Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/075,519

Cable Tilt Actuator for an Aircraft

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Mar 10, 2025
Priority
Nov 23, 2020 — provisional 63/117,152 +2 more
Examiner
XAVIER, VALENTINA
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Archer Aviation Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 10m
Est. Remaining
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
566 granted / 756 resolved
+22.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
775
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
79.0%
+39.0% vs TC avg
§102
11.3%
-28.7% vs TC avg
§112
8.0%
-32.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 756 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . 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 1 – 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,246,826. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Waide ‘826 discloses an aircraft propulsion unit tilt actuator comprising a first cable section, wherein the tilt actuator is configured to convert linear motion to rotary motion using the first cable section, wherein the tilt actuator further comprises a second cable section, wherein the first cable section is configured to drive an aircraft propulsion unit in a first rotational direction when tension is applied to the first cable section and wherein the second cable section is configured to drive the aircraft propulsion unit in a second rotational direction when tension is applied to the second cable section. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “configured maintain” should be amended to “configured to maintain”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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) 5, 6, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bai et al. (CN 114802737). Regarding claims 5 and 14, Bai et al. discloses an aircraft comprising: an aircraft propulsion unit (7) tilt actuator (Fig. 3) comprising a first cable section (10), wherein the aircraft propulsion unit tilt actuator is configured to convert linear motion (via push rod 9) to rotary motion (pulley 8) using the first cable section. Regarding claim 6, Bai et al. discloses an aircraft dynamics control actuator (Fig. 3) comprising: a first cable section (10), wherein the tilt actuator is configured to convert linear motion (via push rod 9) to rotary motion (pulley 8) using the first cable section. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALENTINA XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)272-9853. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6:30 pm. 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 on (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. /VALENTINA XAVIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 10, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12679563
MODULAR CONFIGURATION OF LAUNCH VEHICLE SYSTEM
2y 2m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12654594
ANTI-MISUSE SYSTEM, CONTROL SYSTEM, CHILD SAFETY SEAT, ANTI-MISUSE CONTROL METHOD AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING CHILD SAFETY SEAT
2y 1m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12643654
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
11m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12637200
PANELS
1y 9m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12637213
FLAPPING DEVICE
1y 1m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+8.7%)
3y 2m (~1y 10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 756 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month