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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18, 19, 20, 21 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites “the system” in line 6. It is presumed to recite “the monitoring system”.
Claim 19 recites “the system” in line 7. It is presumed to recite “the monitoring system”.
Claim 20 recites “the system” in line 7. It is presumed to recite “the monitoring system”.
Claim 21 recites “the system” in line 3. It is presumed to recite “the monitoring system”.
Claim 23 recites “a pressure in a tire of a wheel of an aircraft” in line 7. It is presumed to recite “a pressure in the tire of the wheel of the aircraft”. See lines claim 23, lines 1-3.
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 12-16 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.
Claim 12 recites “the determined total load on each landing gear of the aircraft” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that this claim could be dependent upon claim 10. Clarification is requested.
Claim 13 recites “the determined total load on each landing gear of the aircraft” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that this claim could be dependent upon claim 10. Clarification is requested.
Claim 14 recites “the determined total load on each landing gear of the aircraft” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that this claim could be dependent upon claim 10. Clarification is requested.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because while the claimed inventions fall into the statutory categories of a process (method) and machine (system), they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (e.g., a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, and a mathematical concept).
Claim 1 recite(s) “1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, based on a first signal indicative of a pressure in a tire of a wheel of an aircraft and a second signal indicative of a deformation of the tire, a determined load on the wheel, and
causing an action to be performed based on the determined load on the wheel.”
Claim 18 recites limitations similar to those of claim 1 and are addressed similarly as outlined below.
With respect to the mental process, the claimed “determining, based on a first signal indicative of a pressure in a tire of a wheel of an aircraft and a second signal indicative of a deformation of the tire, a determined load on the wheel,” can be performed by a person with an air pressure measurement device looking at the tire. The person can determine that while the air pressure is correct, the sidewall of the tire is deformed indicating an unbalanced or heavy load over the wheel.
The claimed “causing an action to be performed based on the determined load on the wheel,” can correspond to the person formulating a plan on how to rearrange/reduce the load over the wheel (and even physically engaging in the plan).
With respect to mathematical concept, the claimed “determining, based on a first signal indicative of a pressure in a tire of a wheel of an aircraft and a second signal indicative of a deformation of the tire, a determined load on the wheel,” can be performed by a generic computer obtaining the pressure and deformation, using a mathematical formula or mathematical relationship with the pressure and deformation, and determining the load on the wheel.
The claimed “causing an action to be performed based on the determined load on the wheel,” can correspond to the generic computer notifying the pilot.
These observations, determination and action comprise a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind by a person as illustrated above. These acts fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These mathematical relationships or formulas comprise a mathematical concept, and fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
In addition, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for at least the following reasons:
There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a).
The claims do not 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
In addition, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitation of a generic computer-implemented method in claim 1, and a generic controller and monitoring system in claim 18 are generic components used as a tool to perform the mental processes and mathematical concept. For at least these reasons, claims 1 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-17 and 19-23 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, nor are they implemented in a practical application. In addition, claims 2-17 and 19-23 do not recite further mental processes and mathematical concepts.
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 1-6, 9, 17, 18, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bill (US 2021/0237896 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bill discloses a computer-implemented method (see at least Figures 4 and 9 | [0085]) comprising:
determining, based on a first signal indicative of a pressure in a tire of a wheel of an aircraft (see at least Figures 1-2, items 2, 4 and 6 | [0045] note the system comprises an aircraft wheel 2, an aircraft tire 4 and an apparatus 6 for monitoring the tire | Figure 4, item 406 | [0054] note pressure sensor | [0057-0058] note direct tire gas pressure measurements are taken periodically) and
a second signal indicative of a deformation of the tire (see at least Figures 6A-6B, items 609 and 609' | [0059] note a laser can measure a tire deflection distance 609, 609' indicative of deformation of the tire 604 | [0061] note the tire gas pressure is also measured along with the deflection 609, 609'),
a determined load on the wheel (see at least [0061] note the tire deflection 609, 609' and pressure can be converted into a load 607, 607' experienced by the wheel 602), and
causing an action to be performed based on the determined load on the wheel (see at least Figure 9, item 908 | [0030] note the action may comprise: scheduling a maintenance action, such as tire inflation, manual tire inspection or tire replacement; providing an indication that maintenance of the tire is required; and providing data of the characteristic to another vehicle system, such as providing center of gravity data and/or loading data to an aircraft control system | [0024] note the characteristic is aircraft loading).
Regarding claim 2, Bill discloses sensing the pressure in the tire and generating the first signal based on the sensed pressure (see at least [0058] | [0061]).
Regarding claim 3, Bill discloses sensing the deformation of the tire and generating the second signal based on the sensed deformation of the tire (see at least [0059-0061]).
Regarding claim 4, Bill discloses wherein the sensing the deformation of the tire comprises sensing a deflection of the tire relative to a surface on which the tire is located, and wherein the second signal is indicative of the sensed deflection of the tire (see at least Figures 6A-6B, items 602, 604, 607, 607', 609, 609' | [0059-0061]).
Regarding claim 5, Bill discloses determining the determined load on the wheel further based on a third signal indicative of a temperature of the tire (see at least [0057] note temperature | [0024]).
Regarding claim 6, Bill discloses determining a determined load on a plurality of wheels of the aircraft, based on respective first signals indicative of a pressure in a tire of each respective wheel of the plurality of wheels and respective second signals indicative of a deformation of each respective tire of each wheel of the plurality of wheels, wherein the plurality of wheels comprises the wheel, and causing the action to be performed based on the determined load on each wheel of the plurality of wheels (see at least [0062] note a load 607, 607' is determined for all the wheels 602 on an aircraft 1101, which provides further useful information, including the total weight of the aircraft and the position of the aircraft’s center-of-gravity, such that a maximum take-off weight is not exceeded | [0061] | [0024] | [0030]).
Regarding claim 9, Bill discloses wherein the plurality of wheels comprises all wheels of the aircraft (see at least [0062]).
Regarding claim 17, Bill discloses wherein the action comprises one or more of: storing data received during the method, or data indicative of a determination made during the method, or a combination thereof in a memory local to the aircraft, or a memory remote from the aircraft, or both; transmitting a signal indicative of a determination made during the method to one or more systems of the aircraft, or systems remote from the aircraft, or both; transmitting a signal generated during the method to one or more systems of the aircraft, systems remote from the aircraft, or both; redistributing load on the aircraft; and updating a plan for an aircraft loading or unloading process based on a determination made during the method (see at least [0030] | [0056] | [0061-0062]).
Regarding claim 18, Bill discloses a system for an aircraft (see at least Figures 4, 6A, 6B, 9 and 11 | [0085] | [0024] | [0030]), the system comprising:
a monitoring system configured to detect a pressure and a deformation of a tire of a wheel of the aircraft (see at least Figures 4, 6A, 6B, 9 and 11, items 10, 406, 602, 604, 610, 609, 609', 1101, 1102 | [0084-0085] | [0024] | [0055] | [0057-0062]), and
a controller configured to determine, based on the pressure and the deformation detected by the monitoring system, load on the wheel (see at least Figures 4, 6A and 6B, items 400, 607, 607' | [0085] | [0024] | [0050-0051] | [0061-0062]),
wherein the system is configured to cause an action to be performed based on the load on the wheel determined by the controller (see at least Figure 9, item 908 | [0030] | [0061-0062]).
Regarding claim 22, Bill discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing machine-readable instructions which, when executed by a controller, cause the controller to initiate the computer-implemented method according to claim 1 (see at least Figures 4 and 9 | [0085] | [0024] | [0030]).
Regarding claim 23, Bill discloses an aircraft (see at least Figure 11, item 1101 | [0084-0085]) comprising:
at least one landing gear, each landing gear comprising at least one wheel having a tire (see at least Figures 6A, 6B and 11, items 10, 602, 604, 1102 | [0045-0046]), and one or more of:
the system according to claim 18 (see at least Figures 4, 6A, 6B and 9, items 10, 602, 604 | [0045-0046] | [0050-0051] | [0055] | [0057-0062]), and,
a non-transitory storage medium storing machine-readable instructions which, when executed by a controller (see at least [0085]), cause the controller to initiate a computer-implemented method (see at least Figure 9) comprising
determining, based on a first signal indicative of a pressure in a tire of a wheel of an aircraft (see at least Figures 1-2, items 2, 4 and 6 | [0045] note the system comprises an aircraft wheel 2, an aircraft tire 4 and an apparatus 6 for monitoring the tire | Figure 4, item 406 | [0054] note pressure sensor | [0057-0058] note direct tire gas pressure measurements are taken periodically) and
a second signal indicative of a deformation of the tire (see at least Figures 6A-6B, items 609 and 609' | [0059] note a laser can measure a tire deflection distance 609, 609' indicative of deformation of the tire 604 | [0061] note the tire gas pressure is also measured along with the deflection 609, 609'),
a determined load on the wheel (see at least [0061] note the tire deflection 609, 609' and pressure can be converted into a load 607, 607' experienced by the wheel 602), and
causing an action to be performed based on the determined load on the wheel (see at least Figure 9, item 908 | [0030] note the action may comprise: scheduling a maintenance action, such as tire inflation, manual tire inspection or tire replacement; providing an indication that maintenance of the tire is required; and providing data of the characteristic to another vehicle system, such as providing center of gravity data and/or loading data to an aircraft control system | [0024] note the characteristic is aircraft loading).
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.
Claims 7, 10-14 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bill (US 2021/0237896 A1) in view of Kim (US 2024/0375769 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Bill discloses wherein the plurality of wheels comprises all wheels of a landing gear of the aircraft and method comprises: determining, based on the determined load on each wheel of the landing gear, a determined total load of the aircraft, and causing the action to be performed based on the determined total load of the aircraft (see at least [0030] | [0061-0062]).
However, Bill does not specifically disclose a determined total load on the landing gear.
It is known to determine various loads associated with an aircraft. For example, Kim teaches a system that determines a total load on the landing gear of an aircraft (see at least [0025] note the total weight of the aircraft is measured via at least one load sensor 51 is installed in/on one or more of the landing gear of the aircraft | [0100-0103] note the nose landing gear 5 and main landing gear 6 have load sensors 51 to measure the vertical load applied to the respective landing gear | [0093-0094] note the center of gravity of the aircraft can be adjusted | [0109-0110] | [0117] | [0122] | [0139-0143]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations of Kim into Bill. This provides an alternative way to calculate the center of gravity of the aircraft (see [0062] of Bill), and allows for adjustment of the center of gravity by moving a position of the cargo according to the load and the arrangement, thereby optimizing the control stability of the aircraft (see [0122] of Kim).
Regarding claim 10, Bill in view of Kim teach comprising: determining, based on the determined load on each wheel of the aircraft, a respective determined total load on each landing gear of the aircraft, and causing the action to be performed based on the determined total load on each landing gear of the aircraft (see at least Figure 11, item 1102 of Bill | [0061-0062] of Bill | [0025] of Kim, note the total weight of the aircraft is measured via at least one load sensor 51 is installed in/on one or more of the landing gear of the aircraft | [0100-0103] of Kim, note the nose landing gear 5 and main landing gear 6 have load sensors 51 to measure the vertical load applied to the respective landing gear | [0093-0094] of Kim, note the center of gravity of the aircraft can be adjusted | [0109-0110] of Kim | [0117] of Kim | [0122] of Kim | [0139-0143] of Kim).
Regarding claim 11, Bill in view of Kim teach wherein the aircraft comprises a nose landing gear and at least two main landing gears positioned aft of the nose landing gear, and wherein the method further comprises: comparing the determined total load on the nose landing gear to the determined total load on each of the at least two main landing gears, and causing the action to be performed based on the comparing of the determined total load on the nose landing gear to the determined total load on each of the at least two main landing gears (see at least Figure 11, item 1102 of Bill | [0061-0062] of Bill | [0025] of Kim, note the total weight of the aircraft is measured via at least one load sensor 51 is installed in/on one or more of the landing gear of the aircraft | [0100-0103] of Kim, note the nose landing gear 5 and main landing gear 6 have load sensors 51 to measure the vertical load applied to the respective landing gear | [0093-0094] of Kim, note the center of gravity of the aircraft can be adjusted | [0109-0110] of Kim | [0117] of Kim | [0121-0122] of Kim | [0139-0143] of Kim).
Regarding claim 12, Bill in view of Kim teach further comprising: determining, based on either the determined load on each wheel of the aircraft or the determined total load on each landing gear of the aircraft, a determined total load on the aircraft, and causing the action to be performed based on the determined total load on the aircraft (see at least Figure 11, item 1102 of Bill | [0061-0062] of Bill | [0025] of Kim, note the total weight of the aircraft is measured via at least one load sensor 51 is installed in/on one or more of the landing gear of the aircraft | [0100-0103] of Kim, note the nose landing gear 5 and main landing gear 6 have load sensors 51 to measure the vertical load applied to the respective landing gear | [0093-0094] of Kim, note the center of gravity of the aircraft can be adjusted | [0109-0110] of Kim | [0117] of Kim | [0122] of Kim | [0139-0143] of Kim).
Regarding claim 13, Bill in view of Kim teach further comprising: determining, based on either the determined load on each wheel of the aircraft or the determined total load on each landing gear of the aircraft, a load distribution of the aircraft, and causing the action to be performed based on the load distribution of the aircraft (see at least Figure 11, item 1102 of Bill | [0061-0062] of Bill | [0025] of Kim, note the total weight of the aircraft is measured via at least one load sensor 51 is installed in/on one or more of the landing gear of the aircraft | [0100-0103] of Kim, note the nose landing gear 5 and main landing gear 6 have load sensors 51 to measure the vertical load applied to the respective landing gear | [0093-0094] of Kim, note the center of gravity of the aircraft can be adjusted | [0109-0110] of Kim | [0117] of Kim | [0122] of Kim | [0139-0143] of Kim).
Regarding claim 14, Bill in view of Kim teach comprising: determining, based on the determined load on each wheel of the aircraft or based on the determined total load on each landing gear of the aircraft, a determined center of gravity of the aircraft, and causing the action to be performed based on the determined center of gravity of the aircraft (see at least Figure 11, item 1102 of Bill | [0061-0062] of Bill | [0025] of Kim, note the total weight of the aircraft is measured via at least one load sensor 51 is installed in/on one or more of the landing gear of the aircraft | [0100-0103] of Kim, note the nose landing gear 5 and main landing gear 6 have load sensors 51 to measure the vertical load applied to the respective landing gear | [0093-0094] of Kim, note the center of gravity of the aircraft can be adjusted | [0109-0110] of Kim | [0117] of Kim | [0122] of Kim | [0139-0143] of Kim).
Regarding claim 19, Bill in view of Kim teach wherein the monitoring system is configured to detect pressure and deformation of a tire of each wheel of a landing gear of the aircraft, and the controller is configured to: determine, based on the pressure and deformation detected by the monitoring system for each tire, a determined load on each wheel of the landing gear; and determine a determined total load on the landing gear, wherein the system is configured to cause the action to be performed on the basis of the determined total load on the landing gear (see at least Figure 11, item 1102 of Bill | [0061-0062] of Bill | [0025] of Kim, note the total weight of the aircraft is measured via at least one load sensor 51 is installed in/on one or more of the landing gear of the aircraft | [0100-0103] of Kim, note the nose landing gear 5 and main landing gear 6 have load sensors 51 to measure the vertical load applied to the respective landing gear | [0093-0094] of Kim, note the center of gravity of the aircraft can be adjusted | [0109-0110] of Kim | [0117] of Kim | [0122] of Kim | [0139-0143] of Kim).
Regarding claim 20, Bill in view of Kim teach wherein the monitoring system is configured to detect a pressure and a deformation of a tire of each wheel of the aircraft, and the controller is configured to: determine, based on the pressure and the deformation detected by the monitoring system for each tire, a determined load on the respective wheel; and determine a determined center of gravity of the aircraft, wherein the system is configured to cause the action to be performed based on the determined center of gravity of the aircraft (see at least Figure 11, item 1102 of Bill | [0061-0062] of Bill | [0025] of Kim, note the total weight of the aircraft is measured via at least one load sensor 51 is installed in/on one or more of the landing gear of the aircraft | [0100-0103] of Kim, note the nose landing gear 5 and main landing gear 6 have load sensors 51 to measure the vertical load applied to the respective landing gear | [0093-0094] of Kim, note the center of gravity of the aircraft can be adjusted | [0109-0110] of Kim | [0117] of Kim | [0122] of Kim | [0139-0143] of Kim).
Regarding claim 21, Bill in view of Kim teach wherein the controller is configured to compare the determined center of gravity to a theoretical center of gravity of the aircraft, and the action comprises the system outputting a signal indicative of a position of the determined center of gravity relative to the theoretical center of gravity (see at least Figure 11, item 1102 of Bill | [0061-0062] of Bill | [0025] of Kim, note the total weight of the aircraft is measured via at least one load sensor 51 is installed in/on one or more of the landing gear of the aircraft | [0100-0103] of Kim, note the nose landing gear 5 and main landing gear 6 have load sensors 51 to measure the vertical load applied to the respective landing gear | [0093-0094] of Kim, note the center of gravity of the aircraft can be adjusted | [0109-0110] of Kim | [0117] of Kim | [0121-0122] of Kim | [0139-0143] of Kim).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bill (US 2021/0237896 A1) in view of Kim (US 2024/0375769 A1) and Parker (US 2022/0306286 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bill discloses wherein the plurality of wheels comprises all wheels of a first main landing gear of the aircraft and all wheels of a second main landing gear of the aircraft, the first and second main landing gears on opposing sides of a central longitudinal axis of the aircraft (see at least Figure 11 | [0061-0062]).
However, Bill does not specifically teach determining, based on the determined load on each wheel of the first main landing gear, a determined total load on the first main landing gear; determining, based on the determined load on each wheel of the second main landing gear, a determined total load on the second main landing gear; comparing the determined total load on the first main landing gear to the determined total load on the second main landing gear, and causing the action to be performed based on the comparing of the determined total load on the first main landing gear to the determined total load on the second main landing gear.
It is known to perform actions in response to different events. For example, Kim teaches a system wherein the plurality of wheels comprises all wheels of a first main landing gear of the aircraft and all wheels of a second main landing gear of the aircraft, the first and second main landing gears on opposing sides of a central longitudinal axis of the aircraft, and wherein the method comprises: determining, based on the determined load on each wheel of the first main landing gear, a determined total load on the first main landing gear; determining, based on the determined load on each wheel of the second main landing gear, a determined total load on the second main landing gear; comparing the determined total load on the nose landing gear to the determined total load on the first main landing gear and second main landing gear, and causing the action to be performed based on the comparing the determined total load on the nose landing gear to the determined total load on the first main landing gear and second main landing gear (see at least [0025] of Kim, note the total weight of the aircraft is measured via at least one load sensor 51 is installed in/on one or more of the landing gear of the aircraft | [0100-0103] of Kim, note the nose landing gear 5 and main landing gear 6 have load sensors 51 to measure the vertical load applied to the respective landing gear | [0093-0094] of Kim, note the center of gravity of the aircraft can be adjusted | [0109-0110] of Kim | [0117] of Kim | [0122] of Kim | [0139-0143] of Kim, note 40% of the weight may be on the nose and 60% of the weight may be on the main landing gear, and moving the plate causes a 50-50 distribution).
With respect to the other limitations, Parker teaches a system that compares the determined total load on the first main landing gear to the determined total load on the second main landing gear, and causing an action to be performed based on the comparing of the determined total load on the first main landing gear to the determined total load on the second main landing gear (see at least [0027] note a difference in lateral center of gravity can also be determined, such as left/first and right/second landing gear | [0040-0041]).
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Kim and Parker into Bill. With respect to Kim, this provides the ability to account for longitudinal imbalances that could prevent tipping. With respect to Parker, this provides the ability to account for lateral imbalance and longitudinal imbalance of Bill in view of Kim’s aircraft, thus improving flight.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bill (US 2021/0237896 A1) in view of Kim (US 2024/0375769 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and in further view of Regan (US 2017/0315014 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Bill in view of Kim teach comprising: determining a difference between the determined center of gravity of the aircraft and a preset center of gravity of the aircraft, determining whether the difference exceeds a tolerance range, and generating a lateral load control signal when the difference exceeds a tolerance range (see at least Figure 11, item 1102 of Bill | [0061-0062] of Bill | [0025] of Kim, note the total weight of the aircraft is measured via at least one load sensor 51 is installed in/on one or more of the landing gear of the aircraft | [0100-0103] of Kim, note the nose landing gear 5 and main landing gear 6 have load sensors 51 to measure the vertical load applied to the respective landing gear | [0093-0094] of Kim, note the center of gravity of the aircraft can be adjusted | [0109-0110] of Kim, note the preset center of gravity tolerance range/threshold | [0117] of Kim | [0122] of Kim | [0139-0143] of Kim, note 40% of the total weight is on the nose landing gear, an underloaded condition, which corresponds to a tilt condition).
However, Bill in view of Kim do not specifically teach a lateral distance, a central longitudinal axis of the aircraft, determining whether the lateral distance exceeds a lateral threshold, and generating a lateral load warning signal when the lateral distance exceeds the lateral threshold.
It is known to generate alerts in different ways. For example, Regan teaches a system that determines a distance, an axis of the aircraft, determining whether the distance exceeds a threshold, and generates a load warning signal when the distance exceeds the threshold (see at least [0022]).
Note one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that Bill in view of Kim could use Regan’s distance threshold with respect to the central longitudinal axis of the aircraft because Kim teaches moving the plate in both the longitudinal and width directions to account for center of gravity unbalance (see [0139-0143]).
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Regain into Bill in view of Kim. This provides the ability to account for fuel imbalance during/after (re)fueling.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bill (US 2021/0237896 A1) in view of Kim (US 2024/0375769 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and in further view of Parker (US 2022/0306286 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Bill in view of Kim teach further comprising: comparing the determined center of gravity to a longitudinal threshold position, the longitudinal threshold position aft of a theoretical center of gravity of the aircraft, determining whether the determined center gravity is aft of the longitudinal threshold position, and causing the action to be performed when the determined center gravity is aft of the longitudinal threshold position (see at least Figure 11, item 1102 of Bill | [0061-0062] of Bill | [0025] of Kim, note the total weight of the aircraft is measured via at least one load sensor 51 is installed in/on one or more of the landing gear of the aircraft | [0100-0103] of Kim, note the nose landing gear 5 and main landing gear 6 have load sensors 51 to measure the vertical load applied to the respective landing gear | [0093-0094] of Kim, note the center of gravity of the aircraft can be adjusted | [0109-0110] of Kim, note the preset center of gravity tolerance range/threshold | [0117] of Kim | [0122] of Kim | [0139-0143] of Kim, note 40% of the total weight is on the nose landing gear, an underloaded condition, which corresponds to a tilt condition).
However, Bill in view of Kim do not specifically teach generating a tilt warning signal.
It is known to perform various actions in response to uneven loads. For example, Parker teaches a system that generates a tilt warning signal (see at least [0027] note a proportionally higher force on the back-landing gear struts can mean center of gravity is toward back of the aircraft | [0041] note the notification component 402 can automatically notify the flight crew or the cabin crew if the total weight of the aircraft is over the weight capacity limits or if center of gravity is out of range).
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Parker into Bill in view of Kim. This provides the ability to notify the crew if Bill in view of Kim’s system cannot adequately adjust the center of gravity, thus allowing to crew to move other cargo not on the movable plate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN WILSON whose telephone number is 571-270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, DAVETTA GOINS can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689