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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2nd February 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6 and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 9, “…that the opposing inner diameter tapers of the first and second struts are maintained…” should read “…that tapered inner diameters of the first and second struts are maintained…”.
In claim 1 line 11, “…an inner diameter of the first strut…” should read “…the inner diameter of the first strut…” as recited in line 9.
In claim 1 line 13, “…an inner diameter of the second strut…” should read “…the inner diameter of the second strut…” as recited in line 9.
In claim 1 line 13, “…from the front end…” should read “…from a front end…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 6 line 2, “…from a front end…” should read “…from the front end…” as positively recited in claim 1.
In claim 6 line 3, “…from a front end to a rear end…” should read “…from the front end to the rear end…” as positively recited in claim 1.
In claim 8 lines 2-3, “…at a front end of the first strut and a center of the strut at a rear end of the second strut…” should read “…at the front end of the first strut and a center of the strut at the rear end of the second strut…” as positively recited in claim 1.
In claim 9 line 3, “…a front end of the first strut…” should read “…the front end of the first strut…” as positively recited in claim 1.
In claim 9 line 4, “…a rear end of the first strut…” should read “…the rear end of the first strut…” as positively recited in claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duchemin (US 3,945,625) in view of Dowty (US Re. 21,724).
Regarding claim 1, Duchemin ‘625 teaches (figure 1-5) a strut/leaf spring configured of a hollow pipe (Col. 1 Lines 1-2; Abstract), comprising:
a tubular element (1), wherein the tubular element is a curved pipe forming a C-shape wherein an inner diameter of the tubular element (1) increases linearly from a mid-point to ends of the tubular element (1) (clearly seen in figure 1) (Col. 1 Line 55),
but it is silent about the strut comprising:
a tubular element comprising:
a first strut;
a second strut that is formed by extending from a rear end of the first strut, and
a coupling connecting the first strut and the second strut;
wherein the first strut and the second strut are curved pipes, and the first strut and the second strut are connected to form a C-shape,
wherein the first strut and the second strut are each formed as a separate members, and are configured to be independently molded and removable from a mold, such that that tapered inner diameters of the first and second struts are maintained after molding after molding,
wherein the inner diameter of the first strut increases linearly from a front end to the rear end of the first strut, and
the inner diameter of the second strut decreases linearly from a front end to a rear end of the second strut,
wherein the first strut and the second strut are split from each other at a position where the inner diameter of the strut is largest; and
wherein the first strut and the second strut are connected by coupling such that the first strut and the second strut together form a continuous C-shape.
Dowty ‘724 teaches (figures 1-2) strut comprising two shell like members/sections (1, 2) of substantially triangular form adapted to meet on a common base line (3) wherein fittings (1A, 2A) of members/sections (1, 2) respectively are connected to a pin fitting on the aircraft and the axle or other lower part of an undercarriage and wherein the members/sections (1, 2) are pivotally joined together by a pin (4) (Pg. 3 Lines 30-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duchemin ‘625 to incorporate the teachings of Dowty ‘724 to configure the strut comprising:
a tubular element comprising:
a first strut;
a second strut that is formed by extending from a rear end of the first strut (second strut extends from a rear end of the first strut), and
a coupling connecting the first strut and the second strut;
wherein the first strut and the second strut are curved pipes, and the first strut and the second strut are connected to form a C-shape,
wherein the first strut and the second strut are each formed as a separate members, and are configured to be independently molded and removable from a mold, such that that tapered inner diameters of the first and second struts are maintained after molding (molding strut is product by process claim and "[E]ven 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)).,
wherein the inner diameter of the first strut increases linearly from a front end to the rear end of the first strut, and
the inner diameter of the second strut decreases linearly from a front end to a rear end of the second strut,
wherein the first strut and the second strut are split from each other at a position where the inner diameter of the strut is largest (struts are tapered); and
wherein the first strut and the second strut are connected by coupling such that the first strut and the second strut together form a continuous C-shape.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide flexibility in design.
Regarding claim 4, modified Duchemin ‘625 teaches (figure 1-5) the strut wherein when a smallest diameter among the inner diameters of the first strut is Da, and a largest diameter is Db, Db/Da ≥ 1.25 is satisfied (clearly seen in figures 1-5) (a smallest diameter of a first strut shown in figure 4 at a front end is close to zero).
Regarding claim 5, modified Duchemin ‘625 teaches (figure 1-5) the strut wherein when a largest diameter among the inner diameters of the second strut is Dc, and a smallest diameter is Dd, Dc/Dd ≥ 1.25 is satisfied (clearly seen in figures 1-5) (a smallest diameter of a second strut shown in figure 4 at a rear end is close to zero).
Regarding claim 6, modified Duchemin ‘625 teaches (figure 1-5) the strut wherein a pipe thickness of the first strut is constant from a front end to the rear end of the first strut,
a pipe thickness of the second strut is constant from the front end to the rear end of the second strut, and
the pipe thickness of the first strut is equal to that of the second strut (Col. 1 Lines 64-65).
(Claim 7 is optional due to “greater than or equal to” clause).
Regarding claim 8, modified Duchemin ‘625 teaches (figure 1-5) the strut wherein when an imaginary line connecting a center of the strut at the front end of the first strut and a center of the strut at the rear end of the second strut is L, an angle formed by L with a horizontal plane is greater than or equal to 70֯ (clearly seen in figure 1; angle is close to 90֯).
Regarding claim 13, modified Duchemin ‘625 teaches (figure 1-5) the strut wherein the first strut and the second strut are formed integrally (Col. 2 Lines 23-40; both first and second struts are integral part of the strut, thus are formed integrally as single unit).
Claim(s) 1 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR-20150098731-A) in view of Duchemin (US 3,945,625) and Dowty (US Re. 21,724).
Regarding claim 1 and 14, Kim ‘731 teaches (figures 1-5) a landing gear including a strut (100) (English Translation; Pg. 2 Para 8-9), comprising:
a strut (100) (English Translation; Pg. 2 Para 8-9; strut is characterized as a leaf spring);
a mounting unit/connecting bracket (140) that supports the strut (100) on an aircraft (English Translation; Pg. 2 Para 9-10);
a wheel that contacts a ground during landing (English Translation; Pg. 2 Para 9-10; wheel tire (110/120) is mounted on a wheel);
wherein the strut (100) is curved and forms a C-shape (clearly seen in figures 1-5)
but it is silent about the strut configured of a hollow pipe.
Duchemin ‘625 teaches (figure 1-5) a strut/leaf spring configured of a hollow pipe intended for vehicle suspensions (Col. 1 Lines 1-3; Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim ‘731 to incorporate the teachings of Duchemin ‘625 to configure the strut configured of a hollow pipe (both struts are characterized as leaf springs).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance strength to weight ratio of the strut.
Duchemin ‘625 further teaches (figure 1-5) a strut/leaf spring configured of a hollow pipe (Col. 1 Lines 1-2; Abstract), comprising:
a tubular element (1), wherein the tubular element is a curved pipe forming a C-shape wherein an inner diameter of the tubular element (1) increases linearly from a mid-point to ends of the tubular element (1) (clearly seen in figure 1) (Col. 1 Line 55),
but modified Kim ‘731 is silent about the strut, comprising:
a first strut;
a second strut that is formed by extending from a rear end of the first strut, and
a coupling connecting the first strut and the second strut;
wherein the first strut and the second strut are curved pipes, and the first strut and the second strut are connected to form a C-shape,
wherein the first strut and the second strut are each formed as a separate members, and are configured to be independently molded and removable from a mold, such that that tapered inner diameters of the first and second struts are maintained after molding after molding,
wherein the inner diameter of the first strut increases linearly from a front end to the rear end of the first strut, and
the inner diameter of the second strut decreases linearly from a front end to a rear end of the second strut,
wherein the first strut and the second strut are split from each other at a position where the inner diameter of the strut is largest; and
wherein the first strut and the second strut are connected by coupling such that the first strut and the second strut together form a continuous C-shape.
Dowty ‘724 teaches (figures 1-2) strut comprising two shell like members/sections (1, 2) of substantially triangular form adapted to meet on a common base line (3) wherein fittings (1A, 2A) of members/sections (1, 2) respectively are connected to a pin fitting on the aircraft and the axle or other lower part of an undercarriage and wherein the members/sections (1, 2) are pivotally joined together by a pin (4) (Pg. 3 Lines 30-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim ‘731 to incorporate the teachings of Dowty ‘724 to configure the strut as an assembly. This results in the strut comprising:
a first strut;
a second strut that is formed by extending from a rear end of the first strut (second strut extends from a rear end of the first strut), and
a coupling connecting the first strut and the second strut;
wherein the first strut and the second strut are curved pipes, and the first strut and the second strut are connected to form a C-shape,
wherein the first strut and the second strut are each formed as a separate members, and are configured to be independently molded and removable from a mold, such that that tapered inner diameters of the first and second struts are maintained after molding (molding strut is product by process claim and "[E]ven 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)).,
wherein the inner diameter of the first strut increases linearly from a front end to the rear end of the first strut, and
the inner diameter of the second strut decreases linearly from a front end to a rear end of the second strut,
wherein the first strut and the second strut are split from each other at a position where the inner diameter of the strut largest (struts are tapered); and
wherein the first strut and the second strut are connected by coupling such that the first strut and the second strut together form a continuous C-shape.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide flexibility in design.
Regarding claim 15, modified Kim ‘731 teaches (figures 1-5) the landing gear further comprising:
a steering device/actuator (180) that is connected to the strut and changes a direction of the strut and the wheel (English Translation; Pg. 3 Para 4).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR-20150098731-A), Duchemin (US 3,945,625) and Dowty (US Re. 21,724) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thompson (US 2011/0031348).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim ‘731 teaches (figures 1-5) the strut of claim 1 but it is silent about the strut further comprising:
a damper;
wherein one end of the damper is connected to a front end of the first strut, and another end is connected to a rear end of the second strut, and
the damper absorbs shock when the first strut and the second strut are deformed by the shock.
Thompson ‘348 teaches (figures 1-3) an aircraft landing gear comprising a retractable support (10) and a rigid arm (17) pivotally mounted to the support (10) by the pin (18) wherein the arm (17) is formed as a single piece with a leaf spring shock absorber (20) and a damping element (22) pivotally coupled to the arm (17) and to the support (10) ( 0022-0023, 0026; two ends of damping unit connects to the leaf spring shock absorber: one end is connected directly and the other end is connected via support).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kim ‘731 to incorporate the teachings of Thompson ‘348 to configure the strut further comprising:
a damper;
wherein one end of the damper is connected to a front end of the first strut, and another end is connected to a rear end of the second strut, and
the damper absorbs shock when the first strut and the second strut are deformed by the shock.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would control oscillations and absorb energy preventing instability and structural damage to an aircraft.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR-20150098731-A), Duchemin (US 3,945,625), Dowty (US Re. 21,724) and Thompson (US 2011/0031348) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Bennett et al. (US 2009/0050736).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim ‘731 teaches (figures 1-5) the strut of claim 9 but it is silent about the strut wherein the damper includes a spring that absorbs the shock.
Bennett et al. ‘736 teaches (figures 1-17) a landing gear for an aircraft comprising a shock absorber strut (1), positioning actuator (90) and spring/damper (94) (Para 0037, 0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kim ‘731 to incorporate the teachings of Bennett et al. ‘736 to configure the strut wherein the damper includes a spring that absorbs the shock.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would absorb shock without a need for power.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duchemin (US 3,945,625) and Dowty (US Re. 21,724) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thompson (US 2011/0031348).
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Duchemin ‘625 teaches (figure 1-5) the strut of claim 1 but it is silent about the strut wherein at least one of the first strut or the second strut is made of a composite material, and
the composite material is designed to have a modulus E of elasticity value within a predetermined range,
wherein the composite material is designed to have the modulus E of elasticity value of 30 Gpa or more and 150 Gpa or less.
Thompson ‘348 teaches a composite material forming the leaf spring comprises a carbon-fibre reinforced epoxy resin (Para 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Duchemin ‘625 to incorporate the teachings of Thompson ‘348 to configure the strut wherein at least one of the first strut or the second strut is made of a composite material, and
the composite material is designed to have a modulus E of elasticity value within a predetermined range,
wherein the composite material is designed to have the modulus E of elasticity value of 30 Gpa or more and 150 Gpa or less (modulus of elasticity of carbon-fibre reinforced epoxy resin is 70 Gpa (clearly seen in an attached Carbon_Fiber_Composite_Materials_Fibre_Epoxy_Resin data sheet).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide high strength to weigh ratio.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2nd February 2026, with respect to the amended claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Dowty (US Re. 21,724).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642