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 .
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) 1-3, 9, 13-15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-3919945 (DE’945) in view of DE-4403127 (DE’127) and KR-199800569 (KR’569).
Re: claims 1-3, 9, 13-15, and 16. DE’945 shows in figure 1 a damper for a rail vehicle, the damper consisting essentially of: a cylindrical housing 12 wherein a hollow piston 11 is received axially movable, a working chamber, as labeled, of variable volume in the housing, an overflow chamber, as labeled, of variable volume in the piston, the overflow chamber being connected to the working chamber, as labeled, via a throttle, as labeled, in a flow passage between the working
[AltContent: textbox (Spring chamber)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Overflow chamber)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Throttle )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Working chamber)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
758
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
chamber and the overflow chamber, a spring chamber, as labeled, of variable volume in the piston, the spring chamber being configured to hold a gas volume as described in the sentence under the brief description of Fig. 6 for acting as a spring, and the spring chamber being separated from the overflow chamber by a separator piston 23 axially movable, but is silent with regard to the fluid in the working chamber and the overflow chamber being hydraulic and is silent with regard to the damper further comprise a pressure detector configured to detect a pressure in at least one of the spring chamber, the working chamber, and the hydraulic overflow chamber.
DE’127 teaches the use of a working chamber 9 in which the fluid is liquid (hydraulic) and the use of an overflow chamber 6 in which the fluid is liquid (hydraulic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the fluid in the working chamber and the overflow chamber of DE’945 to have been liquid (hydraulic), in view of the teachings of DE’127, in order to provide a means of ensuring smooth and controlled damping as well as reliability since hydraulic fluids maintain relatively stable viscosity across temperature ranges.
KR’932 teaches in the first claim and in figure 2 the use of a pressure sensor 8 in a rod guide 5 for measuring and sensing the pressure in a gas chamber G of a damper.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the damper of DE’945, as modified, to have further included a pressure detector configured to detect a pressure in at least one of the spring chamber, the working chamber, and the hydraulic overflow chamber, in view of the teachings of KR’932, in order to provide a means of actively controlling a damper using real-time data to improve damping capabilities particular to a given situation and environment.
With regard to claims 2, 3, 9, and 13-15, DE’945, as modified, teaches in figure 2 of KR’932 the use of the pressure detector 8 being configured to contact the inside of a spring or gas chamber G and configured to detect pressure, and processing circuitry being provided in a control unit or ECU 9 described in the third claim to provide real-time detected data to actively control damping depending on the situation and environment to provide improved damping capabilities.
Claim(s) 4 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-3919945 (DE’945) in view of DE-4403127 (DE’127) and KR-199800569 (KR’569) as applied above, and further in view of CN-105078084 (CN’084).
Re: claims 4 and 17-19. DE’945, as modified, is silent with regards to the pressure sensor specifically being a pressure switch.
CN’084 teaches in figure 1 the use of a damper including a pressure switch configured to detect pressure and be in a first state i.e. no buzzer if the detected pressure is below a threshold and a second state i.e. buzzer if the detected pressure is above the threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the pressure detector of DE’945, as modified, to have included a pressure switch, in view of the teachings of CN’084, in order to provide a means of being able to alert a user of the damper when the detected pressure is greater than a certain pressure amount to achieve active control capabilities.
Claim(s) 6-8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE-3919945 (DE’945) in view of DE-4403127 (DE’127) and KR-199800569 (KR’569) as applied above, and further in view of EP-3431809 EP’809.
Re: claims 6-8 and 11. DE’945, as modified, teaches in figure 2 of KR’569 wherein the pressure detector 8 is configured to detect the pressure and by processing circuitry comprised in the pressure detector or available to the pressure detector 8 via control unit or ECU 9, be configured to generate a signal that corresponds to the detected pressure, but is silent with regard to the detector being configured to compare the detected pressure with at least one threshold.
EP’809 teaches in figure 4a wherein the pressure detector 202 is configured to detect the pressure and by processing circuitry 200 compare a pressure detected with at least one threshold P secondary_nom_adj or pressure interval as described in paragraph [0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the pressure detector of DE’945, as modified, to have been configured to compare a pressure detected with at least one threshold or pressure interval, in view of the teachings of EP’809, in order to provide a means of controlling or adjusting the damping behavior by having a triggering point at which the damper may generate an automatic response and also to have a way to protect against overpressure.
Re: claim 10. DE’945, as modified, is silent with regard to an alarm signal if detected pressure is below the predetermined threshold, as best understood.
EP’809 teaches in figure 4a and paragraph [0045] generating an alarm signal or servicing message if the detected pressure is below the predetermined threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the damper of DE’945, as modified, to have been configured to generate an alarm if the detected pressure is below the predetermined threshold, in view of the teachings of EP’809, in order to provide a means of alerting a user of a low-pressure condition for safety reasons.
Re: claim 12. DE’945, as modified, is silent with regards to a plurality of dampers with each being configured to detect a pressure.
EP’809 teaches in the background the use of a plurality of shock absorbing struts, each of which is made up of a damper, as common components of most aircraft landing gear assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the damper assembly of DE’945, as modified, to have included a plurality of dampers, in view of the teachings of the EP’809, in order to provide increased damping capability for improved comfort.
Also see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). Particularly see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 20 are 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 1/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that DE’127 does not teach that hydraulic fluid would confer some benefit. Examiner notes, however, that the rationale does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art. See MPEP 2144(I). Examiner provided a rationale – to ensure smooth and controlled damping as well as reliability since hydraulic fluids maintain relatively stable viscosity across temperature ranges. Examiner maintains that this rationale may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art which, according to the same section of the MPEP, is an acceptable form of rationale. Applicant next argues that feature 11 of DE’945 is an internal tube and not a piston. Examiner notes that feature 2 of the instant invention is an internal tube and is described as a piston; therefore, Examiner maintains that feature 11 of DE’945 is a piston to the same extent that feature 2 of the instant invention is a piston. Examiner notes that the throttle in the rejection is pointing to the orifice, and despite Applicant’s argument, an orifice that reduces flow from one chamber to another is properly considered as a throttle. Next, Applicant argues that CN’084 has nothing to do with automobile dampers. Examiner notes that CN’084 does have something to do with a pressure switch 4 working in combination with a damper 3 and, therefore, maintains that the reference satisfies at least one prong of the analogous test. Finally, Applicant similarly argues that EP’809 has nothing to do with automobile dampers. Examiner notes that DEP’809 is directed to a strut which, as described in paragraph [0002] of the reference damps loads on the gear of a vehicle. Therefore, Examiner maintains that this reference also satisfies at least one prong of the analogous test. The arguments with regard to claims 5 and 20 have been found persuasive. The amendments overcome the claim objection and 112 rejections. Accordingly, the 103 rejection of claims 5 and 20 as well as the claim objection and the 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
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 MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally.
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.
mmb
May 4, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights