Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/999,177

Multi-Stage Adjusting Damping Valve, As Well As Shock Absorber And Suspension System Using Damping Valve

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Nov 17, 2022
Examiner
BURCH, MELODY M
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hefei University Of Technology
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
658 granted / 1029 resolved
+11.9% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
1080
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
43.9%
+3.9% vs TC avg
§102
23.9%
-16.1% vs TC avg
§112
27.8%
-12.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1029 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 14-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Re: claim 14. The phrase “differential pressure-flow” is indefinite. It is unclear whether what role the quotation marks play with respect to the recited limitation. The phrase fails to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the claim. Re: claim 17. The phrase “such as” is indefinite. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Re: claims 17, 20, and 29. The phrase “reasonably control” is indefinite. It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art what is intended to be considered “reasonable” control. The specification fails to define what is meant by “reasonably control”. Re: claim 17. The phrase “a multi-stage pilot valve” is indefinite. It is unclear whether the earlier recited high-speed switch electromagnetic valves are the same or different from the later recited multi-stage pilot valve. Re: claim 19. The phrase “the high-speed switch electromagnetic valve” is indefinite. It is unclear as to which high-speed switch electromagnetic valve Applicant intends to refer to since more than one high-speed switch electromagnetic valve was previously recited. Re: claim 23. The phrase “the oil return branch” is indefinite. The phrase lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. Re: claim 25. The phrase “a plurality of high-speed switch electromagnetic valves” is indefinite. It is unclear whether the plurality of high-speed switch electromagnetic valves includes or is different from the electromagnetic valve recited in claim 19. The remaining claims are indefinite due to their dependency from one of claims 14 and 17. 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) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-20150121137 (KR’137) in view of CN-104165205 (CN’205) and DE-102014005603 (DE’603). KR’137 shows in figure 1 a shock absorber, comprising a piston rod 21, a piston head 2, a bottom valve seat 11, a flow valve 4, a compression valve Vb, a compensation valve 3b, a rod cavity R1, a rodless cavity R2, a fluid storage cavity 17, a middle cavity or upper portion 7, an air chamber shown in the area of the end of the lead line of R, a housing 10, and fluid shown, for example at the bottom of area R; an upper end of the rod cavity is provided with a first fluid port 1a, the fluid is able to flow to the middle cavity or upper portion 7 from the rod cavity via the first fluid port; an outer wall of the middle cavity is provided with a second fluid port or line connected to 13c, and the fluid is able to enter a multi-stage adjusting damping valve 13b via the second fluid port as shown; the outer wall of the fluid storage cavity 17 is provided with a third fluid port 1b, the third fluid port is connected to a fluid return branch or lower portion 7, and the fluid is able to flow back to the fluid storage cavity 17 from the fluid return branch or lower portion 7 via the third fluid port 1b as shown, but is silent with regard to a rebound valve, a throttle valve connected to the second fluid port, and the fluid specifically being oil. CN’205 teaches in figure 1 the use of a rebound valve 205. 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 shock absorber of KR’137 to have included a rebound valve, in view of the teachings of CN’205, in order to provide a means of creating a damping force in the rebound direction which helps with traction control and steering stability in a vehicle. DE’603 teaches in figure 5 the use of a throttle valve 30 connected to an oil port shown above the end of the lead line of number 16. 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 shock absorber of KR’137, as modified, to have included a throttle valve 30, in view of the teachings of DE’603, in order to provide a means of metering a small constant amount of oil flow to affect damping and to reduce vibration and noise. DE’603 teaches in the paragraph beginning “Hydraulic damper arrangements, often also called shock absorbers” the use of the hydraulic medium being in the form of oil. 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 of KR’137, as modified, to have been oil, in view of the teachings of DE’603, in order to provide a viscous fluid that provides resistance which creates damping force and the oil also provides lubrication. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11-13 allowed. Claims 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 17-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Applications and foreign references: US 2019/0337584 to Walthert et al., 2019/022654 to Schmidt et al., CN-102069813, CN-100364792, and WO-2016060066 teach the use of similar shock absorbers. 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 November 29, 2025 /MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 17, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600331
CENTRAL ELECTRO-PNEUMATIC PRESSURE CONTROL MODULE IMPLEMENTED AS A COMPONENT AND HAVING AN INTEGRATED CENTRAL BRAKE CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601382
BRAKE BODY FOR A TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A BRAKE BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601386
VIBRATION DAMPING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595845
DRIVELINE INCLUDING A HYDRODYNAMIC RETARDER AND METHOD OF OPERATING A HYDRODYNAMIC RETARDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595835
END-STOP CONTROL VALVES FOR PROVIDING PROGESSIVE DAMPING FORCES IN VIBRATION DAMPERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+25.9%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1029 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month