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 Objections
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: “from via first inceptor assembly” in line 5 is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 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.
For Claim 9, the term “about” is used which is indefinite as it is unclear what is considered “about”.
Claim 13 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.
For Claim 13, the claim appears to be incomplete both in terms of missing language and a period ending 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) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yates (US PgPub #2013/0209256).
For Claim 1, the figures of Yates ‘256 disclose an aircraft (100), comprising: a first inceptor assembly (300) having a first base (340); and a first control stick (330) 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 (200) having: a second base (240); and a second control stick (230) 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.
For Claim 2, the figures of Yates ‘256 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, the figures and paragraph [0011] of Yates ‘256 disclose that the aircraft is capable of vertical takeoff and landing.
For Claim 4, the figures and paragraph [0011] of Yates ‘256 disclose that the first inceptor assembly is configured for increasing or decreasing an altitude of the aircraft during takeoff and landing.
For Claim 6, the figures of Yates ‘256 disclose that the first longitudinal axis extends through a center of a hand-grip portion of the first control stick.
For Claim 7, the figures of Yates ‘256 disclose that the non-zero angle of the first inceptor assembly is adjustable.
Claim(s) 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoeli (US PgPub #2010/0076625).
For Claim 8, figures 44A-44B of Yoeli ‘625 disclose a system for controlling an aircraft, comprising: a first inceptor assembly including a first control stick configured to receive a longitudinal input and a lateral input; and a second inceptor assembly 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.
For Claim 9, figures 44A-44B and paragraph [0171] of Yoeli ‘625 disclose as best understood a hand-grip 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, figures 44A-44B of Yoeli ‘625 disclose a hand-grip 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 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 11, figures 44A-44B of Yoeli ‘625 disclose 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.
For Claim 12, figures 44A-44B of Yoeli ‘625 disclose that the controller is configured to translate a lateral input (M2) of the second control stick 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.
For Claim 13, figures 44A-44B of Yoeli ‘625 disclose a hand-grip portion of the second control stick.
For Claim 14, 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; receiving a second longitudinal input (M1) from a second inceptor assembly; and actuating the 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 of the first inceptor assembly is pushed forward and downward or pulled backward and upward.
For Claim 15, figures 44A-44B of Yoeli ‘625 disclose that the second longitudinal input is generated with a second control stick of a second inceptor.
For Claim 16, figures 44A-44B of Yoeli ‘625 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, figures 44A-44B of Yoeli ‘625 disclose that the movement of the aircraft in response to the second longitudinal input is forward translation or rearward translation.
For Claim 18, figures 44A-44B of Yoeli ‘625 disclose receiving a second lateral input (M2) 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, figures 44A-44B of Yoeli ‘625 disclose that the first longitudinal input, first lateral input, and second longitudinal input are received during takeoff or landing.
For Claim 20, figures 44A-44B and paragraph [0219] of Yoeli ‘625 disclose that the first longitudinal input, first lateral input, and second longitudinal input are received during wing-borne flight.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates (US PgPub #2013/0209256) in view of De Freitas (US PgPub #2022/0041267).
For Claim 5, while Yates ‘256 discloses that the first inceptor can increase or decrease an altitude of the aircraft, it is silent about it being a wing-borne aircraft. However, the figure 2B and paragraphs [0060-0061] of De Freitas ‘267 teach that it is known to have an inceptor that increases or decreases an altitude of an aircraft during wing-borne flight. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the control system on a helicopter as taught by Yates ‘256 on a wing-borne VTOL aircraft that is known to have an altitude control stick as taught by De Freitas ‘267. The motivation to do so would be to provide control on a wing-borne aircraft.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights