DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/17/2024 and 7/29/2024 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitations “…the aircraft controls other aspects of the steering… the braking control module controls other aspects of the braking… the other aspects of the steering being wholly independent of the other aspects of the braking.” in claim 10 render the claim indefinite because it is ambiguous what the other aspects associate with the steering or the other aspects associate with the braking may be. The originally filed specification does not appear to disclose any specifics relate to these other aspects associate with the two systems. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 11-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Romana et al. (US 2017/0008619 A1).
For claims 1, 8, 13, 15, 16 and 18, Romana discloses an aircraft comprising a control system for use with an aircraft, the system being configured to:
detect a failure of a part of a braking system of the aircraft that, without other action being taken, would lead to differential braking being applied in response to a command for non-differential braking being issued (Para. 0005, 0087, where unwanted differential braking may occur due to factors such as failures of components); and
in response to both the detection of the failure and a command for braking being issued, automatically steering a nose landing gear wheel to compensate, at least in part, for the yawing moment caused by braking applied to wheels (Abstract, para. 0087, 0088, where nose wheel are automatically adjusted to compensate for differential braking).
For claims 2-4, Romana discloses the aircraft control system according to claim 1, wherein automatically performs steering, movements and braking to control the aircraft to travel at desired direction, angle and speed is controlling the steering dependence on level of braking, proportion to the level of braking and speed of the aircraft, because higher level of braking provides harder braking (Abstract, para. 0008-0010).
For claims 5-6, Romana discloses the control system cording to claim 4, wherein the amount of automatic steering of the nose landing gear wheel commanded by the control system is subject to a maximum angular position from its neutral center position and the control of the nose landing gear wheel are automatically controlled in account for the speed of the aircraft (Para. 0021-0024, 0030-0032, 0073).
For claim 9, Romana discloses the aircraft according to claim 8, wherein the aircraft comprises a steering control module and a separate braking control module and the control system interacts with, or comprises at least part of, both the steering control module and a separate braking control module (Para. 0008, 0009, 0037, 0038, 0062, 0063, where the aircraft comprises a steering system controller and a braking system controller).
For claims 11 and 12, Romana discloses the aircraft according to claim 8, wherein a function of the control system at least insofar as it causes automatic steering of the nose landing gear wheel is provided in software, no-pilot operations (Fig. 2, para. 0008, 0009, 0028, where the automatic controlling the steering of the nose landing gear wheel are controlled by software).
For claims 17 and 19, Romana discloses the computer program product according to claims 16 and 18, which when implemented causes interaction between a steering control module and a braking control module, both the steering control module and the braking control module be at least part implemented by one or more on-board computers, the steering control module being configured to receive inputs and as a result to output a signal that controls or influences an angle of steering of a nose landing gear wheel of the aircraft, and the braking control module being configured to receive inputs and as a result to output a signal that controls or influences an amount of braking applied to one or more main landing gear wheels of the aircraft (Fig. 2, 3, para. 0009, 0013, 0021-0023, 0030-0034, 0037, 0038, where the steering and braking controllers are controlled and implemented by the controllers by receiving inputs and controlling the outputs of the components).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romana et al. (US 2017/0008619 A1) and Hill et al. (US 2023/0094913 A1).
For claim 14, Romana discloses the method according to claim 13, but does not specifically disclose the automatic compensating of the asymmetry of braking force is limited to changing a steering angle of the nose landing gear wheel. Hill in the same field of the art discloses the aircraft is controlled to compensate the asymmetry of braking force by changing the steering angle of the nose landing gear wheel (Para. 0021, 0022, where the steering inputs can be made to direct the aircraft to the intended direction when undesired yaw occur by differential braking. Although the paragraph also stating the differential pedal braking can also be commanded to affect the yaw, it implies that steering the nose landing gear wheel may be limited to compensate for the yaw and using differential braking is optional or may be used in addition). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to combine the teachings of Romana and Hill to automatically compensating the asymmetry of braking force limited to changing the steering angle of the nose landing gear wheel to appropriately controlling the yaw of the aircraft as desire.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romana et al. (US 2017/0008619 A1) and Mason et al. (US 2016/0154642 A1) as supporting document.
For claim 20, Romana discloses a method of converting an existing aircraft into an aircraft according to claim 8, wherein the existing aircraft comprises:
a steering control module configured to receive inputs and as a result to output a signal that controls or influences an angle of steering of a nose landing gear wheel of the aircraft; and
a braking control module configured to receive inputs and as a result to output a signal that controls or influences an amount of braking applied to one or more main landing gear wheels of the aircraft, the braking control module being functionally independent of the steering control module (Para. 0008, 0009, 0037, 0038, 0062, 0063, where the aircraft comprises a steering system controller and a braking system controller).
Romana does not explicitly disclose installing software in a form of a computer program product according to claim 17 such that when installed the software causes interaction between the steering control module and the braking control module thus providing a function of the aircraft. However, it would have been a routine for one of ordinary skill in the art that in order for the steering and braking control functions as taught by Romana (Fig. 2, para. 0008, 0009, 0028, where the automatic controlling the steering of the nose landing gear wheel are controlled by software) to be operable, the software would have to be installed. Even so, Mason in the same field of the art teaches the well known software installation to aircraft for operating aircraft functions (Fig. 1, abstract, para. 0012).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For claim 7, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as a whole and specifically the maximum angular deflection of the nose landing gear wheel is a first value for speeds below a first threshold value, and a second value for speeds above a second threshold value.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2023/0227151 A1) Gauci et al. discloses controlling the nose landing wheel of the aircraft to compensate for aircraft motions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657