DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 06/02/24 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 5-16 are currently pending, with claims 3-4 being cancelled and claim 16 being newly added. In light of the amendments the previous objections and 112 rejections are withdrawn. However, the previous 102 and 103 rejections are maintained, and a revised 112 rejection is 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 § 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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 is rejected because it recites “the material is steel” but this claim depends from claim 12 which recites that “one or more materials” are deposited. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation referring to “the material” means only one material is used or not.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Leglize
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10-11, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leglize (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0137680) (cited by Applicant). Leglize is directed to a mechanical actuator with a hydraulic damping device. See Abstract. Note: this is an “X” reference in the cited EPO Written Opinion.
Claim 1: Leglize discloses a damping arrangement (20-22, CH) for an electromechanical actuator [Figs. 1-3] that includes an actuator member (7-11) and a lubricant fluid (CH) for lubricating the actuator member during movement of the actuator member, the damping arrangement comprising: a constrained passage (22) [Fig. 4], the constrained passage configured to restrict a flow of the lubricant fluid in order to provide a damping force to resist a movement of the actuator member during a failure event [see para. 0013-15; Fig. 4]. See Figs. 1-4.
Claim 5: Leglize discloses a piston (20), wherein during the failure event the piston is configured to move, in response to the movement of the actuator, from a neutral position to force the lubricant fluid through the constrained passage to provide the damping force. See Figs. 1-3.
Claim 10: Leglize discloses that a structural portion mechanically coupled to the electromechanical actuator and configured to provide load bearing between the electromechanical actuator and an anchor point provided on a separate structural component. See Figs. 1-3 (ends of 1, 2).
Claim 11: Leglize discloses that the damping arrangement is a unitary component formed of a single part. See Figs. 1-3.
Claim 13: Leglize discloses an electromechanical actuator [Figs. 1-3] comprising: an electromechanical assembly configured to convert electrical power into a mechanical force; an actuator member (7-11) configured to be moveable by the mechanical force; a lubricant fluid (CH) configured to improve the efficiency of the movement of the actuator member or of the transfer of the mechanical force from the electromechanical assembly to the actuator member; and the damping arrangement of claim 1. See Figs. 1-3.
Claim 15: Leglize discloses a method of damping an electromechanical actuator (7-11) comprising an actuator member (7-11) and a lubricant fluid (CH) for lubricating the actuator member during movement of the actuator member, the method comprising: restricting a flow of the lubricant fluid in order to provide a damping force which resists a movement of the actuator member during a failure event [see para. 0013-15; Fig. 4]. See Figs. 1-4.
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.
Leglize in view of Papadopoulos
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leglize in view of Papadopoulos et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0222599). Papadopoulos is directed to a hydraulic actuator arrangement. See Abstract. Note: this is an “X” reference in the cited EPO Written Opinion.
Claim 2: Leglize is relied upon as in claim 1 but does not disclose the specific features of the “end stop” component. Papadopoulos discloses a damping arrangement for an actuator, wherein an end stop (27), wherein movement of the actuator member (24, 26) into contact with the end stop during the failure event causes flow of the lubricant fluid in the constrained passage (23) to provide the damping force. See Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include an “end stop” in the Leglize damping arrangement with a reasonable expectation of success to alter/provide desired damping properties.
Claim 14: Papadopoulos discloses using this type of actuator and damping arrangement in an aircraft wherein the actuators are configured to move a component in a landing gear, an aileron or a control surface. See Fig. 1. 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 Leglize damper in an aircraft because this is an intended use, and landing gear typically experiences high vibratory forces that require damping.
Leglize in view of Nagai
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leglize in view of Nagai et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,668,988). Nagai is directed to a buffering mechanism. See Abstract. Note: this is an “X” reference in the cited EPO Written Opinion.
Claims 6-8: Leglize is relied upon as in claim 5 but does not disclose the specific structure of the piston. Nagai discloses a damping arrangement for an electromechanical actuator (14, 16, 20), wherein a biasing member (42) is configured to bias the piston (36) towards the neutral position, wherein there are two or more pistons (36, 26) and constrained passages (50-52), wherein the constrained passages are fluidly connected to one another. See Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use this arrangement to permit the use of a different fluid than that being used in the primary cylinder chamber, which provides flexibility for cost/availability consideration.
Leglize in view of Eidenschink
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leglize in view of Eidenschink (U.S. Patent No. 5,160,451). Eidenschink is directed to a mechanical component. See Abstract.
Claim 9: Leglize is relied upon as in claim 1 but does not disclose the specific damping coefficient of the fluid. Eidenschink discloses that the damping coefficient is: 40,000-50,000 Ns/m for a lubricant fluid temperature of 15 to 25 degrees C.; 30,000-39,999 Ns/m for a lubricant fluid temperature of 26 to 35 degrees C.; 20,000-29,999 Ns/m for a lubricant fluid temperature of 36 to 45 degrees C.; 10,000-19,999 Ns/m for a lubricant fluid temperature of 46 to 75 degrees C.; or 5,000-9,999 Ns/m for a lubricant fluid temperature of 76 to 145 degrees C. See col. 12 line 10. 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 fluid with this damping coefficient based on the intended use and desired damping properties, ultimately a design choice.
Leglize in view of Fairgrieve
Claim(s) 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leglize in view of Fairgrieve et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/00147843). Fairgrieve is directed to a method for the manufacture of vibration damping materials. See Abstract.
Claim 12: Leglize is relied upon as in claim 1 but does not disclose using “additive layer manufacturing.” Fairgrieve is directed to the use of the additive layering manufacturing method in making vibration damping components. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use additive layering because methods of making/manufacturing are ultimately a design choice, including factors such as cost and speed of production.
Claim 16: Fairgrieve discloses that one of the materials used could be metal but does not specifically refer to “steel.” It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use steel because this is a commonly used, readily available and inexpensive material choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the 102 rejection because Leglize’s hydraulic fluid [para. 0030] is not a “lubricant fluid for lubricating” the actuator member. See Remarks, pages 7-8. In response, it is inherent that all hydraulic fluids used in dampers/shocks provide at least some lubricating function, even if their primary purpose isn’t lubrication. This is sufficient to meet the criteria of a “lubricant fluid,” and it is certainly capable of achieving the recited function of “lubricating” the actuator member, at least to some degree.
Thus, the rejections are maintained as detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights