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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on February 27, 2026 has been accepted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 remain pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Frenne (US 6,213,263, cited by applicant) in view of Davis (US 5,152,547, cited by applicant).
De Frenne teaches a suspension damper and spring device intended to be used on automotive vehicles (col. 1, lines 4-6) including a strut (1) comprising a cylinder (15) with a piston (13) configured to reciprocate in the cylinder, a vessel (3) coupled to the strut (via 2), the vessel containing an interior chamber (inside portion of 3), a valve (one or more of 35, 36) dividing the interior into a first liquid volume (e.g., 4) and a second liquid volume (e.g., 321) a floating-piston type hydraulic accumulator comprising a volume (5) filled with pressurized gas (col. 2, lines 8-9), the pressurized gas in the volume (5) being placed functionally in series with the liquid in the cylinder and chambers, and forming a spring element having a spring characteristic associated with the pressure, volume and type of gas provided therein, the valve being configured to move between closed and open positions as well as “partially closed” (or “partially open”) conditions where the valve is between the fully closed and fully open condition, for example when transitioning between the fully open and fully closed conditions; the arrangement including a fill valve (6) connected to the pressurized gas volume of the accumulator.
The reference to De Frenne is not specific as regards the liquid in the respective liquid volumes being a compressible liquid. Davis teaches that it is well known in the making a suspension devices for vehicles (strut 12, in general, piston 44, cylinder chamber 32), to provide the liquid contained in the system as a compressible liquid, such as silicone oil (col 1, line 33-44), the use of which provides a varying spring characteristic which is non-linear, and improves the efficiency of the suspension operation such that it may readily absorb the disturbances associated with traversing larger bumps without requiring a greater piston stroke length. It 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 to provide the liquid in the respective chambers taught by De Frenne as being a compressible liquid as taught by Davis, resulting a spring function associated with the liquid in the cylinder and chambers in addition to the spring function initially provided by the compressed gas, for the purpose of providing further spring characteristics to the damper beyond the pneumatic spring portion in the accumulator portion, resultantly delivering a non-linear spring characteristic (as taught expressly by Davis) and providing an improvement of efficiency of the suspension system’s operation such that it may readily absorb the disturbances associated with traversing larger bumps without requiring a greater piston stroke length.
As regards claim 4, the reference to De Frenne as modified, while teaching a piston-type accumulator, does not teach a bladder-type accumulator. It is well understood that a bladder accumulator may be substituted for a piston accumulator and it 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 to provide the accumulator initially taught by De Frenne as modified by Davis as a bladder accumulator as a routine replacement for the purpose of one of more of: increasing the flexibility on locating the accumulator, reducing the need to use seals necessary for a moving piston and/or reducing the amount of maintenance which is needed with a piston-type accumulator.
As regards claim 9 and 10, the reference to De Frenne initially is unspecific as to the pressurized gas used in the accumulator spring portion is nitrogen. To the extent that atmospheric air constitutes a large percentage of its makeup as being nitrogen, in the instance of the gas-spring side of the accumulator having been charged with atmospheric air (e.g., via compressor), the nitrogen would be understood to constitute a large proportion of the compressed gas. Further, it is well understood that Nitrogen is an inert gas, and will not react to external conditions such as heat, and will not react readily with other chemicals, as such, it 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 to provide the pressurized gas in the spring portion of the accumulator as being nitrogen so as to reduce the influence of environmental conditions on the spring characteristics, and to reduce the potential of interactions with other chemicals or materials when in use.
As regards claim 13, the reference to De Frenne as modified by Davis is discussed above, and while teaching the suspension component as being for a vehicle, does not expressly teach the vehicle. It 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 to provide the suspension component arrangement taught by De Frenne as modified by Davis as being on a vehicle for the well understood purpose of deploying the suspension component in its expected use environment.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Frenne in view of Davis and Nesbitt et al. (US 2006/0027954, cited by applicant).
The references to De Frenne and Davis are discussed above, but do not expressly teach that the accumulator is remote from both the strut and the vessel. Nesbitt et al. teach that a known configuration of suspension device which include a strut (200) having a piston and cylinder, and a vessel (300) that provides at least first and second volumes (402, 408, 410), wherein valving (304) provides selective communication between the volumes, that the accumulator portion (212, 216) located remotely from the vessel and strut assembly. It 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 to provide the accumulator in a location remote from the vessel and strut as taught by De Frenne as modified by Davis (e.g., by connecting the vessel and strut together and locating the accumulator separately, the modification constituting a relocation of already taught parts according to the suggestion of Nesbitt et al. (which teaches the accumulator be located separately from the strut and vessel portions), for the purpose of configuring the component to a vehicle layout where there is sufficient length and volume to accommodate the vessel and strut in-line, but the accumulator must be located elsewhere due to the length requirement.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bachrach et al. teaches the use of higher pressure in a suspension, the pump pressurizes lines to the absorbers to 2500 psi; Julia teach a known suspension arrangement with an operating pressure up to as much as 4300 psi (30 Mpa); Coombs et al. teach that it is well known in a known "prior art" suspension system to use either a compressible fluid. See at least ¶0013: "The compressible fluid 12 of the preferred embodiment, which cooperates to supply the suspending spring force, is preferably a silicon fluid that compresses about 1.5% volume at 2,000 psi, about 3% volume at 5,000 psi, and about 6% volume at 10,000 psi. Above 2,000 psi, the compressible fluid has a larger compressibility than conventional hydraulic oil. The compressible fluid, however, may alternatively be any suitable fluid, with or without a silicon component, that provides a larger compressibility above 2,000 psi than conventional hydraulic oil."; Delorenzis et al. teach the use of higher pressure as being quite well known (2000-3000 psi). Furrer et al. teaches that a strut is a type of damper: "This desirable result is achieved with a simple, low cost, rugged design that is readily adapted to a wide range of dampers including struts and air assists, and which can be used with a wide variety of vehicles."
Response to Arguments
In the RCE filed on February 27, 2026, the applicant indicated that the required submission was to consider the arguments in the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief filed on 4/11/2025, and that if a final Office Action was outstanding, any amendments filed after the final Office Action may were to be considered. The Office notes that there was no outstanding final Office Action, so there are no amendments to be considered. Regarding considering the Arguments in the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief, it is noted that the res judicata effect of a Board decision means that a patent owner or applicant may be precluded from seeking a claim that is not patentably distinct from a claim that was previously rejected if the rejection was affirmed on appeal and the decision on appeal became final. See MPEP 2190 (II). In addition to the res judicata effect of a Board decision in an application, a Board decision in an application is the "law of the case," and is thus controlling in that application and any subsequent, related application. See MPEP 706.07(h)(XI)(A). As such, a submission containing arguments without either amendment of the rejected claims or the submission of a showing of facts will not be effective to remove any rejection affirmed in such decision.
Accordingly, as claims 1 – 13 were previously rejected, the rejection was affirmed upon appeal, and the decision on appeal became final, and as the submission did not include either amendments of the rejected claims or the submission of a showing of facts not before the Board, this can result only in a final rejection of the claims, since the Office is without authority to allow the claims unless amended or unless the rejection is overcome by a showing of facts not before the Board.
Thus, 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 JASON D SHANSKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5985. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
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.
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.
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614