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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“120” and “122” in figure 2A.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
emergency autoland braking system (of claims 12-18), comprising first and second linear actuators operatively coupled to respective first and second cams via first and second cables for independently rotating the cams, thereby providing differential autobraking
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
None of the figures depict two linear actuators or separate first and second cables connected to the first and second cams. Further, the linear actuator shown in the figures functions to apply equal tension to the first and second ends of the same cable and does not correspond to either of the first and second linear actuators recited in claim 12. Figure 2B may only show one cam and one linear actuator, however figures 2A and 2B are described together in the disclosure to refer to the same embodiment, see specification paragraph [0023]. All figures appear to depict the embodiment of one cable coupled to the first and second cams by the first and second ends of the cable.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 12 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1,919,520 to Laddon et al. in view of US 5,060,889 to Nadkarni et al.
Regarding claim 12:
Laddon teaches a braking system for aircraft (page 1, lines 1-4), comprising:
a first cam (left guide sector 44) configured to rotate for applying force to a left brake arm (left lever 40) for actuating a left brake pedal (left pedal 28);
a second cam (right guide sector 44) configured to rotate for applying force to a right brake arm (right lever 40) for actuating a right brake pedal (right pedal 28).
first and second cables (18) operatively coupled to the first cam for rotating the first and second cams (cables 18 can backdrive the pedals through guide sectors 44).
Laddon fails to teach first and second linear actuators operatively coupled to the first and second cams, or an emergency autoland braking system.
Nadkarni teaches an emergency autoland braking system for aircraft to reduce pilot workload (c. 2, ℓ. 6-24), comprising first and second linear actuators operatively coupled to backdrive the pedals (c. 6, ℓ. 45-62: secondary servoactuators 96 are used in autoland and output upstream to the pedals through mechanical link 90).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the braking system of Laddon using the teachings of Nadkarni for the purpose of adding actuators to a manual braking system and for the purpose of reducing pilot workload (Nadkarni c. 2, ℓ. 6-24).
Regarding claims 15-16:
Laddon, as modified, provides the system of claim 12, wherein applying force to the left/right brake arm via the first/second cam is in addition to any force applied directly to the left/right brake pedal (as modified; Nadkarni c. 6, ℓ. 45–c. 7, ℓ. 3: servoactuators 96 add to the force applied to the pedals).
Regarding claim 17:
Laddon, as modified, provides the system of claim 12. Laddon fails to teach a spring configured to bias the first cam and the second cam to a non-braking position, respectively. However, the examiner takes Official notice that it is known in the art to use springs in aircraft brake or rudder pedals to bias the pedals to a neutral position.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the braking system of Laddon, as modified, to comprise springs configured to bias the first and second cams to a non-braking position, respectively, for the purpose of returning the pedals to a non-braking position when the pilot releases the pedal.
Regarding claim 18:
Laddon, as modified, provides the system of claim 12, wherein the first cam and the second cam each comprise an extending member configured to contact the left brake arm and the right brake arm, respectively (Laddon fig. 6: guide sectors 44 are coupled to levers 40 by pivots 42).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1,919,520 to Laddon et al. in view of US 5,060,889 to Nadkarni et al., as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 10,259,435 B2 to Georgin et al.
Regarding claim 13:
Laddon, as modified, provides the system of claim 12.
Nadkarni teaches a controller configured to provide closed loop operation (Nadkarni c. 2, ℓ. 20-24), but does not specifically disclose a controller configured to independently apply braking forces.
Georgin teaches an aircraft automatic braking system comprising a controller configured to provide closed loop operation (shown in fig. 2) for independently applying a braking force (c. 5, ℓ. 44-48: configured to control left and right side wheels independently) for slowing the aircraft as quickly and safely as possible without skidding (c. 13, ℓ. 34–c. 14, ℓ. 15: the final brake command is based on the brake command 136 and the antiskid command 138 from antiskid controller 54).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the braking system of Laddon, as modified, to comprise a controller configured to provide closed loop operation for independently applying a braking force via the first linear actuator and the second linear actuator for slowing the aircraft as quickly and safely as possible without skidding, using the teachings of Georgin, for the purpose of preventing skidding during braking (Georgin c. 5, ℓ. 56-67).
Regarding claim 14:
Laddon, as modified, provides the system of claim 13, wherein control of the braking force via the controller is based on input from one or more of a wheel speed sensor, a longitudinal acceleration sensor, an airspeed sensor, or an altitude sensor (as modified; Georgin c. 6, ℓ. 61–c. 7, ℓ. 4: deceleration feedback may be calculated or measured by a wheel speed sensor or gyroscope sensor; c. 13, ℓ. 34-43: antiskid controller 54 may receive wheel speed feedback 134 from wheel speed sensors).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach or suggest the emergency autoland braking system for aircraft as recited in claim 1.
It is known to configure aircraft braking systems to equalize the force applied to the brakes, for example as taught by US 2,336,891 to Schnell, which uses an equalizing means to equalize the actuation forces between fluid-operated brakes. Schnell teaches braking pedals, levers, links and cams, but no portion of the braking system of Schnell is analogous to the claimed linear actuator operatively coupled to a pulley for adjusting a position of the pulley, wherein actuation of the linear actuator applies equal tension to the first and second ends of the cable via the pulley, thereby adding an equal braking force to the left and right brake arms.
Aircraft braking systems using cables, pulleys and linear actuators are also known, such as US 2,002,006 to Hall, US 2,476,610 to Linscott and US 1,763,405 to Messier. In both Hall and Linscott, the cables are coupled to valves which control operation of the linear actuator and the actuator does not actuate the cable. In Messier, a brake control cable is routed through a pulley, the position of which can be adjusted by a force acting through a liquid cylinder, however the cylinder acts as a damper and functions to enable the operation of the brakes when the tail skid contacts the ground.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Green whose telephone number is (571)270-5380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00 to 7:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/Richard Green/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647