DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE 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. Election/Restriction Applicant's argument that “The Office Action has raised a restriction requirement, asserting that claims 1-12 and 13-14 do not relate to a single general inventive concept. Applicant submits that the amendments to the claims recited herein introduce common novel and inventive subject matter, overcoming this objection” (p. 6) is persuasive. The restriction requirement mailed December 31 st , 2025 is hereby withdrawn. Status of Claims This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on February 26 th , 2026 for application no. 18/286,698 filed on October 12 th , 2023. Claims 1-13 are pending. In the present amendment, claims 1, 5, 8 and 12-13 are amended, and claim 14 is canceled. Priority Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s claim to priority of application AU 2021 901 055 filed on April 12 th , 2021. A certified copy was received on October 12 th , 2023. Examiner Note Examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various objections and/or rejections seen below in order to expediate prosecution of the instant application. Claim Objections Regarding Claim 1 (lines 7-8), please change the recitation of “further configured to lock the length of the hydraulic damper” to - - further configured to lock [[the]] a length of the hydraulic damper - - to establish antecedent basis. Regarding Claim 1 (lines 13-14), please change the recitation of “a pilot valve comprising a pilot popped” to - - [[a]] the pilot valve comprising a pilot [[popped]] poppet - - to correct minor informalities regarding antecedent basis. Regarding Claim 4 (line 3), please change the recitation of “the second fluid passage and check valve” to - - the second fluid passage and the check valve - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 2 (line 5). Regarding Claim 5 (lines 4-8), please change the recitation of “the main poppet comprises a control orifice through which fluid can pass from the main fluid chamber to a backside thereof; and the pilot valve comprising a pilot poppet is biased to prevent fluid passing from a backside of the main spool valve” to - - the main poppet comprises a control orifice through which fluid can pass from the main fluid chamber to [[a]] the backside of the main spool valve thereof; and the pilot valve comprising [[a]] the pilot poppet is biased to prevent fluid passing from [[a]] the backside of the main spool valve - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1. Regarding Claim 7 (line 2), please change the recitation of “a backside of the main spool valve” to - - [[a]] the backside of the main spool valve - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1. Regarding Claim 12 (line 17), please change the recitation of “when the fluid supply supplies pilot fluid to the damper” to - - when the fluid supply supplies the pilot fluid to the damper - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 12 (lines 13-14). Regarding Claim 12 (line 19), please change the recitation of “regulated by a pilot fluid supply” to - - regulated by [[a]] the pilot fluid supply - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 12 (lines 13-14). Regarding Claim 12 (lines 21-22), please change the recitation of “a pilot valve comprising a pilot popped” to - - [[a]] the pilot valve comprising a pilot [[popped]] poppet - - to correct minor informalities regarding antecedent basis. Regarding Claim 12 (lines 23-24), please change the recitation of “a blocking piston biased against a fluid supply” to - - a blocking piston biased against [[a]] the fluid supply - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 12 (lines 13-14). Regarding Claim 13 (line 6), please change the recitation of “a pilot valve” to - - [[a]] the pilot valve - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 13 (lines 2-3). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 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 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding Claim 5 (lines 9-12), the recitation of “wherein when pressure within the main fluid chamber exceeds the force exerted on the pilot poppet, the pilot poppet opens and fluid is released behind the main poppet through the pilot exhaust passageway, wherein the resultant pressure drop across the control orifice opens the main poppet, allowing fluid to flow from the annulus fluid chamber to the main fluid chamber” lacks proper written description. The originally specification does not disclose the operation of the hydraulic damper now recited in claim 5 (lines 9-12). See MPEP 2163(II)(A) - Read and Analyze the Specification for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See corresponding 112(b) rejection below. Claims 6-10 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim. Claims 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding Claim 1 (lines 15-16), in the recitation of “a blocking piston biased against a fluid supply” the difference between the “pilot fluid supply” recited in claim 1 (lines 10-11) and the “fluid supply” recited in claim 1 (lines 15-16) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a blocking piston biased against [[a]] the pilot fluid supply” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion. Regarding Claim 1 (lines 15-16), in the recitation of “a blocking piston biased against a fluid supply and the pilot poppet” it is generally unclear how the blocking piston (Fig. 4, 132) is biased against the pilot poppet (122). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a blocking piston biased against [[a]] the pilot fluid supply and away from the pilot poppet” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. Regarding Claim 5 (lines 9-12), in the recitation of “wherein when pressure within the main fluid chamber exceeds the force exerted on the pilot poppet, the pilot poppet opens and fluid is released behind the main poppet through the pilot exhaust passageway, wherein the resultant pressure drop across the control orifice opens the main poppet, allowing fluid to flow from the annulus fluid chamber to the main fluid chamber” it is unclear how the fluid flows from the annulus fluid chamber (Fig. 4, 26) to the main fluid chamber (24) when the main poppet (112) opens from pressure developed in the main fluid chamber (24) as Applicant discloses “The resulting pressure drop across the control orifice 116 opens the main poppet 112 and fluid is able to flow to the annulus fluid chamber 26 via the bypass exhaust ports 115” [0039]. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein when pressure within the main fluid chamber exceeds the force exerted on the pilot poppet, the pilot poppet opens and fluid is released behind the main poppet through the pilot exhaust passageway, wherein the resultant pressure drop across the control orifice opens the main poppet, allowing fluid to flow from the [[annulus]] main fluid chamber to the [[main]] annulus fluid chamber” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. Regarding Claim 8, in the recitation of “wherein the blocking piston is in fluid communication with the fluid supply, and the fluid supply is for supplying a pilot fluid to the damper, the blocking piston biased against the fluid supply and the pilot poppet by the pilot spring, such that a variation of pressure exerted on the blocking piston by the fluid supply will vary the extent of bias applied to close the pilot poppet by the pilot spring” the difference between the “pilot fluid supply” recited in claim 1 (lines 10-11) and the “fluid supply” recited in claim 8 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the blocking piston is in fluid communication with the pilot fluid supply, and the pilot fluid supply is for supplying [[a]] the pilot fluid to the damper, the blocking piston biased against the pilot fluid supply and the pilot poppet by the pilot spring, such that a variation of pressure exerted on the blocking piston by the pilot fluid supply will vary the extent of bias applied to close the pilot poppet by the pilot spring” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion. Regarding Claim 9, in the recitation of “wherein locking the length of the damper is effected when supply fluid is supplied against the blocking piston” the difference between the “pilot fluid supply” recited in claim 1 (lines 10-11) and the “supply fluid” recited in claim 9 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein locking the length of the damper is effected when the pilot fluid supply [[fluid]] is supplied against the blocking piston” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion. Regarding Claim 10, in the recitation of “wherein the fluid supply for supplying fluid to the damper” the difference between the “pilot fluid supply” recited in claim 1 (lines 10-11) and the “fluid supply” recited in claim 10 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the pilot fluid supply for supplying the pilot fluid to the damper” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion. Regarding Claim 12 (lines 14-16), in the recitation of “wherein the piston comprises a frequency sensitive damping (FSD) valve assembly which is positioned in the first end of the rod piston fluid passageway” it is generally unclear what Applicant intends to reference. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the piston comprises a frequency sensitive damping (FSD) valve assembly which is positioned in the first end of the piston rod piston fluid passageway ” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. Regarding Claim 12 (lines 23-24), in the recitation of “a blocking piston biased against a fluid supply and the pilot poppet” it is generally unclear how the blocking piston (Fig. 4, 132) is biased against the pilot poppet (122). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a blocking piston biased against [[a]] the fluid supply and away from the pilot poppet” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. Regarding Claim 13 (line 8), in the recitation of “a blocking piston biased against a fluid supply” the difference between the “pilot fluid supply” recited in claim 13 (line 4) and the “fluid supply” recited in claim 13 (line 8) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a blocking piston biased against [[a]] the pilot fluid supply” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion. Regarding Claim 13 (line 8), in the recitation of “a blocking piston biased against a fluid supply and the pilot poppet” it is generally unclear how the blocking piston (Fig. 4, 132) is biased against the pilot poppet (122). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a blocking piston biased against [[a]] the pilot fluid supply and away from the pilot poppet” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. Claims 2-11 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim. 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 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. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueno (US 4,958,553). Regarding Claim 13, Shinler teaches a frequency sensitive damping (FSD) valve assembly (Fig. 1A, “ nonleak valves” 8B (8A)) for a hydraulic damper, the FSD valve assembly (8B (8A)) comprising: a main spool valve ( “main passage switching poppet” 8b, “throttle” 811 and “spring” 8c) and a pilot valve ( “spring bearing” 8d and “spring” 8h) which regulates the functioning of the main spool valve (8b, 811, 8c), and which itself is regulated by a pilot fluid supply (via “pilot port” 22), wherein the main spool valve (8b, 811, 8c) comprises a main poppet (8b) biased (via 8c) to prevent fluid from a main fluid chamber (Fig. 1, right “cylinder ports” B) from bypassing the FSD valve assembly (8B (8A)) to an annulus fluid chamber (right “passages” 40t), a pilot valve (Fig. 1A, 8d, 8h) comprising a pilot poppet (8d) biased (via 8c and 8h) to prevent fluid passing from a backside of the main spool valve (8b, 811, 8c) to the annulus fluid chamber (right 40t) and to vary a degree of bias of the main spool valve (8b, 811, 8c), and a blocking piston ( “piston” 8f) biased (via 8c and 8h) against a fluid supply (via 22; see 112(b) rejection above) and the pilot poppet (8d, 8h; see 112(b) rejection above) so as to vary a degree of bias of the pilot poppet (8d, 8h; col. 4, line 56 – “a pilot poppet 8e for controlling pressure of a spring chamber 8k of the poppet 8b, and a piston 8f for operating the pilot poppet 8e” ). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 1 st paragraph, set forth in this Office Action. Claims 1-12 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), 2 nd paragraph, set forth in this Office Action. Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Hein (US 2,698,068), Catranis (US 2,592,656), Schultze (US 3,040,841), Ackerman (US 3,236,515), Chen (US 2007/0074939), Nakamura (US 6,332,622), Miller (US 6,837,344), Chen (US 7,325,661) and Miller (US 6,450,304) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose similar hydraulic dampers comprising valves related to various aspects of the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4074 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ernesto Suarez can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5565 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES J. TAYLOR II Primary Examiner Art Unit 3655 /JAMES J TAYLOR II/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655