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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed 10th July 2026 has been entered. Claims 13-32 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 27th may 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 13, 26-27 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13 line 6, “…(i) detecting…” should read “…(i) the detecting…” as positively recited in line 2.
In claim 13 lines 6-77, “…(ii) determining…” should read “…(ii) the determining…” as positively recited in line 2.
In claim 26 line 3, “…based on detecting…” should read “…based on the detecting…”.
In claim 27 line 4, “…based on detecting…” should read “…based on the detecting…”.
In claim 29 line 2, “…to transmitting…” should read”…to the transmitting…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The disclosure doesn’t have support for “automatically adjusting, based on receiving the control signal from the external remote inceptor the at least one inceptor from the first configuration to the second configuration”. The disclosure discloses the external remote control inceptor may take operational command of the aircraft in certain situations and the interior aircraft inceptors may automatically stow and full flight control may be transferred to the external remote control inceptor but doesn’t say that the external remote control inceptor sends signal to adjust the at least one inceptor from the first configuration to the second configuration.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13-16, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerant et al. (US 2024/0140592) in view of Jensen (US 2020/0334994) and Breed (US 2013/0275008).
Regarding claim 13, Yerant et al. ‘592 teaches (figures 1-3B) a method of operating a vehicle/rotary wing aircraft (10) (Para 0017), comprising:
a flight control system (74) of the vehicle (Para 0021),
determining, using the flight control system (74), the at least one inceptor/control stick (102, 110) of the vehicle is in a first configuration/deployed position (figure 3A) rather than a second configuration/ stowed position (figure 3B) (Para 0011-0012, 0022-0023); and
a cabin door (46) (Para 0018)
but it is silent about the method comprising:
detecting, at a flight control system of the vehicle, an adverse environmental condition in a vicinity of the vehicle.
Jensen ‘994 teaches (figure 1) a dedicated turbulence/adverse environmental condition sensor (101) in an aircraft (Para 0026; sensor detects turbulence/adverse environmental condition).
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 Yerant et al. ‘592 to incorporate the teachings of Jensen ‘994 to configure the method comprising:
detecting, at a flight control system of the vehicle, an adverse environmental condition in a vicinity of the vehicle.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would alert pilots about the weather condition and act appropriately based on the circumstance.
Modified Yerant et al. ‘592 is silent about the method comprising
disabling, responsive to (i) detecting the adverse environmental condition and (ii) determining that the at least one inceptor is in the first configuration, a functionality of a cabin door of the vehicle to be opened until the at least one inceptor is adjusted to the second configuration.
Breed ‘008 teaches (figures 1-4B) a vehicle (12) comprising steering wheel (54) and converting the pivotal movement of the steering wheel (54) into opening/unlocking or closing/locking movement of the door (50), a sensing system (56) provided to detect the angular position or movement of the steering wheel (54) wherein when an upward angular movement above a threshold/second configuration/ folded position is detected, a processor (58) directs a door access control system (60) to open/unlock the door (50) and when a downward angular movement above a threshold/first configuration/deployed position is detected, the processor (58) directs the door access control mechanism (60) to close/lock the door (50) (Para 0011-0012, 0021, 0044; the door access control mechanism is active in all environmental conditions i.e., both favorable and adverse environmental conditions).
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 Yerant et al. ‘592 to incorporate the teachings of Breed ‘008 to configure the method comprising
disabling, responsive to (i) detecting the adverse environmental condition and (ii) determining that the at least one inceptor is in the first configuration, a functionality of a cabin door of the vehicle to be opened until the at least one inceptor is adjusted to the second configuration.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would ensure safety by preventing an accidental opening of a cabin door when the inceptor is deployed for flights.
Regarding claim 14, modified Yerant et al. ‘592 teaches (figures 1-3B) the method wherein the detecting the adverse environmental condition comprises detecting using a sensor data (as modified by Jensen ‘994).
Regarding claim 15, modified Yerant et al. ‘592 teaches (figures 1-3B) the method wherein the adverse environmental condition corresponds to a wind above a predetermined threshold (wind above certain speed/predetermined threshold results in turbulence).
Regarding claim 16, modified Yerant et al. ‘592 teaches (figures 1-3B) the method wherein the first configuration is a deployed configuration/position (figure 3A) and wherein the second configuration is a stowed configuration/stowed position (figure 3B) (Para 0011-0012).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yerant et al. ‘592 teaches (figures 1-3B) the method further comprising:
receiving, at the flight control system, an indication that the at least one inceptor is adjusted to the second configuration from the first configuration (Para 0022; flight control system receives the inputs from various sources including inceptors); and
enabling, by the flight control system, the functionality of the cabin door to be opened (as modified by Breed ‘008).
Regarding claim 21, modified Yerant et al. ‘592 teaches (figures 1-3B) the method wherein the vehicle is a vertical take-off and landing vehicle (VTOL) (rotary wing aircraft takes off and land vertically).
Claim(s) 17 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerant et al. (US 2024/0140592), Jensen (US 2020/0334994) and Breed (US 2013/0275008) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Soderlind (US 2014/0260761).
Regarding claims 17 and 26-27, modified Yerant et al. ‘592 teaches (figures 1-3B) the method of claim 13 but it is silent about the method further comprising automatically adjusting, by the flight control system, the at least one inceptor from the first configuration to the second configuration,
wherein the automatically adjusting comprises:
detecting, by the flight control system, that the vehicle has landed; and
automatically adjusting, based on the detecting that the vehicle has landed, the at least one inceptor from the first configuration to the second configuration, and
detecting, by the flight control system, that the vehicle has initiated one or more flight systems; and
automatically adjusting, based on the detecting that the vehicle has initiated one or more flight systems, the at least one inceptor from the second configuration to the first configuration.
Soderlind ‘761 teaches (figures 1-5) a steering wheel/inceptor (12) in a stowed position/second configuration when the vehicle is off and once the driver is seated in the driver’s seat and the ignition is turned on the drive motor (28) is engaged and the steering wheel/inceptor (12) is moved to its extended, in use position/first configuration (fig. 2) and when the vehicle ignition is turned off the driver motor (28) is engaged and the steering wheel (12) is moved away from the driver toward a stowed position/second configuration (fig. 4) (Para 0036-0037; steering wheel is moved automatically when ignition is turned on/off).
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 Yerant et al. ‘592 to incorporate the teachings of Soderlind ‘761 to configure the method further comprising automatically adjusting, by the flight control system, the at least one inceptor from the first configuration to the second configuration,
wherein the automatically adjusting comprises:
detecting, by the flight control system, that the vehicle has landed (landing is complete once the ignition is turned off); and
automatically adjusting, based on the detecting that the vehicle has landed, the at least one inceptor from the first configuration to the second configuration, and
detecting, by the flight control system, that the vehicle has initiated one or more flight systems (turning on ignition); and
automatically adjusting, based on the detecting that the vehicle has initiated one or more flight systems, the at least one inceptor from the second configuration to the first configuration.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would create open space within the interior of a vehicle when the at least one inceptor is not in use.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerant et al. (US 2024/0140592), Jensen (US 2020/0334994) and Breed (US 2013/0275008)as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Roques et al. (US 2006/0245620).
Regarding claims 19-20, modified Yerant et al. ‘592 teaches (figures 1-3B) the method of claim 18 but it is silent about the method further comprising verifying an authorization of an operator of the vehicle prior to facilitating adjustment of the at least one inceptor from the second configuration to the first configuration, and
wherein the verifying the authorization comprises one or more of: receiving a passcode input or performing biometric authorization.
Roques et al. ‘620 teaches a new identification system using a biometric authentication systems at the flight controls of the aircraft (Para 0007-0008; authentication enables aircraft controls including inceptors to be manipulated by an operator).
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 Yerant et al. ‘592 to incorporate the teachings of Roques et al. ‘620 to configure the method further comprising verifying an authorization of an operator of the vehicle prior to facilitating adjustment of the at least one inceptor from the second configuration to the first configuration, and
wherein the verifying the authorization comprises performing biometric authorization.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would ensure only authorized individuals get access to the inceptor to fly the aircraft.
Claim(s) 19-20 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerant et al. (US 2024/0140592), Jensen (US 2020/0334994) and Breed (US 2013/0275008) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Riley (US 2003/0067379).
Regarding claims 19-20, modified Yerant et al. ‘592 teaches (figures 1-3B) the method of claim 18 but it is silent about the method further comprising verifying an authorization of an operator of the vehicle prior to facilitating adjustment of the at least one inceptor from the second configuration to the first configuration, and
wherein the verifying the authorization comprises one or more of: receiving a passcode input or performing biometric authorization.
Riley ‘379 teaches a biometric in-flight aircraft flight crew authentication system for providing repetitive in-flight authentication of the identity of the individual or individuals at the controls of an aircraft, and, providing communication of failure to authenticate to an appropriate party or parties/entities inside and/or outside of the aircraft allowing them to take in-flight corrective action as necessary (Abstract; authentication enables aircraft controls including inceptors to be manipulated by an operator).
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 Yerant et al. ‘592 to incorporate the teachings of Riley ‘379 to configure the method further comprising verifying an authorization of an operator of the vehicle prior to facilitating adjustment of the at least one inceptor from the second configuration to the first configuration (in order to adjust the at least one inceptor from the second configuration to the first configuration operator needs to be granted access via authorization), and
wherein the verifying the authorization comprises performing biometric authorization.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would ensure only authorized individuals get access to the inceptor to fly the aircraft.
Regarding claim 31, modified Yerant et al. ‘592 teaches (figures 1-3B) the method further comprising preventing, upon the verifying failing to authenticate the authorization of the operator, the operator access to one or more flight features of the vehicle (as modified by Riley ‘379; failure to authenticate prevents access).
Regarding claim 32, modified Yerant et al. ‘592 teaches (figures 1-3B) the method further comprising transmitting, upon the verifying failing to authenticate the authorization of the operator, a notification to one or more designated entities (as modified by Riley ‘379).
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerant et al. (US 2024/0140592), Jensen (US 2020/0334994) and Breed (US 2013/0275008) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Muller et al. (US 5,845,735).
Regarding claim 22, modified Yerant et al. ‘592 teaches (figures 1-3B) the method of claim 13 but it is silent about the method wherein the at least one inceptor is a door-mounted inceptor.
Muller et al. ‘735 teaches (figure 1) an automobile comprising two control sticks (2) mounted to driver’s door (5) and passenger door (8) respectively (Col. 3 Lines 57-67; Col. 4 Lines 1-10).
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 Yerant et al. ‘592 to incorporate the teachings of Muller et al. ‘735 to configure the method wherein the at least one inceptor is a door-mounted inceptor.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would maximize the space inside the vehicle.
Regarding claim 23, modified Yerant et al. ‘592 teaches (figures 1-3B) the method wherein the at least one inceptor/ control stick (102, 110) comprises a first inceptor (102) and a second inceptor (110) and door (46) but it is silent about the method comprising two cabin door, and
wherein the first inceptor is mounted to a first cabin door and wherein the second inceptor is mounted to a second cabin door.
Muller et al. ‘735 teaches (figure 1) an automobile comprising two control sticks (2) mounted to driver’s door (5) and passenger door (8) respectively (Col. 3 Lines 57-67; Col. 4 Lines 1-10).
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 Yerant et al. ‘592 to incorporate the teachings of Muller et al. ‘735 to configure the method comprising two cabin door, and
wherein the first inceptor is mounted to a first cabin door and wherein the second inceptor is mounted to a second cabin door.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would maximize the space inside the vehicle while placing inceptors next to pilots.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerant et al. (US 2024/0140592), Jensen (US 2020/0334994) and Breed (US 2013/0275008) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Bowen (US 2022/0009541).
Regarding claim 24, modified Yerant et al. ‘592 teaches (figures 1-3B) the method of claim 13 but it is silent about the method wherein the at least one inceptor in the second configuration is positioned within a recess of the cabin door.
Bowen ‘541 teaches (figures 1-3) vehicle (12) comprising a cabin (14), side wall region (16) including one or more doors and a manual steering control unit (10) wherein manual steering control unit (10) is mounted and received in a recess (18) defined within a door of the vehicle in a stowed position (clearly seen in figure 2) (Para 0026-0029).
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 Yerant et al. ‘592 to incorporate the teachings of Bowen ‘541 to configure the method wherein the at least one inceptor in the second configuration is positioned within a recess of the cabin door.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would maximize the space inside the vehicle when the at least one inceptor is not in use.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerant et al. (US 2024/0140592), Jensen (US 2020/0334994) and Breed (US 2013/0275008) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Bennett JR. (US 2,641,629).
Regarding claim 24, modified Yerant et al. ‘592 teaches (figures 1-3B) the method of claim 13 but it is silent about the method wherein the at least one inceptor is hard-wired into the vehicle.
Bennett JR. ‘629 teaches (figures 1-4) a control wheel assembly comprising a control wheel (1) mounted on the upper end of a control column or support (2) wherein grip portions (7, 8) of the wheel comprises plurality of switches which include actuator elements (14-18) and electrical leads/hard wire (19) for the switches extend from the switch terminals to a suitable junction box (21) located on the forward side of the control column (2) (Col. 2 Lines 10-46).
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 Yerant et al. ‘592 to incorporate the teachings of Bennett JR. ‘629 to configure the method wherein the at least one inceptor is hard-wired into the vehicle.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would ensure that input from inceptors are delivered at maximum data speeds.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerant et al. (US 2024/0140592), Jensen (US 2020/0334994), Breed (US 2013/0275008) and Soderlind (US 2014/0260761) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Craig (US 6,658,572).
Regarding claim 28, modified Yerant et al. ‘592 teaches (figures 1-3B) the method of claim 17 but it is silent about the method further comprising transmitting, by the flight control system, a distress transmission to an external source.
Craig ‘572 teaches (figures 1-5C) an aircraft cockpit security system comprising sending distress message over one or more voice channels (730-740) to a to persons outside the vehicle (Col. 11 Lines 66-67; Col. 12 Lines 1-13).
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 Yerant et al. ‘592 to incorporate the teachings of Craig ‘572 to configure the method further comprising transmitting, by the flight control system, a distress transmission to an external source.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would inform about the issues inside the vehicle to external source.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10th July 2026, with respect to the amended claims 17 and 17 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 as explained in the rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 19 have been fully considered but they are persuasive. As explained in the rejection above, Roques et al. ‘620 teaches a new identification system using a biometric authentication systems at the flight controls of the aircraft (Para 0007-0008), and authentication systems enable aircraft controls including inceptors to be manipulated by an operator i.e., in order to facilitate adjustment/manipulation of the at least one inceptor from the second configuration to the first configuration an operator needs to be authorized via authentication system.
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 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
