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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B and corresponding Claims (1-9, 11, 13, 14, 21, and 23) in the reply filed on 21st July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 has a limitation that reads “causing said hydraulic piston to a predetermined distance extended”, to correct Grammer it could read “causing said hydraulic piston to extend a predetermined distance”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “nearly fully extend” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nearly fully extend” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, it is unclear how extended the piston needs to be in order to be considered “nearly fully extended”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Belter et. al. (US 20190308484 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Belter discloses (see fig. 3) a dual rate spring system comprising: a first spring (68) with a first spring rate; a second spring (53) with a second spring rate, in series with said first spring (68), said second spring (53) comprising: a damper portion (64), filled with a fluid; a hydraulic piston (65) in contact with said first spring (68) at a first end of said hydraulic piston (65) and configured to telescopically move into and out of said damper portion (64) at a second end of said hydraulic piston (65); an additional volume reservoir (71) in fluid communication with said damper portion (64) via a fluid pathway, said additional volume reservoir (71) comprising: a fluid filled portion filled with said fluid (71b); a gas filled portion filled with gas (71a); and a floating piston (71c) (see [0093]) that movably separates said fluid filled portion (71b) from said gas filled portion (71a) within said additional volume reservoir (71) (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 2, Belter discloses further comprising: a two-way valve (73) to adjust said second spring rate by controlling a first fluid flow rate in a compression direction and a second fluid flow rate in a rebound direction of said fluid between said dampening chamber (64) and said fluid filled portion (71b) of said additional volume reservoir (71) (see Fig. 3, [0094]1).
Regarding Claim 4, Belter discloses wherein said two-way valve (73) passively controls said first fluid flow rate and said second fluid flow rate (see Fig. 3, [0094]; “check valve”)
Regarding Claim 5, Belter discloses wherein said two-way valve (73) is electronically controlled (see Fig. 3, [0094]).
Regarding Claim 7, Belter discloses wherein said first spring (68) is a mechanical spring or an air spring (see Fig. 3, [0085]).
Regarding Claim 9, Belter discloses wherein said additional volume reservoir is physically remote from said damper portion (see Fig. 3; Reservoir and Damper portion do not occupy the same physical space and are therefore “physically remote” from each other).
Regarding Claim 13, Belter discloses further comprising: a gas valve (72) coupled to said gas filled portion (71a) to add or remove said gas from said gas filled portion (71a) to adjust said second spring rate (see Fig. 3, [0093]).
Regarding Claim 14, Belter discloses further comprising: a fluid valve (73) coupled to said fluid filled portion (71b) to add or remove said fluid from said fluid filled portion (71b) to adjust said second spring rate (see Fig. 3, [0094]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belter et. al. (US 20190308484 A1) in view of Worley (US 20220355638 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Belter discloses the dual rate spring system of Claim 2 wherein said two-way valve (73) controls a ride height of a vehicle associated with said dual rate spring system (see Fig. 3).
Belter does not explicitly disclose wherein the ride height is controlled by closing fluid flow in a compression direction after a compression event until said fluid flows back to said damper portion causing said hydraulic piston to nearly fully extend from said damper portion.
Worley teaches a fluid spring system wherein a two-way valve (10) controls a ride height of a vehicle associated with said dual rate spring system by closing fluid flow in a compression direction after a compression event until said fluid flows back to a damper portion (2a) causing a hydraulic piston (4a, 3a) to nearly fully extend from said damper portion (2a) (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0033-0034]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the two-way valve taught by Worley with the dual rate spring system of Belter in order to control ride height of a vehicle cheaply and reliably by using a simplified valve system that maximizes fluid usage in conjunction with damping amount (see US 20220355638 A1 [Worley]; [0044]).
Regarding Claim 21, Belter discloses A dual rate spring system comprising: a first spring (68) with a first spring rate; a second spring (53) with a second spring rate, in series with said first spring (68), said second spring (53) comprising: a damper portion (64), filled with a fluid; a hydraulic piston (65) in contact with said first spring (68) at a first end (68a) of said hydraulic piston (65) and configured to telescopically move into and out of said damper portion (64) at a second end of said hydraulic piston (65); an additional volume reservoir (71) in fluid communication with said damper portion (164) via a fluid pathway, said additional volume reservoir (71) comprising: a fluid filled portion (71b) filled with said fluid; a gas filled portion (71a) filled with gas; a floating piston (71c) that movably separates said fluid filled portion (71b) from said gas filled portion (71a) within said additional volume reservoir (71); and a two-way valve (73) to adjust said second spring rate by controlling a first fluid flow rate in a compression direction and a second fluid flow rate in a rebound direction of said fluid between said dampening chamber (64) and said fluid filled portion (71b) of said additional volume reservoir (71) (see Fig. 3, [0093-0094]).
Belter does not disclose wherein said two-way valve controls a ride height of a vehicle associated with said dual rate spring system by closing fluid flow in a compression direction after a compression event until said fluid flows back to said damper portion causing said hydraulic piston to a predetermined distance extended from said damper portion.
Worley teaches a fluid spring system wherein a two-way valve (10) controls a ride height of a vehicle associated with said dual rate spring system by closing fluid flow in a compression direction after a compression event until said fluid flows back to a damper portion (2a) causing a hydraulic piston (4a, 3a) to extend a predetermined distance from said damper portion (2a) (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0033-0034]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the two-way valve taught by Worley with the dual rate spring system of Belter in order to control ride height of a vehicle cheaply and reliably by minimizing necessary parts (see US 20220355638 A1 [Worley]; [0044]).
Claims 6 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belter et. al. (US 20190308484 A1) as applied to Claim 2, above, in view of Yamada (US 20230150330 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Belter discloses the dual rate spring system of Claim 2.
Belter does not disclose wherein said two-way valve changes said second spring rate of said second spring at a crossover point based on input data from a vehicle sensor.
Yamada teaches a fluid spring system wherein a two-way valve (424) changes a spring rate of said the fluid spring (441) at a crossover point based on input data from a vehicle sensor (412) (see Fig. 8, [0059], [0082])
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the vehicle sensor and variance of spring rate taught by Yamada with the dual rate spring system of Belter in order to constantly maintain a high suspension performance, increasing users’ comfort and handling (see US 20230150330 A1 [Yamada]; [0011], [0082]).
Regarding Claim 23, Belter discloses A dual rate spring system comprising: a first spring (68) with a first spring rate; a second spring (53) with a second spring rate, in series with said first spring (68), said second spring comprising: a damper portion (64), filled with a fluid; a hydraulic piston (65) in contact with said first spring (68) at a first end (68a) of said hydraulic piston (65) and configured to telescopically move into and out of said damper portion (64) at a second end of said hydraulic piston (65); an additional volume reservoir (71) in fluid communication with said damper portion (64) via a fluid pathway, said additional volume reservoir (71) comprising: a fluid filled portion (71b) filled with said fluid; a gas filled portion (71a) filled with gas; a floating piston (71c) that movably separates said fluid filled portion (71b) from said gas filled portion (71a) within said additional volume reservoir (71); and a two-way valve (73) to adjust said second spring rate by controlling a first fluid flow rate in a compression direction and a second fluid flow rate in a rebound direction of said fluid between said dampening chamber (64) and said fluid filled portion (71b) of said additional volume reservoir (71) (see Fig. 3, [0093-0094]).
Belter does not disclose wherein said two-way valve changes said second spring rate of said second spring at a crossover point based on input data from a vehicle sensor.
Yamada teaches a fluid spring system wherein a two-way valve (424) changes a spring rate of said the fluid spring (441) at a crossover point based on input data from a vehicle sensor (412) (see Fig. 8, [0059], [0082])
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the vehicle sensor and variance of spring rate taught by Yamada with the dual rate spring system of Belter in order to constantly maintain a high suspension performance, increasing users’ comfort and handling (see US 20230150330 A1 [Yamada]; [0011], [0082]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belter et. al. (US 20190308484 A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Polakowski et. al. (US 20110101579 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Belter discloses the dual rate spring system of Claim 1.
Belter does not disclose wherein said second spring rate of said second spring is velocity dependent.
Polakowski teaches a fluid spring system wherein a spring rate of said fluid spring is velocity dependent (see Fig. 1, [0025]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the velocity dependent fluid spring of Polakowski with the dual rate spring system of Belter in order to improve the comfort and handling of a vehicle the spring system is attached to (see US 20110101579 A1 [Polakowski]; [0003]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belter et. al. (US 20190308484 A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Ericksen et. al. (US 20200354013 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Belter discloses the dual rate spring system of Claim 1.
Belter does not explicitly disclose wherein said gas filled portion has a pressure equal to or greater than a bottoming out force of said first spring such that said gas filled portion is a bump stop to dissipate energy from said first spring after said first spring bottoms out.
Ericksen teaches a spring rate system wherein a gas filled portion (111) has a pressure equal to or greater than a bottoming out force of a first spring (115) such that said gas filled portion (111) is a bump stop to dissipate energy from said first spring (115) after said first spring (115) bottoms out (see Fig. 1, [0038]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of using a gas filled portion as a bump stop of Erickesen with the dual rate spring system of Belter in order to reduce wear on the spring system and prevent noise and malfunctions caused by bottoming out.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knaap (US 20070170680 A1) discloses a fluid spring system with a passive controlled valve.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
1 Paragraph [0094] of Belter incorrectly points to Fig. 5 for showing the embodiment disclosed. It should read Fig. 3 as that matches the disclosed embodiment and labeled structure.
Prosecution Insights