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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments, filed 21st August 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, are made as seen below.
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.
Claims 1, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witte et. al. (DE 102019115492 A1) in view of Schramm (US 2452267 A) and further in view of Plantard et. al. (US 20200306782 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Witte discloses a damping system of an active chassis of a motor vehicle for a wheel of the motor vehicle, said damping system comprising: a damper (2) including a double-acting hydraulic cylinder (4) and a piston (12), which damper (2) is configured to be coupled to a wheel suspension system for the wheel; a hydraulic pump (20); and a hydraulic unit (A) (see Annotated Fig. 1 below) comprising a hydraulic reservoir (24) and valves (28, 26), the hydraulic unit (A) fluidly interconnecting the hydraulic pump (20) and the damper (2) wherein the hydraulic pump (20) and the hydraulic unit (A) cooperate with hydraulic chambers (14, 16) of the hydraulic cylinder such that, depending on a direction of conveyance of the hydraulic pump (20), a movement of the piston (12) in a first direction of actuation or in a second direction of actuation can be provided, wherein the hydraulic pump (20) and the damper (2) are fluidly connected via the hydraulic unit (A) and a tube-hose system (B) (see Fig. 1, Annotated Fig. 1 below)
Witte does not disclose wherein the tube-hose system comprises a metallic tube, a rubber hose and a coupler for fluidly coupling the metallic tube to the rubber hose, wherein said metallic tube is connected to a fluid connection point on the hydraulic pump and said rubber hose is connected to a fluid connection point on the hydraulic unit.
Schramm discloses a damping system of a motor vehicle comprising a tube-hose system wherein the tube-hose system comprises a metallic tube (60), a flexible hose (58) and a coupler for fluidly coupling the metallic tube (60) to the flexible hose (58), wherein said metallic tube (60) is connected to a fluid connection point on the hydraulic pump (63) and said flexible hose (58) is connected to a fluid connection point on the hydraulic unit (X) (see Fig. 4, Annotated Fig. 4 below).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the tube-hose system of Schramm with the damping system of Witte to supply hydraulic fluid to the hydraulic unit resiliently and with elasticity such that the connection stays strong under vehicle road conditions.
Witte modified by Schramm does not explicitly teach wherein the flexible hose is a rubber hose.
Plantard teaches a flexible rubber hose (14) connected to a rigid metal tube (16) (see Fig. 4, [0043])
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of a rubber tube connection to a metal tube of Plantard with the damping system of Witte in order to reduce manufacturing costs and make the material easy to source.
PNG
media_image1.png
493
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
388
687
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding Claim 2, Witte modified by Schramm and Plantard teaches wherein the hydraulic unit (A) is installed on the damper (2) or is integrated into the damper, wherein the hydraulic pump (20) is connected to the hydraulic unit (A) installed on the damper via the tube-hose system (B) (see DE 102019115492 A1 [Witte]; Fig. 1, Annotated Fig. 1 above), such that, starting from the hydraulic pump (36), the metallic tube (60) and then the rubber hose (58) of the tube-hose system extend towards the hydraulic unit (X) (see US 2452267 A [Schramm]; Fig. 4, Annotated Fig. 4 above)
Regarding Claim 9, Witte modified by Schramm and Plantard teaches wherein the metallic tubes of the tube-hose system comprise a greater stiffness than the rubber hose (see US 20200306782 A1 [Plantard]; [0043]).
Regarding Claim 14, Witte modified by Schramm and Plantard teaches wherein the tube-hose system comprises an additional metallic tube (60), an additional rubber hose (58) and an additional coupler for fluidly coupling the additional metallic tube (60) to the additional rubber hose (58), wherein said additional metallic tube (60) is connected to an additional fluid connection point on the hydraulic pump (63) and said additional rubber hose (58) is connected to an additional fluid connection point on the hydraulic unit (X) (see US 2452267 A [Schramm]; Fig. 4, Annotated Fig. 4 above).
Claims 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witte et. al. (DE 102019115492 A1) modified by Schramm (US 2452267 A) and Plantard et. al. (US 20200306782 A1) in Claim 1, above, further in view of Hisanaga (US 20210199216 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Witte modified by Schramm and Plantard teaches the damping system according to Claim 1.
Witte modified by Schramm and Plantard does not explicitly teach wherein the hose of the tube-hose system comprise a rubber fiber material.
Hisanaga teaches a hose comprising a rubber fiber material (see Fig. 1b, [0041], [0081]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the hose of Hisanaga with the damping system of Witte modified by Schramm and Plantard in order to provide a superior hose “which is less likely to cause hardening of a rubber layer, reduction in elasticity, and deterioration of sealability even at low temperatures” and “which can achieve low electrical conductivity without deterioration of physical properties (e.g., rigidity) of the rubber layer, resulting in being less likely to cause electrical corrosion at a cap attached to the end of the hose” (see US 20210199216 A1 [Hisanaga]; [0025]).
Regarding Claim 11, Witte modified by Schramm, Plantard, and Hisanaga teaches wherein the rubber fiber material comprises a layer of fiber material (2) arranged between an outer layer of rubber material (1) and an inner layer of rubber material (5) (see US 20210199216 A1 [Hisanaga]; Fig. 1b, [0041], [0081]).
Regarding Claim 12, Witte modified by Schramm, Plantard, and Hisanaga teaches further comprising two layers of the fiber material (2, 4) arranged between the outer layer of rubber material (1) and the inner layer of rubber material (5) (see US 20210199216 A1 [Hisanaga]; Fig. 1b, [0041], [0081]).
Regarding Claim 13, Witte modified by Schramm, Plantard, and Hisanaga further comprising another layer of rubber (3) arranged between said two layers of the fiber material (2, 4) (see US 20210199216 A1 [Hisanaga]; Fig. 1b, [0041], [0081]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witte et. al. (DE 102019115492 A1) modified by Schramm (US 2452267 A) and Plantard et. al. (US 20200306782 A1) in Claim 1, above, further in view of Six et. al. (US 20140116243 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Witte modified by Schramm and Plantard disclose a motor vehicle associated with the damping system according to Claim 1 (see DE 102019115492 A1 [Witte]; [0001]).
Witte modified by Schramm and Plantard does not explicitly disclose a motor vehicle having a plurality of wheels, wherein one of the wheels of at least one axle of the motor vehicle is associated with the damping system according to claim 1.
Six teaches a motor vehicle having a plurality of wheels, wherein one of the wheels of at least one axle of the motor vehicle is associated with the damping system according to claim 1 (see Fig. 1, [0039]).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of associating a damper system with a motor vehicle of Six with the damping system of Witte modified by Koch in order to provide filtering of the motor vehicles vibrations, improving ride feel.
Conclusion
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). 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 Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights