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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species V in the reply filed on 5/29/2026 is acknowledged. As best understood, the traversal is on the ground(s) that figures 1-7 are effectively generic to species V, and aspects of the subject matter of figs. 1-7 is described in claims 1-20, so thus all claims need to be examined together because species I and V need to be examined together. While it is agreed that the species shown in figs. 21-30 can be used in the shock of figs. 1-5, Species V is directed to a crossover bumper with a specific construction, and claims 1-8 and 14-19 do not describe the crossover bumper of figs. 21-30. Additionally, species I is primarily directed to the spring coupler rather than the details of the crossover bumper.
Claim 1 recites, “a first ring… that defines a central opening, an inside diameter and an outside diameter”. The multi-portion backer ring 202 of figs. 21-30 does not do this, because a single portion (such as shown in fig. 29) does not “define a central opening” as claimed in claim 1, nor does it “define an inside diameter”, as the piece is merely “c-shaped”. Accordingly, claims 1-8 are not readable on the elected species. Additionally, claims 14-19 are not directed to a crossover bumper but rather a spring coupler, so claims 14-19 are also not readable on the elected species. The only remaining claims that are readable on the elected species are claims 9-13 and 20.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-8 and 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/29/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/18/2024 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) for the following informalities:
Reference characters “112” and “114” have both been used to designate a tender spring (see pgh. 0065-0066).
Reference characters “118” and “120” have both been used to designate a crossover ring (see pgh. 0089).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kerr et al. (U.S. 2013/0038005).
Regarding claim 9, Kerr discloses (figs. 2-4) A crossover bumper (82) for damping noise in a dual-spring shock absorber (20) that includes a shock body (40/50), a spring coupler (45/48) and a crossover ring (58) , comprising:
a first multi-portion backer ring (72) comprising a first material (pgh. 0052, “steel”), including: a first semi-circular portion (78a) having a first end and a second end (circumferential ends), and a second semi-circular portion (78b) having a first end and a second end (circumferential ends), the first end of the second semi-circular portion connectable to the first end of the first semi-circular portion (as shown), and the second end of the second semi-circular portion connectable to the second end of the first semi-circular portion (as shown), such that the first semi-circular portion and the second semi-circular portion are connectable to form a ring shape (pgh. 0052, “ring-like design”); and
a second multi-portion damper ring (82) comprising a second material (pgh. 0057, e.g. rubber), the second material being different from the first material (see above), the second multi-portion including: a first semi-circular portion (88a) configured to connect to the first semi-circular portion of the first multi-portion ring (as shown), and a second semi-circular portion (88b) configured to connect to the second semi-circular portion of the first multi-portion ring (as shown).
Regarding claim 20, Kerr discloses (figs. 2-4) A dual-spring shock absorber including the crossover bumper of claim 9 (see figs and rejection above).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr et al. (U.S. 2013/0038005) in view of Smith (U.S. 2015/0308536).
Regarding claim 10, Kerr does not appear to disclose a channel in the first multi-portion backer ring. 10. In the same field of endeavor of shock absorbers, Smith teaches (figs. 2-5) a multi-piece bumper (20) including first multi-piece backer ring (22/24) and a damper ring 40 connected to the top, wherein the first multi-portion backer ring defines a channel (42), and a portion of the damper ring is configured to fit into the channel (as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a channel in the backer ring for the damper to be fit into to aid in alignment of the damper ring with the backer ring during installation, as the channel aids in centering the damper ring on the backer ring, and also to increase the surface area of the damper ring contacting the backer ring, thereby improving sealing properties.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr et al. (U.S. 2013/0038005) in view of Pniewski et al. (U.S. 2023/0191865).
Regarding claims 11-13, Kerr discloses a connection between the first ends of the two semi-circular portions, but does not appear to disclose this connection being a snap-fit connection, and instead discloses the connection being by a series of screws (90) that also interact with the damper. In the same field of endeavor of suspension systems, Pniewski teaches (figs. 2A-2B) a damping ring (55) with two pieces (55A,55B), wherein a connection formed between them forms a snap-fit connection (at 56,58), wherein the first end of the first semi-circular portion of the backer ring defines a tapered thickness (e.g. one of 56/58, tapered at a single step) and the first end of the second semi-circular ring of the backer ring defines a tapered thickness (as shown, both pieces have it), and the first ends are configured to overlap when connected to one another (fig. 2B as shown), wherein an arc length of the first semi-circular portion of the backer ring extends longer than 180 (as shown) degrees.
In order to arrive at the claimed invention, the connection between the two backer ring portions (78a/78b) would be carried out by the snap fit connection instead of the screws (90). As a result, the backer ring has the snap connection for its two connections, and the two pieces of the damping ring are still screwed into the backer ring. As modified, the sections of the backer ring are longer than an arc length of the first semi-circular portion of the damper ring, because the portions of the damper ring are each half a circle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a snap fit connection for the backer ring sections of Kerr to minimize the number of parts, thus eliminating the need for 4 screws, and also decreasing the amount of time required to assemble the backer ring.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the PTO-892 disclose various damper rings and crossover rings for shock absorbers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM - 5:00 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.
/DAVID MORRIS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights