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 § 112
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.
Claims 1, 10, 12, and 15 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.
Claim 1 recites that the rotatable body is rotatable between a “first position (VP_open, VP_medium)” and a “second position (VP_shut).” It is unclear whether claim 1 is reciting a single first position or two distinct positions, namely VP_open and VP_medium. The written description treats “fully open,” “medium,” and “shut” as different positions, and states that Figs. 5-7 show a total of three possible valve positions.
Claims 10, 12, and 15 recite output signals “(240x, 240y, 240z, 240p, 240m)” and recite that those signals are used to detect an upward displacement of the sprung mass. It is unclear whether the recited outputs are raw accelerometer outputs, processed displacement values, pressure outputs, motion outputs, or some combination thereof. The specification states that tri-axis accelerometer 240AS outputs 240x, 240y, and 240z, while also separately stating that pressure sensor 240PS measures pressure 240p and motion sensor 240MS measures motion 240m, and further states that the sensor outputs are forwarded to a signal processing module for DSP processing.
Claims 3-5 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.
Claims 3-5 recite the phrase “in the order of” with respect to cross-sectional area relationships and ranges. In claim 3, the secondary lateral passage is recited as having a cross-sectional area “in the order of 10-30 times smaller” than the primary lateral passage. In claim 4, the primary lateral passage is recited as having a cross-sectional area “in the order of
5
m
m
2
-
15
m
m
2
.” In claim 5, the secondary lateral passage is recited as having a cross-sectional area “in the order of
0.2
m
m
2
-
5
m
m
2
.” The phrase “in the order of” is a term of degree that does not provide clear objective boundaries for determining the scope of the claims. It is unclear whether the claims are limited to values within the stated ranges, approximately within the stated ranges, or values outside the stated ranges but near them.
The specification does not provide an objective standard for the phrase “in the order of.” Although the specification repeats similar language for the recited cross-sectional areas and relative size relationship, it does not define the permissible range of approximation, and provide a tolerance, or otherwise set forth clear boundaries for the scope of the phrase. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of claims 3-5 with reasonable certainty.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the sensor arrangement” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 depends from claim 9, but claim 9 does not recite any sensor arrangement. A sensor arrangement is first introduced in claim 10. Thereof, the phrase “the sensor arrangement” lacks antecedent basis and renders the scope of claim 11 unclear.
Drawings
Figure 9 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: inconsistent terminology, ‘bicycle header tube’ should be corrected to ‘bicycle head tube.’ Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10, 12 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: inconsistent reference characters, ‘sensor arrangement (240AS, 240P, 240M)’ does not correspond to the reference characters used in the specification/list of reference signs, which identifies the corresponding sensors as ‘(240AS, 240PS, 240MS).’ Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebersbach et al. (US 20160153515 A1) in view of Galasso et al. (US 20150375593 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ebersbach discloses a compression valve (valve assembly 420) for a damper (shock absorber 410) of a suspension assembly (300/400) of a two-wheeled vehicle (100),
the compression valve (420) comprising a cylindrical main body (470) adapted to be arranged along a longitu---dinal axis (common assembly axis, see ¶ 0057) of the damper (410),
a through-passage (internal fluid flow ports/ channels/paths through 422/420, see ¶ 0058) arranged to provide a fluid path
472
,
622
,
624
,
628
,
632
between a pressure tube (shock first portion 412) and a reserve tube (reservoir 428/ short reservoir 429) of the damper (410);
a rotatable body (422) shaped to engage with the main body (470) which rotatable body (422) is rotatable between a first position (open position of lock-out valve 422, see Fig. 6 below) in which the rotatable body (lock-out valve 422) opens a fluid path (472), and a second position (closed position of 422, opposite to that shown in FIG. 6, see ¶ 0058) in which the rotatable body (422) closes all fluid paths.
Ebersbach does not expressly disclose the main body comprising an interior cavity in the form of an axial blind hole.
Galasso teaches a main body (filler body 621) comprising an interior cavity (bore 622) in the form of an axial blind hole (bore 622 formed substantially along the length of filler body 621 and ending as a blind hole in a lower portion thereof; upper radial apertures 623 and lower radial apertures 627 intersect the bore 622).
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 cylindrical main body of Ebersbach to comprise an interior cavity in the form of an axial blind hole as taught by Galasso, in order to use a known closed-end bore and intersecting radial aperture arrangement for controlled fluid communication.
Regarding claim 2, Ebersbach discloses the compression valve according to claim 1, wherein the rotatable body (422) is shaped to fit about the upper end of the main body (inner portion 470). Under BRI, “about the upper end” is not expressly redefined in the specification and is broad enough to encompass a rotatable member configured to conform to, mate with, and fit around the upper-end opening/region of the main body, even where part of the member is received into that region.
Regarding claim 6, Ebersbach discloses a compression valve according to claim 1, wherein the rotatable body (422) comprises a coupling interface (the actuation connection between 422 and 424) to facilitate coupling to a transmission link (the operable connection between 422 and 424) between the compression valve (valve assembly 420) and a valve actuator (bi-stable REMA 424).
Regarding claim 7, Ebersbach discloses a damper (410) comprising a compression valve (420) according to claim 1 to regulate fluid flow between the reserve tube (428/429) and the pressure tube (shock absorber portion 412) of the damper (410).
Regarding claim 8, Ebersbach discloses a damper (410) according to claim 7, comprising a valve actuator (bi-stable REMA 424) coupled to the rotatable body (422) of the compression valve (420).
Regarding claim 9, Ebersbach discloses a suspension assembly (300/400) of a bicycle (100), which suspension assembly (300) comprises a telescopic tube fork (see ¶ 0051) arranged between the bicycle header tube (202) and the front wheel axle, which telescopic tube fork comprises a damper (410).
Ebersbach does not clearly disclose that the telescopic tube fork comprises a pair of stanchions and that the damper is arranged in the interior of one stanchion.
Galasso teaches a fork assembly having two-fork legs, namely a damper leg and a gas spring leg (fork assembly 100 including damper leg 101 and gas spring leg 105; see Fig. 1), thereby teaching the pair of stanchions arrangement with the damper arranged in one stanchion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ebersbach to use the fork architecture taught by Galasso, in order to house the damping function in one fork leg and the spring function in the other, thereby predictably resulting in a telescopic tube fork comprising a pair of stanchions with the damper arranged in the interior of one stanchion.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebersbach et al. (US 20160153515 A1) in view of Galasso et al. (US 20150375593 A1) and further in view of Trujillo et al. (US 20090277732 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
380
246
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Ebersbach as modified discloses a compression valve according to claim 1, comprising a primary lateral passage (larger upper lateral openings in 422) and a secondary lateral passage (smaller lower lateral openings in 422) (see Annotated Fig. 5 below).
Annotated Fig. 5
Ebersbach does not expressly teach wherein the cross-sectional area of the secondary lateral passage is in the order of 10-30 times smaller than the cross-sectional area of the primary lateral passage.
Trujillo teaches sizing a smaller secondary flow passage relative to a larger primary flow passage. In particular, Trujillo teaches that the cross-sectional area of the secondary passage (port 120) can be 2% to 30%, 5% to 25%, or 10% to 20% of the cumulative cross-sectional area of the larger compression flow passages (112) (see ¶¶ 0069-70).
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 Ebersbach so that the secondary lateral passage is sized relative to the primary lateral passage 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.
Regarding claim 4, Ebersbach as modified discloses a compression valve according to claim 1, comprising a primary lateral passage (larger upper lateral openings in 422) (see Annotated Fig. 5 above).
Ebersbach does not expressly disclose that the primary lateral passage has 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 Ebersbach so that the primary lateral passage 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, Ebersbach as modified discloses a compression valve according to claim 1, comprising a secondary lateral passage (smaller lower lateral openings in 422) (see Annotated Fig. 5 above).
Ebersbach 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 Ebersbach so that the secondary lateral passage 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 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebersbach et al. (US 20160153515 A1) in view of Galasso et al. (US 20150375593 A1) and further in view of Butora et al. (US 20150197308 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ebersbach discloses a suspension assembly according to claim 9, comprising a sensor arrangement (sensors 160, ‘such as one or more accelerometers’; see ¶0054, and Figs. 17-18); an electronically controlled valve actuator (REMAs 424.1, 424.2) coupled to the rotatable body (422) of the compression valve (420) (see ¶ 0064); and a control arrangement (controller 142; Figs. 17-18) , configured to operate the electronically controlled valve actuator (REMAs 424.1, 424.2) on the basis of a sensor arrangement output signal (signals from the sensors 160).
Ebersbach does not expressly disclose a sensor arrangement configured to generate an output signal in response to a displacement of the sprung mass.
Butora teaches a sensor arrangement (at least one control device having at least one multi-axis micromechanical acceleration sensor) configured to generate an output signal (an input variable representing acceleration in at least one spatial direction (see ¶ 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Ebersbach to employ the sensor arrangement of Butora, because doing so would have predictably improved automated suspension control by allowing the actuator to be operated on the basis of sensed displacement-related movement conditions.
Regarding claim 11, Butora teaches wherein the sensor arrangement comprises a 3-axis accelerometer (multi-axis micromechanical acceleration sensor) that can detect motion along three orthogonal axes (see ¶¶ 0025-26).
Regarding claims 12-14, Ebersbach discloses a method of controlling a suspension assembly according to claim 10, comprising the steps of analysing the output signals from the sensor arrangement (signals from sensors 160 received and processed by controller 142, see Figs. 17-18); and operating the electronically controlled valve actuator (REMAs 424.1, 424.2) on the basis of the detected condition;
operating the electronically controlled valve actuator (REMAs 424.1, 424.2) to open the compression valve (420); and
turning the rotatable body (422) of the compression valve (420) to open a fluid path.
Ebersbach does not expressly disclose analysing the output signals to detect an upward displacement of the sprung mass, nor does Ebersbach expressly disclose that the compression valve opening and turning of the rotatable body to open the fluid path are performed in response to the detected upward displacement.
Butora teaches processing output signals from multi-axis sensor arrangement to derive motion and postion-related riding conditions for automated suspension control and using the resulting processed information to generate control signals for suspension actuation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Ebersbach to use the sensor-signal processing approach taught by Butora to derive the claimed upward-displacement condition and to control Ebersbach’s known electronically actuated compression valve on that basis, because doing so would have predictably improved automated suspension response using known multi-axis sensor processing in a known electronically actuated suspension system.
As to claim 12, the combined teachings of Ebersbach and Butora would have rendered obvious analysing the output signals to detect an upward displacement of the sprung mass and operating the electronically controlled valve actuator on that basis.
As to claim 13, the combined teachings of Ebersbach and Butora would have rendered obvious operating the electronically controlled valve actuator to open the compression valve in response to the detected upward displacement.
As to claim 14, the combined teachings of Ebersbach and Butora would have rendered obvious turning the rotatable body of the compression valve to open a fluid path in response to the detected upward displacement.
Regarding claim 15, Ebersbach discloses an electronic suspension having a control arrangement (controller 142) that receives sensor signals from the sensor arrangement (sensors 160) and operates electronically controlled valve actuators (REMAs 424.1, 424.2) to control the compression valve (420).
Ebersbach does not expressly disclose a computer program product comprising a computer program that is directly loadable into a memory of the control arrangement and comprising program elements for performing steps of the method of analysing the output signals to detect an upward displacement of the sprung mass and operating the electronically controlled valve actuator on that basis.
Butora teaches an electronic module containing a microprocessor or microcontroller to convert input variables into a control signal, and software for carrying out the control method (see ¶¶ 0018 and 0022), and further teaches a data carrier or signal sequence representing a computer program that carries out the method when the computer program is running (see ¶ 0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement Ebersbach’s control arrangement as a processor-executable computer program stored in, and loadable into, memory so as to perform the claimed signal-analysis and actuator control steps because doing so would have been the predicatable use of known software-based control for known electronic suspension hardware and would have provided flexible, updateable control logic for Ebersbach’s electronically actuated compression valve.
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
Prosecution Insights