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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12th May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7 line 2, “…afirst side…” should read “…a first side…”.
In claim 16 line 7, “…stick, is…” should read “…stick is…”.
Appropriate correction 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10-11, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Borloch (US 2018/0155008) in view of Scacchi et al. (US 2016/0229523) and Kang et al. (US 2023/0286645).
Regarding claim 1, Le Borloch ‘008 teaches (figures 1-7) a flight control system for an aircraft (10), the aircraft having a set of principle axes including a yaw axis (aircraft has yaw, roll and pitch axes), and the flight control system comprising:
a thrust lever (30) configured to control a thrust magnitude for the aircraft during flight, the thrust lever in the form of a control stick (clearly seen in figure 7) that is movable along a first direction to control the thrust magnitude (Para 0055, 0062, 0073, 0083; lever moves in forward/backward direction in the guide (58); lever (30) controls motors and the thrust produced by the motors),
but it is silent about the flight control system wherein the control stick is also configured to control movement of the aircraft about the yaw axis during flight and/or during taxiing, whereby a portion the control stick is configured to be twisted to control movement of the aircraft about the yaw axis.
Scacchi et al. ‘523 teaches (figure 6) a control stick (2) comprising a lever (17) provided at its free end with a handle (18) wherein the handle (18) is configured to be able to be pivoted/twisted with respect to the lever (17) to control the aircraft in relation to the yaw axis (Para 0114-0118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Le Borloch ‘008 to incorporate the teachings of Scacchi et al. ‘523 to configure the flight control system wherein the control stick is also configured to control movement of the aircraft about the yaw axis during flight and/or during taxiing, whereby a portion the control stick is configured to be twisted to control movement of the aircraft about the yaw axis.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable pilots to control heading via control stick.
Le Borloch ‘008 further teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system wherein the control stick comprises a finger operated control button (74) that can be manipulated along a side of the control stick to control the braking of the aircraft (clearly seen in figure 2) (Para 0087; button (74) controls airbrake)
but it is silent about the flight control system wherein the control stick comprises a control button as a stick or slider that can be manipulated to variably control braking of the aircraft.
Kang et al. ‘645 teaches (figures 1-4) an aircraft control input device including a cyclic control stick (1) comprising a first position/slider or stick (21) formed in a form that may be operated in an up-down direction, to input control command for the engine thrust of the aircraft when manipulated in the up-down direction and when the pilot wants to increase thrust, the first position (21) is manipulated upward using the pilot’s thumb to input a higher value of the thrust (Para 0038, 0046; first position/slider or stick (21) variably controls the thrust).
Kang et al. ‘645 further teaches fourth position (24) to input a brake control command through an operation of pressing the fourth position (24) wherein the fourth position (24) is formed such that the degree of brake use of the aircraft is adjusted according to the pressure with which the pilot presses the fourth position (24) i.e., variable braking (Para 0049) (first position/slider or stick (21) controls a variable i.e., engine thrust, and both engine thrust and braking are variables).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Le Borloch ‘008 to incorporate the teachings of Kang et al. ‘645 to configure the flight control system wherein the control stick comprises a control button as a stick or slider that can be manipulated to variably control braking of the aircraft
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable pilots to easily apply and control the magnitude of the braking.
Regarding claim 2, modified Le Borloch ‘008 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system wherein the control stick is constrained to move forward and backward along the first direction such that lateral movement of the control stick is prevented (Para 0083; guide (58) constrain the movement of the control stick).
Regarding claim 3, modified Le Borloch ‘008 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system wherein the control stick includes a handle, wherein the handle is configured to be twisted relative to the control stick to control movement of the aircraft about the yaw axis (as modified by Scacchi et al. ‘523).
Regarding claim 4, modified Le Borloch ‘008 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system wherein the control stick is twistable to control movement of the aircraft about the yaw axis (as modified by Scacchi et al. ‘523; handle portion of the control stick is twistable).
Regarding claim 7, modified Le Borloch ‘008 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system wherein the finger operated stick or slider is a first finger operated stick or slider for controlling braking on a first side of the aircraft (as modified by Scacchi et al. ‘523).
Regarding claim 8, modified Le Borloch ‘008 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system wherein the flight control system is configured, in response to the twisting movement of the thrust lever, to control the movement of the aircraft about the yaw axis by actuating rotation of a nosewheel of the aircraft (as modified by Scacchi et al. ‘523; handle portion of the control stick is twistable; rotation of a nosewheel move the aircraft during taxiing i.e., when an aircraft is on the ground).
Regarding claim 10, modified Le Borloch ‘008 teaches (figures 1-7) an aircraft (10) including:
the flight control system as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, modified Le Borloch ‘008 teaches (figures 1-7) the aircraft wherein the aircraft is an airplane (Para 0054).
Regarding claim 13, modified Le Borloch ‘008 teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system wherein the control stick is constrained to move forward and backward along the first direction such that lateral movement of the control stick is prevented (Para 0083; guide (58) constrain the movement of the control stick).
Regarding claim 16, Le Borloch ‘008 teaches (figures 1-7) a flight control system for an aircraft (10), the aircraft having a set of principle axes including a yaw axis (aircraft has yaw, roll and pitch axes), and the flight control system comprising:
a thrust lever (30) configured to control a thrust magnitude for the aircraft during flight, the thrust lever in the form of a control stick (clearly seen in figure 7) that is movable along a first direction to control the thrust magnitude (Para 0055, 0062, 0073, 0083; lever moves in forward/backward direction in the guide (58); lever (30) controls motors and the thrust produced by the motors),
but it is silent about the flight control system wherein the control stick is also configured to control movement of the aircraft about the yaw axis during flight and/or during taxiing, whereby a portion the control stick is configured to be twisted to control movement of the aircraft about the yaw axis.
Scacchi et al. ‘523 teaches (figure 6) a control stick (2) comprising a lever (17) provided at its free end with a handle (18) wherein the handle (18) is configured to be able to be pivoted/twisted with respect to the lever (17) to control the aircraft in relation to the yaw axis (Para 0114-0118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Le Borloch ‘008 to incorporate the teachings of Scacchi et al. ‘523 to configure the flight control system wherein the control stick is also configured to control movement of the aircraft about the yaw axis during flight and/or during taxiing, whereby a portion the control stick is configured to be twisted to control movement of the aircraft about the yaw axis.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable pilots to control heading via control stick.
Le Borloch ‘008 further teaches (figures 1-7) the flight control system wherein the control stick comprises a finger operated control button (74) that can be manipulated along a side of the control stick to control the braking of wheels of the aircraft (clearly seen in figure 2) (Para 0087; button (74) controls airbrake which in turn controls the braking of wheels if the aircraft during ground operation of the aircraft)
but it is silent about the flight control system wherein the control stick comprises a control button as a stick or slider.
Kang et al. ‘645 teaches (figures 1-4) an aircraft control input device including a cyclic control stick (1) comprising a first position/slider or stick (21) formed in a form that may be operated in an up-down direction, to input control command for the engine thrust of the aircraft when manipulated in the up-down direction and when the pilot wants to increase thrust, the first position (21) is manipulated upward using the pilot’s thumb to input a higher value of the thrust (Para 0038, 0046; first position/slider or stick (21) controls a variable i.e., engine thrust, and both engine thrust and braking are variables)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Le Borloch ‘008 to incorporate the teachings of Kang et al. ‘645 to configure the flight control system wherein the control stick comprises a control button as a stick or slider.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable pilots to easily apply and control the magnitude of the braking.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Borloch (US 2018/0155008) in view of Scacchi et al. (US 2016/0229523).
Regarding claim 9, Le Borloch ‘008 teaches (figures 1-7) a flight control system for an aircraft (10), the aircraft having a set of principle axes including a yaw axis (aircraft has yaw, roll and pitch axes), and the flight control system comprising:
a thrust lever (30) configured to control a thrust magnitude for the aircraft during flight, the thrust lever in the form of a control stick (clearly seen in figure 7) that is movable along a first direction to control the thrust magnitude (Para 0055, 0062, 0073, 0083; lever moves in forward/backward direction in the guide (58); lever (30) controls motors and the thrust produced by the motors),
but it is silent about the flight control system wherein the control stick is also configured to control movement of the aircraft about the yaw axis during flight and/or during taxiing, whereby a portion the control stick is configured to be twisted to control movement of the aircraft about the yaw axis;
wherein the flight control system is configured, in response to the twisting movement of the thrust lever, to control the movement of the aircraft about the yaw axis by:
actuating one or more flight control surfaces to control the yaw of the aircraft.
Scacchi et al. ‘523 teaches (figure 6) a control stick (2) comprising a lever (17) provided at its free end with a handle (18) wherein the handle (18) is configured to be able to be pivoted/twisted with respect to the lever (17) to control the aircraft in relation to the yaw axis (Para 0114-0118). Scacchi et al. ‘523 further teaches a control order applied to control surfaces of the aircraft so as to control the aircraft with respect to at least one corresponding piloting/yaw axis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Le Borloch ‘008 to incorporate the teachings of Scacchi et al. ‘523 to configure the flight control system wherein the control stick is also configured to control movement of the aircraft about the yaw axis during flight and/or during taxiing, whereby a portion the control stick is configured to be twisted to control movement of the aircraft about the yaw axis;
wherein the flight control system is configured, in response to the twisting movement of the thrust lever, to control the movement of the aircraft about the yaw axis by:
actuating one or more flight control surfaces to control the yaw of the aircraft.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable pilots to control heading via control stick.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14th April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regarding amended in claims 1 and 15, with respect to Kang et al. ‘645, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). As explained in the rejection above, Le Borloch ‘008 teaches position of control button (74) along a side of the control stick, and the teaching of Kang et al.’ 645 to use stick or slider is incorporated into teaching of Le Borloch ‘008 to replace control button with a stick or slider.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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 J Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights