Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/152,892

MODULAR PRESSURE REGULATION VALVE FOR A SHOCK ABSORBER

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 11, 2023
Examiner
TORRES WILLIAMS, MELANIE
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Rapa Automotive GmbH & Co. Kg
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
628 granted / 742 resolved
+32.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
786
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
37.5%
-2.5% vs TC avg
§102
46.1%
+6.1% vs TC avg
§112
15.1%
-24.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 742 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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 § 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 11 and 14 are 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 11, Applicant recites “preferably a pole core” in line 3. It is unclear whether or not the limitation is positively recited. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the conical seat" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. Claims 1, 3-11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 112815033 A). [AltContent: textbox (pilot stage module component)]Re claims 1 and 15, Chen et al. disclose a shock absorber comprising a pressure regulation valve comprising a multiplicity of pre-mounted function modules comprising with a pilot stage module (6, 12, 13, 14 in addition to the unnumbered component indicated below) and an actuator module (1, 3, 4, 5) which are firmly interconnected immediately and exclusively via one first connection, further comprising a main stage module (7, 8, 11) as a further function module which is firmly connected to the actuator module immediately and exclusively via one second press connection. (Translation – Pg. 5, 1st Par.) [AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval] PNG media_image1.png 554 748 media_image1.png Greyscale Chen et al. do not teach wherein the pilot stage module and the actuator module are firmly interconnected via a press connection. Fig. 1 and 2 illustrate wherein the pilot stage module (6, 12, 13 and 14) is firmly interconnected with the actuator module (at 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to interconnect the components via press fitting since it is a well-known means for connecting components. Re claim 3, Chen et al. as modified teach wherein the pressure regulation valve exclusively consists of or is constructed from function modules and/or at least or exactly of/from the actuator module (1, 3, 4, 5), the pilot stage module (6, 12, 13, 14), and the main stage module (7, 8, 11). Re claim 4, Chen et al. as modified teach wherein the actuator module (1, 3, 4, 5), has an actuator (5) with an actuator axis, wherein the actuator is formed as a linear actuator and/or the actuator module has a cylindrical press area, which is arranged coaxially to the actuator axis. Re claim 5, Chen et al. as modified teach wherein the pilot stage module (6, 12, 13, 14) has a pilot stage valve (12, 14) which can be operated preferably along a valve axis and/or has a cylindrical press area which is arranged coaxially to the valve axis. Re claim 6, Chen et al. as modified teach wherein the actuator axis and the valve axis of the pilot stage valve (12, 14) form a common central axis of the pressure regulation valve. (Fig. 1) Re claim 7, Chen et al. as modified teach wherein an operation member (5) of the actuator module (1, 3, 4, 5) abuts on a valve body (14) of the pilot stage module (6) for operating the pilot stage valve. (Translation – Pg. 7, 4th Par. – Pg. 8, 1st Par, Fig. 1, 14) Re claim 8, Chen et al. as modified teach wherein the press connection between the main stage module (7, 8, 11) and the actuator module (1, 3, 4, 5) or the pilot stage module (6) is created by corresponding cylindrical press areas, which are arranged coaxially to the central axis. (Fig. 1 Re claim 9, Chen et al. teach wherein the actuator module (1, 3, 4, 5) comprises a coil module (3), a magnetic drive module (5) and a coil lid module (1), wherein the coil module and the magnetic drive module are firmly connected to the coil lid module created by respectively two corresponding cylindrical press areas, which are arranged coaxially to the central axis, and/or wherein no firm connection is provided between the coil module (3) and the magnetic drive module (5). Chen et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the coil module and the coil lid module are firmly connected to the coil lid module via a press connection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use press fitting to connect the coil module and the coil lid module since press fitting is a well known means for providing a firm connection. Re claim 10, Chen et al. as modified teach wherein the coil lid module (1) is arranged centrally in the pressure regulation valve and/or the coil lid module is firmly connected to the pilot stage module (6 12, 13, 14), the main stage module (7, 11), the coil module (3) and the magnetic drive module (5) via respectively one press connection and the pilot stage module (6), the main stage module (1, 3, 4, 5), the coil module (3) and the magnetic drive module (5) do not have a firm connection among each other. Re claim 11, Chen et al. as modified teach wherein the magnetic drive module (5) has a movably borne operation member or a movably borne magnetic armature and a pole core. Re claim 14, Chen et al. as modified teach wherein the pilot stage module (6, 12, 13, 14) has a receiving section for receiving a fluid component, including a throttle which has a thread, and/or the pilot stage module has a failsafe valve seat at the end of the guide section located opposite the conical seat, and a spring member, which biases the ball valve body into the failsafe valve seat, and/or the main stage module (7, 8, 11) has a main stage valve (8) which is formed as a piston slide valve or as a seat valve. (Fig.1-2) 9. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 112815033 A) in view of Bill et al. (US 20110297856 A1). Re claim 12, Chen et al. do not teach wherein the pilot stage module has a ball valve body and a conical seat. Bill et al. teach wherein the pilot stage module (22) has a ball valve body (40) and a conical seat (13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the ball valve arrangement of Bill et al. since ball valves are well known alternative means for providing pressure control. Re claim 13, Chen et al. as modified teach wherein the pilot stage module has a guide section (42) for the ball valve body, and has a single-piece module body (42) which has the conical seat (13) and the guide section. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed September 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments require a modified interpretation of the references but are still believed to be obvious in light of the newly recited limitations. See above. Regarding the recitation of modules or pre-mounted function modules, the components within the assembly are capable of being grouped as modules. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM. 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. /MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3616 MTW, March 13, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 11, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 09, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 22, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 22, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 13, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 11, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583421
DRUM BRAKE WITH ROTATABLE BRAKE SHOE ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583547
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETECTING THE SPEED OF A BICYCLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577993
REDUCED PROFILE PISTON ADJUSTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570257
BRAKING SYSTEM FOR A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570370
CONTROL SYSTEM FOR HUMAN-POWERED VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+12.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 742 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