DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 05/28/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nissen (2014/0050538) in view of Li et al. (CN 215369894 U).
With regard to claim 1, Nissen discloses a support prop (abstract), comprising: an elongate cylindrical body (20) with a first end which is sealed (para 0011); an opposing second end which is open (para 0011); a bore (56) and a wall (42) which bounds the bore; and wherein; a tubular plunger (34) which extends through the open second end into the bore (fig. 1), the plunger including a leading end with a piston (fig. 1) and a seal on the piston (40), the seal being configured to engage in a sealing and sliding manner with an inner surface of the wall (fig. 1).
Nissen discloses the invention substantially as claimed however is silent regarding the wall includes an inner metallic liner which faces the bore and an outer shell which is made from a composite material and which surrounds and reinforces the liner.
Li discloses a support prop comprising an elongate cylindrical body comprising a wall (fig. 1) to be used with a plunger wherein the wall includes an inner metallic liner which faces the bore and an outer shell which is made from a composite material and which surrounds and reinforces the liner (para n0007).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nissen and utilize a composite shell with a metallic liner as taught in Li, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a lightweight prop with increased radial strength as taught by Li (para n0014-n0015).
With regard to claim 2, Nissen, as modified, further discloses the composite material comprises a reinforced plastics material (Li, para n0026, “carbon fiber”), however fails to explicitly state the liner is made from aluminum or an aluminum alloy. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the metal be any desired material, to include aluminum and aluminum alloys, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
With regard to claim 3, Nissen further discloses the first end is sealed by a force transferring component (24; fig. 1) and wherein the prop includes a one-way filler valve (54) which is fixed to the body close to the first end and which is operable to allow a fluid under pressure to be introduced into the bore (fig. 1; para 0014).
With regard to claim 4, Nissen further discloses a pressure relief valve (62) which is configured to allow fluid under pressure in excess of a predetermined threshold pressure value to flow from an interior of the bore between the leading end of the plunger and the first end of the cylindrical body (fig. 1; para 0005).
With regard to claim 5, Nissen further discloses the pressure relief valve is mounted to the piston so that said fluid under pressure flows into an interior of the plunger (fig. 1).
With regard to claim 6, Nissen, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as discussed above, however fails to explicitly state the plunger is made from aluminum. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plunger be any desired material, to include aluminum, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a 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. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
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 BENJAMIN F FIORELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-7012. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/BENJAMIN F FIORELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
BF
10/14/2026
