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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 9-13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 11,274,715 B2) in view of Stimson et al. (US 3,829,162 A).
Regarding claim 1, Miller et al. discloses a wheel for an aircraft, the wheel comprising:
a first rim section (the part of the rim that is to the left of 110 in Figure 1B),
a first hub (the part of the rim that directly contacts the outer ring of the left-most bearing in Figure 1B) coaxial with the first rim section, and
a first disc (the member that extends radially downward from the first rim section and connects to the first hub) connecting the first hub to the first rim section, the first rim section comprising a first radially outwardly projecting collar (the radially outwardly projection member to the right of 146 in Figure 1B) for interacting with a tire, wherein the wheel comprises a sleeve (138, 140), and
the sleeve:
extends coaxially with the first rim section (see Figure 1B);
has an outer surface extending at a distance from an inner surface of the first rim section (138 and 140 are spaced from an inner surface of the first rim section as shown in Figure 1B);
has an end (the left-most end of 138) projecting axially from the first rim section on the opposite side to the first disc; and
provided internally with internal ribs (138) **[intended for rotatably connecting the wheel to at least one brake rotor disc housed between the sleeve and the first hub]**.
Miller et al. does not disclose that the rim section is a first half-rim.
Stimson et al. teaches a wheel that is formed in a first annular half-rim (the member that 4 is formed on) and a second annular half-rim (the member that 10 is formed on).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wheel of Miller et al. to be formed of a first annular half-rim and a second annular half-rim, as taught by Stimson et al., for the purpose of providing a wheel that can have individual sections replaced in the event of wear and damage thereby negating replacing the entire wheel.
Miller et al. in view of Stimson et al. does not disclose that the sleeve is formed as a single piece with the first annular half-rim, the first disc and the first hub to form a first one-piece first half-wheel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sleeve be formed as a single piece with the first annular half-rim, the first disc and the first hub to form a first one-piece first half-wheel, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. Forming the sleeve to be formed as a single piece with the first annular half-rim, the first disc and the first hub to form a first one-piece first half-wheel would provide for a stronger connection between the various parts of the wheel.
Regarding claim 2, Miller et al. in view of Stimson et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the internal ribs are formed as a single piece with the sleeve.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the internal ribs be formed as a single piece with the sleeve, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. Forming the internal ribs to be formed as a single piece with the sleeve would provide for a stronger connection between sleeve and the internal ribs.
Regarding claim 9, Miller et al. discloses a braking device (100) that comprises a stack of discs (126) housed between the sleeve and a torque tube (114) that extends around the first hub, wherein the stack of discs comprising comprise rotor discs (122) provided with peripheral notches engaged on the internal ribs of the sleeve, and stator discs (124) rotatably connected to the torque tube.
Regarding claim 10, Miller et al. in view of Stimson et al. discloses a landing gear comprising:
a torque tube (128); and
a strut (see Figure 1A; Miller et al.) having a first end for being hinged to an aircraft structure and a second end provided with an axle (102; Miller et al.) on which at least one of the wheel according to claim 1 is pivotally mounted, the torque tube being fixed in place relative to the strut.
Regarding claim 11, Miller et al. in view of Stimson et al. discloses that the first half-rim comprises a first annular edge (the edge of the first half-rim section that directly connects to the member that extends radially downward from the first rim section and connects to the first hub) connected to the first disc and a second annular edge (the edge to the left of 150 in Figure 1B of Miller et al.) that forms the first collar, the sleeve has a first end (the right end of 138) rigidly connected to the first annular edge, and the end of the sleeve that projects axially from the first half-rim projects axially beyond the second annular edge (the leftmost end of 138 extends past the leftmost end of 150 as shown in Figure 1B of Miller et al.).
Regarding claim 12, Miller et al. in view of Stimson et al. discloses that the sleeve is stepped and comprises a first segment (the horizontal part of 138 that the leader line from numeral 138 points to in Figure 1B of Miller et al.) in a vicinity of a first end (the right end of 138) of the sleeve and a second segment (the part of 138 that 146 goes through) that extends in a vicinity of the end projecting axially from the first half-rim, the first segment and the second segment being coupled to one another by an intermediate segment (the curved segment of 138 as shown in Figure 1B), the first segment having an internal diameter (the inner diameter of the viewed first segment) that is less than an internal diameter of the second segment (the inner diameter of the viewed second segment) and an external diameter (the external diameter of the viewed first segment) that is less than an external diameter (the external diameter of the viewed second segment) of the second segment, and the internal ribs being provided at the first segment.
Miller et al. in view of Stimson et al. does not disclose that the intermediate segment that couples the first segment and the second segment together being frustoconical.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the intermediate segment be frustoconical, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Changing the curved segment of Miller et al. in view of Stimson et al. to be frustoconical would not alter nor destroy the segment. Furthermore, the Applicant has not established any criticality to the shape of the intermediate segment being frustoconical thus it appears to be mere design choice.
Regarding claim 13, Miller et al. discloses that the internal ribs extend axially along the sleeve (138 extend axially thus meeting the claim limitation) and are arranged symmetrically with respect to a central axis (the axial centerline of the part of the rim that directly contacts the outer ring of the left-most bearing in Figure 1B) of the first hub.
Regarding claim 18, Miller et al. in view of Stimson et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the first one-piece first half-wheel is a single powder bed additively manufactured titanium-based part.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the first one-piece first half-wheel may be made by any known method of manufacture which achieves the desired operational characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first one-piece first half-wheel and make the first one-piece first half-wheel via a single powder bed additively manufacturing process, the first one-piece first half-wheel may be made by any known manufacturing method which is suitable to the desired operational characteristics of the part being made. Further, the patentability of the device does not depend on its method of manufacture.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Regarding claim 19, Miller et al. discloses a wheel for an aircraft, the wheel comprising:
a first rim section (the part of the rim that is to the left of 110 in Figure 1B),
a first hub (the part of the rim that directly contacts the outer ring of the left-most bearing in Figure 1B) coaxial with the first rim section, and
a first disc (the member that extends radially downward from the first rim section and connects to the first hub) connecting the first hub to the first rim section, the first rim section comprising a first radially outwardly projecting collar (the radially outwardly projection member to the right of 146 in Figure 1B) for interacting with a tire, wherein the wheel comprises a sleeve (136, 138, 140), and
the sleeve:
extends coaxially with the first rim section (see Figure 1B);
has an outer surface extending at a distance from an inner surface of the first rim section (138 and 140 are spaced from an inner surface of the first rim section as shown in Figure 1B);
has an end (the left-most end of 138) projecting axially from the first rim section on the opposite side to the first disc; and
is provided internally with internal ribs (136).
Wherein the internal ribs rotatably connect the wheel to at least one brake rotor disc (122) housed between the sleeve and the first hub.
Miller et al. does not disclose that the rim section is a first half-rim.
Stimson et al. teaches a wheel that is formed in a first annular half-rim (the member that 4 is formed on) and a second annular half-rim (the member that 10 is formed on).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wheel of Miller et al. to be formed of a first annular half-rim and a second annular half-rim, as taught by Stimson et al., for the purpose of providing a wheel that can have individual sections replaced in the event of wear and damage thereby negating replacing the entire wheel.
Miller et al. in view of Stimson et al. does not disclose that the sleeve is formed as a single piece with the first annular half-rim, the first disc and the first hub to form a first one-piece first half-wheel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sleeve be formed as a single piece with the first annular half-rim, the first disc and the first hub to form a first one-piece first half-wheel, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. Forming the sleeve to be formed as a single piece with the first annular half-rim, the first disc and the first hub to form a first one-piece first half-wheel would provide for a stronger connection between the various parts of the wheel.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 11,274,715 B2) in view of Stimson et al. (US 3,829,162 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of French et al. (US 11,053,995 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Miller et al. in view of Stimson et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the internal ribs are hollow.
French et al. teaches internal ribs (300) that are hollow (328 is a hollow cavity) for the purpose of reducing vibrations in the torque bar (Column 5 / Lines 7-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the internal ribs of Miller et al. in view of Stimson et al. to be hollow for the purpose of reducing vibrations in the torque bar, as taught by French et al.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 11,274,715 B2) in view of Stimson et al. (US 3,829,162 A) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of French et al. (US 11,053,995 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Miller et al. discloses that the internal ribs project radially inwardly from an inner surface (the bottom of 138) of the sleeve, are circumferentially spaced from one another and extend axially along the sleeve (see Figure 1B), the sleeve and the first hub defining therebetween an annular space (the space in Figure 1B where 122 are located), and wherein the at least one brake rotor disc is housed in the annular space of the wheel.
Miller et al. in view of Stimson et al. does not explicitly disclose that the at least one brake rotor disc has peripheral notches engaged on the internal ribs.
Soula et al. teaches at least one brake rotor disc (106b) that has peripheral notches (Column 3 / Lines 23-27) engaged on internal ribs (10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one brake rotor disc of Miller et al. in view of Stimson et al. to have peripheral notches engaged on the internal ribs, as taught by Soula et al., for the purpose of providing a structure that connects the at least one brake rotor disc to the wheel.
**The above statements in brackets are instances of intended use and functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, see MPEP 2114. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 16, and 17 are allowed over the prior art of record.
Claims 3, 5-8, and 15 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued on Pages 10-11 of the Remarks that “Stimson's entire technical premise is that the drive dogs must be separated from the wheel by an intermediate heat-isolating member. Stimson states that "the drive dogs are spaced from the wheel by being attached to an intermediate isolating member in the form of a sheet metal drum which extends adjacent the inner periphery of the associated wheel rim" and that "[b]y isolating the drive dogs from the wheel in this manner the amount of heat conducted from the brake assembly to the wheel is reduced.”” Applicant further argues: “Thus, the prior art perceived a need for the very separation that the one-piece structure of claim 1 eliminates. Claim 1 recites "a sleeve formed as a single piece with the first half-rim, the first disc and the first hub to form a first one-piece first half-wheel," where the sleeve "is provided internally with internal ribs" for torque transmission. As described in Applicant's specification, the sleeve, formed as a single piece with the half-rim, the disc and the hub, "acts as both a heat shield and a flame-retardant ring," thereby "reduc[ing] the assembly operations." See page 2, lines 31-34. The claimed structure thus eliminates the need for the separate, flexible, thermally isolating drum that Stimson identifies as essential, which is precisely the circumstance in which the Nortron exception applies. Applicant submits that the making-integral rationale cannot properly be applied where, as here, the art recognized a need for the separate construction that the claimed one-piece structure eliminates.”
The intermediate heat-isolating member(s) of Stimson have no bearing on the current rejection because Stimson is only being used to teach forming a wheel that has a first annular half-rim and a second annular half-rim. Miller et al. is not being modified by Stimson to have any intermediate heat-isolating member(s). Applicant’s argument does not appear to address the sole modification of Miller et al. by the teaching of Stimson.
The Applicant argued on Pages 11-12 of the Remarks that “In Miller, torque bars 138 are described as "secured to or made monolithic with an inner periphery of the wheel 104." Miller, col. 4, lines 46-47. However, Miller's torque bars 138 are joined to the wheel well, and not to a sleeve spaced from the half-rim. The member in Miller that is spaced from the radially inward surface of the wheel well is the heat shield 140, which is a separately retained component "secured in place by heat shield tabs 190." Miller, col. 5, lines 28- 30. In the FIG. 2 embodiment, the heat shield 216 "may be coupled proximate the rim 206 by a plurality of fasteners 218" and is held "with a chin ring 220 proximate the inboard lip 204." Miller, col. 5, lines 65-67.
The combination of Miller and Stimson therefore cannot supply a sleeve that is simultaneously (a) spaced from the inner surface of the half-rim, (b) provided internally with internal ribs, and (c) formed as a single piece with the half-rim, disc, and hub. Miller's torque bars, even if monolithic with the wheel, are not provided on a sleeve spaced from the rim; and Miller's heat shield, which is spaced from the rim, is a separately retained part that is neither one piece with the wheel nor provided internally with ribs.”
The sleeve of Miller et al. is viewed as being element 138 and element 140 as disclosed at the end of Page 2 of the Non-Final Office Action. Element 138 (a plurality of torque bars) is joined to the wheel as shown in Figure 1B of Miller et al. thus the viewed sleeve is also joined to the wheel. Both elements 138 and 140 are spaced from the radially inward surface of the wheel as shown in Figure 1B. The attachment of element 138 to the wheel via element 146 has no bearing on the claims because, as shown in Figure 1B, an outer surface of both 138 and 140 is spaced from the radially inward surface of the wheel.
The Applicant argued on Page 12 of the Remarks that “Claim 1 further requires that the sleeve "has an end projecting axially from the first half- rim on the opposite side to the first disc." The Office identifies this end as "the left-most end of 138."
However, in Miller, the torque bars 138 are "attached at axially inboard ends to the wheel 104 by torque bar bolts 146," which "extend through respective holes in a flange 150 provided on the wheel 104 as shown, which flange 150 for purposes of the present description is intended to be considered as part of the wheel well 108." Miller, col. 5, lines 38-43. The torque bar end thus terminates at the wheel, bolted through a flange that Miller itself directs be considered part of the wheel well. The torque bar end does not project axially from the half-rim on the opposite side to the disc.
Moreover, Miller retains a separate chin ring for the function that the claimed projecting sleeve end performs. In the FIG. 2 embodiment, the heat shield 216 is held "with a chin ring 220 proximate the inboard lip 204." Miller, col. 5, line 67. The Office itself relied on this distinction when characterizing Fish and Long as pertinent but not anticipatory art, noting that in Fish "the sleeve does not have an end that projects axially away from the first half-rim on the opposite side to the first radial member" and that in Long the heat shield "is not formed as a single piece member with the first half-rim, the first radial member, and the first hub." The same distinction applies to the combination of Miller and Stimson.”
As shown in Figure 1B of Miller et al., the leftmost end of 138 extends past the leftmost end of 150 thus meeting the claim limitation. The fact that element 138 is fastened to the wheel via element 146 appears to have no bearing on the claim limitation the Applicant is arguing. Applicant’s structure that the Applicant appears to be referring to is element 105.2 extends past the leftmost surface of 101.2 in Applicant’s Figure 2. If that is the case then the structure of Miller et al. reads on that limitation because the leftmost end of 138 extends past the leftmost end of 150.
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 ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM EST.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571)272-2706. 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights