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, 4, 6, 10-12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application 2019/0309817 to Juracek et al. in view of US Patent Application 2013/0327211 to Booth et al.
Re: claims 1 and 6. Juracek et al. show in figure 1 a shock strut, comprising: a shock strut cylinder 145; a shock strut piston 140 slidably disposed within the shock strut cylinder; a rebound chamber 171 disposed within the shock strut cylinder and adjacent the shock strut piston; a first percolation seal 110 configured to restrict a first flow of fluid between the shock strut cylinder 145 or particularly the lower portion of element 145 and the rebound chamber 171 at least in the area of the seal; an orifice support tube 123, 130 disposed within the shock strut cylinder, but is silent with regard to the second percolation seal, a fluid source, and a conduit as recited.
Booth et al. teach in figure 1 and in paragraph [0058] the use of a piston cylinder assembly with a second percolation seal particularly in paragraph [0058] when the reference refers to one “or more locking seals”.
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 seal of Juracek et al. to have comprised both a first seal and a second seal, in view of the teachings of Booth et al., in order to provide increased fluid flow resistance and thereby increase the strut assembly damping capability.
Also see In re Harza since Applicant failed to provide an explanation of criticality with respect to having a second seal.
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.).
Booth et al. teach in figure 1 the use of a piston cylinder assembly including a fluid source connecting to element 117 and described in paragraph [0081] and a conduit 127, 129 having a first end shown near 117 and a second end shown near 124, the first end coupled to the fluid source 117 and the second end coupled to the seal 124.
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 strut of Juracek et al., as modified, to have comprised a fluid source and a conduit, in view of the teachings of Booth et al., in order to provide a means of selectively and actively adjusting the fluid pressure reaching the seals to actively affect the amount of fluid flow resistance and, thus, the damping force.
Re: claim 2. Juracek et al., as modified, teach in figure 1 and in paragraph [0013] of Juracek et al. the limitation wherein a liquid or oil chamber 172 is defined on a first or lower side of the second percolation seal 121 (alternate interpretation) and a mixed fluid (air-oil) chamber 171 is defined on a second or upper side of the second percolation seal, as modified, the second percolation seal being configured to restrict the second flow of fluid from the liquid chamber to the mixed fluid chamber.
Re: claims 4 and 15. Juracek et al., as modified, further show in figure 1 of Juracek et al. the limitation of a metering pin 150 connected to the shock strut piston 140 via shown intervening element connections, as broadly recited, wherein the second seal, as modified, is configured to engage the metering pin to restrict the second flow of fluid similar to the way in which the first seal engages the metering pin to further help with fluid flow restriction, as modified.
Re: claims 9 and 16. Juracek et al., as modified, are silent with regard to the first seal being configured to engage a sidewall of the shock strut cylinder to restrict the first flow of fluid.
Booth et al. teach in figure 1 the use of a first seal 124 being configured to engage a sidewall of a cylinder 102 to restrict the first flow of fluid.
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 first seal of Juracek et al., as modified, to have engaged a sidewall of the shock strut cylinder (as opposed to a metering pin), in view of the teachings of Booth et al., in order to provide a means of contacting a larger sealing surface which may result in more effective flow restriction.
Re: claims 10-12 and 1 (alternate interpretation). Juracek et al. show in figure 1 a landing gear system, comprising: a shock strut, the shock strut including: a shock strut cylinder 145; a shock strut piston 140 slidably disposed within the shock strut cylinder; a rebound chamber 171 disposed within the shock strut cylinder and adjacent the shock strut piston; a first percolation seal 110 configured to restrict a first flow of fluid between the shock strut cylinder or the bottom portion of the shock strut cylinder and the rebound chamber; a second percolation seal 121 configured to restrict a second flow of fluid between the shock strut cylinder or the bottom portion of the shock strut cylinder and the rebound chamber; an orifice support tube 123, 130 disposed within the shock strut cylinder; a first channel surrounding element 110 disposed within the orifice support tube, wherein the first percolation seal 110 is disposed within the first channel; and a second channel surrounding element 121 disposed within the orifice support tube, wherein the second percolation seal 121 is disposed within the second channel, but is silent with regard to a fluid source and a conduit as recited. With regard to claim 10, the landing gear is disclosed in paragraph [0011].
Booth et al. teach in figure 1 the use of a piston cylinder assembly including a fluid source connecting to element 117 and described in paragraph [0081] and a conduit 127, 129 having a first end shown near 117 and a second end shown near 124, the first end coupled to the fluid source 117 and the second end coupled to the seal 124.
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 strut of Juracek et al., as modified, to have comprised a fluid source and a conduit, in view of the teachings of Booth et al., in order to provide a means of selectively and actively adjusting the fluid pressure reaching the seals to actively affect the amount of fluid flow resistance and, thus, the damping force.
Re: claim 14. Juracek et al., as modified, teach the limitation of the conduit being coupled to the orifice support tube via intervening elements of the strut forming to overall assembly as broadly recited.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16-19, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11814160 to Bodki et al. in view of US Patent Application 2019/0309817 to Juracek et al.
Both the instant invention and Bodki ‘160 recite a shock strut cylinder, a shock strut piston, a fluid source, a conduit, and a seal that is configured to be inflated and deflated but is silent with regard to the seal being a first and second seal and is silent with regard to the strut assembly being comprising an orifice support tube.
Juracek et al. teach in figure 1 the use of a shock strut assembly comprising a first 110 and second 121 seal.
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 seal of Bodki’160 to have comprised both a first seal and a second seal, in view of the teachings of Juracek et al., in order to provide increased fluid flow resistance and thereby increase the strut assembly damping capability.
Juracek et al. teach in figure 1 the use of a shock strut assembly comprising an orifice support tube 123, 130.
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 strut assembly of Bodki’160 to have comprised an orifice support tube, in view of the teachings of Juracek et al., in order to provide a means of housing the seals to help prevent decoupling.
With regard to the specific recitations in earlier filed application for Bodki’160 see In re Goodman.
In In re Goodman, 29 USPQ 2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993), the court held that for the purposes of obvious double patenting a later genus (broad) claim is not patentable over an earlier species (narrow) claim.
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 combination of references used in the prior office action. Upon further review, new rejections have been presented.
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
March 6, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616