DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed March 24, 2026 has been received and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 3,831,626 to Peddinghaus.
Regarding Claim 1, Peddinghaus discloses a fluid redirection and noise and heat reduction ramp system (see Figures 1-4, wherein due to the angled deflection of the fluid ramp 13’,13”, the speed of the fluid would be reduced thus also the noise and heat associated therewith would also be reduced) having all the features of the instant invention including: a damper piston 9, the damper piston 9 having a plurality of compression ports and a plurality of rebound ports 5-8 (see Figures 1, 3, and 4 and column 3 lines 3-14), and a fluid ramp 13’,13” on a first side of the damper piston 9 (i.e., the portion of the piston on the left side of the piston rod 1 in Figures 1-4), the fluid ramp 13’, 13” being of a shape that creates an angled exit for fluid exiting the damper piston 9 (see Figures 1-4 and column 3 lines 17-39), the fluid ramp 13’,13” configured such that the angled exit for the fluid exiting the first side of the damper piston 9 causes an amount of noise caused when the fluid, with the angled exit, impacts a wall of a damper cylinder to be reduced compared to an amount of noise caused by the fluid impacting the wall of the damper when the fluid lacks an angled exit, and wherein the angled exit for the fluid exiting the first side of the damper piston 9 causes an amount of heat generated by the fluid, with the angled exit, impacting the wall of the damper cylinder to be reduced compared to an amount of heat generated by the fluid impacting the wall of the damper when fluid lacks the angled exit (as stated above, due to the angled exit of the fluid at fluid ramp 13’,13”, the speed of the fluid impacting the fluid ramp would be significantly reduced by the time it hits the wall of the damper cylinder compared to the speed of the fluid if no ramp was present, thus reducing the noise generated by this impact. Further, also due to the angled exit of the fluid at fluid ramp 13’,13”, fluid flow would be smoother along the wall of the damper cylinder, hence both turbulence and heat generation would also be reduced).
Regarding Claim 2, Peddinghaus further discloses that the fluid ramp 13' consists of a round ramp (see Figure 2 and the rounded end of edge 15).
Regarding Claim 3, Peddinghaus further discloses that the fluid ramp 13" consists of a beveled ramp (see Figure 4 and ramp portion 13").
Regarding Claim 4, Peddinghaus further discloses that the fluid ramp 13' consists of a square ramp (see Figure 1 and the squared edges at element 13').
Regarding Claim 5, Peddinghaus further discloses that the fluid ramp 13',13" is not present all around the entire edge of the damper piston 9 but rather the locations are based on where fluid flows when exiting the plurality of compression ports and the plurality of rebound ports 5-8 (see Figure 1 and Claim 1 of the reference, wherein groove portions 13',13" don't extend across the entire width of piston 9).
Regarding Claim 6, Peddinghaus further discloses that the fluid ramp 13', 13" redirects fluid flow to merge more seamlessly with the boundary layer along a wall of a cylinder (as implied from column 1 line 61 - column 2 line 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Peddinghaus further discloses a second fluid ramp 13' on a second side of the damper piston 9 (i.e., the portion of the piston on the right side of piston rod 1 in Figures 1-4), the second fluid ramp 13' being of a shape that creates an angled exit for fluid exiting the damper piston 9 (see Figures 1-4).
Regarding Claim 8, see Claims 1 and 7 above.
Regarding Claim 9, see Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 10, see Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 11, see Claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 12, see Claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 13, see Claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 14, Peddinghaus discloses a suspension system (see Figures 1-4) having a cylinder, the cylinder comprising a wall (inherently present and housing the piston assembly of the reference), a piston shaft 1, a damper piston 9 coupled to the piston shaft 1 and configured for operation within the cylinder (see Figures 1-4), the damper piston 9 configured to divide the cylinder into a compression side and a rebound side (inherently forming part of the shock assembly of the reference), the damper piston 9 having a plurality of compression ports and rebound ports 5-8 (see Figures 1, 3, and 4 and column 3 lines 3-14), and a fluid ramp 13',13" on a first side of the damper piston 9 (i.e., the portion of the piston on the left side of piston rod 1 in Figures 1-4), the fluid ramp 13',13" being of a shape that creates an angled exit for fluid exiting the damper piston 9 (see Figures 1-4 and column 3 lines 17-39), the fluid ramp 13’,13” configured such that the angled exit for the fluid exiting the first side of the damper piston 9 causes an amount of noise caused when the fluid, with the angled exit, impacts a wall of a damper cylinder to be reduced compared to an amount of noise caused by the fluid impacting the wall of the damper when the fluid lacks an angled exit, and wherein the angled exit for the fluid exiting the first side of the damper piston 9 causes an amount of heat generated by the fluid, with the angled exit, impacting the wall of the damper cylinder to be reduced compared to an amount of heat generated by the fluid impacting the wall of the damper when fluid lacks the angled exit (as stated above, due to the angled exit of the fluid at fluid ramp 13’,13”, the speed of the fluid impacting the fluid ramp would be significantly reduced by the time it hits the wall of the damper cylinder compared to the speed of the fluid if no ramp was present, thus reducing the noise generated by this impact. Further, also due to the angled exit of the fluid at fluid ramp 13’,13”, fluid flow would be smoother along the wall of the damper cylinder, hence both turbulence and heat generation would also be reduced).
Regarding Claim 15, see Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 16, see Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 17, see Claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 18, see Claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 19, see Claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 20, see Claim 7 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s main point of contention with the rejection of Claims 1-20 using the Peddinghaus reference is that Peddinghaus does not teach or suggest "said fluid ramp configured such that said angled exit for said fluid exiting said first side of said damper piston causes an amount of noise caused when said fluid, with said angled exit, impacts a wall of a damper cylinder to be reduced compared to an amount of noise caused by said fluid impacting said wall of said damper when said fluid lacks said angled exit, and wherein said angled exit for said fluid exiting said first side of said damper piston causes an amount of heat generated by said fluid, with said angled exit, impacting said wall of said damper cylinder to be reduced compared to an amount of heat generated by said fluid impacting said wall of said damper when said fluid lacks said angled exit", as is explicitly recited in newly amended Independent Claim 1, newly amended Independent Claim 8 and newly amended Independent Claim 14.
In response to this, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As outlined in the rejection above, due to the angled exit of the fluid at fluid ramp 13’,13” of Peddinghaus, the speed of the fluid impacting the fluid ramp would be significantly reduced by the time it hits the wall of the damper cylinder compared to the speed of the fluid if no ramp was present, thus reducing the noise generated by this impact. Further, also due to the angled exit of the fluid at fluid ramp 13’,13” of Peddinghaus, fluid flow would be smoother along the wall of the damper cylinder, hence both turbulence and heat generation would also be reduced.
It is for these reasons that the rejections of Claims 1-20 have been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 05/26/26
Prosecution Insights