DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 02/03/26 has been entered. Claims 4, 6-7 and 9 have been cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5, 8 and 10-20 are currently pending. Despite the claim amendments all rejections are largely maintained as detailed below. 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 § 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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 is rejected because it defines “valve openings” in the second piston, but this feature was already defined in claim 12, from which this claim depends. This double inclusion is improper and confusing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Quinn in view of Parrino
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8, 10-11, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,317,172) in view of Parrino et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0097470). Quinn is directed to a multistage jounce damper bumper. See Abstract. Parrino is directed to a top mount with an integrated jounce damper. See Abstract. Note: same applicant, but 03/31/22 pub date.
Claim 1: Quinn discloses a shock absorber assembly [Fig. 3A] comprising: a cylinder housing (32) a first damper fluid (O) and a first piston (30, 34, 114’), the first piston extending out from within the cylinder [see Fig. 1A; col. 4, lines 8-28 (all embodiments of jounce bumper 100/100’ to be used on shock absorber 20)]; a top mount (140’) in cooperation with a distal end of the first piston; and a hydraulic jounce control damper (100’) adjacent to the top mount, the hydraulic jounce control damper defining a jounce chamber (inside 128’) including a second damper fluid (O’) and a second piston (120’, 124’) extending out from within the jounce chamber, the second piston including a flange (radially-outer portion of 124’) within the jounce chamber, wherein valve openings (154’) are configured to allow the second damper fluid to flow; a third piston (156’) slidably movable within the jounce chamber between the second piston and a top end (160h’) of the jounce chamber, the third piston including a body having an inner diameter (at 114’) and an outer diameter (at 128’) [see Fig. 3A], the body is vertically aligned with the flange of the second piston; and a third damper fluid (G’) between the third piston and the top end of the jounce chamber [see Fig. 3A (G’ between 156’ and 160h’)], the second damper fluid is within the jounce chamber between the second piston and the third piston [see Fig. 3A (O’ between 124’ and 156’)]; wherein in response to compression of the shock absorber assembly, the second piston is configured to contact the cylinder and slide within the jounce chamber with movement of the second piston dampened by the second damper fluid [see col. 5, line 56 – col. 6, line 24], and wherein as the second piston slides within the jounce chamber in response to compression of the shock absorber assembly, the second piston pushes the second damper fluid against the third piston and moves the third piston towards the top end of the jounce chamber, movement of the third piston is dampened by the third damper fluid [see Fig. 3A; col. 5, line 56 – col. 6, line 24]. See Figs. 1A, 3A.
Quinn discloses all the limitations of this claim except that the valve openings (154’) to allow the second damper fluid to flow are not located in the second piston flange, such that the fluid flows “therethrough.” See Fig. 3A; col. 4, lines 50-52. Parrino discloses the use of multistage jounce damper, similarly employing the use of a second piston (170) configured to contact a damper cylinder and defining a hydraulic fluid chamber (160) with a third piston (174) that defines a gas chamber (162), wherein the second piston defines valve openings (172, 175) in the flange (171) of the second piston configured to allow the second damper fluid to flow therethrough. See Figs. 4, 8; para. 0045. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the valve openings in the Quinn second piston flange with a reasonable expectation of success because this is an alternative arrangement of both hydraulic chambers (130’, 150’) being above the piston flange with valve openings (154’) in a cylinder head (128h’) therebetween. By modifying Quinn to have the Parrino second piston with valve openings in the flange (i.e., in the second piston itself), this simply shifts the location of the two hydraulic chambers, with one above the second piston and the other below the second piston, and removes the need for the cylinder head (128h’) equipped with control valves. This would also result in a more compact design, by making use of the chamber below the second piston flange, with only one chamber above the second piston being needed. Thus, the modification would be an obvious one to simplify the overall structure, reducing the number of parts, providing a more compact design, while ultimately achieving the same functionality and objective.
Claim 2: Quinn discloses that the shock absorber assembly is configured for installation in a vehicle. See Fig. 1; col. 1, line 15.
Claim 5: Quinn discloses that the jounce chamber is annular and extends around the first piston. See Fig. 3A.
Claim 8: Quinn discloses that the second damper fluid is a hydraulic fluid and the third damper fluid is a gas. See Fig. 3A; col. 5, line 56 – col. 6, line 24.
Claim 10: Quinn is relied upon as in claim 1 but does not explicitly discuss the type of gas used as the third damper fluid (i.e., the gas used in chamber 160’). Quinn discusses the use of nitrogen as the pressurized gas that loads a floating piston that defines the boundary of a hydraulic chamber in a prior art damper. See col. 1, lines 65-66; Fig. 1A. In fact, it is the only type of gas Quinn mentions. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use nitrogen as the third damper fluid because it is the sole type of pressurized gas Quinn explicitly contemplates when loading a floating piston that defines a hydraulic fluid chamber in a damper, and Quinn incorporates much of the prior art of Figure 1A to the disclosed invention. See col. 4, lines 8-28.
Claim 11: Quinn discloses that the third piston is configured to restrict flow of the second damper fluid and the third damper fluid across the third piston. See Fig. 3A; col. 5, line 56 – col. 6, line 24.
Claim 16: Quinn and Parrino are relied upon as in claim 1 above. Quinn further discloses that in a relaxed configuration of the jounce control damper, the flange of the second piston is seated on a bottom (134) of the jounce chamber; and in a compressed configuration of the jounce control damper, the flange of the second piston has slid towards the third piston to push the first damper fluid against the third piston and move the third piston towards the top end of the jounce chamber. See Fig. 3A.
Parrino further discloses the piston flange (171) defining a plurality of valves (172, 175, 376) [see para. 0045 (“plurality of check valves”), 0050 (“deflection element 376 is configured to control a rate of fluid transfer”); see Figs. 8, 9] extending therethrough and the second damper fluid flows through the plurality of valves of the flange into a third area of the jounce chamber defined between the flange of the second piston and the bottom of the jounce chamber. See Figs. 4, 8. See obviousness statement above.
Claim 17: see claim 8 above.
Claim 18: see claim 2 above.
Claim 20: Quinn discloses that each one of the jounce chamber, the second piston, and the third piston are annular-shaped and extend around the first piston. See Fig. 3A.
Quinn in view of Parrino and Miyamoto
Claim(s) 3, 12-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn in view of Parrino and Miyamoto (U.S. Patent No. 6,776,402). Miyamoto is directed to a liquid-encapsulated jounce assembly for a suspension system. See Abstract.
Claim 3: Quinn and Parrino relied upon as in claim 1 above but do not discuss the use of a “spring” around the jounce damper, the piston and cylinder. Miyamoto discloses the use of a coil spring (24) extending around the hydraulic jounce control damper (M, 16, 51, 55, 59, 60), the first piston (14), and the cylinder (13). See Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a spring in the Quinn shock absorber assembly with a reasonable expectation of success because the use of coil springs to provide additional damping in suspension systems is well-known and commonly employed in the art, typically on the exterior of the damper cylinder so as not to interfere with internal components of the assembly and to permit a larger spring for increased damping.
Claim 12: Quinn, Parrino and Miyamoto are relied upon as in claims 1 and 3 above but do not explicitly discuss the type of gas between the second piston and the top end of the jounce chamber (i.e., the gas used in chamber 160’). Quinn discusses the use of nitrogen as the pressurized gas that loads a floating piston that defines the boundary of a hydraulic chamber in a prior art damper. See col. 1, lines 65-66; Fig. 1A. In fact, it is the only type of gas Quinn mentions. Hence, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use nitrogen as the third damper fluid because it is the sole type of pressurized gas Quinn explicitly contemplates when loading a floating piston that defines a hydraulic fluid chamber in a damper, and Quinn incorporates much of the prior art of Figure 1A to the disclosed invention. See col. 4, lines 8-28.
Claim 13: see claim 2 above.
Claim 14: Quinn discloses that the second piston includes valve openings (154’) configured to allow the hydraulic fluid to flow therethrough. See Fig. 3A; see also 112 rejection.
Claim 15: Quinn discloses that each one of the jounce chamber, the second piston, and the third piston are annular-shaped and extend around the first piston. See Fig. 3A.
Claim 19: see claim 3 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the combination of Quinn and Parrino first because “there is no disclosure or suggestion in the references or the art generally to support the proposed combination.” See Remarks, page 12. Applicant also contends that the combination is “inappropriately relying on speculation, unfound assumptions [and] hindsight reconstruction.” See Remarks, page 12.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, by modifying Quinn to have the Parrino second piston with valve openings in the flange (i.e., in the second piston itself), this shifts the location of the two hydraulic chambers, with one above the second piston and the other below the second piston, and removes the need for the cylinder head (128h’) equipped with control valves. This would also result in a more compact design, by making use of the chamber below the second piston flange, with only one chamber above the second piston being needed. Thus, the modification would be an obvious one to simplify the overall structure, reducing the number of parts, providing a more compact design, while ultimately achieving the same functionality and objective.
For the foregoing reasons, all pending claims remain rejected as detailed above.
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 VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 February 19, 2026