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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph 0001 of the specification, the U.S. Patent Number of applicant’s parent application should be provided.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 of Claim 7, the term “the measuring assembly” should read –the measurement assembly—to be consistent with the previous claim terminology for this element, and in the last line of Claim 21, the word –on—should be inserted after the word “receptacles” for the claim to read more clearly. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG Publication No. 2002/0100649 to Agrotis et al in view of PG Publication No. 2020/0011394 to Nardemann et al.
Regarding Claim 2, Agrotis et al disclose a shock absorber 10 of a vehicle suspension system of a vehicle (see Figures 1-8) having most all the features of the instant invention including: a damper tube 12 defining a shock absorber axis, a rod 58 operably coupled to the damper tube 12 and movable along the axis relative to the damper tube 12 in response to jounce and rebound events (see paragraph 0026), a target 54 operably coupled to the damper tube 12 (i.e., via cap 52) such that the target 54 maintains a static position relative to the damper tube 12 (see paragraph 0023), and a measurement assembly 72 (see Figure 4) operably coupled to the rod 58 such that the measurement assembly 72 maintains a static position relative to the rod 58 (see paragraphs 0022 and 0027), and wherein the measurement assembly 72 comprises detection circuitry configured to track movement of the target 54 relative to the measurement assembly 72 responsive to the jounce and rebound events, and determine ride height information for the vehicle based on the tracked movement (see paragraph 0029, wherein the measurement assembly 72 detects position of target 54 which can determine ride height of the vehicle).
However, Agrotis et al do not disclose that the measurement assembly comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) elongated parallel to the shock absorber axis, wherein the PCB comprises detection circuitry configured to track movement of the target relative to the measurement assembly.
Nardemann et al are relied upon merely for their teachings of a shock absorber 10 having a measurement assembly 20 that comprises a printed circuit board 24 elongated parallel to the shock absorber axis (see Figure 2 and paragraph 0032), wherein the PCB 24 comprises detection circuitry configured to track movement of a target 22 relative to the measurement assembly 20 for sensing ride height of a vehicle (paragraph 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the shock absorber of Agrotis et al to have a measurement assembly comprising a printed circuit board as taught by Nardemann et al as an alternate means of sensing movement of the target in order to ensure a particularly simple design for detecting the relative position of damper parts (see the abstract and paragraph 0001 of Nardemann et al). As long as the target displacement is sensed, the type of measurement assembly used is arbitrary.
Regarding Claim 3, Agrotis et al., as modified, further disclose that the target 54 comprises a magnet, and wherein the detection circuitry is configured to track the movement of the magnet 54 by detecting a position of a magnetic field generated by the magnet 54 (see paragraph 0023 of Agrotis et al).
Regarding Claim 4, Agrotis et al., as modified, further disclose that the detection circuitry comprises a wiring assembly (see paragraph 0029 of Agrotis et al, wherein the current pulse traveling through measuring surface 70 indicates there is a wiring assembly present in the reference), and wherein the detection circuitry is configured to track the movement of the target 54 relative to the measurement assembly 72 by detecting a disruption in an electrical current passing through the wiring assembly caused by the movement of the target 54 (see Figure 2 and paragraph 0029 of Agrotis et al, wherein magnet 54 creates a strain on the waveguide, which reflects and disrupts the current).
Regarding Claim 5, Agrotis et al., as modified, further disclose that the detection circuitry comprises a wiring assembly, wherein the detection circuitry is configured to track the movement of the target relative to the measurement assembly (see Claim 4 above).
However, Agrotis et al., as modified, do not disclose that the detection circuitry is configured to track the movement of the target relative to the measurement assembly by detecting a disruption in an electromagnetic field generated by the wiring assembly caused by the movement of the target.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the detection circuitry of Agrotis et al., as modified, to track the movement of the target relative to the measurement assembly by detecting a disruption in an electromagnetic filed generated by the wiring assembly caused by movement of the target as an alternate means of sensing movement of the target. As long as the target displacement is sensed, the type of disruption generated by the wiring assembly used is arbitrary.
Regarding Claim 6, see Claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 7, Agrotis et al. do not disclose that the measuring assembly comprises a measuring surface that extends for a range of motion of the target based on a range of motion of the rod relative to the damper tube, wherein the detection circuitry is further configured to track movement of the target relative to the measurement assembly over the range of motion of the target.
Again, Nardemann et al are relied upon for their teachings of a shock absorber 10 having a measuring assembly 20 which comprises a measuring surface 24 that extends for a range of motion of a target 22 based on a range of motion of a rod 18 relative to a damper tube 14 (see Figure 2), wherein the detection circuitry is further configured to track movement of the target 22 relative to the measurement assembly 20 over the range of motion of the target 22 (see Figure 2 and paragraphs 0032 and 0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the measurement assembly of Agrotis et al so that it comprises a measuring surface that extends for a range of motion of the target based on a range of motion of the rod relative to the damper tube, wherein the detection circuitry is further configured to track movement of the target relative to the measurement assembly over the range of motion of the target as taught by Nardemann et al as an alternate means of detecting the relative position of damper parts to simplify the overall design of the shock absorber.
Regarding Claim 8, see Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 9, see Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 10, see Claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 11, see Claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 12, see Claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 15, see Claim 7 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 are 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. The content of Claims 13 and 14 having been deemed allowable in applicant’s parent application 17/534,100 (see paragraph 9 below).
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding independent Claim 16 (and its corresponding dependent Claims 17-21), while Agrotis et al. and Nardemann et al combined disclose most all the features of the instant invention as outlined with respect to Claims 2, 4, 7, and 8 above, neither of the references taken either alone or in combination disclose that the movement of the target is tracked by detecting a disruption in the electric current caused by an interaction of the first magnet with a transmit loop of the wiring assembly and the interaction of the second magnet with a receive loop of the wiring assembly, as deemed allowable in the parent application 17/534,100.
It is for this reason that Claims 16-21 define over the prior art of record.
Claim 21 is objected to as outlined above, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome its objection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 7,543,687 to Naidu et al and U.S. Patent No. 11,787,254 to Hwang et al both disclose shock absorbers similar to applicant’s.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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 571-272-7124. 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.
PAMELA RODRIGUEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/PAMELA RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 01/20/26