DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits for application no. 18/379,623 filed on October 12th, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s claim to priority of application KR10-2023-0077840 filed on June 19th, 2023. A certified copy was received on November 5th, 2023.
Drawings
Figures 1-4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled "Replacement Sheet" in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the use of legal phraseology. Please remove “Disclosed” from the abstract. Correction is required. See MPEP 608.01.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 6 (line 5), please change the recitation of “and a connection passage formed outside the fitting hole” to - - and [[a]] the connection passage formed outside the fitting hole - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1 (lines 2-3).
Regarding Claim 8 (line 2), please end claim 8 with a period instead of a comma.
Regarding Claim 12 (lines 2-3), please change the recitation of “contacts an inner circumferential surface of the valve housing” to - - contacts [[an]] the inner circumferential surface of the valve housing - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1 (lines 6-7).
Regarding Claim 16 (line 2), please change the recitation of “coupled to a bottom surface of the integrated soft valve port” to - - coupled to [[a]] the bottom surface of the integrated soft valve port - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 15 (line 3).
Regarding Claim 16 (lines 2-3), please change the recitation of “while the connection passage is in a normally closed state” to - - while the connection passages are in a normally closed state - - as this feature is previously referred to in claim 15 (lines 4-5).
Regarding Claim 17 (line 1), please change the recitation of “A damping force variable valve assembly of claim 15” to - - [[A]] The damping force variable valve assembly of claim 15 - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 15 (line 1).
Regarding Claim 17 (line 3), please change the recitation of “a fitting hole” to - - [[a]] the fitting hole - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 15 (line 4).
Regarding Claim 17 (line 3), please change the recitation of “a valve mount” to - - [[a]] the valve mount - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 15 (line 4).
Regarding Claim 17 (line 5), please change the recitation of “having a connection passage” to - - having [[a]] the connection passages- - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 15 (lines 4-5).
Regarding Claim 20 (line 7), please change the recitation of “integrated soft valve port to be in close contact therewith” to - - integrated soft valve port to be in close contact therewith; - - to correct a minor informality.
Regarding Claim 20 (line 16), please change the recitation of “and a connection passage” to - - and [[a]] the connection passage - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 20 (line 5).
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.
Claims 6-14 and 17-20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 6 (last clause), in the recitation of “a sub body…having a protrusion formed in a bottom surface of the sub body so as to come into contact with an upper surface of the valve disk” the difference between the “bottom surface of the integrated soft valve port” recited in claim 1 (line 4) and the “bottom surface of the sub body” recited in claim 6 (lines 7-8) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a sub body…having a protrusion formed in the bottom surface of the integrated soft valve port so as to come into contact with an upper surface of the valve disk” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 8, in the recitation of “wherein a bottom surface of the main body and a bottom surface of the first sub body are located on a same plane” the difference between the “bottom surface of the integrated soft valve port” recited in claim 1 (line 4), the “bottom surface of the main body” recited in claim 8 and the “bottom surface of the first sub body” recited in claim 8 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could cancel claim 8 to clarify the recitation. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 9 (line 3), in the recitation of “and a bottom surface of the main body and the first sub body” the difference between the “bottom surface of the integrated soft valve port” recited in claim 1 (line 4), the “bottom surface of the main body” recited in claim 9 and the “bottom surface of…the first sub body” is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “and the bottom surface of the integrated soft valve port” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 10 (lines 1-2), in the recitation of “wherein a support part is formed in an outer circumferential surface of the second sub body” the difference between the “outer circumferential surface of the integrated soft valve port” recited in claim 1 (line 7) and the “outer circumferential surface of the second sub body” recited in claim 10 (line 2) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein a support part is formed in the outer circumferential surface of the integrated soft valve port” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 12 (lines 1-2), in the recitation of “wherein an outer circumferential surface of the support part” the difference between the “outer circumferential surface of the integrated soft valve port” recited in claim 1 (line 7) and the “outer circumferential surface of the support part” recited in claim 12 (line 2) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the outer circumferential surface of the integrated soft valve port” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 17 (last clause), in the recitation of “a sub body having…a protrusion formed in a bottom surface of the sub body” the difference between the “bottom surface of the integrated soft valve port” recited in claim 15 (line 3) and the “bottom surface of the sub body” recited in claim 17 (last clause) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a sub body having…a protrusion formed in the bottom surface of the integrated soft valve port” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 19 (lines 2-3), in the recitation of “wherein a bottom surface of the main body and a bottom surface of the first sub body are located on a same plane” the difference between the “bottom surface of the integrated soft valve port” recited in claim 15 (line 3), the “bottom surface of the main body” recited in claim 19 and the “bottom surface of the first sub body” recited in claim 19 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could remove the recitation to clarify the recitation. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 19 (lines 4-5), in the recitation of “and a bottom surface of the main body and the first sub body” the difference between the “bottom surface of the integrated soft valve port” recited in claim 15 (line 3), the “a bottom surface of the main body” recited in claim 19 and the “a bottom surface of the…first sub body” recited in claim 19 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “and the bottom surface of the integrated soft valve port” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 20 (last clause), in the recitation of “a sub body having…a protrusion formed in a bottom surface of the sub body” the difference between the “bottom surface of the integrated soft valve port” recited in claim 20 (lines 6-7) and the “bottom surface of the sub body” recited in claim 20 (last clause) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a sub body having…a protrusion formed in the bottom surface of the integrated soft valve port” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Claims 7-14 and 18-19 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base 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 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 1-2, 5-10, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forster (US 6,035,979).
Regarding Claim 1, Forster teaches a damping force variable valve assembly (Fig. 2, “shutoff valve device” 27) comprising:
an integrated soft valve port (“admission valve” 55) having one end connected to a shock absorber (“shock absorber” seen in Fig. 1), a connection passage (Fig. 2, “admission cross section” 57) with a working fluid flowing therethrough from the shock absorber (see Figs. 1-2), and
a valve disk (“at least one valve disc” 59) provided at a bottom surface (“valve seat surface” 63) of the integrated soft valve port (55) to be in close contact therewith (see Fig. 2);
a valve housing (“main stage valve housing” 39) having a hollow cylindrical shape (see Fig. 2), and having an inner circumferential surface of a front end coupled to an outer circumferential surface of the integrated soft valve port (55; see Fig. 2); and
a main valve part (“main stage valve” 37) disposed underneath the integrated soft valve port (55) in the valve housing (39).
Regarding Claim 2, Forster teaches the damping force variable valve assembly of claim 1,
wherein a fitting hole (hole for receiving “rivet” 61) is formed at a center of the integrated soft valve port (55) to pass therethrough, and a valve mount (61) for fixing the valve disk (59) is fitted into the fitting hole (col. 6, line 43 – “at least one valve disc 59 can be held on the admission valve 55 by a rivet 61. The webs 55a form an opening 55b (see FIG. 2A) for this purpose. The webs 55a preferably have no connection in the peripheral direction in the vicinity of the opening 55b. In practical terms, the end surfaces of the webs 55a center the rivet 61”).
Regarding Claim 5, Forster teaches the damping force variable valve assembly of claim 1,
wherein the connection passage (Fig. 2, 57) is formed in plural (col. 6, line 30 – “A plurality of admission cross sections 57 can be used”).
Regarding Claim 6, Forster teaches the damping force variable valve assembly of claim 1,
wherein the integrated soft valve port (Fig. 2, 55) comprises:
a main body (“webs” 55a) formed in a disk shape of a predetermined thickness, having a fitting hole (hole for receiving 61) formed at a center of the main body (55a) to pass therethrough and allowing a valve mount (61) for fixing the valve disk (59) to be fitted therein (see Fig. 2), and
a connection passage (57) formed outside the fitting hole (hole for receiving 61);
and a sub body (Examiner Fig. 1, SB1 and SB2) having a predetermined thickness, extending horizontally along a circumference of a lower end of the main body (55a), and having a protrusion (protruding portion of 63) formed in a bottom surface of the sub body (SB1, SB2) so as to come into contact with an upper surface of the valve disk (59; see Fig. 2; see 112(b) rejection above).
PNG
media_image1.png
439
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Fig. 1 – Fig. 2 of Forster
Regarding Claim 7, Forster teaches the damping force variable valve assembly of claim 6,
wherein the sub body (Examiner Fig. 1, SB1 and SB2) comprises:
a first sub body (SB1) extending horizontally along the circumference of the lower end of the main body (55a) and protruding downward along a bottom surface rim (BSR1); and
a second sub body (SB2) extending downward along a bottom surface rim (BSR2) of the first sub body (SB1).
Regarding Claim 8, Forster teaches the damping force variable valve assembly of claim 7,
wherein a bottom surface of the main body (Fig. 2, 55a) and a bottom surface of the first sub body (Examiner Fig. 1, SB1) are located on a same plane (overlapping in Fig. 2; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 9, Forster teaches the damping force variable valve assembly of claim 7,
wherein the valve disk (Fig. 2, 59) is located in a mounting groove (portions of SB1 and SB2 for receiving 59) formed between an inner circumferential surface of the second sub body (SB2) and a bottom surface of the main body (55a) and the first sub body (SB1; see Fig. 2 and Examiner Fig. 1; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 10, Forster teaches the damping force variable valve assembly of claim 7,
wherein a support part (Examiner Fig. 1, portion of SB2 contacting 39) is formed in an outer circumferential surface of the second sub body (SB2) to protrude horizontally at a predetermined interval along a circumferential direction (see Fig. 2; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 13, Forster teaches the damping force variable valve assembly of claim 6,
wherein the connection passage (Fig. 2, 57) formed in the main body (55a) is formed in plural outside the fitting hole (hole for receiving 61) along the circumferential direction (col. 6, line 21 – “A plurality of admission cross sections 57 can be used which are separated by the webs 55a in the admission valve 55”).
Regarding Claim 14, Forster teaches the damping force variable valve assembly of claim 6,
wherein the valve mount (Fig. 2, 61) is provided in a rivet or pin form (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Forster teaches a damping force variable shock absorber (“shock absorber” seen in Fig. 1) comprising a damping force variable valve assembly (27), wherein the damping force variable valve assembly (27) comprises:
an integrated soft valve port (55) having one end connected to the shock absorber (see Fig. 1),
a connection passage (57) formed in the integrated soft valve (55) to allow a working fluid to flow from the shock absorber (see Figs. 1-2), and
a valve disk (59) provided at a bottom surface of the integrated soft valve port (55) to be in close contact therewith a valve housing (39) having a hollow cylindrical shape, and having an inner circumferential surface of a front end coupled to an outer circumferential surface of the integrated soft valve port (55; see Fig. 2); and
a main valve part (37) disposed underneath the integrated soft valve port (55) in the valve housing (39),
wherein the integrated soft valve port (55) comprises:
a main body (55a) formed in a disk shape of a predetermined thickness, having a fitting hole (hole for receiving 61) formed at a center of the main body (55a) to pass therethrough and allowing a valve mount (61) for fixing the valve disk (59) to be fitted therein, and a connection passage (57) formed outside the fitting hole (hole for receiving 61); and
a sub body (Examiner Fig. 1, SB1 and SB2) having a predetermined thickness, extending horizontally along a circumference of a lower end of the main body (55a), and having a protrusion (protruding portion of 63) formed in a bottom surface of the sub body (SB1, SB2) so as to come into contact with an upper surface of the valve disk (59; see 112(b) rejection above).
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.
Claims 3-4 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forster (US 6,035,979), in view of Kashiwagi (US 6,155,391).
Regarding Claim 3, Forster teaches the damping force variable valve assembly of claim 2.
Forster does not teach “wherein the valve disk is provided in the form of a plurality of disks stacked”.
Kashiwagi teaches a valve disk (Fig. 3, “disk valve” 48 and “spacers” 50, 49) is provided in the form of a plurality of disks stacked (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the disk valve taught by Forster with the valve disk spacers taught by Kashiwagi, such that “wherein the valve disk is provided in the form of a plurality of disks stacked”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of evenly distributing the load received by the disk valve (Fig. 2, 59) from the valve mount (61) taught by Forster.
Regarding Claim 4, Forster and Kashiwagi teach the damping force variable valve assembly of claim 3,
Forster teaches wherein the valve disk (Fig. 2, 59) is coupled to the bottom surface of the integrated soft valve port (55) while the connection passage (57) is in a normally closed state (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Forster teaches a damping force variable valve assembly (Fig. 2, 27) comprising:
an integrated soft valve port (55) having one end connected to a shock absorber (see Fig. 1),
a valve disk (59) provided at a bottom surface of the integrated soft valve (55),
a fitting hole (hole for receiving 61) into which a valve mount (61) for fixing the valve disk (59) is fitted, and
a plurality of connection passages (57) formed a circumferential direction outside the fitting hole (hole for receiving 61) so that a working fluid is introduced from the shock absorber (see Figs. 1-2; col. 6, line 30 – “A plurality of admission cross sections 57 can be used”);
a valve housing (39) having a hollow cylindrical shape, and having an inner circumferential surface of a front end coupled to an outer circumferential surface of the integrated soft valve port (55; see Fig. 2); and
a main valve part (37) disposed underneath the integrated soft valve port (55) in the valve housing (39).
Forster does not teach “a valve disk…provided as a plurality of disks stacked”.
Kashiwagi teaches a valve disk (Fig. 3, 48, 50, 49) is provided in the form of a plurality of disks stacked (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the disk valve taught by Forster with the valve disk spacers taught by Kashiwagi, such that “a valve disk…provided as a plurality of disks stacked”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of evenly distributing the load received by the disk valve (Fig. 2, 59) from the valve mount (61) taught by Forster.
Regarding Claim 16, Forster and Kashiwagi teach the damping force variable valve assembly of claim 15,
Forster teaches wherein the valve disk (Fig. 2, 59) is coupled to a bottom surface of the integrated soft valve port (55) while the connection passage (57) is in a normally closed state (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Forster and Kashiwagi teach the damping force variable valve assembly of claim 15,
Forster teaches wherein the integrated soft valve port (Fig. 2, 55) comprises:
a main body (55a) formed in a disk shape of a predetermined thickness, having a fitting hole (hole for receiving 61) formed at a center of the main body (55a) to pass therethrough and allowing a valve mount (61) for fixing the valve disk (59) to be fitted thereinto, and having a connection passage (57) formed outside the fitting hole (hole for receiving 61); and
a sub body (Examiner Fig. 1, SB1 and SB2) having a predetermined thickness, extending horizontally along a circumference of a lower end of the main body (55a), and having a protrusion (protruding portion of 63) formed in a bottom surface of the sub body (SB1, SB2) so as to come into contact with an upper surface of the valve disk (59; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 18, Forster and Kashiwagi teach the damping force variable valve assembly of claim 17,
Forster teaches wherein the sub body (Examiner Fig. 1, SB1 and SB2) comprises:
a first sub body (SB1) extending horizontally along the circumference of the lower end of the main body (55a) and protruding downward along a bottom surface rim (BSR1); and
a second sub body (SB2) extending downward along a bottom surface rim (BSR2) of the first sub body (SB1).
Regarding Claim 19, Forster and Kashiwagi teach the damping force variable valve assembly of claim 18,
Forster teaches wherein: a bottom surface of the main body (Fig. 2, 55a) and a bottom surface of the first sub body (Examiner Fig. 1, SB1) are located on a same plane (overlapping in Fig. 2; see 112(b) rejection above),
the valve disk (59) is located in a mounting groove (portions of SB1 and SB2 for receiving 59) formed between an inner circumferential surface of the second sub body (SB2) and a bottom surface of the main body (55a) and the first sub body (SB1; see Fig. 2 and Examiner Fig. 1; see 112(b) rejection above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office Action and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Kim (US 2021/0283974), Forster (US 6,000,508), Oliver (US 6,527,093), Forster (US 6,044,939) and Jee (US 8,220,604) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" discloses similar damping force variable valve assemblies comprising integrated soft valve ports related to various aspects of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655