DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 01/23/26 has been entered. Claims 1, 6-11, 13-14 and 16-18 are currently pending. In light of the substantive amendments, the previous 112 rejection is withdrawn and the 103 rejection is revised as detailed below. 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
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.
Campbell in view of Lowe
Claim(s) 1, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0347900) in view of Lowe (U.S. Patent No. 3,370,118). Campbell is directed to a hydraulic brake actuator piston adjuster assembly. See Abstract. Note: the corresponding EP publication was cited as an “X” reference in the EPO Written Opinion. Also, while this reference is by the Applicant, it was published on 11/05/20, more than 1 year before the effective filing date of the instant application. Lowe is directed to a corrugating method. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Campbell discloses a crushable body (300, 220) for use in a position adjustment assembly [Fig. 3], the crushable body comprising: a thin-walled tube (300, 220) [see para. 0022 (“resilient member 220 may be coupled to the deformable member”)] comprising a corrugated crushable body portion (300) [see Fig. 3; para. 0025 (“deformable member 300 is defined by a corrugated or bellows like structure”)] and two flat end portions [see Fig. 3 (left-most end portion of 300 is flat, right-most end portion of 220 is flat)], the corrugated crushable body portion formed with corrugations along its length, between the two flat end portions, the corrugated crushable body portion configured to form a crushed body of reduced axial length compared to an axial length of the thin-walled tube when a predetermined force is applied to the thin-walled tube, wherein a first of the two flat end portions [see Fig. 3 (left-most end portion of 300)] is positioned adjacent and in contact with a piston head (208) positioned within a piston housing (202) and wherein a second of the two flat end portions [see Fig. 3 (right-most end portion of 220)] is positioned adjacent to and in contact with a locker (224), the locker secured to an open end of the piston housing to close an end of the piston housing, wherein the locker is a one-piece rigid component [see Fig. 3]; wherein the corrugations have a corrugation depth in a radial direction and a corrugation length in an axial direction, wherein the thin-walled tube has an external tube diameter, an internal tube diameter, a wall thickness, and an initial axial length, wherein the two flat end portions have an axial length. See Fig. 3.
Campbell discloses all the limitations of this claim except that for the specific wall thickness measurement of the crushable body. Lowe discloses a thin-walled tube (12, 14) comprising a corrugated crushable body portion (14, 18) and two flat end portions (12), the corrugated crushable body portion formed with corrugations along its length, between the two flat end portions, the corrugated crushable body portion configured to form a crushed body of reduced axial length compared to an axial length of the thin-walled tube when a predetermined force is applied to the thin-walled tube; wherein the corrugations have a corrugation depth in a radial direction and a corrugation length in an axial direction, wherein the thin-walled tube has an external tube diameter, an internal tube diameter, a wall thickness, and an initial axial length, wherein the two flat end portions have an axial length, and wherein the wall thickness of the corrugated crushable body is between 0.1-0.5 mm or 0.004-0.02 inches [see col. 3, lines 15-26 (“a radial thickness, at the reduced wall portion 14 of 0.20 inch”)]. See Fig. 6. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to replace the Campbell crushable body (300, 220) with the Lowe crushable body with a reasonable expectation of success because this is a simple substitution and simplifies the device by removing the duplicative resilient member. In addition, the wall thickness measurement is a design choice, and there is also no criticality with the range given how large it is (the upper end of the range is 5 times that of the lower end).
It should be noted that, to the extent that the recited “flat end portions” are intended to be --radially extending-- flat end portions with a thickness greater than the rest of the crushable body, this feature is also disclosed in Lowe [see Fig. 6 (flat end portions 12)] and would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention because this type of flat end portion may provide greater stability and functionality during compression by ensuring proper axial force distribution and minimizing lateral movement, and also because this feature is already employed at one end of deformable member 300 [see Fig. 3]. However, since the current recitation of “flat end portions” remains fairly broad (i.e., an end portion that is flat, in any direction), this feature is already properly disclosed in the base reference Campbell.
Claim 16: Campbell discloses a method of assembling a piston assembly [Figs. 2A, 3] comprising: receiving a piston (204) in a piston cylinder (202) of a housing through a first side of the housing in a first direction; receiving an adjuster assembly (220, 222, 300) comprising a crushable body (300) comprising a thin-walled tube formed with corrugations (302) along its length, on the piston in the first direction; and enclosing the piston cylinder at the first side. See Figs. 2A-3.
Campbell discloses all the limitations of this claim except that the corrugated crushable body has only one flat end portion rather than two. See Fig. 3 (right side of 300). Lowe discloses all the limitations of the corrugated crushable body of claim 1, as discussed above. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the Lowe crushable body in Campbell with a reasonable expectation of success because these flat end portions may provide greater stability and functionality during compression by ensuring proper axial force distribution and minimizing lateral movement.
Claim 18: Lowe discloses a ratio of the wall thickness to the external tube diameter is in the range of 0.001 and 0.2. See col. 3, lines 15-26 (0.020/0.358 = 0.056).
Campbell in view of Lowe and Berwanger
Claim(s) 6-11, 13-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell in view of Lowe and Berwanger (U.S. Patent No. 6,016,892) (previously cited). Berwanger is directed to a brake piston adjuster. See Abstract.
Claim 6: Campbell and Lowe are relied upon as in claim 1 above. Campbell further discloses a piston assembly for engaging two selectively engageable parts comprising: a housing defining a piston cylinder (202); a piston (204); and an adjuster assembly (220, 222, 224) comprising: a piston stroke limiter (220, 222, 224) configured to limit the length of a return stroke of the piston from an extended stroke position and a retracted stroke position, the piston stroke limiter comprising a spring (220); and a crushable body (300) comprising a thin-walled tube formed with corrugations (302) along its length, acting between the piston and the piston stroke limiter, the crushable body being arranged to reduce in axial length when a length of an extension stroke exceeds a length of a retraction stroke to maintain the length of the return stroke. See Figs. 2A, 3.
Campbell discloses all the limitations of this claim except for the piston stroke limiter including a “spring guide”. It should be noted that the two components 222, 224 that enclose the spring 220 and/or the surfaces of 202 and 207 may be deemed a “spring guide,” as demonstrated in the EPO Written Opinion which uses Campbell as an “X” reference (see section 1.2 pointing to “spring guide 202”). In an effort to advance prosecution, a teaching reference is used here to demonstrate that the separate ‘sleeve’-type “spring guide” used in the instant application is a known piston stroke limiter in the art.
Berwanger discloses a brake piston adjuster [see Fig. 3] with a piston stroke limiter (19, 15) configured to limit the length of a return stroke of the piston (13) from an extended stroke position [Fig. 2D] and a retracted stroke position [Fig. 2E], the piston stroke limiter comprising a spring (19) and a spring guide (15), where the spring guide is a sleeve-type spring guide. See Figs. 3, 2D, 2E. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a the Berwanger spring guide in Campbell because, while Campbell effectively achieves the function already, the use of the Berwanger sleeve-type spring guide provides protection for the spring and also serves as a removable piece which has numerous design advantages, allowing for ease in replacement either because of damage/malfunction or to achieve a different extension or retraction stroke length (perhaps with alternate locations for the stops).
Claim 7: Campbell discloses that the crushable body is radially outwards of the piston. See Fig. 3. Upon modifying Campbell to include the Berwanger piston stroke limiter, which keeps the spring and spring guide radially adjacent to the piston rod (and leaving enough room for other components like sleeve 17), the crushable body would be radially outwards of the piston stroke limiter.
Claim 8: Campbell discloses that the crushable body is a sleeve surrounding at least part of the piston. See Fig. 3.
Claim 9: Campbell discloses that the crushable body is in the piston cylinder. See Fig. 3.
Claim 10: Berwanger discloses that the spring guide defines an extension stroke stop (23) and a retraction stroke stop (39, or flange protruding radially inward in Fig. 2E). See Fig. 3; see also Figs. 2D, 2E.
Claim 11: see claim 6 above.
Claim 13: Campbell discloses a brake system for an aircraft comprising the piston assembly of claim 6. See Figs. 1A, 1B.
Claim 14: Campbell discloses a brake system for an aircraft comprising the adjuster assembly of claim 11. See Figs. 1A, 1B.
Claim 17: Campbell discloses a method of operating a brake assembly [see Fig. 1B] comprising: moving a piston (200, 204) to bring opposing brake components into frictional engagement, and controlling the stroke of the piston using the adjuster assembly as claimed in claim 11. See Figs. 1B, 2A, 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6-11, 13-14 and 16-18 have been considered, and are persuasive, but the rejection has been slightly modified, albeit using the same references.
In the current rejection, the Campbell “locker” is now solely element 224, which meets the newly recited limitations concerning the locker being a one-piece rigid component. The “crushable body” is now the Campbell deformable member 300 and resilient member 220, which Campbell states can be “coupled” to each other. See para. 0022. This results in the end portions of this “crushable body” being in contact with both the piston housing 202 and locker 224. Campbell’s “crushable body” is then modified/substituted with the Lowe crushable body primarily for the limitation concerning wall thickness.
With regard to the “flat end portions” limitation, the left-most end portion of 300 and the right-most end portion of 220 are “flat” and have at least some axial length, so this feature is technically already disclosed in Campbell. To the extent that the recited “flat end portions” are intended to be --radially extending-- flat end portions with a thickness greater than the rest of the crushable body, this feature is also disclosed in Lowe [see Fig. 6 (flat end portions 12)] and would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention because this type of flat end portion may provide greater stability and functionality during compression by ensuring proper axial force distribution and minimizing lateral movement, and also because this feature is already employed at one end of deformable member 300 [see Fig. 3]. However, since the current recitation of “flat end portions” remains fairly broad (i.e., an end portion that is flat, in any direction), this feature is already properly disclosed in the base reference Campbell.
For the foregoing reasons, all pending claims remain rejected as detailed above.
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 VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 February 9, 2026