DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement has been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ‘upstream chamber’ and the ‘downstream chamber’, the first circumferential valve body and the second circumferential valve body, as claimed in claims 1 and 35, the frustoconical cone body segment, as claimed in claims 2,4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 35 it is unclear from the drawings and specification what applicants consider to be the ‘upstream chamber’ and the ‘downstream chamber’ , the first circumferential valve body and the second circumferential valve body.
Regarding claims 2,4 what structure is the ‘frustoconical cone body segment”?
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24-34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 is a duplicate of claim 11.
Claim 30 the second pump piston lacks antecedent basis.
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) 1-8,11,24,35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda 8,517,154 in view of Chikamatsu 7,954,609.
Regarding claims 1, 35 subject to the drawing and 112 1st objections/ rejections (and as best understood) Maeda shows in figures 1,3 and 4:
A hydraulic control valve 13,14, comprising: a ‘housing’ 5,19,35 supporting a first circumferential valve seat 43 and a second circumferential valve seat 27, both valve seats 43,27 provided between an upstream chamber 2A and a downstream chamber 2B to regulate fluid flow: a first circumferential valve body 44,45 comprising at least a frustoconical segment 45 carried in sprung relation urged (by spring 47) against the first valve seat 43; and a second circumferential valve body 28,29 comprising at least a frustoconical segment 29 carried in sprung relation urged (by spring 31) against the second valve seat 27; wherein the first circumferential valve body 44,45 is movable under fluidic pressure away from the first circumferential valve seat 43 to provide a first fluid flow aperture, and the second circumferential valve body 28,29 is movable under fluidic pressure away from the second circumferential valve seat 27 to provide a second fluid flow aperture.
Lacking in Maeda is a specific description of the first and second segments 45,29 being ‘frustoconical’.
However since segments 45,29 have slanted walls best seen in figures 3 and 4 the ordinary skilled worker in the art would recognize these segments as being ‘frustoconical’.
Nevertheless Chikamatsu also shows an absorber similar to Maeda and states in col 9 around lines 32+:
The slanted wall face 27d is formed into a conical shape and disposed on the inside of the annular valve seat 27c and on the outside of the communicating holes 27b.
Therefore one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize segments 45,29 as having a frustoconical shape.
Regarding claim 2 in light of the explanation above these limitations are considered to be met.
Regarding claim 3 Maeda shows that the first valve seat comprises a first complementary frustoconical ring-shaped valve seat 43.
Regarding claim 4, as broadly claimed, Maeda shows that the frustoconical segment 29 of the second circumferential valve body comprises a second circumferentially extending frustoconical cone body segment 29 provided in axial alignment with the first circumferentially extending frustoconical cone body segment 45.
Regarding claim 5, as broadly claimed, Maeda shows that the second valve seat 27 comprises a second complementary frustoconical ring-shaped valve seat.
Regarding claim 6, as broadly claimed, Maeda shows that the second circumferentially extending frustoconical cone body segment 29 is supported in coaxial relation with the first circumferentially extending frustoconical cone body segment 45 and the hydraulic control valve is a valve for a “mid-valve piston” (as broadly claimed) on a shock absorber.
Regarding claim 7, as broadly claimed, Maeda shows that the second circumferentially extending frustoconical cone body segment 29 is spaced axially from the first circumferentially extending frustoconical cone body segment 45 and the hydraulic control valve is a valve for an “adjuster valve” (i.e. capable of adjustment) on a shock absorber.
Regarding claim 8, as broadly claimed, Maeda shows that the first circumferential valve body is a first frustoconical valve body having a central bore. Note it surrounds the piston rod.
Regarding claims 11,24,36 note the first spring at 47.
Regarding claim 37 note the second spring at 31.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda/Chikamatsu as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Sawai 8,381,887.
Regarding claim 40 Maeda, as modified, lacks specifically showing the hydraulic control valve being an ‘auxiliary valve’ .
However the reference to Sawai shows it is known to use nearly identical piston/valve arrangements in a shock absorber assembly at 46,47 best seen in figures 1 and 2.
It would have been obvious to have duplicated the hydraulic control valve assembly 13,14 of Maeda with a second or ‘auxiliary’ control valve in the shock absorber assembly simply to adapt the device to a certain application or vehicle as taught by Sawai.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9,10,12-23,25-34,38,39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
5/6/26
Prosecution Insights