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 § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 4, 6, 10, 11, 14, 16, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lewis (US 2755041).
In regards to claim 1, Lewis discloses a landing gear actuation system, the landing gear actuation system comprising:
a motor (Fig. 7 ref. 56);
a gearbox comprising a gear train coupled to the motor (as seen in Fig. 7 attached to ref. 86, C5:30 “a worm gear 84 on one of the coaxial shafts 79 may be driven by a worm 85 that is actuated by a motor 86 through reduction gearing in a gear case 83”);
a cable drive mechanism coupled to the gear train (Fig. 7 compromising at least ref. 90) and comprising:
a cable (ref. 75); and
a spool drum (ref. 90), wherein a first end of the cable is coupled to the spool drum (as seen in Fig. 7) and wherein the spool drum is coupled to an output of the gear train (as seen in Fig. 7); and
a trunnion coupled to the cable of the cable drive mechanism (Fig. 7 ref. 200),
wherein rotation of the gear train by the motor rotates the spool drum to drive the trunnion via the cable to at least one of extend or retract a landing gear (as seen in Fig. 7 motion of landing gear indicated by arrow).
In regards to claim 4, Lewis as combined discloses the landing gear actuation system of claim 1, wherein the motor is an electric motor (Lewis ref. 86).
In regards to claim 11, Lewis discloses an aircraft (Fig. 1 ref. 20), the aircraft comprising:
a landing gear (Lewis C;15); and a landing gear actuation system (Lewis comprising at least ref. 86), the landing gear actuation system comprising:
a motor (Fig. 7 ref. 86); a gearbox comprising a gear train coupled to the motor (C5:32, ref. 83);a cable drive mechanism coupled to the gear train (as seen at least in fig. 7) and comprising:
a cable (Fig. 7 ref. 75); and a spool drum (Fig. 7 ref. 90),
wherein a first end of the cable is coupled to the spool drum ((as seen in Fig. 7) and wherein the spool drum is coupled to an output of the gear train (as seen in Fig. 7); and
a trunnion coupled to the cable of the cable drive mechanism (Fig. 7 ref. 200), wherein rotation of the gear train by the motor rotates the spool drum to drive the trunnion via the cable to at least one of extend or retract the landing gear (as seen in Fig. 7 motion indicated by arrow).
In regards to claim 6, Lewis discloses the landing gear actuation system of claim 1, wherein the gear train amplifies a first torque produced by the motor thereby generating a second torque (Lewis C5:30 discloses reduction in gearing thus change in torque from gear train).
In regards to claim 10, Lewis discloses the landing gear actuation system of claim 1, wherein the motor rotates in either a first direction or a second direction (Lewis, direction for retraction or extension), wherein the second direction is opposite the first direction (Lewis direction for retraction or extension of landing gear), and wherein the motor is configured to oscillate overcome an eccentric locking mechanism (The motor of Lewis used to retract/extend gear such that the repeated operations in retraction and extension (oscillating fwd and rvr) may be used to overcome excentric oriented mechanisms of the landing gear.
In regards to claim 14, Lewis as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 11, wherein the motor is an electric motor (Lewis ref. 86).
In regards to claim 16, Lewis discloses the aircraft of claim 11, wherein the gear train amplifies a first torque produced by the motor thereby generating a second torque (Lewis C5:30 discloses reduction in gearing thus change in torque from gear train).
In regards to claim 20, Lewis discloses the aircraft of claim 11, wherein the motor rotates in either a first direction or a second direction, wherein the second direction is opposite the first direction (Lewis, direction for retraction or extension of landing gear), and wherein the motor is configured to oscillate overcome an eccentric locking mechanism (The motor of Lewis used to retract/extend gear such that the repeated operations in retraction and extension (oscillating fwd and rvr) may be used to overcome excentric oriented mechanisms of the landing gear.
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.
Claim 2, 3, 12, 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of (GB 428539A), referred to as the 539 reference.
In regards to claim 2, Lewis discloses the landing gear actuation system of claim 1,
While Lewis does not expressly disclose: a fixed clevis, however Lewis teaches a clevis, ref. 212.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Lewis by providing a clevis in order to provide a fixed point of attachment for a pulley as is well known in the art.
Lewis further discloses:
wherein a second end of the cable is coupled to the fixed clevis (Lewis the pulley may be coupled through force loads through the cable and pulley); and
a first pulley (Lewis Fig. 7 ref. 91), wherein the first pulley is coupled to the trunnion (Lewis ref. 91 force coupled to ref. 200),
wherein the trunnion is coupled to the cable via the first pulley (Lewis ref. 91 force coupled to ref. 200),
wherein the first pulley is positioned between the spool drum and the fixed clevis (Lewis as combined, with clevis attached to aircraft structure, pulley is then between clevis and spool drum), and
Lewis does not expressly disclose:
wherein the first pulley is enclosed within and protected by a pulley guard configured to prevent the cable from slipping out of the first pulley.
The 539 reference teaches a guard over a puller (as seen in first figure ref. 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Lewis with the 539 reference by providing the first pulley is enclosed within and protected by a pulley guard in order to prevent the cable from slipping out of the first pulley as is well known in the art.
In regards to claim 3, Lewis as combined discloses the landing gear actuation system of claim 2, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising: a second pulley,
The 539 reference teaches a plurality of pulleys used to guide a cable for extension and retraction of landing gear. The landing gear comprising trunnions/supports (as seen in figures, and pulleys referenced in specification).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Lewis with the 539 reference by providing a second pulley in order to route and or add addition support for the cable during operation of the landing gear.
Lewis as combined further discloses:
wherein the trunnion is coupled to the cable via the first pulley and the second pulley (Lewis combined, 539 reference adding the second pulley) and wherein the second pulley is positioned between the spool drum and the first pulley (Lewis combined, 539 reference locates pulley before a first pulley in order and as such adding further support for cable).
In regards to claim 12, Lewis discloses the aircraft of claim 11, Lewis does not expressly disclose: wherein the landing gear actuation system further comprises: a fixed clevis, however Lewis teaches a clevis, ref. 212.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Lewis by providing a clevis in order to provide a fixed point of attachment for a pulley as is well known in the art.
Lewis further discloses:
wherein a second end of the cable is coupled to the fixed clevis (Lewis the pulley may be coupled through force loads through the cable and pulley); and
a first pulley (Lewis Fig. 7 ref. 91), wherein the first pulley is coupled to the trunnion (Lewis ref. 91 force coupled to ref. 200), wherein the trunnion is coupled to the cable via the first pulley (Lewis ref. 200 force coupled to ref. 95), wherein the first pulley is positioned between the spool drum and the fixed clevis (Lewis as combined, with clevis attached to aircraft structure, pulley is then between clevis and spool drum), and
Lewis does not expressly disclose: wherein the first pulley is enclosed within and protected by a pulley guard configured to prevent the cable from slipping out of the first pulley.
The 539 reference teaches a guard over a puller (as seen in first figure ref. 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Lewis with the 539 reference by providing the first pulley is enclosed within and protected by a pulley guard in order to prevent the cable from slipping out of the first pulley as is well known in the art.
In regards to claim 13, Lewis as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 12,
Lewis does not expressly disclose: wherein the landing gear actuation system further comprises: a second pulley,
The 539 reference teaches a plurality of pulleys used to guide a cable for extension and retraction of landing gear. The landing gear comprising trunnions/supports (as seen in figures, and pulleys referenced in specification).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Lewis with the 539 reference by providing a second pulley in order to route and or add addition support for the cable during operation of the landing gear.
Lewis as combined further discloses:
wherein the trunnion is coupled to the cable via the first pulley and the second pulley (Lewis combined, 539 reference adding the second pulley) and wherein the second pulley is positioned between the spool drum and the first pulley (Lewis combined, 539 reference locates pulley before a first pulley in order and as such adding further support for cable).
Claim 5, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of Zordan (US 20050229729).
In regards to claim 5, Lewis discloses the landing gear actuation system of claim 1, wherein the motor and the gear train are coupled to a structure of an aircraft via a casing (as suggested in Fig. 7 of Lewis for ref. 89),
Lewis does not expressly disclose: wherein the casing includes a set of bearings that transfers a load provided by the motor and the gear train to an aircraft landing gear bay structure, wherein the gear train is a multiple stage epicyclic gear train.
Zordan teaches bearings used with aircraft actuators ([0037]) and epicyclic gear train used within actuator ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Lewis with Zordan by providing the casing includes a set of bearings that transfers a load provided by the motor and the gear train to an aircraft landing gear bay structure, wherein the gear train is a multiple stage epicyclic gear train in order to provide strength during high loads.
In regards to claim 15, Lewis as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 11, wherein the motor and the gear train are coupled to a structure of the aircraft via a casing (as suggested in Fig. 7 of Lewis for ref. 89), but does not expressly disclose: wherein the casing includes a set of bearings that transfers a load provided by the motor and the gear train to an aircraft landing gear bay structure, and wherein the gear train is a multiple stage epicyclic gear train.
Zordan teaches bearings used with aircraft actuators ([0037]) and epicyclic gear train used within actuator ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Lewis with Zordan by providing the casing includes a set of bearings that transfers a load provided by the motor and the gear train to an aircraft landing gear bay structure, wherein the gear train is a multiple stage epicyclic gear train in order to provide strength during high loads.
Claim 7-9, 17-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of Thule (US 3122345).
In regards to claim 7, Lewis discloses the landing gear actuation system of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: further comprising: a clutch, wherein the clutch is coupled between the cable drive mechanism and the gear train.
Thule teaches a clutch system for an aircraft landing gear, the clutch coupling a motor for releasing the landing gear to the landing gear (C4:3 discloses operation of clutch, Fig. 2 ref. 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Lewis with the Thule by providing a clutch coupled between the cable drive mechanism and the gear train in order to allow selected movement of the gear train.
In regards to claim 8, Lewis as combined discloses the landing gear actuation system of claim 7, wherein
the clutch is configured to disengage the coupling between the cable drive mechanism and the gear train thereby allowing the landing gear to free fall by its payload via gravity in response to an event (Thule C4:8 “the support units 18 free to drop under their own weight guided by the sleeve portions 24 of each mounting assembly”, C2:25), wherein the clutch is controlled via a clutch release mechanism, and wherein the clutch release mechanism is at least one of a manual release lever or an electronic release (Thule C2:72).
In regards to claim 9, Lewis as combined discloses the landing gear actuation system of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the event is at least one of a failure of the gear train or a failure of the motor.
Lewis however, teaches dropping the landing gear in response to safety concerns by way of gravity (C3:14 “A further feature with regard to safety that is made possible by the invention is the designing of the landing gear for downward extension in .a "fail-safe" manner with the downward extension movement assisted both by gravity and by the force resistance of the air stream”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Lewis by providing the event is at least one of a failure of the gear train or a failure of the motor which regard the safety of the aircraft.
In regards to claim 17, Lewis as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 11, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the landing gear actuation system further comprises: a clutch, wherein the clutch is coupled between the cable drive mechanism and the gear train.
Thule teaches a clutch system for an aircraft landing gear, the clutch coupling a motor for releasing the landing gear to the landing gear (C4:3 discloses operation of clutch, Fig. 2 ref. 44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Lewis with the Thule by providing a clutch coupled between the cable drive mechanism and the gear train in order to allow selected movement of the gear train.
In regards to claim 18, Lewis as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 17, wherein the clutch is configured to disengage the coupling between the cable drive mechanism and the gear train thereby allowing the landing gear to free fall by its payload via gravity in response to an event (Thule C4:8 “the support units 18 free to drop under their own weight guided by the sleeve portions 24 of each mounting assembly”, C2:25), wherein the clutch is controlled via a clutch release mechanism, and wherein the clutch release mechanism is at least one of a manual release lever or an electronic release (Thule C2:72).
In regards to claim 19, Lewis as combined discloses the aircraft of claim 18, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the event is at least one of a failure of the gear train or a failure of the motor.
Lewis however, teaches dropping the landing gear in response to safety concerns by way of gravity (C3:14 “A further feature with regard to safety that is made possible by the invention is the designing of the landing gear for downward extension in .a "fail-safe" manner with the downward extension movement assisted both by gravity and by the force resistance of the air stream”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Lewis by providing the event is at least one of a failure of the gear train or a failure of the motor which regard the safety of the aircraft.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure cited on PTO 892. The cited references display landing gear using cable during extension and retraction. Landing gear which is drop assisted by gravity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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 HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights