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 Objections
Claims 5 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5 and 15 recite “a first guide configured to guide the limit, placed between the stem of the limit and the second opening of the first element”. The first guide is represented by element 2 and the limit is represented by element 3 in the published application. Guide 2 is shown to be arranged outside of the second opening 23. As best understood, Applicant may be referring to the guiding means 24 as the first guide. Examiner suggests amending the reference numbers and names in the specification to clearly reflect the language used in the claim recitation to avoid confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 9-12, 14, 15, and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 4702463 to Krautkramer.
Re: claims 1, 9, 12, and 18. Krautkramer shows in figures 1 and 2 a gas spring comprising: an inner guide element 1, an outer sliding element 6, and a limit 5, wherein the outer sliding element 6 comprises: a first chamber 29, a first opening surrounding element 1 for accessing the first chamber 29, and a first internal surface shown on the inside of element 6, the inner guide element 1 is configured to be fixed to a reference plane via element 23 and comprises: a second chamber 30, a second opening in the area of 13 and surrounding element 4 for accessing the second chamber 30, and external walls shown on the outside of element 1, and is inserted into the first chamber 29 of the outer sliding element 6 through the first opening, wherein said inner guide and outer sliding elements are configured to be moved and reciprocally slide along an axis as shown in figures 1 and 2, wherein the limit comprises: a stem 5 configured to slide through the second opening into the second chamber 30 parallel to the axis and a head, as labeled, not able to slide through the second opening so as to limit the maximum travel of the outer sliding element 6 to the extension of the external walls of the inner guide element 1, and wherein said first 29 and second 30 chambers communicate through a gap 13 between said stem 5 and said second opening such that pressure in the first chamber and in the second chamber is equal, and the outer sliding element 6 slides along the external walls of the inner guide element 1 through the first opening as shown, and wherein the head, as labeled, is entirely within the second chamber 30 and no seal is positioned between the head and the second chamber such that pressure is equal on opposite surfaces of the head particularly at a time when the pressure on the surface of the head facing element 31 contacts element 31 with the same pressure that the opposite surface of the head contacts element 2 as broadly recited, the opposite surfaces extending at an angle (generally 90 degrees – perpendicular) relative to the axis as shown.
Re: claims 4 and 14. Krautkramer shows in figures 1 and 2 wherein the limit 5 is integral with the second element 6 as shown.
Re: claims 5 and 15. Krautkramer shows the gas spring comprising a first guide 4 positioned within the second opening and configured to guide the stem 5 of the limit, and a second guide 3 positioned at the first opening and configured to guide the outer sliding element.
Re: claims 10 and 19. Krautkramer shows in figures 1 and 2 a seal 3 positioned between the external walls of the first element 1 and an internal surface of the second element 6.
Re: claims 11 and 20. Krautkramer shows in figures 1 and 2 wherein the 2nd element 6
See Next Page.
[AltContent: textbox (Head)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second gas surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First gas surface)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
640
232
media_image1.png
Greyscale
further comprises a first gas surface, as labeled, on which a gas pressure exerts a positive force, wherein an area of the first gas surface on which the gas pressure exerts a force is equal to an internal area of the second element itself minus the area of the stem, and wherein a second gas surface, a labeled, of the head facing in a same direction as the first gas surface, on which the gas pressure exerts the same positive force, the area available for the gas pressure being equal to the area of a top of the stem as best understood.
Re: claim 21. Krautkramer shows in figures 1 and 2 wherein the first 29 and second 30 chambers are at the same pressure due to the presence of gap 8.
Re: claim 22. Krautkramer shows in figures 1 and 2 wherein the first chamber 29 is in fluidic communication with the second chamber 30 via element 8.
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) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krautkramer in view of EP-3098474 (EP’474).
Krautkramer is silent with regards to a first loading valve placed in a second internal surface of the first element.
EP’474 teaches in figure 1 the use of a first element 2 having a first loading valve 4 for loading a gas into the spring placed in an internal surface of the first element 2 as shown.
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 first element of Krautkramer to have included a first loading valve, in view of the teachings of EP’474, in order to provide a means of adjusting the damping characteristics of the spring by adjusting the amount of gas in the spring.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krautkramer in view of US Patent 4550899 to Holley.
Re: claims 6 and 16. Krautkramer is silent with regards to a second loading valve of the second element.
Holley teaches in figures 1 and 2 the use of a second element 12 comprising a second loading valve 31.
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 second element of Krautkramer to have included a second loading valve, in view of the teachings of Holley, in order to provide a means of adjusting the damping characteristics of the spring by adjusting the amount of gas in the spring.
Re: claims 7 and 17. Krautkramer, as modified, is silent with regards to the second element comprising channels for connecting the second loading valve with the first chamber.
Holley teaches in figures 1-3 wherein a second element 12 comprises channels 37, 38 for connecting a second loading valve 31 with a first chamber 26.
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 second element of Krautkramer, as modified, to have included channels for connecting the second loading valve with the first chamber, in view of the teachings of Holley, in order to provide a means of supplying gas to the first chamber to adjust the damping characteristic of the spring.
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 6/10/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument is based on the recited head being interpreted as element 2. Examiner notes that the head in the rejections is labeled on pg. 6 of the instant Office action and maintains that the head, as labeled, is entirely within the second chamber 30 and no seal is positioned between the head and the second chamber as shown in the annotated figure on pg. 6, such that pressure is equal on opposite surfaces of the head particularly at a time when the pressure on the surface of the head facing element 31 contacts element 31 with the same pressure that the opposite surface of the head contacts element 2 as broadly recited, the opposite surfaces extending at an angle (generally 90 degrees – perpendicular) relative to the axis as shown. Accordingly, the above rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
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 on 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
June 13, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights