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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments , see Applicant Arguments/Remarks pages 6-14, filed on 07/22/2026, with respect to claim(s) 1-20, claims 1 & 20 being independent claims;
i- under Non Statutory Double Patenting Rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See the claim comparison table below.
ii- under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer .
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,214,868 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because; modifying the independent claims, such as;
Modifying preamble, “An electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft with a braking system, the electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft comprising:” is an obvious variation of “A braking system for an aircraft, the braking system comprising”
Changing the term of “detect a measured pilot input” to “detect a pilot input”,
Changing the term of “transmit the action command to a control surface.” to “transmit the action command to the brake controller” : (in both cases the action command transmitted…),
Changing the term of “generate a pilot datum as a function of the measured pilot input” to “generate an action command based on the input datum”,
Perfecting the claim structure, (no change on Drawings)
makes the claim language compact and/or broader, but does not make patentable distinct from the parent patent claims.
Claims comparison between instant application versus parent patent claims:
Instant Application: App/Ref #19/000,116 Publication #US2025/0121933
Parent Prior Art.: App/Ref #18/203,857 Publication # US12214868B2
Independent claims 1 & 20
Independent claim 1
1.A braking system for (& 20.A method for selective braking of) an aircraft, comprising:
1. An electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft with a braking system, the electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft comprising:
a wheel configured to allow rolling motion of the aircraft on a ground;
a wheel configured to allow rolling motion of the aircraft on a ground;
a brake configured to resist rotation of the wheel, wherein the brake comprises a caliper that is configured to resist a rotation of the wheel; and
a brake configured to resist rotation of the wheel, wherein the brake comprises a caliper that is configured to resist a rotation of the wheel;
a brake controller configured to selectively apply the brake in response to an input command;
-inherently included in “a brake system” : “selective braking by the brake”
a pilot control device configured to:
a pilot control device, the pilot control device configured to:
detect a pilot input, the pilot input comprising a steering command to steer the aircraft while the aircraft is in motion on the ground; and
detect a measured pilot input, the measured pilot input comprising selective braking by the brake to steer the aircraft while the aircraft is in motion on the ground; and
generate a pilot datum as a function of the pilot input; and
generate a pilot datum as a function of the measured pilot input;
a controller communicatively connected to the aircraft and the pilot control device, the controller configured to: receive the pilot datum from the pilot control device ;
a controller communicatively connected to the aircraft and the pilot control device, the controller configured to: receive the pilot datum from the pilot control device;
generate an action command for selective braking by the brake to steer the aircraft while the aircraft is in motion on the ground based on the pilot datum; and
generate an action command based on the pilot datum
“selective braking by the brake to steer the aircraft”
transmit the action command to the brake controller.
transmit the action command to a control surface.
Regarding dependent claims 2-19; these claims are substantial duplicates of Parent Patent claims 2-20 along with some elements cited on the independent claim 1 & some elements are cited inherited features without inventive differences.
The instant claims recitations are obvious variation of the Prior Patent claims recitation in which both claims are represented by common drawings and are comingled in scope as mapped out above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure appear to anticipate the current invention. See Notice of References Cited.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Jalal C CODUROGLU whose telephone number is (408)918-7527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8-6 PT.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on 571-272-7298. 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.
/JALAL C CODUROGLU/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights