Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/772,858

METERING NEEDLE FOR OLEO-PNEUMATIC-TYPE SHOCK ABSORBER

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Apr 28, 2022
Examiner
BURCH, MELODY M
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
SAFRAN
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
658 granted / 1029 resolved
+11.9% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1080
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
43.9%
+3.9% vs TC avg
§102
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
§112
27.8%
-12.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1029 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/26/25 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Re: claim 1. The second phrase “a diaphragm holder tube” is indefinite. It is unclear whether Applicant intends to refer back to the previously recited diaphragm holder tube or recite a new one. The remaining claims are indefinite due to their dependency from claim 1. 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, 3, 6, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR-2999528 (FR’528). Re: claims 1, 6, 10, and 11. FR’528 shows in figure 1 an oleo-pneumatic shock absorber comprising a metering needle as labeled, a diaphragm holder tube as labeled and a diaphragm as labeled held by a diaphragm holder tube, the metering needle comprising a base made of a material from which projects a rod shown at the end of the lead arrow labeled metering needle arranged to control a flow of a hydraulic fluid through an orifice of the diaphragm i.e. the hole surrounding the top of the rod, the base having a bottom delimiting an external face of the metering needle and forming an axisymmetrical arch with convexity rotated towards a free end of the rod to withstand pressure forces and in which is inserted and fastened an insert, as labeled arranged to mechanically reinforce the arched bottom and distribute the pressure forces evenly. [AltContent: textbox (Insert)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (External face of metering needle i.e. on opposite side of base from internal area)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Internal area)][AltContent: textbox (Diaphragm)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Metering needle)][AltContent: textbox (Diaphragm holder tube)][AltContent: textbox (Base)] PNG media_image1.png 735 744 media_image1.png Greyscale but is silent with regard to the material being thermoplastic. FR’528 teaches in the English abstract the use of a shock absorber component or holder including base 35 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 material of the metering needle base of FR’528 to have been made of thermoplastic, in view of the teachings of FR’528, in order to provide a lighter structure to result in a cost savings. With regard to claims 10 and 11, see the first line under description in which an aircraft is described. Re: claim 3. FR’528, as modified, is silent with regard to the insert being a cylindrical bush housed in the arched bottom of the base. FR’528 teaches in figure 4 the use of an insert 39 being a cylindrical bush housed in an arched bottom of a base 35. 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 insert of FR’528, as modified, to have been a cylindrical bush, in view of the teachings of FR’528, in order to provide an insert that is arranged to accommodate radial reinforcing structures due to its cylindrical shape which adds significant structural integrity. Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR-2999528 (FR’528) in view of FR-2671158 (FR’158). Re: claims 2 and 12. FR’528, as modified, is silent with regard to the insert being made of metal. FR’158 teaches in the paragraph starting “In Figure 2, we can see an alternative embodiment of stiffener 13” of FR’158 in the limitation wherein the insert 5 is made of metal or particularly steel as suggested in the paragraph beginning “In the example illustrated, the frame 8 is composed of an O-ring 81”. 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 insert of FR’528, as modified, to have been made of metal, in view of the teachings of FR’158, in order to provide an insert that has significant structural integrity. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the interpretation previously used in the prior rejections of record. Conclusion 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 at 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 December 13, 2025 /MELODY M BURCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 28, 2022
Application Filed
May 18, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jul 22, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 11, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 30, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
May 12, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 12, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 11, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 26, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600331
CENTRAL ELECTRO-PNEUMATIC PRESSURE CONTROL MODULE IMPLEMENTED AS A COMPONENT AND HAVING AN INTEGRATED CENTRAL BRAKE CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601382
BRAKE BODY FOR A TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A BRAKE BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601386
VIBRATION DAMPING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595845
DRIVELINE INCLUDING A HYDRODYNAMIC RETARDER AND METHOD OF OPERATING A HYDRODYNAMIC RETARDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595835
END-STOP CONTROL VALVES FOR PROVIDING PROGESSIVE DAMPING FORCES IN VIBRATION DAMPERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+25.9%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1029 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month