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 § 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 1-5, 7-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yamada (US-20150034437).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada discloses a retainer (1) for a shock absorber comprising: a central hole (central hole housing 6, fig 1) formed in a central portion (figs 1 and 2a); a protrusion portion (portion of 1 axially adjacent to 6 in fig 1) protruding in a longitudinal direction along an outer periphery of the central hole (portion of 1 axially adjacent to 6 in fig 1 and protruding at least away from openings 11/12); at least one through hole (at least 10 or 3b) formed outside a radius of the protrusion portion (figs 1 and 2); and a seat portion (13) protruding in the longitudinal direction outside a radius of the through hole (figs 1 and 2a) to seat a disc (at least 4b), wherein at least two points on the seat portion are spaced apart from each other by different distances from a central axis vertically penetrating the central hole (at least wherein the valve seat is pedal-shaped [0037]), the seat portion forms a rotationally symmetrical shape with respect to the central axis (fig 2a, at least about axis of 4b and 6), and the seat portion forms an outer periphery of the retainer (figs 1 and 2a) wherein all areas of the seat portion are placed inside the radius of the outer edge of the disc (fig 1, at least wherein 4b is radially larger than 13).
Regarding claim 2, Yamada discloses wherein the seat portion (13) includes a first diameter portion having at least one circular arc protruding at a position spaced apart by a first radius from the central axis (fig 2a, inner portion of 13 adjacent 10), and a second diameter portion having at least one circular arc protruding at a position spaced apart by a second radius from the central axis (fig 2a, outer pedal portion of 13).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada discloses wherein the seat portion (13) further includes a connecting portion that connects the first diameter portion and the second diameter portion to form a closed curve and has a shape without any angular corners in all sections (fig 2a, pedal shaped seat 13).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada discloses wherein each through hole (10 and/or 3b) is formed at a position away from the central axis by a third radius, and the third radius is larger than the first radius and smaller than the second radius (at least wherein 10 and 3b are between the inner and outer portions of 13).
Regarding claim 5, Yamada discloses wherein a plurality of through holes (10 and/or 3b) are formed, and the plurality of through holes are equiangularly arranged (fig 2a).
Regarding claim 7, Yamada discloses wherein an area of each through hole is equal to or larger than a predetermined size (figs 1-2). As broadly recited, it has been interpreted that any hole can be equal to or larger than a predetermined size.
Regarding claim 8, Yamada discloses wherein the protrusion portion and the seat portion protrude by the same height in the longitudinal direction (fig 1 wherein 13 and the portion adjacent 6 have been interpreted to be the same height under valve disks 4).
Regarding claim 9, and under a separate and alternate interpretation of Yamada, Yamada discloses a retainer (1) for a shock absorber comprising: a central hole (central hole housing 6, fig 1) formed in a central portion (figs 1 and 2a); a protrusion portion (portion of 1 axially adjacent to 6 in fig 1) protruding in a longitudinal direction along an outer periphery of the central hole (portion of 1 axially adjacent to 6 in fig 1 and protruding at least away from openings 11/12); at least one through hole (at least 10 or 3b) formed outside a radius of the protrusion portion (figs 1 and 2); and a seat portion (13) protruding in the longitudinal direction outside a radius of the through hole (figs 1 and 2a) to seat a disc (at least 4b), wherein at least two points on the seat portion are spaced apart from each other by different distances from a central axis vertically penetrating the central hole (at least wherein the valve seat is pedal-shaped [0037]), the seat portion forms a rotationally asymmetrical shape (fig 2a at least when taken at an axis non-parallel with X and offset from the axis of rod 6) with respect to the central axis (fig 2a), and the seat portion forms an outer periphery of the retainer (figs 1 and 2a).
Regarding claim 10, Yamada discloses wherein the seat portion (13) includes a first diameter portion having at least one circular arc protruding at a position spaced apart by a first radius from the central axis (fig 2a, inner portion of 13 adjacent 10), and a second diameter portion having at least one circular arc protruding at a position spaced apart by a second radius from the central axis (fig 2a, outer pedal portion of 13).
Regarding claim 11, Yamada discloses wherein the seat portion (13) further includes a connecting portion that connects the first diameter portion and the second diameter portion to form a closed curve and has a shape without any angular corners in all sections (fig 2a, pedal shaped seat 13).
Regarding claim 12, Yamada discloses wherein each through hole (10 and/or 3b) is formed at a position away from the central axis by a third radius, and the third radius is larger than the first radius and smaller than the second radius (at least wherein 10 and 3b are between the inner and outer portions of 13).
Regarding claim 14, Yamada discloses wherein an area of each through hole is equal to or larger than a predetermined size (figs 1-2). As broadly recited, it has been interpreted that any hole can be equal to or larger than a predetermined size.
Regarding claim 15, Yamada discloses wherein the protrusion portion and the seat portion protrude by the same height in the longitudinal direction (fig 1 wherein 13 and the portion adjacent 6 have been interpreted to be the same height under valve disks 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 13 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 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art of record lacks wherein the seat portion forms a rotationally symmetrical shape with respect to the central axis, and (1) the seat portion forms an outer periphery of the retainer, AND (2) wherein all areas of the seat portion are placed inside the radius of the outer edge of the disc”, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regards to argument (1) Seat portion and outer periphery, Examiner has interpreted Yamada to disclose in at least fig 2a and [0037] wherein 13 is a petal shaped valve seat, upon which leaf valves 4b are seated, and extends around the periphery at the top of the piston 1. Applicant argues that because tubular skirt portion 1d is radially larger than 13, 13 cannot be interpreted as an outer periphery, Examiner respectfully disagrees. While 1d is an outer periphery of the midsection of piston 1, 13 has been interpreted to also be an outer periphery at the top portion of the piston 1. The outer periphery as claimed is not required to be radially uniform with relation to itself. The only radial requirement with regards to the retainer is in relation to the outer edge of the disc. It is also noted that under a first interpretation, pedal shaped valve seat 13 has been interpreted to be symmetrical about the axis of at least valves 4b and piston rod 6.
With regards to argument (2) Seat Portion Placed Inside the Radius of the Outer Edge of the Disc, Applicant argues that “the valve seat (13) does not have a structure that is completely covered by the leaf valves (4b)”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that claim 1 requires that “all areas of the seat portion are placed inside the radius of the outer edge of the disc”. Claim 1 does not require wherein “a valve seat having a structure that is completely covered by the leaf valves or disk”. In at least figure 1, the valve seat 13 has been interpreted to be radially inside of the outer edge valve disc 4b.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant argues that the prior art of record lacks wherein (1) “the seat portion forms a rotationally asymmetrical shape with respect to the central axis” Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the rejection of claim 9 has relied on a separate and alternate interpretation of Yamada unrelated to the interpretation regarding claim 1.
With regards to argument (1), claim 9 defines “wherein at least two points on the seat portion are spaced apart from each other by different distances from a central axis vertically penetrating the central hole”, in other words the central axis has been defined at a location with regards to two points on the seat portion at different distances from said axis. Claim 9 does not appear to require wherein the central axis be the axis of the piston, the valve, or even the through hole. Therefore, there is an interpretation of Yamada wherein the center axis can be at the outer periphery of rod 6 and not at the axis of rod 6 and still be considered central with relation to two points on the seat portion at different distances from said axis. For example, in at least figure 2a if the central axis has been interpreted as at or near the edge of center hole, at least two points on 13, one at an outer edge of 3b, and one at an inner edge near 10, have been interpreted to be at different distances.
With regards to argument (2), Office Position Logically Inconsistent, Applicant argues that the Office’s position with regards to claims 1 and 9 are inconsistent, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the rejection of independent claim 9 has relied on a separate and alternate interpretation of Yamada, unrelated to the interpretation regarding independent claim 1. The rejections of independent claims 1 and 9 are not related and therefore the argument is considered a moot point.
In general, the arguments appear to be more specific than the limitations set by the claims.
Conclusion
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 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.
/J.K.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616