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 § 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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,570,866 to Stephens.
Re-claim 1, Stephens discloses a liquid inertia vibration elimination system, comprising: a first liquid zone 24; a second liquid zone 28; a plug 32 segregates the first liquid zone from the second liquid zone, the plug comprises an aperture in fluid communication with the first liquid zone and the second liquid zone; a splash guard 50 is disposed in the second liquid zone and is offset from the plug (see figure 2), the splash guard comprises an outermost radial profile that does not contact the plug and allows fluid communication between a longitudinal space disposed between the splash guard and the plug and a space of the second liquid zone that is not longitudinally between the splash guard and the plug; the splash guard is rigid and does not move relative to the plug; the plug and the splash guard are disposed along an axial centerline of the system; the splash guard is substantially flat at the axial centerline; a side of the splash guard facing the plug at a location along the axial centerline is in fluid communication with the second liquid zone (such as at the periphery).
Re-claim 2, the first liquid zone 24 is adjacent a first gas zone 44. This interpretation is consistent with the instant invention, in which the first liquid zone 212 is adjacent a first gas zone 228, since zone 216 is the second liquid zone as defined by claim 1.
Re-claim 3, the second liquid zone 28 is disposed in an accumulator.
Re-claim 4, the splash guard is an obstruction disc.
Re-claim 8, Stephens discloses a splash guard for a liquid inertia vibration elimination system, comprising: a flat obstruction disc that is rigid and does not move relative to a plug; a side of the splash guard facing the plug at a location along an axial centerline is in fluid communication with a space surrounding the splash guard.
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 and 8-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,222,844 to Johnson in view of Stephens.
Re-claim 1, Johnson teaches a liquid inertia vibration elimination system, comprising: a first liquid zone 20; a second liquid zone (at least lower portion of 20); a plug 24 separates the first liquid zone from the second liquid zone, the plug comprises an aperture 26 in fluid communication with the first liquid zone and the second liquid zone; a splash guard 30 is disposed within the second liquid zone and is offset from the plug, the splash guard has an outermost radial profile that does not contact the plug (see figure 3), the guard allows a fluid communication between a longitudinal space disposed between the splash guard and the plug (the space below the guard 30) and a space of the second liquid zone that is not longitudinally between the splash guard and the plug (such as a space above or to the side of the guard 30); the splash guard is rigid and does not move relative to the plug 24; the plug 24 and splash guard are disposed along an axial centerline of the system; a side of the splash guard facing the plug at a location along the axial centerline is in fluid communication with the second liquid zone (such as via the periphery). However, Johnson fails to clearly teach the splash guard being substantially flat at the axial centerline, or the aperture not overlapping the axial centerline. It is noted that Johnson teaches the splash guard is preferably conical in shape, but fails to recite this feature in patented claim 1, thus suggested other shapes could be utilized.
Stephens teaches a splash guard that is substantially flat at an axial centerline of a fluid system (see figure 2). This shape would have yielded the same expectant result as the conical shape, which is to deflect the fluid passing through the plug. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the conical splash guard of Johnson with a substantially flat splash guard of the type taught by Stephens, as each shape would have yielded the same expectant result of deflecting the fluid passing through the plug.
Re-claims 2 and 12, first liquid zone 20 is adjacent a first gas zone (disposed in chamber 22, in as much as first liquid zone 212 is adjacent first gas zone 228 located in the second liquid zone). The phrase adjacent is being broadly interpreted, as there is little guidance in the specification regarding the liquid zones.
Re-claims 3 and 13, the second liquid zone 22 is an accumulator (i.e. pressurized by air).
Re-claims 4 and 14, the splash guard is an obstruction disc 30.
Re-claims 5 and 15, a mounting tube 36 is part of the splash guard 30.
Re-claims 6 and 16, a mounting hole is axially aligned with the mounting tube (see figure 3).
Re-claim 8, Johnson teaches a splash guard comprising an obstruction disc 30 that is rigid and does not move relative to a plug 24; a side of the splash guard facing the plug at a location along the axial centerline is in fluid communication with a space surrounding the splash guard. However, Johnson fails to teach the splash guard being flat obstruction disc. It is noted that Johnson teaches the splash guard is preferably conical in shape, but fails to recite this feature in patented claim 1, thus suggesting other shapes could be utilized.
Stephens teaches a splash guard having flat obstruction disc (see figure 2). This shape would have yielded the same expectant result as the conical shape, which is to deflect the fluid passing through the plug. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the conical splash guard of Johnson with a flat obstruction disc of the type taught by Stephens, as each shape would have yielded the same expectant result of deflecting the fluid passing through the plug.
Re-claim 9, the splash guard further comprises a mounting tube 36.
Re-claim 10, an aperture of the mounting tube is aligned with an aperture of the obstruction disc 30 for receiving a mounting bolt 32.
Re-claim 11, Johnson discloses an aircraft (i.e. airplane, see column 1 line 3), comprising: a frame (aircraft frame); a transmission (broadly interpreted as cylinder 14, as the cylinder transmits a force); a liquid inertia vibration elimination system is coupled between the frame and the transmission, the system attenuates communication of vibrations from the transmission to the frame, the system, comprises: a first liquid zone 20; a second liquid zone 22; a plug 24 at least partially segregates the first liquid zone from the second liquid zone, the plug comprises an aperture 26 in fluid communication with the first liquid zone and the second liquid zone; a splash guard 30 is disposed within the second liquid zone and offset from the plug, the splash guard has an outermost radial profile that does not contact the plug (see figure 3), the guard allows a fluid communication between a longitudinal space disposed between the splash guard and the plug (the space below the guard 30) and a space of the second liquid zone that is not longitudinally between the splash guard and the plug (such as a space above or to the side of the guard 30); the splash guard is rigid and does not move relative to the plug 24; the plug 24 and splash guard are disposed along an axial centerline of the system; a side of the splash guard facing the plug at a location along the axial centerline is in fluid communication with the second liquid zone (such as via the periphery). However, Johnson fails to clearly teach the splash guard being substantially flat at the axial centerline, or the aperture not overlapping the axial centerline. It is noted that Johnson teaches the splash guard is preferably conical in shape, but fails to recite this feature in patented claim 1, thus suggesting other shapes could be utilized.
Stephens teaches a splash guard that is substantially flat at an axial centerline of a fluid system (see figure 2). This shape would have yielded the same expectant result as the conical shape, which is to deflect the fluid passing through the plug. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the conical splash guard of Johnson with a substantially flat splash guard of the type taught by Stephens, as each shape would have yielded the same expectant result of deflecting the fluid passing through the plug.
Re-claim 17, the splash guard is disposed along an axis of the aperture of the plug (see figure 3).
Claim(s) 11-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens.
Re-claim 11, Stephens teaches a suspension, comprising: a frame (one of 14 or 18); a transmission (the other of 14 or 18, a transmission is broadly interpreted as an element transmitting a force or movement); and a liquid inertia vibration elimination system, comprising: a first liquid zone 24; a second liquid zone 28; a plug 32 segregates the first liquid zone from the second liquid zone, the plug comprises an aperture in fluid communication with the first liquid zone and the second liquid zone; a splash guard 50 is disposed in the second liquid zone and is offset from the plug (see figure 2), the splash guard comprises an outermost radial profile that does not contact the plug and allows fluid communication between a longitudinal space disposed between the splash guard and the plug and a space of the second liquid zone that is not longitudinally between the splash guard and the plug; the splash guard is rigid and does not move relative to the plug; the plug and the splash guard are disposed along an axial centerline of the system; the splash guard is substantially flat at the axial centerline; a side of the splash guard facing the plug at a location along the axial centerline is in fluid communication with the second liquid zone (such as at the periphery). However, Stephens fails to teach the suspension as part of an aircraft. Clearly the seat suspension is capable of use on an aircraft, as seats are commonly used to support a person. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the seat suspension on or part of an aircraft, thus providing a damped support for an individual.
Re-claim 12, the first liquid zone 24 is adjacent a first gas zone 44. This interpretation is consistent with the instant invention, in which the first liquid zone 212 is adjacent a first gas zone 228, since zone 216 is the second liquid zone as defined by claim 1.
Re-claim 13, the second liquid zone 28 is disposed in an accumulator.
Re-claim 14, the splash guard is an obstruction disc.
Re-claim 17, the splash guard 50 is disposed along an axis of the aperture of the plug, see figure 2.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 9, 10, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens in view of Johnson.
Re-claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 15 and 16, Stephens fails to teach the splash guard comprising a mounting tube, or the plug comprising mounting holes axially aligned with the mounting tubes, for receiving a mounting bolt, but rather teaches the splash guard welded to a wall section.
Johnson teaches a splash guard 30 comprising mounting tubes 36, apertures of the mounting tubes are aligned with mounting holes in a plug 24, mounting bolts 32 extend through the tubes and into the holes (see figure 3). This provides a removable structure for the splash guard, thereby allowing for easy removal and replacement as needed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the splash guard and plug of Stephens with a mounting system having tube and bolts as taught by Johnson, thus allowing for ease of removal and replacement as necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 8-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. De Carbon, Adrian, Farris and McCutcheon each teach a fluid system having a splash guard.
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 inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
October 1, 2025
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616