DETAILED ACTION
Status of Submission
Applicant’s specification amendments, claim amendments and replacement drawing sheets filed on April 9, 2026 have been entered.
Claims Subject to Examination
Claims 1, 4, 7 and 8 of this application are subject to examination. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 have been canceled.
Objection to Amendment
The specification amendments filed on April 9, 2026 are objected to because the paragraph beginning at page 5, line 6 is amended to omit the mention of reference character “L”. Since reference character L appears in Fig. 2, it should be mentioned in the written description per 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5). The examiner suggests amending the paragraph beginning at page 5, line 6 by changing “axis [[L]] is illustrated” to “axis L is illustrated in Fig. 1 and labeled in Fig. 2”.
Claim Construction in Examination
During examination, the pending claims are normally interpreted according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (hereinafter, the “BRI standard”). That is, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111 et seq.
An exception to the BRI standard occurs when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer. For this exception to apply, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. See MPEP 2111.01, subsection IV.
Another exception or special case occurs when a claim recites a means-plus-function limitation that must be interpreted in accordance with 35 USC 112 ¶ 6, or 35 USC 112(f). See MPEP 2181. According to the guidance provided by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc), 35 USC 112 ¶ 6 applies when the claim term fails to recite (i) sufficiently definite structure, and/or (ii) sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
Examiner’s Claim Construction
The current claim limitations are construed under the BRI standard. No explicit claim construction is deemed to be necessary
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
GROUND 1A: Claims 1, 4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because the claims recite new mater. Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to recite “such movement of the slide thus setting a throughflow of fluid through the passage opening and through the throttle” (ll. 21-22). There is no support in the original disclosure for movement of the slide functioning to set a throughflow of fluid through both the passage opening and the throttle. The examiner suggests amending claim 1 by omitting “and through the throttle” (l. 22).
GROUND 1B: Claims 1, 4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description requirement serves both to satisfy applicant’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention that is claimed. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could theoretically construct his/her own version of the claimed invention. Rather, applicant bears the burden of setting forth sufficient information to show that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, the written description requirement requires applicant to go beyond a discussion of mere concepts and suggestions. It is not sufficient to merely outline desired results that the claimed invention is expected to achieve. Rather, the specification must explain how the invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. While subject matter that is conventional or well known in the art need not be described in detail, the specification must provide a complete description of each of the essential features recited in the claims which cause the claimed invention to achieve the desired results.
Claim 1 recites “a throttle configured for influencing fluid flow between the first part space and the first damping space or between the second part space and the second damping space” (ll. 13-15). Claim 1 goes on to define the throttle as comprising a threaded spindle drive with a handle that moves a slide between completely open, partially open and completely closed positions. Fig. 2 shows an embodiment in which (i) a throttle is configured for influencing fluid flow between the first part space and the first damping space, and (ii) the throttle comprises a threaded spindle drive with a handle that moves a slide between completely open, partially open and completely closed positions. However, there is no disclosure of an embodiment in which (i) a throttle is configured for influencing fluid flow between the second part space and the second damping space, and (ii) the throttle comprises a threaded spindle drive with a handle that moves a slide between completely open, partially open and completely closed positions. While Fig. 1 provides a schematic illustration of a throttle device configured to influence fluid flow between the second part space and the second damping space, the Fig. 1 embodiment is not described as having a threaded spindle drive with a handle that moves a slide between completely open, partially open and completely closed positions. Further, the Fig. 1 embodiment does not appear to be readily adapted to include such a threaded spindle drive, handle and slide. The written description and the drawings fail to explain how such a threaded spindle drive, handle and slide could or would be incorporated into the Fig. 1 embodiment.
Concerning the claimed throttle comprising a threaded spindle drive with a handle that moves a slide between completely open, partially open and completely closed positions, Fig. 2 is described as showing such a throttle. However, the specification fails to provide a complete description of each of the structural elements illustrated in Fig. 2, and the specification fails to explain how the slide 272 shown in Fig. 2 interacts with the other structural elements shown in Fig. 2 to influence the flow of fluid. As shown in Fig. 2, the slide 272 is located above the passage opening 275. Neither the drawings nor the specification explains how the slide 272 is able to move relative to the passage opening 275 to throttle the fluid flow or to prevent the fluid flow.
For these reasons, the specification fails to explain how the claimed invention is structured and how it functions in order to achieve the desired results. Thus, absent a complete description of essential features, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection because of their dependencies.
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.
GROUND 2: Claims 1, 4, 7 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As explained more fully in GROUND 1B, the specification fails to explain how the embodiments encompassed by claims 1, 4, 7 and 8 are structured and/or how they function to achieve the desired results. Absent such supporting disclosure, the scope of claims 1, 4, 7 and 8 cannot be ascertained with a reasonable degree of certainty, i.e., it is unclear what subject matter is encompassed by the claims, and what is excluded therefrom.
In claim 8, the recitation “wherein the vibration damper is integrated into one of the fork legs including a further damper tube” (ll. 2-3) renders the claim indefinite. Due to the run-on nature of the claim limitation, it is unclear whether “including a further damper tube” applies to the vibration damper or one of the fork legs. The examiner suggests amending “legs including” (l. 3) to read “legs that includes”.
Dependent claims are included in the rejection at least because of their dependencies.
Listing of Prior Art
The following is a listing of the prior art cited in this Office action together with the shorthand reference for each document (listed alphabetically):
“Breun et al.”
DE Publication No. 10 2004 015 065 A1 (with translation)
“Deferme”
US Publication No. 2005/0056506 A1
“Goetz et al.”
US Publication No. 2007/0125610 A1
“Götz et al.”
DE Publication No. 103 51 353 A1 (with translation)
“Nakano”
US Publication No. 2017/0058987 A1
“Shirai”
DE Publication No. 10 2008 053 092 A1 (with translation)
“Vautour”
US Patent No. 5,096,026
“Wilhelm”
DE Publication No. 103 60 140 A1 (with translation)
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.
GROUND 3: Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vautour in view of Breun et al.
Vautour discloses a vibration damper comprising:
A working piston 14 received displaceably in a damper tube 10 and dividing the damper tube 10 into a first damping space (the right-side space in Fig. 1) and a second damping space (the left-side space in Fig. 1). See Figs. 1 and 3; col. 2, ll. 22-50.
A cylinder 11 defining a cylindrical compensation space (see Figs. 1-3) which is attached hydraulically in parallel to the vibration damper and is split by way of a displaceable separating piston 15 received axially displaceably in the compensation space, the separating piston 15 dividing the compensation space into a first part space (the right-side space in Fig. 1) and a second part space (the left-side space in Fig. 1), the first part space being connected fluidically (via connecting tube 12) to the first damping space, and the second part space being connected fluidically (via the connecting tube 13) to the second damping space. See Figs. 1-3; col. 2, ll. 22-45 and 51-68.
A first throttle device in the form of an adjustable throttle valve assembly including a valve member 29b configured for influencing fluid flow between the first part space and the first damping space, and a second throttle device in the form of an adjustable throttle valve assembly including a valve member 29a configured for influencing fluid flow between the second part space and the second damping space. See Figs. 1-3; col. 3, ll. 1-19; col. 3, l. 25 to col. 4, l. 2.
The adjustable throttle valve assemblies each include a member 32a, 32b defining a passage opening 126, a slide in the form of the valve member 29a, 29b, and an actuator for the valve member 29a, 29b, wherein the actuator includes a spindle drive 30 with a handle 31 for manual adjustment. See Figs. 1-3; col. 3, ll. 1-19.
With respect to claim 1, the preamble recitation “with amplitude-dependent damping” is considered to be a statement of intended use, which cannot stand alone in distinguishing a claim from the prior art. Further, Vautour teaches all of the elements and functions required by the body of claim 1.
With respect to the claimed actuator configured to move the slide between completely open, partially open, and completely closed positions, Vautour’s actuator (spindle drive 30 with handle 31 for manual adjustment) is capable of moving the slide (i.e., valve member 29a or 29b) between the claimed positions.1 Further, the skilled artisan would appreciate that movement of the slide to a completely closed position would be advantageous in locking out the vibration damper in cases when it is desireable to prevent the normal damping movement.
As explained above, Vautour teaches an actuator including the spindle drive 30 with the handle 31 for manual adjustment. Vautour fails to specify that the spindle drive 30 is threaded. However, a threaded spindle is consistent with the illustrations of Vautour, and the skilled artisan would appreciate that such a spindle is both well-known and suitable for use in Vautour.
Breun et al. discloses a vibration damper with amplitude-dependent damping. See ¶¶ 0001, 0028.2 The damper comprises:
A working piston 6 received displaceably in a damper tube 3 and dividing the damper tube 3 into a first damping space 7 and a second damping space 9. See Fig. 1; ¶ 0026.
A housing 19 defining a cylindrical compensation space (see Fig. 1) which is attached hydraulically in parallel to the vibration damper and is split by way of a displaceable separating piston 21 received axially displaceably in the compensation space, the separating piston 21 dividing the compensation space into a first part space 23 and a second part space 25, the first part space 23 being connected fluidically (via passage 31) to the first damping space 7, and the second part space 25 being connected fluidically (via passage 27) to the second damping space 9. See Fig. 1; ¶ 0027.
A first embodiment (Fig. 1) having a throttle device that includes the passage 31 defining a passage opening, a slide in the form of a stop plate 35, and an actuator in the form of a threaded spindle 43, with the stop plate 35 mounted on the threaded spindle 43 for manual adjustment of the position of the stop plate 35. See Fig. 1; ¶ 0030. The skilled artisan would appreciate that a handle (such as a handle on a tool that engages the threaded spindle 43) would be used to drive the threaded spindle 43.
Fig. 1 clearly shows that the adjustable stop plate 35 is located proximate to the passage 31 such that fluid must flow around the stop plate 35 as it flows between the first part space 23 and the first damping space 7. Thus, the stop plate 35 throttles the fluid flow. Further, adjustment of the stop plate 35 upward in Fig. 1 (toward the passage 31) inherently serves to throttle fluid flow through the passage 31 to a greater degree than adjustment of the stop plate 35 downward in Fig. 1 (away from the passage 31).
From the teachings of Breun et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Vautour by using a threaded spindle since such a spindle provides for efficient and convenient adjustment.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is considered pertinent to the claimed invention but is not relied upon to reject any claim.
Deferme discloses a vibration damper with amplitude-dependent damping. See ¶ 0001. The damper comprises:
A piston assembly 32 having a working piston 60 received displaceably in a damper tube 30 and dividing the damper tube 30 into a first damping space 44 and a second damping space 46. See Figs. 2-4; ¶¶ 0014-0016.
A cylindrical compensation space 104 which is attached hydraulically in parallel to the vibration damper and is split by way of a displaceable separating piston 116 received axially displaceably in the compensation space 104, the separating piston 116 dividing the compensation space 104 into a first part space 106 and a second part space 108, the first part space 106 being connected fluidically (via passage 94) to the first damping space 44, and the second part space 108 being connected fluidically to the second damping space 46. See Figs. 3-4; ¶¶ 0016, 0019, 0021-0022.
A first throttle device in the form of a compression bleed (throttle) valve assembly 112 configured for influencing fluid flow between the first part space 106 and the first damping space 44. See Figs. 3-4; ¶¶ 0020-0021. Note that the valve assembly 112 includes a valve needle 128 that restricts (throttles) flow through a passage opening 126 in a valve plate 120.
A second throttle device in the form of a rebound bleed (throttle) valve assembly 114 configured for influencing fluid flow between the second part space 108 and the second damping space 46. See Figs. 3-4; ¶¶ 0020, 0022. Note that the valve assembly 114 includes a valve needle 140 that restricts (throttles) flow through a passage opening 138 in a valve plate 130.
Goetz et al. discloses a vibration damper with amplitude-dependent damping. See ¶¶ 0001, 0006. The damper comprises:
A working piston 5 received displaceably in a damper tube 1 and dividing the damper tube 1 into a first damping space 3 and a second damping space 4. See Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0022.
A cylindrical compensation space 6 which is attached hydraulically in parallel to the vibration damper and is split by way of a displaceable separating piston 7 received axially displaceably in the compensation space 6, the separating piston 7 dividing the compensation space 6 into a first part space 8 and a second part space 9, the first part space 8 being connected fluidically (via passage 10 in Fig. 1 or passages 22-27 in Fig. 2) to the first damping space 3, and the second part space 9 being connected fluidically (via passage 11) to the second damping space 4. See Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0022, 0024, 0032-0034.
A first embodiment (Figs. 1 and 3-4) having a throttle device(s) in the form of disc valves 12, 13 configured for influencing fluid flow between the second part space 9 and the second damping space 4. See Figs. 1 and 3-4; ¶¶ 0021, 0025-0030.
A second embodiment (Fig. 2) having a throttle device(s) in the form of spring-loaded seat (slide) valves 12, 13 configured for influencing fluid flow between the first part space 8 and the first damping space 3. See Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0031, 0034-0036. The second embodiment has another throttle device 15 in the form of axial bore 28 configured for influencing fluid flow between the first part space 8 and the first damping space 3. See Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0036, 0039-0041.
Shirai teaches a vibration damper including a throttle valve member 100 having a hemispherical tip 106, which ensures a smooth and even change in damping force. See Figs. 5 and 7-12; ¶¶ 0047, 0049-0051.3
Wilhelm teaches a vibration damper with amplitude-dependent damping, wherein the damper includes first and second throttle devices.
Nakano teaches a number of embodiments of a vibration damper with amplitude-dependent damping. The embodiment of Fig. 15 is structured in a manner similar to Vautour.
Götz et al. teaches a vibration damper with amplitude-dependent damping, wherein the damper is structured essentially the same as applicant’s damper apart from applicant’s throttle device.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for failing to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features listed below must be shown in the drawings or canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
An embodiment in which (i) a throttle is configured for influencing fluid flow between the second part space and the second damping space, and (ii) the throttle comprises a threaded spindle drive with a handle that moves a slide between completely open, partially open and completely closed positions (claim 1).
A slide in a second position, in which the passage opening is partially open and partially closed (claim 1).
A slide in a third position, in which the passage opening is completely closed (claim 1).
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 9, 2026 have been considered. Some of applicant’s arguments are not germane to the new objections and new grounds of rejection set forth above, which were necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
With respect to GROUND 1B, applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been very familiar with a variety of throttle devices and their construction and operation. This argument is not persuasive. The ability of the skilled artisan to develop their own solution, i.e., their own embodiment of a throttle device, pertains to the separate enablement requirement. The rejection is based on the written description requirement, which requires applicant to disclose their solution, i.e., their embodiment of the claimed throttle.
With respect to GROUND 1B, applicant argues that the specification describes and Fig. 2 shows how an actuator can be used to move a slide to different positions such that a passage opening is open, partially open and partially closed, and completely closed. This argument is not persuasive because the specification fails to provide a complete description of each of the structural elements illustrated in Fig. 2, and the specification fails to explain how the slide 272 shown in Fig. 2 interacts with the other structural elements shown in Fig. 2 to influence the flow of fluid. As shown in Fig. 2, the slide 272 is located above the passage opening 275. Neither the drawings nor the specification explains how the slide 272 is able to move relative to the passage opening 275 to throttle the fluid flow or to prevent the fluid flow.
With respect to GROUND 3, applicant argues only with respect to Breun et al. Applicant fails to address the combined teachings of Vautour in view of Breun et al.
Final Action
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).
Response Period
A shortened statutory period for response is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
Filing and Contact Information
All correspondence relating to this application should be directed:
By Patent Center4: Registered users may submit via the Patent Center at: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
By Mail to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
By hand: Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter English whose telephone number is (571)272-6671. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00 am - 6:00 pm EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis, can be reached at 571-272-6928.
/PETER C ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993
1 The claim does not explicitly require movement of the slide between the three positions; rather, the claim is met by an actuator that is capable of moving a slide between the three claimed positions.
2 All citations are to the English translation.
3 All citations are to the English translation.
4 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).
Prosecution Insights