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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Runkle (DE 393167) in view of Sasaki et al (CN113513554).
In reference to claims 1, 7-8, Runkel (figure 2) teaches a fluid pressure damper comprising: a cylinder tube (4); a piston rod (12) inserted into the cylinder tube so as to be freely movable into and out of the cylinder tube; a piston (30) connected to the piston rod, the piston being configured to partition an interior of the cylinder tube into a rod-side chamber (66) and a bottom-side chamber (6a); and a damping unit (90) configured to generate damping force by imparting resistance to a flow of working fluid between the rod-side chamber and the bottom-side chamber, wherein the piston rod has a rod portion connected to the piston and supported so as to be feely slidable with respect to the cylinder tube and a head portion (portion where attachment point 16 is disposed) exposed to outside of the cylinder tube; the piston rod if formed with: a rod inner space (24) formed inside the rod portion, a first communication passage (46, fluid can flow through gap 34 and into passage 46 to communicate with 24) configured to guide the working fluid between the rod-side chamber and the rod inner space, a second communication passage (54) configured to guide the working fluid between the rod inner space and the damping unit, and the piston rod further has a flow path portion (right side of piston and the inner space is considered the space inside the external diameter of the rod) accommodated in the rod inner space and configured to guide the working fluid between the bottom-side chamber and the damping unit. Please note that the claim only requires a “flow path portion”. It does not require an additional passage as currently written.
Runkel does not teach that the damping unit is in the head portion, however it is clear that the lines connecting the two chambers are routed through the head portion. Forming fluid circuits in blocks of material is notoriously known in the art. For instance, anti-lock brake systems have been made for years to include pumps valves and hydraulic lines in a block of material. Please note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the head section of Runkel would be machined or cast to include the damping valves therein. As a teaching reference, please note the reference to Sasaki et al (CN113513554) which teaches a similar piston cylinder device to that of Runkel, but there the valving is provided in a block of material (23) outside of the cylinder.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing of the invention to have provided the head portion of Runkel with the valving in the head portion as taught by Sasaki in order to reduce the number of parts and provide a more compact assembly. (Sasaki, Problem solved by the invention section)
In reference to claim 3, Runkel teaches the fluid pressure damper according to claim 1, wherein the damping unit has a first resistance portion (80) and a second resistance portion (the actual hydraulic lines impart a resistance to the fluid flow due to the cross section area), the first resistance portion and the second resistance portion being configured to respectively impart resistance to flow of the working fluid, and the first resistance portion is configured to impart the resistance only to the flow of the working fluid flowing from one of the rod-side chamber (24, on the side of the rod) and the bottom-side chamber (6a) to the other thereof.
In reference to claim 4, Runkel teaches the fluid pressure dumper according to claim 1, wherein the damping unit has a variable restrictor portion (80) configured to impart variable resistance to the flow of the working fluid passing therethrough.
In reference to claim 6, Runkel teaches the fluid pressure dumper according to claim 1, wherein the damping unit has a damping valve (80) configured such that the resistance to be imparted to the working fluid is changed depending on a position, and a solenoid portion (84) configured to be driven by being energized and to switch the position of the damping valve.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As an initial note, it is not clear where applicant is pulling the column and line numbers from in the arguments as this is a document in German and a translation was provided. The arguments will be addressed as best possible. Applicant attacks Runkle individually. The rejection presented modifies Runkle to provide the damping arrangement machined into the head of the rod of Runkle. The reference to Sasaki was brought in to demonstrate that similar hydraulic lines are known to be machined or produced in similar areas in similar damping devices.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
To clarify the combination more, Runkle teaches all claimed structural parts of the device accept the damping circuit being in the piston rod head (14). Sasaki was brough in as a teaching reference to show that machining or producing hydraulic lines in a portion of solid material is known in the art. The modification is to use Sasaki’s teaching and place the damping circuit of Runkle in the piston rod head using the teachings of Sasaki.
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 DEVON C KRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-7118. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7AM-4PM; Friday Mornings.
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.
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.
DEVON C. KRAMER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3746
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights