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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-112017004737 (DE’737) in view of US Patent 2520442 to Schwartz and FR-2999528 (FR’528).
Re: claim 1. DE’737 shows in figure 1 a diaphragm holder for an oleo-pneumatic shock absorber, the diaphragm holder comprising a tubular body 30 made of plastic material i.e. carbon fiber reinforced plastic as described in the discussion of “pipe material 30” having a first or upper end defining a bottom or surface upon which the bottom of 36 is disposed arranged to withstand pressure forces as shown in figure 1 and as acknowledged by Applicant on pgs. 6-7 of the remarks filed 8/6/25 and a second or bottom end opposite end arranged to hold a diaphragm 2, 31 provided at least one flow restricting orifice, as labeled, opening both inside and outside the body 30 due to the gap between 33b and 30 and the gap between 33c and 30 to allow passage of a fluid between the inside and outside of the body, the first end and the second end being provided with respectively a first localized mechanical reinforcement element 35 and a second localized mechanical reinforcement element 2, 31, each forming an axial stop or radially outward flange arranged to allow a tensile stressing of the tubular body particularly in cooperation with element 2 beyond the maximum rebound stroke as broadly recited, but is silent with regards to the plastic being a thermoplastic material and is silent with regards to the at least one flow restricting orifice being a plurality of restricting orifices.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (At least one flow restricting orifice)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
469
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schwartz teaches in col. 2 lines 48-51 the use of a tubular body 34 in the environment of a shock absorber being made of thermoplastic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the plastic of DE’737 to have been thermoplastic, in view of the teachings of Schwartz, in order to provide a material with increased durability and strength as well as resistance to impact and chemicals.
FR’528 teaches in figure 4 the use of a tubular body 31 having a first or bottom end arranged to hold a diaphragm 39 provided with at least one flow restricting orifice between the diaphragm and the tubular body being in the form of a plurality of flow restricting orifices shown between elements 38.
See Next Page.
PNG
media_image2.png
437
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the at least one flow restricting orifice of DE’737, as modified, to have included a plurality of flow restricting orifices, in view of the teachings of FR’528, in order to provide a means of securing the diaphragm to the tubular body by including intervening vanes which frictionally contact the inner surface of the tubular body and which also form the plurality of orifices. Also see In re Harza.
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Re: claim 2. DE’737, as modified, teaches in the English machine translation of the specification of DE’737 wherein at least one of the first and second localised mechanical reinforcement elements is made of metal particularly the section where it states “The first link 31 is a columnar member formed of a metal” and similar for “The second link 35”.
Re: claim 6. DE’737, as modified, teaches in figure 1 of DE’737 the limitation wherein the first localised mechanical reinforcement element arranged at the first or upper end of the tubular body comprises a yoke joint 36a arranged to articulate the diaphragm holder on a support structure or that which is connected to 36a.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-112017004737 (DE’737) in view of Schwartz and FR’528 as applied above, and further in view of US Patent 3836132 to McNally et al.
Re: claim 3. DE’737, as modified, teaches the second localised mechanical reinforcement element 2, 31 arranged at the second or lower end of the tubular member being added onto the tubular body (via adhesive), but is silent with regards to the addition being by screwing the reinforcement element onto the tubular body.
McNally et al. teach in figure 2 the use of a mechanical reinforcement element 66, 70 being added by screwing onto a tubular body 28 using threads as shown.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the way in which the reinforcement element is added onto the tubular body of DE’737, as modified, to have been by screwing, in view of the teachings of McNally et al., in order to provide an additional or a more secure and reliable connection of the two components to provide (when coupled with element 2) a solid axial stop during extreme rebound maneuvers.
Re: claim 4. DE’737, as modified, teaches in figure 1 of DE’737 wherein the mechanical reinforcement element 2, 31 arranged at the second or lower end of the tubular body 30 defines a cover 2, 9 comprising a tubular part 9 which is engaged on the second end and which has a free or top end of element 2 forming the axial stop particularly during extreme rebound strokes in which element 2 would approach element 6.
Re: claim 5. DE’737, as modified, teaches in figure 1 of DE’737 wherein the second localized mechanical reinforcement element 2, 31 arranged at the second or lower end of the tubular body 30 comprises a wall or top surface of element 2 blocking the tubular body during extreme rebound strokes and in which is arranged at least one restricting orifice 2a or 2b such that said wall forms the diaphragm.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-112017004737 (DE’737) in view of Schwartz and FR’528 as applied above, and further in view of CA-3001991 (CA’991).
DE’737, as modified, teaches the diaphragm holder, but is silent with regards to diaphragm holder being a part of an oleo pneumatic shock absorber of an aircraft lander of an aircraft.
CA’991 teaches in lines 16-25 of page 1 the use of diaphragm holder structure 14b shown in figure 1 being a part of an oleo pneumatic type shock absorber of an aircraft lander of an aircraft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the diaphragm holder of DE’737, as modified, to have been a part of an oleo pneumatic type shock absorber of an aircraft lander of an aircraft, in view of the teachings of CA’991, in order to provide a way of preventing overshooting of the absorber during rebound to maintain safe plane landing operations and to use an oleo-pneumatic device to ensure adequate damping or shock absorbing capabilities.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-112017004737 (DE’737) in view of US Patent 2520442 to Schwartz.
Re: claims 12 and 13. DE’737 shows in figure 1 a diaphragm holder for an oleo-pneumatic shock absorber, the diaphragm holder comprising a tubular body 30 made of plastic material i.e. carbon fiber reinforced plastic as described in the discussion of “pipe material 30” having a first or upper end defining a bottom or surface upon which the bottom of 36 is disposed arranged to withstand pressure forces as shown in figure 1 and as acknowledged by Applicant on pgs. 6-7 of the remarks filed 8/6/25 and a second or bottom end opposite end arranged to hold a diaphragm 2, 31 provided flow restricting orifices 2a, 2b provided by only the diaphragm 2, 31 and particularly portion 2 of the diaphragm, the first end and the second end being provided with respectively a first localized mechanical reinforcement element 35 and a second localized mechanical reinforcement element 2, 31, each forming an axial stop or radially outward flange arranged to allow a tensile stressing of the tubular body particularly in cooperation with element 2 beyond the maximum rebound stroke as broadly recited, but is silent with regards to the plastic being a thermoplastic material. With regard to claim 13, DE’737 shows figure 1 flow restricting orifices 2a, 2b particularly in portion 2 of the diaphragm through which fluid can pass through the diaphragm.
Schwartz teaches in col. 2 lines 48-51 the use of a tubular body 34 in the environment of a shock absorber being made of thermoplastic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the plastic of DE’737 to have been thermoplastic, in view of the teachings of Schwartz, in order to provide a material with increased durability and strength as well as resistance to impact and chemicals. Also see the rejection of claim 1 with respect to the added fluid passage limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant refers to the arguments filed on 2/12/26. On pg. 8 of the remarks filed on 2/12/26 Applicant argues that no fluid flows between the end surfaces 30c and 33c. Examiner disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to the paragraph beginning “Subsequently, the first link 31” of DE’737 which describes a part of the adhesive passing through end surface 30c.
Accordingly, the above rejections have been maintained.
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 MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally.
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 on 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.
mmb
September 1, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights