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 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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the majority of the consumable brake lining material " in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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) 1-5 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0357200 A1).
Re Claim 1, Wang discloses a method of performing a routine maintenance procedure in respect of a wheel of an aircraft landing gear, the wheel comprises a tire and consumable brake lining material, and the method comprises: re-treading or replacing the tire at successive intervals as part of the routine maintenance procedure, and inspecting or replacing the consumable brake lining material at the same successive intervals (Pars. 0033 and 0034). Note: Wang does note does not explicitly disclose the wheel comprises consumable brake lining material however, does disclose various airplane parts are designed to be consumed during operations and are known as consumable parts. As the brake lining material is consumable, the Examiner construes the claimed limitation to be met.
Re Claim 2, Wang does not explicitly disclose at least a third of the consumable brake lining material is used over the course of five successive intervals. Wang does however disclose a method of predicting how much of a specific amount of a consumable part is consumed over the course of five successive intervals, to determine when the consumable part needs to be replaced (Pars. 0048-0059, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize at least a third of the consumable brake lining material over the course of five successive intervals while using the method of Wang, as Wang’s method is able to predict the life cycle of the consumable brake lining material over the course of five successive intervals and determine when the material needs to be replaced.
Re Claim 3, Wang does not explicitly disclose the routine maintenance procedure is performed in respect of multiple wheels, each comprising a tire and consumable brake lining material as a part of the wheel, and in respect of a sample of fifty steps of replacing the consumable brake lining material, at least five correspond to a majority of the consumable brake lining material having been used. Wang does however disclose the routine maintenance procedure is performed in respect of multiple consumable parts (Par. 0034) and in respect of a sample of multiple steps of replacing consumable parts, predicting and executing certain steps that correspond to specific consumable parts that are used, to determine the life cycle of said consumable parts and when to replace said parts at the end of their respective life cycles (Pars. 0048-0059, Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Wang to perform routine maintenance on multiple wheels, each wheel comprising a tire and consumable brake lining material, and in respect of a sample of fifty steps of replacing the consumable brake lining material, at least five correspond to the majority of the consumable brake lining material having been used, as the method of Wang is capable of predicting and executing the claimed steps.
Re Claims 4 and 5, Wang does not explicitly disclose the mass of the consumable brake lining material used over the course of five successive intervals is, on average, greater than 5 kg, per wheel; or in a range of 5 kg to 25 kg, per wheel. Wang discloses a method for maintaining and replacing consumable parts by predicting a life cycle of said consumable parts and when to replace said parts after the course of successive intervals (Pars. 0034 and 0048-0059, Fig. 2). Wang further discloses maintaining a database 114 related to metrics of consumable parts that outlines their life cycle and periods of near fault or fault (Pars. 0051-0054). Based on this disclosure the Examiner construes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether the mass of the consumable brake lining material used over the course of five successive intervals is, on average, greater than 5 kg, per wheel, or in a range of 5 kg to 25 kg, per wheel, based on the records stored in the parts usage database and the prediction of the reliability of said part for its specific lifecycle, as the method of Wang performs said functions to determine the life cycles of various consumable parts and hoe to maintain and replace said parts.
Re Claim 17, Wang discloses the successive intervals are dictated by a maximum number of cycles of operation permitted between successive maintenance procedures (Par. 0055).
Re Claim 18, Wang does not explicitly disclose the number of cycles of operation of the aircraft between one routine maintenance and the next is at least 100 however, Wang discloses a method of predicting the life cycle of consumable parts based on recorded data of in flight operations and when to replace/maintain said consumable parts at successive intervals (Pars. 0034 and 0048-0059, Fig. 2). Based on this disclosure, the Examiner construes the method of Wang is capable of establishing the number of cycles of operation of the aircraft between one routine maintenance and the next is at least 100, based on the capability of Wang’s method to determine cycle times.
Re Claim 19, Wang does not explicitly disclose the mass of the consumable brake lining material immediately after the step of replacing the consumable brake lining material is in a range of 5 kg to 25 kg, per wheel. Wang discloses a method for maintaining and replacing consumable parts by predicting a life cycle of said consumable parts and when to replace said parts after the course of successive intervals (Pars. 0034 and 0048-0059, Fig. 2). Wang further discloses maintaining a database 114 related to metrics of consumable parts that outlines their life cycle and periods of near fault or fault (Pars. 0051-0054). Based on this disclosure the Examiner construes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether the mass of the consumable brake lining material immediately after the step of replacing the consumable brake lining material is in a range of 5 kg to 25 kg, per wheel, based on the records stored in the parts usage database and the prediction of the reliability of said part for its specific lifecycle, as the method of Wang performs said functions to determine the life cycles of various consumable parts and hoe to maintain and replace said parts.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0357200 A1), in view of Chambard et al. (US 2015/ 0337915).
Re Claim 6, Wang does not explicitly disclose the wheel is configured such that consumable brake lining material of the wheel forms part only of an aircraft brake mechanism for the wheel, other parts of the aircraft brake mechanism being provided at a location other than on the wheel.
Chambard discloses a wheel 2 of an aircraft landing gear, the wheel comprises a tire (not shown) and a consumable brake lining material 20a, 20b, 30a, 30b (Pars. 0016-0019, Figs. 1-2B), and the wheel 2 is configured such that consumable brake lining material 20a, 20b, 30a, 30b of the wheel 2 forms part only of an aircraft brake mechanism for the wheel 2, other parts 16 of the aircraft brake mechanism being provided at a location other than on the wheel 2 (Pars. 0026-0028, Figs. 2A and 2B). It would have been obvious to use the method of Wang to perform maintenance on the wheel of Chambard, as a known aircraft wheel configuration.
Re Claim 7, Wang does not explicitly disclose the aircraft brake mechanism comprises: aircraft brake mechanism comprising: a stator-rotor arrangement , at least part of the consumable brake lining material of the wheel forming part of a stator and/or a rotor of the stator-rotor arrangement, and an actuator for urging the stator-rotor arrangement together to apply a braking force on the wheel, in use, the actuator being mounted on landing gear structure adjacent to the wheel.
Chambard discloses an aircraft brake mechanism, comprising: a stator-rotor arrangement 20a, 20b, 30a, 30b, at least part of the consumable brake lining material of the wheel forming part of a stator and/or a rotor of the stator-rotor arrangement (Pars. 0016-0019, Figs. 1-2B), and an actuator 16 for urging the stator-rotor arrangement 20a, 20b, 30a, 30b together to apply a braking force on the wheel 2, in use, the actuator 16 being mounted on landing gear structure adjacent to the wheel 2 (Pars. 0026-0028, Figs. 2A and 2B). It would have been obvious to use the method of Wang to perform maintenance on the wheel of Chambard, as a known aircraft wheel configuration.
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0357200 A1), in view of Bok et al. (US 6340075).
Re Claim 10, Wang does not explicitly disclose the consumable brake lining material which is part of the wheel is configured to have sufficient heat capacity to meet the demands of a maximum energy rejected take-off.
Bok discloses a wheel of an aircraft landing gear, the wheel (not shown) comprises a consumable brake lining material 42, the consumable brake lining material 42 which is part of the wheel is configured to have sufficient heat capacity (Col. 7, Lines 20-43 and Col. 7, Line 65-Col. 8, Line 4, Fig. 1). Based on this disclosure the Examiner construes the consumable brake lining material of Bok has a heat capacity that is sufficient to meet the demands of a maximum energy rejected take-off, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a wheel having a consumable brake lining material as disclosed by Bok, while performing the method of Wang, for the benefit of using a wheel constructed of materials sufficient to perform under extreme conditions.
Re Claim 11, the combination as applied to claim 10 remains as previously applied. The combination discloses substantially all of the brake lining material 42 required to provide braking to the wheel when in use on the aircraft is provided as part of the wheel (See Bok, Col. 7, Lines 20-43 and Col. 7, Line 65-Col. 8, Line 4, Fig. 1).
Re Claim 20, Wang does not explicitly disclose a brake pack which is removably fixed to the wheel which contains the consumable brake lining material.
Bok discloses a wheel of an aircraft landing gear, the wheel (not shown) comprises a consumable brake lining material 42, the wheel comprises a brake pack 44, 39, 42 which is removably fixed to the wheel which contains the consumable brake lining material 42 (Col. 6, Lines 25-41, Col. 6, Line 66-Col. 7, Line 8, Col. 7, Lines 20-43 and Col. 7, Line 65-Col. 8, Line 4, Fig. 1), for the benefit of improving the dynamic stability against undesired vibration of the brakes during aircraft braking (Col. 8, Lines 5-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a wheel having the brake pack of Bok, while performing the method of Wang, for the benefit of providing a wheel having components capable of improving the dynamic stability against undesired vibration of the brakes during aircraft braking.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 9 and 12-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAYAN SALONE whose telephone number is (571)270-7739. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-60 PM.
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 Bryant can be reached at (571)272-4526. 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.
/BAYAN SALONE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights