DETAILED ACTION
The Request for Reconsideration filed 05/08/26 has been entered. Claims 63-78 are pending, with claims 76-78 being newly added. No amendments were made to independent claim 63. Despite Applicant’s arguments, the previous rejections are maintained as detailed below. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
REJECTION #1: Reybrouck in view of Gibbs and Hattori
Claims 63-78 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reybrouck (U.S. Patent No. 5,682,980) in view of Gibbs (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0047899) and Hattori et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0012688). Reybrouck is directed to an active suspension system. See Abstract. Gibbs is directed to a hydraulic suspension strut. See Abstract. Hattori is directed to a road surface detection system for an active suspension system. See Abstract.
Claim 63: Reybrouck discloses an active shock absorber system [Fig. 4], comprising: a housing (240, 242) that includes a first volume (240) and a second volume (242); a piston (244) disposed in the housing that, in a first operating condition, is configured to move through at least a portion of a compression stroke and that, in a second operating condition, is configured to move through at least a portion of an extension stroke; a hydraulic device (260, 262, 264) that includes a first port (at 260) that is in fluid communication with the first volume through a first flow path (from 240 to 260) and a second port (at 262) that is in fluid communication with the second volume through a second flow path (from 242 to 262); a hydraulic controls (250, 252) in fluid communication with the first port and second port, wherein the hydraulic controls include a multiplicity of valves (250, 252) configured and located to control flow to and from a pressurized reservoir (256); wherein the first flow path and the second flow path do not pass through the hydraulic controls; and wherein in at least a first mode of operation the active shock absorber system is configured and arranged to allow the hydraulic device to rotate independent of the motion of the piston [see col. 6, lines 1-34]. See Fig. 4.
Reybrouck discloses all the limitations of this claim except for: (1) the hydraulic device being configured to move in two/opposite directions, i.e., being reversible; and (2) the controller being responsive to road conditions.
First, Gibbs discloses an active shock absorber system [Figs. 5, 8-11], with a housing (28) including two volumes (42, 44), a piston (46), a hydraulic device (9), a first flow path (128) and second flow path (124) in communication between ports of the hydraulic device and the two volumes, hydraulic controls (134, 136) that includes a multiplicity of valves controlling flow to a pressurized reservoir (140), the flow paths do not pass through the hydraulic controls, and the hydraulic device can rotate independently of the piston, wherein the hydraulic device is reversible [see para. 0064]. See Figs. 5, 8-11; para. 0064. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a reversible hydraulic device in Reybrouck because Reybrouck employs two separate pumps (250, 252) to achieve flow in different directions and using a single reversible pump instead ultimately achieves the same objective. Design considerations for this modification include providing a simpler system by reducing the number of parts.
Second, Hattori discloses the use of a controller (450) configured to control an active shock absorber system (420) to alter a force/velocity response of the active shock absorber system in response to road conditions detected via sensor/monitor unit (100, 200). See Abstract; para. 0023. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to ensure the Reybrouck controller is responsive to road conditions because Reybrouck contemplates the use of “various sensors which are used for generating control signals for selectively controlling the forces generated by the hydraulic actuators” [see col. 3, lines 20-28] and given the variability of surface conditions this feature will provide improved damping and ‘feel’ for a user during driving.
Claim 64: Reybrouck discloses that in at least a second mode of operation the hydraulic device is configured to operate as a pump to drive the piston. See col. 5, line 39 - col. 6, line 47.
Claim 65: Reybrouck discloses that in the at least second mode of operation an apparent inertia of the shock absorber system is reduced compared to the apparent inertia of the first mode of operation. See col. 5, line 39 - col. 6, line 47; Fig. 4.
Claim 66: Reybrouck discloses a first valve (250), wherein in at least a third mode of operation the first valve is positioned and configured to prevent fluid communication with the second volume. See Fig. 4.
Claim 67: Reybrouck discloses a second valve (252), wherein in at least a fourth mode of operation, the second valve is positioned and configured to prevent fluid communication with the first volume. See Fig. 4.
Claim 68: Reybrouck discloses that the shock absorber system is configured to provide unidirectional damping. See col. 5, line 39 - col. 6, line 47; Fig. 4.
Claim 69: Reybrouck discloses a first valve and a second valve, wherein in at least a fifth mode of operation, the first valve and the second valve are positioned and configured to prevent fluid communication with the first volume and second volume, respectively. See Fig. 4.
Claim 70: Reybrouck discloses that during the fifth mode of operation the piston is prevented from moving in either the compression stroke or the extension stroke. See Fig. 4.
Claim 71: Reybrouck discloses that the first volume is a compression volume that is compressed during a compression stroke and the second volume is an extension volume that is compressed during an extension stroke. See Fig. 4.
Claim 72: Reybrouck discloses that in the first mode of operation the hydraulic device moves out of sync with the piston. See col. 5, line 39 - col. 6, line 47; Fig. 4.
Claim 73: Reybrouck discloses that the first valve is configured to selectively control fluid flow between the first volume and the hydraulic controls. See Fig. 4.
Claim 74: Reybrouck discloses that in the first mode of operation hydraulic device rotates at a rate that drives more fluid than the fluid being displaced by movement of the piston. See col. 5, line 39 - col. 6, line 47.
Claim 75: Reybrouck discloses that during at least the first mode of operation, a rotation of the hydraulic device drives more fluid than fluid displaced by the piston. See col. 5, line 39 - col. 6, line 47.
Claim 76: see claim 63 above. Reybrouck further discloses a bypass flow path (through 250, 252) that is external to the hydraulic device and connects the first and second volumes. See Fig. 4.
Claim 77: see claim 64 above.
Claim 78: Reybrouck discloses that the hydraulic device is coupled to an electric machine (260). See Fig. 4.
REJECTION #2: Reybrouck in view of Hattori
Claims 63-78 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reybrouck in view of Hattori.
Claim 63: Reybrouck discloses an active shock absorber system [Fig. 4], comprising: a housing (240, 242) that includes a first volume (240) and a second volume (242); a piston (244) disposed in the housing that, in a first operating condition, is configured to move through at least a portion of a compression stroke and that, in a second operating condition, is configured to move through at least a portion of an extension stroke; a hydraulic device (260, 262, 264) that includes a first port (at 260) that is in fluid communication with the first volume through a first flow path (from 240 to 260) and a second port (at 262) that is in fluid communication with the second volume through a second flow path (from 242 to 262); a hydraulic controls (250, 252) in fluid communication with the first port and second port, wherein the hydraulic controls include a multiplicity of valves (250, 252) configured and located to control flow to and from a pressurized reservoir (256); wherein the first flow path and the second flow path do not pass through the hydraulic controls; and wherein in at least a first mode of operation the active shock absorber system is configured and arranged to allow the hydraulic device to rotate independent of the motion of the piston [see col. 6, lines 1-34]. See Fig. 4.
Reybrouck discloses all the limitations of this claim except for: (1) the hydraulic device being configured to move in two/opposite directions, i.e., being reversible; and (2) the controller being responsive to road conditions.
First, Hattori discloses the use of a “reversible” rotating-type hydraulic device/pump in an active suspension system of a vehicle. See para. 0006. While the discussion of this feature is in reference to other prior art, this disclosure indicates that this feature is known in the specific field of active hydraulic shock absorbers in vehicle suspensions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a reversible hydraulic device in Reybrouck because Reybrouck employs two separate pumps (250, 252) to achieve flow in different directions and using a single reversible pump instead ultimately achieves the same objective. Design considerations for this modification include providing a simpler system by reducing the number of parts.
Second, Hattori discloses the use of a controller (450) configured to control an active shock absorber system (420) to alter a force/velocity response of the active shock absorber system in response to road conditions detected via sensor/monitor unit (100, 200). See Abstract; para. 0023. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to ensure the Reybrouck controller is responsive to road conditions because Reybrouck contemplates the use of “various sensors which are used for generating control signals for selectively controlling the forces generated by the hydraulic actuators” [see col. 3, lines 20-28] and given the variability of surface conditions this feature will provide improved damping and ‘feel’ for a user during driving.
Claim 64: Reybrouck discloses that in at least a second mode of operation the hydraulic device is configured to operate as a pump to drive the piston. See col. 5, line 39 - col. 6, line 47.
Claim 65: Reybrouck discloses that in the at least second mode of operation an apparent inertia of the shock absorber system is reduced compared to the apparent inertia of the first mode of operation. See col. 5, line 39 - col. 6, line 47; Fig. 4.
Claim 66: Reybrouck discloses a first valve (250), wherein in at least a third mode of operation the first valve is positioned and configured to prevent fluid communication with the second volume. See Fig. 4.
Claim 67: Reybrouck discloses a second valve (252), wherein in at least a fourth mode of operation, the second valve is positioned and configured to prevent fluid communication with the first volume. See Fig. 4.
Claim 68: Reybrouck discloses that the shock absorber system is configured to provide unidirectional damping. See col. 5, line 39 - col. 6, line 47; Fig. 4.
Claim 69: Reybrouck discloses a first valve and a second valve, wherein in at least a fifth mode of operation, the first valve and the second valve are positioned and configured to prevent fluid communication with the first volume and second volume, respectively. See Fig. 4.
Claim 70: Reybrouck discloses that during the fifth mode of operation the piston is prevented from moving in either the compression stroke or the extension stroke. See Fig. 4.
Claim 71: Reybrouck discloses that the first volume is a compression volume that is compressed during a compression stroke and the second volume is an extension volume that is compressed during an extension stroke. See Fig. 4.
Claim 72: Reybrouck discloses that in the first mode of operation the hydraulic device moves out of sync with the piston. See col. 5, line 39 - col. 6, line 47; Fig. 4.
Claim 73: Reybrouck discloses that the first valve is configured to selectively control fluid flow between the first volume and the hydraulic controls. See Fig. 4.
Claim 74: Reybrouck discloses that in the first mode of operation hydraulic device rotates at a rate that drives more fluid than the fluid being displaced by movement of the piston. See col. 5, line 39 - col. 6, line 47.
Claim 75: Reybrouck discloses that during at least the first mode of operation, a rotation of the hydraulic device drives more fluid than fluid displaced by the piston. See col. 5, line 39 - col. 6, line 47.
Claim 76: see claim 63 above. Reybrouck further discloses a bypass flow path (through 250, 252) that is external to the hydraulic device and connects the first and second volumes. See Fig. 4.
Claim 77: see claim 64 above.
Claim 78: Reybrouck discloses that the hydraulic device is coupled to an electric machine (260). See Fig. 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/08/26 with respect to claim(s) 63-75 have been considered but are not persuasive.
First, Applicant contends that the Reybrouck pump “does not, in itself, ‘achieve’ a direction of flow within that hydraulic circuit.” See Remarks, page 7. In response, it is unclear what specific limitation Applicant is contending is allegedly deficient in the rejection. Applicant needs to point to an actual limitation that Reybrouck (or other reference) fails to disclose, but that does not occur anywhere throughout this line of argument. It is further unclear why “achieve” is in quotes, since this language does not appear anywhere in the claims. Regardless, the Reybrouck pumps 262, 264 certainly cause hydraulic fluid to flow either to the upper chamber or to the lower chamber of the cylinder. The fact that this is done in conjunction with the opening/closing of the valves 250, 252 does not detract from this functionality. It should be noted that claim 63 does not even require this minimal level of functionality – it only requires being in “fluid communication” with the two cylinder volumes. Hence, the current claim language is fairly broad and should be narrowed to define over the prior art.
Second, Applicant argues that modifying the dual-pump system in Reybrouck with the single-reversible-pump system in Gibbs (and also in Hattori) would render Reybrouck inoperable, unusable or “unfit for its intended purpose and/or changes the mode of operation of the system.” See Remarks, pages 8-9. This is incorrect. Clearly, if a single-reversible-pump were employed in Figure 4 by one skilled in the art, it would not be a single input/single output-type pump, but one using two outputs such that the intended functionality of Reybrouck is still achieved. These types of pumps are well-known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. See, e.g., DE 102 27 417 at Figs. 3, 4 (reversible pump 6, with inlet from reservoir 6, and flow to two outlets to chambers 7A, 7B dependent on pump direction).
For the foregoing reasons, all pending claims remain rejected as detailed above.
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 VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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 on 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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657 May 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights