Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/387,999

PISTON FLUID FLOW DYNAMICS, TEMPERATURE STABILITY, AND NOISE MITIGATION

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Nov 08, 2023
Priority
Jun 07, 2023 — provisional 63/471,720
Examiner
RODRIGUEZ, PAMELA
Art Unit
3616
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Fox Factory Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allowance Rate
858 granted / 977 resolved
+35.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
992
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
42.9%
+2.9% vs TC avg
§102
32.8%
-7.2% vs TC avg
§112
18.0%
-22.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 977 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 31, 2026 has been entered. 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) 1-6 and 8-19 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", 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" on a first side (i.e., the left side of piston 9 on the left side of piston rod 1) of the damper piston 9 (Figures 3-4), the first side of the damper piston 9 being a compression side of the damper piston 9 (due to compression ports 5 and 7), the fluid ramp 13" being of a shape that creates an angled exit for fluid exiting the damper piston 9 (see Figures 3-4 and column 3 lines 17-39), the fluid ramp 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", 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", fluid flow would be smoother along the wall of the damper cylinder, hence both turbulence and heat generation would also be reduced), and wherein a second fluid ramp 13’ on a second side (i.e., right side of piston 9 on the right side of piston rod 1) of the damper piston 9 (see Figures 3-4), wherein the second side of the damper piston 9 is a rebound side of the damper piston (due to rebound ports 6 and 8), the second fluid ramp 13’ being of a shape that creates an angled exit for fluid exiting the damper piston 9 (see Figures 3 and 4). Regarding Claim 2, Peddinghaus further discloses that the fluid ramp can consist of a round ramp (see Figure 2 and the rounded end of edge 15). Regarding Claim 3, Peddinghaus further discloses that the fluid ramp consists of a beveled ramp (see Figure 4 and ramp portion 13"). Regarding Claim 4, Peddinghaus further discloses that the fluid ramp can consist 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" 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 portion 13” doesn’t extend across the entire width of piston 9). Regarding Claim 6, Peddinghaus further discloses that the fluid ramp 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 8, see Claim 1 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 and noise and heat reduction ramp 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" 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 3-4), wherein the first side of the damper piston 9 is a compression side of the damper piston (due to compression ports 5 and 7), the fluid ramp 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" 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", 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", fluid flow would be smoother along the wall of the damper cylinder, hence both turbulence and heat generation would also be reduced), and a second fluid ramp 13’ on a second side (i.e., right side of piston 9 to the right of piston rod 1) of the damper piston 9, wherein the second side of the damper piston 9 is a rebound side of the damper piston (due to rebound ports 6 and 8), the second fluid ramp 13’ being of a shape that creates an angled exit for fluid exiting the damper piston 9 (see Figures 3 and 4). 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. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed August 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argues that the Peddinghaus reference does not teach “a fluid ramp on a first side of the damper piston, wherein the first side of the damper piston is a compression side of the damper piston” AND “a fluid ramp on a second side of the damper piston, wherein the second side of the damper piston is a rebound side of the damper piston” as now recited in newly amended independent Claims 1, 8, and 14. As outlined in the rejection above, Peddinghaus does teach a fluid ramp 13” in Figures 3 and 4 on a first side of the piston 9 (i.e., the piston portion on the left side of piston rod 1 in Figures 3 and 4), wherein the first side is a compression side of the piston 9 due to compression ports 5 and 7 and a second fluid ramp 13’ on a second side of the piston 9 (i.e., the piston portion on the right side of piston rod 1 in Figures 3 and 4), wherein the second side is a rebound side of the piston 9 due to rebound ports 6 and 8. When taken in this context, the new limitations of independent Claims 1, 8, and 14 are still met by the Peddinghaus reference. It is for these reasons that the rejections of Claims 1-6 and 8-19 have been maintained. Conclusion 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 09/09/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 08, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102
Mar 24, 2026
Response Filed
May 29, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §102
Aug 31, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12747764
DISC BRAKE PAD AND METHOD FOR THE MANUFACTURING THEREOF
3y 3m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12746899
EMERGENCY DRIVING AND STOP SYSTEM
3y 0m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12735008
System and Method for Ensuring Safe Pull Away of a Vehicle from Connected Infrastructure
2y 7m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12728823
ELECTRONIC BRAKE SYSTEM
3y 4m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12729741
SHOCK ABSORBER
2y 12m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+10.6%)
2y 6m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 977 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month