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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on February 4, 2026 and February 28, 2026. Claims 1-19 and 21-24 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on February 4, 2026 and February 28, 2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s arguments filed February 4, 2026 have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Gu does not disclose the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit being on-board the aircraft (Applicant’s Response, pgs. 14-15), the examiner agrees. The argument is moot in view of the new rejection below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Gama-Valdez discloses neither the specific formulae, nor does it apply weighting factors to lateral and longitudinal demands (Applicant’s Response, pg. 15), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Gama-Valdez discloses prioritizing yaw demand at the expense of the longitudinal force demand in paragraph 0039. By prioritizing yaw demand over longitudinal demand, a weighting factor is being applied to each wheel to dictate how much yaw demand and how much longitudinal demand is being applied. A ratio of lateral braking to longitudinal braking is performed for each wheel (e.g., 0:1 for one side and 0.2:0.8 for the other side) and when the ratios for both of the wheels are combined the overall ratio of lateral demand to longitudinal demand is determined (e.g., 0.2:1.8 for both wheels).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Romana no Rudd teaches or discloses “such that the ratio
α
+
γ
:
β
+
δ
is a measure of the weighting of the lateral demand versus the longitudinal demand (Applicant’s Response, pg. 15). It is noted that neither Romana nor Rudd was used to meet this limitation.
Specification
Amendments to the specification were received on February 4, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 19, line 8, "the one or more steering control mechanism" should read "the one or more steering control mechanisms".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 5, lines 2-7, the limitation “determine the risk of lateral runway excursion and the risk of longitudinal runway excursion based on…a distance between the aircraft and an edge of a runway in the lateral direction…and the longitudinal direction” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a risk of lateral runway excursion is based on the distance to the edge of a runway in the longitudinal direction and a risk of longitudinal runway excursion is based on the distance to the edge of a runway in the lateral direction.
In claim 23, line 19, the limitation “the weighting of the lateral demand versus the longitudinal demand” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if it is referring to the output demand of wheel braking on the starboard side, output demand of braking on the port side, both or neither.
Claim 24 is also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as it does not clear the deficiencies of the claim from which it depends.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romana (US 2017/0008619) in view of Rudd (US 2008/0001471), Harenberg (US 3,789,356), and Ishihara (US 2015/0127196).
Regarding claim 1, Romana discloses an aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit for an aircraft (Romana, [0062] regarding an aircraft braking and steering control system);
the aircraft having a plurality of control mechanisms for controlling motion of the aircraft (Romana, [0060] regarding braking system, steering system, control surfaces, and aircraft engines);
the aircraft having at least two wheels (Romana, [0059] regarding a plurality of braking wheels); and
the control mechanisms including at least two wheel brakes (Romana, [0059] regarding each braking wheel having a brake actuator); wherein:
the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit is on-board the aircraft (Romana, [0062] regarding the aircraft braking and steering control system being on the aircraft) and configured to:
receive lateral input demands, being demands concerning lateral motion of the aircraft, and longitudinal input demands, being demands concerning longitudinal motion of the aircraft (Romana, [0064] regarding a longitudinal force command & [0077] regarding a lateral force command); and
pass on the lateral input demands and longitudinal input demands as output demands to the at least one of the control mechanisms of the aircraft (Romana, [0078] regarding outputting the lateral force command to operate differential braking & [0067] regarding outputting the braking force commands).
Romana does not disclose wherein:
the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit is configured to:
determine a calculated measure of risk of a lateral runway excursion;
determine a calculated measure of risk of a longitudinal runway excursion; and
pass on the output demands with a modification derived by prioritising, through a prioritisation filter by applying a weighting factor to at least one of the lateral and the longitudinal input demands, a part of the input demands based on the risk of the lateral runway excursion and the risk of the longitudinal runway excursion,
wherein the control unit causes the aircraft to adjust its steering or braking to reduce the risk of the lateral runway excursion and/or the longitudinal runway excursion.
Rudd teaches a prioritisation filter by applying a weighting factor to at least one of the lateral and the longitudinal input demands (Rudd, [0062] regarding having three discrete braking levels).
Romana and Rudd are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana to incorporate modifying control demand using a weighting factor, as disclosed by Rudd, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing safety of the passengers.
Harenberg teaches how to determine a calculated measure of risk of a lateral runway excursion (Harenberg, Col. 2, lines 20-24 regarding predicting lateral excursion of the aircraft on the runway during a rollout).
Romana and Harenberg are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate determining a risk of lateral runway excursion, as disclosed by Harenberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining when an aircraft is going off the edge of the runway.
Ishihara teaches how to determine a calculated measure of risk of a longitudinal runway excursion (Ishihara, [0022] regarding predicting if the aircraft cannot stop before the end of the runway with the current level of deceleration).
Romana and Ishihara are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate determining a risk of longitudinal runway excursion, as disclosed by Ishihara, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining when an aircraft is going off the side of the runway.
Romana as modified teaches how to pass on the output demands with a modification derived by prioritising, a part of the input demands based on the risk of the lateral runway excursion (Rudd, [0058] regarding adjusting the differential braking based on the cross-track position of the aircraft & [0054] regarding cross-track position being the distance from the aircraft to the centerline (i.e., a greater cross-track position indicates a greater risk of a lateral runway excursion)) and the risk of the longitudinal runway excursion (Rudd, [0062] regarding having three discrete braking levels & [0057] regarding determining the brake level based on the runway length (i.e., adjusting the braking level based on the risk of longitudinal runway excursion)),
wherein the control unit causes the aircraft to adjust its steering or braking to reduce the risk of the lateral runway excursion and/or the longitudinal runway excursion (Rudd, [0058] regarding adjusting the differential braking based on the cross-track position of the aircraft & [0054] regarding cross-track position being the distance from the aircraft to the centerline (i.e., a greater cross-track position indicates a greater risk of a lateral runway excursion)).
Romana and Rudd are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate modifying control demand based on the risk of lateral and longitudinal excursion, as disclosed by Rudd, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing safety of the passengers.
Regarding claim 2, Romana in view of Rudd, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit as claimed in claim 1. Romana further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to pass on the output demand to the wheel brakes by prioritising the lateral input demand and longitudinal input demand based on:
the availability of other control mechanisms on the aircraft (Romana, [0078] regarding differential braking being enabled or disabled. Applying differential braking is limiting the longitudinal braking as maximum longitudinal braking cannot be performed, therefore a prioritization is put on lateral input over longitudinal input.).
Rudd further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to pass on the output demand to the wheel brakes by prioritising the lateral input demand and longitudinal input demand based on:
the risk of a lateral runway excursion (Rudd, [0058] regarding adjusting the differential braking based on the cross-track position of the aircraft & [0054] regarding cross-track position being the distance from the aircraft to the centerline (i.e., a greater cross-track position indicates a greater risk of a lateral runway excursion)) and the risk of a longitudinal runway excursion (Rudd, [0062] regarding having three discrete braking levels (i.e., adjusting the braking level to prevent longitudinal runway excursion). By taking the lateral risk and longitudinal risk, then applying differential braking demonstrates a prioritization of the lateral input over the longitudinal input).
Romana and Rudd are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate modifying control demand based on the risk of lateral excursion, as disclosed by Rudd, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing safety of the passengers.
Regarding claim 3, Romana in view of Rudd, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit as claimed in claim 1. Romana further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to receive input data relating to the current state of at least one of the plurality of the control mechanisms of the aircraft (Romana, [0062] regarding a feedback module for monitoring performance of any aircraft undercarriages (e.g., nose landing gear, main landing gear, etc.)).
Regarding claim 5, Romana in view of Rudd, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit as claimed in claim 1. Ishihara further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine the risk of risk of longitudinal runway excursion based on:
one or more measures of the speed of the aircraft (Ishihara, [0022] regarding predicting if the aircraft cannot stop before the end of the runway with the current level of deceleration. By using deceleration to determine if the aircraft can stop before the end of the runway, it is calculating if the current speed with the current deceleration will result in a speed of 0 before reaching the end of the runway.); and
a distance between the aircraft and an edge of the runway in the longitudinal direction (Ishihara, [0022] regarding predicting if the aircraft cannot stop before the end of the runway with the current level of deceleration. By using deceleration to determine if the aircraft can stop before the end of the runway, it is calculating if the distance to the end of the runway is longer than the required amount to decelerate the aircraft speed to 0.).
Romana and Ishihara are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate determining the risk of longitudinal excursion using aircraft speed and distance to the edge of the runway in the longitudinal direction, as disclosed by Ishihara, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to determine how long until the aircraft reaches the end of the runway.
Harenberg further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine the risk of lateral runway excursion based on:
a distance between the aircraft and an edge of a runway in the lateral direction (Harenberg, Col. 2, lines 20-24 regarding determining the distance required to stop the aircraft from having a lateral excursion).
Romana and Harenberg are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate determining the risk of lateral excursion using the distance to the edge of the runway in the lateral direction, as disclosed by Harenberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to determine how close the aircraft is to going off the edge of the runway.
Regarding claim 8, Romana in view of Rudd, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit as claimed in claim 1. Romana further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to provide prioritisation by applying a limit on the authority of one input demand over the other input demand (Romana, [0060] regarding activating differential braking. Applying differential braking is limiting the longitudinal braking as maximum longitudinal braking cannot be performed).
Regarding claim 9, Romana in view of Rudd, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit as claimed in claim 1. Rudd further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to balance the risk of a longitudinal runway excursion and the risk of a lateral runway excursion to calculate the output demand that will minimise the overall risk (Rudd, [0058] regarding adjusting the differential braking based on the cross-track position of the aircraft, [0054] regarding cross-track position being the distance from the aircraft to the centerline (i.e., a greater cross-track position indicates a greater risk of a lateral runway excursion), [0062] regarding having three discrete braking levels, [0057] regarding determining the brake level based on the runway length (i.e., adjusting the braking level to prevent longitudinal runway excursion), & [0074] regarding selecting to use differential braking. Using differential braking substantially decreases the risk of lateral excursion and minimally increases the risk of longitudinal excursion as differential braking provides lateral and longitudinal control and normal braking only provides longitudinal control. Therefore the overall risk is minimized).
Romana and Rudd are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate balance the risk of lateral and longitudinal excursion, as disclosed by Rudd, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing safety of the passengers.
Regarding claim 10, Romana in view of Rudd, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit as claimed in claim 1. Rudd further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to output a demand to the starboard and port wheel brakes that is a summation of the lateral input demand and the longitudinal input demand (Rudd, [0068] regarding using the brake command to determine the degree of differential braking (i.e., taking the required longitudinal braking and turning it into differential braking)).
Romana and Rudd are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate using the required amount of longitudinal braking to determine the degree of differential braking, as disclosed by Rudd, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing safety of the passengers.
Regarding claim 11, Romana in view of Rudd, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit as claimed in claim 1. Romana further teaches wherein the control unit is configured:
to receive a lateral input demand (Romana, [0077] regarding a lateral force command);
to send the output demand to one or more of the plurality of control mechanisms, wherein the one or more of the plurality of the control mechanisms are steering control mechanisms being a rudder steering mechanism and / or a nose-wheel steering mechanism (Romana, [0077] regarding outputting a nose landing gear lateral force command);
to determine that at least one of the first steering control mechanisms is not fulfilling the output demand (Romana, [0078] regarding determining if the later force from the nose landing gear exceeds the maximum lateral force generated); and
as a consequence of determining that at least one of the first steering control mechanisms is not fulfilling the output demand, to send the output demand to one or more of a port wheel brake and a starboard wheel brake (Romana, [0078] regarding activating differential braking when the maximum lateral force exceeds amount generated by the steering wheels).
Regarding claim 12, Romana in view of Rudd, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit as claimed in claim 1. Romana further teaches wherein the control unit receives input demands from a first control system, which is a heading control system, and a second control system, which is a deceleration control system; wherein
the control unit is configured to receive lateral input demands from the first control system (Romana, [0077] regarding the force and moment controller); and
the control unit is configured to receive longitudinal input demands from the second control system (Romana, [0064] regarding a longitudinal control device).
Regarding claim 13, Romana in view of Rudd, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit as claimed in claim 12. Romana further teaches wherein
the control unit is configured to apply authority limits to the first control system in relation to the second control system (Romana, [0060] regarding activating differential braking. When full braking occurs differential braking is not possible.).
Rudd further teaches wherein
the control unit calculates the authority limits based on the risk of a lateral runway excursion and the risk of a longitudinal runway excursion (Rudd, [0058] regarding adjusting the differential braking based on the cross-track position of the aircraft & [0054] regarding cross-track position being the distance from the aircraft to the centerline (i.e., a greater cross-track position indicates a greater risk of a lateral runway excursion). Using differential braking indicates a determination that the risk of lateral excursion is greater than the risk of longitudinal excursion.).
Romana and Rudd are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate determining amount of differential braking based on the risk of lateral and longitudinal excursion, as disclosed by Rudd, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing safety of the passengers.
Regarding claim 14, Romana in view of Rudd, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit as claimed in claim 1. Rudd further teaches wherein the control unit is part of an auto-land system (Rudd, [0055] regarding the differential brake control being used in unmanned aircraft), wherein the auto-land system includes a heading control system and a deceleration control system (Rudd, [0058] regarding the guidance, navigation and control function for determining yaw and yaw rate, [0059] regarding the yaw and yaw rate being taken into account when determining the differential braking commands, & (Rudd, [0062] regarding the brake level logic providing the input brake command)).
Romana and Rudd are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate using an autonomous aircraft, as disclosed by Rudd, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing comfort of the pilots.
Regarding claim 15, Romana in view of Rudd, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit as claimed in claim 1. Romana further teaches an aircraft having a ground manoeuvre control unit according to claim 1 (Romana, [0062] regarding an aircraft braking and steering control system).
Regarding claim 21, Romana in view of Rudd, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the control unit as claimed in claim 1. Rudd further teaches a computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the function of the control unit as claimed in claim 1 (Rudd, [0056] regarding aircraft flight computer).
Romana and Rudd are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate storing instructions on a computer, as disclosed by Rudd, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to automate the system.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramona in view of Gama-Valdez (US 2015/0301531) and Rudd.
Regarding claim 23, Ramona discloses an aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit for an aircraft;
the aircraft having a plurality of control mechanisms for controlling motion of the aircraft (Romana, [0060] regarding braking system, steering system, control surfaces, and aircraft engines);
the aircraft having at least two wheels (Romana, [0059] regarding a plurality of braking wheels); and
the control mechanisms including at least two wheel brakes (Romana, [0059] regarding each braking wheel having a brake actuator).
Romana does not disclose wherein:
the control unit is configured to:
receive lateral input demands, being demands of the wheel braking to be applied on the starboard side for lateral control (LAT_DEMStar) and of the wheel braking on the port side for lateral control (LAT_DEMPort), and longitudinal input demands, being demands of the wheel braking to be applied on the starboard side for longitudinal control (LON_DEMStar) and of the wheel braking on the port side for longitudinal control (LON_DEMPort);
pass on the lateral input demands and longitudinal input demands as output demands, being an output demand of wheel braking on the starboard side (OUTStar) and an output demand of braking on the port side (OUTPort);
pass on the output demands with a modification derived by prioritising a part of the input demands based on a risk of the lateral runway excursion and a risk of the longitudinal runway excursion, using weighting factors α, β, γ, δ, such that the ratio
α
+
γ
:
β
+
δ
is a measure of the weighting of the lateral demand versus the longitudinal demand, according to the formulae:
OUTStar= α LAT_DEMStar + β LON_DEMStar
OUTPort = γ LAT_DEMPort + δ LON_DEMPort
wherein the control unit causes the aircraft to adjust its braking to reduce the risk of the lateral runway excursion and/or the longitudinal runway excursion.
Gama-Valdez teaches wherein:
the control unit is configured to:
receive lateral input demands, being demands of the wheel braking to be applied on the starboard side for lateral control (LAT_DEMStar) and of the wheel braking on the port side for lateral control (LAT_DEMPort), and longitudinal input demands, being demands of the wheel braking to be applied on the starboard side for longitudinal control (LON_DEMStar) and of the wheel braking on the port side for longitudinal control (LON_DEMPort) (Gama-Valdez, [0031] regarding determining the braking forces to be applied to each of the MLG assemblies in order to achieve the longitudinal force input demand and yaw moment input demand & [0025] regarding the MLG including a pair of port and starboard main landing gear));
pass on the lateral input demands and longitudinal input demands as output demands, being an output demand of wheel braking on the starboard side (OUTStar) and an output demand of braking on the port side (OUTPort) (Gama-Valdez, [0038] regarding the outputting a vector of landing gear longitudinal force commands that is generated from a combination of lateral and longitudinal vectors); and
pass on the output demands with a modification derived by prioritising a part of the input demands based on a risk of the lateral runway excursion and a risk of the longitudinal runway excursion, using weighting factors α, β, γ, δ, such that the ratio
α
+
γ
:
β
+
δ
is a measure of the weighting of the lateral demand versus the longitudinal demand (Gama-Valdez, [0039] regarding reducing the braking force applied to one of the MLG assemblies below 100% to prioritise the yaw moment demand at the expense of the longitudinal force demand. By reducing the braking force applied to a single MLG, a weight is be applied to influence the lateral and longitudinal demand from each MLG (i.e., give longitudinal braking a factor of 1 and lateral braking a factor of 0 on one side and longitudinal braking a factor of 0.8 and lateral braking a factor of 0.2 on the other side to meet the yaw moment demand). The ratio of lateral demand versus longitudinal demand would be 0.2 : 1.8 as the total lateral braking demand sums to 0.2 and the total longitudinal braking demand sums to 1.8.), according to the formulae:
OUTStar= α LAT_DEMStar + β LON_DEMStar
OUTPort = γ LAT_DEMPort + δ LON_DEMPort.
Romana and Gama-Valdez are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana to incorporate determining the amount of braking force required by each MLG assembly to meet the longitudinal and yaw moment demand, as disclosed by Gama-Valdez, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing safety of the passengers by producing the correct amount of braking.
Rudd teaches wherein the control unit causes the aircraft to adjust its braking to reduce the risk of the lateral runway excursion and/or the longitudinal runway excursion (Rudd, [0058] regarding adjusting the differential braking based on the cross-track position of the aircraft & [0054] regarding cross-track position being the distance from the aircraft to the centerline (i.e., a greater cross-track position indicates a greater risk of a lateral runway excursion)).
Romana and Rudd are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate modifying control demand based on the risk of lateral and longitudinal excursion, as disclosed by Rudd, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing safety of the passengers.
Claims 4, 6-7, 16-19, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romana in view of Rudd, Gama-Valdez, Harenberg, and Ishihara.
Regarding claim 4, Romana in view of Rudd, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit as claimed in claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is configured to identify when the lateral input demand is in conflict with the longitudinal input demand.
Gama-Valdez teaches wherein the control unit is configured to identify when the lateral input demand is in conflict with the longitudinal input demand (Gama-Valdez, [0039] regarding determining it is not possible to achieve a yaw demand by increasing the braking force applied to one of the main landing gear assemblies when braking 100%).
Romana and Gama-Valdez are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate identifying lateral and longitudinal demand conflict, as disclosed by Gama-Valdez, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of improving determination of when one will have to be prioritized over the other, thus improving safety.
Regarding claim 6, Romana in view of Rudd, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit as claimed in claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is configured to determine the risk of lateral runway excursion and the risk of longitudinal runway excursion based on:
the response required by the plurality of the control mechanisms to meet the lateral input demand;
the response required by the plurality of the control mechanisms to meet the longitudinal input demand; and
whether the response required to meet the lateral demand and the longitudinal demand simultaneously is within the capability of the plurality of the control mechanisms of the aircraft.
Gama-Valdez teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine the risk of lateral runway excursion and the risk of longitudinal runway excursion based on:
the response required by the plurality of the control mechanisms to meet the lateral input demand;
the response required by the plurality of the control mechanisms to meet the longitudinal input demand; and
whether the response required to meet the lateral demand and the longitudinal demand simultaneously is within the capability of the plurality of the control mechanisms of the aircraft (Gama-Valdez, [0039-0040] regarding determining it is not possible to achieve a yaw demand by increasing the braking force applied to one of the main landing gear assemblies when braking 100%. Having 100% braking required, would then indicate that there is an increased risk of lateral excursion since demand cannot be met.).
Romana and Gama-Valdez are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate identifying lateral and longitudinal demand cannot be met, as disclosed by Gama-Valdez, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of improving determination of when one will have to be prioritized over the other, thus improving safety.
Regarding claim 7, Romana in view of Rudd, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured to identify when the lateral input demand and the longitudinal input demand cannot be fully met by the plurality of the control mechanisms of the aircraft.
Gama-Valdez teaches wherein the control unit is configured to identify when the lateral input demand and the longitudinal input demand cannot be fully met by the plurality of the control mechanisms of the aircraft (Gama-Valdez, [0039-0040] regarding determining it is not possible to achieve a yaw demand by increasing the braking force applied to one of the main landing gear assemblies when braking 100% and prioritizing either yaw moment demand or longitudinal force demand based on the operational situation).
Romana and Gama-Valdez are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate identifying lateral and longitudinal demand cannot be met, as disclosed by Gama-Valdez, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of improving determination of when one will have to be prioritized over the other, thus improving safety.
Regarding claim 16, Romana teaches a method for automatically controlling ground manoeuvres of an aircraft, wherein the method comprises:
the aircraft moving along a runway surface (Romana, [0056] regarding an aircraft having landing gear for when the aircraft is on the ground. Using the landing gear systems to control the aircraft indicates that the aircraft is on the ground);
a control unit on-board the aircraft and receiving a lateral input demand (Romana, [0062] regarding an aircraft braking and steering control system being on the aircraft & [0077] regarding a lateral force command);
the control unit receiving a longitudinal input demand (Romana, [0064] regarding a longitudinal force command); and
the control unit passing the output demand to one or more control mechanisms of the aircraft (Romana, [0078] regarding outputting the lateral force command to operate differential braking).
Romana does not teach the control unit determining or receiving a calculated measure of risk of a lateral runway excursion;
the control unit determining or receiving a calculated measure of risk of a longitudinal runway excursion;
the control unit performing a calculation of an output demand, in dependence on the lateral and longitudinal input demands,
the calculation being performed by prioritising the input demands received when there is a conflict between those demands, the prioritisation depending on the calculated measure of risk of lateral runway excursion and the calculated measure of risk of longitudinal runway excursion; the prioritisation being calculated by means of applying a weighting factor to at least one of the lateral and the longitudinal input demands; and
wherein the control unit causes the aircraft to adjust its steering or braking to reduce the risk of the lateral runway excursion and/or the longitudinal runway excursion.
Harenberg teaches the control unit determining or receiving a calculated measure of risk of a lateral runway excursion (Harenberg, Col. 2, lines 20-24 regarding predicting lateral excursion of the aircraft on the runway during a rollout).
Romana and Harenberg are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate determining a risk of lateral runway excursion, as disclosed by Harenberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining when an aircraft is going off the edge of the runway.
Ishihara teaches the control unit determining or receiving a calculated measure of risk of a longitudinal runway excursion (Ishihara, [0022] regarding predicting if the aircraft cannot stop before the end of the runway with the current level of deceleration).
Romana and Ishihara are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate determining a risk of longitudinal runway excursion, as disclosed by Ishihara, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining when an aircraft is going off the side of the runway.
Gama-Valdez teaches the control unit performing a calculation of an output demand, in dependence on the lateral and longitudinal input demands,
the calculation being performed by prioritising the input demands received when there is a conflict between those demands, the prioritisation depending on the calculated measure of risk of lateral runway excursion and the calculated measure of risk of longitudinal runway excursion (Gama-Valdez, [0039-0040] regarding determining it is not possible to achieve a yaw demand by increasing the braking force applied to one of the main landing gear assemblies when braking 100% and prioritizing either yaw moment demand or longitudinal force demand based on the operational situation (i.e., prioritize lateral demand when there is a greater risk of lateral excursion and prioritize longitudinal demand when there is a greater risk of longitudinal excursion.)).
Romana and Gama-Valdez are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana to incorporate calculating an output demand based on a prioritization of lateral and longitudinal runway excursion risk, as disclosed by Gama-Valdez, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of improving flight control determination when one will have to be prioritized over the other, thus improving safety.
Rudd teaches the prioritisation being calculated by means of applying a weighting factor to at least one of the lateral and the longitudinal input demands (Rudd, [0062] regarding having three discrete braking levels); and
wherein the control unit causes the aircraft to adjust its steering or braking to reduce the risk of the lateral runway excursion and/or the longitudinal runway excursion (Rudd, [0058] regarding adjusting the differential braking based on the cross-track position of the aircraft & [0054] regarding cross-track position being the distance from the aircraft to the centerline (i.e., a greater cross-track position indicates a greater risk of a lateral runway excursion)).
Romana and Rudd are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate modifying control demand based on the risk of lateral and longitudinal excursion, as disclosed by Rudd, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing safety of the passengers.
Regarding claim 17, Romana in view of Rudd, Gama-Valdez, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the method for automatically controlling ground manoeuvres of an aircraft as claimed in claim 16. Romana further teaches wherein prioritising the demands involves the control unit applying a limit on the authority of one demand over the other demand based on the risk of lateral runway excursion and the risk of longitudinal runway excursion (Romana, [0060] regarding activating differential braking. Applying differential braking is limiting the longitudinal braking as maximum longitudinal braking cannot be performed. Utilizing differential braking is prioritizing the risk of lateral runway excursion over the risk of longitudinal runway excursion).
Regarding claim 18, Romana in view of Rudd, Gama-Valdez, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the method for automatically controlling ground manoeuvres of an aircraft as claimed in claim 16. Gama-Valdez further teaches wherein the control unit determines that there is a conflict between the lateral input demand and the longitudinal input demand by calculating that the combination of the lateral and the longitudinal demand cannot be fulfilled by the one or more control mechanisms of the aircraft (Gama-Valdez, [0039] regarding determining it is not possible to achieve a yaw demand by increasing the braking force applied to one of the main landing gear assemblies when braking 100%).
Romana and Gama-Valdez are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana to incorporate identifying lateral and longitudinal demand conflict, as disclosed by Gama-Valdez, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of improving determination of when one will have to be prioritized over the other, thus improving safety.
Regarding claim 19, Romana in view of Rudd, Gama-Valdez, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the method for automatically controlling ground manoeuvres of an aircraft as claimed in claim 16, wherein the method comprises:
wherein the one or more control mechanisms is one or more steering control mechanisms (Romana, [0060] regarding a steering system);
the control unit sending the output demand to the one or more steering control mechanisms, wherein the one or more steering control mechanisms is a rudder steering mechanism or a nose-wheel steering mechanism (Romana, [0077] regarding outputting a nose landing gear lateral force command); and
the control unit receiving data from sensors on board the aircraft that indicates that the one or more steering control mechanism is not fulfilling the output demand (Romana, [0078] regarding determining if the lateral force from the nose landing gear exceeds the maximum lateral force generated).
Gama-Valdez further teaches the control unit calculating the output demand in dependence on the lateral and longitudinal input demands, prioritising the demands received when there is a conflict between those demands, the prioritisation depending on the risk of lateral runway excursion and the risk of longitudinal runway excursion (Gama-Valdez, [0039-0040] regarding determining it is not possible to achieve a yaw demand by increasing the braking force applied to one of the main landing gear assemblies when braking 100% and prioritizing either yaw moment demand or longitudinal force demand based on the operational situation (i.e., prioritize lateral demand when there is a greater risk of lateral excursion and prioritize longitudinal demand when there is a greater risk of longitudinal excursion.)).
Romana and Gama-Valdez are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate identifying lateral and longitudinal demand conflict, as disclosed by Gama-Valdez, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of improving determination of when one will have to be prioritized over the other, thus improving safety.
Harenberg teaches the control unit determining a risk of a lateral runway excursion (Harenberg, Col. 2, lines 20-24 regarding predicting lateral excursion of the aircraft on the runway during a rollout).
Romana and Harenberg are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate determining a risk of lateral runway excursion, as disclosed by Harenberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining when an aircraft is going off the edge of the runway.
Ishihara teaches the control unit determining a risk of a longitudinal runway excursion (Ishihara, [0022] regarding predicting if the aircraft cannot stop before the end of the runway with the current level of deceleration).
Romana and Ishihara are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate determining a risk of longitudinal runway excursion, as disclosed by Ishihara, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining when an aircraft is going off the side of the runway.
Rudd further teaches the control unit passing an output demand to wheel brakes of the aircraft, wherein the control unit causes the aircraft to adjust its steering or braking to reduce the risk of the lateral runway excursion and/or the longitudinal runway excursion (Rudd, [0058] regarding adjusting the differential braking based on the cross-track position of the aircraft & [0054] regarding cross-track position being the distance from the aircraft to the centerline (i.e., a greater cross-track position indicates a greater risk of a lateral runway excursion)).
Romana and Rudd are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate modifying control demand based on the risk of lateral and longitudinal excursion, as disclosed by Rudd, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of increasing safety of the passengers.
Regarding claim 22, Romana in view of Rudd, Gama-Valdez, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit as claimed in claim 12, but does not teach wherein the output demand is calculated as a weight summation of the lateral input demand received from the heading control system and the longitudinal input demand received from the deceleration control system.
Gama-Valdez teaches wherein the output demand is calculated as a weight summation of the lateral input demand received from the heading control system and the longitudinal input demand received from the deceleration control system (Gama-Valdez, [0039-0040] regarding determining it is not possible to achieve a yaw demand by increasing the braking force applied to one of the main landing gear assemblies when braking 100% and prioritizing either yaw moment demand or longitudinal force demand based on the operational situation).
Romana and Gama-Valdez are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate using weights to determine the lateral and longitudinal output demands, as disclosed by Gama-Valdez, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of improving determination of when one will have to be prioritized over the other, thus improving safety.
Regarding claim 24, Romana in view of Rudd, Gama-Valdez, Harenberg, and Ishihara teaches the aircraft ground manoeuvre control unit as claimed in claim 23. Harenberg further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to calculate the risk of the lateral runway excursion on the basis of one or more of a measured speed of the aircraft, the distance between the aircraft and an edge of the runway, and data relating to the risk of lateral runway excursion and the risk of longitudinal runway excursion from other systems on-board the aircraft (Harenberg, Col. 2, lines 20-24 regarding determining the distance required to stop the aircraft from having a lateral excursion).
Romana and Harenberg are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate determining the risk of lateral excursion using the distance to the edge of the runway in the lateral direction, as disclosed by Harenberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to determine how close the aircraft is to going off the edge of the runway.
Ishihara further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to calculate the risk of the longitudinal runway excursion on the basis of one or more of a measured speed of the aircraft, the distance between the aircraft and an edge of the runway, and data relating to the risk of lateral runway excursion and the risk of longitudinal runway excursion from other systems on-board the aircraft (Ishihara, [0022] regarding predicting if the aircraft cannot stop before the end of the runway with the current level of deceleration. By using deceleration to determine if the aircraft can stop before the end of the runway, it is calculating if the current speed with the current deceleration will result in a speed of 0 before reaching the end of the runway.).
Romana and Ishihara are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Romana, as modified, to incorporate determining the risk of longitudinal excursion using aircraft speed and distance to the edge of the runway in the longitudinal direction, as disclosed by Ishihara, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to determine how long until the aircraft reaches the end of the runway.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights