DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments filed on 14 October 2025.
Claims 1, 8 & 14 have been amended.
Claims 7 & 13 have been canceled.
Claims 1-6, 8-12 & 14-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The examiner respectfully rescinds the objection to the specification in view of the amendments.
The Examiner respectfully rescinds the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection in view of the claimed amendments. The claim as a whole integrates mental process into a practical application. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/11/2023 & 10/04/2024 has been received and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 16 & 17, filed 14 October 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Daidzic US 10,202,204 B1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 14-18 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Horne et al. (US20140257601A1) in view of Daidzic US 10,202,204 B1, hereafter Daidzic.
Regarding claim 1, Horne et al. discloses an avionics computer apparatus (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0015] disclose a flight computer 102 for implementing the main inventive concept of this disclosure which is a runway alerting system and method.) comprising: at least one processor in data communication with a memory storing processor executable code (Paragraph [0018] discloses the flight computer comprising processors, memory system, and software instructions.) for configuring the at least one processor to: compute a predicted stopping distance for an aircraft including the avionics computer apparatus (Paragraph [0020] discloses a runway monitor that computes stopping points on the runway. The first stopping point is the minimum stopping distance computed using a maximum deceleration value that the aircraft is capable of achieving. This is the stopping distance that we want to associate with above segment of claim 1.); render a representation of at least a portion of a runway on at least one display (Fig. 3A and paragraph [0024] disclose a depiction of a runway on the display screen 122 of Fig. 1. Paragraph [0064] discloses that the runway start and end points are shown on the display.); determine a location with respect to the representation corresponding to the predicted stopping distance; and render an indicator at the determined location (Paragraph [0024] discloses that two different stopping points are depicted as overlayed on top of the runway depiction as seen in Fig. 3A. Same paragraph discloses an equation using which the stopping points are calculated. In Fig. 3A the point 304 corresponds to the maximum effort stopping point which is one of the two stopping points. The location of this stopping point is the one we want to associate with above segment of claim 1 as being determined with respect to the representation corresponding to the predicted stopping distance. Paragraph [0024] and Fig. 3A disclose that the maximum effort stopping point is indicated on the display at the determined location.)
Horne does not teach the following, however Daidzic does teach:
receive, in real time, aircraft performance data and environmental data from onboard sensors comprising at least airspeed, deceleration rate, and wind parameters Column 8, lines 9-21: “In some embodiments, the TRSS includes a takeoff and landing calculator that takes into consideration sensor parameters that indicate current aircraft mass and weight (gravitational data in the computer depends on appropriate latitude and longitude), aircraft current location, speed, acceleration, and jerk (surge), runway condition (dry, damp, wet, various contamination levels), wind profiles (headwind, tailwind, crosswind components), air temperature, pressure, and density (Air-Data-Computers), IAS/CAS/EAS and TAS airspeeds, groundspeed (GS), expected thrust, aerodynamic drag and rolling friction drag, braking friction drag (retarding force), as well as local and average lateral and longitudinal runway slope (spatial information).;
render a dynamic graphical indicator at the determined location, visually formatted according to a safety-threshold rule indicating whether the aircraft can safely stop within the runway, and automatically updated in response to the real-time aircraft performance data to provide predictive runway-overrun awareness (column 11, lines 4-12: “a. A total runway safety system which measures, monitors, manages, controls and informs flight crew on the progress of takeoffs and landings and of any existing or upcoming hazardous runway conditions, the system comprising hardware and software that: b. Some embodiments measure, monitor, manage, control and/or inform flight crew of longitudinal and lateral runway tracks thus preventing overruns and veer-offs during takeoffs and landings.” & column 11, lines 34-39: “f. In some embodiments, TRSS 101 continuously monitors, updates, and informs the flight crew about the point-of-no-return (PNR) or commit-to-land (according to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) definition) runway point after which no aborted/rejected landing and go-around should be attempted.”); and
synchronize the rendered representation and graphical indicator between a primary flight display and a head-up display so that the graphical indicator remains spatially aligned with the actual runway location to enhance pilot situational awareness (column10, lines 47-55: “In some embodiments, current and forecast information is processed real-time in a dedicated TRSS central-processing-units and data sent to Voice and Visual information generation systems that continuously inform pilots on the current and predicted conditions visually and acoustically. Such information can be presented visually on existing glass-cockpit multi-function displays (MFDs), integrated into existing primary flight displays (PFDs) or separate dedicated and designed displays can be incorporated.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Daidzic with the technique of Horne to prevent runway excursions and, incidents and accidents, during all runway operations and specifically to prevent runway overruns and veer-offs during rejected-takeoffs (RTO's), landings under all normal, abnormal and emergency conditions, executing safe go-around before and after touchdown (runway point-of-no-return or commit-to-land point) (Daidzic column 8, lines 2-9). Therefore, the design incentives of preventing runway incidents and accidents provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Regarding claim 2, Horne et al. discloses the avionics computer apparatus of Claim 1, further comprising a plurality of sensors (Fig. 1 discloses the 112 block “Other Sensor Systems” and paragraph [0019] describes the sensors.) in data communication with the at least one processor (Fig. 1 shows block 114 “Other Sensor Systems” providing data to the Flight Computer block 102 which includes processors as disclosed in paragraph [0018]. Therefore, the sensors are in data communication with at least one processor.), wherein computing the predicted stopping distance comprises receiving environmental data from the plurality of sensors (Paragraphs [0024] to [0027] and equation 1 disclose that the aircraft stopping points 304 and 306 are calculated as a function of aircraft speed. We interpret “environmental data”, as disclosed in claim 2, and in view of the Specifications (page 5 lines 23-29 of instant application), such that speed and few other variables, as measured by sensors, are among the environmental data that is used to calculate stopping distance. Therefore, we can conclude that Horne et al. discloses that stopping distance is calculated as a function of environmental data including speed and that computing the predicted stopping distance comprises receiving environmental data from the plurality of sensors.).
Regarding claim 3, Horne et al. discloses the predicted stopping distance comprising a nominal stopping distance based on nominal deceleration conditions (Horne et al. discloses in [0020] a second stopping point that is computed using a reduced deceleration capability that might be expected when using alternative deceleration devices. This second stopping point, which is also referred to as “corporate stop” by Horne et al., is based on reduced deceleration and is consistent with what the applicant discloses in above mentioned segment of claim 2 as the nominal stopping distance. It is understood that related calculations are performed by the Flight Computer 102 unit of Fig. 1 which includes processors as previously established.); and the at least one processor is further configured to: compute a predicted maximum stopping distance based on maximum deceleration conditions (We interpret “maximum stopping distance”, as disclosed in instant application, as “the stopping distance that results from applying maximum deceleration”. Therefore, the “maximum stopping distance” is shorter than the “nominal stopping distance” as disclosed in instant application. This interpretation is consistent with what is shown in Fig. 2A and 2B of instant application. Paragraph [0020] of Horne et al. discloses a runway overrun monitor that computes a first stopping point which is computed using a maximum deceleration. This first stopping point is consistent with what instant application refers to as maximum stopping distance using maximum deceleration in above segment of claim 3 and based on our interpretation of “maximum stopping distance” discussed earlier.); determine a maximum deceleration location with respect to the representation corresponding to the predicted maximum stopping distance; and render a maximum deceleration indicator at the determined maximum deceleration location (Paragraph [0020] discloses that the first stopping point is calculated based on the maximum deceleration capability of the aircraft. Point 304 in Fig. 3A is a rendering of this maximum deceleration location corresponding to the maximum stopping distance.).
Regarding claim 4, Horne et al. discloses a system to determine if the maximum stopping distance exceeds a threshold value with respect to the runway (Decision point 608 of Fig. 6 compares the predicted minimum stopping point, calculated based on maximum deceleration of aircraft, to end of runway. Note that the “minimum stopping distance” as disclosed by Horne et al. is the same as the “maximum stopping distance” as disclosed in instant application as discussed earlier in our related interpretation of the same.); and render the maximum deceleration indicator with a corresponding visual artifice (Fig. 3A of Horne et al. shows the minimum stopping point at 304. This point renders the maximum deceleration point corresponding to the “maximum stopping distance” as disclosed in above segment of claim 4.)
Regarding claim 5, Horne discloses the avionics computer apparatus of Claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to render a visual warning that a go around is necessary based on the exceeded threshold (Paragraph [0068] discloses that a runway depiction 500 may change to a red color and a “go around” message is displayed above the runway depiction if the overrun monitor predicts that both corporate and minimum stopping points exceed the available remaining runway.).
Regarding claim 8, Horne et al. discloses a method comprising computing a predicted stopping distance for an aircraft (Paragraph [0020] discloses a method for a runway monitor that computes stopping points on the runway. The first stopping point is the minimum stopping distance computed using a maximum deceleration value that the aircraft is capable of achieving. This is the stopping distance that we want to associate with above segment of claim 8.); rendering a representation of at least a portion of a runway on at least one display (Fig. 3A and paragraph [0024] disclose a depiction of a runway on the display screen 122 of Fig. 1. Paragraph [0064] discloses that the runway start and end points are shown on the display.); determining a location with respect to the representation corresponding to the predicted stopping distance; and rendering an indicator at the determined location (Paragraph [0024] discloses that two different stopping points are depicted as overlayed on top of the runway depiction as seen in Fig. 3A. Same paragraph discloses an equation using which the stopping points are calculated. In Fig. 3A the point 304 corresponds to the maximum effort stopping point which is one of the two stopping points. The location of this stopping point is the one we want to associate with above segment of claim 8 as being determined with respect to the representation corresponding to the predicted stopping distance. Paragraph [0024] and Fig. 3A disclose that the maximum effort stopping point is indicated on the display at the determined location.)
Horne does not teach the following, however Daidzic does teach:
receiving, in real time, aircraft performance data and environmental data from onboard sensors comprising at least airspeed, deceleration rate, and wind parameters Column 8, lines 9-21: “In some embodiments, the TRSS includes a takeoff and landing calculator that takes into consideration sensor parameters that indicate current aircraft mass and weight (gravitational data in the computer depends on appropriate latitude and longitude), aircraft current location, speed, acceleration, and jerk (surge), runway condition (dry, damp, wet, various contamination levels), wind profiles (headwind, tailwind, crosswind components), air temperature, pressure, and density (Air-Data-Computers), IAS/CAS/EAS and TAS airspeeds, groundspeed (GS), expected thrust, aerodynamic drag and rolling friction drag, braking friction drag (retarding force), as well as local and average lateral and longitudinal runway slope (spatial information).;
rendering a dynamic graphical indicator at the determined location, visually formatted according to a safety-threshold rule indicating whether the aircraft can safely stop within the runway, and automatically updated in response to the real-time aircraft performance data to provide predictive runway-overrun awareness (column 11, lines 4-12: “a. A total runway safety system which measures, monitors, manages, controls and informs flight crew on the progress of takeoffs and landings and of any existing or upcoming hazardous runway conditions, the system comprising hardware and software that: b. Some embodiments measure, monitor, manage, control and/or inform flight crew of longitudinal and lateral runway tracks thus preventing overruns and veer-offs during takeoffs and landings.” & column 11, lines 34-39: “f. In some embodiments, TRSS 101 continuously monitors, updates, and informs the flight crew about the point-of-no-return (PNR) or commit-to-land (according to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) definition) runway point after which no aborted/rejected landing and go-around should be attempted.”); and
synchronizing the rendered representation and graphical indicator between a primary flight display and a head-up display so that the graphical indicator remains spatially aligned with the actual runway location to enhance pilot situational awareness (column10, lines 47-55: “In some embodiments, current and forecast information is processed real-time in a dedicated TRSS central-processing-units and data sent to Voice and Visual information generation systems that continuously inform pilots on the current and predicted conditions visually and acoustically. Such information can be presented visually on existing glass-cockpit multi-function displays (MFDs), integrated into existing primary flight displays (PFDs) or separate dedicated and designed displays can be incorporated.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Daidzic with the technique of Horne to prevent runway excursions and, incidents and accidents, during all runway operations and specifically to prevent runway overruns and veer-offs during rejected-takeoffs (RTO's), landings under all normal, abnormal and emergency conditions, executing safe go-around before and after touchdown (runway point-of-no-return or commit-to-land point) (Daidzic column 8, lines 2-9). Therefore, the design incentives of preventing runway incidents and accidents provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Regarding claim 9, Horne et al. discloses the method of Claim 8, further comprising receiving environmental data from a plurality of sensors, wherein computing the predicted stopping distance comprises the environmental data. (Fig. 1 discloses the 112 block “Other Sensor Systems” and paragraph [0019] describes the sensors. Fig. 1 shows block 114 “Other Sensor Systems” providing data to the Flight Computer block 102 which includes processors as disclosed in paragraph [0018]. Therefore, the flight computer block receives data from the sensor. Paragraphs [0024] to [0027] and equation 1 disclose that the aircraft stopping points 304 and 306 are calculated as a function of aircraft speed. We interpret “environmental data”, as disclosed in claim 9, and in view of the Specifications (page 5 lines 23-29 of instant application), such that speed and few other variables, as measured by sensors, are among the environmental data that is used to calculate stopping distance. Therefore, we can conclude that Horne et al. discloses that computing the predicted stopping distance comprises the environmental data.).
Regarding claim 10, Horne et al. discloses the method of claim 8, wherein: the predicted stopping distance comprises a nominal stopping distance based on nominal deceleration conditions (Horne et al. discloses in [0020] a second stopping point that is computed using a reduced deceleration capability that might be expected when using alternative deceleration devices. This second stopping point, which is also referred to as “corporate stop” by Horne et al., is based on reduced deceleration and is consistent with what the applicant discloses in above mentioned segment of claim 10 as the nominal stopping distance. It is understood that related calculations are performed by the Flight Computer 102 unit of Fig. 1 which includes processors as previously established.); further comprising: computing a predicted maximum stopping distance based on maximum deceleration conditions (We interpret “maximum stopping distance”, as disclosed in instant application, as “the stopping distance that results from applying maximum deceleration”. Therefore, the “maximum stopping distance” is shorter than the “nominal stopping distance” as disclosed in instant application. This interpretation is consistent with what is shown in Fig. 2A and 2B of instant application. Paragraph [0020] of Horne et al. discloses a runway overrun monitor that computes a first stopping point which is computed using a maximum deceleration. This first stopping point is consistent with what instant application refers to as maximum stopping distance using maximum deceleration in above segment of claim 10 and based on our interpretation of “maximum stopping distance” discussed earlier.); determining a maximum deceleration location with respect to the representation corresponding to the predicted maximum stopping distance; and rendering a maximum deceleration indicator at the determined maximum deceleration location (Paragraph [0020] discloses that the first stopping point is calculated based on the maximum deceleration capability of the aircraft. Point 304 in Fig. 3A is a rendering of this maximum deceleration location corresponding to the maximum stopping distance.).
Regarding claim 11, Horne et al. discloses the method of Claim 10, further comprising: determining if the maximum stopping distance exceeds a threshold value with respect to the runway (Decision point 608 of Fig. 6 compares the predicted minimum stopping point, calculated based on maximum deceleration of aircraft, to end of runway. Note that the “minimum stopping distance” as disclosed by Horne et al. is the same as the “maximum stopping distance” as disclosed in instant application as discussed earlier in our related interpretation of the same.); and rendering the maximum deceleration indicator with a corresponding visual artifice (Fig. 3A of Horne et al. shows the minimum stopping point at 304. This point renders the maximum deceleration point corresponding to the “maximum stopping distance” as disclosed in above segment of claim 11.).
Regarding claim 12, Horne discloses the method of Claim 11, further comprising rendering a visual warning that a go around is necessary based on the exceeded threshold (Paragraph [0068] discloses that a runway depiction 500 may change to a red color and a “go around” message is displayed above the runway depiction if the overrun monitor predicts that both corporate and minimum stopping points exceed the available remaining runway.).
Regarding claim 14, Horne et al. discloses a runway overrun alerting and awareness system (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0015] disclose a flight computer 102 for implementing the main inventive concept of this disclosure which is a runway alerting system and method.) comprising: at least one processor in data communication with a memory storing processor executable code (Paragraph [0018] discloses the flight computer comprising processors, memory system, and software instructions.) for configuring the at least one processor to: compute a predicted stopping distance for an aircraft including the avionics computer apparatus (Paragraph [0020] discloses a runway monitor that computes stopping points on the runway. The first stopping point is the minimum stopping distance computed using a maximum deceleration value that the aircraft is capable of achieving. This is the stopping distance that we want to associate with above segment of claim 14.); render a representation of at least a portion of a runway on at least one display (Fig. 3A and paragraph [0024] disclose a depiction of a runway on the display screen 122 of Fig. 1. Paragraph [0064] discloses that the runway start and end points are shown on the display.); determine a location with respect to the representation corresponding to the predicted stopping distance; and render an indicator at the determined location (Paragraph [0024] discloses that two different stopping points are depicted as overlayed on top of the runway depiction as seen in Fig. 3A. Same paragraph discloses an equation using which the stopping points are calculated. In Fig. 3A the point 304 corresponds to the maximum effort stopping point which is one of the two stopping points. The location of this stopping point is the one we want to associate with above segment of claim 14 as being determined with respect to the representation corresponding to the predicted stopping distance. Paragraph [0024] and Fig. 3A disclose that the maximum effort stopping point is indicated on the display at the determined location.)
Horne does not teach the following, however Daidzic does teach:
receive, in real time, aircraft performance data and environmental data from onboard sensors comprising at least airspeed, deceleration rate, and wind parameters Column 8, lines 9-21: “In some embodiments, the TRSS includes a takeoff and landing calculator that takes into consideration sensor parameters that indicate current aircraft mass and weight (gravitational data in the computer depends on appropriate latitude and longitude), aircraft current location, speed, acceleration, and jerk (surge), runway condition (dry, damp, wet, various contamination levels), wind profiles (headwind, tailwind, crosswind components), air temperature, pressure, and density (Air-Data-Computers), IAS/CAS/EAS and TAS airspeeds, groundspeed (GS), expected thrust, aerodynamic drag and rolling friction drag, braking friction drag (retarding force), as well as local and average lateral and longitudinal runway slope (spatial information).;
render a dynamic graphical indicator at the determined location, visually formatted according to a safety-threshold rule indicating whether the aircraft can safely stop within the runway, and automatically updated in response to the real-time aircraft performance data to provide predictive runway-overrun awareness (column 11, lines 4-12: “a. A total runway safety system which measures, monitors, manages, controls and informs flight crew on the progress of takeoffs and landings and of any existing or upcoming hazardous runway conditions, the system comprising hardware and software that: b. Some embodiments measure, monitor, manage, control and/or inform flight crew of longitudinal and lateral runway tracks thus preventing overruns and veer-offs during takeoffs and landings.” & column 11, lines 34-39: “f. In some embodiments, TRSS 101 continuously monitors, updates, and informs the flight crew about the point-of-no-return (PNR) or commit-to-land (according to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) definition) runway point after which no aborted/rejected landing and go-around should be attempted.”); and
synchronize the rendered representation and graphical indicator between a primary flight display and a head-up display so that the graphical indicator remains spatially aligned with the actual runway location to enhance pilot situational awareness (column10, lines 47-55: “In some embodiments, current and forecast information is processed real-time in a dedicated TRSS central-processing-units and data sent to Voice and Visual information generation systems that continuously inform pilots on the current and predicted conditions visually and acoustically. Such information can be presented visually on existing glass-cockpit multi-function displays (MFDs), integrated into existing primary flight displays (PFDs) or separate dedicated and designed displays can be incorporated.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to [combine/modify] the method of Daidzic with the technique of Horne to prevent runway excursions and, incidents and accidents, during all runway operations and specifically to prevent runway overruns and veer-offs during rejected-takeoffs (RTO's), landings under all normal, abnormal and emergency conditions, executing safe go-around before and after touchdown (runway point-of-no-return or commit-to-land point) (Daidzic column 8, lines 2-9). Therefore, the design incentives of preventing runway incidents and accidents provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner.
Regarding claim 15, Horne et al. discloses the system of claim 14, further comprising a plurality of sensors (Fig. 1 shows block 114 “Other Sensor Systems” providing data to the Flight Computer block 102 which includes processors as disclosed in paragraph [0018]. Therefore, the sensors are in data communication with at least one processor.), wherein computing the predicted stopping distance comprises receiving environmental data from the plurality of sensors (Paragraphs [0024] to [0027] and equation 1 disclose that the aircraft stopping points 304 and 306 are calculated as a function of aircraft speed. We interpret “environmental data”, as disclosed in claim 2, and in view of the Specifications (page 5 lines 23-29 of instant application), such that speed and few other variables, as measured by sensors, are among the environmental data that is used to calculate stopping distance. Therefore, we can conclude that Horne et al. discloses that stopping distance is calculated as a function of environmental data including speed and that computing the predicted stopping distance comprises receiving environmental data from the plurality of sensors.).
Regarding claim 16, Horne et al. discloses the predicted stopping distance comprising a nominal stopping distance based on nominal deceleration conditions (Horne et al. discloses in [0020] a second stopping point that is computed using a reduced deceleration capability that might be expected when using alternative deceleration devices. This second stopping point, which is also referred to as “corporate stop” by Horne et al., is based on reduced deceleration and is consistent with what the applicant discloses in above mentioned segment of claim 16 as the nominal stopping distance. It is understood that related calculations are performed by the Flight Computer 102 unit of Fig. 1 which includes processors as previously established.); and the at least one processor is further configured to: compute a predicted maximum stopping distance based on maximum deceleration conditions (We interpret “maximum stopping distance”, as disclosed in instant application, as “the stopping distance that results from applying maximum deceleration”. Therefore, the “maximum stopping distance” is shorter than the “nominal stopping distance” as disclosed in instant application. This interpretation is consistent with what is shown in Fig. 2A and 2B of instant application. Paragraph [0020] of Horne et al. discloses a runway overrun monitor that computes a first stopping point which is computed using a maximum deceleration. This first stopping point is consistent with what instant application refers to as maximum stopping distance using maximum deceleration in above segment of claim 16 and based on our interpretation of “maximum stopping distance” discussed earlier.); determine a maximum deceleration location with respect to the representation corresponding to the predicted maximum stopping distance; and render a maximum deceleration indicator at the determined maximum deceleration location (Paragraph [0020] discloses that the first stopping point is calculated based on the maximum deceleration capability of the aircraft. Point 304 in Fig. 3A is a rendering of this maximum deceleration location corresponding to the maximum stopping distance.).
Regarding claim 17, Horne et al. discloses a system to determine if the maximum stopping distance exceeds a threshold value with respect to the runway (Decision point 608 of Fig. 6 compares the predicted minimum stopping point, calculated based on maximum deceleration of aircraft, to end of runway. Note that the “minimum stopping distance” as disclosed by Horne et al. is the same as the “maximum stopping distance” as disclosed in instant application as discussed earlier in our related interpretation of the same.); and render the maximum deceleration indicator with a corresponding visual artifice (Fig. 3A of Horne et al. shows the minimum stopping point at 304. This point renders the maximum deceleration point corresponding to the “maximum stopping distance” as disclosed in above segment of claim 17.)
Regarding claim 18, Horne discloses the avionics computer apparatus of Claim 17, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to render a visual warning that a go around is necessary based on the exceeded threshold (Paragraph [0068] discloses that a runway depiction 500 may change to a red color and a “go around” message is displayed above the runway depiction if the overrun monitor predicts that both corporate and minimum stopping points exceed the available remaining runway.).
Claim 19 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Horne et al. (US20140257601A1) in view of Daidzic US 10,202,204 and in further view of Howell et al. (US20220358849A1).
Horne et al. & Daidzic do not a system to render a declared landing distance available on the at least one display.
Howell et al. discloses a system to render a declared landing distance on a display (Paragraph [0035] discloses that the landing distance or several other related variables, or information representative thereof, may be communicated to a flight deck display of the approaching aircraft.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of this disclosure to modify the teachings of Horne et al. & Daidzic to include the teachings of Howell et al. such that the landing distance is made available on the at least one display in the aircraft to yield the predictable result of providing a more complete set of data to the pilot related to the landing and stopping of the aircraft to improve the overall reliability and safety of the aircraft.
Claims 6 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Horne et al. (US20140257601A1) in view of Daidzic US 10,202,204 and in further view of Valentova et al. (US8494692B2).
Regarding claim 6, Horne et al. discloses the avionics computer apparatus of Claim 1, wherein at least one processor can be configured to perform a function (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0015] disclose a flight computer 102 for implementing the functions of the main inventive concept of this disclosure which is a runway alerting system and method. Paragraph [0018] discloses the flight computer comprising processors coupled with memory systems that contain software instructions.).
Horne et al. & Daidzic do not disclose a system wherein the at least one processor embodies a trained neural network configured to compute the predicted stopping distance.
Valentova et al. discloses that the stopping distance of an aircraft is calculated using a neural network (Column 3, lines 50-61 discloses that using said performance model, a ground taxiing distance, or GPD, is calculated between ground contact by the aircraft and the final stoppage of said aircraft and that the said GPD is calculated using a network of neurons. GPD is the aircraft’s stopping distance as disclosed above, and, it is calculated using a network of neurons which is a neural network.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of this disclosure to modify the teachings of Horne et al. & Daidzic to include the teachings of Valentova et al. and include a system wherein the at least one processor embodies a trained neural network configured to compute the predicted stopping distance of an aircraft after landing to yield the predictable result of improving the accuracy of the calculations.
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 KITO R ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, James Trammell can be reached at (571) 272-6712. 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.
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights