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 Arguments
Applicant contends, in Applicant Arguments filed 18th August 2026, that prior art of record Tsujimura (JP H04321807 A) does not disclose and suggest the configuration of “a connecting piece that connects upper ends or lower ends of the attachment pieces to each other in an axial direction of the outer shell”. This is not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the portions indicated by E1 and E1, which have been pointed out by the examiner, do not correspond to upper ends or lower ends of the parallel plate portions (13)”. Under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) the portions of the parallel plate portions (13) above and below the bottom line are interpreted to be “Upper Ends” and “Lower Ends” (see MPEP 2111 for further discussion of BRI). While examiner agrees U1, U2, L1, and L2, pointed to by applicant, could also be interpreted as “Upper Ends” and “Lower Ends”, the limitation “Upper Ends” and “Lower Ends” on their own does limit the claimed invention to the portions labeled U1, U2, L1, and L2 by the applicant. Additionally, even if U1, U2, L1, and L2 were interpreted as the “Upper Ends” and “Lower Ends” the tubular side plate portion (12) is still interpreted as being equivalent to the claimed “connecting piece that connects upper ends or lower ends of the attachment pieces” as seen in annotated Fig. 2 below. Therefore, the previous grounds of rejection, at least as it pertains to previously recited claimed matter, is maintained.
PNG
media_image1.png
404
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
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.
Claim 1-5 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “in an axial direction of the cylinder outer shell” is recited. It is unclear how the connecting piece of the claimed connects in this direction (see Annotated Applicants Fig. 1, 2, and 6 below). For purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as any amount of connection in the axial direction. Claims 2-5 are similarly rejected for depending on a rejected base claim.
PNG
media_image2.png
783
419
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
597
495
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
493
303
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1, 2, and 6
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.
(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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsujimura (JP H04321807 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsujimura discloses A shock absorber comprising: a shock absorber main body having a cylindrical outer shell (2) and a rod (3) movably inserted into the cylindrical outer shell (2); and a knuckle bracket (11) attached to an outer periphery of a lower end of the cylindrical outer shell (2) (see Fig. 1), wherein the knuckle bracket (11) includes a single metal plate as a base material (see Fig. 2), a pair of clamping pieces (15) that are curved along an outer periphery of the cylindrical outer shell (2) and clamp the cylindrical outer shell (2), a pair of attachment pieces (13) that extend in a radial direction of the cylindrical outer shell (2) from ends in a circumferential direction of the respective clamping pieces (15) and face each other, a connecting piece (12) that connects upper ends (E1) (see Annotated Fig. 2 below) or lower ends (E2) of the attachment pieces (13) to each other in an axial direction of the cylindrical outer shell, and a pair of notches (17) that cut off a three-plane intersection point where the clamping piece (15), the attachment piece (13), and the connecting piece (12) intersect (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Annotated Fig. 2 below). It should be noted that Tsujimura’s connection piece (12) connects the attachment pieces (13) to each other in an axial direction of the cylindrical outer shell at least in the manner that applicants’ invention connects in that direction.
PNG
media_image5.png
441
306
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding Claim 3, Tsujimura discloses wherein the notch (17) is provided to be cut across three surfaces of the clamping piece (15), the attachment piece (13), and the connecting piece (12) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Tsujimura discloses wherein the connecting piece is welded to the cylindrical outer shell (see Fig. 1, [0019]).
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 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujimura (JP H04321807 A) as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Handke (US 20020141817 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Tsujimura discloses the shock absorber according to claim 1, wherein the notch has a rectangular shape (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
Tsujimura does not disclose wherein the corner portions of the notch are chamfered in an R surface shape.
Handke teaches wherein the corner portions of a notch are chamfered in an R surface shape (see Fig. 6c, Fig. 6d).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Handke with the shock absorber and Knuckle bracket of Tsujimura in order to guarantee a high degree of strength and, at the same time, reduce manufacturing complexity of the bracket fixture (see US 20020141817 A1 [Handke]; [0007]).
Regarding Claim 5, Tsujimura does not disclose wherein the pair of attachment pieces have equal heights in the axial direction of the cylindrical outer shell.
Handke teaches wherein the attachment pieces (21, 23) have equal heights in the axial direction of the cylindrical outer shell (see Fig. 6c, Fig. 6d).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of equal height attachment pieces of Handke with the shock absorber of Tsujimura in order to reduce the forming work required of the attachment pieces (see US 20020141817 A1 [Handke]; [0048]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights