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 .
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 and 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morimoto et al. (JP 2011202702 A).
Re claim 1, Morimoto et al. disclose a damping cartridge system (10) configured to be arranged in a leg of a vehicle front fork, the damping cartridge system comprising: an inner cartridge tube (21) configured to be coupled to a first part of the vehicle front fork leg, a piston head (23) coupled to a second part of the vehicle front fork leg configured to be moveable relative the first part of the front fork leg, the piston head configured to be moveable inside the inner cartridge tube between a first position and a second position, an outer cartridge tube (60) sized and adapted to at least partly house the inner cartridge tube, wherein the outer cartridge tube comprises a plurality of ridges (62) and grooves (63) arranged side-by-side along the axial direction of the outer cartridge tube, thereby forming a corrugated portion for distributing radial forces acting on the damping cartridge system. (Fig. 4, 5-10)
Re claim 4, Morimoto et al. disclose wherein ridge (62) of the corrugated portion varies along the axial direction of the corrugated portion. (Fig. 8)
Re claim 5, Morimoto et al. disclose wherein the corrugated portion [[(31)]] comprises a helical groove axially extending along the axial direction of the corrugated portion [[(31)]] and/or independent radial grooves arranged side-by-side along the axial direction of the corrugated portion [[(31)]].
Re claim 6, Morimoto et al. disclose wherein the wall thickness of the corrugated portion [[(31)]] is substantially even along the axial direction of the corrugated portion [[(31)]].
Re claim 8, Morimoto et al. disclose, wherein the corrugated portion is arranged such that the piston head, when in the first position, is located within the corrugated portion, and, when in the second position, is located fully outside the corrugated portion. (Fig. 8)
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baldomero et al. (US 6142497).
Re claim 1, Baldomero et al. disclose a damping cartridge system configured to be arranged in a leg of a vehicle front fork, the damping cartridge system comprising: an inner cartridge tube (24) configured to be coupled to a first part of the vehicle front fork leg, a piston head (32) coupled to a second part of the vehicle front fork leg configured to be moveable relative the first part of the front fork leg, the piston head configured to be moveable inside the inner cartridge tube between a first position and a second position, an outer cartridge tube (40) sized and adapted to at least partly house the inner cartridge tube, characterized in that wherein the outer cartridge tube comprises a plurality of ridges (42) and grooves arranged side-by-side along the axial direction of the outer cartridge tube, thereby forming a corrugated portion for distributing radial forces acting on the damping cartridge system.
Re claim 2, Baldomero et al. disclose wherein at least two grooves of the corrugated portion have groove depths which are different. (Fig. 3-4, Col. 4, lines 35-36)
Re claim 3, Baldomero et al. disclose wherein the groove depths of the corrugated portion varies along the axial direction of the corrugated portion. (Fig. 3-4, Col. 4, lines 35-36)
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. (JP 2011202702 A).
Re claim 7, Morimoto et al. do not teach wherein the wall thickness of the corrugated portion is about 0.5-2.5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a wall thickness based on desired specifications. Applicant has not disclosed that the specific range solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the wall thickness would be effective in a range of thicknesses.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. (JP 2011202702 A) or Baldomero et al. (US 6142497) in view of Takakusaki (US 2002/0027050 A1).
Re claim 11, Morimoto et al. and Baldomero et al. do not teach wherein the inner cartridge tube is made from a second material comprising aluminum, the second material preferably comprising 95-98% aluminum. Takakusaki teaches teach wherein an inner cartridge tube is made from a material comprising aluminum, the material comprising 95-98% aluminum. ([0096]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide an aluminum cartridge tube as taught by Takakusaki for reduced weight.
8. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. (JP 2011202702 A) or Baldomero et al. (US 6142497) in view of Magnus et al. (US 2019/0092116 A1).
Re claims 16 and 17, Morimoto et al. and Baldomero et al. do not teach wherein the corrugated portion is made of a first material comprising titanium or wherein the whole outer cartridge tube is made from a first material comprising titanium. Magnus et al. teaches an outer cartridge tube comprising titanium. ([0027]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use titanium material to reduced weight while maintaining strength.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, and 12-15 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Morimoto, and Baldomero do not teach the claimed geometric configuration. The language “wherein the outer cartridge tube comprises a plurality of ridges and grooves arranged side-by-side along the axial direction of the outer cartridge tube, thereby forming a corrugated portion configured for distributing radial forces acting on the damping cartridge system” requires that the cartridge tube comprises a plurality of ridges and grooves both arranged side-by-side and extend along an axial direction. It is the Examiner’s position that these limitations are met by the current claim language and Applicant’s arguments are more specific than the claim language. It appears that Applicant intends to claim that the ridges and grooves extend circumferentially along the cartridge tube and alternate along an axial direction, but the current claim language does not define this arrangement. Additionally, it is the Examiner’s position that the configuration of Morimoto, and Baldomero would be capable of the functional language “configured for distributing radial forces acting on the damping cartridge system”.
Re claims 16-17, Applicant states that the entirety of claims 9 and 10 are incorporated into new claims 16-17. However, only a portion of the claims were written in independent form. See rejection above.
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 MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 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
MTWAugust 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights