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 .
The amendment filed September 26, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 23 are amended. Therefore, claims 1-25 are currently pending in the application.
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.
Claims 17-22, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alguera Gallego et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0168648.
As per claim 17, Alguera Gallego et al. disclose a lubrication-saver (19) for a gearbox (fig. 3) of a landing gear (1) of a vehicle where the gearbox includes a housing (4, 5) and a gear assembly (14), comprising:
a main body (63); and
at least one relief (fig. E-1) extending into the main body (63) and configured to receive a shaft (20) or a gear (26, 22) of the gear assembly therein;
wherein the main body is hollow (figs. 6a-c) and/or comprises a foam; and
wherein the lubrication saver (19) is configured to remain fixed with respect to the housing (4, 5) as the shaft and/or gear rotates within the housing (4, 5).
Alguera Gallego et al. do not disclose wherein the main body comprises a poly material. However, Examiner takes official notice there are many high modulus engineered plastic materials capable of producing structurally rigid parts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention of Alguera Gallego et al. with a molded plastic lubrication saver for the purpose of cost and weight reduction over a metal part.
PNG
media_image1.png
683
1012
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 18, Alguera Gallego et al. as set forth above, disclose the at least one relief (fig. E-1, near 60d) includes an aperture and/or a recess (fig. 3) configured to receive the shaft (20) and a clearance (para [0052]) (fig. E-1) configured to receive the gear (22).
As per claim 19, Alguera Gallego et al. as set forth above, disclose a diameter of the clearance (fig. E-1) is larger than a diameter of the aperture and/or recess (fig. 3).
As per claim 20, Alguera Gallego et al. as set forth above, disclose the clearance (fig. E-1) is aligned with the aperture and/or recess (fig. 3).
As per claim 21, Alguera Gallego et al. as set forth above, disclose the main body (63) is a one-piece construction (figs. 6a-c).
As per claim 22, Alguera Gallego et al. as set forth above, discloses the claimed invention except for the main body is a two- piece construction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the main body as a two-piece construction for ease of maintenance/replacement, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179.
As per claim 24, Alguera Gallego et al. as set forth above, anticipates claims 12 and 24 in that the main body is blow molded since it is treated as a product-by-process claim, see MPEP 2113. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
As per claim 25, Alguera Gallego et al. as set forth above, disclose the claimed invention except for the main body comprises foam. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the lubrication saver [spindle nut] from a foamed polymer for its light weight and superior chemical resistance, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 26, 2025 with respect to claim 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 7 and 8 of the Remarks that spindle nuts similar to those as disclosed in Alguera Gallego et al. are required to support loads in excess of 85,000 lbs during extension and retraction of the associated landing leg assembly, and that constructing a spindle nut from plastic capable of withstanding such forces would be significantly cost prohibitive and would outweigh any advantage with respect to weight reduction such that one skilled in the art would not construct a spindle nut of a landing leg assembly from a plastic material. The argument supported by Mr. Brian G. Cavanaugh, Vice-President of Engineering (Americas) for SAF-Holland, Inc., and one skilled in the art.
Examiner respects Mr. Cavanaugh and his opinion as one skilled in the art. His arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. For example, Applicant argues landing leg assemblies are required to support loads in excess of 85,000 lbs. This assumes all the weight is supported by the landing leg assembly during extension and retraction. How much of the weight is supported by the wheels of the trailer during this process? What metal is typically used for spindle nuts? What is the typical tensile/shear strength of this material? Applicant further argues a spindle nut made from plastic capable of withstanding such forces would be significantly cost prohibitive. However, applicant doesn’t say what would make the polymer based spindle nut cost prohibitive. What is the typical process to make a spindle nut? Is there a mold? Is it machined from solid? Would it be the tooling costs that make a polymer based spindle nut cost prohibitive or the material itself?
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 MARK KENNETH BUSE whose telephone number is (571) 270-3139. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached on 313 446-4858. 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.
/M.K.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights