DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 4 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 4 recites the limitation "the intake orifice" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP-515992 B2.
Regarding claim 1, JP’992 discloses a damper (10), comprising:
an inner tube (13A, 13B) having a longitudinal axis;
a piston (25) slidably disposed in the inner tube;
an outer tube (12) surrounding the inner tube, the inner tube and outer tube defining a fluid chamber therebetween;
a first valve assembly (50, 51, 62 in fig. 3) including a first valve ring (50) and a first valve disc (62) fixed to the first valve ring, the first valve ring including a first passageway (50B), the first valve disc covering the first passageway to restrict flow through the first passageway in a first direction and allow flow in an opposite second direction, and
a second valve assembly (52, 60, 61) including a second valve ring (60) and a second valve disc (52) fixed to the second valve ring, the second valve ring including a second passageway (60B), the second valve disc covering the second passageway to restrict flow through the second passageway in the second direction and allow flow in the first direction, wherein the first valve assembly is axially spaced apart from the second valve assembly.
Re-claim 2, JP’992 discloses a spacer (45) positioned axially between the first valve assembly and the second valve assembly.
Re-claim 4, JP’992 discloses an intake orifice (48B) is in uninterrupted fluid communication with the first passageway (50B) and the second passageway (60B).
Re-claim 5, JP’992 discloses the first valve assembly (50, 51, 62) is identical to the second valve assembly (52, 60, 61).
Re-claim 6, JP’992 discloses the first valve assembly (50, 51, 62) is oriented in a reverse direction relative to the second valve assembly (52, 60, 61).
Regarding claim 16, JP’992 discloses a method of assembling a damper (10), comprising:
coupling a first valve disc (62) to a first valve ring (50) to define a first valve assembly (50, 51, 62);
coupling a second valve disc (52) to a second valve ring (60) to define a second valve assembly (52, 60, 61);
sliding the second valve assembly onto an inner tube (13A, 13B) of the damper assembly after the coupling steps;
sliding the first valve assembly onto the inner tube of the damper assembly after the coupling steps; and
positioning the inner tube (13B) with the first valve assembly and the second valve assembly positioned thereon within an outer tube (12) of the damper assembly.
Re-claim 17, JP’992 discloses installing a spacer (45) onto the inner tube after sliding the second valve assembly and before sliding the first valve assembly.
Re-claim 18, JP’992 discloses sliding the second valve assembly (52, 60, 61) onto the inner tube includes sealingly engaging the second valve assembly with the inner tube and the outer tube.
Re-claim 19, JP’992 discloses positioning a third valve disc (51) in engagement with the first valve ring (50) and positioning the first valve disc in engagement with the third valve disc prior to coupling the first valve disc to the first valve ring.
Re-claim 20, JP’992 discloses abutting the second valve assembly (52, 60, 61) against an annular land formed on the inner tube (13B).
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over JP-515992 B2 in view of Ross (CN 105358862 B).
Regarding claims 7-8, JP’992 discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including a plurality of fasteners (69) but fails to disclose the first passageways (55) are rotationally offset from each of the fasteners as recited in the claims. However, Ross discloses a valve assembly comprising a plurality of fasteners (note the fasteners attached to member 21 as shown in fig. 5B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to modify the valve assembly of JP’992 to provide a plurality of fasteners as taught by Ross will provide stronger and balanced support of the valve assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 are allowed.
Claim 3 is 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 with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on some reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-7218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 10pm EST.
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 5712727124. 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.
/MAHBUBUR RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights