Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/268,635

AIRCRAFT WHEEL BRAKING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jun 21, 2023
Examiner
HSIAO, JAMES K
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
SAFRAN
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
597 granted / 780 resolved
+24.5% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
821
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
§102
41.5%
+1.5% vs TC avg
§112
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 780 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. Claims 5-8 are 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. Regarding claim 5, the limitation “wherein the inner surface of the torque tube comprises a radially projecting step and each of the retaining tabs for retaining a fastening raised portion of said radially projecting step” is unclear. It is clear as to how the inner surface (12.1, Applicant fig 5) of the torque tube (12) comprises step (19) but it is not clear as to how the inner surface also comprises the tabs (22) which are attached to the heat shield. Specifically, the limitation “and each of the retaining tabs for retaining a fastening raised portion of said radially projecting step” is unclear. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the transverse groove" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5, from which 7 depends has not defined a transverse groove. The transverse groove has been defined in claim 6, from which claim 7 no longer depends. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by French et al. (US-10330163). Regarding claim 1, French et al. discloses a braking device for braking a wheel (figs 1 and 1A, 104) of an aircraft (10), a hub (106) of which is mounted rotatably on an axle (102), the braking device comprising a stack of discs (122/124) threaded on a torque tube (114 and/or 138) which is attached to the axle (102) and equipped internally with a heat shield (140 and including embodiments in figures 2-6, 202/304/404/504/604) extending opposite an outer surface of the hub facing the stack of discs to protect said hub from heat radiation generated by the stack of discs (at least fig 1b), wherein the heat shield comprises a tubular body (at least fig 2a at 202) which is coaxial to the torque tube and a plurality of retaining tabs (at least fig 2a 212/252 and including the embodiments in figs 3-6, 302/402/502/602) which are resiliently deformable (at least wherein any tabs have been interpreted to be resiliently deformable to a certain degree) and secured to the tubular body (fig 2-6), each of the retaining tabs and an inner surface (at least shown in fig 2a at 218.222 and 216/212) of the torque tube comprising additional raised portions (fig 2a or2b at or near reference numeral 218) to engage with one another so as to axially immobilize the heat shield inside the torque tube (at least fig 2b wherein tabs 212 and raised portions at 218 engage and secure 202). Regarding claim 2, French et al. discloses wherein the tubular body (202 and/or 140) extends from a web (110 and/or 218) of the wheel and a free edge (fig 1b at or near 106/108 and fig 2b, at or near 240) of the hub (210). Regarding claim 4, French et al. discloses wherein the retaining tabs (fig 2a, at least 212 and/or 252) are evenly distributed about a central axis of the tubular body (at least fig 2a). Regarding claim 5, French et al. discloses wherein the inner surface of the torque tube comprises a radially projecting step (fig 2a at least at 218/222 wherein 222 radially projects inward) and each of the retaining tabs (212) for retaining a fastening raised portion of said radially projecting step (at least wherein 212 is retained at 220). Regarding claim 9, French et al. discloses wherein the retaining tabs (at least figs 5 and 6 502/602) define a diameter less than an inner diameter of the torque tube (figs 5 and 6 at least the diameter set at or near 520/620) and greater than the outer diameter of the tubular body (figs 5 and 6 at least the diameter set at or near 530/630 which is radially outside of heat shields 508/608). Regarding claim 10, French et al. discloses wherein at least one of the retaining tabs (212 and/or 252) is formed integrally with the main tubular body (at least fig 2a, and col. 1, lines 38-39, formed integrally). Regarding claim 11, French et al. discloses an aircraft wheel (104) equipped with a braking device the braking device according to any one of the preceding claims claim 1 (at least figs 1-2). Regarding claim 12, French et al. discloses an aircraft landing gear (12/14) comprising at least one aircraft wheel (104) according to claim 11 (fig 1, at least 12 and 14). Regarding claim 13, French et al. discloses an aircraft (fig 1, 10) comprising at least one aircraft landing gear according to claim 12 (fig 1, at least 10, 12, 14). 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French et al. (US-10330163) in view of Hoglund et al. (US-11231081). Regarding claim 3, French et al discloses as set forth above but lacks wherein the heat shield comprisies spherical cap-shaped stamps facing the inner surface of the torque tube to form punctual contacts with said inner surface of the torque tube. Hoglund et al teaches wherein integral spacers (154) extend radially outward from the outer circumferential surface of a heat shield (120). Spacers (154) may contact radially inward surface (112) of wheel (102). Spacers (154) may maintain a preselected radial distance between heat shield (120) and radially inward surface (112) of wheel (102) (Hoglund et al, col. 6, lines 11-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the heat shield of French et al. with the spacers of Hoglund et al. at least to “prevent, or reduce occurrences of, heat shield physically contacting wheel” (Hoglund et al, col. 6, lines 16-19) and causing over-wear or damage. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-8 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 JAMES K HSIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6259. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday. 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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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. /JAMES K HSIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 21, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595834
SEALING DEVICE AND DAMPER FOR HYDRAULIC EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576680
SYNTHETIC ELASTOMERIC AIR SPRING WITHOUT REINFORCING FIBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12545093
Hydro-Mount
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12537125
SOLENOID, DAMPING FORCE ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM, AND DAMPING FORCE ADJUSTABLE SHOCK ABSORBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12529408
VIBRATION DAMPER HAVING TWO ADJUSTABLE DAMPING VALVE DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+15.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 780 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month