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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the amendment filed on June 6, 2025. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended. No additional claims have been added. Claims 4, 5, 11 and 11 have been previously cancelled. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been overcome. Claims 1-3, 6-10 and 13-20 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 6, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Or
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.
Claims 1-3 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Seidman et al. (8562014) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Seidman et al. (8562014) in view of Christian (4883280) and further in view of Pertschi (11383931) or Bitantis (3895828).
In reference to claim 1, Seidman et al. disclose an arrangement of a nose landing gear of an aircraft (Figure 1) and a tool (i.e. adapter 40 and note an “adapter” is a type of tool) for adjusting an orientation of the nose landing gear of the aircraft (see Title), the arrangement comprising:
the nose landing gear (12) of the aircraft including:
an axle (not labeled but formed around opening 32, Figure 3 and see Column 2, Lines 45-46 for disclosing, “bore 32 in the wheel axle”), and
a wheel (38) mounted to the axle, the axle having an opening (32, Figure 3) extending therethrough, and the opening being defined by an inner surface of the axle (Figure 3);
and
the tool including:
a unitary member (40) having a handle portion (see figure below) at a first end (i.e. lower end of 40 in Figure 3) of the unitary member and an axle-engaging portion (42) at a second end (i.e. upper end of 40 in Figure 3) of the unitary member, the handle portion having a first cross-sectional area, the first cross-sectional area being consistent along a first entire length of the handle portion (Figure 4), the axle engaging portion having an insertable portion (see figure below) configured for insertion into the opening, the insertable portion having a second cross-sectional area different than the first cross-sectional area (Figure 4), the second cross-sectional area being consistent along a second entire length of the insertable portion (Figure 4),
wherein the handle portion is configured/capable for engagement with a hand of an operator (Note, a user is capable of grasping the handle portion as it is being assembled or connected to arms 26 or 28),
wherein the insertable portion is configured to engage with the inner surface (i.e. inner surface of 32),
wherein the insertable portion has a configuration that is configured to yield a clearance-fit with respect to the inner surface of the axle of the nose landing gear (Note, depending on the size of wheel or the size of the axle, the insertable portion would have a clearance fit. For example, lager wheel diameters would have larger axles and opening therein.) , and
wherein the handle portion, the insertable portion, and the axle are axially aligned when the insertable portion is inserted into the opening (Figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
226
343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the alternative, and assuming arguendo that Seidman et al. lack,
the axle having an opening extending therethrough (than Christian is used for such a teaching); and
the insertable portion has a configuration that is configured to yield a clearance-fit with respect to the inner surface of the axle (than Pertschi or Bitantis are used for such a teaching).
First, Christian teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a nose landing gear of an aircraft (Figure 1) including: an axle (12), and a wheel (11) mounted to the axle, the axle having an opening (not labeled but seen within element 12 in Figure 3) extending therethrough (Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the opening of the axle, of Seidman et al., with the known technique of providing an axle having the opening extending therethrough, as taught by Christian, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively provides reception (see Column 3, Lines 32-34) for a tool (i.e. trunnion tool 13, which is similar to the adapter 40 of Seidman et al.).
Next, Pertschi teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an insertable portion (at 25 in Figure 2f or at 25/26 in Figure 5e) having a configuration that is configured to yield a clearance-fit (see space between 80 and 25 or between 80 and 60 in Figure 7c) with respect to the inner surface (80) and also teaches that the insertable portion can be formed from different diameters that are less than the opening (Column 6, Line 64-Column 7, Line 10).
In addition, Bitantis also shows that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an insertable portion (at 55 in Figure 8) having a configuration that is configured to yield a clearance-fit (see figures below) with respect to the inner surface of a wheel axle (see figures below).
PNG
media_image2.png
865
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the insertable portion, of Seidman et al., with the known technique of providing the insertable portion that is configured to yield a clearance-fit with respect to the inner surface of the axle, as taught by Pertschi or Bitantis, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively allows the insertable portion to be positioned therein (see Column 7, Lines 5-7 of Pertschi) or that more effectively secures/fits the insertable portion within the inner surface of the axle (see Column 3, Lines 46-50 and 60-67 of Bitantis).
In reference to claim 2, Seidman et al. disclose that the axle-engaging portion (42) includes a flange (44) spaced apart from the second end by a predetermined distance (i.e. length of 42), the flange protruding outward from the axle-engaging portion in a transverse direction (i.e. a radial direction in Figure 4), the flange configured to inhibit insertion of the axle-engaging portion into the opening beyond a length corresponding with the predetermined distance.
[AltContent: textbox (Second end)][AltContent: textbox (Flange)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Radial direction)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
155
261
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 3, Seidman et al. disclose that the insertable portion has a cylindrical configuration that is configured to yield the clearance-fit with respect to the inner surface (Figure 4).
Claims 6 and 7 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidman et al. (8562014) optionally in view of Christian (4883280 as previously discussed in the alternative above) and further in view of Pertschi (11383931).
In reference to claims 6 and 7, Seidman et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
the unitary member comprises a metal steel material.
However, Pertschi teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a unitary member (5, similar to unitary member of Seidman et al.) formed from steel (Column 7, Lines 55-58 and 63-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the material of the unitary member, of Seidman et al., with the known technique of providing a unitary member formed from the steel material, as taught by Pertschi, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that is more rigid thereby being capable of holding or retaining its original shape upon the application of weight and/or pressure more effectively (see Column 7, Lines 55-58 and 63-65).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 13-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The present invention pertains to a tool. It is the examiner's opinion that the art of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious of providing that; the axle-engaging portion includes an adjustment flange perpendicularly coupled to the flange (as in claim 8), together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-10, filed June 5, 2025, with respect to amended claim 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claims 8-10 and 13-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 6 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection above does not rely on any reference as previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter as specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Specifically, applicant amended the alignment of the handle, the insertable portion and the axle in claim 1 and amended claim 8 to include a flange and a perpendicular adjustment flange.
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 ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights