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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 have been amended and new claims 7-17 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-17 are now pending in the application.
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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by De Carteret et al. (US – 2020/0180383 A1).
As per claim 1, Carteret discloses Self-Balancing Multi-Chamber Air Spring comprising:
a main volume (12, Fig: 1-5);
an additional volume (14, Fig: 1-5); and
a switching valve (16, the valve 16 is electronically connected, via a wired or wireless connection, to the controller 22. In some embodiments, the controller 22 generates a control signal to control the valve 16 to open or close and change the pressures in each of the first and second chambers 11, 13 based on factors such as, for example and without limitation, a desired change in spring rate due to a vehicle weight condition, road conditions, etc., [0031], Fig: 1-4) that (i) connects the additional volume (14) to the main volume (12) in a first operating state of the multi-chamber air spring (valve 16 is open stage, [0034], Fig: 2), and (ii) disconnects the additional volume from the main volume in a second operating state of the multi-chamber air spring (valve 16 is closed stage, [0035], Fig: 4),
wherein the switching valve opens in the second operating state at a first predetermined limit pressure difference between the additional volume and the main volume (vertical translation of the piston 15 increases the pressure in both of the first and second chambers 11, 13 to a second pressure P2 that is greater than the pressure P. Initially, the valve 16 is open such that the pressure P2 is equal between the first and second chambers 11, 13, [0034], Fig: 2)
As per claim 2, Carteret discloses wherein the switching valve (16) closes in the second operating state at a second predetermined limit pressure difference between the additional volume and the main volume, which is smaller than the first predetermined limit pressure difference (With continued reference to FIG. 2, when the valve 16 is closed, the pressure contained within the second chamber 13 is retained at the higher pressure P2. …….. he pressure between the first and second chambers 11, 13 is different and the pressure contained within the first chamber 11 is lower than the pressure contained within the second chamber 13. This reduction in pressure may lead to a lower than desired pressure in the first chamber 11, [0035], Fig: 2).
As per claim 3, Carteret discloses wherein the multi-chamber air spring comprises a plurality of the switching valves (2 of 16, Fig: 5), wherein the switching valves are-each configured to connect the additional volume to the main volume in the first operating state and to-disconnect the additional volume from the main volume in a second operating state, wherein at least one of the switching valves is configured to open opens at the first predetermined limit pressure difference and/or to close closes at the second limit pressure difference in the second operating state ([0039], Fig: 5).
As per claim 4, Carteret discloses wherein the plurality of the switching valves (16, Fig: 5) are-each configured to-open in the second operating state at the first predetermined limit pressure difference or to-close at the second limit pressure difference (Similar to the embodiment shown in FIGS. 1-4, each of the secondary volumes 14 is fluidically coupled to a single primary volume 12 via a valve 16, which is, in some embodiments, an electromechanical valve. While not shown in FIG. 5, similar to FIG. 1, the valves 16 are electronically connected, via a wired or wireless connection, by the controller 2, therefore, function is same as single valve 16, see claim 2 above and [0035], Fig: 2, 5).
As per claim 5, Carteret discloses a vehicle comprising the multi-chamber air spring (As shown in FIGS. 1-4, a vehicle suspension system 5 includes an air spring 10, [0028], Fig: 1-5).
As per claim 6, Carteret discloses Self-Balancing Multi-Chamber Air Spring comprising:
(i) a main volume (12, Fig: 1-5), (ii) an additional volume (14, Fig: 1-5), and (iii) a switching valve (16, Fig: 1-5) that is configured (a) to connect the additional volume to the main volume in a first operating state of the multi-chamber air spring ([0034], Fig: 1-5), and (b) to disconnect the additional volume from the main volume in a second operating state of the multi-chamber air spring ([0035], Fig: 1-5), said method comprising:
opening the switching valve in the second operating state at a first predetermined limit pressure difference between the additional volume and the main volume, and/or
closing the switching valve at a second predetermined limit pressure difference between the additional volume and the main volume, which is smaller than the first limit pressure difference (With continued reference to FIG. 2, when the valve 16 is closed, the pressure contained within the second chamber 13 is retained at the higher pressure P2. …….. he pressure between the first and second chambers 11, 13 is different and the pressure contained within the first chamber 11 is lower than the pressure contained within the second chamber 13. This reduction in pressure may lead to a lower than desired pressure in the first chamber 11, [0035], Fig: 2).
As per claim 7, Carteret discloses wherein the at least one of the switching valves opens at the first predetermined limit pressure difference (he pressure in both of the first and second chambers 11, 13 to a second pressure P2 that is greater than the pressure P. Initially, the valve 16 is open such that the pressure P2 is equal between the first and second chambers 11, 13., [0034], Fig: 2).
As per claims 8 and 9, Carteret discloses wherein the at least one of the switching valves closes at the second limit pressure difference in the second operating state ([0034] – [0035], and [0039], fig: 1-5).
As per claim 10, Carteret discloses opening the switching valve in the second operating state at the first predetermined limit pressure difference between the additional volume and the main volume ([0034], Fig: V2), AND
closing the switching valve at the second predetermined limit pressure difference between the additional volume and the main volume, which is smaller than the first limit pressure difference ([0035], Fig: 1-4).
As per claim 11, Carteret discloses opening the switching valve in the second operating state at the first predetermined limit pressure difference between the additional volume and the main volume ([0034], Fig: 1-4)
As per claim 12, Carteret discloses closing the switching valve at the second predetermined limit pressure difference between the additional volume and the main volume, which is smaller than the first limit pressure difference ([0035], Fig: 1-4).
As per claim 13, Carteret discloses wherein the multi-chamber air spring comprises a plurality of the switching valves (16, Fig: 5), wherein the switching valves each connect the additional volume (14, Fig: 5) to the main volume (12, Fig: 5) in the first operating state and disconnect the additional volume from the main volume in the second operating state ([0034] and [0039], Fig: 1-5),
wherein at least one of the switching valves of the plurality of the switching valves (16) opens at the first predetermined limit pressure difference and closes at the second limit pressure difference in the second operating state ([0035] and [0039], Fig: 1-5), and
wherein at least one of the switching valves of the plurality of the switching valves neither opens at the first predetermined limit pressure difference nor closes at the second limit pressure difference in the second operating state ([0034] – [0035] and [0039], Fig: 5).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carteret et al. (US – 2020/0180383 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of FOX (US – 2014/0077427 A1).
As per claims 14 and 15, Carteret discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the main volume and the additional volume share a common wall, and the switching valve is disposed on the common wall.
FOX discloses Gas Spring For Two Wheels Vehicle, Inv Which All Gas In Main Chamber Is Displaced Into Auxiliary Chamber Whie Valve Is Open To Permit Fluid Communication During Compression Stroke comprising:
wherein the main volume and the additional volume share a common wall, and the switching valve is disposed on the common wall (Fig: 1-3B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Self-Balancing Multi-Chamber Air Spring of the Carteret to make the main volume and the additional volume share a common wall, and the switching valve is disposed on the common wall as taught by FOX in order to provide two of each flow port allows for greater flow volumes and lower pressure drops.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 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.
Prior art and teaching reference fail to disclose wherein the second operating state is a sport position of the multi-chamber air spring and the first operating state is a comfort position of the multi-chamber air spring, wherein dynamic peak pressures in the multi-chamber air spring are higher in the sport position as compared with the comfort position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARK, filed 08/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Carteret et al. (US – 2020/0180383 A1) (claims 1-13) and further in view of FOX (US – 2014/0077427 A1) (Claims 14 and 15). New claims 16 and 17 are objected. Would it be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants’ 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 SAN M AUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5792. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:30 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, 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.
/SAN M AUNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
