1. Technical Field
The present disclosure relates to wheel locks for limiting the removability of wheels from vehicles, such as motor vehicles or trailers.
2. Background
Truck or automobile wheels are secured to axles by lug nuts threaded onto an array of threaded posts or studs projecting from the axle hub. Such wheels generally comprise a body having a central attachment flange. The lug nuts thread onto studs passing through holes in the attachment flange and are engaged by a simple wrench, socket, or tire tool. Just as simply, the lug nuts can be removed by thieves intent on stealing the valuable wheels, as well as the tires. This is problematic because wheels are an expensive component of any vehicle, especially trucks.
Efforts have been made in the past to provide devices to prevent unwanted removal of the lug nuts holding the wheel on the axle. Any such device must be easy to use without interfering with the ability to tighten the lug nuts completely. While many prior devices cover and protect a lug nut from easy removal, the devices themselves are subject to being pried apart or opened to allow access to the lug nut within.
Therefore a need exists for a wheel lock that is easy to use and resists improper removal.
Truck or automobile wheels are secured to axles by lug nuts threaded onto an array of threaded posts or studs projecting from the axle hub. The number of studs varies, usually between four and eight.
The studs (110) are of course passed through the mounting holes in a wheel flange (105) before the security plate (100) is fastened over them (see
The lock lug (150) has a key recess (165) extending substantially coaxially around the central stud hole (155) and axially aligned with the lock lug (150). The key recess (165) as shown, has a roughly circular, but preferably irregular, path around the stud hole (155). This irregular path of the key recess engages with a mating key projection (195) on the face of a key lug (190), as shown in
The reader should note that the path of the key recess (165) and the mating key projection (195) can be irregular in an indefinite number of ways, and the term “irregular” in this description should be taken to mean any such path that is not a regular geometric figure, such as a star or hexagon, although such regular paths could be used. This means that many different key patterns can be manufactured, further thwarting the efforts of thieves who may have somehow obtained a key lug (190) for a particular lock set.
The clearance between the lock lug (150) and the body of the security plate (100) at the receptacle (120) should be arbitrarily small to thwart a person attempting to grip the sides of the lock lug (150) with some tool. Further to this end, the key recess (165) in the lock lug defines an outer wall (170) and an inner wall (180) as shown in more detail in
Still further, the outer wall (170) and the inner wall (180) of the key recess (165) are substantially flush with one another and with the face of the security plate (100) at the location of the receptacle (120) for the lock lug (150). Again, this structure thwarts attempts to engage any part of the lock lug (150) with a tool other than a corresponding key lug (190).
None of the description in this application should be read as implying that any particular element, step, or function is an essential element which must be included in the claim scope; the scope of patented subject matter is defined only by the allowed claims. Moreover, none of these claims are intended to invoke paragraph six of 35 U.S.C. Section 112 unless the exact words “means for” are used, followed by a gerund. The claims as filed are intended to be as comprehensive as possible, and no subject matter is intentionally relinquished, dedicated, or abandoned.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1447564 | Norlund et al. | Mar 1923 | A |
2124035 | Hurd | Jul 1938 | A |
2340998 | Sundell | Feb 1944 | A |
2377542 | Crew | Jun 1945 | A |
2568370 | Scuderi | Sep 1951 | A |
2722822 | Thomas | Nov 1955 | A |
3352133 | Selleck | Nov 1967 | A |
3534570 | Mauro | Oct 1970 | A |
3821975 | Haker | Jul 1974 | A |
3833266 | Lamme | Sep 1974 | A |
3874258 | Semola et al. | Apr 1975 | A |
3918764 | Lamme | Nov 1975 | A |
3995461 | Hudson | Dec 1976 | A |
4161869 | Dixon | Jul 1979 | A |
4649620 | Omori | Mar 1987 | A |
4674306 | Halpern | Jun 1987 | A |
4724692 | Turin et al. | Feb 1988 | A |
4825669 | Herrera | May 1989 | A |
4856307 | Hauser | Aug 1989 | A |
4869633 | Hayashi | Sep 1989 | A |
4888969 | Suroff | Dec 1989 | A |
5007260 | Sharp | Apr 1991 | A |
5011231 | Weber | Apr 1991 | A |
5129710 | Knowles | Jul 1992 | A |
5222785 | Green | Jun 1993 | A |
5301527 | Pollard | Apr 1994 | A |
5370486 | Plummer | Dec 1994 | A |
5503465 | Price et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5797659 | Fuller | Aug 1998 | A |
5853228 | Patti et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5934118 | Henness | Aug 1999 | A |
6116700 | Herrera | Sep 2000 | A |
D432006 | Hussaini | Oct 2000 | S |
6321623 | Dykes et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6322158 | Herrera | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6419326 | Rains | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6609401 | Iskhakbayev | Aug 2003 | B1 |
7673482 | Bosman | Mar 2010 | B2 |
20080127691 | Castillo et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140077582 A1 | Mar 2014 | US |