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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleu et al. (US-20190016187) in view of Crabtree et al. (WO2004067989).
It is noted that WO2004067989 is published in English and has been referenced below.
Regarding claim 1, Gleu et al. discloses an air spring assembly for a vehicle (Abstract), the air spring assembly comprising: a sleeve (4) having a space capable of filling air therein (fig 1) and including an upper opening (at or near 2) and a lower opening formed in an upper portion and a lower portion of the sleeve (fig 1), respectively; an upper cap (2) connected to the upper portion of the sleeve and configured to close the upper opening of the sleeve (fig 1); a piston (3) connected to the lower portion of the sleeve and configured to close the lower opening of the sleeve (fig 1); and a cylinder (5) coupled ([0029]) to the sleeve and configured to enclose the sleeve (fig 1), a first fixing protrusion (figs 2 or 3, the outward radially extending portion of 4 adjacent 10 and towards 7/9) is formed on at least a portion of an outer peripheral surface of the sleeve (figs 2-3), and a first fixing groove (figs 2 or 3, at least the concave surface of 5 engaging 4) is formed in at least a portion of an inner peripheral surface of the cylinder (figs 2-3), and wherein the first fixing projection is inserted into and coupled to the first fixing groove (figs 1-3).
Gleu et al. lacks wherein a portion of the sleeve is formed to be thicker than a rest of the sleeve. Crabtree et al. teaches wherein the performance of a rolling lobe air spring is enhanced by reducing the thickness of the sleeve wall and by reducing the modulus of the elastomer with which the sleeve is built. A disadvantage however, is that achieving correct compression of the sleeve wall under a crimp member so that the crimp connection integrity is maintained is difficult, particularly on a rigid piston or cap. Typically, crimping a thin wall sleeve to a rigid piston or cap will likely produce a crimp cut, thus making the air spring assembly unusable (Crabtree, p. 4, lines 18-27). Crabtree et al. also teaches a thickened crimp area (at least 101) providing standard crimp compression parameters while preventing crimp cuts (Crabtree, p. 5, lines 12-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the bellows sleeve of Gleu et al. with the thickened crimp area of Crabtree et al. at least in order to prevent a weakened crimp area or crimp cut leading to a gas leakage ((Crabtree, p. 4, lines 18-27). Thickened crimp areas or bead structures are conventionally used in air spring technology to improve mechanical engagement, retention strength, sealing, and durability at the attachment interfaces.
Regarding claim 2, Gleu et al. discloses wherein the first fixing protrusion (figs 2 or 3, the outward radially extending portion of 4 adjacent 10 and towards 7/9) is formed in a ring shape along a circumferential direction on the outer peripheral surface of the sleeve, and wherein the first fixing groove (figs 2 or 3, at least the concave surface of 5 engaging 4) is formed in a ring shape along the circumferential direction in the inner peripheral surface of the cylinder. It has been interpreted that the outward bead section of 4 adjacent 10 and the corresponding inner concave surface of 5 are of an annular ring shape.
Regarding claim 3, Gleu et al. discloses wherein the first fixing protrusion is inserted into and coupled to the first fixing groove by press-fitting the sleeve into the cylinder (at least [0016]).
Regarding claim 4, Gleu et al. discloses wherein an outer diameter of the sleeve (4) at a portion where the first fixing protrusion (adjacent 10) of the sleeve is formed is larger than or equal to an inner diameter of the cylinder at a portion where the first fixing groove of the cylinder is formed (figs 2-3, at least wherein the outer diameter of 4 radially adjacent 10 extends past the inner diameter of 5 axially adjacent to 10).
Regarding claim 5, Gleu et al. discloses a dust cover (6) configured to enclose the cylinder, wherein a second fixing protrusion (at least 7/8/9) is formed on at least a portion of an outer peripheral surface of the cylinder (figs 2-3), and a second fixing groove (11) is formed in at least a portion of an inner peripheral surface of the dust cover, and wherein the second fixing protrusion (7/8/9) is inserted into and coupled to the second fixing groove (figs 2-3). Elements 7/8/9 have been interpreted in at least two ways.
Regarding claim 6, Gleu et al. discloses wherein the second fixing protrusion is formed in a ring shape along a circumferential direction on the outer peripheral surface of the cylinder (figs 2-3), and wherein the second fixing groove (11) is formed in a ring shape along the circumferential direction in an outer the inner peripheral surface of the dust cover (figs 2-3, annular rings, and [0031-0036].
Regarding claim 7, Gleu et al. discloses wherein the second fixing protrusion is inserted into and coupled to the second fixing groove by press-fitting the cylinder to the dust cover (it has been interpreted that the relationship between 8b and 11 is that of a press fit upon the installation of the parts, [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Gleu et al. discloses wherein an outer diameter of the cylinder at a portion where the second fixing protrusion of the cylinder is formed is formed larger than or equal to an inner diameter of the dust cover at a portion where the second fixing groove of the dust cover is formed (figs 2-3 at least wherein 7/8/9 extend radially into 6/11).
Regarding claim 9, Gleu et al. discloses wherein the first fixing groove and the second fixing protrusion are positioned at a same height of the vehicle (figs 2-3 wherein the first and second grooves are radially adjacent 10).
Regarding claim 10, Gleu et al. discloses wherein the first fixing groove and the second fixing protrusion are formed to have a same shape (figs 2-3). It has been interpreted that both first and second grooves are concave in shape and therefore the same.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art of record lacks wherein “a portion of the sleeve is formed to be thicker than a rest of the sleeve” in amended claim 1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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. In response to the amendment, Gleu et al. lacks wherein a portion of the sleeve is formed to be thicker than a rest of the sleeve. Crabtree et al. teaches wherein the performance of a rolling lobe air spring is enhanced by reducing the thickness of the sleeve wall and by reducing the modulus of the elastomer with which the sleeve is built. A disadvantage however, is that achieving correct compression of the sleeve wall under a crimp member so that the crimp connection integrity is maintained is difficult, particularly on a rigid piston or cap. Typically, crimping a thin wall sleeve to a rigid piston or cap will likely produce a crimp cut, thus making the air spring assembly unusable (Crabtree, p. 4, lines 18-27). Crabtree et al. also teaches a thickened crimp area (at least 101) providing standard crimp compression parameters while preventing crimp cuts (Crabtree, p. 5, lines 12-21).
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 JAMES K HSIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6259. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
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.
/J.K.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights