CTNF 18/682,969 CTNF 101441 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Foreign Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1, 4-6 are 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 1, the limitation “formed on a bottom portion of the case member” is recited. There is no antecedent basis for “the case member” so it is unclear if this limitation is intended to refer to the “a bottomed cylindrical case member” or a separate structure. For purposes of examination this “a bottom portion of the case member” will be interpreted as “a bottom portion of the bottomed cylindrical case member.” Additionally in Claim 1, the limitation “the bottom portion” is recited. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation so it is unclear if this is intended to refer to the “a bottom portion of the case member” or a separate structure. For purposes of examination “an outer circumferential side of the bottom portion”, in conjunction with the above rejection, will be interpreted as “an outer circumferential side of the bottom portion of the bottomed cylindrical case member”. It should be noted that Claims 4-6 are also rejected by the two above rejections as being dependent on a rejected Claim 1. Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “the case member” is recited. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation so it is unclear if this is intended to refer to the “a bottomed cylindrical case member” or a separate structure. For purposes of examination “the case member” will be interpreted as “the bottomed cylindrical case member”. Additionally in Claim 6, the limitation “the bottom portion” is recited. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation so it is unclear if this is intended to refer to the “a bottom portion of the case member” or a separate structure. For purposes of examination “an outer circumferential side of the bottom portion”, in conjunction with the above rejection, will be interpreted as “the outer circumferential side of the bottom portion of the bottomed cylindrical case member” and “an inner circumferential side of the bottom portion” in conjunction with the above rejection, will be interpreted as “an inner circumferential side of the bottom portion of the bottomed cylindrical case member”. It should be noted that as the limitation “an outer circumferential side of the bottom portion” is established in Claim 1, which Claim 6 is dependent on, thus it is unclear if the Claim 6 limitation is intended to refer to the same structure as the Claim 1 limitation. For purposes of examination the Claim 6 limitation will be interpreted as the same structure as the same limitation of Claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (JP 2020016288 A) in view of Cendoya (US 20210088098 A1) . Regarding Claim 1, Yamashita discloses a shock absorber comprising: a cylinder (2) in which a working fluid is sealed; a piston (18) fitted in the cylinder (2) and partitioning an inside of the cylinder (2) into two chambers; a first passage (38) through which a flow of the working fluid occurs due to movement of the piston (18) in one direction; a first damping valve (441) providing resistance to a flow of the working fluid from a chamber on an upstream side (19) to a chamber on a downstream side (20) of the first passage (367); a back pressure chamber (101) causing an internal pressure to act on the first damping valve (441) in a valve closing direction; a bottomed cylindrical case member (56) having an opening at one end, the first damping valve (414) disposed in the opening, and the back pressure chamber (101) formed therein; a second passage (116) introducing the working fluid into the back pressure chamber (101) from the chamber on the upstream side (19); a second damping valve (145) seated on a first seat part (74) formed on a bottom portion of the case member (71) and configured to open due to a pressure of the back pressure chamber (101) to provide resistance to a flow of the working fluid toward the chamber on the downstream side (20); a third damping valve (41), a partition member (69) partitioning an inside of the case member (56) into the back pressure chamber (101) and a separate chamber (102), wherein a passage portion (103) communicating with the separate chamber (102) is formed in a cylindrical portion formed on an outer circumferential side (A) ( see Annotated Fig. 3 below) of a bottom portion (71) and having the opening (see Fig. 1, Fig. 3 , Annotated Fig. 3 below). PNG media_image1.png 303 358 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Fig. 3 Yamashita does not disclose wherein the third damping valve is seated on a second seat part is formed on the bottom portion of the case member to have a diameter larger than that of the first seat part and configured to open with the first damping valve closed in a region at which a piston speed is low. Cendoya teaches a shock absorber comprising a first damping valve (394) seated on a first seat part (Q) ( see Annotated Fig. 5 above) formed on a bottom portion of the case member (X) and configured to open due to a pressure of the back pressure chamber (R) to provide resistance to a flow of the working fluid toward the chamber on the downstream side (146) and a second damping valve (406) wherein seated on a second seat part (S) formed on the bottom portion of the case member (X) to have a diameter larger than that of the first seat part (Q) ( see Fig. 1, Fig. 5, Annotated Fig. 5 below). PNG media_image2.png 291 433 media_image2.png Greyscale Annotated Fig. 5 It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the first and second damping valves seated on a bottom portion of a case member of Cendoya with the shock absorber, and specifically the second damping valve, of Yamashita to teach a total of three damping valves within the shock absorber, in order to further control the tuning of the damper system in a simplified and cost reduced manner ( see US 20210088098 A1 [Cendoya]; [0014], [0040]). Examiner notes amendments further explicitly defining the separate chamber’s passage portion, within the Claims, would be looked upon favorably in light of the prior art. Regarding Claim 6, Yamashita discloses wherein a protruding portion (72) is formed in the case member (71) on an inner circumferential side of the bottom portion ( see Annotated Fig. 3 above), and the partition member (69) is disposed between the protruding portion (72) and the cylindrical portion (A) ( see Annotated Fig. 3 above) formed on an outer circumferential side of the bottom portion and having the opening ( see Fig. 3, Annotated Fig. 3 above) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita (JP 2020016288 A) as modified by Cendoya (US 20210088098 A1) in Claim 1, above, further in view of Yamashita (US 20170080767 A1), hence forth referred to as Yamashita 767 . Regarding Claim 4, Yamashita modified by Cendoya teaches the shock absorber according to Claim 1. Yamashita modified by Cendoya does not teach wherein the partition member includes a metal ring and a lip formed integrally with the metal ring. Yamashita 767 teaches wherein a partition member (265) includes a metal ring (266) ( see [0090]) and a lip (276) formed integrally with the metal ring (266) ( see Fig. 4, [0091]). It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of a partition member made of an integral metal ring and lip of Yamashita 767 with the shock absorber of Yamashita modified by Cendoya in order to passively regulate flow of fluid within the shock absorber, preventing over pressurization damage ( see US 20170080767 A1 [Yamashita]; [0100]). Regarding Claim 5, Yamashita 767 teaches wherein the lip (276) constitutes a check valve configured to restrict a flow in one direction and allow a flow in another direction ( see [0100). Yamashita modified by Cendoya and Yamashita 767 teaches wherein that flow is between the back pressure chamber and the separate chamber ( see JP 2020016288 A [Yamashita]; Fig. 3). 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 /Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/682,969 Page 2 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/682,969 Page 3 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/682,969 Page 4 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/682,969 Page 5 Art Unit: 3616 Application/Control Number: 18/682,969 Page 6 Art Unit: 3616
Prosecution Insights