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 § 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nogami et al. (US – 2007/0227847 A1).
As per claim 1, Nogami discloses Vehicle Height Adjusting Device comprising:
an outer housing (2, Fig: 1);
an inner housing (1, Fig: 1);
a pressure accumulator (Attached figure and Fig: 1); and
a shut-off valve (20, Fig: 1) switchable between a release position (Fig: 2) and a shut-off position (Fig: 3),
wherein the inner housing (1) is disposed inside the outer housing (2, Fig: 1), and
wherein the inner housing comprises a piston (4, Fig: 1), a first working chamber (2a, Fig: 1) and a second working chamber (2b, Fig: 1) separated from the first working chamber by the piston (4, Fig: 1),
wherein the first working chamber (2a, Fig: 1) is connected to the pressure accumulator via a first line arrangement (via 4a to 5a 5d and 8a, Fig: 1-3) and the second working chamber (2b, Fig: 1) is connected to the pressure accumulator via a second line arrangement (via 5a, 13c, 8a, Fig: 1-3),
wherein the pressure accumulator comprises a storage space for hydraulic fluid (Attached figure and Fig: 1), and
wherein the shut-off valve (20) is disposed in the second line arrangement and blocks the second line arrangement in the shut-off position (Fig: 3),
wherein the pressure accumulator (Attached figure and Fig: 1) is disposed between the outer housing (2) and the inner housing (1, Fig: 1).
As per claim 2, Nogami discloses wherein the storage space (Attached figure and Fig: 1) is at least formed by the inner housing (1) and an at least partially elastic membrane (7, Fig: 1).
As per claim 3, Nogami discloses wherein the membrane (7, Fig: 1) is arranged around the inner housing (1, Fig: 1).
As per claim 4, Nogami discloses wherein the membrane (7) comprises at least one elastic portion and at least one fixed portion (Attached figure and Fig: 1).
As per claim 5, Nogami discloses wherein the hydraulic cylinder (100, Fig: 1) comprises at least one retaining member (6, 8, Fig: 1), and wherein the at least one fixed portion is disposed between a radial surface of at least one retaining member and the outer housing (Attached figure and Fig: 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
788
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 6, Nogami discloses wherein the storage space (Attached figure and Fig: 1) is additionally formed by an axial surface of the at least one retaining member (6, 8, Attached figure and Fig: 1).
As per claim 7, Nogami discloses wherein the at least one retaining member (6, 8, Fig: 1) is arranged around the inner housing (1, Fig: 1).
As per claim 8, Nogami discloses wherein a preloading element (air chamber 19, so that preloading element is air, Fig: 1) preloads the membrane so that a pressure is provided in the storage space ([0033], Fig: 1).
As per claim 9, Nogami discloses wherein the preloading element (air in chamber 19, Fig: 1)) is disposed between the membrane (7) and the outer housing (2, Fig: 1).
As per claim 10, Nogami discloses wherein the preloading element comprises a spring, a foam, an elastic silicone oil and/or a space filled with compressed air (air chamber, [0033], Fig: 1).
As per claim 11, Nogami discloses wherein a separation element is disposed in the storage space (Attached figure and Fig: 1).
As per claim 12, Nogami discloses wherein the separation element is arranged around the inner housing (Attached figure and Fig: 1).
As per claim 14, Nogami discloses wherein the separation element is provided on the inner housing (Attached figure and Fig: 1).
As per claim 15, Nogami discloses wherein a pressure relief valve (4a, 4b, Fig: 1) is disposed between the first working chamber (2a) and the second working chamber (2b, Fig: 1).
As per claim 16, Nogami discloses a restraint system with a hydraulic cylinder according to claim 1 (Fig; 1).
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.
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(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogami et al. (US – 2007/0227847 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of HAUPT (US – 2013/0092273 A1).
As per claim 13, Nogami discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the separation element is a coil spring.
HAUPT discloses Device For Storing Hydraulic Fluid comprising:
wherein the separation element is a coil spring (24, on the side of the piston element 22 facing away from the storage chamber 21, inside the housing assembly 19 the piston element 22 and the housing assembly 19 delimit a space 23 in which a spring arrangement 24 is accommodated, [0053], Fig: 4-9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Vehicle Height Adjusting Device of the Nogami to make the separation element is a coil spring as taught by HAUPT in order to provide possible relative movements of the preferably inner (second) piston element are not interfered with by corresponding pressure fluctuations in the further storage chamber.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A: Ludwig (US – 4,200,269),
B: Smith (US – 3,874,485),
C: Hoffmann et al. (US – 3,790,146),
D: Kim (US – 2009/0223761 A1),
E: Baba (US – 2005/0051398 A1),
F: Lawrence George Nicholls (GB – 2101266 B), and
G: SCHWACKE J (DE – 102018201456 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN M AUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5792. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:30 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.
/SAN M AUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616