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
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11, 13-14 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien US7983854 (hereinafter, O’Brien) in view of Gapp et al., US5083888 (hereinafter, Gapp).
Regarding claim 1, O’Brien discloses an aircraft landing gear assembly (See Fig. 1), comprising an aircraft landing gear fuse pin (10, see Fig. 3) forming part of a connection between an aircraft landing gear component and an aircraft component (see Figs. 1-3);
Wherein the aircraft landing gear fuse pin is configured to shear upon an application of a predetermined load (see column 3, lines 37-65).
O’Brien fails to teach the aircraft landing gear fuse pin comprises a plurality of elongate reinforcing elements embedded within a solid metal matrix.
However, Gapp discloses a fuse pin (10, see Figs. 1 and 3) [capable of being an aircraft landing gear fuse pin], wherein the pin comprises a plurality of elongate reinforcing elements embedded (see Figs. 5-6) within a solid metal matrix (fibers 34, see Figs. 4-7, claims 2-5, and Column 3, Lines 39-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have replaced the fuse pin of O’Brien with the fuse pin of Gapp to save weight and prevent corrosion. Additionally, such fuse pin is designed to carry mainly shear loads (see column 1).
Regarding claim 2, O’Brien in view of Gapp teaches the aircraft landing gear assembly as claimed in claim 1, in which Gapp further discloses at least some of the reinforcing elements are arranged parallel to the longitudinal axis (see Figs. 1-7).
Regarding claim 3, O’Brien in view of Gapp teaches the aircraft landing gear assembly as claimed in claim 1, in which Gapp further discloses at least some of the reinforcing elements are arranged transverse to the longitudinal axis (see Figs. 1-7).
Regarding claim 4, O’Brien in view of Gapp teaches the aircraft landing gear assembly as claimed in claim 1, in which Gapp further discloses at least some of the elongate reinforcing elements are arranged substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see Figs. 1-7).
Regarding claim 6, O’Brien in view of Gapp teaches the aircraft landing gear assembly as claimed in claim 1, but O’Brien combined with Gapp fails to teach that the matrix material comprises a selection of: aluminium; titanium; steel, copper; nickel; any alloy of the aforementioned metals; and metal ceramics material.
However, in the “Background” section, Gapp teaches that Prior Art structural pins are made from matrix materials comprising a selection of: aluminium; titanium; steel, copper; nickel; any alloy of the aforementioned metals; and metal ceramics material (see Column 1, Lines 11-51).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the matrix material of O’Brien combined with Gapp to include a selection of: aluminium; titanium; steel, copper; nickel; any alloy of the aforementioned metals; and metal ceramics material, as taught in Gapp, for the purpose of providing different suitable materials for particular jobs.
Regarding claim 9, O’Brien in view of Gapp teaches the aircraft landing gear assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein Gapp further teaches the reinforcing elements include carbon fibres (see Column 3, Lines 52-56).
Regarding claim 11 O’Brien in view of Gapp teaches the aircraft landing gear assembly as claimed in claim 1, in which Gapp further teaches the fuse pin has an internal bore along the longitudinal axis having a predetermined profile (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 13, An aircraft including the landing gear assembly as claimed in claim 1 (see O’Brien Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, An aircraft supporting equipment including the aircraft landing gear assembly as claimed in claim 1 (see O’Brien Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, O’Brien in view of Gapp teaches the aircraft landing gear assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the aircraft landing gear component is a landing gear beam (see Fig. 1 of O’Brien and column 3, line 5).
Regarding claim 21, O’Brien in view of Gapp teaches the aircraft landing gear assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the aircraft component is an aircraft wing or an aircraft fuselage (see Fig. 1 or column 3, line 30).
Regarding claim 22, O’Brien in view of Gapp teaches the aircraft landing gear assembly as claimed in claim 20, wherein the aircraft component is an aircraft wing or an aircraft fuselage (see Fig. 1 or column 3, line 5).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien n view of Gapp, in further view of Boismier et al., US20080071348 (hereinafter, Boismier).
Regarding claim 5, O’Brien in view of Gapp teaches the aircraft landing gear fuse assembly as claimed in claim 1.
O’Brien combined with Gapp fails to teach that at least a portion of the metal matrix comprises a plurality of hollow metal ceramic spheres.
Boismier teaches a tubular member made of hollow ceramic spheres (see Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0083]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the metal matrix of O’Brien combined with Gapp to include a plurality of hollow metal ceramic spheres for the purpose of having strong, light-weight fibers in the metal matrix, thereby providing useful materials for aircraft use.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien in view of Gapp, in further view of Moghe et al., US5127783 (hereinafter, Moghe).
Regarding claim 7, O’Brien in view of Gapp teaches the the aircraft landing gear assembly as claimed in claim 1.
O’Brien combined with Gapp fails to expressly disclose that the reinforcing elements include ceramic fibres.
Moghe teaches a matrix comprising reinforcing elements that include ceramic fibers (see Column 19, Lines 5-27).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the reinforcing elements of O’Brien combined with Gapp to include ceramic fibers, as taught in Moghe, for the purpose of having strong, light-weight fibers in the metal matrix, thereby providing useful materials for aircraft use.
Regarding claim 8, O’Brien in view of Gapp, in further view of Moghe teaches the aircraft landing gear assembly as claimed in claim 7. Moghe further teaches wherein the ceramic fibres comprise aluminium oxide fibre or silicon carbide fibre (see Column 19, Lines 5-27).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien in view of Gapp, in further view of Moghe et al., US5127783 (hereinafter, Moghe).
Regarding claim 23, O’Brien in view of Gapp teaches and/or make obvious of an aircraft landing gear assembly, comprising:
an aircraft landing gear fuse pin forming part of a connection between an aircraft landing gear component and an aircraft component;
wherein the aircraft landing gear fuse pin is configured to shear upon an application of a predetermined load.
(please refer to the rejection and rationale set forth above in claim 1 for the limitations above)
O’Brien in view of Gapp fails to teach the aircraft landing gear fuse pin comprises a plurality of helical elongate reinforcing elements in a metal matrix.
However, Moghe teaches a composite fastener having a reinforcing fabric layer having its first portion extending helically (see claims 25 & 28-32). Moghe discloses the possibility of helical elongate reinforcing elements in a metal matrix (column 11, lines 37-58).
Further, it is the examiner’s position that O’Brien in view of Gapp fails to specifically teach the aircraft landing gear fuse pin comprises a plurality of helical elongate reinforcing elements in a metal matrix, however changes in shape have been established to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in the absence of a persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. The disclosure does not provide any evidence of criticality of the helical shape in para. [0027]. Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art to have helical elongate reinforcing elements in a metal matrix as an obvious change in shape. MPEP 2144.04 (iv)(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, 11, 13-14 and 20-22 have been fully considered.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made based on existing and newly found prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/DIL K. MAGAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights