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 Amendments
This action responds to the amendment filed July 27, 2026. Claims 1-15 remain pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 27, 2026. These drawings are acceptable. Figure 9 now identifies the prior art; the previous drawing objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, section II, filed July 27, 2026, with respect to claims 9, 10, 12, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 9, 10, 12, and 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, section III, filed July 27, 2026, with respect to claims 1, 3-5, 10-12, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1, 3-5, 10-12, and 15 has been withdrawn.
The amendments resolve the numerical language and antecedent basis issues. The first valve position permits partial or full opening, and the sensor outputs need not themselves measure displacement. These clarifications resolve the remaining indefiniteness issues.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-13, Sections IV-V, filed July 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Bolander and Schupner, supplemented by Trujillo, Butora, and Iwasaki as specified below.
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.
Claims 1-2, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolander et al. (US 20240344585 A1) in view of Schupner et al. (US 4164274 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bolander discloses a compression valve (100) for a damper (shock absorber) of a suspension assembly (see ¶ 0077) of a two-wheeled vehicle (motorcycle or mountain bike) (see ¶¶ 0002, 0018), the compression valve comprising: a cylindrical main body (110) extending along its central longitu---dinal axis (A), the main body comprising an interior cavity (interior of 110) in the form of an axial blind hole (interior terminating at closed end 115) (Figs. 1, 2a); a through-passage (valve apertures 160, 170, and 180) arranged to provide a damping-fluid path between the interior and exterior of the compression valve (through corresponding sleeve apertures 165, 175, and 185 and housing apertures 155) (see Figs. 1, 2a); and a rotatable body (140) shaped to engage with the main body (110) and rotatable between positions that open or restrict fluid paths (alignment or misalignment of the sleeve and valve body apertures) (see Figs. 3a-3; ¶ 0023).
Bolander does not expressly disclose the main body being arranged along a longitudinal axis of the damper; the through-passage providing a fluid path between a pressure tube and a reserve tube; a second rotational position closing all fluid paths through the compression valve; or the main body being immovably fixed to the pressure tube.
Schupner teaches a pressure tube (11) surrounded by a reserve tube (housing 13 defining reservoir 72), with a main body (55) immovably fixed to the pressure tube (welded to 11). Through-passages (ports 48-52, chamber portions 56a-56e, and openings 70 and 71) connect the pressure cylinder to the reservoir. Rotation of a valve member (57) acts through threads (58) to translate the member until its lands (64-68) close all controlled compression passages at a zero position (Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 5-27; col. 4 ll. 15-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Schupner's fixed pressure-tube mounting, cylinder to reservoir flow arrangement, and selectable shutoff to Bolander’s compression valve by fixing body 110 at the pressure tube end along the damper axis, connecting its axial inlet to the pressure tube and lateral outlets to the reserve volume, and configuring sleeve 140 to cover all outlet apertures at one angular position. This would provide a compact, stationary flow connection and selectable compression lockout while retaining rotational flow adjustment. Bolander permits different aperture dimensions and shapes and teaches closure by misalignment (see ¶¶ 0023, 0042).
Regarding claim 2, Bolander as modified discloses the compression valve according to claim 1, wherein the rotatable body (140) is shaped to fit about the upper end of the main body (closed-end region of 110) (Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 6, Bolander as modified discloses the compression valve according to claim 1, wherein the rotatable body (140) comprises a coupling interface (closed-end connection to shaft 195) facilitating coupling to a transmission link (195) between the compression valve and a valve actuator (501) (Fig. 5; ¶ 0029).
Regarding claim 7, Bolander discloses a damper (shock absorber) comprising the compression valve (100) according to claim 1 to regulate fluid flow between the reserve tube (housing 13 defining reservoir 72) and the pressure tube (11) (Bolander ¶ 0030; Schupner Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Bolander as modified discloses the damper according to claim 7, comprising a valve actuator (501) coupled to the rotatable body (140) through a shaft (195) (see Bolander, Fig. 5).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolander et al. (US 20240344585 A1) in view of Schupner et al. (US 4164274 A1), and further in view of Trujillo et al. (US 20090277732 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Bolander as modified discloses a compression valve according to claim 1, comprising a primary lateral passage (160) and a smaller secondary lateral passage (170) (see Bolander Fig. 1; ¶ 0042).
Bolander does not expressly teach wherein the cross-sectional area of the secondary lateral passage is 10-30 times smaller than the cross-sectional area of the primary lateral passage.
Trujillo teaches three primary compression flow passages (the alternative replacing each group of passages 112 with one arcuate passage) and a secondary passage (120) having an area selected within 2%-30% of their cumulative area (see ¶¶ 0059, 0069). Let S represent the cumulative area and L the largest individual primary passage area. Because S/3 ≤ L ≤ S, selecting a secondary area of S/30 within the disclosed range yields an individual secondary to primary area ration between 1/30 and 1/10, corresponding to the claimed relationship.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Truijllo's derived passage area ratio to Bolander’s apertures 170 and 160 to restrict second chamber discharge while retaining a larger primary bleed opening (see Bolander, ¶¶ 0022-23).
Regarding claim 4, Bolander as modified discloses a compression valve according to claim 1, comprising a primary lateral passage (160) having a cross-sectional area (see Bolander, Fig. 1).
Bolander does not expressly disclose the primary lateral passage having a cross-sectional area in the order of
5
m
m
2
-
15
m
m
2
.
Trujillo teaches selecting fluid flow port sizes within a range that encompasses the claimed area. In particular, Trujillo teaches that each reservoir shaft fluid port 170 may have a diameter between 0.5 and 5.0 mm (see ¶ 0092). For a circular port, that diameter range corresponds to cross-sectional areas from about
0.196
m
m
2
to about
19.6
m
m
2
, therefore encompasses a passage cross-sectional area in the order of
5
m
m
2
-
15
m
m
2
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the compression valve of Bolander so that the primary lateral passage (160) is sized within the claimed range as taught by Trujillo, in order to provide a larger primary flow path and thereby permit a higher flow damping setting.
Regarding claim 5, Bolander as modified discloses a compression valve according to claim 1, comprising a secondary lateral passage (170) having a cross-sectional area (see Bolander, Fig. 1).
Bolander does not expressly disclose that the secondary lateral passage has a cross-sectional area in the order of
0.2
m
m
2
-
5
m
m
2
.
Trujillo teaches selecting smaller fluid flow port sizes within a range that encompasses the claimed area. In particular, Trujillo teaches that each reservoir shaft fluid port (170) may have a diameter between 0.5 mm and 5.0 mm (see ¶ 0092). For a circular port, a diameter of about 0.505 mm corresponds to an area of about
0.2
m
m
2
, and a diameter of about 2.523 mm corresponds to an area of about
5
m
m
2
. Thus, Trujillo teaches circular port dimensions encompassing the claimed secondary lateral passage area range of
0.2
m
m
2
-
5
m
m
2
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the compression valve of Bolander so that the secondary lateral passage (170) is sized within the claimed range as taught by Trujillo, in order to provide a more restricted secondary flow path and thereby permit a reduced flow damping setting relative to the primary passage.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolander et al. (US 20240344585 A1) in view of Schupner et al. (US 4164274 A1), and further in view of Butora et al. (US 20150197308 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Bolander as modified discloses a suspension assembly (vehicle suspension) comprising a damper (shock absorber) according to claim 7 (see Bolander ¶ 0030).
Bolander does not expressly disclose a bicycle suspension assembly comprising a two-stanchion telescopic tube fork arranged between the bicycle head tube and the front wheel axle, with damper inside one stanchion.
Butora teaches a suspension assembly (bicycle suspension) of a bicycle (1) comprising a tube fork (front suspension fork) between the bicycle head tube (steering head region of frame 10) and the front wheel axle (axle of front wheel 12). The fork comprises a pair of stanchions (11) and a damping element (spring element 3 providing adjustable damping resistance) inside one stanchion (see Fig. 1; ¶ 0112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the Bolander compression damper, as modified, inside one stanchion of Butora's telescopic bicycle fork to provide adjustable front wheel compression damping while utilizing the fork's existing tubular enclosure, thereby providing the damping function in a compact, protected arrangement without requiring an additional external housing.
Regarding claim 10, Bolander as modified discloses a suspension assembly according to claim 9. Bolander further discloses an electronically controlled valve actuator (501) coupled to the rotatable body (140) through a shaft (195) (see Bolander, Fig. 5).
Bolander does not expressly disclose a sensor arrangement configured to generate an output signal in response to a displacement of the sprung mass and a control arrangement operating the valve actuator based on that signal.
Butora teaches a sensor arrangement (acceleration sensor 63 in operating element 2) configured to generate an output signal (acceleration data)in response to displacement of the sprung mass (handlebar/frame assembly carrying operating element 2) (see ¶¶ 0096, 0100). Butora further teaches a control arrangement (electronic module 6) configured to operate a valve actuator based on the sensor output (processor generated actuator command calculated from sensor inputs) (see Fig. 2; ¶ 0099).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply Butora's sensor arrangement and electronic control module to Bolander’s electrical valve actuator in order to automatically adjust compression flow resistance in response to movement of the sprung mass, thereby allowing the damping resistance to adapt to detected suspension movement without requiring manual adjustment.
Regarding claim 11, Butora teaches wherein the sensor arrangement comprises a 3-axis accelerometer (63) cable of detecting motion along three orthogonal axes (see ¶¶ 0025-26).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolander et al. (US 20240344585 A1) in view of Schupner et al. (US 4164274 A1), and further in view of Butora et al. (US 20150197308 A1) and Iwasaki (US 5935181).
Regarding claims 12-15, Bolander as modified discloses a method of controlling a suspension assembly according to claim 10 by analysing sensor output (signals from sensor 63) and operating the electronically controlled valve actuator (501) based on the analysed output, as discussed above.
Bolander does not expressly disclose analysing the output signals to detect an upward displacement of the sprung mass and operating the valve actuator based on that upward displacement.
Iwasaki teaches analysing sensor-derived information to detect upward movement of the sprung mass (positive vertical velocity detected at step 204) and controlling the valve actuator on that basis (commanding setting HS at step 206) (see Fig. 21; col. 9, ll. 33-43). Detection through positive upward velocity is consistent with the claimed upward-displacement detection because Applicant’s specification (¶ 0087), likewise uses upward velocity derived from acceleration to detect upward movement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Iwasaki’s upward motion responsive damping control to Butora's electronic module operating Bolander’s actuator to reduce compression-force transmission to the rising sprung mass.
Regarding claim 13, Bolander as modified discloses the method according to claim 12. Bolander further discloses an electronically controlled valve actuator (501) operating the compression valve (500) (see Fig. 5).
Bolander does not expressly disclose operating the actuator specifically to open the compression valve in response to the detected upward displacement of the sprung mass.
Iwasaki teaches an electronically driven valve member (adjuster 40 driven by pulse motor 3) controlling a compression fluid path (J). The upward motion command selects a setting with the path open (setting HS) (see Figs. 6, 21; col. 4, ll. 9-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Iwasaki's compression passage opening response to Bolander's electrically actuated compression valve to provide reduced compression resistance when upward movement of the sprung mass is detected, thereby allowing the suspension damping response to adapt automatically to the detected upward movement.
Regarding claim 14, Bolander as modified discloses the method according to claim 12. Bolander further teaches turning the rotatable body (140) to open a fluid path (alignment of sleeve aperture 165 or 175 with valve body aperture 160 or 170) (Figs. 3a-3d)
Bolander does not expressly disclose turning the rotatable body to open the fluid path in response to detected upward displacement of the sprung mass.
Iwasaki teaches rotational valve adjustment (motor driven rotation of adjuster 40) to provide an open compression fluid path (J in setting HS) under the upward motion control discussed above (see Figs. 6, 21; col. 4, ll. 9-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Iwaskai’s upward motion responsive rotary valve control to Bolander's sleeve 140 so that aperture alignment opens a compression-fluid path, thereby reducing compression resistance during upward movement of the sprung mass.
Regarding claim 15, Bolander as modified discloses the electronic suspension according to claim 10. Butora further teaches a computer program product (data carrier storing a computer program) comprising a computer program directly loadable into a memory (EEPROM or flash memory 65) of the control arrangement (electronic module 6).The program comprises elements for analysing sensor output (sensor-input processing instructions) and operating a valve actuator (actuator-control instructions) when executed by a processor (CPU of module 6) (see Butora ¶¶ 0058, 0099).
Bolander does not expressly disclose program elements detecting upward displacement of the sprung mass and operating the electronically controlled valve actuator on that basis.
Iwasaki teaches program elements (steps 204 and 206) that detect upward movement (positive sprung-mass vertical velocity) and issue the corresponding actuator command (selection of setting HS) (see Fig. 21, col. 8, ll. 43-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Iwasaki's upward motion detection and actuator-control instructions into Butora’s loadable program controlling Bolander’s actuator in order to automatically control the compression valve in response to detected upward movement of the sprung mass, thereby providing the corresponding reduction in compression resistance without requiring manual valve adjustment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karem Akram Algarash whose telephone number is (571)272-5789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/K.A.A./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
