DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 22 June 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The new limitations are disclosed by at least English, as detailed in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
3. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Freitas et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2022/0041267) in view of English et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2020/0333805).
Regarding claim 1, De Freitas discloses a method for controlling an aircraft (figures 1, 2, etc), the method comprising:
determining a speed profile of the aircraft (paragraph [0039] - paragraph [0051] discloses "Hover'', "Transition" and "Cruise" as different phases of flight defined by "airspeed', thus each representing a different speed profile) based on a speed at which the aircraft is traveling (paragraph [0051]: "Phase of flight, may be determined by voting sensors 204 such as Air Data, Inertial, GPS, and possibly others also, but not necessarily all of them, as well as current control state indicators", wherein the data determined by the sensors 204 must relate to a speed of the aircraft since the different phases of flight are disclosed as being defined by airspeed, etc);
determining whether an input device 2A is in an in-detent (neutral) orientation or an out-of-detent (forward or backward) orientation (figs 2-2B, paragraph [0051]: "These example program control steps receive command inputs 302 from inceptors 2N 28 ... ", wherein it is implicit that the command input will be different for when the inceptor 2A is orientated forward or when it is orientated backward or when it is orientated in a neutral position; along its "3 axes", as defined in paragraph [0056] - paragraph [0059], etc);
sending a command to one or both of: at least one rotor 102 configured to be operably coupled to a body 100 of the aircraft or at least one control surface 106 configured to be operably coupled to the body 100 of the aircraft (paragraph [0051]: "The computer calculates control outputs (block 306) and maps the control outputs to control effectors such as control surface 106 and 108 actuators and the motors or engines that provide rotational energy to rotors 102 and thrusters 104") based at least in part on the speed profile (paragraph [0051]: "The transformation of inceptor inputs to outputs to the effectors ( actuators, rotors, thrusters, tilting mechanisms, etc.) is based on the phase of flight and a predetermined control allocation programmed into the computer') and the determined orientation of the input device (paragraph [0056]: "For the system and method of one embodiment, while in hover, the 1 axis inceptor controls forward/backward vehicle speed either proportionally to the inceptor deflection or using a gain shaper to adjust for optimal controllability. While in transition or cruise, it controls vehicle forward/backward acceleration") (see also paragraph [0039] - paragraph [0051]); and
adjusting at least one of the at least one rotor or the at least one control surface, based on the command (as noted above, etc).
De Freitas does not explicitly disclose that the input device includes an actuator configured to return the input device to the in-detent orientation following movement of the input device.
In the same field of endeavor, English discloses that the input device includes an actuator configured to return the input device to the in-detent orientation following movement of the input device (paragraph [0059]). English also explicitly discloses determining an in-detent orientation of the input device and sending a command based on the determined in-detent orientation (paragraphs [0054], [0091], [0095], [0108], etc) or out-of-detent orientation (paragraphs [0056], [0058], [0060], [0102], claim 12, etc) of the input device.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for De Freitas to do so, as taught by English, in order to avoid sending unintended commands once the operator has released the input device, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, De Freitas further discloses that when the aircraft is in the speed profile corresponding to a first speed and the input device is in the in-detent orientation, a first command is sent to the at least one rotor and/or the at least one control surface (figures 4-5, paragraphs [0051], [0056], etc: each combination of speed profile and input device orientation will result in a different output command).
Regarding claim 3, De Freitas further discloses that when the aircraft is in the speed profile corresponding to a second speed and the input device is in the in-detent orientation, a second command is sent to the at least one rotor and/or the at least one control surface (figures 4-5, paragraphs [0051], [0056], etc: each combination of speed profile and input device orientation will result in a different output command).
Regarding claim 4, De Freitas further discloses that when the aircraft is in the speed profile corresponding to the first speed and the input device is in the out-of-detent orientation, a third command is sent to the at least one rotor and/or the at least one control surface (figures 4-5, paragraphs [0051], [0056], etc: each combination of speed profile and input device orientation will result in a different output command).
Regarding claim 5, De Freitas further discloses that when the aircraft is in the speed profile corresponding to the second speed and the input device is in the out-of-detent orientation, a fourth command is sent to the at least one rotor and/or the at least one control surface (figures 4-5, paragraphs [0051], [0056], etc: each combination of speed profile and input device orientation will result in a different output command).
Regarding claim 6, De Freitas further discloses that each of the first command, the second command, the third command, and the fourth command are different from each other (figures 4-5, paragraphs [0051], [0056], claims 4-5, etc: each combination of speed profile and input device orientation will result in a different output command).
Regarding claim 7, De Freitas further discloses that the first command and the second command are the same, and the third command and the fourth command are different from the first command and the second command (figures 4-5, paragraphs [0051], [0056], claims 4-5, etc: each combination of speed profile and input device orientation will normally result in a different output command. However, paragraph [0045]: “Other flight phases may exist, such as climb and descent, and are considered a combination of the above phases.” A new phase based on a combination of the above phases would likely require a same command for at least one rotor or control surface to generate the same sense of motion).
Regarding claim 8, De Freitas further discloses that the third command and the fourth command are different from one another (figures 4-5, paragraphs [0051], [0056], claims 4-5, etc: each combination of speed profile and input device orientation will result in a different output command).
Regarding claim 9, De Freitas further discloses a speed profile corresponding to a third speed (paragraph [0039] - paragraph [0051] discloses "Hover'', "Transition" and "Cruise" as different phases of flight defined by "airspeed', thus each representing a different speed profile); and
wherein, when the input device is in the in-detent orientation and the controller has determined that the aircraft is in the speed profile corresponding to the third speed, a fifth command is sent to the at least one rotor and/or at least one control surface (figures 4-5, paragraphs [0051], [0056], etc: each combination of speed profile and input device orientation will result in a different output command).
Regarding claim 10, De Freitas further discloses that the input device includes a first input device and a second input device (figures 2-3: 2A and 2B or 3A and 3B, etc).
Regarding claim 11, De Freitas further discloses that the controller is further configured to:
determine an orientation of the first input device (figs 2-5, along its "3 axes", as defined in paragraph [0056] - paragraph [0059]);
determine an orientation of the second input device (figs 2-5, along its "3 axes", as defined in paragraph [0056] - paragraph [0059]); and
send a command to the at least one rotor and/or the at least one control surface based on the speed profile and the orientation of the first input device and the orientation of the second input device (see rejection for claim 1 above, and e.g. paragraph [0058]: "While in hover, an aft deflection of the 3 axis inceptor controls rate of increase of height and a forward deflection controls rate of decrease of height. While in cruise, it controls flight path change rate")
Regarding claim 12, De Freitas further discloses that the input device includes a first inceptor and a second inceptor (figures 2-3, paragraph [0027] - paragraph [0040], etc).
Regarding claim 13, De Freitas further discloses that the out-of-detent orientation of the input device is different from the in-detent orientation of the input device (figures 2-3B, etc), and wherein the actuator is spring-loaded (well known in the art; the Examiner takes Official Notice).
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection for claim 1 above. De Freitas further discloses a second input device 2B, wherein the second input device is configured to be manipulated by a user (figure 2), the second input device having an in-detent orientation and an out-of-detent orientation different from the in-detent orientation (e.g. "FWD" and "BKWD" versus neutral orientation);
determine an orientation of the second input device (along its "3 axes", as defined in paragraph [0056] - paragraph [0059]);
send a command to the at least one rotor and/or the at least one control surface based on the speed profile and the orientation of the first input device and the orientation of the second input device (e.g. paragraph [0058]: "While in hover, an aft deflection of the 3 axis inceptor controls rate of increase of height and a forward deflection controls rate of decrease of height. While in cruise, it controls flight path change rate"); and
Regarding claim 15, De Freitas further discloses that the first input device is a first inceptor and the second input device is a second inceptor (figures 2-3, paragraph [0027] - paragraph [0040], etc).
Regarding claim 16, De Freitas further discloses that when the aircraft is in a first speed profile, the first input device is in the in-detent orientation and the second input device is in the in-detent orientation, a first command is sent to the at least one rotor and/or the at least one control surface (figures 4-5, paragraphs [0051], [0056], etc: each combination of speed profile and input devices orientation will result in a different output command).
Regarding claim 17, De Freitas further discloses that when the aircraft is in the first speed profile, the first input device is in the in-detent orientation and the second input device is in the out-of-detent orientation, a second command is sent to the at least one rotor and/or the at least one control surface (figures 4-5, paragraphs [0051], [0056], etc: each combination of speed profile and input devices orientation will result in a different output command).
Regarding claim 18, De Freitas further discloses that when the aircraft is in a second speed profile, the first input device is in the in-detent orientation, and the second input device is in the out-of-detent orientation, a third command is sent to the at least one rotor and/or the at least one control surface (figures 4-5, paragraphs [0051], [0056], etc: each combination of speed profile and input devices orientation will result in a different output command).
Regarding claim 19, De Freitas further discloses a third speed profile (paragraph [0039] - paragraph [0051] discloses "Hover'', "Transition" and "Cruise" as different phases of flight defined by "airspeed', thus each representing a different speed profile); and
wherein, when the input device is in the in-detent orientation and the controller has determined that the aircraft is in the third speed profile, a fourth command is sent to the at least one rotor and/or the at least one control surface (figures 4-5, paragraphs [0051], [0056], etc: each combination of speed profile and input devices orientation will result in a different output command).
Regarding claim 20, De Freitas further discloses that the first input device provides planform control of the aircraft and the second input device provides flight path angle control of the aircraft (input device 2A providing planform control in the way of velocity or acceleration control (paragraph [0056]) and input device 2B providing flight path angle control about the roll and yaw axes (paragraph [0057] & (paragraph [0059]), claims 4-5, etc).
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
September 1, 2026
