DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-13, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yabe et al. (DE 102012204530 A1) in view of Park (US 8967344 B2).
Re claim 1, Yabe et al. teach a piston valve assembly generating a damping force during a compression stroke and a tension stroke of a shock absorber, the piston valve assembly comprising: a piston valve main body (5) mounted on a piston rod (6) of the shock absorber, dividing a cylinder into a compression chamber (2B) and a rebound chamber (2A), having a compression channel (12) and a tension channel (11) formed to penetrate in a direction connecting the compression chamber and the rebound chamber, and configured to adjust a movement of a working fluid between the compression chamber and the rebound chamber; a first disc valve (67-69) configured to open or close the compression channel of the piston valve main body in a direction in which the piston valve main body faces the rebound chamber; and a second disc valve (14) configured to open or close the tension channel of the piston valve main body in a direction in which the piston valve main body faces the compression chamber and having a relatively smaller diameter than that of the first disc valve. (Fig. 1, 6)
Yabe et al. do not teach a retainer interposed between the piston valve main body and the first disc valve. Park teaches teach a retainer interposed between the piston valve main body and the first disc valve wherein the retainer is in contact with one region of the piston valve main body where the compression channel is formed and has a compression connection channel connected to the compression channel of the piston valve main body and the retainer is spaced apart from other regions of the piston valve main body where the tension channel is formed, and during the tension stroke, the working fluid in the rebound chamber flows into the tension channel of the piston valve main body through a space separated between the retainer and the piston valve main body. See above. (Fig. 7, See below.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the retainer as taught by Park as an alternative damping configuration. (See Park – Col. 9, 23-28)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Retainer)][AltContent: textbox (Compression channel)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Compression connection channel)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Tension channel)][AltContent: textbox (Piston valve main body)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Disc Valve)][AltContent: textbox (First disc valve)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
628
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claims 2 and 12, Yabe et al. as modified teach wherein the compression channel (12) of the piston valve main body (5) is formed at a position relatively farther from an axial center of the piston rod than the tension channel (11).
Re claims 3 and 13, Yabe et al. as modified teach wherein the first disc valve (67-69) has a radius greater than a distance from an axial center of the piston rod (6) to the compression channel (12), and the second disc valve (14) has a radius greater than a distance from the axial center of the piston rod to the tension channel (11) and smaller than a distance from the axial center of the piston rod to the compression channel.
Re claims 6 and 16 Yabe et al. as modified teach wherein the first disc valve is in contact with the retainer and opens or closes the compression connection channel of the retainer connected to the compression channel of the piston valve main body. See above.
Re claims 8 and 18 Yabe et al. as modified teach wherein the second disc valve is in contact with the piston valve main body to open or close the tension channel of the piston valve main body.
Re claims 9 and 19, Yabe et al. as modified teach wherein the first disc valve (67-69) has a relatively lower stiffness than the second disc valve (14) and is configured to generate a relatively lower damping force during the compression stroke than during the tension stroke. (Fig.6)
Re claims 10 and 20, Yabe et al. as modified teach wherein a first washer (64) installed in a direction opposite to a direction in which the first disc valve (67-69) faces the piston valve main body (5); a piston nut (7) fastened to an end of the piston rod (6) passing through the piston valve main body, the first disc valve, and the second disc valve (14) in sequence; and a second washer (62) provided between the piston nut and the second disc valve.
Re claim 11, Yabe et al. teach a shock absorber comprising: a cylinder (3) filled with a working fluid; a piston rod (6) reciprocating within the cylinder; and a piston valve main body (5) mounted on the piston rod, dividing the cylinder into a compression chamber (2B) and a rebound chamber (2A), and controlling movement of the working fluid between the compression chamber and the rebound chamber, wherein the piston valve main body includes a piston valve main body having a compression channel (12)and a tension channel (11) formed to penetrate in a direction connecting the compression chamber and the rebound chamber, a first disc valve (67-69) configured to open or close the compression channel of the piston valve main body in a direction in which the piston valve main body faces the rebound chamber, and a second disc valve (14) configured to open or close the tension channel of the piston valve main body in a direction in which the piston valve main body faces the compression chamber and having a relatively smaller diameter than that of the first disc valve. (Fig. 1, 6)
Yabe et al. do not teach a retainer interposed between the piston valve main body and the first disc valve. Park teaches teach a retainer interposed between the piston valve main body and the first disc valve wherein the retainer is in contact with one region of the piston valve main body where the compression channel is formed and has a compression connection channel connected to the compression channel of the piston valve main body and the retainer is spaced apart from other regions of the piston valve main body where the tension channel is formed, and during the tension stroke, the working fluid in the rebound chamber flows into the tension channel of the piston valve main body through a space separated between the retainer and the piston valve main body. See above. (Fig. 7, See above.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the retainer as taught by Park as an alternative damping configuration. (See Park – Col. 9, 23-28)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Park teaches alternative configurations for the piston valve main body in Fig. 1 (which is similar to the teaching of Yabe et al.) and Fig. 7 which differs in the addition of a retainer. Park states that the configurations are exemplary alternative examples of main piston valve assemblies. The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the retainer as taught by Park in the piston valve assembly of Yabe et al. as an alternative means for providing damping based on the desired damping criteria.
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 MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTWOctober 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights