DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 13 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.
It is also noted that dependent claims based upon the rejected claims are also rejected based upon dependency.
Regrading claim 13, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “control system…VTOL aircraft…Taxi phase…are the same of those” does not particularly and distinctly point out what exactly the term “those” referring to as whether directs to control system, VTOL aircraft, Taxi phase, or all/part of those that ought to be particularly and distinctly set forth regards applicant’s invention to ascertain the metes and bounds regarding claims limitation scope.
Appropriate further clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English et al (US Pat Pub No. 2020/0333805) in view of De Freitas et al (US Pat Pub No. 2022/0041267).
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, English et al shows an integrated aircraft control system for a VTOL aircraft having fixed wing and rotor (See at least figure 6 for single inceptor also on Para 0032 for VLTO on Para 0033 with fixed wing and rotor on figure 4B and Para 0010) comprising:
a pilot inceptor providing at least four degrees of freedom of movement (See at least figure 6 for inceptor with degree of freedom of x, y, z and a axis motion);
a processor that transforms the at least four degrees of freedom of movement of the pilot inceptor into corresponding control outputs (See at least Para 0027 for command model 310 with x, y, z , a axis motion movement of inceptor for aircraft operation; also on Para 0026 for unified command system 100 includes processor 102 and input mechanism 102),
at least in part in response to flight phase of the VTOL aircraft (See at least figure 6-7 for flight regime in forward flight, hover and ground operations of VTOL comprising x, y, z, a axis motion movement of flight inceptor);
at least one actuator that controls the VTOL aircraft in response to the corresponding control outputs without requiring aircraft configuration changes for changing flight phase of the VTOL (See at least Para 0027 for combination of effectors and effectors state in actuator power level and positions to be controlled by user input mechanism/inceptor);
however, English et al does not further specify the rotor is no-tilt motor even though English states that any combination for suitable aircraft, in this case, no-tilt rotor aircraft not explicitly exampled by English et al could be implemented for unified command system on Para 0037.
De Freitas et al shows VTOL aircraft having fixed wing and no – tilt rotor with inceptor control (See at least figure 1 for VTOL 100 with fixed wing and no-tilt rotor along with inceptor control shown on figure 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to provide an existing VTOL with fixed wing and no-tilt rotor of De Freitas toward the inceptor of English as for one of suitable existing aircraft combination discussed on Para 0038, as desired and discussed by English et al.
Regarding Claims 2 and 15, the pilot inceptor is configured to output signals indicating pitch movement, roll movement, yaw movement and scroll movement (See at least figure 6 for pitch, roll and yaw movement each represented by either x, y or z axis inceptor movement for different flight phase along with scroll movement in a - axis).
Regarding Claims 3 and 16, English et al shows processor is configured to transform pitch movement of the pilot inceptor into vertical response in a hover flight phase and into flight path control in a forward flight phase (See at least figure 6 for pitch, roll and yaw movement each represented by either x, y or z axis inceptor movement for different flight phase along with scroll movement in a – axis where the flight phase including hover flight phase and forward flight phase; also on figure 1 for Processor 102 receive input from user control/inceptor 101).
Regarding Claims 4 and 17, English et al shows processor is configured to transform pitch movement of the pilot inceptor into longitudinal translation in a hover flight phase and into speed control in a forward flight phase (See at least Para 0035, pitch axis movement toward longitudinal angle over ground and auxiliary control for longitudinal control and scaled to airspeed on Para 0093 and transition from flight regime of hover into forward flight with coupled with flight con also on figure 1 for Processor 102 receive input from user control/inceptor 101trol speed up the aircraft; Para 0099 for pitch inceptor controls longitudinal pitch movement and combined with speed control in forward flight phase; also on figure 1 for Processor 102 receive input from user control/inceptor 101).
Regarding Claim 5, English et al shows processor is configured to transform pitch movement of the pilot inceptor into increase or decrease in ground speed in an on-ground operation of the VTOL aircraft (See at least figure 7 for command control with respect to ground with stick x motion with respect to braking effort as decrease ground speed during on – ground operation; also on figure 1 for Processor 102 receive input from user control/inceptor 101).
Regarding Claims 6 and 18, English et al shows processor is configured to transform roll movement of the pilot inceptor into lateral translation during a hover flight phase and into coordinate turn in a forward flight phase (See at least figure 7 for y axis in later translation during hover phase into roll rate in forward flight phase for flight path change as coordinate turn; also on figure 1 for Processor 102 receive input from user control/inceptor 101).
Regarding Claim 7, English et al shows the at least one processor is configured to transform roll movement of the pilot inceptor into change of heading and reduction of ground speed in on-ground operation of the VTOL aircraft (See at least figure 7 for ground operations with Y- axis steering as change of the heading; also on figure 1 for Processor 102 receive input from user control/inceptor 101).
Regarding Claims 8 and 19, English et al shows the at least one processor is configured to transform yaw movement of the pilot inceptor into yaw movement of the VTOL aircraft in a hover flight phase and into sideslip in a forward flight phase (See at least figure 7 for z-axis movement at hover phase as heading rate/raw converted toward sideslip during forward flight phase; also on figure 1 for Processor 102 receive input from user control/inceptor 101).
Regarding Claim 9, English et al shows the at least one processor is configured to transform yaw movement of the pilot inceptor into heading change in on-ground operation of the VTOL aircraft ( See at least figure 1 for Processor 102 receive input from user control/inceptor 101; also on figure 7 for ground operations as z – axis steering under longitudinal unified control).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, English et al shows the at least one processor is configured to transform scroll movement of the pilot inceptor into longitudinal translation of the VTOL in a hover flight phase and into speed control of the VTOL aircraft in a forward flight phase (See at least figure 1 for Processor 102 receive input from user control/inceptor 101; See at least figure 7 for scroll movement in a-axis in longitudinal translation rate/acceleration under hover phase into airspeed rate under forward flight phase).
Regarding Claims 11 and 21, English et al shows at least one processor is configured to transform scroll movement of the pilot inceptor into increase or reduced ground speed in on-ground operation of the VTOL aircraft (See at least figure 7 for ground operation using a-axis scroll movement control prop thrust and prop taxi thrust during on ground operation; also on at least figure 1 for Processor 102 receive input from user control/inceptor 101).
Regarding Claims 12 and 22, English et al shows processor is configured to transform scroll movement of the pilot inceptor into vertical response of the VTOL aircraft in a hover flight phase and into flight path control of the VTOL aircraft in a forward flight phase (See at least figure 1 for Processor 102 receive input from user control/inceptor 101; See at least figure 7 for hover phase with longitudinal translation as vertical response under a – axis scroll movement and controls forward flight phase airspeed rate during flight path as flight path control).
Regarding Claim 13, English et al shows a taxi phase occurs via hovering at low altitudes to allow the VTOL aircraft to be repositioned and the transforms for the taxi phase are the same as those for a hover phase (See at least Para 0034 for above ground level, AGL, and geo-braking, as starting taxi phase, while hovering when the aircraft is airborne for faster landing avoiding ground collide hazard along with flight envelope protection during landing/transition regimes on Para 0004, 0069 and 0070).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied urpon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
English et al, US Pat Pub No. 2021/03080223, single inceptor, 4 degree of freedom, flight phase, VTOL, fixed wing, figure 2 and 6 for yaw, pitch and roll control and scroll axis.
English et al, US Pat Pub No. 2021/0294355.
Shue, US Pat Pub No. 2017/0036753. Inceptor, VTOL, flight phase, yaw/pitch/roll.
Auerbach et al, US Pat Pub No. 2022/0363377, US Pat No. 12,145,724. VTOL fixed wing/no tilt rotor.
Mikic et al, US Pat Pub No, 20210001979. VTOL.
Fink et al, US Pat Pub No. 2020/0269975, US Pat No. 11,691,722.
Thurn et al, US Pat Pub No. 2021/0356974, US Pat No. 11,815,911.
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 USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ian Jen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657