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.
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 1-4, 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, - multiplying the time ∆tt by the current ground speed GSc of the aircraft observed in the calculation cycle considered and, by integration over all the calculation cycles since the predefined first speed threshold S1 was crossed, deducing therefrom a distance Dt 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.)
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, - multiplying the time ∆tt by the current ground speed GSc of the aircraft observed in the calculation cycle considered and, by integration over all the calculation cycles since the predefined first speed threshold S1 was crossed, deducing therefrom a distance Dt 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: . . . - 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 3, as detailed above, combination Middleton teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Middleton further teaches:
wherein the distance Dt is calculated by: Dt=∫∆tt*GSc=∫∆GSc*GW∑Fn*GSc where - ∆GSc represents a variation of the current ground speed GSc since the preceding calculation cycle; (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.) - GW represents a gross weight of the aircraft; and (Middleton: ¶ 005; Col. 3, Lns. 51-52; airplane weight, flap and stabilizer settings can be input from transducers) - ∑Fn represents an estimate of a sum of the forces exerted on the aircraft in each calculation cycle considered. (Middleton: ¶ 016; Col. 5, Lns. 23-36; forces acting through the center of gravity along the body X and Z axes are obtained as ##EQU2## the resultant moment about the body Y-axis (the pitching moment) is given by ##EQU3## Using these forces, moments and body X and Z components of gravitational acceleration, the airplane acceleration along the body axes as ##EQU4##)
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination Middleton teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 3. Middleton teaches:
wherein the sum ∑Fn of the forces exerted on the aircraft is estimated by: ∑Fn=TH-DF-SL100*GW.g-CR*GW*g-LF where (Middleton: Eq. 001; Col. 4, Lns. 30-41; [calculating acceleration from which a person of ordinary skill in the art could calculate force]) - TH represents a thrust of the aircraft in the calculation cycle considered; (Middleton: Eq. 001; Col. 4, Lns. 30-41; Th=Thrust) - DF represents a drag force of the aircraft in the calculation cycle considered; (Middleton: Eq. 001; Col. 4, Lns. 30-41; D=drag) - CR represents a ground friction coefficient; (Middleton: Eq. 001; Col. 4, Lns. 30-41; μ=rolling friction) - LF represents a lift force of the aircraft in the calculation cycle considered; (Middleton: Eq. 001; Col. 4, Lns. 30-41; L=lift)
- g represents a unit of acceleration; and (Middleton: Eq. 001; Col. 4, Lns. 30-41; g=gravity)
Middleton does not explicitly teach: - SL represents a runway slope during takeoff, expressed as a percentage; however, Michal does teach:
A method of incorporating runway slope into ground roll distance required by integral calculation of force.(Michal: ¶ 122; ground roll distance can then be calculated by integration of the final speed VF given by the mechanical ground roll equation [equation below) (Michal: ¶ 128) (Michal: ¶ 143) determine the remaining runway length TOR from the available runway length TORA and the position of the aircraft.)
PNG
media_image1.png
76
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught - SL represents a runway slope during takeoff, expressed as a percentage from Michal’s teaching because it is merely solving for distance using force, weight, lift, and friction instead of solving for force instead using distance, weight, lift, and friction. It would know to a person of ordinary skill in the art to resolve the equation for force instead of D.
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; - multiplying the time ∆tt by the current ground speed GSc of the aircraft observed in the calculation cycle considered and, by integration over all the calculation cycles since the predefined first speed threshold S1 was crossed, deducing therefrom a distance Dt 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.)
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; - multiplying the time ∆tt by the current ground speed GSc of the aircraft observed in the calculation cycle considered and, by integration over all the calculation cycles since the predefined first speed threshold S1 was crossed, deducing therefrom a distance Dt 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 filed January 2, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection is persuasive and the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject matter eligibility rejection is persuasive and the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that applied art:
Xengineer is directed to automotive vehicles and [inter alia] does not account for lift in determining how much the slope should play into the performance equation. Contrarily, an airplane is heavily reliant on the lift force, and such a force is exacerbated by the very nature of operating aircraft (e.g., having wings or rotors to specifically provide an upward lifting force). Therefore, the considerations provided in the Xengineer reference are not applicable in the field of aviation at least due to the differences in operation of automotive vehicles and aircraft. . . . Accordingly, the cited references, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the features of claim 1. (Applicant’s Arguments filed January 2, 2026, pgs. 9-10).
In response to Applicant’s argument and amendments newly applied art Michal et al. (US 20100094488 A1) has been applied. Michal teaches a method of calculating the required runway required to complete an aircraft takeoff considering slope and lift. Michal’s equations calculate the required distance required, but consider force required and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught or suggested adjusting the formula to calculate force required in lieu of distance required.
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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 on Monday - Thursday 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, 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