DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 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 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith et al. (US 5,505,531) in view of Georgin (US 2018/0326952).
Regarding claim 1, Griffith discloses a method for braking an aircraft (see Abstract; col. 3, lines 18-32) having right and left brake disc heat stacks (see col. 1, lines 21-24, “large commercial aircraft [with] . . . aircraft wheels (rotors) interleaved with stationary members (stators)”), comprising: engaging a braking run for said aircraft upon landing and prior to taxiing (see col. 5, lines 23-25), said braking run comprising: determining an actual rate of deceleration of the aircraft (see col. 5, lines 1-3, “actual aircraft deceleration”); calculating a required rate of deceleration of the aircraft (see col. 5, lines 1-3, “predetermined aircraft deceleration”); making a comparison of the actual and required rates of deceleration of the aircraft (see col. 5, lines 1-3, “[d]eceleration error”); and during said braking run, controlling the application and release of brake pressure to the right and left brakes of the aircraft as a function of said comparison (see col. 6, lines 14-19) while establishing a minimum braking pressure demand that precludes the discs of the heat stacks from going into separation as a consequence of non-braking activities that cause a deceleration of the aircraft (see col. 3, lines 33-45; col. 7, lines 6-15).
Griffith does not disclose that the right and left brake disc heat stacks controlled by right and left brake pedals, or that the minimum braking pressure ensures the capability of differential braking between the right and left brake pedals and associated right and left brakes, the same said variable minimum braking pressure demand being linked to and simultaneously effecting features (i) and (ii).
Georgen teaches a method for braking an aircraft (see Abstract) having right and left (see ¶ 0024, “control a left side wheel and a right side wheel independently to allow for differential braking”) brake disc heat stacks (see ¶ 0021, “brake disk stack”) controlled by right and left brake pedals (see ¶ 0034, “a left pedal brake provides left pedal inputs and a right pedal brake provides right pedal inputs”), engaging a braking run for said aircraft upon landing prior to taxiing (see ¶ 0002), said braking run comprising: during said braking run, establishing a variable minimum braking pressure demand (see ¶ 0045, “priority to the manual input”), wherein a minimum braking pressure ensures the capability of differential braking between the right and left brake pedals and associated right and left brakes (see ¶ 0024, “[a]ircraft braking system 100 may be configured . . . to allow for differential braking,” see also ¶ 0048, “priority to received force signals (e.g., the braking force command 124) over received deceleration signals,” (emphasis added), see also ¶ 0036, “[t]he braking force command 124 may comprise a single braking signal or multiple braking signals (e.g., the braking force command 124 may comprise a separate braking command for a right pedal and a left pedal, and/or the like)”) (emphasis added).
It would have been obvious to combine the differential braking steps and capability of Georgen with the braking method and apparatus of Griffith to allow for pilot control of differential braking to maintain the desired course during aircraft landing (see ¶ 0024). Furthermore, the combination of the teachings of Georgen with Griffith would result in the minimum braking pressure demand being linked to and simultaneously effecting features (i) and (ii), i.e. the braking method would result in a minimum pressure to (i) preclude the discs of the heat stack from going into separation (see Georgen, col. 3, lines 33-45; col. 7, lines 6-15), and (ii) ensure the capability of differential braking (see Griffith, ¶ 0048, priority is given to manual differential braking over target deceleration).
Regarding claim 3, Georgen teaches that the establishment of a said variable minimum brake pressure demand is separately performed for the right and left brakes (see ¶ 0036).
Regarding claim 4, Georgen teaches that said step of controlling the application and release of brake pressure comprises correlating displacement of the right and left brake pedals with pressure demand (see ¶ 0033).
Regarding claim 5, Georgen teaches that said step of controlling the application and release of brake pressure comprises correlating displacement of the right and left pedals with required deceleration (see ¶ 0037).
Regarding claim 6, Griffith teaches that the non-braking activities are selected from a group consisting of aerodynamic drag and reverse thrust (see col. 3, lines 33-45; col. 7, lines 6-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection noted above.
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 NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571)272-7124. 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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
July 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights