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
Claims 1-11 are pending in this application.
Claims 1, 4, and 10 are presented as currently amended claims.
Claim 11 is newly presented.
No claims are newly cancelled.
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 7, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middleton et al. (US 4843554 A) in view of Michal (US 20100094488 A1) in view of Guedes et al. (US 20190072982 A1) (the combination of which will be referred to as 'combination Middleton' hereinafter). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 1, Middleton teaches a method for monitoring an aircraft during takeoff:
the method implemented by a system comprising electronic circuitry, (Middleton: ¶ 002; Col. 3, Lns. 26-27; a computer means) . . . the method having the following steps during successive calculation cycles: (Middleton: Fig. 006; [[showing continuous path processing]]) - obtaining a current ground speed GSc of the aircraft; (Middleton: ¶ 042; Col. 7, Lns. 40-44; current air speed (CAS) is derived by summing the previously derived ground speed (V.sub.G) and the headwind component of the runway wind speed (V.sub.W.sbsb.RWY)) . . . - calculating an estimate of an acceleration degradation Degr since the predefined first threshold speed S1 was crossed by a calculation corresponding to a ratio between, on one hand, a difference between a distance actually travelled by the aircraft in order to reach the current ground speed GSc and the distance theoretically travelled by the aircraft in order to reach this current ground speed GSc, and, on another hand, the distance theoretically travelled by the aircraft in order to reach this current ground speed GSc; (Middleton: ¶¶ 46-56; Cols. 7, 56, Lns. 8, 24; update of the runway friction coefficient in real-time. The estimation takes place as follows. First, the thrust is represented as a cubic in airspeed ##EQU16## At any true airspeed, the acceleration corresponding to two rolling friction coefficients can be written as ##EQU17## Subtracting a from a and solving for the difference in friction coefficients ##EQU18## estimate of the actual runaway friction coefficient / assumed friction coefficient Thus the actual rolling friction coefficient is estimated as ##EQU19## Immediately after this process the basis for scheduled performance is recomputed with .mu..sub.2 as the present estimate of the friction coefficient.) and - generating a warning which informs that a rejected takeoff is recommended when the estimate of the acceleration degradation Degr is greater than a predefined degradation threshold S. (Middleton: ¶ 086; Cols. 10, Lns. 54-57; alerts the pilot whenever the acceleration deficiency reaches an arbitrary value (15% in the preferred embodiment), even if the engines are functioning properly 27.)
Middleton does not explicitly teach: . . - calculating a time ∆tt theoretically taken by a numerical aircraft model to increase a ground speed to the current ground speed GSc from a current ground speed GSc which the aircraft had in a previous calculation cycle; . . . and, - for each calculation cycle, multiplying the time Are theoretically taken by the numerical aircraft model by the current ground speed GS, of the aircraft measured in the calculation cycle considered and by integrating products obtained fosuccessive calculation cycles since the predefined first speed threshold Sl was crossed, deducing therefrom a distance DC theoretically travelled by the aircraft in order to reach the current ground speed GS.; however, Middleton does teach
Calculating a position of an aircraft using previous and current ground speeds through the use of integrating “equations of motion.” (Middleton: ¶ 041; Col. 7, Lns. 28-39; the equations of motion is used to estimate the performance of the airplane. First the wind speed and measured ground speed are combined to obtain true airspeed, mach number and dynamic pressure. The nominal lift and drag coefficients yield the lift and drag forces. Combining these with the weight and rolling friction coefficient (input value), and the estimated thrust (based on measured engine pressure ratio) results in an estimated airplane acceleration. The measured ground speed is numerically integrated (rectangular integration) to obtain distance along the runway.) and using the incremental calculation results to compare real-world aircraft distance travelled (Middleton: ¶ 30; Col. 6, Lns. 18-19; Monitors the performance of the airplane in terms of its acceleration performance)against the required runway distance needed by a theoretical model aircraft (Middleton: ¶ 032; Col. 6, Lns. 21-22; Predicts the runway required to achieve rotation speed)
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been taught or suggested - calculating a time ∆tt theoretically taken by a numerical aircraft model to increase a ground speed to the current ground speed GSc from a current ground speed GSc which the aircraft had in a previous calculation cycle; . . . and, - for each calculation cycle, multiplying the time Are theoretically taken by the numerical aircraft model by the current ground speed GS, of the aircraft measured in the calculation cycle considered and by integrating products obtained fosuccessive calculation cycles since the predefined first speed threshold Sl was crossed, deducing therefrom a distance DC theoretically travelled by the aircraft in order to reach the current ground speed GS because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that multiplying a speed by a time is a basic “equations of motion” and that integrating is a mathematical process in which the results of multiplying changes in discrete variables over a subunit of time are summed over all calculation cycles.
Middleton does not explicitly teach: . . . - obtaining a current runway slope; . . .accounting for the current runway slope; however, Michal does teach:
- obtaining a current runway slope; (Michal: ¶ 1063;pilot may enter a large number of data, and in particular the planned takeoff runway, the length and slope of this runway) . . .accounting for the current runway slope(Michal: ¶ 062-063; slope of the planned takeoff runway and the total runway length available for the phase of ground roll to takeoff are also considered . . . to optimize the performances of the airplane during takeoff and in particular to calculate a takeoff distance (or in other words the distance necessary for the aircraft to take off) as a function of the planned takeoff runway.) (Michal: ¶ 128) (Michal: ¶ 143) determine the remaining runway length TOR from the available runway length TORA and the position of the aircraft.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Michal with the teachings of Middleton because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of validating the takeoff parameters (Michal: ¶ 025) used during takeoff.
Middleton does not explicitly teach: . . . the method being initiated when the aircraft reaches a speed greater than a predefined first threshold speed S1, . . . wherein the method further comprises the following steps when the aircraft reaches a speed greater than a predefined second speed threshold S2, which is greater than the predefined first speed threshold S1:. . . . and performing a rejected takeoff procedure on the aircraft by transmitting the rejected takeoff warning to avionics of the aircraft; however, Guedes does teach:
. . . the method being initiated when the aircraft reaches a speed greater than a predefined first threshold speed S1, . . . wherein the method further comprises the following steps when the aircraft reaches a speed greater than a predefined second speed threshold S2, . . . (Guedes: ¶ 056; rejected takeoff shall occur only in a well-defined “speed window” between a Lower limit speed and an upper limit speed) . . .
wherein the method further comprises the following steps when the aircraft reaches a speed greater than a predefined second speed threshold S2, which is greater than the predefined first speed threshold S1: (Guedes: ¶ 056; rejected takeoff shall occur only in a well-defined “speed window” between a Lower limit speed and an upper limit speed) . . . and performing a rejected takeoff procedure on the aircraft by transmitting the rejected takeoff warning to avionics of the aircraft. (Guedes: ¶ 056; system that automatically rejects or aborts takeoff if erroneous takeoff parameters or data are detected)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Guedes with the teachings of Middleton because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of reducing the likelihood of the “recurring issue in aviation [of] errors in aircraft dispatch and/or the incorrect pilot inputs of takeoff parameters.” (Guedes: ¶ 005).
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, combination Middleton teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Middleton further teaches:
further comprising adjusting the estimate of the acceleration degradation Degr by an approximation reduction constant C. (Middleton: ¶ 056; Col. 8, Lns. 21-24; after this process the basis for scheduled performance is recomputed with .mu..sub.2 as the present estimate of the friction coefficient.)
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, combination Middleton teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Middleton does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first predefined speed threshold S1 is equal to 35 knots and the second predefined speed threshold S2 is between 75 and 85 knots; however, Guedes does teach:
A window of operation between 35 knots at the lower end and 80-100 knots at the higher end. (Guedes: ¶ 056; rejected takeoff shall occur only in a well-defined “speed window” between a Lower limit speed and an upper limit speed) (Guedes: ¶¶ 061-062; Lower Limit: Typically, this value should be around 30 to 50 knots, preferably around 30-40 knots. Upper Limit: This speed should be in the order of 70 to 100 knots, preferably around 80-100 knots.)
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been taught or suggested: wherein the first predefined speed threshold S1 is equal to 35 knots and the second predefined speed threshold S2 is between 75 and 85 knots. because routine optimization of values is within the skill set of a person of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2144.05(II)). Here the ability to make minor adjustments to the range of operation based on the specific airframe flight characteristics is commonly done by engineers and pilots based on weather, elevation, and other variables.
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, combination Middleton teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Middleton further teaches:
wherein the predefined degradation threshold S is equal to 15%. (Middleton: ¶ 086; Cols. 10, Lns. 24-55; alerts the pilot whenever the acceleration deficiency reaches an arbitrary value (15% in the preferred embodiment))
Regarding claim 10, Middleton teaches a system for monitoring an aircraft during takeoff, the system comprising:
electronic circuitry configured to implement the following steps, (Middleton: ¶ 002; Col. 3, Lns. 26-27; a computer means) . . . during successive calculation cycles: (Middleton: Fig. 006; [[showing continuous path processing]]) - obtaining a current ground speed GSc of the aircraft; (Middleton: ¶ 042; Col. 7, Lns. 40-44; current air speed (CAS) is derived by summing the previously derived ground speed (V.sub.G) and the headwind component of the runway wind speed (V.sub.W.sbsb.RWY)) . . . - calculating an estimate of an acceleration degradation Degr since the predefined first threshold speed S1 was crossed by a calculation corresponding to a ratio between, on one hand, a difference between a distance actually travelled by the aircraft in order to reach the current ground speed GSc and the distance theoretically travelled by the aircraft in order to reach this current ground speed GSc, and, on another hand, the distance theoretically travelled by the aircraft in order to reach this current ground speed GSc; (Middleton: ¶¶ 46-56; Cols. 7, 56, Lns. 8, 24; update of the runway friction coefficient in real-time. The estimation takes place as follows. First, the thrust is represented as a cubic in airspeed ##EQU16## At any true airspeed, the acceleration corresponding to two rolling friction coefficients can be written as ##EQU17## Subtracting a from a and solving for the difference in friction coefficients ##EQU18## estimate of the actual runaway friction coefficient / assumed friction coefficient Thus the actual rolling friction coefficient is estimated as ##EQU19## Immediately after this process the basis for scheduled performance is recomputed with .mu..sub.2 as the present estimate of the friction coefficient.) and - generating a warning that a rejected takeoff is recommended when the estimate of the acceleration degradation Degr is greater than a predefined degradation threshold S. (Middleton: ¶ 086; Cols. 10, Lns. 54-57; alerts the pilot whenever the acceleration deficiency reaches an arbitrary value (15% in the preferred embodiment), even if the engines are functioning properly 27.)
Middleton does not explicitly teach: . . . - obtaining a current runway slope; . . .accounting for the current runway slope; however, Michal does teach:
- obtaining a current runway slope; (Michal: ¶ 1063;pilot may enter a large number of data, and in particular the planned takeoff runway, the length and slope of this runway) . . .accounting for the current runway slope(Michal: ¶ 062-063; slope of the planned takeoff runway and the total runway length available for the phase of ground roll to takeoff are also considered . . . to optimize the performances of the airplane during takeoff and in particular to calculate a takeoff distance (or in other words the distance necessary for the aircraft to take off) as a function of the planned takeoff runway.) (Michal: ¶ 128) (Michal: ¶ 143) determine the remaining runway length TOR from the available runway length TORA and the position of the aircraft.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Michal with the teachings of Middleton because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of validating the takeoff parameters (Michal: ¶ 025) used during takeoff.
Middleton does not explicitly teach: . . - calculating a time ∆tt taken by a numerical aircraft model to increase a ground speed to the current ground speed GSc from a current ground speed GSc which the aircraft had in a previous calculation cycle; - - for each calculation cycle, multiplying the time Att theoretically taken by the numerical aircraft model by the current ground speed GS, of the aircraft measured in the calculation cycle considered and, by integrating products obtained for all successive calculation cycles since the predefined first speed threshold Si was crossed, deducing therefrom a distance De theoretically travelled by the aircraft in order to reach the current ground speed GSC; however, Middleton does teach
Calculating a position of an aircraft using previous and current ground speeds through the use of integrating “equations of motion.” (Middleton: ¶ 041; Col. 7, Lns. 28-39; the equations of motion is used to estimate the performance of the airplane. First the wind speed and measured ground speed are combined to obtain true airspeed, mach number and dynamic pressure. The nominal lift and drag coefficients yield the lift and drag forces. Combining these with the weight and rolling friction coefficient (input value), and the estimated thrust (based on measured engine pressure ratio) results in an estimated airplane acceleration. The measured ground speed is numerically integrated (rectangular integration) to obtain distance along the runway.) and using the incremental calculation results to compare real-world aircraft distance travelled (Middleton: ¶ 30; Col. 6, Lns. 18-19; Monitors the performance of the airplane in terms of its acceleration performance)against the required runway distance needed by a theoretical model aircraft (Middleton: ¶ 032; Col. 6, Lns. 21-22; Predicts the runway required to achieve rotation speed)
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been taught or suggested - calculating a time ∆tt taken by a numerical aircraft model to increase a ground speed to the current ground speed GSc from a current ground speed GSc which the aircraft had in a previous calculation cycle; - - for each calculation cycle, multiplying the time Att theoretically taken by the numerical aircraft model by the current ground speed GS, of the aircraft measured in the calculation cycle considered and, by integrating products obtained for all successive calculation cycles since the predefined first speed threshold Si was crossed, deducing therefrom a distance De theoretically travelled by the aircraft in order to reach the current ground speed GSC; because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that multiplying a speed by a time is a basic “equations of motion” and that integrating is a mathematical process in which the results of multiplying changes in discrete variables over a subunit of time are summed over all calculation cycles.
Middleton does not explicitly teach: . . . when the aircraft reaches a speed greater than a predefined first threshold speed S1,; . . . wherein the electronic circuitry is further configured to implement the following steps when the aircraft reaches a speed greater than a predefined second speed threshold S2, which is greater than the predefined first speed threshold S1: . . . _and - performing a rejected takeoff procedure on the aircraft by transmitting the rejected takeoff warning to avionics of the aircraft. however, Guedes does teach:
. . . when the aircraft reaches a speed greater than a predefined first threshold speed S1, (Guedes: ¶ 056; rejected takeoff shall occur only in a well-defined “speed window” between a Lower limit speed and an upper limit speed). . . wherein the electronic circuitry is further configured to implement the following steps when the aircraft reaches a speed greater than a predefined second speed threshold S2, which is greater than the predefined first speed threshold S1: (Guedes: ¶ 056; rejected takeoff shall occur only in a well-defined “speed window” between a Lower limit speed and an upper limit speed). . . _and - performing a rejected takeoff procedure on the aircraft by transmitting the rejected takeoff warning to avionics of the aircraft. (Guedes: ¶ 056; system that automatically rejects or aborts takeoff if erroneous takeoff parameters or data are detected)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Guedes with the teachings of Middleton because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of reducing the likelihood of the “recurring issue in aviation [of] errors in aircraft dispatch and/or the incorrect pilot inputs of takeoff parameters.” (Guedes: ¶ 005).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Middleton as applied to claims 1 above and further in view of Gast (US 5746392 A).
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, combination Middleton teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Guedes teaches:
is used to check whether the first predefined speed threshold S1 has been crossed and is also used to check whether the second speed threshold S2 has been crossed, (Guedes: ¶ 056; rejected takeoff shall occur only in a well-defined “speed window” between a Lower limit speed and an upper limit speed)
And Middleton teaches: and - a second calibrated airspeed information item, coming from an ADIRS system, is used for the calculations of the distance Dt. (Middleton: ¶ 004; Col. 3, Lns. 42-43; embodiment incorporates the aircraft’s flight control computer) (Middleton: ¶ 041; Col. 7, Lns. 28-39; measured ground speed is numerically integrated (rectangular integration) to obtain distance along the runway.)
Middleton does not explicitly teach: - a first calibrated airspeed information item, voted between two redundant computers tasked with managing control surfaces,; however, Gast does teach:
- a first calibrated airspeed information item, voted between two redundant computers tasked with managing control surfaces, (Gast: Clm. 014; step of determining an actual speed of the aircraft includes monitoring the airspeed with a first airspeed monitor, further comprising the steps of: determining a second airspeed with a second airspeed monitor separate from the first airspeed monitor; comparing the second airspeed to the target speed; producing a second error signal indicative of the difference between the second airspeed and the target airspeed;) (Gast: Clm. 013; second underspeed signal [capable of] overriding the set of flight control parameters)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Gast with the teachings of Middleton because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of warning when operating outside of the safe aircraft operational envelope (Gast: Col. 2, lns. 1-24).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Middleton as applied to claims 1 above and further in view of Oltheten et al. (US 20200081031 A1).
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, combination Middleton teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Middleton does not explicitly teach:
wherein the system is activated when the speed of the aircraft is greater than a predefined initial speed threshold S0, which is less than the first speed threshold S1.; however, Oltheten does teach:
wherein the system is activated when the speed of the aircraft is greater than a predefined initial speed threshold S0, which is less than the first speed threshold S1. (Oltheten: ¶ 025; the detection system may be activated upon reaching a minimum airspeed and/or a minimum rotor revolutions per minute (RPM) reading. The threshold for the noise component may be tailored as a function of the indicated airspeed and as such, provides an ability to refine the threshold as necessary).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Oltheten with the teachings of Middleton because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of preventing nuisance alarms in the cockpit (Oltheten: ¶ 024) related to the claimed invention operating in non-takeoff operations.
Regarding claim 8, as detailed above, combination Middleton in view of Oltheten teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 7. Oltheten teaches:
wherein the predefined initial speed threshold S0 is equal to 30 knots. (Oltheten: ¶ 036; monitoring is initiated when the airspeed is greater than or equal to 30 knots.)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Middleton as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Jinkins et al. (US 9024805 B1)
Regarding claim 11, as detailed above, combination Middleton teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. To the extent Middleton does not teach or suggest:
wherein the current runway slope is obtained via using a device selected from the following list: a Terrain Avoidance and Warning System (TAWS); an Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS); or any combination thereof; Jinkins does teach:
wherein the current runway slope is obtained via using a device (Jinkins: Col. 13, Lns. 10-18; ¶ 060; a radar-derived slope can generated from any set of points (and not just the runway ends). That is, a slope determined using any set of points may be substituted for the radar-derived portion of equation 11. In one embodiment, a plurality of elevations may be determined using ranges and angles at a plurality of points. The ranges and elevations at the plurality of points may be fitted with a line using a robust fitting method. The slope of the fitted line may determine an overall runway slope The overall runway slope may be used as the radar-derivation portion of the error correction term.) selected from the following list: a Terrain Avoidance and Warning System (TAWS); an Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS); or any combination thereof (Jinkins: Col. 14, ln. 66 – Col. 15, ln 02; ¶ 070; method of FIGS. 4A-4C may be employed in an onboard aircraft radar system. For example, the radar system may include including a terrain awareness warning system that employs a terrain database.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Jinkins with the teachings of Middleton because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of method for increased accuracy of altitude estimations. (Jinkins: Col. 1, Lns. 8-9; ¶ 002)..
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments filed May 7, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that:
[g]Generally, claims 1 and 10, as amended, require calculating a theoretical distance by multiplying, on a per-calculation-cycle basis, a model-derived time increment by the aircraft's measured ground speed, and then integrating those products across successive calculation cycles beginning at the first speed threshold S1. . . . Neither Middleton nor Guedes discloses or suggests this analytical construct. Middleton determines acceleration degradation by estimating rolling friction and comparing observed acceleration or performance with expected takeoff characteristics. The calculations in Middleton are acceleration-based and force-based. In particular Middleton does not derive distance by multiplying a modeled At by measured ground speed on a cycle-by-cycle basis. Additionally, Middleton fails to disclose integrating such products across successive cycles. (Applicant’s Arguments filed May 7, 2026, pg. 7).
Middleton’s calculation in real time requires incremental calculation of the performance of the actual aircraft because repeated calculation while the aircraft is in motion would require a series of calculations made incremental as the aircraft proceeds along the runway inclusive of runway friction coefficient (Middleton: ¶ 30; Col. 6, Lns. 18-19). In other words, Middleton’s use of runway friction is part of the incremental calculations (Middleton: ¶ 30; Col. 6, Lns. 18-19; Monitors the performance of the airplane in terms of its acceleration performance) that are eventually compared to the theoretically required performance for a safe takeoff (Middleton: ¶ 032; Col. 6, Lns. 21-22). Middelton’s use of friction in the theoretical performance would be an understandable sub-calculation on the path to determining if the observed “acceleration performance” (Middleton: ¶ 30; Col. 6, Lns. 18-19) is sufficient when compared with the expected acceleration performance as claimed by instant application.
Applicant also similarly argues:
while the cited art may generally relate to takeoff monitoring, the specific pathway required by claim 1 is absent. In particular, the presently claimed embodiments: use a numerical aircraft model only to compute a time increment required for a speed increase; multiply that modeled time increment by measured ground speed in the same calculation cycle; and integrate that speed-weighted time quantity across successive cycles. This approach yields a theoretical distance that is distinct from the acceleration-based degradation calculations disclosed by Middleton and Guedes. (Applicant’s Arguments filed May 7, 2026, pg. 8).
However, as described above, Middleton is continuously recalculating the values (Middleton: ¶ 30; Col. 4, Lns. 17-24; monitors takeoff and landing performance by continuously comparing the airplane's actual performance with a nominal performance, including predictions of the runway length needed to attain rotation speed, the distance required to stop the airplane, and the remaining runway length.) which results in the use of incremental time segments. It is unclear how the instant application’s use of acceleration degradation for takeoff rejection based on distance covered over time with integration or Riemann Sums is distinguishable from Middleton’s use of distance as calculated over time with integration or Riemann Sums when a person of ordinary skill in the art could readily converted acceleration, velocity, and distance. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments and amendments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Stack Exchange Posting, "Estimated position of vector after time, angle and speed", available at https://stackoverflow.com/questions/25895222/estimated-position-of-vector-after-time-angle-and-speed (published as of Sep. 18, 2014). (Year: 2025) which discloses computer-based numerical calculation of position from observed velocities over discrete time periods. Also made of record is Virepinte (US 20200285828 A1) which teaches a system for automatically updating an airport database relating to an airport includes landing runway slope.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights