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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12162586. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the immediate invention broaden the scope and are obvious variants of each other.
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)(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) 21, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Betts et al. US 20170166301.
Betts discloses:
21. (New) An aircraft (Para 0003)comprising: a control lever 302 movable along a lever path 308 and configured to control a system of the aircraft during a first flight mode (prior to take off) of the aircraft and during a second flight mode (after takeoff) of the aircraft; a selectively engageable detent feature 402 configured to inhibit travel of the control lever 302 and operable in: an engaged configuration (Locked) in which the selectively engageable detent feature is positioned in the lever path; and a disengaged (unlocked) configuration in which the selectively engageable detent feature is not in the lever path; a detent actuator 410 configured to move the selectively engageable detent feature between the engaged configuration and the disengaged configuration; and a flight control system 131 configured to: cause the detent actuator to move the selectively engageable detent feature 402 into the engaged configuration for operation of the control lever during the first flight mode of the aircraft; and cause the detent actuator to move the selectively engageable detent feature into the disengaged configuration for operation of the control lever during the second flight mode of the aircraft (after takeoff).
26. (New) The aircraft of claim 21, wherein the aircraft further comprises a selflocking detent actuation mechanism 410 combined with arm 420 and detent 404 configured to: translate the selectively engageable detent feature 404 to engage and disengage the selectively engageable detent feature 304, respectively; and lock the selectively engageable detent feature in the engaged configuration during the first flight mode of the aircraft (prior to takeoff as the gear is locked down to prevent accidental raising of the gear).
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.
Claim(s) 22, 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betts et al. US 20170166301 in view of Boyce EP 2302482.
22. Boyce teaches what Betts does not (New) The aircraft of claim 21, wherein the control lever is a first control lever 20; the lever path is a first lever path 18; the system of the aircraft is a first system of the aircraft (levers 20 control different control valves - para 2); a selectively engageable detent feature is a first selectively engageable detent feature (portion of the detent feature 14); and the aircraft further comprises: a second control lever 20 movable along a second lever path 18 and configured to control a second system of the aircraft (levers 20 control different control valves - para 2); and a second selectively engageable detent feature (portion of the detent feature 14) operable in: an engaged configuration (Fig. 2) in which the second selectively engageable detent feature is positioned in the second lever path; and a disengaged configuration (Fig. 3) in which the selectively engageable detent feature is not in the second lever path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and with reasonable expectation of success to use the teaching of additional levers as in Boyce in the invention of Betts in order to allow for multiple systems to be locked at the same time as taught by Boyce.
24. The combination of Betts and Boyce teach (New) The aircraft of claim 22, wherein: the first selectively engageable detent feature (First portion of 14 in Boyce) and the second selectively engageable detent feature (second portion of 14 in Boyce) are part of a movable detent assembly 14 of Boyce; and the detent actuator (as disclosed in Betts 410) is configured to move the movable detent assembly to move the first and second selectively engageable detent features between the engaged configurations and the disengaged configurations (Boyce clearly shows the movement from Fig 2 to 3).
25. The combination of Betts and Boyce teach (New) The aircraft of claim 21, wherein: the aircraft further comprises a biasing mechanism (spring 32) configured to bias the selectively engageable detent feature in the engaged configuration (by means of slots 80 and 82); and the detent actuator overcomes the bias to move the selectively engageable detent feature to the disengaged configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and with reasonable expectation of success to use the teaching of Boyce in the invention of Betts in order to allow for multiple systems to be locked at the same time as taught by Boyce.
Claim(s) 23, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betts et al. US 20170166301 in view of Boyce EP 2302482 and further in view of Connor et al. (US 11787527).
23 and 27. Connor teaches what the combination of Betts ad Boyce does not (New) The aircraft of claim 22, wherein the first system is a propulsion system and the second system is a flight control surface system (paragraph 2 of the background and paragraph 10 of the description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and with reasonable expectation of success to use the teaching of levers as in Connor in the invention of Betts as the implementation choice for the levers is obvious and clearly disclosed in Connor.
Claim(s) 28-29, 31-32, 34-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor et al. (US 11787527) in view of Boyce EP 2302482.
28 and 36. Connor discloses (New) An input assembly for a vehicle (aircraft – abstract), comprising: a control lever 14 movable along a lever path (slot shown in Fig. 1) and configured to control a system of the vehicle (engine power or control surfaces – paragraph 2 in background), the control lever configured to be moved by a user (manipulated by a user - paragraph 2 in background) when the input assembly is operated in a first operation mode; an actuation system (abstract) configured to move the control lever along the lever path when the input assembly is operated in a second operation mode (Optionally piloted vehicles (OPVs) are able to fly with or without a human crew on board the aircraft . – paragraph 3 of background), thereby controlling the system of the vehicle during the second operation mode;
Boyce teaches what Connor does not a selectively engageable detent feature 14 configured to inhibit travel of the control lever 20 when the selectively engageable detent feature is in an engaged configuration (Fig. 2); and a detent actuation system 32 configured to: move the selectively engageable detent feature 14 to engage and disengage the selectively engageable detent feature; and lock the selectively engageable detent feature in the engaged configuration when the input assembly is operated in the first operation mode (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and with reasonable expectation of success to use the teaching of a detent lock as in Boyce in the invention of Connor in order to allow for multiple systems to be locked at the same time as taught by Boyce.
29, 39. (New) The input assembly of claim 28, wherein the detent actuation system further comprises a biasing mechanism (32 in combination with 80 and 82) configured to bias the selectively engageable detent feature in the locked/engaged configuration (as the lock is held by slot shown in Fig. 7-8).
31. The combination of Connor and Boyce teach (New) The input assembly of claim 28, wherein: the control lever is a first control lever 106a of Connor; the lever path is a first lever path (Clearly understood In Fig. 2 of Connor); the system of the vehicle is a first system of the vehicle (Paragraph 2 of background of Connor); the selectively engageable detent feature is a first selectively engageable detent feature (Detent portion of 14 in Boyce); and the input assembly further comprises: a second control lever 106b of Connor movable along a second lever path (Clearly understood In Fig. 2 of Connor) and configured to control a second system of the vehicle (Paragraph 2 of background of Connor); and a second selectively engageable detent feature (second portion of detent 14 in Boyce) configured to inhibit travel of the second control lever when the second selectively engageable detent feature is in an engaged configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and with reasonable expectation of success to use the teaching of a detent lock as in Boyce in the invention of Connor in order to allow for multiple systems to be locked at the same time as taught by Boyce
32, 38. Boyce further teaches (New) The input assembly of claim 31, wherein: the first and second selectively engageable detent features are part of a movable detent assembly 14; the detent actuation system moves the movable detent assembly to move the first and second selectively engageable detent features into the first and second lever paths, respectively, in unison (Clearly shown in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and with reasonable expectation of success to use the teaching of a detent lock as in Boyce in the invention of Connor in order to allow for multiple systems to be locked at the same time as taught by Boyce
34. Connor discloses (New) The input assembly of claim 28, wherein the first operation mode is a manual vehicle operation mode (pilot operated – paragraph 2 of background) and the second operation mode is an autonomous vehicle operation mode (“Optionally piloted vehicles (OPVs) are able to fly with or without a human crew on board the aircraft”. – paragraph 3 of background).
35. Connor discloses (New) The input assembly of claim 28, where system of the vehicle is a propulsion system of the vehicle (Paragraph 2 – engine power).
37. Connor discloses (New) The throttle quadrant of claim 36, wherein the first control lever is a throttle control lever and the second control lever is a flight control surface lever (Paragraph 2 – engine power, and flight surfaces).
Claim(s) 30, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connor et al. (US 11787527) in view of Boyce EP 2302482 and further in view of Betts et al. US 20170166301.
30. Betts teaches what the combination of Connor and Boyce does not (New) The input assembly of claim 28, wherein: the detent actuation system comprises a linkage mechanism 418, and 420 operably coupled to the selectively engageable detent feature 404/304; and the linkage mechanism is positionable in an over-center configuration to lock the selectively engageable detent feature in the engaged configuration (Fig. 3A-3C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and with reasonable expectation of success to use the teaching of a detent lock as in Betts in the invention of Connor in order to allow for a rotary actuator to automatically allow for a locking detent activation in situations where accidental actuation would be an issue as taught by Betts.
40. Betts teaches what the combination of Connor and Boyce does not (New) The throttle quadrant of claim 39, further comprising a self-locking linkage 418, 420 coupling the actuator 410 to the movable detent assembly 404/304, the self-locking linkage positionable in an over-center configuration that locks the movable detent assembly in the engaged position when the actuator is in an unactuated state (Fig. 3a-3c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and with reasonable expectation of success to use the teaching of a detent lock as in Betts in the invention of Connor in order to allow for a rotary actuator to automatically allow for a locking detent activation in situations where accidental actuation would be an issue as taught by Betts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art alone or in combination does not teach nor does it reasonably suggest the lever as claimed and the detent to which two detent features are selectively moved by an actuation to lock or otherwise prevent movement of the claimed aircraft lever wherein the detents are moves in perpendicular directions from each other.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and includes detent locking mechanisms and control levers for vehicles and aircraft.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M BENEDIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7824. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00-3:00.
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 Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/JUSTIN M. BENEDIK/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JUSTIN M BENEDIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642