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 .
Status of the Claims
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 02/13/2026. Claims 1, 9, 11, and 19 have been amended. Claims 10 and 20 were cancelled. Claims 1-6, 9, 11-16, and 19 are pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103: Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 with respect to Guedes et al. (US 10429856 B2), in view of Wilkinson et al. (US6880784B1) and Wang et al. (CN 111846250 B) have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11-13, 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guedes et al. (US 10429856 B2) in view of Wilkinson et al. (US6880784B1) and further in view of Fiedler et al. (US20160265445A1), hereinafter referred to as Guedes, Wilkinson and Fiedler respectively.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Guedes discloses A system of an aircraft (“FIG. 2 illustrates schematic logic following the flight computer 200 to decide whether to reject takeoff. The flight computer/fly-by-wire (FBW) controller 200 is in this case comprised of at least one processor 222, a memory 224, and a safe takeoff program 224′.” [Col.4 ln 24-27]) , the system comprising:
one or more gas turbine engines (FIG.1 “The force F on the aircraft has several components. One component is the amount of thrust produced by the engines.” [Col.3 ln 51-52]);
determine one or more control parameters for one or more current conditions at a target location of the aircraft (“FIG. 3 depicts a non-limiting example data evaluation and system decision process. In response to estimated weight 208′ provided by the flight engineer/dispatch system, weather parameters 208′ (e.g., temperature, wind, etc.) and airport data 208′ (runway information), a computer (either the flight computer 200 on board the aircraft, a ground computer at dispatch, or some other computer)” [Col.5 ln 8-15]);
and selecting a larger value of the cross-compare final takeoff speed and the locally computed version of the final takeoff speed as the final takeoff speed based on determining that the cross-compare final takeoff speed and the locally computed version of the final takeoff speed are within the comparison threshold (“In the same manner, the upper threshold 402, referred to as the Upper Limit Speed (“ULS”), is the limit that guarantees a safe rejection of takeoff without the risk of a runway excursion. Although the graph compares the ratio of calculated and actual weight, acceleration should be the parameter compared, but weight and acceleration are correlated and the final effect is similar.” [Col.6 ln 29-40] and “The structural and/or software based logic AND gate is configured to follow the Boolean logic of an AND gate, meaning that both conditions must be true in order for the gate to generate a true output. Positive or negative logic (e.g., NAND) can be used in a well-known manner. For the system to execute the automatic takeoff rejection, both discrepancy in acceleration values and airspeed within designated speed window, must be true.” [Col.8 ln 14-21], and “In the same manner, the upper threshold 402, referred to as the Upper Limit Speed (“ULS”), is the limit that guarantees a safe rejection of takeoff without the risk of a runway excursion. [Col.6 ln 29-40])
monitor the one or more control parameters prior to takeoff of the aircraft (“The new non-limiting technology herein thus proposes a system that automatically rejects or aborts takeoff if erroneous takeoff parameters or data are detected.” [Col.6 ln 13-15]);
output an updated final takeoff speed warning indicator based on determining that the updated final takeoff speed has changed beyond a change threshold with respect to the final takeoff speed (“It is well known that RTO's at high speeds approaching or exceeding V1 can be dangerous. Therefore, the example non-limiting embodiment will only perform an automatic RTO if the measured speed of the aircraft is within a safe range.” [Col.4 ln 63-67]; “Comparator 706 determines whether to output a safe takeoff signal 312′ (meaning that both accelerations are substantially equal) or send a signal 708 to a structural and/or software based logic to check whether it is safe to reject takeoff.” [Col.7 ln 63-67]);
and controlling, by the control system, the one or more gas turbine engines to accelerate to the final takeoff speed after transitioning from the pre-takeoff condition to a takeoff condition (“By estimating thrust 210′, drag 100′, and wheel friction forces 105′ it is possible to estimate a longitudinal acceleration value 204-A of the aircraft based on the dispatch information. This estimated acceleration value can be checked to measured acceleration 204-B that is obtained from the inertial sensor(s) 204′ of the aircraft as the aircraft accelerates down the runway.” [Col.5 ln 30-35]; “An aircraft includes a safe takeoff system that automatically and autonomously rejects a takeoff if actual measured acceleration deviates from calculations based on pre-flight parameters and the speed of the aircraft traveling down the runway is within a safe speed range to guarantee a successful low inertia rejected takeoff.” [Abstract]).
Guedes does not explicitly teach detect a pre-takeoff condition of the aircraft; determine a locally computed version of a final takeoff speed of the one or more gas turbine engines based on the one or more control parameters, wherein the final takeoff speed is an engine rotational speed for the one or more gas turbine engines to reach prior to takeoff of the aircraft; determine an updated final takeoff speed associated with at least one change to the one or more control parameters; set the final takeoff speed to the updated final takeoff speed based on a user input received after output of the updated final takeoff speed warning indicator.
However, Wilkinson does teach detect a pre-takeoff condition of the aircraft (“The management System comprises an aircraft status Sensor or Set of Sensors capable of detecting establishment of takeoff climb conditions” [Col.2 ln 55-58]);
determine a locally computed version of a final takeoff speed of the one or more gas turbine engines based on the one or more control parameters, wherein the final takeoff speed is an engine rotational speed for the one or more gas turbine engines to reach prior to takeoff of the aircraft (“The aircraft typically begins the start of takeoff roll (A) at the normal takeoff rating and progresses on that initial schedule 304. The aircraft reaches the takeoff decision speed (V1). If the Automatic Takeoff Thrust Management System detects engine failure or low thrust after the aircraft reaches the takeoff decision speed (V1), the system selects the one-engine-operative (OEI) rating schedule 302, boosting thrust, illustratively by approximately ten percent, and lifting-off (B) using elevated thrust. Otherwise, in normal conditions the engines continue on the initial schedule 304 through lift-off (B), start of first constant climb (C), and determination that climb is established (C*) at an altitude at least 35 feet above the takeoff surface.” [col.7 ln 35-50] and “ The automatic takeoff thrust management system is programmed to sense an engine failure event after reaching takeoff decision speed and responding by increasing available thrust. In the illustrative embodiment, the automatic takeoff thrust management system increases thrust approximately ten percent for OEI acceleration. The automatic takeoff thrust management system is programmed to sense engine failure and responds by increasing thrust on the operating engine to a maximum OEI thrust rating.” [Col.3 ln 10-20] and “The thrust level control 114 generates manual thrust signals that may be overridden by automatic controls. Sensors 112 are included for detecting various control parameters such as engine speed or Mach number, engine inlet temperature, engine revolutions per minute, engine inlet pressure, weight on wheels, and others.” [Col.5 ln 12-32 ]).
determine an updated final takeoff speed associated with at least one change to the one or more control parameters (“the controller automatically, absent any pilot input, reducing thrust by a selected amount upon detecting establishment of takeoff climb conditions and, if engine failure is detected, restoring thrust to at least the initial schedule.” [Col.11 ln 43-47]);
set the final takeoff speed to the updated final takeoff speed based on a user input received after output of the updated final takeoff speed warning indicator “A pilot may make throttle lever movements to modulate thrust between normal idle levels 304 and the PLR schedule 306.” [Col.7 ln 61-63]).
Both Guedes and Wilkinson teach methods for determining aircraft takeoff speed and conditions. However, Wilkinson explicitly teaches detect a pre-takeoff condition of the aircraft; determine a locally computed version a of final takeoff speed of the one or more gas turbine engines based on the one or more control parameters, wherein the final takeoff speed is an engine rotational speed for the one or more gas turbine engines to reach prior to takeoff of the aircraft; determine an updated final takeoff speed associated with at least one change to the one or more control parameters; set the final takeoff speed to the updated final takeoff speed based on a user input received after output of the updated final takeoff speed warning indicator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the takeoff monitoring method of Guedes to also include detecting a pre-takeoff condition of the aircraft; determine a locally computed version a of final takeoff speed of the one or more gas turbine engines based on the one or more control parameters, wherein the final takeoff speed is an engine rotational speed for the one or more gas turbine engines to reach prior to takeoff of the aircraft; determine an updated final takeoff speed associated with at least one change to the one or more control parameters; set the final takeoff speed to the updated final takeoff speed based on a user input received after output of the updated final takeoff speed warning indicator, as in Wilkinson. Doing so improves methods for monitoring aircraft takeoff (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Wilkinson, Col.3, 5 and 7]).
Guedes in view of Wilkinson does not explicitly teach receiving a cross-compare final takeoff speed from another controller of the aircraft; comparing the cross-compare final takeoff speed to a locally computed version of the final takeoff speed; determining whether the cross-compare final takeoff speed and the locally computed version of the final takeoff speed are within a comparison threshold.
However, Fiedler does teach receiving a cross-compare final takeoff speed from another controller of the aircraft ( “The EEC 202 operates in a dual channel FADEC, whereby one channel (ex. Channel A) controls the engine 10 and the other channel (ex. Channel B) is on standby as it monitors for a UHT event. Upon detection of a UHT event and an aircraft-on-ground condition, Channel B provides an engine shut down signal.” [0021]);
comparing the cross-compare final takeoff speed to a locally computed version of the final takeoff speed ( “one channel (ex. Channel A) controls the engine 10 and the other channel (ex. Channel B) is on standby as it monitors for a UHT event.” [0021]; “comparing the measured engine thrust to a modulated engine thrust threshold to take into account a lag time between a maximum take-off thrust and a measured engine thrust during take-off” [Claim 18]);
determining whether the cross-compare final takeoff speed and the locally computed version of the final takeoff speed are within a comparison threshold ( “configured to detect an overthrust condition when an engine thrust threshold has been exceeded.” [0004]).
Both Guedes and Fiedler teach methods for determining aircraft takeoff speed and conditions. However, Fiedler explicitly teaches receiving a cross-compare final takeoff speed from another controller of the aircraft; comparing the cross-compare final takeoff speed to a locally computed version of the final takeoff speed; determining whether the cross-compare final takeoff speed and the locally computed version of the final takeoff speed are within a comparison threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the takeoff monitoring method of Guedes to also include receiving a cross-compare final takeoff speed from another controller of the aircraft; comparing the cross-compare final takeoff speed to a locally computed version of the final takeoff speed; determining whether the cross-compare final takeoff speed and the locally computed version of the final takeoff speed are within a comparison threshold, as in Fiedler. Doing so improves methods for monitoring aircraft takeoff (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Fiedler, 0004, 0021]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Guedes discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine the one or more control parameters based at least in part on a corrected runway length at the target location and a corrected aircraft weight (“ In response to estimated weight 208′ provided by the flight engineer/dispatch system, weather parameters 208′ (e.g., temperature, wind, etc.) and airport data 208′ (runway information), a computer (either the flight computer 200 on board the aircraft, a ground computer at dispatch, or some other computer) is configured to calculate the thrust 210′ and V-speeds 302 that should be applied during a takeoff procedure. “ [Col.5 ln 9-19] and “In simple terms, if the measured acceleration differs significantly from the estimated acceleration, then the actual weight of the aircraft is likely not the same as the estimated weight used to calculate the estimates acceleration. F=ma can be rewritten as a=F/m. So for the equation:
F/m.sub.estimated:a.sub.measured
if the estimated mass (m) very wrong, then the measured acceleration will not match the estimated acceleration calculated based on the estimated mass.” [Col.5 ln 37-46]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Guedes discloses The system of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to determine a flexible temperature value based on the corrected runway length at the target location, the corrected aircraft weight, a takeoff configuration of the aircraft, a pressure altitude, and an outside air temperature (“FIG. 3 depicts a non-limiting example data evaluation and system decision process. In response to estimated weight 208′ provided by the flight engineer/dispatch system, weather parameters 208′ (e.g., temperature, wind, etc.) and airport data 208′ (runway information), a computer (either the flight computer 200 on board the aircraft, a ground computer at dispatch, or some other computer) is configured to calculate the thrust 210′ and V-speeds 302 that should be applied during a takeoff procedure. V-speeds or Velocity-speeds are well-known conventional velocity terms used to define critical airspeeds for the operational procedures of aircraft.” [Col.5 ln 8-18] and “since the pilot workload is higher at takeoff, such proposals must somehow assure that there is enough runway remaining to stop the aircraft without a runway excursion (overrun) in case the pilot decides to abort the takeoff.” [Col.2-3 ln 66-67 & 1-3]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Guedes discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine the final takeoff speed of the one or more gas turbine engines based at least in part on one or more preferences stored in a memory system (“The flight computer 200 determines takeoff rejection by processing various takeoff parameters including: signals from the airspeed sensor(s) 202, signals from inertial sensor(s) 204, signals from aircraft configuration sensor(s) 206, dispatch/pilot input 208, and thrust lever 210 selection.” [Col.4 ln 29-35] and “The operational procedures during takeoff are defined by the input takeoff parameters. A safe takeoff involves agreement between (a) estimated longitudinal acceleration calculated based on presumed weight of the aircraft, and (b) current actual acceleration as measured by an inertial sensor. An unsafe set of parameters, which leads to a rejection of takeoff, is detected based on an incongruence in the comparison of the estimated longitudinal acceleration and the current measured acceleration.” [Col.4 ln 50-58]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Guedes discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine the final takeoff speed of the one or more gas turbine engines based at least in part on an aircraft state that identifies one or more current conditions of the aircraft that impact takeoff performance of the aircraft (“FIG. 3 depicts a non-limiting example data evaluation and system decision process. In response to estimated weight 208′ provided by the flight engineer/dispatch system, weather parameters 208′ (e.g., temperature, wind, etc.) and airport data 208′ (runway information), a computer (either the flight computer 200 on board the aircraft, a ground computer at dispatch, or some other computer) is configured to calculate the thrust 210′ and V-speeds 302 that should be applied during a takeoff procedure. V-speeds or Velocity-speeds are well-known conventional velocity terms used to define critical airspeeds for the operational procedures of aircraft.” [Col5 ln 8-19]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19,
Guedes in view of Wilkinson does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to output a cross-compare warning indicator based on determining that the cross-compare final takeoff speed and the locally computed version of the final takeoff speed are outside of the comparison threshold.
However, Fiedler does teach wherein the controller is configured to output a cross-compare warning indicator based on determining that the cross-compare final takeoff speed and the locally computed version of the final takeoff speed are outside of the comparison threshold (“Monitoring and alerting of a UHT event may occur while the aircraft is in the air but engine shutdown is only required when the aircraft is on the ground.” [0018] and “one channel (ex. Channel A) controls the engine 10 and the other channel (ex. Channel B) is on standby as it monitors for a UHT event.” [0021]; “comparing the measured engine thrust to a modulated engine thrust threshold to take into account a lag time between a maximum take-off thrust and a measured engine thrust during take-off” [Claim 18]).
Both Guedes in view of Wilkinson and Fiedler teach methods for determining aircraft takeoff speed and conditions. However, Fiedler explicitly teaches wherein the controller is configured to output a cross-compare warning indicator based on determining that the cross-compare final takeoff speed and the locally computed version of the final takeoff speed are outside of the comparison threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the takeoff monitoring method of Guedes in view of Wilkinson to also include wherein the controller is configured to output a cross-compare warning indicator based on determining that the cross-compare final takeoff speed and the locally computed version of the final takeoff speed are outside of the comparison threshold, as in Fiedler. Doing so improves methods for monitoring aircraft takeoff (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Fiedler, 0018, 0021]).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guedes in view of Wilkinson and in further view of Wang et al. (CN 111846250 B), hereinafter referred to as Guedes, Wilkinson and Wang respectively.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Guedes discloses
Guedes in view of Wilkinson does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to determine the final takeoff speed as an engine rotational speed based on the flexible temperature value.
However, WANG does teach wherein the controller is configured to determine the final takeoff speed as an engine rotational speed based on the flexible temperature value (When the aircraft enters the take-off thrust control mode, it is checked whether the aircraft has been set for flexible take-off thrust. Maximum thrust takeoff mode, wherein the flexible takeoff thrust setting includes setting flexible takeoff thrust via setting flexible temperature or setting derated power takeoff (also referred to as DERATE mode).” [Pg.2 Para.15]). Both Guedes in view of Wilkinson and Wang teach methods for determining aircraft takeoff speed and conditions. However, Wang explicitly teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine the final takeoff speed as an engine rotational speed based on the flexible temperature value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the takeoff monitoring method of Guedes in view of Wilkinson to also include a controller that is configured to determine the final takeoff speed as an engine rotational speed based on the flexible temperature value, as in Wang. Doing so improves the methods for monitoring aircraft takeoff (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Wang , Pg.1]).
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 AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights