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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an [AltContent: connector]abstract idea without significantly more.
[AltContent: connector]101 Analysis – Step 1
[AltContent: connector]Claim 1 is directed to a method for determining whether a transition between Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels has occurred at the wheel based on change in pressure in a tire of the wheel of an aircraft. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: determining, on a basis of a change in a pressure in a tire of a wheel of an aircraft, whether a transition between Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels has occurred at the wheel.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person/pilot viewing a given data (i.e. change in a pressure in a tire of a wheel of an aircraft), and formulating a simple judgement (e.g. determine Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels has occurred). Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”
In the present case, there are no additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea that integrate the exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Also, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because no elements beyond the abstract idea are recited.
Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim 2 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim merely narrow the abstract idea, but does not change the nature of the claim from the abstract idea to a practical application. Narrowing the abstract idea (e.g. merely defining what type of change in the pressure occurred) does not render the claim patent eligible. Thus, dependent claim 2 is also ineligible because it still recites or depends upon the same abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Dependent claim 3 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim merely narrow the abstract idea, but does not change the nature of the claim from the abstract idea to a practical application. Narrowing the abstract idea (e.g. merely defining what type of change in the pressure occurred) does not render the claim patent eligible. Thus, dependent claim 2 is also ineligible because it still recites or depends upon the same abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Dependent claim 4 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim merely narrow the abstract idea, but does not change the nature of the claim from the abstract idea to a practical application. Narrowing the abstract idea (e.g. merely defining what type of change in the pressure occurred) does not render the claim patent eligible. Thus, dependent claim 2 is also ineligible because it still recites or depends upon the same abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Dependent claim 5 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (e.g. mere storing of data into memory is a well-known insignificant extra-solution activity) and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (“at least one of:…storing…”). Therefore, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claim 6 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (e.g. mere storing of data into memory is a well-known insignificant extra-solution activity) and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (“at least one of:…storing…”). Therefore, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claim 7 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim merely narrow the abstract idea, but does not change the nature of the claim from the abstract idea to a practical application. Narrowing the abstract idea (e.g. determination based on “predetermined criterion” is very broadly stated so that it encompasses anything that the person can easily observe to make the determination) does not render the claim patent eligible. Thus, dependent claim 7 is also ineligible because it still recites or depends upon the same abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Dependent claim 9 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim merely narrow the abstract idea, but does not change the nature of the claim from the abstract idea to a practical application. Narrowing the abstract idea (e.g. additional determining steps capable of being performed via human mind and/or with pen and paper and mathematical relationship/calculation) does not render the claim patent eligible. Thus, dependent claim 9 is also ineligible because it still recites or depends upon the same abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Dependent claim 10 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (e.g. mere storing of data into memory is a well-known insignificant extra-solution activity) and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (“at least one of:…storing…”). Therefore, dependent claim 10 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claim 11 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim merely narrow the abstract idea, but does not change the nature of the claim from the abstract idea to a practical application. Narrowing the abstract idea (e.g. additional determining steps capable of being performed via human mind and/or with pen and paper and mathematical relationship/calculation) does not render the claim patent eligible. Thus, dependent claim 11 is also ineligible because it still recites or depends upon the same abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Dependent claim 12 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim merely narrow the abstract idea, but does not change the nature of the claim from the abstract idea to a practical application. Narrowing the abstract idea (e.g. additional determining steps capable of being performed via human mind and/or with pen and paper and mathematical relationship/calculation) does not render the claim patent eligible. Thus, dependent claim 12 is also ineligible because it still recites or depends upon the same abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Claims 19-20 are similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale.
[AltContent: connector]101 Analysis – Step 1
[AltContent: connector]Claim 14 is directed to a system for detecting pressure of a tire of an aircraft and determine whether transition between Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels has occurred at the wheel. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 14 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 14 recites:
14. A system for an aircraft, the system comprising:
a tire pressure monitoring system configured to detect a pressure in a tire of a wheel of the aircraft and output a signal indicative of the pressure detected; and
a controller configured to receive the signal and determine, on a basis of the signal, whether a transition between Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels has occurred at the wheel.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person/pilot viewing a given data (i.e. change in a pressure in a tire of a wheel of an aircraft), and formulating a simple judgement (e.g. determine Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels has occurred). Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
14. A system for an aircraft, the system comprising:
a tire pressure monitoring system configured to detect a pressure in a tire of a wheel of the aircraft and output a signal indicative of the pressure detected; and
a controller configured to receive the signal and determine, on a basis of the signal, whether a transition between Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels has occurred at the wheel.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “detect a pressure…” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities. In particular, the detecting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data) and merely performs its intended function, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional limitations of “output a signal…” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities. In particular, the outputting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting data) and merely performs its intended function, and amounts to mere data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receive the signal…” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities. In particular, the receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving data) and merely performs its intended function, and amounts to mere data receiving, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Also, the mere presence of the tire pressure monitoring system (acting as generic sensor) and controller (i.e. processor) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because claims merely use computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Also, these additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “detect…output…receive…” amount to nothing more than performing generic computer functions on a generic computer. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “detect…output…receive…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Lastly, “controller” and “tire pressure monitoring system” are recited at a high level of generality merely reciting generic computer components used in its conventional capacity, and thus are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “detect…output…receive…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere communication of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, claimed mere detecting data via generic sensor is also well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a generic manner.
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 14, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Dependent claim 15 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception e.g. mere recitation of analogue sensor which is recited a high level of generality merely reciting generic computer component used in its conventional capacity, and thus is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and nor integrate the judicial exception into a “practical application”
Dependent claim 17 does not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of this claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (e.g. outputting a signal is form of insignificant extra-solution activity) and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claim 17 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 14 therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Therefore, claims 1 – 7, 9-15, and 17-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][1] as being anticipated by Cahill; Eric (US 20150002318 A1)
In regards to claim 1, Cahill teaches, A computer-implemented method comprising: (See abstract, Tire pressure monitoring systems and methods for detecting a tire burst are disclosed.) determining, on a basis of a change in a pressure in a tire of a wheel of an aircraft, whether a transition between Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels has occurred at the wheel. (Examiner interprets under the broadest reasonable interpretation, phrase “Weight on Wheels” as aircraft weight supported by the wheels and phrase “Weight off wheels” as aircraft weight not supported by the wheels. It is noted that aircraft tire burst event satisfies this definition. When a tire bursts catastrophically, the wheel rim drops, the aircraft’s weight is no longer supported by the tire structure. The cause of the claimed transition other than due to change in the tire pressure is not being recited in the independent claims. See paragraph 19, tire pressure monitor 120 is able to determine by a rapid decrease in tire pressure that a tire burst has occurred…A tire pressure leak may not be as important to notify the pilot during complex maneuvers, such as takeoff, as opposed to a tire burst, which may have been accompanied by a loud explosion audible to the pilot. Thus, in various embodiments, tire pressure monitor 120 distinguishes between a tire burst and a tire leak in determining whether to notify the pilot. Also see fig. 2, step 220-230. Lastly, Cahill’s tire pressure monitor determines, on the basis of a rapid change in tire pressure, whether a significant aircraft ground-state event has occurred at the wheel. This determination inherently encompasses the Weight on Wheels to Weight off Wheels transition during takeoff, because at the precise moment of aircraft takeoff the aircraft’s weight transfers off the wheels, the tire transitions from a load-bearing to a non-load bearing state, and the internal tire pressure necessarily and rapidly decreases as the compressive load imposed by the aircraft’s weight is removed. This is same signal (rapid pressure decrease) that Cahill’s system is specifically designed to detect.)
In regards to claim 2, Cahill teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the determining comprises determining that a transition from Weight on Wheels to Weight off Wheels has occurred at the wheel on the basis of a decrease in the pressure in the tire. (See abstract, paragraph 17, tire pressure monitor 120 is able to determine by a rapid decrease in tire pressure that a tire burst has occurred)
In regards to claim 4, Cahill teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the change in the pressure is at least a 1% change in the pressure in the tire in a time of no more than 0.5 seconds. (See paragraph 18, a tire burst may be detected if a tire loses at least 50% of tire pressure within 50 milliseconds (ms), and at least 90% tire pressure within 200 ms.)
In regards to claim 5, Cahill teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising: in response to determining that a transition from Weight on Wheels to Weight off Wheels has occurred at the wheel, at least one of: causing a landing gear control system of the aircraft to initiate retraction of a landing gear comprising a landing gear wheel; issuing an alert indicative of a transition from Weight on Wheels to Weight off Wheels at the wheel to one or more systems of the aircraft, or one or more systems remote from the aircraft, or both; (See fig. 2, step 230, paragraph 27, a tire burst may be detected if a tire loses at least 50% of tire pressure within 50 milliseconds (ms), and at least 90% tire pressure within 200 ms.) and storing, in a memory, data indicative of the change in the pressure of the tire during the transition from Weight on Wheels to Weight off Wheels at the wheel.
In regards to claim 8, Cahill teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising: measuring the pressure in the tire at a first frequency of detection; detecting, on the basis of a predetermined criterion, an impending aircraft take-off or aircraft landing event; and, in response detecting an impending aircraft take-off or aircraft landing event, measuring the pressure at a second frequency of detection, higher than the first frequency of detection. (See paragraph 14, Tire pressure sensor 110 may output data indicative of tire pressure (i.e., tire pressure data), for example, continuously or at various intervals… For example, tire pressure sensor 110 may output hits indicative of tire pressure at a rate of 60 Hz…paragraph 19, The threshold time for a percentage decrease in order to register a tire burst may vary in various embodiments, for example 50% within 10 ms or 100 ms. Also see claim 13, wherein the tire burst indicator indicates the tire burst to a pilot during takeoff. Cahill provides adaptive sampling rate adjustment during safety-critical flight phases Also see paragraph 20)
In regards to claim 11, Cahill teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining whether a transition between Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels has occurred for a plurality of wheels of a landing gear of the aircraft, wherein the determination for each wheel is a basis of a change in a pressure in a tire of the wheel, and determining, in response to determining that a transition between Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels has occurred at each of the plurality of wheels, that the landing gear has transitioned between Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels. (See paragraph 10, Aircraft landing gear may include multiple tires…paragraph 12, An aircraft may comprise a plurality of tire pressure sensors 110, and each tire pressure sensor may he coupled to a tire. Also see paragraph 19, tire pressure monitor 120 is able to determine by a rapid decrease in tire pressure that a tire burst has occurred…A tire pressure leak may not be as important to notify the pilot during complex maneuvers, such as takeoff, as opposed to a tire burst, which may have been accompanied by a loud explosion audible to the pilot. Thus, in various embodiments, tire pressure monitor 120 distinguishes between a tire burst and a tire leak in determining whether to notify the pilot. Also see fig. 2, step 220-230. Lastly, Cahill’s tire pressure monitor determines, on the basis of a rapid change in tire pressure, whether a significant aircraft ground-state event has occurred at the wheel. This determination inherently encompasses the Weight on Wheels to Weight off Wheels transition during takeoff, because at the precise moment of aircraft takeoff the aircraft’s weight transfers off the wheels, the tire transitions from a load-bearing to a non-load bearing state, and the internal tire pressure necessarily and rapidly decreases as the compressive load imposed by the aircraft’s weight is removed. This is same signal (rapid pressure decrease) that Cahill’s system is specifically designed to detect.)
In regards to claim 13, Cahill teaches, A controller for an aircraft, wherein the controller is configured to: (See fig. 1, processor 140 and abstract) receive a signal indicative of a pressure in a tire of a wheel of the aircraft; and determine, on a basis of the signal, whether a transition between Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels has occurred at the wheel. (Examiner interprets under the broadest reasonable interpretation, phrase “Weight on Wheels” as aircraft weight supported by the wheels and phrase “Weight off wheels” as aircraft weight not supported by the wheels. It is noted that aircraft tire burst event satisfies this definition. When a tire bursts catastrophically, the wheel rim drops, the aircraft’s weight is no longer supported by the tire structure. The cause of the claimed transition other than due to change in the tire pressure is not being recited in the independent claims. See paragraph 19, tire pressure monitor 120 is able to determine by a rapid decrease in tire pressure that a tire burst has occurred…A tire pressure leak may not be as important to notify the pilot during complex maneuvers, such as takeoff, as opposed to a tire burst, which may have been accompanied by a loud explosion audible to the pilot. Thus, in various embodiments, tire pressure monitor 120 distinguishes between a tire burst and a tire leak in determining whether to notify the pilot. Also see fig. 2, step 210-230)
In regards to claim 14, Cahill teaches, A system for an aircraft, the system comprising: (See fig. 1, processor 140 and abstract)
a tire pressure monitoring system configured to detect a pressure in a tire of a wheel of the aircraft and output a signal indicative of the pressure detected; and a controller configured to receive the signal and determine, on a basis of the signal, whether a transition between Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels has occurred at the wheel. (Examiner interprets under the broadest reasonable interpretation, phrase “Weight on Wheels” as aircraft weight supported by the wheels and phrase “Weight off wheels” as aircraft weight not supported by the wheels. It is noted that aircraft tire burst event satisfies this definition. When a tire bursts catastrophically, the wheel rim drops, the aircraft’s weight is no longer supported by the tire structure. The cause of the claimed transition other than due to change in the tire pressure is not being recited in the independent claims. See fig. 1, tire pressure monitor 120 and tire pressure sensor 110. See paragraph 19, tire pressure monitor 120 is able to determine by a rapid decrease in tire pressure that a tire burst has occurred…A tire pressure leak may not be as important to notify the pilot during complex maneuvers, such as takeoff, as opposed to a tire burst, which may have been accompanied by a loud explosion audible to the pilot. Thus, in various embodiments, tire pressure monitor 120 distinguishes between a tire burst and a tire leak in determining whether to notify the pilot. Also see fig. 2, step 210-230)
In regards to claim 15, Cahill teaches the system according to claim 14, wherein the tire pressure monitoring system comprises an analogue sensor configured to sense the pressure in the tire, and the signal is indicative of pressure sensed by the analogue sensor. (See paragraph 14, Tire pressure sensor 110 may output data in an analog manner, such has by supplying an output voltage that varies in accordance with tire pressure… Tire pressure sensor 110 may include an analog to digital convertor to facilitate digital output.)
In regards to claim 16, Cahill teaches the system according to claim 14, wherein the controller is configured to cause the tire pressure monitoring system to detect the pressure in the tire at a first detection rate, and to increase a detection rate to a second detection rate in response to a determination by the controller, on the basis of a predetermined criterion, of an impending aircraft take-off or aircraft landing event. (See paragraph 14, Tire pressure sensor 110 may output data indicative of tire pressure (i.e., tire pressure data), for example, continuously or at various intervals… For example, tire pressure sensor 110 may output hits indicative of tire pressure at a rate of 60 Hz…paragraph 19, The threshold time for a percentage decrease in order to register a tire burst may vary in various embodiments, for example 50% within 10 ms or 100 ms. Also see claim 13, wherein the tire burst indicator indicates the tire burst to a pilot during takeoff. Cahill provides adaptive sampling rate adjustment during safety-critical flight phases Also see paragraph 20)
In regards to claim 17, Cahill teaches the system according to claim 14, wherein the system is configured to output a signal to another aircraft system, the signal indicative that a transition between Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels has occurred at the wheel. (See fig. 2, step 230, paragraph 27, In response to receiving the tire burst message, the tire burst indicator 130 may indicate to a pilot or aircraft crew member and/or a processor that a tire burst has occurred (Step 230)…paragraph 21, Tire burst indicator 130 may comprise any device capable of providing an alert to a pilot, other aircraft crew member, air traffic controller, and/or processor or other aircraft component.)
In regards to claim 18, Cahill teaches the system according to claim 14, wherein the tire pressure monitoring system is configured to detect pressure in a tire of each wheel of the aircraft and to output respective signals indicative of the pressure detected in each tire, and wherein the controller is configured to determine whether a transition between Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels has occurred at each wheel, on a basis of the respective signal indicative of the pressure detected in the respective tire. (See paragraph 10, Aircraft landing gear may include multiple tires…paragraph 12, An aircraft may comprise a plurality of tire pressure sensors 110, and each tire pressure sensor may he coupled to a tire. Also see paragraph 19, tire pressure monitor 120 is able to determine by a rapid decrease in tire pressure that a tire burst has occurred…A tire pressure leak may not be as important to notify the pilot during complex maneuvers, such as takeoff, as opposed to a tire burst, which may have been accompanied by a loud explosion audible to the pilot. Thus, in various embodiments, tire pressure monitor 120 distinguishes between a tire burst and a tire leak in determining whether to notify the pilot. Also see fig. 2, step 220-230. Lastly, Cahill’s tire pressure monitor determines, on the basis of a rapid change in tire pressure, whether a significant aircraft ground-state event has occurred at the wheel. This determination inherently encompasses the Weight on Wheels to Weight off Wheels transition during takeoff, because at the precise moment of aircraft takeoff the aircraft’s weight transfers off the wheels, the tire transitions from a load-bearing to a non-load bearing state, and the internal tire pressure necessarily and rapidly decreases as the compressive load imposed by the aircraft’s weight is removed. This is same signal (rapid pressure decrease) that Cahill’s system is specifically designed to detect.)
Claims 19-20 are similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
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 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill; Eric (US 20150002318 A1) in view of Mastrianni et al. (US 20170322069 A1)
In regards to claim 3, Cahill teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1.
Cahill discloses increase in the pressure in the tire (abstract, The tire pressure sensor may measure tire pressure in an aircraft tire, which encompasses increase in the pressure) however, does not specifically teach detecting a event where Weight off Wheels to Weight on Wheels occurs, wherein the determining comprises determining that a transition from Weight off Wheels to Weight on Wheels has occurred on the basis of […change in wheels].
Mastrianni further discloses, wherein the determining comprises determining that a transition from Weight off Wheels to Weight on Wheels has occurred on the basis of […change in wheels]. (See abstract, paragraphs 2, 5, 7, The computing device calculates a rate of change of the strain over time to determine when the landing gear assembly reaches the weight on wheels threshold. … a system for weight measurement for an aircraft having a weight on wheels threshold between a flight mode and a ground mode includes a weight on wheels sensor arrangeable on a landing gear…Detection of the transition from in air mode to ground mode requires a selected weight on the wheel that has contacted the ground.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the tire pressure sensor infrastructure of Cahill to further comprise bidirectional Weight on Wheels transition detection taught by Mastrianni to leverage existing TPMS hardware for ground-state detection, yielding a simpler, lower-cost alternative to dedicated Weight on Wheels switches. Also, a person of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to substitute Mastrianni’s Weight on Wheels transition detection logic into Cahill’s tire pressure sensing platform as a predictable use of known techniques to yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
In regards to claim 6, Cahill teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, Cahill discloses issuing alert in response to determining that a Weight on Wheels to Weight off Wheels transition has occurred at the wheel (See fig. 2, step 230 and associated paragraphs), thus disclosing (at least one of: causing a braking system of the aircraft to initiate aircraft braking; issuing an alert indicative of transition from Weight off Wheels to Weight on Wheels at the wheel to one or more systems of the aircraft, or one or more systems remote from the aircraft, or both; and storing, in a memory, data indicative of the change in the pressure of the tire during the transition from Weight off Wheels to Weight on Wheels at the wheel. ) however, does not specifically teach, …determining that a transition from Weight off Wheels to Weight on Wheels has occurred at the wheel
Mastrianni further discloses, …determining that a transition from Weight off Wheels to Weight on Wheels has occurred at the wheel (See abstract, paragraphs 2, 5, 7, The computing device calculates a rate of change of the strain over time to determine when the landing gear assembly reaches the weight on wheels threshold. … a system for weight measurement for an aircraft having a weight on wheels threshold between a flight mode and a ground mode includes a weight on wheels sensor arrangeable on a landing gear…Detection of the transition from in air mode to ground mode requires a selected weight on the wheel that has contacted the ground. Also see paragraph 56, outputting notification)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the tire pressure sensor infrastructure of Cahill to further comprise bidirectional Weight on Wheels transition detection taught by Mastrianni to leverage existing TPMS hardware for ground-state detection, yielding a simpler, lower-cost alternative to dedicated Weight on Wheels switches. Also, a person of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to substitute Mastrianni’s Weight on Wheels transition detection logic into Cahill’s tire pressure sensing platform as a predictable use of known techniques to yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claims 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill; Eric (US 20150002318 A1) in view of Zeliff; Bob et al. (US 20080033607 A1)
In regards to claim 7, Cahill teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1.
Cahill does not specifically teach, further comprising: additionally determining whether a transition between Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels has occurred at the wheel on a basis of a predetermined criterion, wherein the predetermined criterion is different from the pressure in the tire and is indicative that a transition between Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels has occurred at the wheel. (See paragraph 2, A monitoring system and associated method according to the invention is characterized by a plurality of sensors for monitoring respective parameters of the aircraft landing system including one or more of the following: tire pressure; strut oil level; strut pressure; strut position; strut temperature; brake wear measurement; wheel temperature; brake temperature; wheel bearing temperature; actuator temperature; brake vibration, wheel shimmy and other vibrations; component strain and/or stress; brake torque; corrosion; weight on wheels; landing gear states; component temperature and/or loading in general; ambient conditions such as temperature and humidity; etc…paragraph 18, The outputs of the sensors are communicated, preferably wirelessly, to the monitor 42 wherein the outputs are processed to provide diagnostic information that can displayed, stored and/or further processed to provide operational information regarding the aircraft landing system, such as hard landing indication, high ground load indication, brake usage, landing cycle counting, fatigue, etc. Also see paragraph 19, The monitoring system 8 may be implemented as a ground-based passive sensing system and particularly one where the various sensors are interrogated when the aircraft is on the ground)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the tire pressure sensor infrastructure of Cahill to further comprise various sensor sensing taught by Zeliff because detection reliability of various parameters of aircraft can be improved by utilizing various sensor data.
In regards to claim 12, Cahill teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein a determination is made for each wheel of the aircraft, the method comprising: ((See paragraph 10, Aircraft landing gear may include multiple tires…paragraph 12, An aircraft may comprise a plurality of tire pressure sensors 110, and each tire pressure sensor may he coupled to a tire.)
Cahill discloses determining which wheels of the aircraft have transitioned between Weight on Wheels and Weight off Wheels (See rejection of claim 1 and 11 above), however, does not specifically disclose, determining, …, a load distribution of the aircraft across the wheels of the aircraft.
Zeliff further teaches, determining, …, a load distribution of the aircraft across the wheels of the aircraft. (See paragraph 8, one or more sensors may be used to provide data from which landing loads on the landing gear and/or components thereof can be calculated.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the tire pressure sensor infrastructure of Cahill to further comprise various sensor sensing taught by Zeliff because detection reliability of various parameters of aircraft can be improved by utilizing various sensor data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668