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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0022179 A1 to Collins.
Re-claim 1, Collins discloses a suspension system comprising: a damper 4 with a first chamber 10a, a second chamber 10b, a piston 8a is disposed between the first chamber and the second chamber; a pump 22 supplies fluid to the first chamber or the second chamber; a change valve 16 is disposed between the pump and the damper to change a discharge direction of the fluid of the pump; the change valve 16 is a 3-way valve (in that it has three possible flow situations, see at least paragraphs 37-40, various flow conditions occur between the actuator 4 and the high 28 and low 20 pressure systems) that supplies fluid from the pump 22 (accumulator) to the damper, or back to the pump (via the low pressure system 20).
Re-claim 2, the change valve is supported by the pump. The change valve and pump are part of a single structure 192 (see figure 5 and paragraph 122).
Re-claim 3, the change valve 16 supplies the fluid from the pump 22 to the first chamber or the second chamber.
Re-claim 4, the pump rotates in one direction, as indicated in figure 2.
Re-claim 5, an accumulator 30 stores the fluid and supplies the fluid to the first chamber or the second chamber.
Re-claim 6, the accumulator includes an adjuster configured to adjust an internal volume. The adjuster is interpreted as a piston or bellows element that separates the fluid from a gas or spring. The instant disclosure states a bellows can be an adjuster.
Re-claim 7, Collins discloses a suspension system installed in a vehicle, the suspension system comprising: a damper 4 including a first chamber 10a, a second chamber 10b, a piston 8a is disposed between the first chamber and the second chamber; a pump 22 supplies fluid to the first chamber or the second chamber (either directly or by charging an accumulator); a change valve 16 is disposed between the pump and the damper to change a discharge direction of the fluid of the pump; a detector is used to detect a traveling environment information in front of a vehicle (see at least paragraphs 6, 57 and 58); a controller selectively controls the change valve according to the information detected by the detector (see at least paragraphs 57 and 58), the change valve is a 3-way valve configured to supply the fluid from the pump to the damper or supply the fluid from the damper to the pump (via the low pressure system 20).
Re-claim 8, the change valve 16 is controlled by the controller for directing the fluid into either the first chamber or second chamber (see at least paragraphs 57 and 58).
Re-claim 9, an accumulator 30 stores a fluid pressure and is controlled by the controller (see paragraph 112) to supply fluid to either the first or second chamber.
Re-claims 10 and 11, the accumulator includes an adjuster configured to adjust an internal volume, and supplies fluid as needed to either the first or second chamber. The adjuster is interpreted as a piston or bellows element that separates the fluid from a gas or spring, or the controller that senses a fluid pressure within the accumulator (see paragraph 112, and maintain a target pressure).
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0084367 A1 to Birch et al.
Re-claim 1, Birch et al. disclose a suspension system comprising: a damper 22 with a first chamber C1, a second chamber C2, a piston 24 is disposed between the first chamber and the second chamber; a pump P supplies fluid to the first chamber or the second chamber; a change valve S is disposed between the pump and the damper to change a discharge direction of the fluid of the pump; the change valve S is a 3-way valve (in that it has three possible flow situations S1, S2 and S3) that supplies fluid from the pump P to the damper. It is noted that the limitation recited after the “or” statement are not necessary for the rejection, as these limitations are interpreted as an alternative.
Re-claim 3, the change valve S supplies the fluid from the pump P to the first chamber or the second chamber.
Re-claim 4, the pump rotates in one direction, as indicated in figure 2.
Re-claim 5, an accumulator (one of A1, A2 and/or A3) stores the fluid and supplies the fluid to the first chamber or the second chamber.
Re-claim 6, the accumulator includes an adjuster configured to adjust an internal volume. The adjuster is interpreted as a piston or bellows element that separates the fluid from a gas or spring.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birch et al. in view of Collins.
Birch fails to teach the change valve supported by the pump.
Collins teaches a suspension system having a change valve supported by a pump, as both are a unit attached to a damper of the suspension system (see figure 5). This is indicated as easing installation, as all the parts are incorporated into a single unit (see paragraph 123). As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have supported the change valve of Birch et al. on the pump as taught by Collins, thus reducing the number of separate parts and thereby easing installation.
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birch et al. in view of US 8,285,447 to Bennett.
Re-claim 7, Birch et al. teach a suspension system comprising: a damper 22 with a first chamber C1, a second chamber C2, a piston 24 is disposed between the first chamber and the second chamber; a pump P supplies fluid to the first chamber or the second chamber; a change valve S is disposed between the pump and the damper to change a discharge direction of the fluid of the pump; a controller selectively controls the change valve based upon information from sensors (see paragraph 82); the change valve S is a 3-way valve (in that it has three possible flow situations S1, S2 and S3) that supplies fluid from the pump P to the damper. However, Birch et al. fail to specifically teach the use of a detector to detect a traveling environment information in front of a vehicle. It is noted that the limitation recited after the “or” statement are not necessary for the rejection, as these limitations are interpreted as an alternative.
Bennett teaches a suspension system having a detector to detect a traveling environment information in front of a vehicle; and a controller responsive to the traveling environment as detected by the detector, and for controlling the suspension system accordingly. The use of a detector and control unit for controlling both the pump and the change valve would enhance the response to a changing traveling environment, such as obstacles and roadway defects. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the controller of the active suspension system of Birch et al. with a forward traveling environment detector as taught by Bennett, as this would have improved the response time for suspension adjustment.
Re-claim 8, the fluid is supplied to either the first chamber or the second chamber based on the information detected by the detector, the controller controls the change valve S to change the discharge direction of the fluid by the pump while maintaining rotation of the pump in one direction.
Re-claim 9, Birch et al. further teach an accumulator (A1, A2 and A3) that stores the fluid and is controlled by the controller to supply the fluid to the first chamber or the second chamber.
Re-claim 10, the accumulator includes an adjuster configured to adjust an internal volume. The adjuster is interpreted as a piston or bellows element that separates the fluid from a gas or spring.
Re-claim 11, control of the pump charges the accumulators, or adjusts the accumulators, so as to supply the fluid to the first chamber and the second chamber.
Claim(s) 12-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,117,435 to Liebold et al. in view of Bennett and in view of Birch et al.
Re-claim 12, Liebold et al. teach a suspension system installed in a vehicle, the suspension system comprising: a first damper 20 with a first rebound chamber 22, a first compression chamber 24, and a first piston disposed between the first rebound chamber and the first compression chamber (see figure 1); a second damper 30 with a second rebound chamber 32, a second compression chamber 34, and a second piston disposed between the second rebound chamber and the second compression chamber, and spaced apart from the first damper in a width direction of the vehicle (such as along an axle, see abstract); a first pump 212 supplies a fluid to the first rebound chamber or the first compression chamber; a second pump 312 supplies the fluid to the second rebound chamber or the second compression chamber; a supply valve VV is configured to supply the fluid discharged from the first pump 212 to the second damper 30 or supply the fluid discharged from the second pump 312 to the first damper 20; a controller is configured to selectively control the supply valve (such as using control logic as part of the active suspension, see column 3 lines 38-43). However, Liebold fail to specify a detector configured to detect traveling environment information of a vehicle, the controller configured to selectively control the supply valve according to the information detected by the detector, or a first change valve disposed between the first pump and the first damper and a second change valve disposed between the second pump and the second damper.
Bennett teaches a suspension system having a detector to detect a traveling environment information in front of a vehicle; and a controller responsive to the traveling environment as detected by the detector, and for controlling the suspension system accordingly. The use of a detector with the control unit for controlling both the pump and the change valve would have enhanced the response to a changing traveling environment, such as obstacles and roadway defects. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the active suspension system of Liebold et al. with a forward traveling environment detector and associated the controller responsive to the detector information as taught by Bennett, as this would have improved the response time for suspension adjustment.
Birch et al. teach a unidirectional pump having a change valve S in the form of a 3-way valve disposed between the pump and a damper. The 3-way valve supplies fluid from a corresponding pump to a corresponding damper. The change valve may take three positions, each controlling the fluid flow in a specific direction. The unidirectional pump with 3-way change valve would have performed the duties of the bi-directional pump of Liebold et al., thus allowing for the use of a simpler pump. provides for an easier pump control, as the pump merely requires operation in a single direction, with the fluid direction being controlled by a change valve. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the first and second pump arrangements of Liebold et al. with a pump and 3-way change valve arrangement of the type taught by Birch et al., thus reducing the complexity of the pump apparatus.
It is noted that the limitation recited after the “or” statement are not necessary for the rejection, as these limitations are interpreted as an alternative.
Re-claims 13 and 14, Bennett further teaches the controller determining a risk of collision (impact with an obstacle, see at least column 7 lines 3-19) and carrying out instructions responsive to the risk of collision that include suspension control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated operations responsive to a risk of collision as taught by Bennett in the suspension system of Liebold et al. and thereby control the supply valve accordingly thus improving overall safety of the travelling vehicle and control of the vehicle prior to impact.
Re-claim 15, operation of valve VV will provide fluid in a direction in which the first piston of the first damper 20 extends. Such as from pump 312 or accumulator 326 to chamber 24, see column 6 lines 51-64.
Re-claim 17, a connection flow path selectively 224/324 is shielded (blocked) by the supply valve VV and is configured to guide movement of the fluid between the first damper and the second damper.
Re-claim 18, throttle valves DV (in lines 224 and 324 can be interpreted as supply valves) the supply valve DV includes a first supply valve disposed between one side of the connection flow path 224 and the first pump 212, and a second supply valve DV disposed between the other side of the connection flow path 324 and the second pump 312.
Re-claim 19, a first accumulator 226 stores the fluid and supplies the fluid to the first rebound chamber 22; a second accumulator 326 stores the fluid and supplies the fluid to the second rebound chamber 32.
Re-claim 20, DV valve elements control the damping fluid to and from accumulators 226/326, and thus adjust the volume of fluid within the accumulators. This control is easily carried out by the controller of Bennett as required by information detected from the detectors that are part of the look ahead system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 and 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shih, Six and Cotto each teach a suspension system with a pump connected to a 3-way change valve.
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 inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128.
The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW /THOMAS J WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights