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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments submitted on 05/19/2026 have been considered and entered. Claim 1 has been amended and claim 12 has been canceled. Claims 1-11, 13 and 14 are now pending in the present application.
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 1-4, 6-11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (KR 100596929 B1) in view of Baek et al. (US 2022/0373057 A1) or Gessner et al. (US 2022/0333663 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6-7, Shin discloses a self-leveling damper apparatus (figs. 1-5) comprising:
an upper holder (90) and a lower holder (92) located respectively at positions spaced from each other in a longitudinal direction of a cylinder (10) and provided between an external tube (50) and the cylinder, and
a diaphragm (71) coupled to the upper holder (90) and the lower holder (92) at first and second end portions of the diaphragm, respectively between the external tube and the cylinder, wherein an end portion of the upper holder coupling portion is coupled to the upper holder (90); and a lower holder coupling portion formed to include a diameter increasing from the second end portion of the rectilinear portion in a second direction opposite the first direction, with an end portion of the lower holder coupling portion being coupled to the lower holder (92).
Shin discloses all of the limitations as set forth above including the diaphragm but fails to disclose a plurality of ribs are formed on an internal circumferential surface of the diaphragm by protruding inward from the internal circumferential surface of the diaphragm as recited in the claim. However, each of Baek et al. and Gessner et al. disclose diaphragm with ribs (note 13 in fig. 2 of Baek et al. and 21 in fig. 2 of Gessner et al.). 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 diaphragm of Shin with ribs will add strength and stiffness to the overall diaphragm in order to prolong the life of the diaphragm.
PNG
media_image1.png
800
1007
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shin discloses all of the limitations as set forth above including the relief valve hole flow path (90a) but fails to disclose a step portion is formed on a lower surface of the upper holder as recited in the claim. However, Baek et al. disclose a holder (120 in fig. 5) including a plurality of flow paths (121b) deposed in a plurality of step portions (126) formed on a lower surface of the holder, wherein a diaphragm (130) is attached to the lower end of the holder. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application was made to modify the holder of Shin to include grooves/step portions as taught by Baek et al. in order to have continuous fluid flow through the flow path and thus providing a reliable damping effect.
Re-claim 8, Shin discloses a length of the upper holder coupling portion is longer than a straight length between internal and external diameters of a lower surface of the upper holder, so even when the diaphragm is transformed due to oil pressure, the upper holder coupling portion is prevented from contacting with the lower surface of the upper holder (note the figure shown above).
Re-claim 9, Shin discloses the length of the upper holder coupling portion is at least twice as long as the straight length between the internal and external diameters of the lower surface of the upper holder (note the figure shown above).
Re-claim 10, Shin discloses a length of the lower holder coupling portion is longer than a straight length between internal and external diameters of an upper surface of the lower holder, so even when the diaphragm is transformed due to oil pressure, the lower holder coupling portion is prevented from contacting with the upper surface of the lower holder (note the figure shown above).
Re-claim 11, Shin discloses the length of the lower holder coupling portion is at least twice as long as the straight length between the internal and external diameters of the upper surface of the lower holder (note the figure shown above).
Re-claim 13, Shin discloses the step portion is formed as a groove (90a-2) concavely recessed toward an upper side of the upper holder by starting from an outermost point of the relief valve hole flow path on the lower surface of the upper holder.
Re-claim 14, Shin discloses a plurality of lower holder flow paths (92a) are formed on an internal surface of the lower holder, and wherein an upper edge portion of each of the lower holder flow paths is formed as a round surface, so that even when the diaphragm is transformed due to oil pressure applied thereto and contacts with the round surface, damage to the diaphragm is prevented due to the round surface.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (KR 100596929 B1) in view of Baek et al. (US 2022/0373057 A1) or Gessner et al. (US 2022/0333663 A1), even further in view of Tamura (JP 2005016633 A).
Regarding claim 5, Shin discloses the elastic diaphragm member but fails to disclose the diaphragm formed to be rubber as recited in the claim. However, Tamura discloses damper device comprising a rubber diaphragm (7). 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 form the diaphragm of Shin to be formed of rubber as taught by Tamura since rubber is cheap, flexible, and durable and thus making the device more efficient.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11, 13 and 14 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.
The examiner notes that as set forth above, Shin discloses all of the limitations including the relief valve hole flow path (90a) but fails to disclose a step portion is formed on a lower surface of the upper holder as recited in the claim. However, Baek et al. disclose a holder (120 in fig. 5) including a plurality of flow paths (121b) deposed in a plurality of step portions (126) formed on a lower surface of the holder, wherein a diaphragm (130) is attached to the lower end of the holder. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application was made to modify the holder of Shin to include grooves/step portions as taught by Baek et al. in order to have continuous fluid flow through the flow path and thus providing a reliable damping effect.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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