DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 16, 18, 21, 25, 27, 30-32, 40-42 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinen (DE 1020152106075) in view of Szostek et al. (US 2016/0245362) and further in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2007231207).
Re claims 16, 40, and 41 Meinen teaches a shock absorber arrangement for a vehicle suspension, comprising: a shock absorber (1) which has a damper cap (8) having an end face and has a piston rod (3), and a supplementary spring (11) which is arranged on the piston rod opposite the shock absorber and has an outer surface facing the damper cap and an inner surface facing the piston rod, and is configured for damping movement of the shock absorber in the direction of the piston rod on contact with the damper cap, wherein the outer surface of the supplementary spring comes into contact with the end face of the damper cap, and the supplementary spring performs an evasive movement (17, 18 - Fig. 3) if the shock absorber continues to move, resulting in a relative movement of the outer surface along the end face, wherein the supplementary spring expands in an inward and outward direction transverse to the piston rod on compression of the supplementary spring, whereupon the inner surface comes into contact with the piston rod.
Meinen does not teach wherein the outer surface facing the damper cap of the supplementary spring is at least partially coated with a lubricant wherein the lubricant comprises one or more pulverulent organic and/or inorganic materials, wherein the lubricant comprises a silicate. Tanaka et al. teach a lubricant comprising one or more pulverulent organic and/or inorganic materials, wherein the lubricant comprises a silicate. See translation, page 6, 2nd paragraph teaching pulverulent silicates (mica, talc, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the lubricant of Tanaka et al. in order to provide improved wear resistance. In operation, the lubricant of Tanaka et al. would transfer from the damper cap to the outer surface of the supplementary spring facing the damper cap and would therefore at least partially coat the supplementary spring with lubricant.
Re claim 18, Meinen as modified teaches wherein the lubricant is a friction-reducing material. (Tanaka et al. - Abstract)
Re claims 21 and 42, Meinen as modified teaches wherein the lubricant comprises additionally graphite. (Tanaka et al. - translation, page 6, 2nd paragraph) Tanaka teaches wherein the “particulate substances may be used alone or in combination of two or more.”
Re claim 25, Meinen as modified teaches wherein the lubricant comprises a water- and/or oil-repellent material. (Tanaka et al. - translation, page 6, 3rd paragraph)
Re claim 27, Meinen as modified teaches applying a lubricant to the shock absorber arrangement according to claim 16 to reduce noise. Friction reduction would reduce noise. (Tanaka et al. - Abstract)
Re claims 30 and 40, Meinen as modified teaches wherein the lubricant is a combination of solid and fluidic constituents. (Tanaka et al. - Abstract, translation, page 6, paragraphs 2-3)
Re claims 31 and 32, Meinen as modified teaches wherein the silicate is a sheet silicate and wherein the silicate is selected from the group consisting of talc, muscovite, phlogopite, apophyllite, and carletonite. (Tanaka et al. - Abstract, translation, page 6, 2nd paragraph)
Re claim 44, Meinen does not teach wherein the inner surface facing the piston rod of the supplementary spring is at least partially coated with the lubricant. Tanaka et al. teaches wherein the inner surface facing the piston rod of the supplementary spring is at least partially coated with the lubricant. Szostek et al. teach a supplementary spring (86) facing a piston rod (56) wherein the supplementary spring is at least partially coated with a lubricant. ([0021]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the lubricant of Szostek et al. in the invention of Meinen in order to reduce friction between the spring and piston rod as taught by Szostek et al.
Claims 29, 34, 35 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinen (DE 1020152106075) in view of Szostek et al. (US 2016/0245362) and Tanaka et al. (JP 2007231207) and further in view of Komatsubara et al. (JP 201820954).
Re claim 29, Meinen as modified teaches wherein the lubricant comprises a additionally comprises a fluid; and/or wherein the lubricant comprises a resin. (Tanaka et al. - translation, page 6, paragraphs 2-3) Meinen as modified does not teach wherein the fluid has a kinematic viscosity of 270 mm2/s or more at 40 C. Komatsubara et al. teach wherein the fluid has a kinematic viscosity of 2000 mm2/s or more at 40°C and a kinematic viscosity of 270 mm2/s or more at 100°C. (Translation – Page 10, 3rd Par.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a fluid with the desired viscosity based on the desired friction and thermal characteristics. (Translation – Page 10, Par. 5)
Re claim 35, Meinen as modified teaches wherein the shock absorber comprises a polyalkylene glycol resin. (Tanaka et al. - Abstract, translation, page 6, 3rd paragraph)
Re claims 34 and 38, Meinen as modified does not teach wherein the fluid has a kinematic viscosity of 2000 mm2/s or more at 40°C and a kinematic viscosity of 270 mm2/s or more at 100°C. Komatsubara et al. teach wherein the fluid has a kinematic viscosity of 2000 mm2/s or more at 40°C and a kinematic viscosity of 270 mm2/s or more at 100°C. (Translation – Page 10, 3rd Par.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a fluid with the desired viscosity based on the desired friction and thermal characteristics. (Translation – Page 10, Par. 5)
Claims 33, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinen (DE 1020152106075) in view of Szostek et al. (US 20160245362) and further in view of Komatsubara et al. (JP 201820954).
Re claims 36, and 38, Meinen teaches a shock absorber arrangement for a vehicle suspension, comprising: a shock absorber (1) which has a damper cap (8) having an end face and has a piston rod (3), and a supplementary spring (11) which is arranged on the piston rod opposite the shock absorber and has an outer surface facing the damper cap and an inner surface facing the piston rod, and is configured for damping movement of the shock absorber in the direction of the piston rod on contact with the damper cap, wherein the outer surface of the supplementary spring comes into contact with the end face of the damper cap, and the supplementary spring performs an evasive movement (17, 18 - Fig. 3) if the shock absorber continues to move, resulting in a relative movement of the outer surface along the end face, wherein the supplementary spring expands in an inward and outward direction transverse to the piston rod on compression of the supplementary spring, whereupon the inner surface comes into contact with the piston rod
Meinen does not teach and wherein the outer surface facing the damper cap is at least partially coated with a lubricant wherein the lubricant wherein the shock absorber comprises a damper fluid that is different from the lubricant. Szostek et al. teach a supplementary spring partially coated with a lubricant wherein the shock absorber comprises a damper fluid that is different from the lubricant. ([0016], [0021]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide distinct lubricant fluid and damper fluid as taught by Szostek et al. since one of ordinary skill would provide fluids based on the desired criteria. In operation, the lubricant of Szostek et al. would transfer from the damper cap to the outer surface of the supplementary spring facing the damper cap and would therefore at least partially coat the outer surface of the supplementary spring with lubricant.
Meinen as modified do not teach wherein the fluid has a kinematic viscosity of 270 mm2/s or more at 40°C. Komatsubara et al. teach wherein the fluid has a kinematic viscosity of 2000 mm2/s or more at 40°C and a kinematic viscosity of 270 mm2/s or more at 100°C. (Translation – Page 10, 3rd Par.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a fluid with the desired viscosity based on the desired friction and thermal characteristics. (Translation – Page 10, Par. 5)
Re claim 33, Meinen as modified does not teach wherein the fluid has a kinematic viscosity of 2000 mm2/s or more at 40°C and a kinematic viscosity of 270 mm2/s or more at 100°C. Komatsubara et al. teach wherein the fluid has a kinematic viscosity of 2000 mm2/s or more at 40°C and a kinematic viscosity of 270 mm2/s or more at 100°C. (Translation – Page 10, 3rd Par.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a fluid with the desired viscosity based on the desired friction and thermal characteristics. (Translation – Page 10, Par. 5)
8. Claims 39 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinen (DE 1020152106075) in view of Szostek et al. (US 20160245362) in view of Tanaka et al. (JP 2007231207).
Re claims 39 and 43, Meinen as modified does not teach wherein the fluid comprises a resin and the lubricant comprises a polyalkylene glycol. Tanaka et al. teach a wherein the fluid comprises a resin (Tanaka et al. - translation, page 6, 2nd paragraph teaching pulverulent silicates (mica, talc, etc.)) and the lubricant comprises a polyalkylene glycol.. (Tanaka et al. - translation, page 6, 3rd paragraph) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the lubricant as taught by Tanaka et al. in order to provide improved wear resistance.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed September 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Meinen does not teach wherein an outer surface of the supplementary spring is at least partially coated with a lubricant. Meinen teaches a sliding layer 15 between the damper cap and the spring 11. The Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a lubricant as taught by Tanaka and/or Szostek in place of the sliding layer taught by Meinen. Lubricants are well known for providing sliding between two elements and replacing the sliding layer of Meinen with a lubricant on the damper cap would allow for both the spring and the damper cap to be at least partially coated as a result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTWOctober 16, 2025