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 .
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The 12/02/2025 claims are entered. Claims 1, 8, 11, and 14 are amended. Claim 3 is canceled. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn No new claims are added. Claims 1-2 and 4-16 are pending.
The Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been 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 § 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 1 and 11 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.
Claims 1 and 11 contain new matter not originally described in the specification, particularly, the underlined limitation:
“check an operational and/or health state . . . prior to the landing of the aircraft . . . .”
This limitation was not disclosed in the initial 11/29/2022 claim set, nor is it present in the 11/29/2022 Specification. Therefore, it has not been reasonably conveyed that Applicant possessed the claimed invention at the time of filing.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190054906 A1 to Pedapudi, Rakesh et al. (“Pedapudi”) in view of US 20080249675 A1 to Goodman, William et al. (“Goodman”), DE 102018114423 A1 to Mangler, Werner (“Mangler”), US 20150081394 A1 to Esposito, Carl et al. (“Esposito”), US 20140229122 A1 to Horabin, Robert et al. (“Horabin”), US 20110108665 A1 to Abrial, Philippe et al. (“Abrial”), further in view of US 20210295616 A1 to Yhr, Hamid (“Yhr”).
Regarding claim 1, Pedapudi teaches a system of an aircraft, the system comprising:
a thrust reverser control configured to control deployment of one or more thrust reversers of the aircraft (Pedapudi [0034]);
a brake control configured to control operation of one or more brakes of the aircraft (Pedapudi [0034]); and
a controller configured to:
detect a landing condition of the aircraft (Pedapudi [0072]: “At step 512, the processing circuit 310 identifies a touchdown point for landing the aircraft 30 on the runway 202.”);
determine one or more thrust reverser deployment and brake control parameters for one or more current conditions at a target location of the aircraft (Pedapudi [0041]: “The contamination analysis circuit 316 is generally configured to calculate a friction level value relating to the runway surface 212 . . . the . . . circuit 316 can be configured to calculate a friction level value using . . . contamination type, contamination depth of level . . . .”; [0045]: “ . . . a threshold value can be used to determine whether to operate the wheel brake 306, the reverse thruster 308, and/or the air brake . . . to decrease a speed of the aircraft 30. In conditions . . . with relatively low friction levels . . . , the brake configuration circuit 318 can prioritize application of the reverse thruster . . . , while in conditions with relatively high friction level . . . , the brake configuration circuit 318 can prioritize application of the wheel brake . . . .” Prioritizing which brake system to use taken determining control parameters for runway conditions.).
Pedapudi does not appear to expressly teach the controller is configured to check an operational and/or health state of the one or more thrust reversers prior to initiating automated control of the one or more thrust reversers and prior to landing of the aircraft;
and control the one or more thrust reversers and the one or more brakes upon landing at the target location based on the operational and/or health state of the one or more thrust reversers.
However, Goodman teaches the controller is configured to check an operational and/or health state of the one or more thrust reversers prior to initiating automated control of the one or more thrust reversers and prior to landing of the aircraft (Goodman [0033]: “During flight, the pilot can use an input device to input at least one new landing parameter prior to landing. The new landing parameters can include updated landing variables . . . the updated landing variable(s) can include . . . an updated reverse thrust adjustment value . . . .” Considering the adjusted reverse thrust value taken as checking operational state.);
and control the one or more thrust reversers and the one or more brakes upon landing at the target location based on the operational and/or health state of the one or more thrust reversers (Goodman [0067]: “Using the deceleration rate, the ABC 130 generates a control signal . . . the control signal controls the brake activation system 140 to decelerate the aircraft . . . until the aircraft reaches the specified velocity at the selected position.” The ABC adjusting braking amount based on the amount of reverse thrust selected to achieve a target velocity/position is broadly interpreted as controlling the brakes at the target location based on the operational state of the thrust reversers.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the automatic landing braking system of Pedapudi with the automatic landing braking system that takes the amount of reverse thrust selected for landing to adjust braking of Goodman. Doing so would have provided “more efficient ground operation and can also reduce taxi time, brake wear, engine wear, etc. thereby providing safety and economic advantages to airlines and their customers” as taught in Goodman [0036].
This combination does not appear to expressly teach the controller is configured to check a health state of the one or more thrust reversers prior to initiating automated control of the one or more thrust reversers and prior to landing of the aircraft.
However, Mangler teaches the controller is configured to check a health state of the one or more thrust reversers prior to initiating automated control of the one or more thrust reversers and prior to landing of the aircraft (Mangler teaches measuring power consumption of a motor used to operate a thrust reverser to predict wear on the bearings. Wear taken as health. Mangler teaches this monitoring is performed in real time. One ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this means the health would have been monitored at the last usage of the thrust reverser before the current landing.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the aircraft system that monitors and controls thrust reversers of the above combination of Pedapudi and Goodman with the aircraft system that monitors thrust reverser health in real time of Mangler. Doing so would have improved the reliability of the aircraft by avoiding unplanned maintenance as taught by Mangler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, and Mangler teaches the controller is configured to control the one or more thrust reversers and the one or more brakes upon landing at the target location based on the one or more thrust reverser deployment and brake control parameters (Pedapudi [0045]: Prioritizing braking or thrust reversal taken as the thrust reverser deployment and brake control parameters.) and the operational and/or health state of the one or more thrust reversers (Goodman [0067]: “Using the deceleration rate, the ABC 130 generates a control signal and sends it to the brake activation system 140. The control signal controls the brake activation system 140 to decelerate the aircraft at a substantially constant rate until the aircraft reaches the specified velocity at the selected position.” Applying more braking in response to selection of no thrust reversers taken as controlling the one or more brakes based on the operational state of the thrust reversers.);
This combination does not appear to expressly teach receiving feedback of a sensed pressure, temperature, and brake fault information from the brake control as part of an aircraft state.
However, Esposito teaches receiving feedback of a sensed pressure (Esposito [0034]), temperature (Esposito [0033]) from the brake control as part of an aircraft state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that controls braking in dependence upon that status taught by the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, and Mangler with the system that monitors brake temperature and pressure and generates a cost-per-braking value from those values taught by Esposito. Doing so would have allowed for selection of “the most cost-effective method of a safe braking event” as taught in Esposito [0056].
This combination does not appear to expressly teach receiving brake fault information from the brake control as part of an aircraft state.
However, Goodman further teaches receiving brake fault information from the brake control as part of an aircraft state (Goodman [0046]: “When activated the automatic brake control system (ABCS) 130 provides a control signal which controls a brake activation system . . . the automatic brake control system . . . is immediately disarmed . . . when there is an autobrake fault . . . or when the normal brakes experience s pressure loss, etc.” Disarming brake control taken as controlling braking based on brake fault information.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that controls braking based on monitored parameters taught by the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, and Esposito with the system that disarms the brakes upon a detected brake fault taught by Goodman. Doing so would have improved system safety by reverting to pilot control if a braking failure is detected.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach receiving feedback of a thrust reverser door position, an actuator position, and thrust reverser fault information from the thrust reverser control as part of the aircraft state.
However, Horabin teaches receiving feedback of a thrust reverser door position (Horabin [0012]: “Further, the position sensor 54 may also output binary flags as to whether the thrust reverser(s) 32 are fully stowed, fully deployed etc., and these may also be utilized.” See also FIG. 1, Horabin depicts a door which deploys to activate thrust reverser.), an actuator position (Horabin [0012]: “One or more position sensors 54 may be included in the thrust reverser system 30 and each may output a position signal indicative of the position of the actuator 34 to which each is operably coupled.”), and thrust reverser fault information from the thrust reverser control as part of the aircraft state (Horabin [0022]: “The controller 60 and/or the computer 70 may utilize inputs from the throttle lever sensor 52, the position sensors 54, the database(s) and/or information from airline control or flight operations department to predict the thrust reverser fault.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that controls braking and thrust reversers taught by the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler and Esposito with the system that monitors thrust reverser values for a fault taught by Horabin. Doing so would have improved the safety of the thrust reversers by facilitating fault monitoring.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach the controller is configured to modify one or more parameters of the aircraft based on thrust reverser faults (i.e., as part of an aircraft state).
However, Abrial teaches a controller configured to modify one or more parameters of the aircraft based on thrust reverser faults before initiating control, see [0066]-[0064], where the system checks for a thrust reverser fault. If a fault is detected, the system modulates the amount of reverse thrust applied.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that checks for thrust reverser faults before initiating control thereof upon landing taught by the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, and Horabin with the system that controls thrust reversers based on a fault check taught by Abrial. Doing so would have improved aircraft safety and control by allowing it to “check the reverser thrust dissymmetry generated by the defect of the reverser and to improve the controllability of the aircraft” as taught in Abrial [0066].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, and Abrial teaches the controller is configured to modify one or more control parameters of the aircraft based on detecting a change in the one or more current conditions at the target location or a fault condition of the aircraft (Pedapudi [0045]: “In conditions of . . . low friction levels . . . , the brake configuration circuit 318 can prioritize application of the reverse thruster . . . while in conditions with relatively high friction level . . . , the brake configuration circuit 318 can prioritize application of the wheel brake 306 . . . ” Pedapudi teaches changing prioritization of braking and thrust reversal as conditions change on the runway, see [0030] for more detail.), wherein modification of the one or more control parameters of the aircraft further comprises determining use of aircraft control surfaces, the thrust reverser control, the brake control, and engine operation based on the aircraft state (See above. Abrial is relied upon to teach modifying control parameters based on thrust reverser information and Goodman/Esposito are relied upon to teach modifying control parameters based on brake information. All of this information reads on a broadly-recited aircraft state.), and the one or more current conditions (Pedapudi [0045]: “ . . . a threshold value can be used to determine whether to operate the wheel brake 306, the thrust reverser 308, and/or the air crake and spoiler system to decrease a speed of the aircraft 30.” See [0041], operation of thrust reverser control, brake control, and control surfaces depends on current conditions like runway contamination type and depth.).
This combination does not appear to expressly teach modifying the one or more control parameters based on the health state.
However, Yhr teaches deactivating an electric motor on a vehicle when a measured load exceeds a threshold in [0034]-[0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the aircraft system that monitors thrust reverser health (via electrical load monitoring) and controls the thrust reversers of the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, and Abrial with the system of Yhr that monitors electric motor load and shuts the motor off when it exceeds a threshold. Doing so would have improved motor reliability by ensuring a motor with low health does not exceed its rated power draw.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this combination teaches modifying the one or more control parameters based on the health state because Mangler teaches monitoring thrust reverser actuator load and Yhr teaches controlling actuators based on the monitored load.
Regarding claim 2, the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the landing condition is detected based on one or more of: an on-ground state indicator, available runway length, runway condition, aircraft weight (Pedapudi [0072]: “The processing circuit 310 can use any information for identifying a touchdown point, such as aircraft weight . . . ”), weather condition (Pedapudi [0023]: “In some embodiments, the flight displays 20 may provide an output based on data received from a system external to the aircraft, such as a ground-based weather radar system . . . .”), throttle setting, and speed of the aircraft (Pedapudi [0072]: “The processing circuit 310 can use any information for identifying a touchdown point, such as . . . descent speed”).
Claim 11 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 1, applied to a method.
Claim 12 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 2, applied to a method.
Regarding claim 4, the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr teaches the system of claim 1.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach the controller is configured to command a gas turbine engine associated with the one or more thrust reversers to increase a thrust output while the one or more thrust reversers are deployed and reduce the thrust output based on the speed of the aircraft dropping below a threshold speed.
However, Abrial teaches the controller is configured to command a gas turbine engine associated with the one or more thrust reversers to increase a thrust output while the one or more thrust reversers are deployed ([Abrial 0063, ]: “Upon the wheels touching the ground … the engines are at the idling speed …. When the deployment of the thrust reversers occurs correctly, the application of the predetermined speed to the engines is controlled (step E5) … .” Adjusting thrust from idle to the predetermined speed taken as increasing the thrust output.) and reduce the thrust output based on the speed of the aircraft dropping below a threshold speed ([Abrial 0068]: “When … the speed of the aircraft is at the most equal to a second predetermined speed threshold Vs2 (for example, the second speed threshold is taken equal to 20 kts), folding of the thrust reversers of the aircraft is controlled (step E7).” Folding the thrusters away broadly interpreted as reducing reverse thrust output, since they are understood to produce no more reverse thrust once folded.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the thrust reverser and brake control system for aircraft landings taught by the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr with the thrust reverser control system that automatically increases thrust upon reverser deployment and decreases reverse thrust once the aircraft speed drops below a threshold speed further taught by Abrial. Doing so would have improved the safety of the reverser control system by giving it the ability to timely deploy and fold thrust reversers without pilot intervention as suggested in Abrial par. 0013.
Regarding claim 5, the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr further teaches the system of claim 4.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the controller is configured to stow the one or more thrust reversers after the speed of the aircraft is below the threshold speed.
However, Abrial further teaches wherein the controller is configured to stow the one or more thrust reversers after the speed of the aircraft is below the threshold speed ([Abrial 0068]: “When … the speed of the aircraft is at the most equal to a second predetermined speed threshold Vs2 (for example, the second speed threshold is taken equal to 20 kts), folding of the thrust reversers of the aircraft is controlled (step E7).” Folding the thrusters away broadly interpreted as stowing them, see for example par. 0005.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the thrust reverser and brake control system for aircraft landings taught by the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr with the thrust reverser control system that automatically stows the thrust reversers once the aircraft speed drops below a threshold speed further taught by Abrial. Doing so would have improved the safety of the reverser control system by giving it the ability to timely deploy and fold thrust reversers without pilot intervention as suggested in Abrial par. 0013.
Regarding claim 7, the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more current conditions comprise one or more of a runway state ([Pedapudi 0028]: “Each of the plurality of contamination sensors 204 is generally configured to measure contaminants on the runway surface 212. In some embodiments, each of the contamination sensors 204 can be configured to be flush-mounted on or nearby the runway surface 212 such that the contamination sensors 204 can measure a contaminant depth value. Examples of types of contaminants include water, frost, slush, ice, wet ice, wet snow, wet snow over ice, dry snow, dry snow over ice, compacted snow, water over compacted snow, dry snow over compacted snow, slush over ice, ash, rubber, oil, sand, mud, etc.”), a taxiway state, and weather conditions at the target location.
Regarding claim 13, the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr teaches the method of claim 11. This combination does not appear to expressly teach the method further comprising: commanding, by the control system, a gas turbine engine associated with the one or more thrust reversers to increase a thrust output while the one or more thrust reversers are deployed and reduce the thrust output based on the speed of the aircraft dropping below a threshold speed; and
stowing the one or more thrust reversers after the speed of the aircraft is below the threshold speed.
However, Abrial teaches the method further comprising: commanding, by the control system, a gas turbine engine associated with the one or more thrust reversers to increase a thrust output while the one or more thrust reversers are deployed ([Abrial 0063, ]: “Upon the wheels touching the ground … the engines are at the idling speed …. When the deployment of the thrust reversers occurs correctly, the application of the predetermined speed to the engines is controlled (step E5) … .” Adjusting thrust from idle to the predetermined speed taken as increasing the thrust output.) and reduce the thrust output based on the speed of the aircraft dropping below a threshold speed ([Abrial 0068]: “When … speed of the aircraft is at the most equal to a second predetermined speed threshold Vs2 (for example, the second speed threshold is taken equal to 20 kts), folding of the thrust reversers of the aircraft is controlled (step E7).” Folding the thrusters away broadly interpreted as reducing reverse thrust output, since they are understood to produce no more reverse thrust once folded.); and
stowing the one or more thrust reversers after the speed of the aircraft is below the threshold speed ([Abrial 0068]: “When … the speed of the aircraft is at the most equal to a second predetermined speed threshold Vs2 (for example, the second speed threshold is taken equal to 20 kts), folding of the thrust reversers of the aircraft is controlled (step E7).” Folding the thrusters away broadly interpreted as stowing them, see for example par. 0005.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the thrust reverser and brake control system for aircraft landings taught by the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr with the thrust reverser control system that automatically increases thrust upon reverser deployment and decreases reverse thrust once the aircraft speed drops below a threshold speed further taught by Abrial. Doing so would have improved the safety of the reverser control system by giving it the ability to timely deploy and fold thrust reversers without pilot intervention as suggested in Abrial par. 0013.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedapudi in view of Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr, and further in view of US 20080249675 A1 to Goodman, William et al. (Goodman), further in view of US 20190127076 A1 to Hodges, Christopher et al. (Hodges).
Regarding claim 6, the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr teaches the system of claim 4.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach the controller also being configured to wherein the controller is configured to limit the thrust output and adjust one or more control surfaces of the aircraft based on detecting a fault with at least one of the one or more thrust reversers.
However, Hodges teaches wherein the controller is configured to limit the thrust output and adjust one or more control surfaces of the aircraft based on detecting a fault with at least one of the one or more thrust reversers ([Hodges 0058]: “… if a failure occurs on one engine or a failure to deploy a thrust reverser to a threshold amount occurs, then asymmetric thrust vectors will be present on the aircraft 102 that need to be overcome by other aircraft systems to maintain aircraft controllability (e.g., nose wheel steering and rudder will be required to be used for controllability) … .”; [Hodges 0061]: “If a failure is detected by the controller 110a-b, an alternate reverse idle schedule 125a-b is activated, as depicted in FIG. 5. For example, the alternate reverse idle schedule 125a-b is optimized to use a lowest possible idle. The alternate reverse idle schedule 125a-b can implement operating at a second reverse idle thrust optimized for a direction of an applied thrust of the failed engine, and the second reverse idle thrust is lower than a reverse idle thrust of the original reverse idle schedule 124a-b.” Hodges teaches the controller is at least configured to compensate for a thrust reverser failure either by lowering the amount of reverse thrust and by applying rudder (taken as a control surface) to balance the aircraft.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that operates brakes, thrust reversers, and control surfaces upon landing an aircraft taught by the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr with the system that can lower a reverse thrust and operate a rudder in response to a fault detected in the reverse thrusters upon landing of an aircraft taught by Hodges. Doing so would have improved the safety of the system by providing two methods of compensating for reverser failure.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedapudi in view of Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr, further in view of US 10417919 B1 to Jayathirtha, Srihari et al. (Jayathirtha).
Regarding claim 8, the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr teaches the system of claim 1.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the controller is configured to determine the one or more thrust reverser deployment and brake control parameters based at least in part on: a parts life model associated with one or more parts of the aircraft, a landing configuration, and the aircraft state.
However, Jayathirtha teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine the one or more thrust reverser deployment and brake control parameters ([Jayathirtha 13:57-62]: “At 416, the optimized landing performance is the lowest cost option and the method identifies the associated optimized equipment configuration for the aircraft 100. After 416, the method 400 may activate the optimized equipment configuration… .”; [Jayathirtha 4:13-15]: “As used herein, an “equipment configuration” means a given combination of a brake setting and a thrust reverser configuration … .” Understood Jayathirtha teaches calculating costs associated with sets of reverser and brake parameters, choosing the lowest cost option. [Jayathirtha 5:36-37]: “The system 102 references stored data to determine a cost of brake usage and a cost of fuel.”) based at least in part on a parts life model associated with one or more parts of the aircraft ([Jayathirtha 5:63-65]: “… the system 102 processes the block of brake data 166 to determine a brake’s condition.” Brake condition taken as a parts life model.), a landing configuration ([Jayathirtha 13:36-39]: “At 406, a number, N, of combination of equipment configurations is determined. In some embodiments, step 406 is triggered at the beginning of the descent phase of flight.” Determination to select an equipment configuration (control parameters) is begun based at least in part on detecting the descent phase (landing configuration) has begun.), and the aircraft state ([Jayathirtha 12:36-40]: “In an alternative, the system 102 is already engaged, and when it detects, based on aircraft state data and navigation plan data, that the aircraft 100 is beginning a descent phase of flight, it automatically launches.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system for operating thrust reversers and brakes of an aircraft upon landing taught by the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr with the system that adjusts control parameters for the brakes and thrust reversers of an aircraft based on brake wear estimates at the beginning of the descent phase detected by aircraft state taught by Jayathirtha. Doing so would have given the system the ability to find an optimal set of brake and reverser parameters that minimizes the cost of landing, as suggested in Jayathirtha col. 3, lines 8-11.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedapudi in view of Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, Yhr, and Jayathirtha, further in view of US 20200284643 A1 to Nakhjavani, Omid et al. (Nakhjavani).
Regarding claim 9, the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, Yhr, and Jayathirtha teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to determine the one or more thrust reverser deployment and brake control parameters based at least in part on a corrected runway length at the target location ([Jayathirtha 6:54-56]: “The final N deceleration distances are used in the selection of the P exit-ways and determination of total costs, as described herein.” Cost in turn used to determine the optimum configuration of brakes and reversers. Final deceleration distances taken as corrected runway length.).
This combination further teaches calculation of the cost of the landing based upon an aircraft weight at [Jayathirtha 7:1-4]: “Fuel cost, or cost of fuel, is based on known distance per unit of fuel performance (for example, miles per gallon) and can be further affected by weather and weight of the aircraft 100.” This cost, as discussed above, is used to determine which thrust reverser and brake settings should be used upon the landing.
The combination does not appear to expressly teach the weight is a corrected aircraft weight.
However, Nakhjavani teaches correcting the weight of an aircraft before landing in Par. [0047]: “The gross weight determination control unit 214 analyzes both gross weight 1 and gross weight 2 at any point during the flight between the departure gate 102 and the arrival gate 104 to determine an accurate gross weight of the aircraft 100 at such point in the flight, as well as make an accurate prediction of the gross weight of the aircraft 100 when the aircraft 100 lands at point 110 at the arrival location 105.” Here, gross weight 1 is an input parameter, while gross weight 2 is calculated based on sensors, see for example pars. [0045] and [0046], respectively. Because gross weight 2 is directly measured by the aircraft, the Examiner understands the gross weight determination control unit as correcting gross weight 1 using gross weight 2 to create the accurate gross weight estimation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined aircraft system that determines thrust reverser and brake parameters upon landing using in part the aircraft’s weight taught by the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, Yhr, and Jayathirtha with the gross weight determination control unit that corrects the aircraft’s weight before landing taught by Nakhjavani. Doing so would have provided an accurate weight estimation before landing as taught in Nakhjavani par. 0052, to the effect of improving the accuracy of optimum parameter selection.
Thus, the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, Yhr, Jayathirtha, and Nakhjavani teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine the one or more thrust reverser deployment and brake control parameters based at least in part on a corrected runway length (In the above combination, a distance to stop calculated based on runway conditions, aircraft weight, and so on is taken as a corrected runway length, as it is the amount of the length of runway needed to land the plane after correcting for these factors.) at the target location and a corrected aircraft weight (A person of ordinary skill in the art (APOSITA) would have understood the above combination to teach that an accurate corrected weight provided before landing by the gross weight determination control unit taught by Nakhjavani would be used by the aircraft landing control system of Pedapudi and Jayathirtha that modulates reverse thrust and braking based at least in part on the aircraft weight.).
Regarding claim 14, the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the one or more current conditions comprise one or more of a runway state ([Pedapudi 0028]: “Each of the plurality of contamination sensors 204 is generally configured to measure contaminants on the runway surface 212. In some embodiments, each of the contamination sensors 204 can be configured to be flush-mounted on or nearby the runway surface 212 such that the contamination sensors 204 can measure a contaminant depth value. Examples of types of contaminants include water, frost, slush, ice, wet ice, wet snow, wet snow over ice, dry snow, dry snow over ice, compacted snow, water over compacted snow, dry snow over compacted snow, slush over ice, ash, rubber, oil, sand, mud, etc.”) and a taxiway state at the target location.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach the method further comprising:
determining the one or more thrust reverser deployment and brake control parameters based at least in part on a parts life model associated with one or more parts of the aircraft, a landing configuration, the aircraft state, a corrected runway length at the target location and a corrected aircraft weight.
However, Jayathirtha teaches the method further comprising:
determining the one or more thrust reverser deployment and brake control parameters ([Jayathirtha 13:57-62]: “At 416, the optimized landing performance is the lowest cost option and the method identifies the associated optimized equipment configuration for the aircraft 100. After 416, the method 400 may activate the optimized equipment configuration… .”; [4:13-15]: “As used herein, an “equipment configuration” means a given combination of a brake setting and a thrust reverser configuration … .” Understood Jayathirtha teaches calculating costs associated with sets of reverser and brake parameters, choosing the lowest cost option. [5:36-37]: “The system 102 references stored data to determine a cost of brake usage and a cost of fuel.”) based at least in part on a parts life model associated with one or more parts of the aircraft ([5:63-65]: “… the system 102 processes the block of brake data 166 to determine a brake’s condition.” Brake condition taken as a parts life model.), a landing configuration ([13:36-39]: “At 406, a number, N, of combination of equipment configurations is determined. In some embodiments, step 406 is triggered at the beginning of the descent phase of flight.” Determination to select an equipment configuration (control parameters) is begun based at least in part on detecting the descent phase (landing configuration) has begun.), the aircraft state ([12:36-40]: “In an alternative, the system 102 is already engaged, and when it detects, based on aircraft state data and navigation plan data, that the aircraft 100 is beginning a descent phase of flight, it automatically launches.”), a corrected runway length at the target location ([Jayathirtha 6:54-56]: “The final N deceleration distances are used in the selection of the P exit-ways and determination of total costs, as described herein.” Cost in turn used to determine the optimum configuration of brakes and reversers. Final deceleration distances taken as corrected runway length.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system for operating thrust reversers and brakes of an aircraft upon landing taught by the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr with the system that adjusts control parameters for the brakes and thrust reversers of an aircraft based on brake wear estimates at the beginning of the descent phase detected by aircraft state taught by Jayathirtha. Doing so would have given the system the ability to find an optimal set of brake and reverser parameters that minimizes the cost of landing, as suggested in Jayathirtha col. 3, lines 8-11.
This combination further teaches calculation of the cost of the landing based upon an aircraft weight at [Jayathirtha 7:1-4]: “Fuel cost, or cost of fuel, is based on known distance per unit of fuel performance (for example, miles per gallon) and can be further affected by weather and weight of the aircraft 100.” This cost, as discussed above, is used to determine which thrust reverser and brake settings should be used upon the landing.
The combination does not appear to expressly teach the weight is a corrected aircraft weight.
However, Nakhjavani teaches correcting the weight of an aircraft before landing in Par. [0047]: “The gross weight determination control unit 214 analyzes both gross weight 1 and gross weight 2 at any point during the flight between the departure gate 102 and the arrival gate 104 to determine an accurate gross weight of the aircraft 100 at such point in the flight, as well as make an accurate prediction of the gross weight of the aircraft 100 when the aircraft 100 lands at point 110 at the arrival location 105.” Here, gross weight 1 is an input parameter, while gross weight 2 is calculated based on sensors, see for example pars. [0045] and [0046], respectively. Because gross weight 2 is directly measured by the aircraft, the Examiner understands the gross weight determination control unit as correcting gross weight 1 using gross weight 2 to create the accurate gross weight estimation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined aircraft system that determines thrust reverser and brake parameters upon landing using in part the aircraft’s weight taught by the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, Yhr, and Jayathirtha with the gross weight determination control unit that corrects the aircraft’s weight before landing taught by Nakhjavani. Doing so would have provided an accurate weight estimation before landing as taught in Nakhjavani par. 0052, to the effect of improving the accuracy of optimum parameter selection.
Thus, the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, Yhr, Jayathirtha, and Nakhjavani teaches determining the one or more thrust reverser deployment and brake control parameters based at least in part on a corrected aircraft weight at the target location and a corrected aircraft weight (A person of ordinary skill in the art (APOSITA) would have understood the above combination to teach that an accurate corrected weight provided before landing by the gross weight determination control unit taught by Nakhjavani would be used by the aircraft landing control system that modulates reverse thrust and braking based at least in part on the aircraft weight used to calculate a stopping distance that factors into the cost of the landing configuration.).
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedapudi in view of Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr, further in view of US 5024491 A to Pease Jr., George et al. (Pease).
Regarding claim 10, the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr teaches the system of claim 1.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the controller is configured to control a pressure applied on the one or more brakes.
However, Pease teaches wherein the controller is configured to control a pressure applied on the one or more brakes ([Pease 6:37-49]: “The four anti-skid valves 102, 90, 94, and 104 are used respectively one for each brakes 96, 84, 88, and 98. Anti-skid valves 102, 90, 94, and 104 are two stage electromechanical servo valves which control the pressure to the respective brakes 96, 84, 88, and 98 under control of first, second, third, or fourth anti-skid signals 112, 114, 116, and 118 respectively when these signals are generated by anti-skid control circuits 52. Valves 90 and 94 may control pressures to the respective brakes 84 and 88 under control of first and second automatic brake control signals 120 and 122 respectively when these signals are generated by inboard automatic brake modulator circuit 128.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the system that modulates hydraulic aircraft brakes to prevent wheel slip taught by the above combination of Pedapudi, Goodman, Mangler, Esposito, Horabin, Abrial, and Yhr with the system that modulates hydraulic aircraft brakes by controlling applied pressure to the brakes taught by Pease. Doing so would have provided a means for avoiding slamming the nose gear on braking and skid using a controller linked to hydraulic brakes, as taught by Pease in for example 2:21-26 and 1:65-2:2.
Claim 15 is rejected over similar reasons as claim 10, applied to a method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Assi, Hamza et al.. US 20220120239 A1. METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR THRUST REVERSER OPERATION.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/HENRY R HINTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights