DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 has been entered.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Machida (JP H08-4818 A) (cited on the IDS of 1/26/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Machida discloses (figs. 1 and 3) A damping valve (1) comprising:
a disk (3) with a port (one of 6, 7) and a valve seat (one of 8, 10) surrounding the port;
a leaf valve (one of 9,11) that opens and closes the port by causing a front side (e.g. down in fig. 1) to sit on and leave the valve seat;
a tubular housing (one of 14,15) provided on a back side (up in fig. 1) of the leaf valve;
an annular spool (one of 16,17) that abuts on the back side of the leaf valve and is slidably inserted into inner circumference of the housing (as shown) to form a back pressure chamber (one of 20,21) that causes back pressure to act on the leaf valve inwardly together with the housing;
an annular spring support portion (area of radially extending wall of 14,15 that contacts 18,19) that is located on the back side of the leaf valve (as shown), faces inside of the back pressure chamber (as shown), and has a smaller outer diameter than an inner diameter of the spool (as shown, contact area with spring 18,19 has a smaller diameter than the inner diameter of 16,17)); and
an annular leaf spring (one of 18,19) that is interposed between one end of the spool that is an opposite side end of the leaf valve (as shown, radially outer side) and the spring support portion (as shown, radially inner side), and presses the spool in a direction of abutting on the leaf valve (“Seal member 16 and 17 are constantly pressed against the disk valves 9 and 11 by the springs 18 and 19”).
wherein, an inner circumferential end of the leaf spring abuts only on the spring support portion (as shown, e.g., the bottom side of spring 18 only contacts the spring support portion as identified above, at least, and not the retainer 12 due to the shown gap), and
the inner circumferential end of the leaf spring is not fixedly supported by the spring support portion (as shown, spring 18 is provided by itself without other means to fixedly support it on the spring support portion).
Regarding claim 5, Machida discloses (figs. 1 and 3) a pilot passage (one of 25, 26) that causes inside of the back pressure chamber to communicate with an upstream side of the port (via 32, 6 and 7 at least), and a control valve (32) that controls pressure in the back pressure chamber.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machida (JP H08-4818 A) in view of Naito et al. (JP 2010-151272 A) (cited on the IDS of 1/26/2023).
Regarding claim 3, Machida discloses (figs. 1 and 3) first-end outer circumferential portion (portion that abuts the leaf spring) that is an outer circumferential portion of the one end (as shown, at the end, it is the “outer circumferential portion), and the leaf spring abuts on the spool only at the first-end outer circumferential portion (as shown, the leaf spring doesn’t abut 16,17 anywhere else other than the end). However, Machida does not appear to disclose the spool including a tapered portion inside this first end outer circumferential portion. In the field of endeavor, Naito teaches (fig. 9) an equivalent spool (67) interposed between a leaf spring (66A) and leaf valve (60), where the spool includes a tapered portion (as shown) inside (i.e. axially further away from the end contacting the leaf spring) the first-end outer circumferential portion
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tapered the spool of Machida as suggested by Naito to maximize the pressure exerted by the leaf spring on the spool, as well as to reduce the weight of the spool to at least some extent. The taper effectively reduces the pressing area of the leaf spring, and for a given unit of force, if the area is decreased, then the exerted pressure increases. As such, the modification is an optimization of the device of Machida.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machida (JP H08-4818 A) in view of Gomi et al. (WO 2018/155293 A1). (cited on the IDS of 1/26/2023).
Regarding claim 4, Machida discloses (figs. 1 and 3) the spool having a second-end outer circumferential portion (portion contacting 9,11) that is an outer circumferential portion at a second-end that is a leaf valve side end (as shown, at the end, it is the “outer circumferential portion”), and the leaf valve abuts only on the second-end outer circumferential portion of the spool (as shown, the leaf valve doesn’t abut 16,17 anywhere else other than the end). However, Machida does not appear to disclose the spool including a tapered portion inside this second end outer circumferential portion. In the same field of endeavor, Gomi teaches (fig. 3) an equivalent spool (Sp) pressing on a leave valve (Vp), the spool having a tapered portion (near 18) inside (i.e. further away from the axial end, as well as radially within) the second end-outer circumferential portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tapered the spool of Machida as suggested by Gomi to maximize the pressure exerted by the spool on the leaf valve, as well as to reduce the weight of the spool to at least some extent. The taper effectively reduces the pressing area of the spool, and for a given unit of force, if the area is decreased, then the exerted pressure increases. Such a modification also maximizes the volume in the chamber that would otherwise be taken up by the physical space of the spool. As such, the modification is an optimization of the device of Machida.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (JP 2010-025186 A) (cited on the IDS of 1/26/2023) in view of Machida (JP H08-4818 A).
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi discloses (fig. 1) A shock absorber comprising: a cylinder (10); a piston (11) that is movably inserted into the cylinder and divides the cylinder into an extension side chamber (R1) and a compression side chamber (R2) filled with liquid (“The rod side chamber R1, the piston side chamber R2, and the reservoir R are filled with fluid such as hydraulic oil.”); a rod (12) connected to the piston; a reservoir (R) that stores the liquid; a rectifying passage (17) that allows only a flow of the liquid from the compression side chamber to the extension side chamber (via check valve); a suction passage (16) that allows only a flow of the liquid from the reservoir to the compression side chamber (via check valve); a discharge passage (15) that causes the extension side chamber to communicate with the reservoir; and a damping valve (V3) that is provided in the discharge passage with the extension side chamber as upstream of the port and the reservoir as downstream of the port (as shown).
Kobayashi does not appear to disclose the damping valve having all the structure of the damping valve according to claim 1. Nevertheless, Machida disclose the damping valve of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). 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 damping valve of Machida within the shock absorber construction of Kobayashi to control the damping force regardless of piston speed, thereby reducing controller load (pgh. 0043 of translation, provided in IDS of 1/26/2023).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 7-11 are allowable.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends on page 11 of the remarks (and throughout) that Machida discloses the inner circumference of the spring 18 is sandwiched by the retainer 12 and the bottom portion of the case 14. A review of the specification of Machida revealed no discussion about the spring 18 being sandwiched by the retainer. The quoted sections of Machida provided on page 14 of the remarks fail to describe such a construction. Further, as shown in fig. 1, the hatching identifying the retainer 12 terminates vertically above the position of the spring 18, such that it does not contact the spring and a gap exists therebetween. This construction is circled in the annotated figure below. The spring remains in place by spring forces rather than being sandwiched by the retainer 12. Accordingly, the only structure contacting the inner circumferential end of the spring 18 is the mapped spring support portion, corresponding to instant claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
515
1034
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 of Machida
Applicant contends beginning on page 11 of the remarks that Machida discloses the inner circumference of the spring is fixedly supported by the bottom portion of the case. A review of the specification of Machida revealed no discussion about the spring 18 being fixedly supported by the bottom portion of the case. The quoted sections of Machida provided on page 14 of the remarks fail to describe such a construction. Further, since the case 14 is merely below and radially beyond the spring, it cannot “fixedly support” the spring in all degrees of freedom. In other words, the case 14 does not prevent, by itself, the spring from moving up as shown in fig. 1, therefore it does not “fixedly support” the spring at least in this sense.
Applicant contends on page 14 of the remarks that because the components are assembled onto the outer circumference of the rod 24 and the nut 25 is screwed on, that this then requires that the spring 18 is sandwiched between the case 14 and the retainer 12. First, the quoted sections fail to describe the alleged “sandwiching” of the spring between the case and the retainer. Further, it is unclear how the assembly order necessitates such “sandwiching”.
Applicant contends at the top of page 15 of the remarks that if the retainers 12 do not contact the spring 18, the retainers move in an axial direction with respect to the rod 24, thereby causing communication issues between the passages 12a and 13a and the back pressure passage. This is inconsistent with the specification, which states that the retainers come into contact with the inner circumference part of the disc valve 9 (see pgh. 0018). The role of the retainer 12 is to maintain pressure on the valve 9 by pinching the valve 9 against the valve seat 8, otherwise a good seal cannot form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/DAVID MORRIS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616