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. 18/380,006 filed on October 13th, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s claim to priority of application KR 10-2023-0059793 filed on May 9th, 2023. A certified copy was received on November 23rd, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 2nd, 2025 and February 26th, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner.
Examiner Note
Examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various objections and/or rejections seen below in order to expediate prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 1 (lines 6-8), please change the recitation of “at least part of the inner circumference thereof faces the outer circumference of the rod and forms a damping force when the rod extends” to - - at least part of [[the]] an inner circumference thereof faces [[the]] an outer circumference of the rod and forms [[a]] the damping force when the rod extends - - to correct various minor informalities regarding antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 6 (lines 2-3), please change the recitation of “recessing the outer circumference of the body” to - - recessing [[the]] an outer circumference of the body - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 7 (line 6-7), please change the recitation of “wherein, when the rod extends, a pressurized fluid in the body” to - - wherein, when the rod extends, [[a]] the pressurized fluid in the body - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9 (line 25), please change the recitation of “for guiding the movement of fluid” to - - for guiding the movement of the fluid - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 8.
Regarding Claim 10 (lines 1-2), please change the recitation of “when the inner circumference of the damping force forming member” to - - when [[the]] an inner circumference of the damping force forming member - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 10 (lines 4-5), please change the recitation of “and a fluid in the damping force forming member” to - - and [[a]] the fluid in the damping force forming member - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 8.
Regarding Claim 11 (lines 10-11), please change the recitation of “between the outer circumference of the damping force forming member and the inner tube, when the inner circumference of the damping force forming member” to - - between [[the]] an outer circumference of the damping force forming member and the inner tube, when [[the]] an inner circumference of the damping force forming member - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 15 (line 2), please change the recitation of “for guiding the movement of fluid” to - - for guiding the movement of the fluid - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 8.
Regarding Claim 17 (line 11), please change the recitation of “formed in a circumferential direction by recessing one region of the outer circumference of the stopper, to support the piston ring and guide the movement of fluid” to - - formed in [[a]] the circumferential direction by recessing one region of [[the]] an outer circumference of the stopper, to support the piston ring and guide the movement of the fluid - - to correct various minor informalities regarding antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 18, please change the recitation of “wherein the length of the ring groove parallel to the length direction of the rod is relatively greater than the length of the piston ring parallel to the length direction of the rod” to - - wherein [[the]] a length of the ring groove parallel to [[the]] a length direction of the rod is relatively greater than [[the]] a length of the piston ring parallel to the length direction of the rod - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 19, please change the recitation of “wherein the piston ring is movable in the length direction of the ring groove” to - - wherein the piston ring is movable in [[the]] a length direction of the ring groove - - to establish antecedent basis.
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 3, 9-10 and 14-20 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 3, in the recitation of “wherein the plurality of through-holes are disposed at intervals in one direction of the body” the difference between the “one direction” recited in claim 2 and the “one direction” recited in claim 3 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the plurality of through-holes are disposed at intervals in the one direction of 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 9 (lines 22-23), in the recitation of “a ring body placed in a circumferential direction of the stopper and having an opening so that both ends of the stopper are spaced apart from each other” it is generally unclear what Applicant intended to recite. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “a ring body placed in a circumferential direction of the stopper and having an opening so that both ends of the [[stopper]] ring body are spaced apart from each other” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 14 (lines 21-22), in the recitation of “wherein the damping force forming member further includes a first flow passageway placed parallel to one direction” the difference between the “one direction” recited in claim 12 and the “one direction” recited in claim 14 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the damping force forming member further includes 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.
Regarding Claim 16 (lines 5-6), in the recitation of “wherein the ring flow passageway is formed by recessing one region of the ring body which is positioned further away from the piston than the ring flow passageway” the difference between the “one side of the ring body” recited in claim 9 (line 24) and the “one region of the ring body” recited in claim 16 (line 6) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the ring flow passageway is formed by recessing the one [[region]] side of the ring body which is positioned further away from the piston than the damping force forming member” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Claims 10 and 15-20 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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krazewski (US 2012/0090931). Krazewski was cited on the IDS filed February 26th, 2025.
Regarding Claim 1, Krazewski teaches a damping force forming member (Fig. 13, “tube” 52) for forming a damping force, that is installed in a damper apparatus (Abstract - “hydraulic shock absorber” seen in Fig. 13) including a piston (“piston” 32),
a rod (“rod” 36) that supports the piston (32), and
an inner tube (“main tube” 22) in which a first chamber (“HRS-chamber” 88) and a second chamber (chamber below piston 32) are separated by the piston (32) placed therein, the damping force forming member (52) comprising:
a body (body portion of 52) supported by the inner tube (22), that is placed in such a manner that at least part of the inner circumference thereof faces the outer circumference of the rod (36) and forms a damping force when the rod (36) extends (see arrows in Fig. 13);
a plurality of through-holes (“holes” 94) formed at intervals on the body (52); and
a first flow passageway (“cavity” 92; see arrows in Fig. 13; see [0072] below) placed between the body (52) and the inner tube (22), for guiding the movement of a fluid in the first chamber (88) that has passed through the plurality of through-holes (94; [0072] – “The HRS-tube 52 is further provided with a plurality of radial through-hole 94 connecting the HRS-chamber 88 to the cavity 92. The fluid 44 present in the HRS-chamber 88 can exit through these holes 94 in the cavity 92 and finally into the extension chamber 42, as indicated by arrow F4. In this embodiment, the HRS-way-out 66 is determined by the number of holes 94 where through the fluid 44 is able to exit. This number reduces as the HRS-piston 70 engages further into the HRS-tube 52. In this embodiment the cavity 92 can take various geometries such as a groove axially oriented, a plurality of grooves, or an annular clearance” emphasis added).
Regarding Claim 2, Krazewski teaches the damping force forming member of claim 1,
wherein the first flow passageway (Fig. 13, 92) is formed in one direction (axial direction in Fig. 13; see arrows in Fig. 13; see [0074]) of the body (52; [0074] – “the cavity 92 can take various geometries such as a groove axially oriented, a plurality of grooves, or an annular clearance” emphasis added).
Regarding Claim 3, Krazewski teaches the damping force forming member of claim 2,
wherein the plurality of through-holes (Fig. 13, 94) are disposed at intervals in one direction (axial direction seen in Fig. 13) of the body (52; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 4, Krazewski teaches the damping force forming member of claim 2,
wherein a plurality of first flow passageways (Fig. 13, 92; see [0074]) are disposed at intervals in a circumferential direction of the body (52; see Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 5, Krazewski teaches the damping force forming member of claim 4,
wherein one of the plurality of first flow passageways (Fig. 13, 92; see [0074]) is formed in one region of the body (52) where the plurality of through-holes (94) are formed (see Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 7, Krazewski teaches the damping force forming member of claim 1,
wherein, when the rod (Fig. 13, 36) extends, a pressurized fluid in the body (52) is discharged out of the body (52) through the plurality of through-holes (94; see arrows in Fig. 13), and the damping force is adjusted (see Fig. 13).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krazewski (US 2012/0090931), in view of Konno (US 2013/0119593).
Regarding Claim 6, Krazewski teaches the damping force forming member of claim 1.
Krazewski does not teach “further comprising a second flow passageway formed in a circumferential direction of the body by recessing the outer circumference of the body, for directing a fluid that has passed through the plurality of through-holes to move along the outer circumference of the body”.
Konno teaches a second flow passageway (Figs. 7-8, “circular grooves” 210) formed in a circumferential direction of a body (“rebound stopper” 200) by recessing an outer circumference of the body (200), for directing a fluid that has passed through a plurality of through-holes (“holes” 220) to move along the outer circumference of the body (200).
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 damping force forming member taught by Krazewski with the second flow passageways taught by Konno, such that “further comprising a second flow passageway formed in a circumferential direction of the body by recessing the outer circumference of the body, for directing a fluid that has passed through the plurality of through-holes to move along the outer circumference of the body”, 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 promoting fluid flow past the plurality of through-holes taught by Krazewski.
Claims 8-11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krazewski (US 2012/0090931), in view of Takeno (US 9,651,110).
Regarding Claim 8, Krazewski teaches a damper apparatus (Abstract – “hydraulic shock absorber” seen in Fig. 13) comprising:
a piston (32);
a rod (36) that supports the piston (32);
an inner tube (22) having a fluid therein in which a first chamber (88) and a second chamber (chamber below 32) are separated by the piston (32);
a stopper (“HRS-piston” 70) spaced apart from the piston (32) and supported by the rod (36); and
a damping force forming member (52), at least part of which is placed in the first chamber (88) of the inner tube (22), and which forms a damping force through contact with the stopper (70) when the rod (36) extends (see Fig. 13).
Krazewski does not teach “a piston ring supported by the stopper; and a damping force forming member, at least part of which is placed in the first chamber of the inner tube, and which forms a damping force through contact with the piston ring when the rod extends”. In other words, the stopper taught by Krazewski does not have a piston ring.
Takeno teaches a piston ring (Figs. 1-5, “piston ring” 17) supported by a stopper (“second piston” 13); and
a damping force forming member (“sleeve” 12A), at least part of which is placed in a first chamber (chamber above “first piston” 6) of an inner tube (“inner cylinder” 5), and which forms a damping force through contact with the piston ring (17) when a rod (“piston rod” 7) extends (see Figs. 1-3).
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 stopper taught by Krazewski with the piston ring taught by Takeno, such that “a piston ring supported by the stopper; and a damping force forming member, at least part of which is placed in the first chamber of the inner tube, and which forms a damping force through contact with the piston ring when the rod extends”, 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 reducing the impact experienced when the piston rod extends maximally (col. 1, line 29 – “The present invention has been contrived in consideration of the above-described drawback of the conventional technique, and an object of the present invention is to provide a cylinder apparatus capable of reducing the impact when the piston rod extends maximally with a small number of parts”).
Regarding Claim 9, Krazewski and Takeno teach the damper apparatus of claim 8,
Takeno teaches wherein the piston ring (Figs. 1-3, 17) includes:
a ring body (body portion of 17) placed in a circumferential direction of the stopper (13) and having an opening (Figs. 4-5, “recessed groove” 17C) so that both ends of the stopper (13; see 112(b) rejection above) are spaced apart from each other (see Figs. 4-5 of Takeno); and
a ring flow passageway (Fig. 4, “first passage” 19) formed on one side (upper axial side) of the ring body (17) closer to the damping force forming member (12A) than the piston (6), for guiding the movement of fluid (see Figs. 2-3; col. 7, line 19 – “As illustrated in FIG. 3, even when the piston rod 7 is contracted, a space G is generated between the piston ring 17 and the second piston 13 due to small protrusions 17F that will be described below. The first passage 19 forms an oil passage that permits the oil to flow between the one axial side of the piston ring 17 and the opposite axial side of the piston ring 17 together with the space G, even when the piston rod 7 is contracted”).
Regarding Claim 10, Krazewski and Takeno teach the damper apparatus of claim 9,
Takeno teaches wherein, when the inner circumference of the damping force forming member (Figs. 2-5, 12A) and the piston ring (17) come into contact with each other, the ring body (17) moves in a direction in which the opening (17C) becomes narrower (see col. 6, line 5 passage below),
and a fluid in the damping force forming member (12A) is restrained from passing through the stopper (13) and moving toward the piston (6; col. 6, line 5 – “This piston ring 17 is formed as a ring with use of an elastic material (for example, fluorine-based resin). The piston ring 17 is configured to be expandable and contractable with an increase and a reduction in diameter, with use of a C-shaped ring in which, for example, a certain portion (a single portion) in the circumferential direction is cut off. Therefore, when the piston ring 17 enters the sleeve 12A together with the second piston 13, an outer circumferential surface of the piston ring 17 slidably contacts an inner circumferential surface of the sleeve 12A. As a result, the outer circumferential surface of the piston ring 17 can seal between the sleeve 12A and the second piston 13, thereby limiting a flow of the oil”).
Regarding Claim 11, Krazewski and Takeno teach the damper apparatus of claim 8,
Krazewski teaches wherein the damping force forming member (Fig. 13, 52) includes a through-hole (94) that directs the fluid in the damping force forming member (52) to be discharged between the outer circumference of the damping force forming member (52) and the inner tube (22; see arrows in Fig. 13), when the inner circumference of the damping force forming member (52) and the piston ring (taught in combination with Takeno) come into contact with each other (see Figs. 1 and 13 of Krazewski and Figs. 1-5 of Takeno).
Regarding Claim 16, Krazewski and Takeno teach the damper apparatus of claim 9,
Takeno teaches wherein the ring flow passageway (Figs. 2-5, 19) is formed by recessing one region (upper axial side) of the ring body (17) which is positioned further away from the piston (Fig. 1, 6) than the ring flow passageway (19; see 112(b) rejection above), and,
when the rod (7) contracts, directs at least part of the fluid in the first chamber (chamber above the piston 6) to pass through the stopper (13) and move in a direction away from the piston (6; see Fig. 3; see col. 6, line 5 passage above).
Regarding Claim 17, Krazewski and Takeno teach the damper apparatus of claim 16,
Takeno teaches wherein the stopper (Figs. 2-3, 13) includes a ring groove (“circumferential groove” 14) formed in a circumferential direction by recessing one region of the outer circumference of the stopper (13), to support the piston ring (17) and guide the movement of fluid (see Figs. 2-3; see col. 6, line 5 passage above).
Regarding Claim 18, Krazewski and Takeno teach the damper apparatus of claim 17,
Takeno teaches wherein the length of the ring groove (Figs. 2-3, axial length of 14) parallel to the length direction of the rod (7) is relatively greater than the length of the piston ring (axial length of 17) parallel to the length direction of the rod (7; see Fig. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 19, Krazewski and Takeno teach the damper apparatus of claim 17,
Takeno teaches wherein the piston ring (Figs. 2-3, 17) is movable in the length direction of the ring groove (axial length of 14) as the rod (7) extends or contracts (see arrows in Figs. 2-3).
Claims 12-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krazewski (US 2012/0090931), in view of Takeno (US 9,651,110), and in view of Yang (CN 115 492 889). See translation provided to Applicant with this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 12, Krazewski and Takeno teach the damper apparatus of claim 11.
Krazewski or Takeno do not teach “wherein a plurality of through-holes with different diameters are disposed at intervals in one direction of the damping force forming member”.
Yang teaches a plurality of through-holes (Fig. 2, “pressure relief hole” 41) with different diameters (see Fig. 2) are disposed at intervals in one direction (axial direction) of a damping force forming member (“buffer section” 40; [0029] – “Preferably, as shown in Figure 2, the diameter of the pressure relief hole 41 gradually decreases from the opening of cavity C to the bottom, thereby achieving a linear increase in buffer resistance”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameters of the through-holes taught by Krazewski as suggested by Yang, such that “wherein a plurality of through-holes with different diameters are disposed at intervals in one direction of the damping force forming member”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of achieving a linear increase in buffer resistance in the damper apparatus taught by Krazewski.
Regarding Claim 13, Krazewski, Takeno and Yang teach the damper apparatus of claim 12,
Yang teaches wherein the plurality of through-holes (Fig. 2, 41) become smaller in diameter farther away from the piston (2; see Fig. 2 of Yang).
Regarding Claim 14, Krazewski, Takeno and Yang teach the damper apparatus of claim 12,
Krazewski teaches wherein the damping force forming member (Fig. 13, 52) further includes a first flow passageway (92) placed parallel to one direction (axial direction in Fig. 13) in which the plurality of through-holes (94) are disposed, spaced apart from the inner tube (22; see Fig. 13 of Krazewski).
Regarding Claim 20, Krazewski, Takeno and Yang teach the damper apparatus of claim 14,
Krazewski wherein the first flow passageway (Fig. 13, 92) has a larger area than the plurality of through-holes (94; see Fig. 13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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 Ishimaru (US 10,533,624), Szostek (US 10,487,901), Mallin (US 11,187,298) and Roessle (US 12,460,694) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose similar damper apparatus comprising stoppers 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