DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement has been received and considered.
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.
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) 1,11,12,14,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erlston et al. U.S. 2006/0260886 in view of Rinsma 6,311,807 and Sandberg et al 10,781,878.
Regarding claim 1 Erlston shows an aircraft brake comprising a brake stack and in figure 9 shows an actuator. In para 0053 Erlston states:
[0053] An actuation mechanism 15 (shown in FIG. 9) is mounted on the support element 10 in such a fashion so as to provide the most useful rotational actuation to the pressure plate 11. A brake adjuster assembly may be of any appropriate conventional. When the brake is applied the actuator 15, which includes but is not limited to mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, spring, electric or magnetic systems, … A return spring and wear adjustment mechanism may be incorporated into the means of actuation or mounted directly to the relevant components, the vehicle, or some other fixed point.
Lacking in Erlston is a specific showing of what the adjuster mechanism looks like and the limitation that the conjugate ramp tracks have a plurality of different ramp angles to form areas of different gain.
The reference to Rinsma is relied upon to show one well known type of ball and ramp adjustment mechanism for a disc brake at 14,15,18,20,22, —similar to applicants design.
The reference to Sandberg also shows an adjustment mechanism for a disc brake in figure 6, similar in design to that of Rinsma, and states in col 16 lines 6-17:
The rollers 39 are each received by ramp surfaces 41, which are formed in the bearing ring 38 on the one side and in the ramp body 36 on the other side thereby facing each other. One ramp surface 41 is followed by a subsequent ramp surface 41, respectively, in which all ramp surfaces 41 are arranged on a closed circular path around the rod 22. In FIG. 4 these ramp surfaces 41 can be only seen for the bearing ring 38. In this connection, each ramp surface 41 can be divided into different sections which comprise different inclination angles. Thereby, the inclination angles can be selected in such a way that at interaction with the pretension the limiting torque for the torque clutch can be better tuned.
Since Erlston is not specific as to the type of adjuster used in the actuators one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used one well known mechanical adjuster on the market, as taught by Rinsma, for the adjuster in Erlston simply to save on costs. Further to have provided the input and output ball ramp assemblies in Rinsma with different ramp angles would have been obvious for the reasons shown and taught by Sandberg.
Regarding claim 11 note the spring at 23 in Rinsma.
Regarding claim 12 note the bearing at 8.
Regarding claim 14 note the balls taught by Sandberg at 39 in fig 6.
Regarding claim 15 note the roller cage at 40.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erlston/Rinsma/Sandber as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 102011086152 A1.
Regarding claim 7 Erlston, as modified, lacks specifically showing the movement of the output shaft 15 during the auto- adjustment operation.
However it is believed this would occur the same as applicant’s due to the similarity in both structure and function.
The reference to DE ‘152 shows a similarly structure adjustment mechanism to that of Rinsma in figures 2 and 4 and is simply relied upon to show this movement at w1 and w2.
One having ordinary skill in the art would realize that the adjustment of the output shaft 15 in Rinsma would likely occur as per applicant’s for the intended functioning of the device.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erlston/Rinsma/Sandber as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bohm 6,536,562.
Regarding claims 16-18 Erlston lacks specifically showing an electronic controller for the actuators discussed with respect to figure 9.
However it is well known in the art that aircraft brakes commonly employ electronic controllers as an integral part of the braking system.
The reference to Bohm shows a controller and monitoring module 2 in a brake system and states that the auto-adjustment for the clearance of the brake pads from the rotor can occur both during operation of the vehicle as well as at start-up. See the discussion in at least col 1.
It would have been obvious to have provided the brake of Erlston with a controller to monitor the overall health of the brake system as well as an integral part of an ABS control system commonly found on aircraft brakes. Further to have performed the claimed re-adjustment functions would have been obvious simply for increased responsiveness and overall safety of the brake system, as taught by Bohm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6,8-10,13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
6/17/26
Prosecution Insights