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 Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on June 17th, 2026 for application no. 18/380,006 filed on October 13th, 2023. Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 16-20 are pending. In the present amendment, claims 1, 3, 7-13 and 16-20 are amended, and claims 6 and 14-15 are canceled.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 1 (line 10), please change the recitation of “the outer circumferential surface of the rod guide” to - - [[the]] an outer circumferential surface of the rod guide - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 4, please change the recitation of “wherein a plurality of first flow passageways are disposed at intervals in a circumferential direction of the body” to - - wherein the first flow passageway is one of a plurality of first flow passageways [[are]] disposed at intervals in [[a]] the circumferential direction of the body - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1 (lines 12 and 15).
Regarding Claim 11 (lines 1-2), please change the recitation of “wherein the through hole directs the fluid” to - - wherein the plurality of through holes direct the fluid - - as this feature is previously referred to in claim 8.
Regarding Claim 12 (lines 1-2), please change the recitation of “wherein the plurality of through-holes with the different diameters” to - - wherein the plurality of through-holes with [[the]] different diameters - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 13, please change the recitation of “wherein the plurality of through-holes become smaller in the diameter farther away from the piston” to - - wherein the different diameters become smaller
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 7-13 and 16-20 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 7 (line 2), in the recitation of “a fluid in the body” the difference between the “fluid” recited in claim 1 (line 13) and the “fluid” recited in claim 7 (line 2) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “[[a]] the fluid in the body” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 8 (line 14), in the recitation of “a first flow passageway placed parallel to one direction” the difference between the “one direction” recited in claim 8 (line 12) and the “one direction” recited in claim 8 (line 14) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a first flow passageway placed parallel to the one direction” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Claims 9-13 and 16-20 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed June 17th, 2026 are in response to the Office Action mailed February 17th, 2026. The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Response to Claim Objections
Regarding Claims 1, 6, 8-11, 15 and 17-19, Applicant’s amendment addresses various minor informalities indicated in the previous Office Action. As such, the relevant claim objections are withdrawn.
Regarding Claim 7, Applicant’s amendment has not addressed the relevant minor informality indicated in the previous Office Action and also rendered the claim indefinite. See new rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Regarding Claims 3, 9, 14 and 16, Applicant’s amendment has clarified the invention. As such, the relevant 112(b) rejections indicated in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Applicant has recited features that distinguish from those taught by the prior art of record. See allowable subject matter set forth below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims ---1-5 are allowed.
Claims 7-13 and 16-20 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.
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights