DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 statements (IDS) submitted as of 2/26/2026 have been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains implied phrases, e.g. “is disclosed”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites, “a plurality of brakes”, previously recited in claim 1. It is unclear if a further plurality is being recited.
Dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected due to dependency on a rejected base claim for failing to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howell et al. (U.S. 2022/0194335).
Regarding claim 1, Howell discloses (fig. 2) An aircraft braking system (abstract at least) comprising:
a plurality of brakes (114a, 114b, 124a, 124b), each for braking one of a plurality of aircraft wheels (attached wheels) using hydraulic pressure (pgh. 0073 at least),
a first hydraulic pressure supply unit (e.g. 121), and
a second hydraulic pressure supply unit (e.g. 111),
wherein the first hydraulic pressure supply unit is connected to only a first subset of the plurality of brakes (connected to 124a, 124b only, at least during the “first configuration” if not mechanically. See also pgh. 0102, one hydraulic system per brake), such that the first hydraulic pressure supply unit can enable only the first subset of the plurality of brakes to provide braking (as shown, and at least during the “first configuration”), and
wherein the second hydraulic pressure supply unit is connected to only a second subset of the plurality of brakes (connected to 114a, 121b only, at least during the “first configuration”, if not mechanically. See also pgh. 0102, one hydraulic system per brake), the second subset not including any of the brakes of the first subset (as shown), such that the second hydraulic pressure supply unit can enable only the second subset of the plurality of brakes to provide braking (as shown, and at least during the “first configuration”).
Regarding claim 2, Howell discloses (fig. 2) the first hydraulic pressure supply unit is localised in the vicinity of the first subset of brakes and wherein the second hydraulic pressure supply unit is localised in the vicinity of the second subset of brakes (as shown, each supply unit is “localized in the vicinity” of its respective brake, i.e. nearby).
Regarding claim 3, Howell discloses (fig. 2) the first hydraulic pressure supply unit comprises:
an electrical input (from 180b at least), for receiving electrical power (see pgh. 0085),
a hydraulic fluid reservoir (122), for storing hydraulic fluid, and
a hydraulic fluid outlet (near 150), for supplying hydraulic fluid,
wherein the first hydraulic pressure supply unit is configured to receive electrical power at the input and, during a supply phase, supply hydraulic fluid from the reservoir at the outlet (see pgh. 0085 at least).
Regarding claim 4, Howell discloses (fig. 2) the first hydraulic pressure supply unit further comprises:
an input for receiving a braking control command, (from 400)
wherein the unit is configured to operate in the supply phase by providing an amount of hydraulic fluid from the reservoir at the outlet, in response to the braking control command (pgh. 0099 at least, generating brake pressure).
Regarding claim 5, Howell discloses (fig. 2) the system is configured to have two modes of operation and that, during a first mode of operation, the first hydraulic pressure supply unit supplies hydraulic pressure to the first subset of the plurality of brakes and the second hydraulic pressure supply unit supplies hydraulic pressure to the second subset of the plurality of brakes (pgh. 0078, “first configuration”).
Regarding claim 6, Howell discloses (fig. 2) the system comprises an alternative hydraulic pressure supply (e.g. 115 or 125), and wherein, during a second mode of operation, the first and/or second subset of brakes is supplied with hydraulic pressure from the alternative hydraulic pressure supply (pgh. 0108, “second configuration”).
Regarding claim 8, Howell discloses (fig. 2) the alternative hydraulic pressure supply comprises a further hydraulic pressure supply unit (e.g. 115 or 125) localised in the vicinity of the same subset of brakes (as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Howell discloses the braking system further comprises: a third hydraulic pressure supply unit, and a fourth hydraulic pressure supply unit, wherein the third hydraulic pressure supply unit is connected to only a third subset of the plurality of brakes, the third subset not including any of the brakes of the first or second subsets, such that the third hydraulic pressure supply unit enables only the third subset of the plurality of brakes to provide braking, and wherein the fourth hydraulic pressure supply unit is connected to only a fourth subset of the plurality of brakes, the fourth subset not including any of the brakes of the first, second or third subsets, such that the fourth hydraulic pressure supply unit enables only the fourth subset of the plurality of brakes to provide braking (see pgh. 0102, the aircraft comprises any number of braking systems 110, 120, e.g. first through fourth hydraulic distribution systems, one for each brake 114a, 114b, 124a, 124b. See also pgh. 0075, each hydraulic distribution system 110,120 includes its own respective pump 111, 121. Accordingly, these teachings disclose the third and fourth supply units, each connected to a unique subset of brakes not connected to the other subset of brakes, since each is connected to its own unique brake).
Regarding claim 10, Howell discloses each subset of brakes only comprises one single brake (see pgh. 0102, four separate hydraulic systems, one for each brake).
Regarding claim 11, Howell discloses An aircraft landing gear comprising the aircraft braking system of claim 1 (see fig. 1)
Regarding claim 12, Howell discloses An aircraft landing gear (fig. 1) comprising:
first and second wheels (11b, 11a), a first brake (14b) for braking the first wheel using hydraulic pressure, a second brake (14a) for braking the second wheel using hydraulic pressure, a first hydraulic pressure supply unit (121), and a second hydraulic pressure supply unit (111),
wherein the first hydraulic pressure supply unit is connected to the first brake, and not connected to the second brake (as shown), such that the first hydraulic pressure supply unit can enable only the first brake to provide braking (as shown, and during the “first configuration” at least), and
wherein the second hydraulic pressure supply unit is connected to the second brake, and not connected to the first brake (as shown), such that the second hydraulic pressure supply unit can enable only the second brake to provide braking (as shown, and during the “first configuration” at least).
Regarding claim 13, Howell discloses wherein the first hydraulic pressure supply unit is localised in the vicinity of the first brake and wherein the second hydraulic pressure supply unit is localised in the vicinity of the second brake (as shown, each supply unit is “localized in the vicinity” of its respective brake, i.e. nearby).
Regarding claim 14, Howell discloses An aircraft comprising the aircraft landing gear of claim 12 (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Howell discloses 15. A method of operating the aircraft braking system of claim 1, comprising the following steps:
i) providing the first subset of a plurality of brakes with hydraulic pressure from the first hydraulic pressure supply unit (pgh. 0078 at least, during the “first configuration”), and
ii) providing the second subset of a plurality of brakes with hydraulic pressure from the second hydraulic pressure supply unit (pgh. 0078 at least, during the “first configuration”), wherein steps i) and ii) occur during a single mode of operation (i.e. the “first configuration” is a “single mode”).
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell et al. (U.S. 2022/0194335) in view of Bourguet et al. (U.S. 2002/0057012).
Regarding claim 7, Howell does not appear to disclose the alternative pressure supply being “centralized” for the aircraft. In the same field of endeavor of aircraft brake systems, Bourguet teaches an aircraft brake system (see fig) including a localized hydraulic pump (30), and an aircraft pressure generator system (50) connected to all groups of landing gear (see pgh. 0037), thus the pressure generator system is considered “centralized”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a centralized pressure system as the alternative pressure supply as suggested by Bourguet for purposes of providing a redundant pressure generating system, thereby improving safety. If the pump (e.g. 111) associated with a given wheel of Howell fails, the centralized pressure generator (5) of Bourguet can supply the necessary pressure to the brake system, or vice versa.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the PTO-892 disclose various aircraft brake control systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru 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.
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616