DETAILED ACTION
The Request for Reconsideration filed 04/28/26 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are still pending. Despite Applicant’s arguments the 103 rejections are 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 § 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.
Ammon in view of Marking
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ammon (GB 2328999) in view of Marking et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,296,092). Ammon is directed to a gas pressure shock absorber. See Abstract. Marking is directed to a position-sensitive shock absorber. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Ammon discloses a damper (1) for a bicycle suspension component [see page 1, line 1 (“vehicles”); note: intended use], the damper comprising: a damper body (2) defining a chamber (5, 6); a shaft (3) extending into the damper body; and a damper member (4) disposed in the chamber and coupled to the shaft, the damper member dividing the chamber into a first chamber (5) and a second chamber (6), the damper member including: a piston (4) including a disc (17, 18) and a wall (radial periphery of 4) extending from the disc, wherein a portion of an outer surface of the wall is sealed with an inner surface of the damper body [see Fig. 1 (via 24)], the piston having a radial opening (at 25, 26) extending through the wall; and a valve (25, 26) disposed at the radial opening, such that during at least a portion of travel of the damper member during a compression stroke, the valve enables fluid flow through the radial opening from the first chamber to the second chamber.
Ammon discloses all the limitations of this claim except that it uses a valve disposed in the radial opening as compared to “a radial flow shim disposed on an outer surface of the wall,” and it does not enable flow by being “flexed away from the outer surface of the wall.” Marking discloses a shock absorber [Fig. 4] with radial flow shim (40, 42) [see Fig. 5; col. 5, lines 1-22 (“individual flaps of material”)] disposed on an outer surface of a wall (4) over the radial opening (28, 30), wherein the radial flow shim is flexible such that during at least a portion of travel of the damper member during a compression stroke, a portion of the radial flow shim is flexed away from the outer surface of the wall to enable fluid flow through the radial opening between chambers. See Figs. 4, 5. 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 flexible “flaps” of Marking in place of the valves in Ammon because they ultimately achieve the same function as one-way check valves, but the “flaps” may have certain design advantages, such as being easier to substitute or replace given their location outside the wall rather than within the wall.
Claim 2: Ammon discloses that the radial opening extends through the wall but the outer surface wall is not “a flattened surface.” While the Amon outer surface wall is annular, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention for it be modified to a flattened surface if the Marking “individual flap” is used. A flat “flap” on a flattened wall surface (much like the flat shims 17,18 on the flat top/bottom of piston 4) would provide the simplest and best damping and sealing effects in the Ammon piston.
Claim 3: 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 “threaded fastener” to attach the Marking “flap” because this is a well-known, cheap and simple attachment means that makes installation and removal quick and easy.
Claim 4: It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention for the Marking “flap” to be rectangular because Marking already discusses various shapes for providing flow restriction for the radial openings, and a rectangle is an intuitive choice for a circular hole – a rectangle is just large enough to cover the opening and also permit attachment to the wall. See col. 5, lines 1-22.
Claim 5: Marking discloses that the radial flow shim is constructed of sheet metal. See col. 5, line 1.
Claim 6: Ammon discloses that the piston has a recess extending into the flattened surface at a location of the radial opening. See Fig. 1.
Claim 7: Ammon discloses that piston has a bore extending into the surface containing the radial opening. Upon combining with Marking, it discloses that the radial flow shim has a notch aligned with the bore. See Fig. 1.
Claim 8: Ammon discloses that the radial opening is a first radial opening (at 25) and the radial flow shim is a first radial flow shim, the piston having a second radial opening (at 26) extending through the wall, the damper member including a second radial flow shim disposed on the outer surface of the wall of the piston and over the second radial opening. See Fig. 1.
Claim 9: Marking discloses that the first and second radial openings are aligned along an axis that is perpendicular to an axis of movement of the damper member. See Fig. 5.
Claim 11: Ammon discloses that the chamber has a first section (at 12) with a first cross-sectional area and a second section (at 19) with a second cross-sectional area greater than the first cross-sectional area. See Fig. 1.
Claim 12: Ammon discloses that the disc defines a compression channel (15), and wherein the damper member includes a compression shim stack (17) covering the compression channel. See Fig. 1.
Claim 13: Ammon discloses that a cracking pressure of the radial flow shim is less than the compression shim stack. See Fig. 1 (check valve versus shim stack); see page 3 (“reduced flow resistance”).
Claim 14: see claim 1 above. Marking further discloses that the radial flow shim (i.e., the “flap”) is oriented perpendicular to a radial line extending from an axis of movement of the damper member. See Fig. 5. See obviousness statement above.
Claim 15: It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention for the Marking “flap” to have one end attached to the wall and the other flexible to enable fluid flow since this is the simplest and most intuitive means to attach a flap to a wall.
Claim 16: see claim 3 above.
Claim 17: see claim 5 above.
Claim 18: Ammon discloses that the outer surface of the piston has a recess defined between two ribs (top and bottom of 4), and wherein the radial flow shim is disposed in the recess. See Fig. 1.
Claim 19: Ammon discloses that its valve is spaced from the ribs. See Fig. 1.
Claim 20: see claim 2 above.
Ammon in view of Marking and Foster
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ammon in view of Marking and Foster (U.S. Patent No. 4,588,053). Foster is directed to a multiple rate shock isolator damping valve. See Abstract.
Claim 10: Ammon and Marking are relied upon as in claim 1 but do not disclose a piston with two piston seals. Foster discloses a piston (10) that includes a first seal (19) around the piston; and a second seal (23) around the piston, the radial opening (34) axially spaced between the first and second seals. See Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include two piston seals in the Ammon shock absorber because the Ammon piston (4) has a top and bottom portion that extends radially outwards to the inner cylindrical wall, which would be appropriate locations for piston seals. Additional piston seals would further achieve the objective of preventing leakage between the first and second chambers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the 103 combination because modifying the base reference Ammon to include a feature of the teaching reference Marking would allegedly “render Ammon inoperable for its intended purpose.” See Remarks, page 7. Specifically, Applicant points to the axial movement of Ammon piston ring 24 and how this would be impeded by the “bands 40, 42” of Marking. This is incorrect for two reasons. First, as stated in the claim 1 rejection, the “axial flaps” of Marking are used to meet the “radial flow shim” limitation, not the thicker bands Applicant refers to in the argument. See col. 5, lines 1-22 (instead of bands, “individual flaps of material” can be used). This flat member would permit the axial movement of the Ammon piston ring. Second, Marking also shows how the radially outer surface of wall 4 containing the bands 40, 42 are designed to be receded, to make space for the bands. See Fig. 5. Including the “flaps” in this receded location would permit for an entirely unimpeded translation of the piston ring 24. These modifications would be obvious to one skilled in the art. The feature of a radial flap ultimately achieves the same functionality but has the important design advantage of being in a more accessible location, permitting ease in replacement if different damping properties are desired.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection is maintained 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 May 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights