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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “404” has been used to designate both the secondary chamber and the secondary face in Figure 5.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 918 ([0085])
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-6, 8-13, 15-19 and 21 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.
In claim 1, line 9 and claim 16, line 8, Applicant claims “optionally, a negative spring device”. It is unclear whether the limitation is or is not a limitation required by the claim.
In claim 1, Applicant recites “a variable volume” in line 13. It is unclear if this volume is the same as the previously recited “variable volume” in line 5.
In claim 9, Applicant recites “a fixed volume” in line 13. It is unclear if this volume is the same as the previously recited “fixed volume” in lines 11-12.
In claim 5, it is unclear if the “mass of adsorptive material and/or open cell foam” is the same as the previously recited limitation in claim 1.
In claim 6, it is unclear if the “mass of adsorptive material and/or open cell foam” is the same as the previously recited limitation in claim 1.
Re claim 12, Applicant claims “a spacing element having a fixed volume”. Claim 1 from which claim 12 depends, recites “a spacing element having a variable volume”. The limitations appear to be contradictory reciting limitations from different embodiments.
In claim 17, it is unclear if the “mass of adsorptive material and/or open cell foam” is the same as the previously recited limitation in claim 16.
Re claim 22, Applicant claims “a spacing element having a variable volume”. Claim 16 from which claim 22 depends, recites “a spacing element having a fixed volume”.
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 (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 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 1-3, 5, 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kodera (JP 2002005212).
Re claim 1, Kodera discloses an air spring for supporting a load, the air spring (1) comprising: a main chamber containing a positively pressurised gas in use; a spacing element having a variable volume (7) and being within the main chamber; a load-bearing surface (32) arranged to transmit a force from a load in use to the positively pressurised gas; and wherein the air spring contains a mass (5) of adsorptive material and/or open cell foam for lowering the spring rate and the spacing element having a variable volume (7) is a removable unit from the air spring. (Fig. 5)
Re claim 2, Kodera discloses wherein the variable volume (7) of the spacing element is compressed at a predetermined pressure in use by the positively pressurised gas in the main chamber.
Re claim 3, Kodera discloses wherein the spacing element comprises a movable member (15) wherein the variable volume (7) is separated from the main chamber by the moveable member.
Re claim 5, Kodera discloses the variable volume (7) contains a mass of adsorptive material (5) and/or open cell foam.
Re claim 6 Kodera discloses the main chamber and the variable volume (7) contain a mass of adsorptive material and/or open cell foam.
Re claim 13, Kodera discloses wherein the variable volume of the movable member (15) comprises a sealed secondary cavity, within the main chamber, containing in use a pressurised gas.
Claims 16, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coakley et al. (US 2017/0182858).
Re claim 16, Coakley et al. disclose an air spring for supporting a load, the air spring comprising: a main chamber (450) containing a positively pressurised gas in use; a spacing element (460) having a fixed volume that occupies a volume of the main chamber; a load-bearing surface (422) arranged to transmit a force from a load in use to the positively pressurised gas; and wherein the air spring contains a mass of adsorptive material (460) and/or open cell foam to lower the spring rate and the spacing element having a fixed volume is a removable unit from the air spring.
Re claim 17, Coakley et al. disclose wherein the main chamber (450) contains a mass of adsorptive material (460) and/or open cell foam.
Re claim 21, Coaklety et al. disclose wherein the adsorptive material is activated carbon. ([0086])
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 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodera (JP 2002005212).) in view of Coakley et al. (US 2017/0182858).
Re claim 4, Kodera does not teach wherein the main chamber contains a mass of adsorptive material and/or open cell foam. Coakley et al. teach an air spring wherein the main chamber (450) contains a mass of adsorptive material and/or open cell foam (460). (Fig. 4, Page 14, 2nd Par.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the mass in the main chamber in order to lower the spring rate of the strut as taught by Coakley et al.
Re claim 11, Kodera does not teach wherein the adsorptive material is activated carbon. Coakley et al. teach an absorptive material (460) comprising activated carbon. ([0086]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide activated carbon as the material in the device of Kodera as an alternative to lowering spring rate.([0086] – [0087])
Claim 15 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodera (JP 2002005212).
Re claims 15 and 25, the air spring as taught by Kodera do not teach wherein the air spring is in a bicycle or motorbike or suspension fork. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the air spring as taught by Kodera in a bicycle, motorcycle or suspension fork in order to provide damping in a vehicle.
13. Claims 18, 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coakley et al. (US 2017/0182858) in view of Kodera (JP 2002005212).
Re claim 18, Coakley et al. do not teach wherein a negative spring device comprises a chamber and a positively pressured gas within the chamber. Kodera teaches a negative spring device comprising a chamber (7) and a positively pressured gas within the chamber. (Fig. 5) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the negative spring device as taught by Kodera in the spring of Coakley et al. in order to provide noise reduction.
Re claim 19, Coakley et al. as modified teaches wherein the chamber (7) contains a mass of adsorptive material (5) and/or open cell foam.
Re claim 26, Coakley et al. as modified teaches wherein the negative spring device (5, 7) is a removable unit from the air spring.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bohm et al., Strong, Crabtree, Zeidler and Hamilton teach similar devices.
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
November 14, 2025