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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 top mount and end cap recited in claim 2 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 § 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) 1-3, 7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application 2010/0109212 to Leonard.
Re: claims 1 and 7. Leonard shows in figures 1 and 3 a sleeve for an air spring for a vehicle, comprising: at least a first sleeve 108 and a second sleeve 110, wherein the first sleeve 108 has both open ends as shown and includes a first circumferential portion 198 and a second circumferential portion 122; wherein the second sleeve 110 has one open or top end and includes a third circumferential portion 124 coupled to the second circumferential portion 122 of the first sleeve 108 as shown in figure 1; and wherein an end opposite the one open end i.e. the bottom end of the second sleeve 110 is formed in a closed structure as shown.
[AltContent: textbox (Stepped portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
602
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 2. Leonard shows in figures 1 and 3 wherein the first sleeve 108 is an upper sleeve, and the second sleeve 110 is a lower sleeve, wherein the first circumferential portion of the first sleeve is coupled to a top mount FSC, and wherein an outer surface of the closed structure at the opposite end of the second sleeve 110 is coupled to an end cap SSC.
Re: claim 3. Leornard shows in figures 1 and 3 wherein the closed structure includes a circular plate as described in paragraph [0022] configured to close the end opposite the one end of the second sleeve.
Re: claims 9 and 11. Leonard shows in figures 1 and 3 wherein the second circumferential portion 122 of the first sleeve 108 and the third circumferential portion 124 of the second sleeve 110 are bonded to each other by a welding as described in paragraph [0023] so that the second circumferential portion 122 is attached to the third circumferential portion 124.
Re: claim 10. Leonard shows in figures 1 and 3 wherein the second circumferential portion 122 of the first sleeve 108 and the third circumferential portion 124 of the second sleeve 110 are arranged to overlap each other as shown in figure 1, and wherein a stepped portion, as labeled, is formed in one of the second circumferential portion of the first sleeve and the third circumferential portion of the second sleeve along a circumferential direction so that the first sleeve 108 is seated on the second sleeve 110 or the second sleeve 110 is seated on the first sleeve 108 as shown.
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) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard in view of WO-0161207 (WO’207).
Re: claims 4-6. Leonard is silent with regard to the closed structure further comprising a reinforcement portion formed to protrude from the circular plate.
WO’207 teaches in figures 5 and 6 a closed structure in a suspension environment comprising a reinforcement portion 54 formed to protrude from a plate 33.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the circular plate of Leonard to have included a reinforcement portion protruding from it, in view of the teachings of WO’207, in order to provide a means of increasing stiffness and strength of the sleeve in order to improve overall durability. With regard to claims 5 and 6, Leonard, as modified by WO’207, teaches in figure 6 at least one bar 54 with both sides of the at least one bar and particularly a plurality of spaced bars 54 being connected to an inner surface of a sleeve 27 in order to provide greater reinforcement/strength with connections to the sleeve at both ends.
PNG
media_image2.png
558
631
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard in view of WO-0161207 (WO’207) and US Patent 4506910 to Bierens.
Leonard, as modified, is silent with regards to the plurality of bars being equally spaced circumferentially.
Bierens teaches in figure 6 in the environment of an air spring reinforcement ribs being equally spaced circumferentially.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the circumferentially spaced bars of Leonard, as modified, to have been spaced equally, in view of the teachings of Bierens, in order to provide a means of providing uniformity which facilitates ease of manufacturing and which improves strength.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard in view of EP-953787 (EP’787).
Leonard is silent with regard to the first and second sleeve being made of thermoplastic material by an injection molding.
EP’787 teaches in the English abstract the use of a sleeve for an air spring being made of thermoplastic material by an injection molding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the sleeve of Leonard to have been made of thermoplastic by an injection molding, in view of the teachings of EP’787, in order to provide a material that is lower in weight and that provides excellent corrosion resistance and a method of making that results in fewer fasteners, welds or assembly steps.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard in view of DE-102016221203 (DE’203) in view of US Patent 5707145 to Easter, EP-1691105 (EP’105), and RU-2493475 (RU’475).
Leonard shows wherein the second circumferential portion 122 of the first sleeve 108 and the third circumferential portion 124 of the second sleeve 110 are arranged to overlap each other as shown, but is silent with regard to wherein the sleeve, which is arranged inwardly in a region where the second circumferential portion and the third circumferential portion overlap each other, is made of a laser-energy absorbable material, wherein the sleeve, which is arranged outwardly in the region, is made of a laser- energy transmissible material, and wherein the welding is a laser welding.
DE’203 teaches in figure 3 the use of a first sleeve 10a, 10c being arranged inwardly in a region where a second (bottom of 10a) and third (top of 10b) circumferential portion overlap each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the overlapping of the circumferential portions of Leonard to have been with the first sleeve inwardly of the second sleeve, in view of the teachings of DE’203, in order to provide a shorter overall sleeve length and to improve load transfer from the radial nesting.
EP’105 teaches the use of a body of an air spring being made of polyamide 6 which is known in the art as a laser-energy absorbable material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the first sleeve of Leonard, as modified, to have been made of polyamide 6, in view of the teachings of EP’105, in order to provide a material that absorbs the energy from a laser beam instead of reflecting it in order to effectively achieve laser welding for joining components which is marked by strong weld strength.
Easter teaches in col. 7 lines 1-4 the use of aa bod of an air spring being made of carbon black which is known in the art as a laser-energy transmissible material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the second outwardly arranged sleeve of Leonard, as modified, to have been made of carbon black, in view of the teachings of Easter, in order to provide a material that transmits the energy from a laser beam instead of reflecting it in order to effectively achieve laser welding for joining components which is marked by strong weld strength.
Examiner notes that with regard to the relative arrangement of the first and second sleeves, it would have been obvious to try arranging either the first sleeve inwardly and the second sleeve outwardly or the second sleeve inwardly and the first sleeve outwardly since it represents a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) in MPEP 2143.
RU’475 teaches in the paragraph beginning “the contact surfaces (2a, 3a) between the body (2)” the use of laser welding of air spring components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the connection of the first and second sleeves of Leonard, as modified, to have been via laser welding, in view of the teachings of RU’475, in order to provide a means of connection with higher precision with the use of additional fasteners or adhesives.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard in view of DE-102016221203 (DE’203).
Leonard is silent with regard to an intermediate sleeve interposed between the first sleeve and the second sleeve.
DE’203 teaches in figure 3 the use of an air spring with an intermediate sleeve 10a interposed between a first sleeve 10c and a second sleeve 10b.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the air spring of Leonard, as modified, to have included an intermediate sleeve interposed between the first and second sleeves, in view of the teachings of DE’203, in order to provide an increased effective length which accommodates greater suspension travel.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonard in view of DE-102016221203 (DE’203) as applied above, and further in view of Easter.
Leonard, as modified, is silent with regard to the intermediate sleeve including carbon black.
Easter teaches in col. 7 lines 1-4 the use of a body of an air spring being made of carbon black which is known in the art as a laser-energy transmissible material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the second outwardly arranged sleeve of Leonard, as modified, to have been made of carbon black, in view of the teachings of Easter, in order to provide a material that transmits the energy from a laser beam instead of reflecting it in order to effectively achieve laser welding for joining components which is marked by strong weld strength.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN-12240366 teach the use of a damper with a first, second, and intermediate sleeve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally.
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.
mmb
June 24, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights