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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 19-Sep-2025 has been entered.
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 Hurst et al. (US 8,403,429) in view of Devlieg et al. (US 2006/0186736).
Regarding claim 1, Hurst discloses a method for braking an aircraft (see Abstract) having right and left brakes (86, 88, 90, 92) controlled by right and left brake pedals (16, 18), comprising: determining an actual rate of deceleration of the aircraft (see col. 3, lines 13-24); calculating a required rate of deceleration of the aircraft (see col. 3, lines 1-13); making a comparison of the actual and required rates of deceleration of the aircraft (see col. 3, lines 25-33); and 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. 3, lines 40-64).
Hurst does not disclose brake disc heat stacks or establishing a minimum braking pressure that both (i) 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, while (ii) ensuring the capability of differential braking between the right and left brake pedals and associated right and left brakes, the same said minimum braking pressure being linked to and simultaneously effecting features (i) and (ii).
DeVlieg teaches a method for braking an aircraft (see Abstract) comprising brake disc heat stacks (see ¶ 004), the method comprising establishing a minimum braking pressure that (i) 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 ¶¶ 0002, 0007) while (ii) ensuring the capability of differential braking between the right and left brake pedals and associated right and left brakes (see ¶ 0006, “[n]ormal additional brake applications or snubs required to control . . . turning of the aircraft are not affected by maintaining a minimum light residual clamping force”), the same said minimum braking pressure being linked to and simultaneously effecting features (i) and (ii) (see ¶ 0006, “[n]ormal additional brake applications or snubs required to control . . . turning of the aircraft are not affected by maintaining a minimum light residual clamping force”).
It would have been obvious to establish a minimum braking pressure that precludes the discs of the heat stacks from going into separation while ensuring the capability of differential braking between right and left brakes in the method of DeVlieg to reduce the amount of wear of the brake disc heat stacks and ensuring normal braking applications or snubs (see e.g. DeVlieg, ¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 3, Devlieg teaches that the establishment of a minimum brake pressure is separately performed for the right and left brakes (see ¶ 0006, “[n]ormal additional brake applications or snubs required to control . . . turning of the aircraft are not affected by maintaining a minimum light residual clamping force” which requires independent determination of right and left pressures to effect turning of the aircraft).
Regarding claim 4, Hurst discloses 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 col. 3, lines 1-52).
Regarding claim 5, Hurst discloses 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 col. 3, lines 1-52).
Regarding claim 6, Hurst discloses that the non- braking activities are selected from a group consisting of aerodynamic drag and reverse thrust (see col. 3, lines 20-24; method incorporates the “instantaneous aircraft deceleration” which would include at least deceleration due to aerodynamic drag”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19-Sep-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of independent claim 1 over Hurst in view of DeVlieg, Applicant argues that “link[ing] the minimum brake pressure to differential braking . . . is nowhere shown or suggested by DeVlieg, taken alone or in combination of any other references.” DeVlieg, however, explicitly discloses that “[n]ormal additional brake applications or snubs required to control . . . turning of the aircraft are not affected by maintaining a minimum light residual clamping force” thereby disclosing that the minimum brake pressure is linked to and provides both of (i) precluding the discs of the heat stacks from going into separation; and (ii) ensures the capability of differential braking between right and left brakes, as recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
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
January 24, 2026