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 .
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.
Claims 2-9 and 15 are 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.
Claims 2, 5, 9, and 15 each recite, “the second subset”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what “second subset” is being referred to. Note: claim 1 was amended to delete the limitation that provided antecedent basis for this term.
Claim 2 recites, “the second hydraulic pressure supply unit is localized in the vicinity of the second subset of brakes”. Claim 1 previously recited “the second hydraulic pressure supply unit is a centralized… pressure supply” and recites that pressure is supplied to each respective brake from the second pressure supply unit. Accordingly, claim 2 contradicts claim 1, and it is unclear whether the second hydraulic pressure supply unit of claim 2 is centralized or localized.
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 1-8, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bourguet et al. (U.S. 2002/0057012).
Regarding claim 1, Bourguet discloses An aircraft braking system (abstract) comprising:
a plurality of brakes (I.1-I.3, II.1-II.3), each for braking one of a plurality of aircraft wheels (as shown) using hydraulic pressure (abstract),
a first hydraulic pressure supply unit (e.g. 3/4/5/6/7/13 etc.), and
a second hydraulic pressure supply unit (50 and G collectively, at least) that is a centralized aircraft hydraulic pressure supply (i.e. usable for all wheels) comprising a plurality of servo valves (8a-d, 108a-d, 208a-d), each servo valve being associated with and connected to a respective one of the plurality of brakes (as shown) for regulating hydraulic pressure supplied to that respective brake from the second supply unit (see pgh. 0042), and
wherein the first supply unit is connected to only a first subset of the plurality of brakes, such that the first supply unit enables only the first subset to provide braking (e.g. 5 connected only to I.1 and II.1).
Regarding claim 2, Bourguet as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues above, discloses 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, 5 is nearby its associated brakes, and 50 is onboard the same aircraft, thus “localized” in at least this manner).
Regarding claim 3, Bourguet discloses the first hydraulic pressure supply unit comprises:
an electrical input (to 6/7 at least, see pgh. 0040), for receiving electrical power,
a hydraulic fluid reservoir (33), for storing hydraulic fluid, and
a hydraulic fluid outlet (output from 6/7 at least), 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 (6/7 supplies hydraulic fluid, that ultimately comes from the reservoir, at the outlet, which is considered to be “during a supply phase”).
Regarding claim 4, Bourguet discloses the first hydraulic pressure supply unit further comprises: an input for receiving a braking control command (see pgh. 0045, braking controller),
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 (ultimately the braking controller can control the braking selector 6/7 to open or close).
Regarding claim 5, Bourguet discloses 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 (5 supplies pressure to I.1 and II.2) and the second hydraulic pressure supply unit supplies hydraulic pressure to the second subset of the plurality of brakes (50 supplies hydraulic pressure to at least a second subset including I.2, II.2, I.3, II.3).
Regarding claim 6, Bourguet discloses the system comprises an alternative hydraulic pressure supply (e.g. 30-32), 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 (30 can supply pressure to any of the brakes as shown, see pgh. 0047, such situations constitute a “second mode of operation”).
Regarding claim 7, Bourguet discloses the alternative hydraulic pressure supply comprises a centralized aircraft hydraulic pressure supply (pump 30 is deemed “centralized” in that it functions centrally at least, i.e. supplies pressure generically to all brakes).
Regarding claim 8, Bourguet discloses the alternative hydraulic pressure supply comprises a further hydraulic pressure supply unit (e.g. 30) localised in the vicinity of the same subset of brakes (as shown, “localized” in the same system “C”).
Regarding claim 11, Bourguet discloses An aircraft landing gear comprising the aircraft braking system of claim 1 (see fig. and abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Bourguet discloses 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 (e.g. accumulator 5 supplying pressure to I.1 at least), and
ii) providing the second subset of a plurality of brakes with hydraulic pressure from the second hydraulic pressure supply unit (e.g. 50 supplying pressure to I.2 at least),
wherein steps i) and ii) occur during a single mode of operation (pgh. 0039, accumulator 5 kept under pressure by 50 during operation)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frank (U.S. 2011/0187180).
Regarding claim 16, Frank discloses (fig. 5) An aircraft braking system (abstract), comprising: a plurality of dual-cavity brakes (4 brakes shown), each comprising a first cavity (102a) and a second cavity (102b), and each for braking one of a plurality of aircraft wheels using hydraulic pressure (abstract. See also fig. 5 each wheel having two cavities accordingly),
a localized hydraulic pressure supply unit (e.g. 103/106/107/N1, etc.) configured to supply hydraulic pressure to the first cavity of each brake of the plurality of dual-cavity brakes (as shown), and
a centralized hydraulic pressure supply unit (e.g. 104,108/N2, etc.) configured to supply hydraulic pressure to the second cavity of each brake in the plurality of dual-cavity brakes (as shown).
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourguet et al. (U.S. 2002/0057012) in view of Howell et al. (U.S. 2022/0194335).
Regarding claim 9, Bourguet does not appear to disclose separate third and fourth hydraulic pressure supply units for a separate subset of brakes. Howell discloses a braking system further comprising first through fourth hydraulic pressure supply units and first through fourth subsets of the plurality of brakes, 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).
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 each brake with its own hydraulic pressure supply unit in order to maximize redundancy of the system. In the event that a hydraulic pressure supply unit fails, the other hydraulic pressure supply units can still operate every other brake, thereby maximizing braking ability and safety of the aircraft. Additionally, it is noted that such a modification amounts to a mere duplication of the working parts of the invention, which has been held to involve only routine skill in the art. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 10, Bourguet as modified discloses each subset of brakes only comprises one single brake (see pgh. 0102 Howell, four separate hydraulic systems, one for each brake).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is allowed. Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the claims have necessitated the new grounds of rejection, as appears above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights