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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/9/2026 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter, which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter, which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “the first and second longitudinal distances” in the last clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation that provided antecedent basis for this limitation was deleted from the claim with the amendment of 7/9/2026.
Dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected due to dependency on a rejected base claim for failing to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 10-11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Namuduri et al. (U.S. 2010/0219721).
Regarding claim 1, Namuduri discloses (figs. 3-4) A jounce bumper (152) for a vehicle suspension system (of 122), the jounce bumper comprising:
a first body portion (162) made of a first material (pgh. 0023 at least, “elastomeric… material”) disposed between a first end and a second end of the jounce bumper (top end to bottom end) extending over a first radial distance from a longitudinal centerline of the jounce bumper (out to radial outer edge, as shown);
a second body portion (160) made of a second material (pgh. 0023, “piezoelectric fiber composite”) disposed between the first end and the second end of the jounce bumper (as shown, embedded) to extend over a second radial distance from the longitudinal centerline of the jounce bumper (as shown, embedded, i.e. extending over a different radial distance),
wherein the second radial distance is disposed between the first radial distance and the longitudinal centerline of the jounce bumper (as shown 160, does not extend as far radially as the outermost radial extent of 162), and
wherein the first body portion has a different hardness than the second body portion such (due to different materials at least) that force versus displacement characteristics for resistance to compression over the first and second longitudinal distances are different (due to different materials, at least).
Regarding claim 6, Namuduri discloses (figs. 3-4) one or both of the first and second materials comprises a piezoelectric material (second portion 160, see pgh. 0023).
Regarding claim 10, Namuduri discloses (figs. 3-4) the first and second materials have different hardness properties (it is noted that elastomeric materials and piezoelectric fiber composites inherently possess different hardness properties, as the materials are dissimilar).
Regarding claim 11, Namuduri discloses (figs. 1-4) A vehicle suspension system (100), the vehicle suspension system comprising:
a body or chassis (102) of the vehicle; and
a damping assembly (106/122) operably coupling a wheel assembly of the vehicle (via control arm 104) and the body chassis (as shown) to dampen movement of the body or chassis of the vehicle responsive to jounce and rebound events experienced at the wheel assembly (pgh. 0003 at least, typical damper function),
wherein the damping assembly comprises: a jounce bumper or rebound stop (152) comprising:
a first body portion (162) made of a first material (pgh. 0023 at least, “elastomeric… material”) disposed at a first end of the jounce bumper (disposed at the bottom end, at least) extending over a first longitudinal distance along a longitudinal centerline of the jounce bumper (extends from top to bottom, at least);
a second body portion (160) made of a second material (pgh. 0023, “piezoelectric fiber composite”) disposed at a second end of the jounce bumper (at the top end at least) to extend over a second longitudinal distance along the longitudinal centerline of the jounce bumper (longitudinal length of 160, as shown),
wherein the first body portion has a different hardness than the second body portion (due to different materials at least) such that force versus displacement characteristics for resistance to compression over the first and second longitudinal distances are different (due to different materials, at least), and
wherein one or more sensors are fully integrated within one or both of the first body portion and the second body portion (the disc 160 is described as a “piezoelectric fiber composite disc”, thus it is deemed to be “fully integrated” into the material of the disc itself).
Regarding claim 16, Namuduri discloses (figs. 3-4) one or both of the first and second materials comprises a piezoelectric material (second portion 160, see pgh. 0023).
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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namuduri et al. (U.S. 2010/0219721) in view of Wolf-Monheim et al. (DE 102019218060 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Namuduri does not appear to disclose how the first and second body portions are made. In the same field of endeavor of vehicle suspensions, Wolf teaches a stop buffering device (10) that is made by 3D printing or additive manufacturing process (page 26 pgh. 4: “the entire stop buffer element can be produced by means of an additive manufacturing process, for example by 3D printing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have produced both the first and second body portions of Namuduri by an additive manufacturing process as suggested by Wolf to reduce waste and machining steps in the manufacturing process as is typical in additive manufacturing processes in general, and reduce manufacturing costs by eliminating the need for a mold to be made to produce the components.
Claims 3-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namuduri et al. (U.S. 2010/0219721) in view of Perry (U.S. 2025/0026165).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 13-15, Namuduri does not appear to disclose void spaces within one or both of the first and second body portions.
In the same field of endeavor, Perry teaches (figs. 1-3) a jounce bumper (fig. 3) comprising void spaces (as shown between material) distributed therein to form a lattice structure (fig. 3 as shown), wherein a density or size of the void spaces in the lattice structure is consistent over the first longitudinal distance or the second longitudinal distance (fig. 3 as shown, the top half has a consistent density or size of void spaces across its longitudinal distance at least), wherein a density or size of the void spaces in the lattice structure changes as distance from the first end increases. (fig. 3, as you travel from the top to the bottom, i.e. distance from the first end increases, density changes 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 produced the claimed void spaces within one or both of the first and second body portions to reduce weight (by having voids instead of solid regions of materials) as well as creating a variable stiffness of the component, thereby having adjustability of the force/displacement curve of the jounce bumper (pgh. 0030 of Perry).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome any 112(b) rejections, as appropriate.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
Response to Arguments
The claim amendments of 7/9/2026 have alleviated the previous rejection. Upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made, as appears 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 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