DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 11/14/2025, in which claims 1 and 11 are amended. Claims 1-11 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see REMARKS filed 11/14/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11, under 35 USC §101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained.
Applicant's arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 11, under 35 USC §102, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, the Applicant’s amendments have overcome the prior rejections and a new rejection is presented below in view of Hurson.
Applicant's arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-4 and 6-10, under 35 USC §103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, the Applicant’s amendments have overcome the prior rejections and a new rejection is presented below in view of Hurson.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC §101, the Applicant argues:
MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) states that "[1]imitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include... [a]pplying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception." Amended claim 1 is clearly not drafted to monopolize any alleged judicial exception. For example, amended claim 1 recites that "controlling traffic on the runway based on a condition of the runway determined from the predicted frictional coefficient." Here, amended claim 1 is limited to using the particular predicted frictional coefficient in a particular way such as to control traffic on a runway. There are many ways to control traffic in general that do not involve the predicted coefficient. There are also many other places, such as a sidewalk, a street, etc., to control traffic than just a runway. Thus, since amended claim 1 is specific to what is used to control traffic and where the traffic is controlled, amended claim 1 integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
The specification is silent with respect to controlling traffic. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation this limitation is an extra-solution activity. For instance controlling traffic could merely be sending a message, displaying information or schedules, or some other post-solution activity. Therefore, this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the previous rejection under 35 USC §101 is maintained.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC §102, the Applicant argues:
Rado fails to disclose or suggest the combination of features recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Independent claim 1 relates to a method for determining a frictional coefficient of an aircraft on a runway, and independent claim 1 recites "producing a database of frictional coefficients simulated for various types of aircraft and various runway conditions by applying simulation data to models representing braking of aircraft when landing for various braking scenarios," and "predicting a frictional coefficient from real data of the aircraft for which the frictional coefficient is determined from data stored in the database."
In Rado, aircraft breaking friction is calculated from data recorded from true aircrafts ([0026]) during landing. Monitored parameters are fed real time to a computer system that is capable of processing the data and calculating relevant processes involved in the landing maneuver ([0028]). Even when considering that paragraph [0055] indicates that "to arrive to the end result a number of different mathematical and physical modeling approaches are possible through different sets of dynamic equations and/or various methods of simulations based upon the availability of different sets of data from the flight data management system", meaning that simulation methods can be used to obtain the breaking friction parameters, in Rado, the method only uses data obtained from real planes.
Independent claim 1 uses frictional coefficients simulated for various types of aircraft and various runway conditions by applying simulation data to models representing braking of aircraft when landing for various braking scenarios. Thus, Rado does not disclose or make obvious each and every feature of independent claim 1.
The Examiner cordially disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments with respect to Rados failing to teach "producing a database of frictional coefficients simulated for various types of aircraft and various runway conditions by applying simulation data to models representing braking of aircraft when landing for various braking scenarios," and "predicting a frictional coefficient from real data of the aircraft for which the frictional coefficient is determined from data stored in the database."
Rados specifically includes a high-powered computer with the purpose of “…processing the data and calculating/simulating all relevant physical processes involved in the aircraft landing maneuver and the actual effective braking friction coefficient of the landing aircraft and the true aircraft landing performance parameters can be computed and made ready for distribution.” ¶ [0102] and Fig. 8. Here, the system receives real data from various types of planes, e.g., after a plane has landed, and then uses that data to simulate the braking process of the aircraft in the landing environment. This data is then distributed to other interested parties for use in their systems.
Therefore, the Examiner finds the above argument unpersuasive. However, considering the amended claim language the Examiner has withdrawn the previous rejection, under 35 USC §102, but a new rejection is presented below in view of Hurson.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is: a module for predicting a braking coefficient from real data of the aircraft in claim 11.
Because this claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The module will be interpreted as a hardware component of computing platform 4 according to Fig. 1.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the new matter “…controlling traffic on the runway based on a condition of the runway determined from the predicted frictional coefficient.” However, the specification does not provide for any controlling of traffic, especially based on the predicted frictional coefficient. Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards a method for determining a frictional coefficient of an aircraft on a runway. Claim 11 is directed towards a system for determining a frictional coefficient of an aircraft on a runway.
Step 2A, Prong 1
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In the instant application, independent claim 1 recites:
“…producing a database of frictional coefficients…”;
“…predicting a frictional coefficient…”
Independent claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations.
These claim limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, may be performed in the human mind. Therefore these limitations are abstract ideas and claims 1 and 11 are directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it' ' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In the instant application, claims 1 and 11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims 1 and 11 recite “a database” at a high level. The specification identifies the processor generically as having “a memory” – See specification at pg. 7, ln. 29-30. The database is merely a part of a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Claim 11 further recites a “module for predicting...” This element also merely describe a generic computer that is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These steps are not meaningful limitations on the judicial exception. The database and module are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are a memory and a module) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Therefore, claims 1 and 11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 further recites “controlling traffic on the runway based on a condition of the runway determined from the predicted frictional coefficient.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation this limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity, such as displaying schedules or the like. The specification does not provide any indication what the “controlling” function consists of, thus this limitation fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 11 recites a substantially similar limitation.
Step 2B
Finally, even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception renders the claim eligible under §101. Examples that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, 2) simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, 3) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and 4) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examples of generic computing functions that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.
In the instant application, claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this particular application, the same analysis above in determining whether the recited additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception is applicable to determine if the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above analysis, claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites “…wherein the real data recorded in an onboard computer of the aircraft are recovered, and wherein the recovered real data are decoded and the decoded real data are filtered.” Which is a form of extra-solution activity, i.e., mere data gathering. The claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites additional abstract ideas that may be performed mentally, i.e., “…wherein, during the filtering of the recovered real data, the data are filtered by comparing a geolocation of the aircraft with corresponding runway-geolocation data. ” The claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 recites additional abstract ideas that may be performed mentally, i.e., “…wherein, during filtering, a weighting is allocated to the data according to the type of aircraft and/or a frequency of data acquisition.” The claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the filtered data include geolocated and weighted data relating to dynamics of the aircraft, to the type of aircraft and braking, and to a runway segment.” Which further defines an abstract idea identified above. However, the claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites “wherein, during the prediction step, an algorithm of random forest, decision trees or 8-layer neural network type is used.” Which further defines an abstract idea identified above. However, the claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites additional abstract ideas that may be performed mentally, i.e., “…wherein the real data are compared with the simulation data in the form of as a time series to reconstruct a frictional coefficient value as a function of time.” The claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites additional abstract ideas that may be performed mentally, i.e., “…wherein a change in the predicted frictional coefficients is compared with the simulated frictional coefficients to define that a maximum allowable frictional coefficient has been reached.” The claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 recites additional abstract ideas that may be performed mentally, i.e., “…wherein the frictional coefficients are standardized for pressure, braking energy, and speed.” The claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites “…further comprising a step of storing data relating to predicted frictional coefficients modified by a weighting coefficient.” Which is a form of extra-solution activity, i.e., mere data gathering. The claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rado (US 2006/0243857 A1, “Rado”) in view of Hurson (US 6,276,189 B1, “Hurson”).
Regarding claim 1, Rado discloses method and device of calculating aircraft braking friction and other relating landing performance parameters based on the data received from aircraft’s on board flight data management system and teaches:
producing a database of frictional coefficients (As shown in Fig. 6, the calculated aircraft braking friction coefficients and other data are stored – See at least ¶ [0083]-[0084] and Fig. 6. Further all data is collected and stored in the Flight Data Management System – See at least ¶ [0100] ) simulated (To arrive to the end result a number of different mathematical and physical modeling approaches are possible through different sets of dynamic equations and/or various methods of simulations based upon the availability of different sets of data from the flight data management system – See at least ¶ [0055]) for various types of aircraft and various runway conditions (The data from the flight data recorder includes aircraft type and runway conditions, e.g., runway altitude – See at least ¶ [0058]-[0060]) by applying simulation data to models representing braking of aircraft when landing for various braking scenarios; and (The method calculates, through a three-dimensional dynamic model, all relevant physical processes involved in the aircraft landing maneuver and separates them so they are individually available for use. The first intermediate result of the method is the time or distance history of all relevant, separated, interdependent decelerations generated by the different systems in an aircraft. These decelerations are cumulatively measured by the onboard measurement system and reported in the flight data stream. The separated decelerations calculated from the different physical processes make it possible to calculate the true deceleration developed only by the actual affective braking friction coefficient of the landing aircraft – See at least ¶ [0061])
predicting a frictional coefficient from real data of the aircraft for which the frictional coefficient is determined from data stored in the database [] (In the case of real time data processing, all monitored parameters can be fed real time into an onboard high power computer system that is capable of processing the data and calculating all relevant physical processes involved in the aircraft landing maneuver. Based upon the calculated physical processes the actual affective braking friction coefficient of the landing aircraft can be calculated. This together with other parameters and weather data can be used to calculate the true aircraft landing performance parameters. In case the calculation finds a true friction limited section, a warning can be sent to the pilot to prevent any accident, such as over run or slide off the runway – See at least ¶ [0104])
Rado does not explicitly teach and controlling traffic on the runway based on a condition of the runway determined from the predicted frictional coefficient. However, Hurson discloses method and apparatus for continuous monitoring of road surface friction and teaches:
[] and controlling traffic on the runway based on a condition of the runway determined from the predicted frictional coefficient. (aircraft taxing down the runway or taking off or landing on the runway can transmit a detailed road surface condition (i.e., coefficient of friction condition) map of the runway condition along its route. This information can be very valuable to air traffic controllers in controlling other aircraft in queue to land or take off – See at least Col. 7, ln 10-15)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the method and device of calculating aircraft braking friction and other relating landing performance parameters based on the data received from aircrafts on board flight data management system of Rado to provide for the air traffic control, as taught in Hurson, to permit a safer operation of the vehicle, plane or apparatus being driven. (At Hurson Col. 1, ln. 42-43)
Regarding claim 11, Rado discloses method and device of calculating aircraft braking friction and other relating landing performance parameters based on the data received from aircraft’s on board flight data management system and teaches:
A system for determining a frictional coefficient of an aircraft on a runway, wherein the system comprises: (The invention is directed towards an apparatus of the calculation of aircraft braking friction and other relating landing parameters including but not limited to aircraft braking action, aircraft takeoff distance, aircraft landing distance, runway Surface conditions and runway Surface friction based on the data collected by and available in the aircraft Flight Data Recorder (FDR) or other flight data management systems – See at least Abstract)
a set of models representing braking of aircraft during landing thereof; (To arrive to the end result a number of different mathematical and physical modeling approaches are possible through different sets of dynamic equations and/or various methods of simulations based upon the availability of different sets of data from the flight data management system – See at least ¶ [0055])
a database of simulated (To arrive to the end result a number of different mathematical and physical modeling approaches are possible through different sets of dynamic equations and/or various methods of simulations based upon the availability of different sets of data from the flight data management system – See at least ¶ [0055]) frictional coefficients (As shown in Fig. 6, the calculated aircraft braking friction coefficients and other data are stored – See at least ¶ [0083]-[0084] and Fig. 6. Further all data is collected and stored in the Flight Data Management System – See at least ¶ [0100]) for various types of aircraft and various runway conditions; and (The method calculates, through a three-dimensional dynamic model, all relevant physical processes involved in the aircraft landing maneuver and separates them so they are individually available for use. The first intermediate result of the method is the time or distance history of all relevant, separated, interdependent decelerations generated by the different systems in an aircraft. These decelerations are cumulatively measured by the onboard measurement system and reported in the flight data stream. The separated decelerations calculated from the different physical processes make it possible to calculate the true deceleration developed only by the actual affective braking friction coefficient of the landing aircraft – See at least ¶ [0061])
a module (High power computer system, i.e., a module,: All monitored parameters fed real time into a this computer system, which is capable of processing the data and calculating/simulating all relevant physical processes involved in the aircraft landing maneuver and the actual affective braking friction coefficient of the landing aircraft and the true aircraft landing performance parameters – See at least ¶ [0107]) for predicting a braking coefficient from real data of the aircraft for which the frictional coefficient is determined and from data stored in the database of simulated frictional coefficients, [] (In the case of real time data processing, all monitored parameters can be fed real time into an onboard high power computer system that is capable of processing the data and calculating all relevant physical processes involved in the aircraft landing maneuver. Based upon the calculated physical processes the actual affective braking friction coefficient of the landing aircraft can be calculated. This together with other parameters and weather data can be used to calculate the true aircraft landing performance parameters. In case the calculation finds a true friction limited section, a warning can be sent to the pilot to prevent any accident, such as over run or slide off the runway – See at least ¶ [0104])
producing a database of frictional coefficients (As shown in Fig. 6, the calculated aircraft braking friction coefficients and other data are stored – See at least ¶ [0083]-[0084] and Fig. 6. Further all data is collected and stored in the Flight Data Management System – See at least ¶ [0100] ) simulated (To arrive to the end result a number of different mathematical and physical modeling approaches are possible through different sets of dynamic equations and/or various methods of simulations based upon the availability of different sets of data from the flight data management system – See at least ¶ [0055]) for various types of aircraft and various runway conditions (The data from the flight data recorder includes aircraft type and runway conditions, e.g., runway altitude – See at least ¶ [0058]-[0060]) by applying simulation data to models representing braking of aircraft when landing for various braking scenarios; and
Rado does not explicitly teach wherein the module is configured to generate instructions for facilitating control of traffic on the runway based on a condition of the runway determined from the predicted braking coefficient. However, Hurson discloses method and apparatus for continuous monitoring of road surface friction and teaches:
[] wherein the module is configured to generate instructions for facilitating control of traffic on the runway based on a condition of the runway determined from the predicted braking coefficient. (aircraft taxing down the runway or taking off or landing on the runway can transmit a detailed road Surface condition (i.e., coefficient of friction condition) map of the runway condition along its route. This information can be very valuable to air traffic controllers in controlling other aircraft in queue to land or take off – See at least Col. 7, ln 10-15)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the method and device of calculating aircraft braking friction and other relating landing performance parameters based on the data received from aircrafts on board flight data management system of Rado to provide for the air traffic control, as taught in Hurson, to permit a safer operation of the vehicle, plane or apparatus being driven. (At Hurson Col. 1, ln. 42-43)
Claim(s) 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rado in view of Hurson, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Enns et al. (US 2016/0140854 A1, “Enns”).
Regarding claim 2, Rado does not explicitly teach wherein the real data recorded in an onboard computer of the aircraft are recovered, and wherein the recovered real data are decoded and the decoded real data are filtered. However, Enns discloses methods and apparatus for determining landing surface friction condition and teaches:
wherein the real data recorded in an onboard computer of the aircraft are recovered, and wherein the recovered real data are decoded and the decoded real data are filtered. (First, the process 600 receives landing surface friction condition data (step 602). The landing surface friction condition data includes a friction level of a landing surface that corresponds to a range of friction coefficients, where a friction coefficient is the ratio of the friction force to normal force on a landing surface. The landing surface friction condition may be provided by nearby aircraft, air traffic control, and/or aviation support personnel with access to the appropriate data and communication equipment using a compatible protocol, i.e., real data recovered and decoded. In addition to the landing surface friction condition, the received data may also include a landing surface or runway identifier, an aircraft model identifier, and/or other data to distinguish parameters, i.e., filtering the data, used in calculations of a landing surface friction condition. For example, a runway identifier received by Aircraft X is used to ensure that the landing surface friction condition received is applicable to the particular runway at a particular airport that Aircraft X will use for landing – See at least ¶ [0061])
In summary, Rado discloses considering the type of aircraft, location of the runway and many other parameters when determining a friction coefficient for the landing aircraft. Rado does not explicitly teach wherein the real data recorded in an onboard computer of the aircraft are recovered, and wherein the recovered real data are decoded and the decoded real data are filtered. However, Enns discloses methods and apparatus for determining landing surface friction condition and teaches the data is sent through specific protocols that must be decoded and that only relevant data, i.e., data relating to the type of air craft and runway, is used by the aircraft to determine the friction coefficient before landing.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the method and device of calculating aircraft braking friction and other relating landing performance parameters based on the data received from aircrafts on board flight data management system of Rado and Hurson to provide for methods and apparatus for determining landing surface friction condition, as taught in Enns, to provide a consistent method for determining a landing surface friction condition and relay this information to other aircraft in the area without introducing unnecessary latency in the process. (At Enns ¶ [0004])
Regarding claim 8, Rado further teaches:
Wherein a change in the predicted frictional coefficients is compared with the simulated frictional coefficients to define that a maximum allowable frictional coefficient has been reached. (Using the calculated effective true frictional forces, together with parameters measured by the aircraft data management system (such as downstream hydraulic braking pressure), a logical algorithm based on the physics of the braking of pneumatic tires with antiskid braking systems was designed to determine whether the maximum available runway friction was reached within the relevant speed ranges of the landing maneuver. Together with the actual friction force the following logic is used by this invention to determine: If friction limited braking is encountered – See at least ¶ [0087]-[0089])
Regarding claim 9, Rado further teaches:
wherein the frictional coefficients are standardized (Utilizing this method the aviation industry no longer has to rely on different friction readings from different instrumentations and from different procedures or assumed friction levels based on visual observation and weather data – See at least ¶ [0111]) for pressure, braking energy, and speed. (The parameters of the method include altitude pressure, air pressure, brake effective acceleration, i.e., braking energy, air speed, groundspeed – See at least ¶ [0058]-[0062])
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rado in view of Hurson, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Maggiore et al. (US 2013/0127642 A1, “Maggiore”).
Regarding claim 3, Rado does not explicitly teach wherein, during the filtering of the recovered real data, the data are filtered by comparing a geolocation of the aircraft with corresponding runway-geolocation data. However, Maggiore discloses runway condition monitoring and teaches:
wherein, during the filtering of the recovered real data, the data are filtered by comparing a geolocation of the aircraft with corresponding runway-geolocation data. (Computer system 306 also sends number of conditions 319 to location 303 remote to aircraft 302. Location 303 may be a second aircraft, such as aircraft 342, air traffic controller 346, surface friction database 348, or some other suitable location. Number of conditions 319 may be sent to location 303 by computer system 306 using wireless communications system 350. In some advantageous embodiments, aircraft 342 is an aircraft within a particular distance of runway 304, i.e., a comparison of the geolocation data of the aircraft corresponding to the runway geolocation data. In other advantageous embodiments, aircraft 342 is executing a flight plan that involves landing on runway 304. Aircraft 342 may use number of conditions 319 to update a navigational chart aboard aircraft 342 or to alert the flight crew aboard aircraft 342 of a number of conditions 319 – See at least ¶ [0056]-[0057])
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the method and device of calculating aircraft braking friction and other relating landing performance parameters based on the data received from aircrafts on board flight data management system of Rado and Hurson to provide for the runway condition monitoring, as taught in Maggiore, to allow the frictional coefficients to be stored at a regulatory authority, such as the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States, i.e., available for public benefit. (At Maggiore ¶ [00569])
Regarding claim 4, Rado further teaches:
wherein, during filtering, a weighting is allocated to the data according to the type of aircraft and/or a frequency of data acquisition. (This true deceleration (Abe) developed only by the actual affective braking friction coefficient of the landing aircraft, than can be used in further calculations to determine the true aircraft braking coefficient of friction – See at least ¶ [0071]; Examiner notes that Abe is calculated with values, i.e., weights, associated with the type of aircraft, e.g., value TY).
Regarding claim 10, Rado does not explicitly teach, but Maggiore further teaches:
further comprising a step of storing data relating to predicted frictional coefficients modified by a weighting coefficient. (Receiver 620 sends the number of conditions to data manager 622. Data manager 622 sends the number of conditions to historical data warehouse 624. Historical data ware house 624 is a database storing data about conditions for the runway over a period of time, such as, for example, a number of months or a number of years. Data manager 622 also retrieves data from historical data warehouse 624. Data manager 622 sends information in the form of the data retrieved from historical data warehouse 624 and the number of conditions received from receiver 620 to prognostic algorithms 626. Prognostic algorithms 626 use the data received from data manager 622 to make predictions about the number of conditions present on the runway or other conditions that may develop on the runway – See at least ¶ [0079]-[0080])
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the method and device of calculating aircraft braking friction and other relating landing performance parameters based on the data received from aircrafts on board flight data management system of Rado and Hurson to provide for the runway condition monitoring, as taught in Maggiore, to allow the frictional coefficients to be stored at a regulatory authority, such as the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States, i.e., available for public benefit. (At Maggiore ¶ [00569])
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rado in view of Hurson, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Midtfjord et al. (“A Machine Learning Approach to Assess Runway Conditions Using Weather Data”, “Midtfjord”).
Regarding claim 6, Rado does not explicitly teach wherein, during the prediction step, an algorithm of random forest, decision trees or 8-layer neural network type is used. However, Midtfjord discloses a machine learning approach to assess runway conditions using weather data and teaches:
wherein, during the prediction step, an algorithm of random forest, decision trees or 8-layer neural network type is used. (The machine learning model was trained and evaluated using a ten-fold nested cross validation. In each of the ten repetitions, the training folds were again divided into tree folds to pursue a cross validated randomized search for tuning the parameters of the XGBoost model – See at least pg. 837)
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the method and device of calculating aircraft braking friction and other relating landing performance parameters based on the data received from aircrafts on board flight data management system of Rado and Hurson to provide for machine learning approach to assess runway conditions using weather data, as taught in Midtfjord, to use machine learning methods to predict runway surface conditions, which can contribute to safer and more economic operation of airports. (At Midtfjord pg. 834)
Regarding claim 7, Rado further teaches:
wherein the real data are compared with the simulation data in the form of as a time series to reconstruct a frictional coefficient value as a function of time. (The method calculates, through a three-dimensional dynamic model, all relevant physical processes involved in the aircraft landing maneuver and separates them so they are individually available for use. The first intermediate result of the method is the time or distance history of all relevant, separated, interdependent decelerations generated by the different systems in an aircraft. These measurement system and reported in the flight data stream. The separated decelerations calculated from the different physical processes make it possible to calculate the true deceleration developed only by the actual affective braking friction coefficient of the landing aircraft. 0062 Based on the above, the software calculates the brake effective acceleration vs. time based on Equation (1) – See at least ¶ [0061]-[0063])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC §101 and is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to overcome the rejection under 35 USC §101 and is rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of reference is Rado (US 2006/0243857 A1) which discloses a method and device of calculating aircraft braking friction and other relating landing performance parameters based on the data received from aircraft’s on board flight data management system. Rado further teaches identifying and considering the type of aircraft as well as the landing runway when determining friction coefficient values.
With respect to claim 1, Rado taken either individually or in combination other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest: “…wherein the filtered data include geolocated and weighted data relating to dynamics of the aircraft, to the type of aircraft and braking, and to a runway segment.” in combination with the remaining
elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for those reasons that the
Applicant' s invention defines over the prior art of record.
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 CHASE L COOLEY whose telephone number is (303)297-4355. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5MT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/C.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662