selector circuit selects only one of the first input signal and the second input signal at a time (See at least Para 0064 for touch screen boot button selected as the only one to power up the system at a time and kill switch as the only one selected to disable power to all actuator at a time),
the generated eVTOL aircraft commands comprise a set of commands essential to second-to-second piloting of the eVTOL aircraft (See at least Para 0051 for generated priority command optimization for a set of actuator to be commanded for aircraft piloting as required essential);
during taxiing (See at least Para 0033 for ground speed velocity control as command during taxiing), hovering (See at least Para 0039 for minimum hover thrust control), and cruising (See at least for Para 0030 for cruise airspeed control), the selector circuit is configured to apply a pilot-specified priority ( See at least Para 0021 for pilot input to choose priority for flight assembly),
and to monitor health of the first manipulable control device and the second manipulable control device (See at least Para 0022 for flight control assembly safeguarded against failure; also on Para 0027 for sensor 104 connect to the flight control assembly including first/second manipulator; also Para 0034 for sensor detecting single point failure relate to pilot input using flight control assembly identified),
and automatically deselect an input signal of a failed control device (See at least Para 0044 for flight controller 124 has mode switch of flight control system in the event of malfunction in flight controller/irregularity detected; also on Para 0022 for redundancy forming for the flight control assembly server as the switch from failed control device to another redundancy backup).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Wiegman shows the first or the second manipulable control device is not on board the evtol aircraft (See at least Para 0032 for pilot control remotely located outside of aircraft).
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s remark that recited reference Wiegman does not shows applicant newly amended claim limitation; however, applicant’s attention is directed to Page 5 above where applicant newly amended claim limitation is now addressed under Wiegman and Second.
Further, applicant’s remark emphasized specific aspect of Flight Control Command Source Management, FCCSM, as a dedicated command source management layer; however, this specific interpretation applicant relied upon utilizing applicant’s written description were not particularly incorporate within applicant’s claim limitation.
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).
It is noted that applicant's remark that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., of Flight Control Command Source Management, FCCSM, as a dedicated command source management layer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).
Furthermore, applicant’s remark states that present invention uses circuitry as part of FCCSM and process command source signal so that source signal can generate command signal after conditioning where Wiegman merely shows a high level controller using for generic processing; however, applicant’s remark does not particularly accurate.
The circuity of Wiegman is not a high level controller yet as one basis circuitry tool implementable equal to the circuitry achieving applicant’s claim limitation recited for signal processing function commensurate to the apparatus circuitry recited. The circuitry of Wieman is further comprised by the high level flight controller of Wiegman as applicant stated.
In this instant case, a fundamental purpose of a diode is to provide signal recitation and provide a standardized threshold voltage. Please also see attached for Diode supplemental discussed diode output threshold voltage due to diode natural characteristic.
Further, the natural characteristic of MOSFET indeed provided a saturation region as the dead zone claimed along where the linear output signal region commensurate to the gain circuity that applicant recited with respect to input source. Please also see attached MOSFET for transfer/output characteristic and gain model exhibited on figure 2 and 3 attached.
It is also noted that applicant's remark that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., circuitry as part of FCCSM and process command source signal so that source signal can generate command signal after conditioning, regardless of which source is active) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
In addition, applicant’s remark states Wiegman does not shows conditioning multiple dissimilar command source signals into standardized source management outputs;
However, it is noted that applicant's remark that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., standardized source management outputs) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
In this instance, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “dissimilar command sources…conditioning circuity…standardized signals” has been addressed above. Applicant’s attention is directed to Page 5 above where applicant newly recited claim limitation is now addressed.
Furthermore, applicant’s remark states Wiegman does not shows “source level normalization of dissimilar command device” and does not teach the same conditioning function along with not selecting one active command source from among multiple dissimilar pilot source as recited;
however, it is noted that applicant's remark that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., source level normalization) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
In this case, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “a normalizing circuit…to normalize…signal” has been addressed above. Applicant’s attention is directed to Page 5 above where applicant newly recited claim limitation is now addressed.
In further, applicant’s remark states that Wiegman does not shows multiple dissimilar command source each can assume the same essential piloting function;
However, it is noted that applicant's remark that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dissimilar command source each can assume the same essential piloting function) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation directs to “dissimilar command source…signals…controlling same or similar set of essential eVTOL functions” has been addressed above. Applicant’s attention is directed to Page 5 above where applicant newly recited claim limitation is now addressed.
Furthermore, applicant’s remark states Wiegman does not shows automatically detect control device failure and command source selection not in the claim;
however, in this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation directs to “selects…one of the first signal and second signal…automatically deselect an input signal of a failed control device” has been addressed above.
Applicant’s attention is directed to Page 5 above where applicant newly recited claim limitation is now addressed.
In further, applicant’s remark states Wiegman does not shows recited claim limitation regarding, “health monitoring and deselection of a failed command-source input within a FCCSM layer”; however, in this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation directs to “monitor health…deselect an input signal of a failed control device.” has been addressed above. Applicant’s attention is directed to Page 5 above where applicant newly recited claim limitation is now addressed.
It is also further noted that applicant's remark that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., command source…within a FCCSM layer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
In further, applicant’s remark states that recited reference does not shows the newly amended claim limitation since Wiegman does not shows a source management architecture that is materially different from applicant’s invention;
however, applicant’s remark does not particularly accurate and comprehensive.
In this instant case, applicant’s remark referred a few characteristics relating to applicant’s invention as a source management architecture, FCCSM or a dedicated command source management layer were not recited in the claim limitation. 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).
In this instance, applicant claimed limitation as an apparatus system claim comprising: input circuitry…conditioning circuitry…a selector circuit where Wiegman indeed exhibited the circuitry that performs the same function that applicant recited in the claim limitation as the same apparatus.
Applicant is advised to further incorporate applicant emphasized source management architecture, FCCSM or a dedicated command source management layer toward applicant recited claim limitation invention to further distinguish.
Applicant’s attention is directed to Page 5 above where applicant newly recited claim limitation has now been addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shue, US Pat Pub No. 2017/0036753.
Starr et al, US Pat Pub No. 2022/0266983.
Ptovin et al, US Pat Pub No. 2023/0168692.
Auerbach, US Pat Pub No. 2023/0023926.
Horn et al, US Pat Pub No. 2021/0229797.
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 Ian JEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3274. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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 USAOR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ian Jen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights