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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant remarks, filed on 06/22/2026 with respect to claim(s) 14-24 and 53-61 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for teachings specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claims 14-19,22-24,53-58, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikic (US 20220011782 A1) (hereinafter Mikic) in view of Takegawa (JP 2022167542 A) (hereinafter Takegawa) in further view of Shuster (US 20070138345 A1) (hereinafter Shuster).
Regarding claim 14, Mikic teaches a computer-implemented method for controlled emergency landing of an aircraft (Mikic, paragraph 50, control can be partially or fully automated, which can reduce the cognitive load on pilots during stressful and/or safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing)), the method comprising:
receiving, using at least one hardware processor a battery level of the aircraft(Mikic, paragraph 54, the battery management system(BMS) can determine: battery state of charge (SoC) ), the battery level of the aircraft being based on respective battery states of multiple battery packs(Mikic teaches an aircraft with multiple battery packs while further disclosing a BMS that can monitor battery metrics, which indicates it capability to determine battery information of multiple battery packs. Mikic, paragraph 54, the BMS can otherwise suitably monitor battery conditions and/or determine any other suitable battery information/metrics. Mikic, paragraph 35, the aircraft can employ batteries with any suitable cell chemistries (e.g., Li-ion, nickel cadmium, etc.) in any suitable electrical architecture or configuration (e.g., multiple packs)), the respective battery states being based on measurements of dynamic electrical information of the multiple battery packs(Mikic, paragraph 35, The aircraft can employ batteries with any suitable cell chemistries (e.g., Li-ion, nickel cadmium, etc.) in any suitable electrical architecture or configuration (e.g., multiple packs));
determining, using at least one hardware processor, whether the received battery level is below the at least one threshold battery level(Mikic’s deep discharge refers to battery that has been drained below a threshold level, which corresponds to a low battery level. Mikic, paragraph 52, determining satisfaction of a deep discharge condition S110 Mikic, paragraph 59, the deep discharge condition (and/or threshold) is manually determined by pilot or pilot input (e.g., based on information available on a display, such as battery state or charge)); and
based on determining the received battery level is below the at least one threshold battery level ( Mikic, paragraph 59, the deep discharge condition (and/or threshold) is manually determined by pilot or pilot input (e.g., based on information available on a display, such as battery state or charge).),
controlling, using the at least one hardware processor, a descent rate of the aircraft (Mikic, paragraph 52, the method S100 can include: determining satisfaction of a deep discharge condition S110, preparing the battery for flare control S140, controlling the vehicle descent rate S150),
While Mikic teaches about controlling the descent rate of an aircraft when battery level below a defined threshold, it fails to disclose a method of receiving, using at least one hardware processor, a current airspeed of the aircraft measured using at least one sensor; determining, using at least one hardware processor, at least one threshold battery level to perform an emergency landing based on the current airspeed of the aircraft;
controlling descent rate of the aircraft by enforcing a minimum descent rate as a limit while permitting any pilot maneuver other than commanding a descent rate slower than the limit;
However, Takegawa, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about emergency landing of multicopter, discloses receiving, using at least one hardware processor, a current airspeed of the aircraft measured using at least one sensor ( Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed); determining, using at least one hardware processor, at least one threshold battery level to perform an emergency landing based on the current airspeed of the aircraft (Takegawa discloses the changing of state of charge (SOC) limit based on wind speed, which is derived from airspeed data. Takegawa page 7 line 6, changes the SOC lower limit value according to the emergency landing speed calculated according to the wind speed. Takegawa, page 8 line 10, the PCU 32 calculates the wind speed based on the airspeed and the ground speed as shown in FIG. 10);
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mikic with Takegawa to determine the battery level limit required to perform emergency landing based on wind speed that is calculated by airspeed data. By determining the battery threshold to perform emergency landing, it is possible to estimate the rate of energy consumption to estimate the decent rate required to perform the emergency landing. Furthermore, it is possible to adjust the aircraft‘s speed to land before the battery is completely drained.
The combination of Mikic and Takegawa specifically fails to disclose controlling descent rate of the aircraft by enforcing a minimum descent rate as a limit while permitting any pilot maneuver other than commanding a descent rate slower than the limit;
However, Shuster, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about aviation navigation, discloses controlling descent rate of the aircraft by enforcing a minimum descent rate as a limit while permitting any pilot maneuver other than commanding a descent rate slower than the limit (Shuster discloses guiding the pilot with minimum and maximum descent rates during emergency condition, which corresponds to the minimum descent rate of the claim. Shuster further discusses these minimum and maximum value are implemented to prevent the aircraft from overshooting or undershooting an emergency landing target. Moreover, it would be obvious to allow a pilot to do anything to maneuver the aircraft as long as it lands safely after an emergency condition by following the minimum descent rate. Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates. Shuster, paragraph 39, the emergency navigation system may provide a location and description of the nearest acceptable landing area. Subsequently, the navigation system may provide vectors and required descent speed to guide the pilot to the landing area, including course corrections as necessary to kept the aircraft on an optimal glide path ).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mikic and Takegawa with Shuster to enforce a minimum descend rate during emergency landing. By applying a minimum descent rate, it is possible to prevent the pilot from overshooting or undershooting the emergency landing target caused by incorrect descent rate. (Shuster, paragraph 7, a pilot in an emergency landing situation often is in the position of being able to make only one approach to the landing site. If the pilot picks the wrong glideslope, approach speed, or other aspects of the approach, the pilot may overshoot or undershoot the target ).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 14(Mikic, paragraph 50, control [aircraft]… for safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing); Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed; Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates), further comprising determining, using at least one hardware processor, a flight mode of the aircraft (Mikic discloses different flight modes such hover mode, landing, and glide, which indicates its determination capability. Mikic, paragraph 60, The method can optionally include determining a landing approach mode S120, which functions to determine the type of landing approach for a multi-modal aircraft. S120 can be employed for aircrafts configured to perform: autorotation, vertical landing, VTOL, STOL, operable between a hover mode and a forward flight mode, vehicles able to glide, and/or other suitable aircraft. Mikic, paragraph 42, various flight modes (vertical take-off and landing configuration, forward flight configuration, and transition between)), wherein determining the at least one threshold battery level is further based on the determined flight mode (Mikic discloses determining the deep discharge threshold, which is similar to the low level battery threshold. Mikic, paragraph 56, The threshold can be calculated based on a single parameter (e.g., SoC) and/or combination of parameters, such as: state of charge, remaining range, sustained flight time remaining, battery temperature, altitude, velocity (vertical and/or horizontal components), flight mode (e.g., hover), and/or any other suitable parameters).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 14(Mikic, paragraph 50, control [aircraft]… for safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing); Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed; Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates), further comprising:
Determining, using at least one hardware processor, a landing mode for the aircraft based on at least one of an altitude of the aircraft, the current airspeed of the aircraft, landing terrain available to the aircraft, availability of a suitable landing site, an atmospheric condition (Mikic, paragraph 62, determining a vertical landing approach mode can be determined based on…a weather condition (e.g., wind speeds above a threshold, precipitation, etc.), visibility condition (e.g., clouds, fog, visibility below a threshold, etc.)), and the received battery level of the aircraft; and
Controlling, using at least one hardware processor, the descent rate based on the determined landing mode (Mikic, paragraph 45, the flight computer 311 may include functionalities for determining a landing approach mode, for determining a descent trajectory).
Regarding claim 17, the combination Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 16(Mikic, paragraph 50, control [aircraft]… for safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing); Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed; Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates), wherein:
determining the landing mode includes preventing execution of at least one different landing mode (Mikic’s disclosure of mechanism of selecting a single landing mode implies only one landing approach mode is executed not another. Additionally, Mikic’s disclosure of an aircraft with a capability of executing a single landing approach indicates the prevention of executing another landing approach. Mikic, paragraph 60, The method can optionally include determining a landing approach mode S120, which functions to determine the type of landing approach for a multi-modal aircraft. S120 can be employed for aircrafts configured to perform: autorotation, vertical landing. Mikic, paragraph 63, the landing approach mode is not determined (e.g., for aircrafts capable of only a single approach mode, where a single landing approach mode is strictly preferable, etc.)), and the at least one different landing mode is associated with a different descent rate than the determined landing mode(Mikic discloses different landing modes such as glide and hover mode which inherently have distinct descent rate. Mikic, paragraph 60, the method can optionally include determining a landing approach mode S120, which functions to determine the type of landing approach for a multi-modal aircraft. S120 can be employed for aircrafts configured to perform: autorotation, vertical landing, VTOL, STOL, operable between a hover mode and a forward flight mode, vehicles able to glide, and/or other suitable aircraft ).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 14(Mikic, paragraph 50, control [aircraft]… for safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing); Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed; Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates), wherein the pilot maneuver is a flare(Mikic, paragraph 66, the user/pilot has full control authority to land during flare control and/or vehicle arrest. Mikic, paragraph 92, S166 can provide pilots a predetermined period of flare control (e.g., full power hover and/or reduced power/control authority) with any suitable control laws.).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 18(Mikic, paragraph 50, control [aircraft]… for safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing); Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed; Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates), wherein execution of the flare is at least partially assisted or manual(Mikic, paragraph 50, thrust vectoring during ‘flare’ control can be partially or fully automated, which can reduce the cognitive load on pilots during stressful and/or safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing).).
Regarding claim 22, Mikic teaches at least one processor to(Mikic, paragraph 53, onboard processor):
receive a battery level of the aircraft(Mikic, paragraph 54, the battery management system(BMS) can determine: battery state of charge (SoC)), the battery level of the aircraft being based on respective battery states of multiple battery packs(Mikic teaches an aircraft with multiple battery packs while further disclosing a BMS that can monitor battery metrics, which indicates it capability to determine battery information of multiple battery packs. Mikic, paragraph 54, the BMS can otherwise suitably monitor battery conditions and/or determine any other suitable battery information/metrics. Mikic, paragraph 35, the aircraft can employ batteries with any suitable cell chemistries (e.g., Li-ion, nickel cadmium, etc.) in any suitable electrical architecture or configuration (e.g., multiple packs)), the respective battery states being based on measurements of dynamic electrical information of the multiple battery packs (Mikic, paragraph 35, The aircraft can employ batteries with any suitable cell chemistries (e.g., Li-ion, nickel cadmium, etc.) in any suitable electrical architecture or configuration (e.g., multiple packs));
determine whether the received battery level is below the at least one threshold battery level(Mikic’s deep discharge refers to battery that has been drained below a threshold level, which corresponds to a low battery level. Mikic, paragraph 52, determining satisfaction of a deep discharge condition S110. Mikic, paragraph 59, the deep discharge condition (and/or threshold) is manually determined by pilot or pilot input (e.g., based on information available on a display, such as battery state or charge)); and
based on determining the received battery level is below the at least one threshold battery level (Mikic, paragraph 59, the deep discharge condition (and/or threshold) is manually determined by pilot or pilot input (e.g., based on information available on a display, such as battery state or charge)):
control a descent rate of the aircraft (Mikic, paragraph 52, the method S100 can include: determining satisfaction of a deep discharge condition S110, preparing the battery for flare control S140, controlling the vehicle descent rate S150),
While Mikic teaches about controlling the descent rate of an aircraft when battery level below a defined threshold, it fails to disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause one processor to ;
receive a current airspeed of an aircraft measured using at least one sensor;
determine at least one threshold battery level to perform an emergency landing based on the current airspeed of the aircraft;
control descent rate of the aircraft by enforcing a minimum descent rate as a limit while permitting any pilot maneuver other than commanding a descent rate slower than the limit;
However, Takegawa, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about emergency landing of multicopter, discloses a system to receive a current airspeed of an aircraft measured using at least one sensor(Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed);
determine at least one threshold battery level to perform an emergency landing based on the current airspeed of the aircraft(Takegawa discloses the changing of state of charge (SOC) limit based on wind speed, which is derived from airspeed data. Takegawa page 7 line 6, changes the SOC lower limit value according to the emergency landing speed calculated according to the wind speed. Takegawa, page 8 line 10, the PCU 32 calculates the wind speed based on the airspeed and the ground speed as shown in FIG. 10);
The combination of Mikic and Takegawa specifically fails to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause one processor to;
control descent rate of the aircraft by enforcing a minimum descent rate as a limit while permitting any pilot maneuver other than commanding a descent rate slower than the limit;
However, Shuster, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about aviation navigation, discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, when executed by at least one processor(Shuster, paragraph 27, it should be understood that a "computer," "computer module," or "computer circuit" as used herein should be taken to mean any operable combination of hardware, software, or firmware for performing a computing function), cause one processor to;
control descent rate of the aircraft by enforcing a minimum descent rate as a limit while permitting any pilot maneuver other than commanding a descent rate slower than the limit(Shuster discloses guiding the pilot with minimum and maximum descent rates during emergency condition, which corresponds to the minimum descent rate of the claim. Shuster further discusses these minimum and maximum value are implemented to prevent the aircraft from overshooting or undershooting an emergency landing target. Moreover, it would be obvious to allow a pilot to do anything to maneuver the aircraft as long as it lands safely after an emergency condition by following the minimum descent rate Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates. Shuster, paragraph 39, the emergency navigation system may provide a location and description of the nearest acceptable landing area. Subsequently, the navigation system may provide vectors and required descent speed to guide the pilot to the landing area, including course corrections as necessary to kept the aircraft on an optimal glide path);
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mikic and Takegawa with Shuster to enforce a minimum descend rate during emergency landing. By applying a minimum descent rate, it is possible to prevent the pilot from overshooting or undershooting the emergency landing target caused by incorrect descent rate. (Shuster, paragraph 7, a pilot in an emergency landing situation often is in the position of being able to make only one approach to the landing site. If the pilot picks the wrong glideslope, approach speed, or other aspects of the approach, the pilot may overshoot or undershoot the target ).
Regarding claim 23, Mikic teaches A system, comprising:
at least one processor(Mikic, paragraph 53, onboard processor); and
receive a battery level of the aircraft(Mikic, paragraph 54, the battery management system(BMS) can determine: battery state of charge (SoC)), the battery level of the aircraft being based on respective battery states of multiple battery packs(Mikic teaches an aircraft with multiple battery packs while further disclosing a BMS that can monitor battery metrics, which indicates it capability to determine battery information of multiple battery packs. Mikic, paragraph 54, the BMS can otherwise suitably monitor battery conditions and/or determine any other suitable battery information/metrics. Mikic, paragraph 35, the aircraft can employ batteries with any suitable cell chemistries (e.g., Li-ion, nickel cadmium, etc.) in any suitable electrical architecture or configuration (e.g., multiple packs)), the respective battery states being based on measurements of dynamic electrical information of the multiple battery packs(Mikic, paragraph 35, The aircraft can employ batteries with any suitable cell chemistries (e.g., Li-ion, nickel cadmium, etc.) in any suitable electrical architecture or configuration (e.g., multiple packs));
determine, using at least one hardware processor, whether the received battery level is below the at least one threshold battery level(Mikic’s deep discharge refers to battery that has been drained below a threshold level, which corresponds to a low battery level. Mikic, paragraph 52, determining satisfaction of a deep discharge condition S110. Mikic, paragraph 59, the deep discharge condition (and/or threshold) is manually determined by pilot or pilot input (e.g., based on information available on a display, such as battery state or charge)); and
based on determining the received battery level is below the at least one threshold battery level(Mikic, paragraph 59, the deep discharge condition (and/or threshold) is manually determined by pilot or pilot input (e.g., based on information available on a display, such as battery state or charge)):
control a descent rate of the aircraft (Mikic, paragraph 52, the method S100 can include: determining satisfaction of a deep discharge condition S110, preparing the battery for flare control S140, controlling the vehicle descent rate S150),
While Mikic teaches about controlling the descent rate of an aircraft when battery level is below a defined threshold, it fails to disclose at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to; receive a current airspeed of an aircraft measured using at least one sensor;
determine at least one threshold battery level to perform an emergency landing based on the current airspeed of the aircraft;
controlling descent rate of the aircraft by enforcing a minimum descent rate as a limit while permitting any pilot maneuver other than commanding a descent rate slower than the limit;
However, Takegawa, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about emergency landing of multicopter, discloses a system to receive a current airspeed of an aircraft measured using at least one sensor(Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed);
determine at least one threshold battery level to perform an emergency landing based on the current airspeed of the aircraft(Takegawa discloses the changing of state of charge (SOC) limit based on wind speed, which is derived from airspeed data. Takegawa page 7 line 6, changes the SOC lower limit value according to the emergency landing speed calculated according to the wind speed. Takegawa, page 8 line 10, the PCU 32 calculates the wind speed based on the airspeed and the ground speed as shown in FIG. 10);
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mikic with Takegawa to determine the battery level limit required to perform emergency landing based on wind speed that is calculated by airspeed data. By determining the battery threshold to perform emergency landing, it is possible to estimate the rate of energy consumption to estimate the decent rate required to perform the emergency landing. Furthermore, it is possible to adjust the aircraft‘s speed to land before the battery is completely drained.
The combination of Mikic and Takegawa specifically fails to disclose at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor; controlling descent rate of the aircraft by enforcing a minimum descent rate as a limit while permitting any pilot maneuver other than commanding a descent rate slower than the limit;
However, Shuster, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about aviation navigation, discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor(Shuster, paragraph 27, it should be understood that a "computer," "computer module," or "computer circuit" as used herein should be taken to mean any operable combination of hardware, software, or firmware for performing a computing function); controlling descent rate of the aircraft by enforcing a minimum descent rate as a limit while permitting any pilot maneuver other than commanding a descent rate slower than the limit(Shuster discloses guiding the pilot with minimum and maximum descent rates during emergency condition, which corresponds to the minimum descent rate of the claim. Shuster further discusses these minimum and maximum value are implemented to prevent the aircraft from overshooting or undershooting an emergency landing target. Moreover, it would be obvious to allow a pilot to do anything to maneuver the aircraft as long as it lands safely after an emergency condition by following the minimum descent rate Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates. Shuster, paragraph 39, the emergency navigation system may provide a location and description of the nearest acceptable landing area. Subsequently, the navigation system may provide vectors and required descent speed to guide the pilot to the landing area, including course corrections as necessary to kept the aircraft on an optimal glide path);
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mikic and Takegawa with Shuster to enforce a minimum descend rate during emergency landing. By applying a minimum descent rate, it is possible to prevent the pilot from overshooting or undershooting the emergency landing target caused by incorrect descent rate. (Shuster, paragraph 7, a pilot in an emergency landing situation often is in the position of being able to make only one approach to the landing site. If the pilot picks the wrong glideslope, approach speed, or other aspects of the approach, the pilot may overshoot or undershoot the target ).
Regarding claim 24, Mikic teaches an aircraft(Mikic, paragraph 29, aircraft), comprising:
at least one processor(Mikic, paragraph 53, onboard processor); and
receive a battery level of the aircraft(Mikic, paragraph 54, the battery management system(BMS) can determine: battery state of charge (SoC)), the battery level of the aircraft being based on respective battery states of multiple battery packs(Mikic teaches an aircraft with multiple battery packs while further disclosing a BMS that can monitor battery metrics, which indicates it capability to determine battery information of multiple battery packs. Mikic, paragraph 54, the BMS can otherwise suitably monitor battery conditions and/or determine any other suitable battery information/metrics. Mikic, paragraph 35, the aircraft can employ batteries with any suitable cell chemistries (e.g., Li-ion, nickel cadmium, etc.) in any suitable electrical architecture or configuration (e.g., multiple packs)), the respective battery states being based on measurements of dynamic electrical information of the multiple battery packs(Mikic, paragraph 35, The aircraft can employ batteries with any suitable cell chemistries (e.g., Li-ion, nickel cadmium, etc.) in any suitable electrical architecture or configuration (e.g., multiple packs));
determine whether the received battery level is below the at least one threshold battery level(Mikic’s deep discharge refers to battery that has been drained below a threshold level, which corresponds to a low battery level. Mikic, paragraph 52, determining satisfaction of a deep discharge condition S110 Mikic, paragraph 59, the deep discharge condition (and/or threshold) is manually determined by pilot or pilot input (e.g., based on information available on a display, such as battery state or charge)); and
based on determining the received battery level is below the at least one threshold battery level(Mikic, paragraph 59, the deep discharge condition (and/or threshold) is manually determined by pilot or pilot input (e.g., based on information available on a display, such as battery state or charge)):
control a descent rate of the aircraft (Mikic, paragraph 52, the method S100 can include: determining satisfaction of a deep discharge condition S110, preparing the battery for flare control S140, controlling the vehicle descent rate S150),
While Mikic teaches about controlling the descent rate of an aircraft when battery level below a defined threshold, it fails to disclose at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
receive a current airspeed of the aircraft measured using at least one sensor;
determine at least one threshold battery level to perform an emergency landing based on the current airspeed of the aircraft;
control descent rate of the aircraft by enforcing a minimum descent rate as a limit while permitting any pilot maneuver other than commanding a descent rate slower than the limit;
However, Takegawa, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about emergency landing of multicopter, discloses a system to receive a current airspeed of an aircraft measured using at least one sensor(Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed);
determine at least one threshold battery level to perform an emergency landing based on the current airspeed of the aircraft(Takegawa discloses the changing of state of charge (SOC) limit based on wind speed, which is derived from airspeed data. Takegawa page 7 line 6, changes the SOC lower limit value according to the emergency landing speed calculated according to the wind speed. Takegawa, page 8 line 10, the PCU 32 calculates the wind speed based on the airspeed and the ground speed as shown in FIG. 10);
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mikic with Takegawa to determine the battery level limit required to perform emergency landing based on wind speed that is calculated by airspeed data. By determining the battery threshold to perform emergency landing, it is possible to estimate the rate of energy consumption to estimate the decent rate required to perform the emergency landing. Furthermore, it is possible to adjust the aircraft‘s speed to land before the battery is completely drained.
The combination of Mikic and Takegawa specifically fails to disclose at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to; control descent rate of the aircraft by enforcing a minimum descent rate as a limit while permitting any pilot maneuver other than commanding a descent rate slower than the limit;
However, Shuster, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about aviation navigation, discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Shuster, paragraph 27, it should be understood that a "computer," "computer module," or "computer circuit" as used herein should be taken to mean any operable combination of hardware, software, or firmware for performing a computing function ), cause the at least one processor to(); control descent rate of the aircraft by enforcing a minimum descent rate as a limit while permitting any pilot maneuver other than commanding a descent rate slower than the limit(Shuster discloses guiding the pilot with minimum and maximum descent rates during emergency condition, which corresponds to the minimum descent rate of the claim. Shuster further discusses these minimum and maximum value are implemented to prevent the aircraft from overshooting or undershooting an emergency landing target. Moreover, it would be obvious to allow a pilot to do anything to maneuver the aircraft as long as it lands safely after an emergency condition by following the minimum descent rate Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates. Shuster, paragraph 39, the emergency navigation system may provide a location and description of the nearest acceptable landing area. Subsequently, the navigation system may provide vectors and required descent speed to guide the pilot to the landing area, including course corrections as necessary to kept the aircraft on an optimal glide path);
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mikic and Takegawa with Shuster to enforce a minimum descend rate during emergency landing. By applying a minimum descent rate, it is possible to prevent the pilot from overshooting or undershooting the emergency landing target by applying incorrect descent rate. (Shuster, paragraph 7, a pilot in an emergency landing situation often is in the position of being able to make only one approach to the landing site. If the pilot picks the wrong glideslope, approach speed, or other aspects of the approach, the pilot may overshoot or undershoot the target ).
Regarding claim 53, the combination of Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 14(Mikic, paragraph 50, control [aircraft]… for safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing); Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed; Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates), wherein permitting the pilot maneuver includes accepting commands for a descent rate higher than the limit(Mikic discloses a quicker descent rate that is preferred to for efficiency energy recovery indicating a higher descent rate. Mikic ,paragraph 76, a quicker descent rate is more efficient in terms of energy capture).
Regarding claim 54, the combination of Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster teaches the system of claim 23(Mikic, paragraph 50, control [aircraft]… for safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing); Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed; Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates), wherein the instructions contained in the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further cause the at least one processor to(Shuster, paragraph 27, it should be understood that a "computer," "computer module," or "computer circuit" as used herein should be taken to mean any operable combination of hardware, software, or firmware for performing a computing function) determine a flight mode of the aircraft(Mikic discloses different flight modes such hover mode, landing, and glide, which indicates its determination capability. Mikic, paragraph 60, The method can optionally include determining a landing approach mode S120, which functions to determine the type of landing approach for a multi-modal aircraft. S120 can be employed for aircrafts configured to perform: autorotation, vertical landing, VTOL, STOL, operable between a hover mode and a forward flight mode, vehicles able to glide, and/or other suitable aircraft. Mikic, paragraph 42, various flight modes (vertical take-off and landing configuration, forward flight configuration, and transition between)), wherein determining the at least one threshold battery level is further based on the determined flight mode(Mikic discloses determining the deep discharge threshold, which is similar to the low level battery threshold. Mikic, paragraph 56, The threshold can be calculated based on a single parameter (e.g., SoC) and/or combination of parameters, such as: state of charge, remaining range, sustained flight time remaining, battery temperature, altitude, velocity (vertical and/or horizontal components), flight mode (e.g., hover), and/or any other suitable parameters).
Regarding claim 55, the combination of Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster teaches the system of claim 23(Mikic, paragraph 50, control [aircraft]… for safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing); Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed; Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates), wherein the instructions contained in the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further cause the at least one processor to(Shuster, paragraph 27, it should be understood that a "computer," "computer module," or "computer circuit" as used herein should be taken to mean any operable combination of hardware, software, or firmware for performing a computing function):
determine a landing mode for the aircraft based on at least one of an altitude of the aircraft, the current airspeed of the aircraft, landing terrain available to the aircraft, availability of a suitable landing site, an atmospheric condition(Mikic, paragraph 62, determining a vertical landing approach mode can be determined based on…a weather condition (e.g., wind speeds above a threshold, precipitation, etc.), visibility condition (e.g., clouds, fog, visibility below a threshold, etc.)), and the received battery level of the aircraft; and
control the descent rate based on the determined landing mode(Mikic, paragraph 52, The method can optionally include: determining a landing approach mode S120 and determining a descent trajectory S130. Preparing the battery for flare control).
Regarding claim 56, the combination of Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster teaches the system of claim 55(Mikic, paragraph 50, control [aircraft]… for safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing); Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed; Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates), wherein:
determining the landing mode includes preventing execution of at least one different landing mode(Mikic’s disclosure of mechanism of selecting a single landing mode implies only one landing approach mode is executed not another. Additionally, Mikic’s disclosure of an aircraft with a capability of executing a single landing approach indicates the prevention of executing another landing approach. Mikic, paragraph 60, The method can optionally include determining a landing approach mode S120, which functions to determine the type of landing approach for a multi-modal aircraft. S120 can be employed for aircrafts configured to perform: autorotation, vertical landing. Mikic, paragraph 63, the landing approach mode is not determined (e.g., for aircrafts capable of only a single approach mode, where a single landing approach mode is strictly preferable, etc.)), and
the at least one different landing mode is associated with a different descent rate than the determined landing mode(Mikic discloses different landing modes such as glide and hover mode which inherently have distinct descent rate. Mikic, paragraph 60, the method can optionally include determining a landing approach mode S120, which functions to determine the type of landing approach for a multi-modal aircraft. S120 can be employed for aircrafts configured to perform: autorotation, vertical landing, VTOL, STOL, operable between a hover mode and a forward flight mode, vehicles able to glide, and/or other suitable aircraft).
Regarding claim 57, the combination of Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster teaches the system of claim 23(Mikic, paragraph 50, control [aircraft]… for safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing); Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed; Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates), wherein the pilot maneuver is a flare(Mikic, paragraph 66, the user/pilot has full control authority to land during flare control and/or vehicle arrest. Mikic, paragraph 92, S166 can provide pilots a predetermined period of flare control (e.g., full power hover and/or reduced power/control authority) with any suitable control laws.).
Regarding claim 58, the combination of Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster teaches the system of claim 57(Mikic, paragraph 50, control [aircraft]… for safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing); Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed; Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates), wherein execution of the flare is at least partially assisted or manual(Mikic, paragraph 50, thrust vectoring during ‘flare’ control can be partially or fully automated, which can reduce the cognitive load on pilots during stressful and/or safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing).).
Regarding claim 61, the combination of Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster teaches The system of claim 23, wherein permitting the pilot maneuver includes accepting commands for a descent rate higher than the limit(Mikic discloses a quicker descent rate that is preferred to for efficiency energy recovery indicating a higher descent rate. Mikic ,paragraph 76, a quicker descent rate is more efficient in terms of energy capture).
Claims 20,21,59, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikic (US 20220011782 A1) (hereinafter Mikic) in view of Takegawa (JP 2022167542 A) (hereinafter Takegawa) in further view of Shuster (US 20070138345 A1) (hereinafter Shuster) in further view of Groden (US-20190031330-A1) (hereinafter Groden).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 14(Mikic, paragraph 50, control [aircraft]… for safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing); Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed; Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates), further comprising
and automatically controlling, using at least one hardware processor, the descent rate of the aircraft(Mikic, paragraph 50, thrust vectoring during ‘flare’ control can be partially or fully automated, which can reduce the cognitive load on pilots during stressful and/or safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing).).
While the combination of Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster discloses emergency condition, it fails to disclose determining, using at least one hardware processor, presence of an emergency condition; in response to the emergency condition: outputting, using at least one hardware processor, an alert to a pilot of the aircraft.
However, Groden, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about an emergency landing system discloses a method determining, using at least one hardware processor, presence of an emergency condition(Groden discloses determining aircraft issues that are similar to emergency conditions. Groden, paragraph 54, Determining aircraft conditions S330 preferably includes determining one or more specific issues (e.g., possible, probable, and/or imminent events such as collisions, low fuel conditions, equipment failures ); in response to the emergency condition: outputting, using at least one hardware processor, an alert to a pilot of the aircraft(Groden, paragraph 66, presenting information associated with the aircraft conditions to one or more humans (e.g., pilot, passenger, remote operator, etc.). For example, S340 can include generating an alert output (e.g., auditory output such as a klaxon, ‘ding’, and/or spoken alert; visual output such as a flashing alarm, indicator light, and/or display screen message ).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster with Groden to detect undesired flight condition/emergency condition and alert the pilot to take proper action. By incorporate monitoring emergency/undesired condition, it is possible detect developing flight conditions that may be problematic, thereby enabling timely and appropriate responses to such flight conditions. Furthermore, it is possible to take action for potential issues associated with the unfamiliar conditions. For example, taking conservative corrective actions, such as safety system deployment and/or emergency landing, in response to high-risk conditions.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Mikic, Takegawa, Shuster, and Groden teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 20(Mikic, paragraph 50, control [aircraft]… for safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing); Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed; Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates; Groden, paragraph 54, Determining aircraft conditions S330 preferably includes determining one or more specific issues), wherein the emergency condition includes one or more of: at least one battery failure(Groden, paragraph 131, Undesired flight conditions can include equipment problems (e.g., failures)…. Equipment problems can include: power loss ), at least one propeller failure, at least one electric propulsion unit (EPU) failure, a fire, or a bird strike( Groden, paragraph 52, electrical system failures and imminent bird strikes may be categorized as moderate severity).
Regarding claim 59, the combination of Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster teaches the system of claim 23(Mikic, paragraph 50, control [aircraft]… for safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing); Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed; Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates), wherein the instructions contained in the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium further cause the at least one processor to(Shuster, paragraph 27, it should be understood that a "computer," "computer module," or "computer circuit" as used herein should be taken to mean any operable combination of hardware, software, or firmware for performing a computing function):
automatically control the descent rate of the aircraft(Mikic, paragraph 50, thrust vectoring during ‘flare’ control can be partially or fully automated, which can reduce the cognitive load on pilots during stressful and/or safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing)).
While the combination of Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster discloses emergency condition, it fails to disclose a system to determine presence of an emergency condition; and
in response to the emergency condition:
output an alert to a pilot of the aircraft;
However, Groden, which is in the same analogous art and that teaches about an emergency landing system discloses a system to determine presence of an emergency condition(Groden discloses determining aircraft issues that are similar to emergency conditions. Groden, paragraph 54, Determining aircraft conditions S330 preferably includes determining one or more specific issues (e.g., possible, probable, and/or imminent events such as collisions, low fuel conditions, equipment failures); and
in response to the emergency condition:
output an alert to a pilot of the aircraft(Groden, paragraph 66, presenting information associated with the aircraft conditions to one or more humans (e.g., pilot, passenger, remote operator, etc.). For example, S340 can include generating an alert output (e.g., auditory output such as a klaxon, ‘ding’, and/or spoken alert; visual output such as a flashing alarm, indicator light, and/or display screen message );
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mikic, Takegawa, and Shuster with Kerem to detect undesired flight condition/emergency condition and alert the pilot to take proper action. By incorporate monitoring emergency/undesired condition, it is possible detect developing flight conditions that may be problematic, thereby enabling timely and appropriate responses to such flight conditions. Furthermore, it is possible to take action for potential issues associated with the unfamiliar conditions. For example, taking conservative corrective actions, such as safety system deployment and/or emergency landing, in response to high-risk conditions.
Regarding claim 60, the combination of Mikic, Takegawa, Shuster, and Groden teaches the system of claim 59(Mikic, paragraph 50, control [aircraft]… for safety critical landing scenarios (such as an emergency landing); Takegawa, page 7 line 45, The airspeed sensor 52 is an airspeed measuring unit that measures the airspeed; Shuster, paragraph 17, the navigation system guides the pilot to the landing area by providing course vectors and required minimum and maximum descent rates; Groden, paragraph 54, Determining aircraft conditions S330 preferably includes determining one or more specific issues), wherein the emergency condition includes one or more of: at least one battery failure, at least one propeller failure, at least one electric propulsion unit (EPU) failure, a fire, or a bird strike(Groden, paragraph 52, electrical system failures and imminent bird strikes may be categorized as moderate severity).
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure.
Lanterna (US-20160342159-A1) teaches limited emergency descent command which corresponds to a minimum value between a maximum descent value of an aircraft, that allows manual piloting with descent higher than those attainable in automatic piloting.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BESUFEKAD LEMMA TESSEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6850. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 5712727298. 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.
/BESUFEKAD LEMMA TESSEMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights