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 1-3, 5-11, and 13-19 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Based on the Applicant’s amendments, the prior art of record can be interpreted in a different way such that the check valve and the associated path 25-2 and check valve 23-2 read on the claimed limitations. See the rejection below for a complete mapping.
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, 5, and 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; the area in which the piston 7 sits is all considered the main chamber]; a reservoir fluidically coupled with said main chamber [Fig. 1, Item 29, accumulator is synonymous with reservoir]; and a valve [Fig. 1, Item 25-2] configured to control flow of fluid between said main chamber and said reservoir along a flow path [23-2], 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 [Fig. 1, during rebound stroke, flow is pushed through 23-1 via 25-1 and through 13-1]; and allow flow of said fluid between said main chamber and said reservoir, along said flow path, during a compression stroke of said shock assembly [during compression, the flow switches and 25-1 is closed and 25-2 is then opened; see the section: "Configuration of the Hydraulic Damper" for additional details], wherein said flow path is common to said flow of said fluid between said main chamber and said reservoir during both said compression stroke and said rebound stroke [the scenario applies to 23-2 in both compression and rebound strokes].
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 ‘803 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, disclose 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 [23-1 operates on opposite cycles of 23-2].
Claim 3:
Kotake and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, disclose 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 [both check valves 25-1 and 25-2 operate based on pressure generated during compression or rebound strokes].
Claim 5:
Kotake and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Kotake also discloses further comprising: a piston disposed within said main chamber.
Claim 9:
Kotake discloses a damper comprising: a main chamber [Fig. 1, Items 3, 9, 11; the area in which the piston 7 sits is all considered the main chamber]; a piston disposed within said main chamber [Fig. 1, Item 7]; a reservoir fluidically coupled with said main chamber [Fig. 1, Item 29, accumulator is synonymous with reservoir]; and a valve [Fig. 1, Item 25-2] configured to control flow of fluid between said main chamber and said reservoir along a flow path [23-2], 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 [Fig. 1, during rebound stroke, flow is pushed through 23-1 via 25-1 and through 13-1]; and allow flow of said fluid between said main chamber and said reservoir, along said flow path, during a compression stroke of said damper [during compression, the flow switches and 25-1 is closed and 25-2 is then opened; see the section: "Configuration of the Hydraulic Damper" for additional details], wherein said flow path is common to said flow of said fluid between said main chamber and said reservoir during both said compression stroke and said rebound stroke [the scenario applies to 23-2 in both compression and rebound strokes].
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 ‘803 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, disclose all the limitations of claim 9.
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 [23-1 operates on opposite cycles of 23-2].
Claim 11:
Kotake and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, disclose 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 [both check valves 25-1 and 25-2 operate based on pressure generated during compression or rebound strokes].
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, disclose 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 '092 to provide a means to control the force of the piston on compression or rebound stroke.
Claim 7:
Kotake, Marking ‘803, and Marking ‘092 as shown in the rejection above, disclose 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, Marking ‘803, and Marking ‘092 as shown in the rejection above, disclose 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, disclose 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. [Figs. 3-4, Item shows flow through 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 14:
Kotake, Marking ‘803, and Marking ‘092 as shown in the rejection above, disclose 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, Marking ‘803, and Marking ‘092 as shown in the rejection above, disclose 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. [Figs. 3-4, Item shows flow past the 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 and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Kotake a shock absorber comprising: a main damper chamber [Fig. 1, Items 3, 9, 11; the area in which the piston 7 sits is all considered the main chamber]; a damper piston disposed within said main damper chamber, said damper piston having a first side and a second side [Fig. 1, Item 7]; a reservoir fluidically coupled with said main damper chamber [Fig. 1, Item 29, accumulator is synonymous with reservoir]; and a valve [Fig. 1, Item 25-2] configured to control flow of said damping fluid between said main damper chamber and said reservoir along a first flow path [23-2], 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 pushed through 23-1 via 25-1 and through 13-1], 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 [during compression, the flow switches and 25-1 is closed and 25-2 is then opened; see the section: "Configuration of the Hydraulic Damper" for additional details], wherein said first flow path is common to said flow of said damping fluid between said main damper chamber and said reservoir during both said compression stroke and said rebound stroke [the scenario applies to 23-2 in both compression and rebound strokes].
Kotake doesn’t explicitly disclose 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 ‘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]
Further, Marking ‘092 discloses 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].
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.
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 17:
Kotake and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, disclose 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]
Claim 18:
Kotake and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, disclose 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 [23-1 operates on opposite cycles of 23-2].
Claim 19:
Kotake and Marking ‘803, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 18.
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 [both check valves 25-1 and 25-2 operate based on pressure generated during compression or rebound strokes].
Conclusion
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