DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
In Re claims 3 and 6, applicants argue that Yasukouchi fails to teach the claimed inclined parts. In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner points out that the radially inner ends of the protrusions (61c) and axially bottom ends of the protrusions (62, 63), all have inclined surfaces which face in the same direction with respect to the other inclined surfaces and are arranged circumferentially around the bumper cap, thus encompassing the limitations of the claims.
In Re claims 3 and 6, applicants argue that Suzuki et al. fail to teach the claimed inclined parts. In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner points out that the radially inner ends of the protrusions (5) and axially bottom ends of the protrusions (6), all have inclined surfaces which face in the same direction with respect to the other inclined surfaces and are arranged circumferentially around the bumper cap, thus encompassing the limitations of the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the structure of the claim is laid out such that the claim elements are claimed as being features of the shock absorber as opposed to feature of the cover part. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasukouchi (US 2019/0293148).
In Re claim 3, Yasukouchi discloses a bumper cap (6), comprising: a cover part having an opening (bottom); a bottom part (61); and a through hole (61a); a plurality of protruding parts (61c) spaced along the bottom part; a gap (see concave portions 61d) formed between adjacent protruding parts; and inclined parts (see upper faces of convex portions 61c) inclined in a same direction toward an inner diameter of the bottom part provided on the plurality of protruding parts.
In Re claim 6, Yasukouchi discloses a shock absorber (fig. 1) including a cylinder (1) and rod (2), and further comprising: a cover part (bumper cap 6) having a through hole (61a); a plurality of protruding parts (61c, 62, 63) spaced along an inner surface; and fluid adjustment part, wherein the fluid adjustment part includes a plurality of inclined protruding parts inclined in a same direction toward an inner diameter of the cover part (see inclined convex portions 61c and inclined lower faces of 62a and 63a). The examiner notes that the fluid flow varies based on the circumferential location of the flow due to the concave portions (61d) vs the convex portions (61c) and protrusions (62, 63).
In Re claim 7, see dust boot (4) and dust boot receiver (64) in fig. 1.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (WO 2017/010254).
In Re claim 3, Suzuki et al. disclose a bumper cap (S), comprising: a cover part having an opening (bottom); a bottom part (3); and a through hole (3a); a plurality of protruding parts (5) spaced along the bottom part; a gap (see channels 1a, 3) formed between adjacent protruding parts; and inclined parts (see upper inner faces of the protruding parts 5) inclined in a same direction toward an inner diameter of the bottom part provided on the plurality of protruding parts.
In Re claim 6, Suzuki et al. disclose a shock absorber (fig. 1) including a cylinder (11) and rod (13), and further comprising: a cover part (bumper cap S) having a through hole (3a); a plurality of protruding parts (5, 6) spaced along an inner surface; and fluid adjustment part, wherein the fluid adjustment part includes a plurality of inclined protruding parts inclined in a same direction toward an inner diameter of the cover part (see upper inner faces of the protruding parts 5, and lower inclined faces of 6). The examiner notes that the fluid flow varies based on the circumferential location of the flow due to the channels (1a, 3) vs the inclined portions (5) and protrusions (5, 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, and 8 are hereby allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The newly cited references are all related to shock absorber bumper caps.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights