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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/15/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB2200652.2, filed on 01/19/2022.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23 filed 01/15/2026 are presently examined. Claims 22 and 23 are new. Claims 1-2, 6, 13-16, and 18-20 are amended. Claim 17 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 USC 101, Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 01/15/2026 results in the withdrawal of the 101 rejection.
Regarding 35 USC 102, Applicant argues Beecroft’s disclosure of damage and severity levels are not similar to operational modes and priorities. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Operational modes, as described in Applicant’s specification, appear to merely be labels that describe the occurrence of aircraft component sensor data being either inside or outside of expected values. Applicant’s specification also describes how maintenance on a component can result in the sensed data being brought back to expected values. Examiner maintains that Beecroft’s disclosure of damage is narrower than operational mode, as described in Applicant’s specification. Damage to an aircraft component, as disclosed by Beecroft, results in sensed information about the component to appear outside of expected values and ranges ([0076-0079] [0082]). There is no clear distinction provided in Applicant’s arguments how Beecroft’s damage and severity level do not provide the same kind of label for aircraft component sensed data that “operational modes” provide. When a component is damaged and sensed information is outside expected ranges, it is no longer operating normally. It is in an altered operational mode. Its sensed data is outside of expected values. This is how altered operational mode is described in Applicant’s specification. Applicant’s specification describes an example of a tire that wears over time and the sensed data begins appearing outside of expected values. A worn tire is a damaged tire. The level of severity of the damage will indicate how urgent, or the priority, for maintenance is.
Applicant argues Beecroft does not disclose a remote server that receives sensor data from an aircraft and transmits determinations of the “operational mode” based on the sensor data back to the aircraft. Examiner respectfully disagrees. See FIG. 1 for aircraft and remote server 11. [0059] “In further examples, the controller 60 may be located remote from the aircraft 10 and may be located, for example, at a health monitoring facility 11 (as illustrated in FIG. 1) that is remote from aircraft 10.” [0066] “The output device 64 may be located in the cockpit 28 of the aircraft.” [0067] “The controller 60 is configured to receive the data generated by the sensor array 66.” [0057] “The controller 60, the user input device 62, the output device 64 and the sensor array 66 may be coupled to one another via wireless links and may consequently comprise transceiver circuitry and one or more antennas.”
Regarding 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art of record does not disclose priorities of the aircraft components, separate from priorities of the “operational modes.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Beecroft discloses levels of severity of damage for components, but does not explicitly differentiate between different types of components’ importance. Thornberg teaches distinguishing the importance between damage to different components, and provides an example that engine damage is more important than hull structure damage and to prioritize action for the crew based on the highest priority ([0028] “the flight plan 150 can define that the failure to the hull structure as having lower priority than the failure to an engine.” [0042] “risk evaluator 140 can identify the action to be taken corresponding to the type of failure with the highest priority.” [0043] “the risk evaluator 140 can render the actions … to an operator or pilot of the air vehicle 105. Upon presentation, the operator of the air vehicle 105 can select via an interface (e.g., using the control interface 120) one of the actions to take.”).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the references other than Beecroft not teaching remote computers determining the operational modes is unpersuasive, since Beecroft does indeed teach this. The other prior art is not used to remedy such a deficiency that does not exist in Beecroft.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 5-8 are unpersuasive. The combination of Beecroft, Bill, and Nutaro teach the components having different DALs, both being above zero. The transmission of data within a network using different DALs for the purpose of reducing restrictions on the processing end or improving power on the processing end is generally understood in the art. Whether it is applied to the internet or not is unrelated to the underlying intention of applying different DALs on different hardware. Beecroft would still benefit from improved network performance between the aircraft and remote health facility by using different DALs, both being above zero.
Applicant’s argument regarding Beecroft not responding to the operational mode is unpersuasive. Beecroft does provide the notifications regarding damage and severity to the crew and instructs the disabling of a damaged engine, which is similar to Applicant’s specification paragraph [0052].
Applicant’s arguments stating Bill and Hasson do not suggest modifying controller 60 on Beecroft to determine if an aircraft system is in an alternative operational mode and transmitting that information to an aircraft is unpersuasive. Regardless if Bill or Hassen do or do not teach this, it is irrelevant, since Beecroft discloses this. At least, Bill does teach determination of tire wear or failure based on pressure and temperature readings being inside or outside of various thresholds, which is similar to Applicant’s determination of operational mode of a tire based on pressure readings coming inside or outside of expected values.
Applicant’s argument stating there is no teaching or suggestion in Beecroft that damage could be determined based on sensors monitoring tired is unpersuasive. Beecroft does include various sensors including pressure sensors to determine damage on aircraft components. Bill (2) was replaced with Bill, however, both Bill references teach at least pressure sensors on tires for determining whether the tires would wear or fail and to determine if they need to be replaced. A tire that wears is damaged. It is an obvious combination with Beecroft.
Applicant’s arguments against Bill 624 are moot since this reference is no longer used.
Applicant’s argument stating Beecroft does not identify components as low or high priority is unpersuasive. Beecroft does suggest prioritizing one component over the other based on severity of damage and instructs the crew to remedy the more severe component (see rejection for more details). Beecroft fails to explicitly disclose a literal priority level for the components. Thornberg more explicitly compares different component types to one another when damaged (or in an “altered operational mode”) and prioritizes more important components, such as the engine over the hull. The combination is obvious for Beecroft and Thornberg to prioritize more important components when both are damaged, it be clearly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to improve safety of the aircraft.
Applicant’s argument regarding new claim 22 is unpersuasive. Beecroft does indeed teach determining whether an aircraft component is operating in a low priority further altered operational mode and indicate maintenance should be scheduled. Examiner states “should be scheduled” is not an active action of scheduling. ([0086] "This may be advantageous in that the flight deck crew are not distracted by the damage determination, and the data is stored for later analysis. For example, the damage determination may be caused by a faulty sensor of the sensor array 66 and the stored data may be used by a maintenance crew to repair or replace the faulty sensor"). For damage that is unimportant and would otherwise be distracting, or low severity, or “low priority further altered operational mode” it stores the data for maintenance to use to repair or replace. This would be an indication that maintenance “should be scheduled.”
Applicant’s argument new claim 23 is taught by Bill. Beecroft does teach various sensors including pressure sensors ([0068] “The sensor array 66 may comprise … pressure sensors”) for the determination of damage, but not explicitly tire pressure sensors and whether the pressure readings are inside or outside of expected values or thresholds.
However, Bill teaches the aircraft component is a tire or oleo struct, and the sensor data includes information indicative of a pressure in the tire or in the oleo strut, and the determination of the altered operational mode and the further operational mode is made at least in part based on whether the pressure within the tire or the oleo strut is outside expected pressure values ([0105] “received data is representation of a measured pressure of two tyres on the same axle, inconsistent data may be identified when the differential pressure is greater than 10% for example. In some cases, this pressure differential may exist between a correctly inflated tyre and either an underinflated tyre or an over inflated tyre. A differential pressure of more than 10% may cause additional wear to the correctly inflated tyre so that it should be replaced, despite its own pressure being acceptable. In some examples other differential thresholds may be used, for example 15%, 20% or a difference of 20 psi, 30 psi or 40 psi.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beecroft with Bill’s teaching of using tire pressure sensors to determine whether the tire is in an altered or further altered operational mode based on a plurality of differential thresholds. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to determine whether tire pressures are outside of expected ranges in order to prevent damage or loss of control due to tires failing from incorrect pressure ([0002] “Incorrect tyre pressure can lead to a tyre failing, perhaps bursting and causing damage to the vehicle and/or a loss of control. Due to the high speeds encountered by the tyres on aircraft landing gear, pressures are checked regularly, perhaps once a day or more frequently. Manual checking of tyre pressure takes time, reducing this time is beneficial.”).
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the further altered operational mode has a lower priority than the altered operational data” should read the further altered operational mode has a lower priority than the altered operational mode.”
“receive, via the receiver, sensor data from an aircraft, the sensor data associated with an aircraft component of an aircraft” should read “receive, via the receiver, sensor data from an aircraft, the sensor data associated with an aircraft component of the aircraft.” Antecedent basis for “an aircraft” is already provided. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “determine whether the aircraft component is operating in an altered operational mode or a further operational mode” should read “determine whether the aircraft component is operating in an altered operational mode or a further altered operational mode.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “operating in an altered operational mode or a further operational mode, wherein the further operational mode has a lower priority than the altered operational mode; determine whether the aircraft component is operating in the altered operational mode or in the further operational mode” should read “operating in an altered operational mode or a further altered operational mode, wherein the further altered operational mode has a lower priority than the altered operational mode; determine whether the aircraft component is operating in the altered operational mode or in the further altered operational mode” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 23 is 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.
Claim 23 recites “the sensor data includes information indicative of a pressure in the tire or in the oleo strut, and the determination of the altered operational mode and the further operational mode is made at least in part based on whether the pressure within the tire or the oleo strut is outside expected pressure values” and there is no support for explicit “the sensor data includes information indicative of a pressure in … the oleo strut, and the determination of the altered operational mode and the further operational mode is made at least in part based on whether the pressure within … the oleo strut is outside expected pressure values.” There is support, however, for this determination based on tire pressure being inside or outside of expected pressure values.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10-11, 13-15, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beecroft (US 20220309846 A1), hereinafter referred to as Beecroft.
Regarding claim 1, Beecroft discloses, A system comprising:
an aircraft comprising a sensor, an aircraft component associated with the sensor ([0067] “The sensor array 66 comprises a plurality of sensors (for example, a first sensor 78, a second sensor 80 and a third sensor 82 as illustrated in FIG. 3) that may be positioned at any suitable locations on the aircraft 10.”), a first transmitter, and a first receiver ([0057] “The controller 60, the user input device 62, the output device 64 and the sensor array 66 may be coupled to one another via wireless links and may consequently comprise transceiver circuitry and one or more antennas” transceivers being the combination of transmitters and receivers.); and
a computing system remote from the aircraft, the computing system comprising one or more processors, a second transmitter, and a second receiver ([0059] “the controller 60 may be located remote from the aircraft 10 and may be located, for example, at a health monitoring facility 11 (as illustrated in FIG. 1) that is remote from aircraft 10.” [0057] “The controller 60 … may consequently comprise transceiver circuitry and one or more antennas.” [0058] “The controller 60 may comprise: control circuitry; and/or processor circuitry”);
wherein the aircraft is configured to transmit, via the first transmitter, sensor data sensed by the sensor, to the computing system ([0067] “The controller 60 is configured to receive the data generated by the sensor array 66.”);
the computing system is configured to:
receive, via the second receiver, sensor data transmitted from the aircraft ([0067] “The controller 60 is configured to receive the data generated by the sensor array 66.”);
process, using the one or more processors, the sensor data to generate status data indicative of an operational mode of the aircraft component ([0082] “The controller 60 may also be configured to determine the severity of the damage to the aircraft 10 using the data received from any of the sensors of the sensor array 66.”),
wherein the operational mode is selected, using the one or more processors and the sensor data, from a normal operational mode, an altered operational mode, and a further operational mode, wherein the further altered operational mode has a lower priority than the altered operational mode ([0082] “The controller 60 may also be configured to determine the severity of the damage to the aircraft 10 using the data received from any of the sensors of the sensor array 66.” [0117] “where the severity of the damage is relatively low, the controller 60 may determine information to be displayed to the operator of the aircraft 10 using a display of the output device 64. Where the severity of the damage is relatively high, the controller 60 may determine information to be provided acoustically to the operator using a loudspeaker of the output device 64 to enable the operator to better multi-task during an emergency.”); and
transmit, when the status data is indicative of the altered operational mode of the aircraft component, the status data indicative of the altered operational mode to the aircraft via the second transmitter ([0117] “where the severity of the damage is relatively low, the controller 60 may determine information to be displayed to the operator of the aircraft 10 using a display of the output device 64. Where the severity of the damage is relatively high, the controller 60 may determine information to be provided acoustically to the operator using a loudspeaker of the output device 64 to enable the operator to better multi-task during an emergency.”); and
indicate, based at least in part on the status data, a furthered altered operational mode of the aircraft component, the further altered operational mode comprising a lower priority than the altered operational mode ([0117] “where the severity of the damage is relatively low, the controller 60 may determine information to be displayed to the operator of the aircraft 10 using a display of the output device 64. Where the severity of the damage is relatively high, the controller 60 may determine information to be provided acoustically to the operator using a loudspeaker of the output device 64 to enable the operator to better multi-task during an emergency.”); and
the aircraft is configured to indicate, based at least partially on the status data received by the first receiver, the altered operational mode of the aircraft component ([0081] “the controller 60 may control output of the signal to the output device 64 to inform the flight deck crew of the occurrence of damage.”).
Regarding claim 2, Beecroft discloses The system according to Claim 1, wherein the computing system is further configured to transmit to the aircraft or convey to a ground crew the furthered altered operational mode of the aircraft component ([0117] “where the severity of the damage is relatively low, the controller 60 may determine information to be displayed to the operator of the aircraft 10 using a display of the output device 64. Where the severity of the damage is relatively high, the controller 60 may determine information to be provided acoustically to the operator using a loudspeaker of the output device 64 to enable the operator to better multi-task during an emergency.”).
Regarding claim 10, Beecroft discloses The system according to Claim 1, wherein:
the aircraft comprises one or more on-board processors configured to process sensor data of the aircraft component to obtain on-board status data indicative of an operational mode of the aircraft component associated with the sensor ([0059] “The controller 60 may be located on the first propulsor 24 and/or on the second propulsor 26. For example, the controller 60 may be a full authority digital engine controller (FADEC), an electronic engine controller (EEC) or an engine control unit (ECU). Alternatively, the controller 60 may be located in the fuselage 12 of the aircraft 10. In further examples, the controller 60 may be located remote from the aircraft 10 and may be located, for example, at a health monitoring facility 11 (as illustrated in FIG. 1) that is remote from aircraft 10. In some examples, the controller 60 may be distributed between the aircraft 10 and a location remote from the aircraft 10.”), and
the aircraft is configured to, based at least in part on the on-board status data, and when the on-board status data is indicative of an altered operational mode of the aircraft component, indicate the altered operational mode of the aircraft component ([0082] “The controller 60 may also be configured to determine the severity of the damage to the aircraft 10 using the data received from any of the sensors of the sensor array 66.”).
Regarding claim 11, Beecroft discloses The system according to Claim 1, wherein:
the aircraft comprises a plurality of sensors each sensor configured to obtain respective sensor data associated with the aircraft component ([0067] “The sensor array 66 comprises a plurality of sensors (for example, a first sensor 78, a second sensor 80 and a third sensor 82 as illustrated in FIG. 3) that may be positioned at any suitable locations on the aircraft 10.”);
the aircraft is configured to transmit, via the first transmitter, sensor data from each of the plurality of sensors to the computing system; the computing system is configured to receive, via the second receiver, the transmitted sensor data from each of the plurality of sensors ([0067] “The controller 60 is configured to receive the data generated by the sensor array 66.”); and
the computing system is configured to process, via the one or more processors of the computing system, the received sensor data from each of the plurality of sensors to determine the status data indicative of the altered operational mode of the aircraft component ([0082] “The controller 60 may also be configured to determine the severity of the damage to the aircraft 10 using the data received from any of the sensors of the sensor array 66.”).
Regarding claim 13, Beecroft discloses An aircraft comprising
a sensor, an aircraft component associated with the sensor, a transmitter, and a receiver ([0067] “The sensor array 66 comprises a plurality of sensors (for example, a first sensor 78, a second sensor 80 and a third sensor 82 as illustrated in FIG. 3) that may be positioned at any suitable locations on the aircraft 10.” [0057] “The controller 60, the user input device 62, the output device 64 and the sensor array 66 may be coupled to one another via wireless links and may consequently comprise transceiver circuitry and one or more antennas” transceivers being the combination of transmitters and receivers.),
wherein the aircraft is configured to:
transmit sensor data from the sensor, via the first transmitter, to a computing system remote from the aircraft ([0059] “the controller 60 may be located remote from the aircraft 10 and may be located, for example, at a health monitoring facility 11 (as illustrated in FIG. 1) that is remote from aircraft 10.” [0057] “The controller 60 … may consequently comprise transceiver circuitry and one or more antennas.” [0058] “The controller 60 may comprise: control circuitry; and/or processor circuitry” ([0067] “The controller 60 is configured to receive the data generated by the sensor array 66.” [0067] “The controller 60 is configured to receive the data generated by the sensor array 66.”);
receive, from the computing system and via the receiver, first status data derived from the sensor data by one or more processors of the computing system, wherein the first status data is indicative of an altered operational mode of the aircraft component; receive, from the computing system and via the receiver, second status data derived from the sensor data by the one or more processors of the computing system, wherein the second status data is indicative of a further altered operational mode of the aircraft component, wherein the further altered operational mode has a lower priority than the altered operational data; indicate, based at least partially on the status data indicating the altered operational mode and received by the first receiver, the altered operational mode of the aircraft component, and indicate, based at least in part on the status data indicating the further altered operational mode and received by the first receiver, the further altered operational mode of the aircraft component ([0082] “The controller 60 may also be configured to determine the severity of the damage to the aircraft 10 using the data received from any of the sensors of the sensor array 66.” [0081] “the controller 60 may control output of the signal to the output device 64 to inform the flight deck crew of the occurrence of damage.” [0117] “where the severity of the damage is relatively low, the controller 60 may determine information to be displayed to the operator of the aircraft 10 using a display of the output device 64. Where the severity of the damage is relatively high, the controller 60 may determine information to be provided acoustically to the operator using a loudspeaker of the output device 64 to enable the operator to better multi-task during an emergency.”).
Regarding claim 14, Beecroft discloses An off-board computing system comprising
one or more processors, a transmitter, and a receiver ([0057] “The controller 60, the user input device 62, the output device 64 and the sensor array 66 may be coupled to one another via wireless links and may consequently comprise transceiver circuitry and one or more antennas” transceivers being the combination of transmitters and receivers.),
wherein the off-board computing system is configured to:
receive, via the receiver, sensor data from an aircraft, the sensor data associated with an aircraft component of an aircraft ([0067] “The controller 60 is configured to receive the data generated by the sensor array 66.”);
process, using the one or more processors, the received sensor data to generate status data indicative of an operational mode of the aircraft component, wherein the operational mode is selected, using the one or more processors and the sensor data, from an altered operational mode and a further operational mode, wherein the further altered operational mode has a lower priority than the altered operational mode ([0082] “The controller 60 may also be configured to determine the severity of the damage to the aircraft 10 using the data received from any of the sensors of the sensor array 66.” [0117] “where the severity of the damage is relatively low, the controller 60 may determine information to be displayed to the operator of the aircraft 10 using a display of the output device 64. Where the severity of the damage is relatively high, the controller 60 may determine information to be provided acoustically to the operator using a loudspeaker of the output device 64 to enable the operator to better multi-task during an emergency.”); and
transmit to the aircraft via the transmitter, when the status data is indicative of the altered operational mode of the aircraft component, the status data indicating the altered operational mode, and transmit to the aircraft via the transmitter a message indicating that the aircraft component is in the further altered operational mode ([0057] “The controller 60, the user input device 62, the output device 64 and the sensor array 66 may be coupled to one another via wireless links and may consequently comprise transceiver circuitry and one or more antennas” [0081] “the controller 60 may control output of the signal to the output device 64 to inform the flight deck crew of the occurrence of damage.” [0117] “where the severity of the damage is relatively low, the controller 60 may determine information to be displayed to the operator of the aircraft 10 using a display of the output device 64. Where the severity of the damage is relatively high, the controller 60 may determine information to be provided acoustically to the operator using a loudspeaker of the output device 64 to enable the operator to better multi-task during an emergency.”) or send the status data to a ground crew that the aircraft component is in the further altered operational mode, when the status data is indicative of the further altered operational mode.
Regarding claim 15, Beecroft discloses A method comprising:
operating an aircraft component on board an aircraft (one component example by Beecroft is operating the gas turbine engine 32.);
monitoring the aircraft component on-board the aircraft with a sensor on-board the aircraft ([0068] “the sensor array 66 may comprise one or more cameras, one or more ultrasonic sensors, one or more light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensors, one or more microwave sensors, one or more microphones, one or more phonic wheels (coupled to one or more shafts of a gas turbine engine for example)”)
obtaining, via the sensor on-board the aircraft, sensor data associated with an aircraft component of the aircraft ([0067] “The sensor array 66 comprises a plurality of sensors (for example, a first sensor 78, a second sensor 80 and a third sensor 82 as illustrated in FIG. 3) that may be positioned at any suitable locations on the aircraft 10.”);
transmitting the sensor data, via a transmitter on the aircraft, to an off-board computing system ([0057] “The controller 60, the user input device 62, the output device 64 and the sensor array 66 may be coupled to one another via wireless links and may consequently comprise transceiver circuitry and one or more antennas” transceivers being the combination of transmitters and receivers. [0067] “The controller 60 is configured to receive the data generated by the sensor array 66.”);
processing, via one or more processors of the off-board computing system ([0059] “the controller 60 may be located remote from the aircraft 10 and may be located, for example, at a health monitoring facility 11 (as illustrated in FIG. 1) that is remote from aircraft 10.”), the received sensor data to determine whether the aircraft component is operating in an altered operational mode or a further operational mode, wherein the further altered operational mode is a lower priority operational mode than is the altered operational mode([0082] “The controller 60 may also be configured to determine the severity of the damage to the aircraft 10 using the data received from any of the sensors of the sensor array 66.”) transmitting, from the off-board computing system to the aircraft, and when the status data is indicative of the altered operational mode; indicating, by the aircraft, the altered operational mode of the aircraft component when the transmitted status data indicates the altered operational mode; indicating by the off-board computing system the further altered operational mode of the aircraft component when the status data indicated the further altered operational mode ([0081] “the controller 60 may control output of the signal to the output device 64 to inform the flight deck crew of the occurrence of damage.” [0117] “where the severity of the damage is relatively low, the controller 60 may determine information to be displayed to the operator of the aircraft 10 using a display of the output device 64. Where the severity of the damage is relatively high, the controller 60 may determine information to be provided acoustically to the operator using a loudspeaker of the output device 64 to enable the operator to better multi-task during an emergency.”); and
responding to the status data indicative of the altered operational mode by modifying an operational parameter of the aircraft component or switching operation of the aircraft from using the aircraft component to using a secondary aircraft component ([0120] “Where damage occurs to multiple components or subsystems of the aircraft 10, the controller 60 may control the output device 64 to provide the determined information for both components/subsystems concurrently, or as concatenated information. For example, where the first propulsor 24 and the second propulsor 26 both sustain damage from bird strikes, the controller 60 may control a display of the output device 64 to display the determined information for both propulsors at the same time to enable the flight deck crew to determine which propulsor has sustained most damage. This may enable the flight deck crew to take appropriate mitigating actions (for example, shut down of the most damaged propulsor).”)
Regarding claim 19, Beecroft discloses A system comprising:
an aircraft comprising an on-board sensor, and an aircraft component associated with the sensor ([0067] “The sensor array 66 comprises a plurality of sensors (for example, a first sensor 78, a second sensor 80 and a third sensor 82 as illustrated in FIG. 3) that may be positioned at any suitable locations on the aircraft 10.”); and
an off-board computing system configured to: receive sensor data transmitted from the aircraft ([0057] “The controller 60, the user input device 62, the output device 64 and the sensor array 66 may be coupled to one another via wireless links and may consequently comprise transceiver circuitry and one or more antennas” transceivers being the combination of transmitters and receivers. [0067] “The controller 60 is configured to receive the data generated by the sensor array 66.”);
process the received sensor data indicative of whether the aircraft component is operating in an altered operational mode or a further operational mode, wherein the further operational mode has a lower priority than the altered operational mode; determine whether the aircraft component is operating in the altered operational mode or in the further operational mode, and transmit to the aircraft, in response to the determination of the aircraft component operating in the altered operational mode, a message indicative of the altered operational mode of the aircraft component to the aircraft; transmit to the aircraft or send an indication to a ground crew, in response to the determination that the aircraft component is in the further altered operational mode, an indicative tha the aircraft component is in the further altered operational mode ([0082] “The controller 60 may also be configured to determine the severity of the damage to the aircraft 10 using the data received from any of the sensors of the sensor array 66.” [0081] “the controller 60 may control output of the signal to the output device 64 to inform the flight deck crew of the occurrence of damage.” [0117] “where the severity of the damage is relatively low, the controller 60 may determine information to be displayed to the operator of the aircraft 10 using a display of the output device 64. Where the severity of the damage is relatively high, the controller 60 may determine information to be provided acoustically to the operator using a loudspeaker of the output device 64 to enable the operator to better multi-task during an emergency.”).
Regarding claim 21, Beecroft discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the computing system, to generate the status data, determines whether the sensor data indicates whether the aircraft component is operating within normal or expected operating parameters ([0074] describes acoustic thresholds [0077-0078] other thresholds for determining damage [0079] “the controller 60 may determine whether damage has occurred to the aircraft 10 by comparing the value of a parameter with a threshold … the controller 60 may determine whether damage has occurred to the aircraft 10 using relative behaviour of engine parameters, for example, comparing fan speed with turbine power ratio (TPR), or by monitoring change in the relationship between bypass duct pressure and fan speed, or by comparing shaft speed at different locations along a shaft (where differing speeds indicate that the shaft is twisted).”), and
the status data indicates that the aircraft component is operating in the altered operating mode if the aircraft component is operating outside of the normal or expected operating parameters ([0112] “The severity of the damage may be encoded in the data as a number. For example, the severity of the damage may be any number within a predetermined range of numbers having a scale where increasing numbers represent increasing severity of damage. Alternatively, the severity of the damage may be encoded in the data quality, for example, as text that qualitatively describes the damage.” [0113] “the received data may indicate a location of the damage on the aircraft 10. For example, the received data may indicate that the gas turbine engine 32 is damaged, that a subsystem of the gas turbine engine 32 is damaged (the fan subsystem 38 for example), or that a component of the gas turbine engine 32 is damaged (a fan blade of the fan 38 for example).”).
Regarding claim 22, Beecroft discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the computing system responds to the status data indicative of the further altered operational mode by indicating that the aircraft component is to be scheduled for maintenance ([0086] "This may be advantageous in that the flight deck crew are not distracted by the damage determination, and the data is stored for later analysis. For example, the damage determination may be caused by a faulty sensor of the sensor array 66 and the stored data may be used by a maintenance crew to repair or replace the faulty sensor").
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beecroft in view of Stuart et al. (EP 0407179 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Beecroft fails to explicitly disclose The system according to Claim 1, wherein:
the sensor, the first transmitter, and the first receiver are located in a first safety environment on-board the aircraft, the first safety environment includes a first development assurance level, the second transmitter, the second receiver, and the one or more processors are in a second safety environment of the computing system, and the second safety environment includes a second development assurance level the same as the first development assurance level ([0109] “the method illustrated in FIG. 6 may be implemented using multiple design assurance level (DAL) electronics. For example, more novel processor intensive determinations may be performed by lower design assurance level electronics which tend to be more powerful and have access to larger amounts of data. The simpler, more reliable determinations may be implemented on higher design assurance level electronics which tend to be less powerful.”).
However, Stuart teaches the sensor, the first transmitter, and the first receiver are located in a first safety environment on-board the aircraft, the first safety environment includes a first development assurance level, the second transmitter, the second receiver, and the one or more processors are in a second safety environment of the computing system, and the second safety environment includes a second development assurance level the same as the first development assurance level ([page 2 lines 50-51] "All of the airborne software is designed, built and tested to RTCA DO-178A LEVEL II certification procedures." [page 5 lines 25-27] "The elements of the Ground Station which relate directly to aircraft maintenance will be developed, built and test to RTCA D0178A LEVEL II certification procedures.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beecroft with Stuart’s teaching of using the same level II design assurance levels for the aircraft system and the ground based computing system. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use these design assurance levels in order to generate accurate information for fixing issues on aircraft systems (Stuart [page 5 lines 24-25] “To generate accurate information and measurements on which engineers can carry out diagnosis of rectification action on aircraft systems”).
Regarding claim 4, Beecroft fails to explicitly disclose The system according to Claim 1, wherein:
the sensor, the first transmitter and the first receiver, are in a first data security environment on-board the aircraft, the first data security environment includes a first security assurance level, the second transmitter, the second receiver, and the one or more processors are in a second data security environment of the computing system, and the second data security environment includes a second security assurance level the same as the first security assurance level ([0109] “the method illustrated in FIG. 6 may be implemented using multiple design assurance level (DAL) electronics. For example, more novel processor intensive determinations may be performed by lower design assurance level electronics which tend to be more powerful and have access to larger amounts of data. The simpler, more reliable determinations may be implemented on higher design assurance level electronics which tend to be less powerful.”).
However, Stuart teaches the sensor, the first transmitter and the first receiver, are in a first data security environment on-board the aircraft, the first data security environment includes a first security assurance level, the second transmitter, the second receiver, and the one or more processors are in a second data security environment of the computing system, and the second data security environment includes a second security assurance level the same as the first security assurance ([page 2 lines 50-51] "All of the airborne software is designed, built and tested to RTCA DO-178A LEVEL II certification procedures." [page 5 lines 25-27] "The elements of the Ground Station which relate directly to aircraft maintenance will be developed, built and test to RTCA D0178A LEVEL II certification procedures.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beecroft with Stuart’s teaching of using the same level II assurance levels for the aircraft system and the ground based computing system. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use these assurance levels in order to generate accurate information for fixing issues on aircraft systems (Stuart [page 5 lines 24-25] “To generate accurate information and measurements on which engineers can carry out diagnosis of rectification action on aircraft systems”).
Claim(s) 5-8, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beecroft in view of Bill (WO 2020254277 A1) and Nutaro et al. (US 20120066751 A1), hereinafter Bill and Nutaro, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, Beecroft fails to explicitly disclose The system according to Claim 1, wherein:
the sensor, the first transmitter, and the first receiver are in a first safety environment on- board the aircraft, the first safety environment includes a first development assurance level, the second transmitter, the second receiver, and the one or more processors are in a second safety environment of the computing system, and the second safety environment includes a second development assurance level different to the first development assurance level wherein the first development assurance level and the second development assurance level are both levels higher than no development assurance. ([0109] “the method illustrated in FIG. 6 may be implemented using multiple design assurance level (DAL) electronics. For example, more novel processor intensive determinations may be performed by lower design assurance level electronics which tend to be more powerful and have access to larger amounts of data. The simpler, more reliable determinations may be implemented on higher design assurance level electronics which tend to be less powerful.”).
However, Bill teaches the sensor, the first transmitter, and the first receiver are in a first safety environment on-board the aircraft, the first safety environment includes a first development assurance level, the second transmitter, the second receiver, and the one or more processors are in a second safety environment of the computing system, and the second safety environment includes a second development assurance level different to the first development assurance level (Bill [0072] “the indication of tyre pressure status by the monitoring device may have a higher Development Assurance Level (DAL) than the indication provided on the control device.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beecroft with Bill’s teaching of using a different development assurance level for the indication of tire pressure status by the monitoring device than the control device. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use these design assurance levels in order to generate accurate information for fixing issues on aircraft systems (Bill [0072] “provide additional assurance and fault tolerance in the pressure measurements from the system, for example to guard against corrupt operation or errors in the control device.”).
Further, Nutaro teaches the first development assurance level and the second development assurance level are both levels higher than no development assurance ([0027] "The LSLAU 30 may be ... at least a Design Assurance Level (DAL) E." [0030] "The HAAD 40 may be low cost and can be developed to higher design assurance levels.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beecroft with Nutaro’s teaching of different, but above zero development assurance levels. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use these design assurance levels in order to use lower cost off the shelf electronics that still maintain safety to ensure the security algorithms are developed correctly and use higher (Nutaro [0030] HAAD has a higher DAL “to address the targeted safety threat” [0011] LSLAU has a lower, but above zero DAL “to provide minimal assurance that the security algorithms are developed correctly.”).
Regarding claim 6, Beecroft fails to explicitly disclose The system according to Claim 5, wherein the second development assurance level is lower than the first development assurance level ([0109] “the method illustrated in FIG. 6 may be implemented using multiple design assurance level (DAL) electronics. For example, more novel processor intensive determinations may be performed by lower design assurance level electronics which tend to be more powerful and have access to larger amounts of data. The simpler, more reliable determinations may be implemented on higher design assurance level electronics which tend to be less powerful.”).
However, Bill teaches the second development assurance level is lower than the first development assurance level ([0072] “the indication of tyre pressure status by the monitoring device may have a higher Development Assurance Level (DAL) than the indication provided on the control device.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beecroft with Bill’s teaching of using a higher development assurance level for the indication of tire pressure status by the monitoring device than the control device. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use these design assurance levels in order to generate accurate information for fixing issues on aircraft systems (Bill [0072] “provide additional assurance and fault tolerance in the pressure measurements from the system, for example to guard against corrupt operation or errors in the control device.”).
Regarding claim 7, Beecroft fails to explicitly disclose The system according to Claim 1, the sensor, the first transmitter and the first receiver, are in a first data security environment on-board the aircraft, the first data security environment include a first security assurance level, the second transmitter, the second receiver, and the one or more processors are in a second data security environment of the computing system, and the second data security environment comprising a second security assurance level different to the first security assurance level wherein the first security assurance level and the second security assurance level are both levels higher than no security assurance ([0109] “the method illustrated in FIG. 6 may be implemented using multiple design assurance level (DAL) electronics. For example, more novel processor intensive determinations may be performed by lower design assurance level electronics which tend to be more powerful and have access to larger amounts of data. The simpler, more reliable determinations may be implemented on higher design assurance level electronics which tend to be less powerful.”).
However, Bill teaches the sensor, the first transmitter and the first receiver, are in a first data security environment on-board the aircraft, the first data security environment include a first security assurance level, the second transmitter, the second receiver, and the one or more processors are in a second data security environment of the computing system, and the second data security environment comprising a second security assurance level different to the first security assurance level ([0072] “the monitoring device may have a higher Security Assurance Level (SAL) than the control device.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beecroft with Bill’s teaching of using a different software assurance level for the indication of tire pressure status by the monitoring device than the control device. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use these design assurance levels in order to generate accurate information for fixing issues on aircraft systems (Bill [0072] “provide additional assurance and fault tolerance in the pressure measurements from the system, for example to guard against corrupt operation or errors in the control device.”).
Further, Nutaro teaches the first security assurance level and the second security assurance level are both levels higher than no security assurance ([0027] "Wireless communication system 31 may be a wireless network interface (NIC) card or a gateway server that may act as the communication front end for a low security level assurance unit (LSLAU) 30." [0029] "The HAAD 40 also includes a High Assurance Level Security Module (HALSM) 43.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beecroft with Nutaro’s teaching of different, but above zero development assurance levels. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use these design assurance levels in order to address safety threats and satisfy DO178B (Nutaro [0030] HAAD has a higher DAL “to address the targeted safety threat” [0027] LSLAU has a lower, but above zero DAL for “satisfying Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification (CSASEC) DO178B”).
Regarding claim 8, Beecroft fails to explicitly disclose The system according to Claim 7, wherein the second security assurance level is lower than the first security assurance level ([0109] “the method illustrated in FIG. 6 may be implemented using multiple design assurance level (DAL) electronics. For example, more novel processor intensive determinations may be performed by lower design assurance level electronics which tend to be more powerful and have access to larger amounts of data. The simpler, more reliable determinations may be implemented on higher design assurance level electronics which tend to be less powerful.”).
However, Bill teaches the second security assurance level is lower than the first security assurance level ([0072] “the monitoring device may have a higher Security Assurance Level (SAL) than the control device.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beecroft with Bill’s teaching of using a higher software assurance level for the indication of tire pressure status by the monitoring device than the control device. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use these design assurance levels in order to generate accurate information for fixing issues on aircraft systems (Bill [0072] “provide additional assurance and fault tolerance in the pressure measurements from the system, for example to guard against corrupt operation or errors in the control device.”).
Regarding claim 12, Beecroft fails to explicitly disclose The system according to Claim 1, wherein
the sensor comprises at least one of:
a tire pressure monitoring sensor ([0068] pressure sensors),
a brake wear sensor,
a tire tread sensor,
a tire temperature sensor ([0068] temperature sensors),
a brake temperature sensor ([0068] temperature sensors),
an oleo strut pressure sensor ([0068] pressure sensors),
an oleo strut temperature sensor ([0068] temperature sensors),
an oleo strut compression angle sensor,
an oleo strut compression speed sensor, or
an oleo strut compression distance sensor.
However, Bill teaches the sensor comprises at least one of:
a tire pressure monitoring sensor ([0034] “the tyre pressure sensors 10”),
a brake wear sensor,
a tire tread sensor,
a tire temperature sensor ([0043] “temperature sensor 209 may be arranged to measure the temperature of the wheel or the temperature of the gas inside the tyre directly.”),
a brake temperature sensor,
an oleo strut pressure sensor,
an oleo strut temperature sensor,
an oleo strut compression angle sensor,
an oleo strut compression speed sensor, or
an oleo strut compression distance sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beecroft with Bill ’s teaching of using tyre pressure and temperature sensors on an aircraft. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use one or more of the above sensors to provide ground crew tasked with checking and maintaining the aircraft with valuable data (Bill [0002] “Tyre pressures should be maintained at predetermined pressures to ensure that a tyre performs as intended by the manufacturer. Incorrect tyre pressure can lead to a tyre failing, perhaps bursting and causing damage to the vehicle and/or a loss of control. Due to the high speeds encountered by the tyres on aircraft landing gear, pressures are checked regularly, perhaps once a day or more frequently. Manual checking of tyre pressure takes time, reducing this time is beneficial.”).
Regarding claim 16, Beecroft fails to explicitly disclose The method according to Claim 15, further comprising: scheduling, based at least in part on the indication of the altered operational mode, a maintenance action to be performed on the aircraft component ([0086] “the damage determination may be caused by a faulty sensor of the sensor array 66 and the stored data may be used by a maintenance crew to repair or replace the faulty sensor.”).
However, Bill teaches scheduling, based at least in part on the status data, a maintenance action to be performed on the aircraft component ([0094] “The indication may provide a warning of the status, for example a warning that replacement should be scheduled or that the end of the service life is approaching.” [0095] “Action may be initiated in response to the indication. For example, when the method is carried out on a central management server, an instruction may be transmitted to cause replacement of the tyre monitoring device at a particular time in the future. The instruction may further cause replacement parts to be provided to a location where the replacement is scheduled to take place.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beecroft with Bill’s teaching of scheduling a maintenance action when service life is approaching on the component. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to schedule a maintenance action in order to use the component as much as possible before its expiry (Bill [0097] “a tyre monitoring device 10 may be scheduled to be changed at a tyre change scheduled to occur before the expiry of the service lifetime of the device 10, and, in particular, at a tyre change that is scheduled closest to and preceding said expiry. This ensures that the tyre monitoring device 10 remains operational, within its service lifetime”).
Regarding claim 18, Beecroft fails to explicitly disclose The method according to Claim 16, further comprising: scheduling, based at least in part on the altered operational mode, a maintenance action to be performed on the aircraft component ([0086] “the damage determination may be caused by a faulty sensor of the sensor array 66 and the stored data may be used by a maintenance crew to repair or replace the faulty sensor.”).
However, Bill teaches scheduling, based at least in part on the status data, a maintenance action to be performed on the aircraft component ([0094] “The indication may provide a warning of the status, for example a warning that replacement should be scheduled or that the end of the service life is approaching.” [0095] Action may be initiated in response to the indication. For example, when the method is carried out on a central management server, an instruction may be transmitted to cause replacement of the tyre monitoring device at a particular time in the future. The instruction may further cause replacement parts to be provided to a location where the replacement is scheduled to take place.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beecroft with Bill’s teaching of scheduling a maintenance action when service life is approaching on the component. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to schedule a maintenance action in order to use the component as much as possible before its expiry (Bill [0097] “a tyre monitoring device 10 may be scheduled to be changed at a tyre change scheduled to occur before the expiry of the service lifetime of the device 10, and, in particular, at a tyre change that is scheduled closest to and preceding said expiry. This ensures that the tyre monitoring device 10 remains operational, within its service lifetime”).
Regarding claim 23, Beecroft fails to explicitly disclose The system of claim 1, wherein the aircraft component is a tire or oleo struct, and the sensor data includes information indicative of a pressure in the tire or in the oleo strut, and the determination of the altered operational mode and the further operational mode is made at least in part based on whether the pressure within the tire or the oleo strut is outside expected pressure values ([0079] “the controller 60 may determine whether damage has occurred to the aircraft 10 … by monitoring change in the relationship between bypass duct pressure … ” [0068] “The sensor array 66 may comprise … pressure sensors.” Beecroft at least uses pressure sensors for the determination of damage and severity, but not specifically with tires or oleo struts.).
However, Bill teaches the aircraft component is a tire or oleo struct, and the sensor data includes information indicative of a pressure in the tire or in the oleo strut, and the determination of the altered operational mode and the further operational mode is made at least in part based on whether the pressure within the tire or the oleo strut is outside expected pressure values ([0105] “received data is representation of a measured pressure of two tyres on the same axle, inconsistent data may be identified when the differential pressure is greater than 10% for example. In some cases, this pressure differential may exist between a correctly inflated tyre and either an underinflated tyre or an over inflated tyre. A differential pressure of more than 10% may cause additional wear to the correctly inflated tyre so that it should be replaced, despite its own pressure being acceptable. In some examples other differential thresholds may be used, for example 15%, 20% or a difference of 20 psi, 30 psi or 40 psi.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beecroft with Bill’s teaching of using tire pressure sensors to determine whether the tire is in an altered or further altered operational mode based on a plurality of differential thresholds. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to determine whether tire pressures are outside of expected ranges in order to prevent damage or loss of control due to tires failing from incorrect pressure ([0002] “Incorrect tyre pressure can lead to a tyre failing, perhaps bursting and causing damage to the vehicle and/or a loss of control. Due to the high speeds encountered by the tyres on aircraft landing gear, pressures are checked regularly, perhaps once a day or more frequently. Manual checking of tyre pressure takes time, reducing this time is beneficial.”).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beecroft in view of Hasson et al. (FR 2955185 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hasson.
Regarding claim 9, Beecroft fails to explicitly disclose The system according to Claim 1, wherein
the aircraft is configured to encrypt the sensor data prior to transmitting the sensor data to the off-board computing system via the first transmitter; and the computing system is configured to decrypt, via the one or more processors of the computing system the sensor data received by the second receiver.
However, Hasson teaches the aircraft is configured to encrypt the sensor data prior to transmitting the sensor data to the off-board computing system via the first transmitter; and the computing system is configured to decrypt, via the one or more processors of the computing system the sensor data received by the second receiver (Hasson [page 5 lines 213-215] “the FADEC 1 is configured to communicate with the remote server 21 in a secure manner. For example, the radio link between the FADEC 1 and the remote server 21 can be encrypted”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beecroft with Hasson’s teaching of using encryption between the aircraft and remote server. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use encryption for the sensor data of the aircraft to be sent between the aircraft and the remote server to increase security, integrity and confidentiality of the data (Hasson [page 5, line 215] “to increase the security, integrity and confidentiality of that data.”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beecroft in view of Thornberg et al. (US 20230012184 A1), hereinafter referred to as Thornberg.
Regarding claim 20, Beecroft fails to explicitly disclose The system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is further configured to determine if the aircraft component is a low priority aircraft component or a high priority aircraft component and include in the status data information indicating whether the aircraft component is the high priority aircraft component or the low priority aircraft component ([0120] “Where damage occurs to multiple components or subsystems of the aircraft 10, the controller 60 may control the output device 64 to provide the determined information for both components/subsystems concurrently, or as concatenated information. For example, where the first propulsor 24 and the second propulsor 26 both sustain damage from bird strikes, the controller 60 may control a display of the output device 64 to display the determined information for both propulsors at the same time to enable the flight deck crew to determine which propulsor has sustained most damage. This may enable the flight deck crew to take appropriate mitigating actions (for example, shut down of the most damaged propulsor).” “Most damaged” is still related to severity, which is the “operational mode,” but there is some indication and desire for prioritizing certain components over others.).
However, Thornberg teaches the computing system is further configured to determine if the aircraft component is a low priority aircraft component or a high priority aircraft component and include in the status data information indicating whether the aircraft component is the high priority aircraft component or the low priority aircraft component ([0028] “the flight plan 150 can define that the failure to the hull structure as having lower priority than the failure to an engine.” [0042] “risk evaluator 140 can identify the action to be taken corresponding to the type of failure with the highest priority.” [0043] “the risk evaluator 140 can render the actions … to an operator or pilot of the air vehicle 105. Upon presentation, the operator of the air vehicle 105 can select via an interface (e.g., using the control interface 120) one of the actions to take.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Beecroft with Thornberg’s teaching of providing a prioritization of the aircraft components and displaying to a pilot or crew which actions to take to mitigate failures based on priority. One would be motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use said prioritization in order to address failures appropriately on-board ([0028] “the action to be taken to address the failure to the engine can take precedence over the action to be taken to address a hull failure.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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 at 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668