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 Status
Claims 4, 12, and 20 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-19 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are applicable to the first embodiment of Marking ‘803 as cited, however, there is a second embodiment within the reference with a remote reservoir which discloses the new limitation in the independent claims. See Fig. 2 and the cited portions listed below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotake (JP 2005180689) hereinafter Kotake and Marking et al. (US 10,576,803 B2) hereinafter Marking '803.
Claim 1:
Kotake discloses a shock assembly comprising: a main chamber; [Fig. 1, Items 3, 9, 11] a reservoir fluidically coupled with said main chamber; and [Fig. 1, Item 29] a valve configured to control flow of fluid between said main chamber and said reservoir along a flow path, [Fig. 1, Item 15] said valve configured to: restrict said flow of said fluid between said main chamber and said reservoir, along said flow path, during a rebound stroke of said shock assembly; and [Fig. 1, during rebound stroke, flow is constricted along 29] allow flow of said fluid between said main chamber and said reservoir, along said flow path, during a compression stroke of said shock assembly. [Fig. 1, during compression stroke, flow pushes 15 to open flow path]
Kotake doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein said reservoir is a remote reservoir and said remote reservoir comprises: a fluid portion; a gas portion and a floating piston, said floating piston movably separating said fluid portion and said gas portion.
However, Marking ‘803 does disclose wherein said reservoir is a remote reservoir and said remote reservoir comprises: a fluid portion; a gas portion and a floating piston, said floating piston movably separating said fluid portion and said gas portion. [col. 8, line 55 to col. 9, line 32]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the shock assembly of Kotake with the reservoir of Marking to provide a means to enable the reservoir to store energy from the piston.
Claim 2:
Kotake and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kotake also discloses further comprising: a second flow path fluidically coupling said main chamber and said reservoir, said second flow path enabling said flow of said fluid between said main chamber and said reservoir during said rebound stroke. [Fig. 1, 23-1 via check valve 25-1 during rebound stroke]
Claim 3:
Kotake and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Kotake also discloses wherein said valve has an open position and a closed position, said valve moved to said open position by compression pressure generated by a check valve in said second flow path during said compression stroke of said shock assembly. [Fig. 1, Items 15, 23-1, 25-1]
Claim 5:
Kotake and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kotake also discloses further comprising: a piston disposed within said main chamber. [Fig. 1, Item 7]
Claim 9:
Kotake discloses a damper comprising: a main chamber; [Fig. 1, Items 3, 9, 11] a piston disposed within said main chamber; [Fig. 1, Item 7] a reservoir fluidically coupled with said main chamber; and [Fig. 1, Item 29] a valve configured to control flow of fluid between said main chamber and said reservoir along a flow path, [Fig. 1, Item 15] said valve configured to: restrict said flow of said fluid between said main chamber and said reservoir, along said flow path, during a rebound stroke of said damper; and [Fig. 1, during rebound stroke, flow is constricted along 29] allow flow of said fluid between said main chamber and said reservoir, along said flow path, during a compression stroke of said damper. [Fig. 1, during compression stroke, flow pushes 15 to open flow path]
Kotake doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein said reservoir is a remote reservoir and said remote reservoir comprises: a fluid portion; a gas portion; and a floating piston, said floating piston movably separating said fluid portion and said gas portion.
However, Marking ‘803 does disclose wherein said reservoir is a remote reservoir and said remote reservoir comprises: a fluid portion; a gas portion; and a floating piston, said floating piston movably separating said fluid portion and said gas portion. [col. 8, line 55 to col. 9, line 32]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the shock assembly of Kotake with the reservoir of Marking to provide a means to enable the reservoir to store energy from the piston.
Claim 10:
Kotake and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 9.
Kotake also discloses a second flow path fluidically coupling said main chamber and said reservoir, said second flow path enabling said flow of said fluid between said main chamber and said reservoir during said rebound stroke. [Fig. 1, 23-1 via check valve 25-1 during rebound stroke]
Claim 11:
Kotake and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Kotake also discloses wherein said valve has an open position and a closed position, said valve moved to said open position by compression pressure generated by a check valve in said second flow path during said compression stroke of said damper. [Fig. 1, Items 15, 23-1, 25-1]
Claim(s) 6-8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotake and Marking '803 as applied to claims 5 and 9 above, and further in view of Marking et al. (US 6,296,092 B1) hereinafter Marking '092.
Claim 6:
Kotake and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Kotake doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: a port extending through said piston, said port configured to control flow of said fluid from a first side of said piston to a second side of said piston.
However, Marking ‘092 does disclose further comprising: a port extending through said piston, said port configured to control flow of said fluid from a first side of said piston to a second side of said piston. [Figs. 3-4, Item shows flow past the piston]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the shock assembly of Kotake and Marking '803 with the piston of Marking to provide a means to control the force of the piston on compression or rebound stroke.
Claim 7:
Kotake and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Kotake doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: a bypass fluidically coupled with said main chamber and said reservoir, said bypass enabling said fluid to flow from said first side of said piston to said reservoir without requiring said fluid to pass through said port extending through said piston.
However, Marking ‘092 does disclose further comprising: a bypass fluidically coupled with said main chamber and said reservoir, said bypass enabling said fluid to flow from said first side of said piston to said reservoir without requiring said fluid to pass through said port extending through said piston. [Figs. 3-4, Item shows flow past the piston]
Claim 8:
Kotake and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Kotake doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: a bypass fluidically coupled with said main chamber, said bypass enabling said fluid to flow from said first side of said piston to said second side of said piston without requiring said fluid to pass through said port extending through said piston.
However, Marking ‘092 does disclose further comprising: a bypass fluidically coupled with said main chamber, said bypass enabling said fluid to flow from said first side of said piston to said second side of said piston without requiring said fluid to pass through said port extending through said piston. [Figs. 3-4, Item shows flow past the piston]
Claim 13:
Kotake and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 9.
Kotake doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: a port extending through said piston, said port configured to control flow of said fluid from a first side of said piston to a second side of said piston.
However, Marking ‘092 does disclose further comprising: a port extending through said piston, said port configured to control flow of said fluid from a first side of said piston to a second side of said piston.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the shock assembly of Kotake and Marking '803 with the piston of Marking to provide a means to control the force of the piston on compression or rebound stroke.
Claim 14:
Kotake and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Kotake doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: a bypass fluidically coupled with said main chamber and said reservoir, said bypass enabling said fluid to flow from said first side of said piston to said reservoir without requiring said fluid to pass through said port extending through said piston.
However, Marking ‘092 does disclose further comprising: a bypass fluidically coupled with said main chamber and said reservoir, said bypass enabling said fluid to flow from said first side of said piston to said reservoir without requiring said fluid to pass through said port extending through said piston. [Figs. 3-4, Item shows flow past the piston]
Claim 15:
Kotake and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Kotake doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: a bypass fluidically coupled with said main chamber, said bypass enabling said fluid to flow from said first side of said piston to said second side of said piston without requiring said fluid to pass through said port extending through said piston.
However, Marking ‘092 does disclose further comprising: a bypass fluidically coupled with said main chamber, said bypass enabling said fluid to flow from said first side of said piston to said second side of said piston without requiring said fluid to pass through said port extending through said piston.
Claim(s) 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotake, Marking '803, and Marking '092.
Claim 16:
Kotake discloses a shock absorber comprising: a main damper chamber; [Fig. 1, Items 3, 9, 11] a reservoir fluidically coupled with said main damper chamber; and [Fig. 1, Item 29] a valve configured to control flow of said damping fluid between said main damper chamber and said reservoir along a first flow path, [Fig. 1, Item 15] said valve configured to restrict said flow of said damping fluid between said main damper chamber and said reservoir, along said first flow path, during a rebound stroke of said shock absorber, [Fig. 1, during rebound stroke, flow is constricted along 29] said valve configured to allow flow of said damping fluid between said main damper chamber and said reservoir, along said first flow path, during a compression stroke of said shock absorber. [Fig. 1, during compression stroke, flow pushes 15 to open flow path]
Kotake doesn’t explicitly disclose a damper piston disposed within said main damper chamber, said damper piston having a first side and a second side; a port extending through said damper piston, said port configured to control flow of damping fluid from said first side of said damper piston to said second side of said damper piston; wherein said reservoir is a remote reservoir and said remote reservoir comprises: a fluid portion; a gas portion; and a floating piston, said floating piston movably separating said fluid portion and said gas portion.
However, Marking ‘092 discloses a damper piston disposed within said main damper chamber, said damper piston having a first side and a second side; a port extending through said damper piston, said port configured to control flow of damping fluid from said first side of said damper piston to said second side of said damper piston; [Figs. 3-4, Item shows flow through the piston]
Further, Marking ‘803 discloses wherein said reservoir is a remote reservoir and said remote reservoir comprises: a fluid portion; a gas portion; and a floating piston, said floating piston movably separating said fluid portion and said gas portion. [col. 8, line 55 to col. 9, line 32]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the shock assembly of Kotake and Marking '803 with the piston of Marking ‘092 to provide a means to control the force of the piston on compression or rebound stroke.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the shock assembly of Kotake with the reservoir of Marking ‘803 to provide a means to enable the reservoir to store energy from the piston.
Claim 17:
Kotake, Marking ‘092, Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Kotake doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: a bypass fluidically coupled with said main damper chamber and said reservoir, said bypass enabling said damping fluid to flow between said first side of said damper piston to said reservoir without requiring said damping fluid to pass through said port extending through said damper piston.
However, Marking ‘092 does disclose further comprising: a bypass fluidically coupled with said main damper chamber and said reservoir, said bypass enabling said damping fluid to flow between said first side of said damper piston to said reservoir without requiring said damping fluid to pass through said port extending through said damper piston. [Figs. 3-4, Item shows flow past the piston]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the shock assembly of Kotake and Marking '803 with the piston of Marking ‘092 to provide a means to control the force of the piston on compression or rebound stroke.
Claim 18:
Kotake, Marking ‘092, Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Kotake also discloses further comprising: a second flow path fluidically coupling said main damper chamber and said reservoir, said second flow path enabling said flow of said damping fluid between said main damper chamber and said reservoir during said rebound stroke. [Fig. 1, 23-1 via check valve 25-1 during rebound stroke]
Claim 19:
Kotake, Marking ‘092, Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Kotake also discloses wherein said valve has an open position and a closed position, said valve moved to said open position by compression pressure generated by a check valve in said second flow path during said compression stroke of said shock absorber. [Fig. 1, Items 15, 23-1, 25-1]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747