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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
each of the claims is one continuous paragraph. There should be spacing and indenting for separate clauses;
applicant may want to remove the letters which are in parenthesis such as (V), (H), and (O);
some of the phrases could be changed to commonly used elements, such as “a rotating structure” is commonly referred to as a rotor and a “friction element” is commonly referred to as a brake pad. Applicant should consider changing some of the phrasing but be careful not to introduce new matter into the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Please see the attached annotated claim set. Words and phrases with a bold circle have 112(b) issues.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A brake system comprising an air vehicle” in Line 1. It is unclear how a brake system can comprise an air vehicle. Commonly an air vehicle will comprise a brake system.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “triggered” in Line 7 which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the action of “triggered” should be interpreted in an apparatus claim. The examiner suggests adding “configured to” language.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hydraulic fluid" in Line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the command" in Line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the user" in Line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, a user or human should not be claimed. Again “configured to” language can be used, or a device such as a switch should be defined.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the hydraulic fluid passage" in Line 16 which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if this is physical passage or the phrase is being used to describe something is moving (to pass through). Use of the word passage is unclear in Lines 16 and 18, and 20.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "is moved" in Line 21 which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the action of “moved” should be interpreted in an apparatus claim. The examiner suggests adding “configured to” language.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the manufacturer" in Line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the next braking command" in Line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "hydraulic fluid to escape" and the contradicting phrase “prevent the hydraulic fluid passage into the chamber” which renders the claim indefinite. These seem to be completely opposite actions. How are they both occurring in the same claim? Is the hydraulic fluid going into the chamber or being prevented from entering the chamber?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "so as to be opposite the neck" in Line 6 which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the piston can be opposite when there are two different openings. Perhaps the piston is perpendicular?
Claim 7 appears to need the limitations of Claim 6 to make sense with the braking levels.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “triggered” in Line 4 which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the action of “triggered” should be interpreted in an apparatus claim. The examiner suggests adding “configured to” language.
The remaining claims are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of Kaserer (WO 2026017308 A1) discloses a braking system with a pressure sensor (256) that is used to keep a cylinder (“re-priming”) full of hydraulic fluid. Kaserer further discloses using short time bursts “very short time (approximately 150 ms)” to refill pressure chamber 70, but this is not in conjunction with retracting the piston of 70.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M O'HARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5224. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM eastern.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/BRIAN M O'HARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights