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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for provisional application based on application filed on 12/08/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2025 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.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agnihotri et al (U.S.2015/0097075) and further in view of Rath (U.S. 2023/0243628)
1. As per claims 1,11 Agnihotri disclosed an aircraft control method, comprising:
accessing, with a computing device on an aircraft, data corresponding to a yaw moment command; computing, with the computing device, a control effector adjustment command for one or more control effectors of the aircraft to implement the yaw moment command [The method includes receiving a yaw command to adjust a yaw moment of the aircraft and applying a different rotor blade angle change to rotor blades in the first zone than a rotor blade angle change applied to rotor blades in the second zone to adjust the yaw moment of the aircraft according to the yaw command] (Paragraph. 0005), wherein the control effector adjustment command comprises deflection adjustments for two control surfaces of the aircraft that are spaced apart on a wing of the aircraft along a transverse direction [if the yawing moment command provided by a pilot or flight control computer indicates that the aircraft should turn, the rotor blades in the first zone are adjusted by an angle around zero, and the rotor blades in the second zone are adjusted by an angle that corresponds to the turn indicated by the yawing moment command] (Paragraph. 0041); wherein the two control surfaces are deflectable relative o the wing of the aircraft [In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, the compound rotor assembly 120 includes first and second rotor assemblies 121a and 121b that are co-axial and rotate in opposite direction with each other. The fuselage 110 houses a pilot 111, physical flight controls 112, a flight control computer 113 and a rotor drive assembly 114. In operation, the pilot 111 physically manipulates the physical flight controls 112, which may include a stick, lever, wheel, rudder pedals, side arm control arrangements or any other type of physical control, to generate command signals or values for longitudinal, lateral, yaw and collective movement of the system 100. The system 100 may be controlled by aircraft and rotor controls mechanically, with direct mechanical connections, or by a flight control computer 130, or by any combination of physical controls and computer controls] (Paragraph. 0017) [Examiner interpreted the two control surfaces as rotor controls] and
However, Agnihotri did not explicitly disclose adjusting the one or more control effectors of the aircraft to implement the control effector adjustment command, wherein the two control surfaces of the aircraft deflect in opposite directions to implement the control effector adjustment command.
In the same field of endeavor Rath disclosed At the same time, a roll linear actuator 109 may drive the link shaft 106 via the rigidly connected extension 107 to rotate about the link shaft axis, thus rotating the drive bar 105 such that its ends (connected to the control horns 103, 104, respectively) move oppositely; one up, the other down, hence driving the canard control horns in opposite directions giving opposite deflection in response to the roll actuator. Hence the canards 101 and 102 may be deflected by differing amounts as indicated by 113 and 114, respectively (Paragraph. 0043).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing was made to have incorporated at the same time, a roll linear actuator 109 may drive the link shaft 106 via the rigidly connected extension 107 to rotate about the link shaft axis, thus rotating the drive bar 105 such that its ends (connected to the control horns 103, 104, respectively) move oppositely; one up, the other down, hence driving the canard control horns in opposite directions giving opposite deflection in response to the roll actuator. Hence the canards 101 and 102 may be deflected by differing amounts as indicated by 113 and 114, respectively as taught by Rath in the method and system of Agnihotri to increase the efficiency of the controller of the guidance system.
2. As per claims 2,12 Agnihotri-Rath disclosed wherein the yaw moment command comprises one or more of: a pilot-generated yaw moment command; an autonomous flight control system-generated yaw moment command; and a stability control system-generated yaw moment command (Agnihotri, Paragraph. 0017).
3. As per claims 3,13 Agnihotri-Rath disclosed wherein: the control effector adjustment command further comprises an adjustment for a thrust unit of the aircraft; and the thrust unit is adjusted to implement the control effector adjustment command (Agnihotri, Paragraph. 0018).
4. As per claims 4,14 Agnihotri-Rath disclosed wherein the thrust unit is pivotable relative to the wing; and the adjustment for the thrust unit comprises one or both of a power setting of the thrust unit and a pivot angle of the thrust unit (Agnihotri, Paragraph. 0017-0018).
5. As per claims 5,15 Agnihotri-Rath disclosed wherein the aircraft is an oblique flying wing aircraft and does not include vertical control surfaces (Agnihotri, Paragraph. 0019-0022).
6. As per claims 6,16 Agnihotri-Rath disclosed wherein the two control surfaces are positioned adjacent to each other on the wing of the aircraft, and the two control surfaces are elongated along the transverse direction on the wing of the aircraft (Agnihotri, Paragraph. 0003).
7. As per claims 6,17 Agnihotri-Rath disclosed wherein the two control surfaces are spaced apart by no more than one meter on the wing of the aircraft (Agnihotri, Paragraph. 0051).
8. As per claims 7,18 Agnihotri-Rath disclosed wherein: the two control surfaces of the aircraft comprise a first control surface and a second control surface, the second control surface positioned outward of the first control surface on the wing of the aircraft; and the second control surface deflects downwardly and the first control surface deflects upwardly to implement the control effector adjustment command (Agnihotri, Paragraph 0003).
9. As per claims 8,19 Agnihotri-Rath disclosed wherein adjusting the one or more control effectors of the aircraft to implement the control effector adjustment command induces a yaw moment that is significantly greater than a roll moment and a pitch moment for the aircraft (Agnihotri, Paragraph. 0057).
10. As per claims 9,20 Agnihotri-Rath disclosed wherein deflecting the two control surfaces of the aircraft in opposite directions to implement the control effector adjustment command locally increases a drag at the wing (Agnihotri, Paragraph. 0057).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Response to applicant’s argument as follows.
A. Applicant argued that prior art did not disclose, “wherein the two control surfaces are deflectable relative to the wing of the aircraft”.
As to applicant’s argument Agnihotri disclosed, “[In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, the compound rotor assembly 120 includes first and second rotor assemblies 121a and 121b that are co-axial and rotate in opposite direction with each other. The fuselage 110 houses a pilot 111, physical flight controls 112, a flight control computer 113 and a rotor drive assembly 114. In operation, the pilot 111 physically manipulates the physical flight controls 112, which may include a stick, lever, wheel, rudder pedals, side arm control arrangements or any other type of physical control, to generate command signals or values for longitudinal, lateral, yaw and collective movement of the system 100. The system 100 may be controlled by aircraft and rotor controls mechanically, with direct mechanical connections, or by a flight control computer 130, or by any combination of physical controls and computer controls] (Paragraph. 0017) [Examiner interpreted the two control surfaces as rotor controls].
B. Applicant argued that there is no motivation and suggestion to combine the references.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case Rath taught in the method and system of Agnihotri to increase the efficiency of the controller of the guidance system.
.
Conclusion
12. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
14. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
15. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status
information for un published applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights