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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “generally” in claim 5, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting “generally circumferential direction” in claim 5, line 2, as -- circumferential direction --.
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, 4-9, & 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette (Pub No. US 2014/0091181 A1).
Regarding claim 1
Ouellette teaches a flight control system for an aircraft, (See paragraphs 0001 & 0043) the aircraft having a set of principle axes including a roll axis and a pitch axis, the flight control system comprising: a control stick (See figures 1-9, ref # 10) that is configured to move forwards and backwards (See figure 1, ref # y) and left and right (See figure 1, ref # x) to control movement of the aircraft about its roll and pitch axes, such movement of the control stick (See figures 1-9, ref # 10) thus providing a first set of inputs to the flight control system, (See paragraph 0047) the control stick (See figures 1-9, ref # 10) comprising a further input in the form of a moveable element (See paragraphs 0050-0053 & figures 1-9, ref # 34) that can be moved between a range of positions and that is configured to provide a graduated input to the flight control system based on the position of the moveable element (See figures 1-9, ref # 34) relative to a default position of the moveable element, (See figures 1-9, ref # 34) the moveable element (See figures 1-9, ref # 34) being positioned on a top portion (See figures 1-9, ref # 30) of the control stick. (See paragraph 0050 & figures 1-9, ref # 10)
While movable element (34) is not on a side or front portion (28) of the control stick, (10) there is another moveable element (26) that is on the side or front of the control stick. This is just a rearrangement of parts. (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a moveable element being positioned on a side or front portion of the control stick, since this is a rearrangement of parts that would not have modified the operation of the device. (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C)
Regarding claim 4
Ouellette teaches wherein the movable element (See figures 1-9, ref # 34) comprises a finger-operated stick, finger-operated lever, finger-operated roller, or finger-operated slider, that can be moved relative to the rest of the control stick (See figures 1-9, ref # 10) to control the further input to the flight control system. (See paragraphs 0050, 0059 & figures 1-9)
Regarding claim 5
Ouellette teaches wherein the movable element (See figures 1-9, ref # 34) is configured to move in a generally circumferential direction about a central axis (See figures 1-2, ref # 20) of the control stick. (See figures 1-2, ref # 10)
While movable element (34) is not on a side or front portion (28) of the control stick, (10) there is another moveable element (26) that is on the side or front of the control stick. This is just a rearrangement of parts. (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a moveable element configured to move in a generally circumferential direction about a central axis of the control stick, since this is a rearrangement of parts that would not have modified the operation of the device. (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C)
Regarding claim 6
Ouellette teaches wherein the movable element (See figures 1-9, ref # 34) is configured to move forwards and backwards (See figure 1) relative to the rest of the control stick (See figures 1-9, ref # 10) or wherein the moveable element is configured to move left and right relative to the rest of the control stick. (See figures 1-9, ref # 10)
Regarding claim 7
Ouellette teaches wherein the movable element (See figures 1-9, ref # 34) is configured to be continuously moved between the range of positions, the range of positions extending either side of the default position of the moveable element. (See paragraph 0059 & figure 2, ref # 34)
Regarding claim 8
Ouellette teaches wherein the control stick (See paragraphs 0045, 0051 & figures 1-9, ref # 10) has a total length extending from a bottom end (See figures 1-9, ref # 12/14) to a top end, (See figures 1-9, ref # 18/30) the moveable element (See figures 1-9, ref # 34) being spaced on the top end. (See figures 1-9, ref # 18/30)
While the moveable element being spaced from the top end by a distance that is at least 5% of the total length of the control stick or being spaced from the bottom end of the control stick by a distance that is at least 40% of the total length of the control stick, the moveable element (See figures 1-9, ref # 26) being spaced from the top end (See figures 1-9, ref # 18/30) by a distance that is at least 5% of the total length of the control stick (See figures 1-9, ref # 10) or being spaced from the bottom end (See figures 1-9, ref # 12/14) of the control stick (See figures 1-9, ref # 10) by a distance that is at least 40% of the total length of the control stick. This is just a rearrangement of parts. (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a moveable element being spaced from the top end by a distance that is at least 5% of the total length of the control stick or being spaced from the bottom end of the control stick by a distance that is at least 40% of the total length of the control stick, since this is a rearrangement of parts that would not have modified the operation of the device. (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C)
Regarding claim 9
Ouellette teaches wherein the control stick (See figures 1-9, ref # 10) further comprises a second moveable element (See figures 1-9, ref # 32) provided on an upper surface (See figures 1-9, ref # 30) of the control stick (See figures 1-9, ref # 10) to provide a yet further input to the flight control system. (See paragraphs 0052-0053 & figures 1-9)
Regarding claim 11
Ouellette teaches wherein the control stick (See figures 1-9, ref # 10) is constrained to move forwards and backwards (See figure 1, ref # y) and right and left (See figure 1, ref # x) such that twisting movement of the control stick (See figures 1-9, ref # 26) is prevented. (See paragraph 0047 & figure 1)
Regarding claim 12
Ouellette teaches a control stick (See figures 1-9, ref # 10) for use with the flight control system of an aircraft, (See paragraphs 0001 & 0043) the aircraft having a set of principle axes including a roll axis and a pitch axis, wherein the control stick (See figures 1-9, ref # 10) is configured to move forward and backwards (See figure 1, ref # y) and left and right (See figure 1, ref # x) to provide a first set of inputs, the control stick (See figures 1-9, ref # 10) comprising: a moveable element (See paragraphs 0050-0053 & figures 1-9, ref # 34) configured to provide a further input, the moveable element (See paragraphs 0050-0053 & figures 1-9, ref # 34) being continuously moveable between a range of positions, the moveable element (See figures 1-9, ref # 34) being positioned on a top portion (See figures 1-9, ref # 30) of the control stick. (See paragraphs 0050-0053 & figures 1-9, ref # 10)
While movable element (34) is not on a side or front portion (28) of the control stick, (10) there is another moveable element (26) that is on the side or front of the control stick. This is just a rearrangement of parts. (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a moveable element being positioned on a side or front portion of the control stick, since this is a rearrangement of parts that would not have modified the operation of the device. (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C)
Regarding claim 13
Ouellette teaches wherein the movable element (See figures 1-9, ref # 34) is configured to move in a direction relative to a central axis (See figures 1-2, ref # 20) of the control stick. (See figures 1-2, ref # 10)
While movable element (34) is not on a side or front portion (28) of the control stick, (10) there is another moveable element (26) that is on the side or front of the control stick. This is just a rearrangement of parts. (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a moveable element configured to move in a generally circumferential direction about a central axis of the control stick, since this is a rearrangement of parts that would not have modified the operation of the device. (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C)
Regarding claim 14
Ouellette teaches wherein the movable element (See figures 1-9, ref # 34) comprises a finger-operated stick, finger-operated lever, finger-operated roller, or finger-operated slider, that can be moved relative to the control stick (See figures 1-9, ref # 10) to control the further input. (See paragraphs 0050, 0059 & figures 1-9)
Regarding claim 15
Ouellette teaches wherein the control stick (See figures 1-9, ref # 10) further comprises a second moveable element (See figures 1-9, ref # 32) provided on an upper surface (See figures 1-9, ref # 30) of the control stick (See figures 1-9, ref # 10) to provide a yet further input. (See paragraphs 0052-0053 & figures 1-9)
Claim(s) 2 & 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette (Pub No. US 2014/0091181 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hreha et al. (Pub No. US 2009/0187292 A1).
Regarding claim 2
Ouellette does not teach wherein the further input is configured to control movement of the aircraft about its yaw axis based on the position of the moveable element.
However, Hreha teaches wherein the further input is configured to control movement of the aircraft (See figure 1, ref # 100) about its yaw axis (See figure 1, ref # 118) based on the position of the moveable element. (See paragraphs 0048-0049 & figures 2 & 3, ref # 202 & 300)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a further input is configured to control movement of the aircraft about its yaw axis based on the position of the moveable element as taught by Hreha in the aircraft of Ouellette, so as to allow the pilot to control the aircraft during flight.
Regarding claim 3
Ouellette does not teach wherein the further input is configured to control movement of the aircraft about its yaw axis during flight and also to control steering of the aircraft when taxiing.
However, Hreha teaches wherein the further input is configured to control movement of the aircraft (See figure 1, ref # 100) about its yaw axis (See figure 1, ref # 118) during flight (See paragraphs 0048-0049) and also to control steering (See paragraph 0049) of the aircraft (See figure 1, ref # 100) when taxiing. (See paragraphs 0048-0049)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a further input is configured to control movement of the aircraft about its yaw axis during flight and also to control steering of the aircraft when taxiing as taught by Hreha in the aircraft of Ouellette, so as to allow the pilot to control the aircraft during flight and during taxiing.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette (Pub No. US 2014/0091181 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KR Pub No. 2023-0083211 A).
Regarding claim 10
Ouellette does not teach wherein the flight control system is configured such that the second moveable element controls braking of the aircraft.
However, Korea Aerospace Research Institute teaches wherein the flight control system (See paragraph 0001 & figure 1) is configured such that the second moveable element (See paragraph 0033 & figures 2-4, ref # 20, 21, 22, 23, & 24) controls braking (See figures 2-4, ref # 24) of the aircraft. (See paragraphs 0037-0038 & 0042; the fourth position “may be formed at a position where at least one finger of the pilot’s index and middle fingers is located: {see paragraph 0042} therefore it may be located near the other 3 positions)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a flight control system is configured such that the second moveable element controls braking of the aircraft as taught by Korea Aerospace Research Institute in the aircraft of Ouellette, so as to control braking of the aircraft.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 1 of the remarks that appropriate corrections have been made to claims 5-7 & 13 to overcome the 112(b) rejections.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the appropriate corrections have been made to claims 7 & 13, claim 5 was not amended with the correction and claim 6 depends on claim 5.
Therefore the 112(b) rejection of claims 5-6 are maintained.
The Applicant argues on page 2 of the remarks that switches can only be used for on/off control and Ouellette teaches the switches are used for intercom and radio functions. The Applicant further argues that Ouellette does not teach the claim limitations of claim 2.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, radio functions and include on/off but can also include changing frequencies which is a graduated input. Further, the Applicant discloses a finger-operated stick/lever. (See paragraph 0047 & figures 2 & 3, ref # 116) While the Applicant calls this element a stick/lever, it is shown in the figures as a lever switch. Similarly, Ouellette also shows lever switches although Ouellette refers to it as just a switch. Lever switches can be used for on/off functions or as graduated input. The Applicant discloses the lever (116) as being used for gradually adjustment. (See paragraph 0047) It is unclear how a lever switch in the reference is considered incapable of operating as a gradual input as argued by the Applicant, while the Applicant’s lever switch with similar structure as Ouellette is capable of gradual input as disclosed by Applicant. The Applicant’s arguments are contradicting the Applicant’s disclosure and vice versa. Regarding Ouellette not teaching the limitations of clam 2, Ouellette was not used to teach the limitations of claim 2. The reference Hreha was used for the limitations of clam 2. Further, as evidenced by the reference English et al. (Pub No. US 2020/0333805 A1) discloses that input mechanisms related to aircraft command functionalities can include switches, buttons, triggers, thumb wheels, rollers levers, and sliders and can be for binary or axis (gradual input) inputs and these input mechanisms are functionally equivalent. (See paragraph 0064)
No further arguments were presented.
Therefore the Examiner maintains the rejections of claims 1-15, adjusting the rejection as necessitated by amendment.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY ANDREW BONNETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7556. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 am - 5:00 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/RODNEY A BONNETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647