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 .
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 5, 6, 8-14 and 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5 and “the first adjuster”, it is unclear how the first adjuster is adjusting a fluid pressure in the first compression chamber when the first adjuster is previously recited as controlling or varying a first biased valve, which controls a fluid flow between second compression chamber 13 and damping chamber 15.
Regarding claim 6 line 2, it is unclear which of the plurality of second valves, second biased valve or second fluid valve, that the recitation “the second valve” is referencing.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the third biased valve" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-14 are rejected due to their dependence upon claim 8.
Claim 11 lines 2-3, it is unclear how the adjuster is rotating the first valve, when it is previously recited that the adjuster adjusts the bias of the biased valve (see cl. 8 line 11).
Regarding claim 17 line 2, it is unclear how the second seal having a second seal lip engages the first tube, when it is recited in claim 15 that the second seal is arranged on an inner diameter of the first piston (such as element 37), which surrounds the first shaft and is attached to the free end of the third tube 4. Placement of the second seal at the inner diameter of the first piston 37 would place the second seal in sliding engagement with the first shaft 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
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(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,828,230 to Steger et al. in view of US 2012/0187651 a1 to Wimmer.
Re-claim 15, Steger et al. teach a shock absorber, comprising: a first tube 24 having a first tube free end (adjacent piston 18); a second tube 100; a third tube 14 having a third tube free end; a first seal 40 is attached to the first tube free end and is sealingly engaged with the third tube 14 (see figures 1 and 2); a first shaft 81 is attached to the first tube 24; a first piston (top portion of third tube) is attached to the third tube free end and surrounds the first shaft 81 and has an inner diameter and an outer diameter; a second seal is attached to the inner diameter of the first piston; the first seal and the second seal have the same shape (as shown in the figures). However, Steger et al. fail to show or teach the first seal oriented in a first direction and the second seal oriented in a second direction opposite the first direction.
Wimmer teaches a seal assembly (such as 38 and lower lip seal, figure 4) having the same shape (i.e. U-shaped), a first seal is oriented in a direction of compression movement of a rod 22, allowing for lower resistance, a second seal is oriented in an opposite direction for minimizing a loss of fluid. U-shaped seals are common in the art, and are particularly good at retaining fluid within a chamber, while providing lower resistance to movement. The orientation of which is left to the artisan, however, having the seals arranged in opposing directions is known in the art as seen in Wimmer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the O-ring seals of Steger et al. with U-shaped seals facing opposing directions as suggested and shown in Wimmer, as each type of seal would have yielded the same expectant result of retaining fluid within the adjacent chambers, and having arranged the seals in opposing directions is known in the art and would have performed equally well in the apparatus of Steger et al.
Re-claims 16 and 17, the seal lips of Wimmer when having been utilized in the shock absorber of Steger et al. would have yielded the arrangement of a first lip engaging the third tube 14 and a second lip engaging the first (shaft) 24.
Re-claims 18 and 19, the seals of Wimmer are dynamic seals.
Re-claim 20, the seals of Wimmer minimize friction due to their orientation of the lip elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 7 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious a shock absorber having compressible fluid filled first, second and third chambers, with a second biased valve permitting flow between the second compression chamber and the first damping chamber. The closest art of record, Englund, shows a shock absorber with first, second and third gas filled chambers, a first biased valve 313 having an adjuster communicates the second compression chamber and the first damping chamber. The second valve communicating 321 is not biased, nor would providing a biased valve in its place be obvious in light of the prior art, as this valve is a rebound valve intended to slow or stop movement.
Claims 5, 6 and 8-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. O’Neill, Rodgers, Davis, Jordan, Wirges and Knobloch each teach a gas spring damper.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
February 10, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616