Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/275,246

VALVE ARRANGEMENT FOR A SHOCK ABSORBER

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Aug 01, 2023
Examiner
HSIAO, JAMES K
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Driv Automotive Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
597 granted / 780 resolved
+24.5% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
821
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
§102
41.5%
+1.5% vs TC avg
§112
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 780 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 1-15 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation " the first orifice of the first restriction " and “the first orifice of the second restriction” in lines 22-23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 has defined a first and second restriction but not “an orifice” for said first and second restriction. Claim 3 recites the limitation "said first orifice of the first restriction " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 3, the limitation ”wherein said first orifice [[(OR1)]] of the first restriction [[(R1)]] always is smaller than the first restriction [[(OR2)]] of the second restriction [[(R2)]]” is unclear. It is unclear what is required by the limitation because it appears that “the first restriction [[(OR2)]] of the second restriction [[(R2)]]” should read “the first orifice [[(OR2)]] of the second restriction [[(R2)]]”. Regarding claim 14, the limitation “comprising at least one valve arrangement according to claim 1“is unclear. It is not clear if “the at least one valve arrangement” is the same valve arrangement as defined in claim 1. It appears claim 14 is positively claiming the shock absorber, however the inclusion of” the at least one valve arrangement” appears to render the claim indefinite. Claim 15 recites the limitation " the first orifice of the first restriction " and “the first orifice of the second restriction” in lines 22-23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 has defined a first and second restriction but not “an orifice” for said first and second restriction. 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 1-2, 4, 5, 8-9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by DE KOCK (US-20200208709). Regarding claim 1, DE KOCK discloses a valve arrangement (100) for a shock absorber (1), said valve arrangement comprising:- a valve housing (110) comprising a first and a second port (115.1/115.2) a pilot chamber (126) being in fluid communication with said first and/or second port (Fig 3a and 3b, at least Fd2), wherein a pilot pressure is defined by a hydraulic pressure in said pilot chamber (126); a main valve member (120) being axially movably along a longitudinal axis in said valve housing (110, figs 3a and 3b) and being arranged to interact with a main valve seat (111, at or near 111.2) of said valve housing in order to restrict a main fluid flow (fig 3a/b at least Fd to Fd1) between said first and second ports 115.1/115.2) in response to said pilot pressure acting on said main valve member (at least [0069] wherein a pressure increase in the control chamber acts on the movable valve body 120 to move it in an upward direction so as to increase a volume of the control chamber 126, as is shown in FIG. 3b. The pressure increase in the control chamber 126 also causes flexible bottom wall 170 to move outwards for a further increase of the volume of the control chamber 126); wherein - the main valve member (120) is resiliently loaded in a steady-state position from where it is movable in both directions along the longitudinal axis (at least figs 3a and 3b, wherein 120 is resiliently loaded by 131 at the top side and 150 at the bottom side) and is configured to, during an initial pressure increase of the main fluid, move in a direction away from the pilot chamber (126), so as to increase the volume of the pilot chamber (at least [0069] wherein a pressure increase in the control chamber acts on the movable valve body 120 to move it in an upward direction so as to increase a volume of the control chamber 126, as is shown in FIG. 3b. The pressure increase in the control chamber 126 also causes flexible bottom wall 170 to move outwards for a further increase of the volume of the control chamber 126), and wherein the valve arrangement further comprises an axially movable valve seat member (at least 131) arranged axially between the main valve member (120) and the main valve seat (111, at or near 111.2), wherein said axially movable valve seat member (131) comprises a first restriction (fig 5a, at or near the left side of 111.2 between 131 and 111) and a cooperating serially arranged second restriction (fig 5a, at or near the right side of 111.2 between 131 and 111) wherein the first orifice of the first restriction and the second orifice of the second restriction are controlled by means of the axial position of the main valve member (120) relative the housing (110)(at least [0069] wherein a pressure increase in the control chamber acts on the movable valve body 120 to move it in an upward direction so as to increase a volume of the control chamber 126, as is shown in FIG. 3b. The pressure increase in the control chamber 126 also causes flexible bottom wall 170 to move outwards for a further increase of the volume of the control chamber 126, and [0077], wherein Upward movement of the movable valve body 120 causes a larger closing force acting on the controlled valve 130. This causes an increased damping of the controlled flow Fd in between the first and second cylinder chambers 11, 12 and therefore an increased damping of the piston movement. Preferably the closing force acting on the controlled valve is proportional with time, which can be achieved by careful tuning of the various parameters in the design of the frequency selective valve 100 and during assembly of the valve 100). Regarding claim 2, DE KOCK discloses wherein said first restriction (fig 5a, at or near the left side of 111.2 between 131 and 111) is arranged upstream relative the second restriction (fig 5a, at or near the right side of 111.2 between 131 and 111) in a main fluid flow during a compression stroke (fig 5a, Fd1, toward the right side of 111.2). Regarding claim 4, DE KOCK discloses wherein said first restriction (fig 5a, at or near the left side of 111.2 between 131 and 111) is an at least partly circumferential orifice between the movable valve seat member (131) and the main valve seat (111, at or near 111.2). Regarding claim 5, DE KOCK discloses wherein said second restriction (fig 5a, at or near the right side of 111.2 between 131 and 111) is arranged radially outside of said first restriction (fig 5a) in an at least partly circumferential orifice between the movable valve seat member (131) and the main valve seat (111, at or near 111.2). Regarding claim 8, DE KOCK discloses at least one shim (at least on of the stack 131) arranged between the main valve member (120) and moveable valve member (131 bottom disk) in an initial flow channel (115.2) Regarding claim 9, DE KOCK discloses wherein the at least one shim is configured to deflect in response to a pressure increase in the main fluid flow so as to allow an initial fluid flow between the first and second port (figs, 3a and 5a, wherein 131 deflects in response fluid flow between 115.1 and 115.2). Regarding claim 12, DE KOCK discloses wherein said main valve member (120) is resiliently loaded by a first springing means (at least one or all of 131) on a first side (fig 3a, upper side) of the main valve member and a second springing means (150) on an opposite second side (fig 3a, lower side) of the main valve member (at least fig 3a). Regarding claim 13, DE KOCK discloses a third restriction (at least the channel at or near 115.2) being arranged in series with the second restriction (fig 5a, at or near the right side of 111.2 between 131 and 111), wherein the third restriction has a constant orifice (fig 3a and 3b) being independent of the axial position of the main valve member (120) relative to the housing (110). Regarding claim 14, DE KOCK discloses a shock absorber (1) comprising at least one valve arrangement (at least figs 1 and 3a-3b) according to claim 1. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3, 6, 7, and 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 15, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious moving the main valve member in a direction towards the pilot chamber, so as to subsequently decrease the volume of the pilot chamber, when the pressure of the main fluid flow exceeds a predetermined value being higher than the initial pressure increase, and during an active flow control mode - restricting the main fluid flow at a first restriction and a cooperating serially arranged second restriction by controlling the first orifice of the first restriction and the second orifice [[(OR2)]] of the second restriction by means of controlling the axial position of the main valve member [[(4)]] relative the housing. Conclusion 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. /JAMES K HSIAO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 01, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595834
SEALING DEVICE AND DAMPER FOR HYDRAULIC EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576680
SYNTHETIC ELASTOMERIC AIR SPRING WITHOUT REINFORCING FIBERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12545093
Hydro-Mount
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12537125
SOLENOID, DAMPING FORCE ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM, AND DAMPING FORCE ADJUSTABLE SHOCK ABSORBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12529408
VIBRATION DAMPER HAVING TWO ADJUSTABLE DAMPING VALVE DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+15.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 780 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