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 filed 9/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Mundis teaches a sensor which “is not configured to measure the axial movement of the coupling half 108, but the pressure of the hydraulic fluid”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The pressure of the hydraulic fluid measures the axial movement – in other words, the axial movement is the thing that causes the pressure to change. Para 0024: “As the torque transmitted by coupling 100 increases, the coupling half 108 moves further against the hydraulic bias 126, thereby forcing the piston 122 to move relative to the frame 118, and further compressing the fluid in hydraulic chamber 130”.
There are many types of sensors that could be used to measure the axial movement, such as an electric load cell. They may be different sensor types and use different units but they would all be measuring the same movement. Many sensors function by measuring multiple things that are not the final result. A pitot tube measures pressure differential to ultimately measure aircraft speed. Temperature sensors often measure voltage or resistance to ultimately measure temperature. For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not found convincing.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benarous (GB 2511856 A) in view of Mundis (US 20050282678 A1) and Romana et al (US 20170011568 A1).
For claim 1, Benarous discloses an aircraft undercarriage Fig. 1, comprising:
a steerable bottom portion Fig 5: drive collar 110 with upper part 116 carrying one or more wheels Fig. 1; and
only one steering device Fig. 1: 14 fitted to the steerable bottom portion and configured to turn the steerable bottom portion in response to a steering order with motors 14, the steering device having only one electromechanical steering actuator having only one steering electric motor Fig. 5: motor is now 126, the steering electric motor being configured to drive an outlet pinion gear 120 on an axis coaxial with an outlet shaft Fig. 5 of the steering electric motor by a reduction gearing reduction gearbox 122, the steering device cannot uncouple the steering electric motor from the outlet pinion there is no structure for the steering device to uncouple the motor from the pinion, the outlet pinion 120 cooperating by being interconnected with a spur gear 118 secured to the steerable bottom portion Pg 6, line 9: “the drive collar 110 is provided with gear teeth 118”, the steering electric motor being back-drivably connected to the steerable bottom portion Pg 8, lines 24-25: “at the normal operating speed or under back-drive conditions of the steering motor 126
but fails to disclose the electromechanical steering actuator being fitted with a monitor that is configured to monitor at least a first uncontrolled operating parameter of the steering device when using the electromechanical steering actuator to turn the steerable bottom portion; deduce, from monitoring the uncontrolled parameter, a deterioration in performance of the electromechanical steering actuator; and deduce from the deterioration the need to replace said electromechanical steering actuator.
However, Mundis teaches a gearbox with a transmitted torque sensor “for use in rotating machinery” (Para 0001), which is fitted with a monitor that is configured to monitor at least a first uncontrolled operating parameter Para 0007: “a torque sensor for sensing the torque transmitted by a gearbox” and is configured to detect the performance of the actuator when using the actuator Para 0024: “Signals from the gauge 134 or transducer may be displayed to the operator, e.g., by means of a properly calibrated display, or they can be used as inputs to a drive control system or torque limiting system”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Benarous by fitting the electromechanical steering actuator with a monitor that is configured to monitor at least a first uncontrolled operating parameter of the steering device and be configured to detect a deterioration in performance of the electromechanical steering actuator when using the electromechanical steering actuator to turn the steerable bottom portion so as to anticipate a potential failure of said electromechanical steering actuator as disclosed by Mundis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to monitor the torque during use of the actuator to determine the performance and anticipate a possible failure of the actuator.
Benarous as modified Mundis fails to teach that the monitor is configured to deduce, from monitoring the uncontrolled parameter, a deterioration in performance of the electromechanical steering actuator; and deduce from the deterioration the need to replace said electromechanical steering actuator. Mundis teaches monitoring the torque and displaying it to an operator.
However, Romana teaches “a data processing unit for monitoring the performance of at least one undercarriage which is used for braking and/or steering an aircraft” (Para 0002), provided with “a plurality of sensors which measure various operating characteristics of the undercarriages” including “strain gauges, torque sensors, position sensors, etc” (Para 0066). The health monitoring system (HMS 201) uses that data and if it determines that a steering actuator is deteriorating it “will indicate that the actuator for that steering wheel is not functioning in an expected manner (i.e. is not controlling the angular position of the wheel as would normally be expected) and report that the actuator is not fit for normal operation” (Para 0068), which is interpreted as a need to replace the actuator.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Benarous and Mundis by using a health monitoring system to use the data from torque sensors to deduce a deterioration and a need to replace the actuator as disclosed by Romana. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to monitor the health of the system to anticipate and report potential issues.
Benarous as modified discloses that the monitor is configured to measure a torque transmitted by the reduction gearing Mundis, Para 0007: “a torque sensor for sensing the torque transmitted by a gearbox” so as to detect the deterioration in performance of the electromechanical steering actuator as modified.
Benarous as modified discloses that the reduction gearing has an inlet member motor shaft 140 driven by a rotor of the steering electric motor Fig. 1, the reduction gearing being slidably mounted on the rotor as modified by Mundis - Para 0020: “This engagement allows the transfer of torque between each shaft and its respective coupling half, while at the same allowing each coupling half to move axially along the shaft (i.e., translate along the longitudinal axis 105)” against a resilient return member Mundis - Para 0022: “The piston 122 is hydraulically biased in the direction indicated by arrow 126, thus urging the coupling halves 106 and 108 towards one an other”,
wherein the monitor comprises:
a sensor configured to measure an axial movement of the inlet member caused by the torque transmitted by the reduction gearing Mundis, Para 0023: “The resulting movement, i.e., the change in coupler spacing D.sub.2-D.sub.1, is generally proportional to the amount of torque transmitted between the shafts 102 and 104 by the coupling 100”; the axial movement being measured by the pressure in the hydraulic chamber 130 (Para 0024), and
a calculator configured to estimate a torque Para 0024: “Accordingly, by measuring the pressure of the hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic chamber 130, the torque transmitted between the shafts 102 and 104 by the coupling 100 can be determined” associated with the axial movement of the inlet member and to generate a warning in response to detecting an increase of the torque beyond a threshold Para 0024: “Signals from the gauge 134 or transducer may be displayed to the operator, e.g., by means of a properly calibrated display, or they can be used as inputs to a drive control system or torque limiting system”.
For claim 8, Benarous as modified discloses the aircraft undercarriage according to claim 1, wherein the monitor is configured to generate a warning Mundis, Para 0024: “Signals from the gauge 134 or transducer may be displayed to the operator, e.g., by means of a properly calibrated display, or they can be used as inputs to a drive control system or torque limiting system”; any display may be considered a warning in response an increase of the first uncontrolled operating parameter beyond a threshold constantly generates the display, including when the parameter increases, and any value may be considered a threshold; therefore the warning would be generated when the value is increased beyond this threshold and so the monitor is configured for this function.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benarous, Mundis, and Romana as above, further in view of Morselli (US 20150292612 A1).
For claim 4, Benarous as modified discloses the aircraft undercarriage according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the sensor is an eddy current sensor. Mundis does teach that various sensors may be readily interchanged for the purposed of measuring the axial movement for torque estimation Para 0025: “This deformation is detected electrically and produces an electrical signal proportional to the torque that is sent via wire 414 to a control unit or display”…” other types of electronic load cells may be used as long as the cell's deformation can be calibrated to reflect axial movement”.
However, Morselli teaches a torque sensor which is an eddy current sensor Para 0023: “Sensor 62 may be any one of a number of sensors that determines displacement. Preferably, it may be of the eddy current type of sensor”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Benarous as modifies by using an eddy current sensor to monitor the axial movement as disclosed by Morselli. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide an electrical sensor which may be lighter and more reliable and would provide direction communication with a control system and display unit.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benarous, Mundis, and Romana as above, further in view of Knight (US 20100038478 A1).
For claim 5, Benarous as modified discloses the aircraft undercarriage according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the reduction gearing is a deformable bell type reduction gearing.
However, Knight teaches an aircraft undercarriage wherein the reduction gearing is a deformable bell type reduction gearing Para 0013: “each gear coupling a respective one of the motors with its harmonic gear component”; as stated in the spec of the instant application “reduction gearing of the deformable bell type (or "harmonic drive")”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Benarous by having the reduction gearing take the form of a harmonic gear component as disclosed by Knight. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification since harmonic gears provide the following advantages: “high gearing ratio combined with a low weight; compact size, particularly in the axial direction; low backlash; and low moment of inertia” (Knight, Para 0010).
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 COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 J MICHENER can be reached on (571)272-1467. 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642