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 .
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Communication received on August 21, 2025 for application number 19/306,215. This Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and Claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 21, 2025 was submitted in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB 2415357.9 filed on October 18, 2024.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (McKeown – US 2014/0257603 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McKeown discloses:
A control system for an aircraft (Aircraft braking early warning system: [Abstract]), the aircraft having:
a brake system that is configured to issue a command for a target deceleration level during landing and to limit the braking of the aircraft based on skid conditions being detected ([Abstract]: A method provides alert information, regarding an aircraft wheel braking system, to an operator of an aircraft during an aircraft landing. An input of a target deceleration rate for the landing aircraft is received prior to the aircraft having landed on a ground surface. At least one sensor electronically collects information relevant to a real-time deceleration rate of the aircraft after the aircraft has landed on the ground surface, and the real-time deceleration rate of the aircraft is calculated. The target deceleration rate is compared to the calculated deceleration rate to determine an effectiveness of the aircraft wheel braking system. A visual, audible, or tactile alert is optionally provided to the operator of the aircraft, and data from this system could also be used as an input for various other aircraft safety systems),
the control system being configured:
to receive, as a first input, an indication from the brake system when an ability of the aircraft to brake is limited; to receive, as a second input, an indication from the brake system when the aircraft is achieving a maximum available braking; to receive, as a third input, an indication of a deceleration of the aircraft; to receive, as a fourth input, an indication of a target deceleration level from the brake system ([0022]: Conventionally, basic operation for aircraft “Auto Braking” is for the pilot to determine a setting of the automatic braking system which could also be called a target brake setting. The setting values may vary between aircraft, but are usually 4 different settings (e.g., 4, 8, 12 and 16) with an example max deceleration of “0.5 g or ½ g”. Each number has a relationship to a deceleration in ft/s2, or “g”. Thus, an example maximum deceleration of 16 ft/s2 (4.9 m/s2) is related to a deceleration of approximately “0.5 g or ½ g” and an example minimum deceleration of 4 ft/s2 (1.2 m/s2) is related to “0.125 g or ⅛ g”. Of course, different, more, or less deceleration values may be provided for any particular aircraft. Moreover, the actual setting of the automatic braking system selected by the pilot may use different nomenclature, such as A, B, C, D, etc., although it is understood that each of these settings does correlate to a target deceleration rate for the aircraft. Typically, a pilot will select the safest, lowest target brake setting to increase passenger comfort and to reduce wear on the aircraft systems. An on-board accelerometer located on the aircraft measures the deceleration of the aircraft and adjusts the brake pressure as required. The “Auto Brake” then automatically controls the wheel brake pressure. So, if the aircraft is decelerating from other influences (e.g., reversers, flaps, etc.) the accelerometer will measure this and apply or not apply the brake pressure accordingly. This is a feedback system where brake pressure is adjusted to meet the “target” aircraft deceleration. Even so, the auto-brake system is an internal operation of the aircraft and is “invisible” to the pilot in that it does not provide any alerts or other warnings that the aircraft may not be achieving the desired target braking. Additionally, once the aircraft slows to a specific speed, such as approximately 35 knots), the “Auto Braking” may no longer have influence on braking.);
to generate based on the first input, the second input, the third input, and the fourth input:
a first output for causing an indication that alerts a pilot to a first scenario in which the deceleration of the aircraft is below the target deceleration level due to the aircraft braking being limited ([0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]: Finally, the system 10 may present feedback to the pilot of the aircraft. The example, the system 10 can provide a visual, audible, or tactile alert to the operator of the aircraft if the effectiveness of the aircraft braking system is different than an anticipated amount. A feedback module 30, in signal communication with the analysis module 26, can be configured to output the visual, audible, or tactile alert. The feedback may be realized via the output mechanism of the computing device, such as the touchscreen or a loudspeaker. If the chosen deceleration braking setting appears to be sufficient, when compared to the actual deceleration of the aircraft, then the system will benignly indicate that the landing conditions are favorable. The system may offer no output, or may provide a visual or audible confirmation, such as a green indicator. However, if the chosen deceleration braking setting is insufficient, when compared to the actual deceleration measured in real-time by the aircraft to decelerate to a stop safely on a designated runway, an alert can be triggered for a pilot of the actual aircraft in response to the difference between the actual deceleration required and the targeted braking force. This alert may include an indication that the calculated real-time deceleration rate of the aircraft is less than the target deceleration rate for the landing aircraft. Various types of audible, visual, or tactile alarms can be used. In one example, the alarms can immediately indicate to the pilot, in simplified or detailed visual, audible or tactile variations, that the chosen deceleration braking setting is insufficient for the actual runway being used. For example, a red indicator (flashing or static) and/or an audible alarm (sound or spoken warning) can be used. In addition or alternatively, the feedback module 30 could send feedback data from this system (in any suitable format, including analog and digital data) to be used as an input for various other on-board aircraft safety systems. The on-board aircraft safety systems can use the feedback information to provide additional feedback to the pilot using existing on-board aircraft elements and/or which may utilize the data to affect automatic or semi-automatic operation of the aircraft (including deceleration systems or various other systems) while landing.); and
a second output for causing an indication that alerts the pilot to a second scenario in which the deceleration of the aircraft is below the target deceleration level despite the aircraft achieving maximum available braking ([0038]: The system 10 may utilize an analysis module 26, in signal communication with the data collection module 16, to calculate the real-time deceleration rate of the aircraft based upon the collected information from the one or more sensors and/or databases. The analysis module 26 further compares the input target deceleration rate to the calculated deceleration rate to determine the effectiveness of the aircraft braking system. The actual, in situ effectiveness of the aircraft braking system during the aircraft landing may be quantified in various ways. In one example, the analysis module 26 can calculate a difference between the target deceleration rate and the actual deceleration rate of the aircraft, and the difference may be used to determine future action. The difference may also be compared against an anticipated amount which was predetermined based upon previous information, such as aircraft testing, simulations, extrapolations, etc. In some examples, the anticipated amount can be one of a percentage and a range of the target deceleration rate. For example, the anticipated amount can be useful to quantify a variance between the target deceleration rate and the actual deceleration rate of the aircraft, such as in terms of an increasing severity of the variance. This can be useful information when deciding what, if any, alerts or suggested corrective actions to provide the pilot. In one example, the system 10 can trigger an alert when the difference includes a range of differences or a percentage between the predicted and actual decelerations. If the pilot had commanded maximum auto-brake, but the actual effective deceleration was different than the predicted braking performance by an amount that exceeds a predetermined percentage or falls outside of a predetermined range (such as when a contaminated runway greatly reduces the coefficient of friction between the wheels and the ground surface), a signal can be triggered to indicate that the actual aircraft braking system requires further attention.).
Regarding claim 14, McKeown discloses:
A method of braking an aircraft during landing ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]), the method comprising:
comparing, with the use of a control system, a measured deceleration of the aircraft with a target deceleration level ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]), and
the control system outputting a command to a cockpit instrument to indicate to a pilot why the measured deceleration of the aircraft is below the target deceleration level ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 19, McKeown discloses:
A method of modifying an existing aircraft, the aircraft having a primary indication on a cockpit display for indicating whether a deceleration of the aircraft is equal to a target deceleration level ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]), the method comprising:
adapting the cockpit display to have a secondary indication, the secondary indication indicating a reason why deceleration of the aircraft cannot be increased despite deceleration being below a target deceleration level ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]);
installing a software on a system of the aircraft such that when installed the system of the aircraft is configured to:
detect whether the deceleration of the aircraft is less than the target deceleration level;
detect whether this is due to the aircraft braking being skid limited or despite the aircraft achieving maximum available braking ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]); and
issue a command to the cockpit display to indicate to a pilot using the secondary indication, why deceleration of the aircraft cannot be increased despite deceleration being below the target deceleration level ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 2, McKeown disclose the control system according to claim 1, and further on McKeown also discloses:
wherein the control system is further configured to receive the indication of the deceleration of the aircraft from one or more accelerometers located on the aircraft ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 3, McKeown disclose the control system according to claim 1, and further on McKeown also discloses:
wherein the target deceleration level is variable ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 4, McKeown disclose the control system according to claim 1, and further on McKeown also discloses:
wherein the brake system of the aircraft includes a pedal brake, and the control system is further configured to receive the indication of the target deceleration level from the pedal brake ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 5, McKeown disclose the control system according to claim 1, and further on McKeown also discloses:
wherein the brake system of the aircraft includes an autobrake system, and the control system is further configured to receive the indication of the target deceleration level from the autobrake system ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 6, McKeown disclose the control system according to claim 1, and further on McKeown also discloses:
wherein the control system is configured to output a command to a display unit to visually indicate to the pilot that deceleration of the aircraft is below the target deceleration level ([0022, 0028-0030, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]: One or more operator feedback apparatuses are connected to the processor. When the processor determines that an unsafe landing condition may be present or is likely to occur, it sends a control signal to activate one or more of these feedback apparatuses. The feedback apparatuses include various types of visual, audible, and tactile alerts, such as alarms, {{{displays}}}, buzzers, vibrators, or flashing lights. In another example, the feedback apparatuses could display simplified alert indicators, such as a system similar to the “stoplight” used on Navy aircraft carriers that tell a pilot via a red (do not proceed), yellow (caution), or green light (proceed) whether the current aircraft landing is advisable based on the instant performance information. In another example, the feedback apparatuses could display a detailed analysis of the braking operation from which the pilot could make decisions).
Regarding claim 7, McKeown disclose the control system according to claim 1, and further on McKeown also discloses:
wherein the control system is further configured to output a command to a display unit to indicate with a first indication that the ability to brake is limited due to skid conditions when the aircraft is in a skid limited state, wherein the control system is configured to output a command to the display unit to indicate with a second indication that the aircraft is achieving maximum available braking, when the aircraft is achieving maximum available braking but is not able to achieve the target deceleration level, the second indication different from the first indication ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 8, McKeown disclose the control system according to claim 1, and further on McKeown also discloses:
an aircraft ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]) comprising:
a brake system ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]);
a display unit ([0022, 0028-0030, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]: One or more operator feedback apparatuses are connected to the processor. When the processor determines that an unsafe landing condition may be present or is likely to occur, it sends a control signal to activate one or more of these feedback apparatuses. The feedback apparatuses include various types of visual, audible, and tactile alerts, such as alarms, {{{displays}}}, buzzers, vibrators, or flashing lights. In another example, the feedback apparatuses could display simplified alert indicators, such as a system similar to the “stoplight” used on Navy aircraft carriers that tell a pilot via a red (do not proceed), yellow (caution), or green light (proceed) whether the current aircraft landing is advisable based on the instant performance information. In another example, the feedback apparatuses could display a detailed analysis of the braking operation from which the pilot could make decisions); and
the control system according to claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to display on the display unit the indication that alerts the pilot to the first scenario and the indication that alerts the pilot to the second scenario ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 9, McKeown disclose the control system according to claim 8, and further on McKeown also discloses:
wherein the brake system of the aircraft is configured to determine whether the aircraft is experiencing skid conditions by analyzing inputs from sensors on one or more wheels of landing gear of the aircraft, and wherein the brake system is configured to limit the braking of the aircraft when the brake system determines a presence of skid conditions ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 10, McKeown disclose the control system according to claim 8, and further on McKeown also discloses:
wherein the display unit includes a visual indicator to provide a visual indication to the pilot that deceleration of the aircraft is below the target deceleration level either due to the aircraft braking being limited due to skid conditions or despite the aircraft achieving maximum available braking ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 11, McKeown disclose the control system according to claim 10, and further on McKeown also discloses:
wherein the visual indication that the aircraft braking is limited due to skid conditions, is different from the visual indication that the aircraft is achieving maximum available braking ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 12, McKeown disclose the control system according to claim 8, and further on McKeown also discloses:
wherein the brake system of the aircraft is configured to automatically determine the target deceleration level ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 13, McKeown disclose the control system according to claim 8, and further on McKeown also discloses:
wherein the brake system of the aircraft includes a pedal brake configured to be operated manually to allow a pilot to determine the target deceleration level ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 15, McKeown disclose the method according to claim 14, and further on McKeown also discloses:
wherein the method further comprises: the control system receiving an indication regarding an ability of the aircraft to brake being limited due to skid conditions, and wherein the outputting the command includes outputting a command to indicate to the pilot that a braking of the aircraft is limited due to skid conditions ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 16, McKeown disclose the method according to claim 14, and further on McKeown also discloses:
wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the control system, an indication regarding whether the aircraft is achieving maximum available braking, and wherein the outputting the command includes outputting a command to indicate to the pilot that the aircraft is achieving maximum available braking ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 17, McKeown disclose the method according to claim 14, and further on McKeown also discloses:
a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a processor of a system cause the system perform the method of claim 14 ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 18, McKeown disclose the method according to claim 17, and further on McKeown also discloses:
wherein the computer program causes an interaction between a brake system, the control system and a pilot indication system, the brake system, the control system and the pilot indication system being at least in part implemented by one or more on-board computers, the control system being configured to receive inputs from the brake system, and as a result to output signals that control or influence indications provided to the pilot by the pilot indication system ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Regarding claim 20, McKeown disclose the method according to claim 14, and further on McKeown also discloses:
a display apparatus ([0022, 0028-0030, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]: One or more operator feedback apparatuses are connected to the processor. When the processor determines that an unsafe landing condition may be present or is likely to occur, it sends a control signal to activate one or more of these feedback apparatuses. The feedback apparatuses include various types of visual, audible, and tactile alerts, such as alarms, {{{displays}}}, buzzers, vibrators, or flashing lights. In another example, the feedback apparatuses could display simplified alert indicators, such as a system similar to the “stoplight” used on Navy aircraft carriers that tell a pilot via a red (do not proceed), yellow (caution), or green light (proceed) whether the current aircraft landing is advisable based on the instant performance information. In another example, the feedback apparatuses could display a detailed analysis of the braking operation from which the pilot could make decisions),
the display apparatus ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]) comprising:
a display unit for an aircraft cockpit ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]); and
a control system configured to perform the method of claim 14 ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]),
the display unit ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]) configured
to indicate to the pilot with a first indication when a deceleration is below the target deceleration level due to the aircraft braking being limited due to skid conditions ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]), and
to indicate to the pilot with a second indication when the deceleration is below the target deceleration level despite the aircraft achieving a maximum available braking ([0022, 0028-0029, 0034, 0037, 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045-0048]).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2022/0194335 A1 – HOWELL
US 2022/0205870 A1 – HOWELL
[0072]: An example relating to applying the test apparatus 100 to an aircraft braking control system will now be described. First data 210 includes values indicative of an operational state of components for operating the brakes. In this example, when the hydraulic pumps for operating the brakes are not operational (i.e. are off) when the aircraft is moving on the ground, the braking control system is initially specified and designed to generate an {{{amber alert}}} on a pilot display to indicate that the normal or primary power source is not operating and that the alternate power sources for the brakes are being used. An {{{amber alert}}} may be an appropriate response for the braking control system because the brakes are required to operate but are not being operated by their primary control (i.e. the hydraulic pump system). Such amber alerts, if they appear on displays before take-off, may generate concern to air crew and can lead to an aircraft being grounded with a consequential flight delay or even cancellation. Nevertheless, through use of the test apparatus 100 described herein, it can be determined that there may be some situations in which aircrew perceive that, in the scenario described, an amber alert is an inappropriate or undesired response. For example, when an aircraft is being towed with the engines switched off, and hence the normal power source (e.g. hydraulic pump) is not active, it may be deemed acceptable and indeed desirable in this situation that the alternate power source for the brakes is being used. Accordingly, an amber alert may be deemed by the aircrew to be inappropriate and, potentially, an undue cause for concern. Instead, a more appropriate pilot display may indicate that the brakes are being actuated by their alternate power source but without an amber alert. In this case, the trained classifier 230 is trained to recognize that if the primary or normal power source is inactive, while the engines are off, then the braking control system being modelled should not display an amber alert. This kind of training of the trained classifier 230 is achieved using information and data from existing aircraft and/or feedback from experienced aircrew. During testing, therefore, where the output values from the trained classifier 230 are compared to output values from the at least part of an aircraft system 220 (i.e. the braking control system), an identified difference is that an amber alert is generated by the aircraft system but not by the trained classifier 230.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ruben Picon-Feliciano whose telephone number is (571)-272-4938. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday within 11:30 am-7:30 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lindsay M. Low can be reached on (571)272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUBEN PICON-FELICIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/GRANT MOUBRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights