DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 10/09/25 has been entered. Claims 1-13 are still pending. In light of the claim amendments certain rejections have been revised, but all claims remain rejected due to the parallel 102 and 103 rejections detailed below. 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
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.
Rӧsseler #1
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rӧsseler et al. (DE 10 2019 215556) (published: 04/15/21) (hereinafter “Rӧsseler #1”). Rӧsseler is directed to a damping valve for a vibration damper. See Abstract.
Claim 8: Rӧsseler #1 discloses a damping valve device [Figs. 1-5] comprising: a valve element (35) which can be changed in terms of diameter; a flow guiding surface (39); an adjustable stop (63, 83, 67, 41); and a valve carrier (29) having a circumferential annular groove (33) in which the valve element forms a throttle point (37) together with the flow guiding surface, wherein the throttle point transitions from a through-flow position into a throttled position as a function of a flow rate of a damping medium, and at a same time a maximum widened position of the valve element is limited, which is determined by the adjustable stop, wherein the adjustable stop is formed by a stop sleeve that is axially adjustable, such that varying an axial position of the stop limits an amount of change of the valve element. See Figs. 1-5; Translation (“The separate component 83 can be manufactured very easily and standardized for different applications in order to adapt the dead time function to a specific damping force requirement”).
Claim 10: Rӧsseler #1 discloses that each of a radially outer contact surface region (at 67) of the valve element and a radially inner contact surface region (at 63, 81) of the adjustable stop has a conical surface. See Fig. 4.
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.
Rӧsseler #1
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rӧsseler #1.
Claim 9: Rӧsseler #1 discloses a stop sleeve [Figs. 3, 4] that is separable from the valve carrier (i.e., the piston), but does not discuss the means of connection, namely, via threads to be “a screw sleeve.” It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use threads to connect/disconnect the sleeve because Rӧsseler #1 discusses the importance of substituting this component with another based on desired damping properties, and a threaded connection permits quick and easy installation and replacement.
Rӧsseler #1
Claim(s) 1-7 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rӧsseler #1 in view of Takeno et al. (WO 2017/002595) (attached). Takeno is directed to a cylinder device. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Rӧsseler #1 discloses a damping valve device [Figs. 1-5] comprising: a valve element (35) which can be changed in terms of diameter; a flow guiding surface (39); an adjustable stop (63, 83, 67, 41); and a valve carrier (29) having a circumferential annular groove (33) in which the valve element forms a throttle point (37) together with the flow guiding surface, wherein the throttle point transitions from a through-flow position into a throttled position as a function of a flow rate of a damping medium, and at a same time a maximum widened position of the valve element is limited, which is determined by the adjustable stop. See Figs. 1-5; Translation (“The separate component 83 can be manufactured very easily and standardized for different applications in order to adapt the dead time function to a specific damping force requirement”).
Rӧsseler #1 discloses all the limitations of this claim except for the newly added limitation concerning the adjustable stop being “configured to be deformed by plastic deformation.” Given that this is an apparatus claim, the only structural feature(s) required here is that the stop is plastic and is capable of being deformed. While Rӧsseler #1 does not discuss material choice, the use of plastic is merely a design choice and would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention because it is readily available and inexpensive. Upon using plastic, the Rӧsseler #1 stop would certainly be capable of “plastic deformation.” Furthermore, Takeno discloses a damping valve device, with a valve element (17) that can expand radially to a cylinder wall (12A), and a stopper (14), wherein the stopper is plastically deformed. See Figs. 3-8; see also Translation (plastic deformation portion 14A2). It would further be obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to plastically deform the Rӧsseler #1 stop because it explicitly depicts and discusses various shapes and sizes of the stop to be used “for different applications in order to adapt the dead time function to a specific damping force requirement.” Also, plastic deformation is a well-known, simple, efficient and inexpensive method of shaping a component.
Claim 2: Rӧsseler #1 discloses that the adjustable stop is oriented as a function of a radial position of a piston (29) on a piston rod (9), the damping valve device being at least indirectly fastened on the piston rod. See Figs. 1-5.
Claim 3: Rӧsseler #1 discloses that the adjustable stop is formed by an edge on a carrier side of the valve carrier. See Figs. 2-5.
Claim 4: Rӧsseler #1 discloses that the adjustable stop is configured in a segment-like manner. See Figs. 2-5.
Claim 5: Rӧsseler #1 discloses that the adjustable stop is configured in one piece with a cover of the valve carrier. See Figs. 2-5.
Claim 6: Rӧsseler #1 discloses that the adjustable stop is fastened to the piston. See Figs. 1-5.
Claim 7: Rӧsseler #1 discloses that the adjustable stop is formed by a sleeve supported on the piston. See Figs. 2-5.
Claim 11: Rӧsseler #1 discloses a method for producing a damping valve device having a valve element (35) which can be changed in terms of diameter, a flow guiding surface (39), an adjustable stop (63, 83, 67, 41), and a valve carrier (29) having a circumferential annular groove (33) in which the valve element forms a throttle point (37) together with the flow guiding surface, comprising: adjusting the adjustable stop as a function of a defined diameter of the valve element. See Figs. 1-5; Translation (“The separate component 83 can be manufactured very easily and standardized for different applications in order to adapt the dead time function to a specific damping force requirement”).
Rӧsseler #1 discloses all the limitations of this claim except for a discussion of plastically deforming the valve carrier via a reshaping tool. Takeno discloses a damping valve device, with a valve element (17) that can expand radially to a cylinder wall (12A), and a valve carrier (14), wherein the valve carrier is plastically deformed using a shaping tool (19). See Figs. 3-8; see also Translation (plastic deformation portion 14A2). It would further be obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to plastically deform the Rӧsseler #1 valve carrier stop because it explicitly depicts and discusses various shapes and sizes of the stop to be used “for different applications in order to adapt the dead time function to a specific damping force requirement.” Also, plastic deformation is a well-known, simple, efficient and inexpensive method of shaping a component.
Claim 12: Rӧsseler #1 discloses that the circumferential annular groove has a height H, which is greater than an overall height h of the valve element. See Figs. 2-5.
Claim 13: Takeno discloses the re-shaping tool is supported on a piston for adjusting the adjustable stop. See Fig. 8.
Rӧsseler #1 in view of Rӧsseler #2
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rӧsseler #1 in view of Rӧsseler et al. (DE 10 2019 215561) (published: 04/15/21) (hereinafter “Rӧsseler #2”). Rӧsseler #2 is directed to a throttle point for a vibration damper. See Abstract.
Claim 11: Rӧsseler #1 discloses a method for producing a damping valve device having a valve element (35) which can be changed in terms of diameter, a flow guiding surface (39), an adjustable stop (63, 83, 67, 41), and a valve carrier (29) having a circumferential annular groove (33) in which the valve element forms a throttle point (37) together with the flow guiding surface, comprising: adjusting the adjustable stop as a function of a defined diameter of the valve element. See Figs. 1-5; Translation (“The separate component 83 can be manufactured very easily and standardized for different applications in order to adapt the dead time function to a specific damping force requirement”).
Rӧsseler #1 discloses all the limitations of this claim except for a discussion of deforming the valve carrier via reshaping it. Rӧsseler #2 discloses a nearly identical type of damping valve device [see Figs. 1-3] with a valve carrier (45, 71, 73) with a circumferential groove (59) in which a valve element (35) forms a throttle point (37), wherein a reshaping tool is used to deform the valve carrier. See Translation (“at least one of the fixing surfaces 71, 73 of one of the cover plates 47 is reshaped”); Fig. 6. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to plastically deform the valve carrier because this is a well-known, simple, efficient and inexpensive method of shaping a component.
Claim 12: Rӧsseler #1 discloses that the circumferential annular groove has a height H, which is greater than an overall height h of the valve element. See Figs. 2-5.
Claim 13: Rӧsseler #2 discloses the re-shaping tool is supported on a piston (45, 47) for adjusting the adjustable stop. See Translation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant did not submit any arguments with regard to claims 8-10, so those rejections are maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/25 with regard to claims 11-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to traverse the rejection of claim 11 because, while Rӧsseler #2 does achieve deformation of securing surfaces 71 and 73, “a stop is not deformed.” See Remarks, page 8. In response, claim 11 does not require deformation of the stop, it recites “at least partially plastically deforming the valve carrier by a re-shaping tool.” Since the surfaces 71, 73 along with body 45 of Rӧsseler #2 make up the “valve carrier,” the teaching reference properly discloses the broader limitation of deforming the valve carrier (as compared to the stop, specifically).
For the foregoing reasons, all pending claims remain rejected as detailed above.
Conclusion
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 inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 October 21, 2025