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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the second control stick" in claims 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoeli (US PgPub #2010/0076625).
For Claim 1, figures 44A-44B and paragraph [0171] of Yoeli ‘625 disclose an aircraft, comprising: a first inceptor assembly having a first base; and a first control stick extending away from the first base, the first control stick defining a first longitudinal axis that extends through the first control stick, the first longitudinal axis forming a non-zero angle with a vertical direction; and a second inceptor having: a second base; and a second control stick extending away from the second base, the second control stick defining a second longitudinal axis that extends through the second control stick and through the second base, the second longitudinal axis being generally aligned with a vertical direction; and a controller configured to actuate motor controls to control a vertical movement of the aircraft in response to a longitudinal input (M3) received via the first control stick.
For Claim 2, figures 44A-44B of Yoeli ‘625 disclose that the first inceptor assembly is for use with a left hand of an operator and the second inceptor assembly is for use with a right hand of the operator.
For Claim 3, figures 44A-44B of Yoeli ‘625 disclose that the aircraft is capable of vertical takeoff and landing.
For Claim 4, figures 44A-44B of Yoeli ‘625 disclose that the first inceptor assembly is configured for increasing or decreasing an altitude of the aircraft during takeoff and landing.
For Claim 5, figures 28d and 44A-44B of Yoeli ‘625 disclose that the first inceptor assembly is configured for increasing or decreasing an altitude of the aircraft during wing-bourne flight.
For Claim 6, figures 44A-44B of Yoeli ‘625 disclose that the first longitudinal axis extends through a center of a hand-grip portion of the first control stick.
For Claim 7, figures 44A-44B and paragraph [0171] of Yoeli ‘625 disclose that the non-zero angle of the first inceptor assembly is adjustable.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yates (US PgPub #2013/0209256).
For Claim 8, the figures of Yates ‘256 disclose a system for controlling an aircraft, comprising: a first inceptor assembly (300) including a first control stick configured to receive a longitudinal input and a lateral input; and a second inceptor assembly (200) including a second control stick configured to receive a longitudinal input and a lateral input, the first inceptor assembly being at a fixed orientation such that, when the first control stick and the second control stick are each at neutral positions, the first control stick forms an angle with respect to a vertical direction that is different than an angle that the second control stick forms with the vertical direction; wherein a first control directive associated with the longitudinal input of the first control stick is fixed and a second control directive of the longitudinal input of the second control stick is fixed, the first control directive of the first control stick being different from the second control directive of the second control stick.
For Claim 9, the figures of Yates ‘256 disclose as best understood a hand-grip (330) portion on the first control stick, a longitudinal axis extending through a center of the hand-grip portion, the first inceptor assembly being fixed at an orientation in which the longitudinal axis forms an angle of at least about 20 degrees and less than about 90 degrees.
For Claim 10, the figures of Yates ‘256 disclose a hand-grip portion (330) on the first control stick, a longitudinal axis extending through a center of the hand-grip portion, the first inceptor assembly being fixed at an orientation in which the longitudinal axis forms an angle with a vertical direction due to the first control stick extending forward and away from a seat for an operator of the aircraft.
For Claim 13, the figures of Yates ‘256 disclose a hand-grip portion (230) of the second control stick includes an input device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates (US PgPub #2013/0209256) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yoeli (US PgPub #2010/0076625).
For Claim 11, while Yates ‘256 discloses a controller to control the movement of the aircraft, it is silent about lateral input of the first control stick to a yaw control of the aircraft and a longitudinal input of the first control stick to a vertical control of the aircraft, however, figures 44a-44b of Yoeli ‘625 teach a controller configured to translate a lateral input (M5) of the first control stick to a yaw control of the aircraft and a longitudinal input (M3) of the first control stick to a vertical control of the aircraft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yates ‘256 with the input commands of Yoeli ‘625. The motivation to do so would be to provide known vertical and yaw movement.
For Claim 12, the figures and paragraph [0041] of Yates ‘256 disclose that the controller is configured to translate a lateral input of the second control stick (200) to a lateral translation of the aircraft and to translate a longitudinal input of the first control stick to a forward or rearward translation of the aircraft.
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates (US PgPub #2013/0209256) in view of Yoeli (US PgPub #2010/0076625).
For Claim 14, the figures and paragraph [0041] of Yates ‘256 disclose a method of controlling an aircraft, comprising: receiving a first longitudinal input via a first inceptor assembly (300); actuating one or more control surfaces or rotors to control movement of the aircraft in response to the first longitudinal input; receiving a first lateral input from the first inceptor assembly; actuating a control surface or rotor to control movement of the aircraft in response to the first lateral input; receiving a second longitudinal input from a second inceptor assembly (200); and actuating a control surface or rotors to control a movement of the aircraft in response to the second longitudinal input, the first longitudinal input being generated when a first control stick (330) of the first inceptor assembly is pushed forward and downward or pulled backward and upward; wherein a first control directive associated with the longitudinal input of the first control stick (330) is fixed and a second control directive of the longitudinal input of the second control stick (230) is fixed, the first control directive of the first control stick being different from the from the second control directive of the second control stick.
While Yates ‘256 is silent about the first longitudinal and lateral input providing vertical movement and yaw rotation of the aircraft respectively. However, figures 44A-44B of Yoeli ‘625 disclose a method of controlling an aircraft, comprising: receiving a first longitudinal input (M3) via a first inceptor assembly; actuating one or more rotors to control a vertical movement of the aircraft in response to the first longitudinal input; receiving a first lateral input (M5) via the first inceptor assembly; actuating the rotors to control a yaw rotation of the aircraft in response to the first lateral input. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yates ‘256 with the input commands of Yoeli ‘625. The motivation to do so would be to provide known vertical and yaw movement.
For Claim 15, the figures and paragraph [0041] of Yates ‘256 disclose that the second longitudinal input is generated with a second control stick (230) of a second inceptor.
For Claim 16, the figures and paragraph [0041] of Yates ‘256 disclose that the second longitudinal input is generated without pushing the second control stick downward and without pulling the second control stick upward when it is in a neutral position.
For Claim 17, while the figures and paragraph [0041] of Yates ‘256 disclose that the movement of the aircraft in response to the second longitudinal input is forward back tilting, it is silent about forward or rearward translation. However, figures 44a-44b disclose that the second longitudinal input is forward translation or rearward translation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Yates ‘256 with the input commands of Yoeli ‘625. The motivation to do so would be to provide known forward and rearward movement.
For Claim 18, the figures and paragraph [0041] of Yates ‘256 disclose receiving a second lateral input via the second inceptor assembly; and actuating the rotors to control lateral translation of the aircraft in response to the second lateral input.
For Claim 19, the figures and paragraph [0041] of Yates ‘256 disclose that the first longitudinal input, first lateral input, and second longitudinal input are received during takeoff or landing.
For Claim 20, the figures and paragraph [0041] of Yates ‘256 disclose that the first longitudinal input, first lateral input, and second longitudinal input are received during wing-borne flight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 9/1/2026, with respect to 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-14, filed 9/1/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, and 14 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yoeli ‘625 and Yates ‘256.
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 PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 9/30/2026
