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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “drive member comprising a plurality of actuators” of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 requires “determining at least one of the following values:
a minimum required traction force needed by the drive member to move the aircraft, a maximum transmissible traction force that can be transmitted to the ground by grip via the wheel, and heating of the drive member…”
Note that this means that only one of these determinations are required, but claim 3-10 are directed towards one of these values and as such might not necessarily be required due to an alternative determination being met.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method for taxiing an aircraft by pre-empting when a drive member provided in at least one wheel born by a landing gear of the aircraft is unable to move said aircraft on the ground (i.e., a process). 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:
“A method for taxiing an aircraft by pre-empting when a drive member provided in at least one wheel born by a landing gear of the aircraft is unable to move said aircraft on the ground, the method comprising:
a) determining at least one of the following values: a minimum required traction force needed by the drive member to move the aircraft, a maximum transmissible traction force that can be transmitted to the ground by grip via the wheel, and heating of the drive member;
b) comparing each value with a predetermined threshold; and
e) deducing from the comparison whether the drive member is able to move the aircraft. “
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 (which may be performed mentally or with pen and paper). For example, “determining…, comparing…, and deducing …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (pilot) evaluating whether an aircraft can be moved by a drive system including: determining a force requirement for moving the aircraft/ the maximum traction force that can be transmitted via the wheel/ the heat of the drive member, comparing the force/heat requirement to a known value (presumably the maximum force/a skid or locking force/ or a temperature that can be produced by wheel drive member or the like) and forming a simple judgement whether the drive member could move the aircraft in the current conditions. Accordingly, the claim recites and/or is directed towards 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”):
“A method for taxiing an aircraft by pre-empting when a drive member provided in at least one wheel born by a landing gear of the aircraft is unable to move said aircraft on the ground, the method comprising:
a) determining at least one of the following values: a minimum required traction force needed by the drive member to move the aircraft, a maximum transmissible traction force that can be transmitted to the ground by grip via the wheel, and heating of the drive member;
b) comparing each value with a predetermined threshold; and
e) deducing from the comparison whether the drive member is able to move the aircraft. “
For the following reason(s), 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 “taxiing an aircraft by pre-empting when a drive member provided in at least one wheel born by a landing gear of the aircraft is unable to move said aircraft on the ground …,” the examiner submits that these limitations are descriptions of a taxiing aircraft and a drive member provided in a wheel of landing gear of the aircraft. These additional limitations merely describe the environment for performing the abstract determining, comparing, and deducing steps. These limitations indicate a field of use since they do not alter or affect how the mental process steps of sensing are carried out. Accordingly, even in combination these additional limitations and the claimed invention as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Hence, claim 1 is found to be ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 2 recites the additional limitation “wherein the drive member is sized so as to be able to move the aircraft only in a majority of operating scenarios” which is a further description of the drive member merely describing the environment for performing the abstract idea. Claim 10 recites the additional limitation “the drive member comprises a plurality of actuators” which is a further description of the drive member merely describing the environment for performing the abstract idea. Even in combination with the additional limitations of the parent claims, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a particular application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1.
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 2-10 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the drive member is sized so as to be able to move the aircraft only in a majority of operating scenarios” is indefinite because it is unclear what the scope of ‘only a majority of operating scenarios’ is given the range of conditions an aircraft could find itself in that could constitute different operating scenarios. As such, it is unclear what would constitute a majority of operating scenarios covered under this claim scope. Also the addition of the word ‘only’ makes this limitation unclear because a majority could include all but ‘only’ suggests an exclusion of some operating scenarios. This limitation can not be understood as written.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein the heating of the drive member is determined from the temperature of at least one critical element of the drive member” is indefinite because the claim is directed towards a temperature of a critical element (i.e. subcomponent) of the drive member, but it is not clear what makes this component critical and what elements might be included. As such one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand the scope of this claim as written.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation "the maximum torque" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected because they are directed towards further limiting one of “a minimum required traction force needed by the drive member to move the aircraft, a maximum transmissible traction force that can be transmitted to the ground by grip via the wheel, and heating of the drive member” but only one of these is required to be determined per claim 1. As such it is unclear whether these claims require the determination of a specific one of: the minimum required traction force needed by the drive member to move the aircraft, the maximum transmissible traction force that can be transmitted to the ground by grip via the wheel, or the heating of the drive member; or whether the claims act to specifically further limit one of these determinations and are thus not necessarily required if another one of the determinations is met. These claims are being interpreted under the latter interpretation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cookman (US 20160167803 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cookman (US 20160167803 A1) discloses a method for taxiing an aircraft by pre-empting when a drive member provided in at least one wheel born by a landing gear of the aircraft is unable to move said aircraft on the ground, the method comprising the following steps:
determining at least one of the following values:
comparing each value with a predetermined threshold (Cookman, claim 12, temperature sensor values compared with a maximum operating temperature); and
deducing from the comparison whether the drive member is able to move the aircraft (Cookman, claim 12, drive means is only operated when temperature is below maximum).
Regarding claim 2, Cookman discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the drive member is sized so as to be able to move the aircraft only in a majority of operating scenarios (indefinite; Cookman, ¶33, drive system actuates a drive means sized to move aircraft and fit into housing).
Regarding claim 3, Cookman discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the minimum required traction force is determined from at least one of the following parameters: the mass of the aircraft, the type of ground, the slope of the ground, the ambient temperature and the stop time of the aircraft (determination of minimum required traction force not required per claim 1 because the heat of drive member is determined).
Regarding claim 4, Cookman discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the minimum required traction force is determined from charts or equations that relate the mass of the aircraft and the slope of the ground to the minimum required traction force depending on the type of ground, the ambient temperature and the stop time of the aircraft (determination of minimum required traction force not required per claim 1 because the heat of drive member is determined).
Regarding claim 5, Cookman discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the maximum transmissible traction force that can be transmitted by grip is determined from at least one of the following parameters: a load exerted by the mass of the aircraft on the wheel, ground conditions (determination of maximum transmissible traction force not required per claim 1 because the heat of drive member is determined).
Regarding claim 6, Cookman discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein the maximum transmissible traction force is determined from charts or equations that relate the load exerted by the mass of the aircraft on the wheel to said maximum transmissible traction force depending on the ground conditions (determination of maximum transmissible traction force not required per claim 1 because the heat of drive member is determined).
Regarding claim 7, Cookman discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the heating of the drive member is determined from the temperature of at least one critical element of the drive member (Cookman, claim 12, temperature of the stator is measured).
Regarding claim 8, Cookman discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined threshold with which the minimum required traction force is compared corresponds substantially to the maximum torque deliverable by the drive member (determination of maximum transmissible traction force not required per claim 1 because the heat of drive member is determined).
Regarding claim 9, Cookman discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined threshold with which the maximum transmissible traction force is compared corresponds substantially to the minimum required traction force (determination of maximum transmissible traction force and minimum required traction force are not required per claim 1 because the heat of drive member is determined).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cookman (US 20160167803 A1), or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cookman (US 20160167803 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Charuel (US 20100276535 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Cookman discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein the drive member comprises a plurality of actuators (Note, this is just further limiting the scope of the preamble as explain in claim interpretation above),
In arguendo, should applicant argue that multiple actuators are positively claimed and required, Charuel (US 20100276535 A1) teaches a drive member comprising a plurality of actuators (Charuel, figure 1, item 3 and 7).
Cookman and Charuel are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of powered wheels for taxiing aircraft. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Cookman with the drive member comprising a plurality of actuators of Charuel with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a redundant system in case of an actuator failure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CA 2656288 A1 teaches max slope that an autonomous taxiing system can deal with.
US 9280155 B2 teaches a traction control system to prevent slipping of wheels; discusses static friction as the driving part of when slipping occurs.
US 9533756 B2 teaches temperature, weight or the like being used to determine whether 100% of torque is needed to move aircraft (col 8 line # - col 9 line 3); and calculating the breakaway torque based on weight, cg, location, temp, tire inflation, etc. (col 9 lines 4-20); also teaches about torque limiting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights