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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/01/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The amendment of 06/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 are currently pending in the application.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 05/07/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent 12,037,074 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TERUI (JP H02-182514) in view of DICK (DE 10 2014 205 147).
Regarding claim 1, TERUI discloses a control device for a suspension (16) of a human-powered vehicle, the suspension includes a first member (i.e., an outer tube, cylinder 50, Fig. 2), a second member (i.e., an inner tube, piston rod 58, Fig. 2) telescopically attached to the first member to be telescopically movable relative to the first member (i.a. Fig. 2), and an adjuster (i.a. switching valve 66 and solenoid 80 taken together, Fig. 2) adjusting a relative movable amount of the first member and the second member (i.a. pg. 6 lines 11-13), the adjuster including a valve (66) that opens and closes a flow passage (88,90)(pg. 5 lines 11-14 and pg. 6 lines 2-6), the adjuster further including an electric actuator (80) that opens and closes the valve (i.a. pg. 5 lines 2-14 and pg. 6 lines 2-6 and 11-13; the solenoid 80 causes the valve to open and close by setting the pressure on plunger 82) the valve being provided to the second member (Fig. 2), the control device comprising:
an electronic controller (34, Fig. 1) configured to electrically control the adjuster to open the valve so that fluid flows through the flow passage and close the valve so that fluid does not flow through the flow passage (S108 and S110 set target damping rate and PWM to control opening and closing of the valve, pg. 7 lines 14-18) in accordance with predetermined relative position information of the first member and the second member (optimum damping force F as a function of piston position X and piston speed V, pg. 7 lines 4-5) and relative position information (i.e., the current stroke; S100, pg. 6 lines 16-17; S108 pg. 7 lines 14-16) related to a relative position of the first member and the second member (S100, pg. 6 lines 16-17; S108 pg. 7 lines 14-16).
The above underlined limitation is an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458 (CCPA 1963). In the instant case, the control device of TERUI is capable of use in a human-powered vehicle having the recited specification.
TERUI discloses the predetermined relative position information of the first member and the second member is a target damping force F as a function of damper position X and damper speed V read from a map (p. 7 ll. 2-6 and 14-18).
TERUI is not relied upon to teach wherein the predetermined relative position information of the first member and the second member is defined based on a maximum movable amount of the second member relative to the first member targeted by the control device.
DICK teaches predetermined relative position information (damping force to be set from characteristic maps, i.a. 0017 ll. 1-5) of a first member (outer tube 21, 0064 l. 1) and a second member (inner tube 22, 0064 l. 2) is defined based on a maximum movable amount of the second member relative to the first member targeted (maximum permissible travel of the wheel can be a damper travel ,0020 ll. 1--8) by the control device (implied, i.a. 0017 ll. 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the predetermined relative position information of TERUI based on a maximum movable amount as taught by DICK to prevent damage to the vehicle from the wheel exceeding its maximum permissible travel.
Regarding claim 2, TERUI as modified teaches the control device according to claim 1.
TERUI further discloses a detector (26) configured to detect the relative position information (pg. 4 lines 8-9).
Regarding claim 3, TERUI as modified teaches the control device according to claim 1.
TERUI further discloses wherein the suspension further includes a first chamber (54) defined by the first member (cylinder 50) and the second member (piston rod 58)(Fig. 2), a second chamber (56) defined by the first member and the second member (Fig. 2), and the flow passage (88,90) fluidly connecting the first chamber and the second chamber (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, TERUI as modified teaches the control device according to claim 3.
TERUI further discloses wherein the electronic controller (34) is configured to control the valve (66) in accordance with a comparison result of predetermined relative position information of the first member and the second member (optimum damping force F as a function of piston position X, pg. 7 lines 4-5) and the relative position information (i.e., the current stroke; S100, pg. 6 lines 16-17; S108 pg. 7 lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 5, TERUI as modified teaches the control device according to claim 4.
TERUI further discloses wherein the predetermined relative position information (optimum damping force F as a function of piston position X, pg. 7 lines 4-5) is predetermined in accordance with a predetermined relative movable amount of the first member and the second member (stroke axes of maps in Figs. 4A and 4B).
Regarding claim 6, TERUI as modified teaches the control device according to claim 5.
TERUI further discloses a storage (104) that stores table data indicating a corresponding relationship of the predetermined relative position information and the predetermined relative movable amount (pg. 7 lines 2-6).
Regarding claim 7, TERUI as modified teaches the control device according to claim 3.
TERUI further discloses wherein the electronic controller is configured to control the electric actuator (S108 and S110 set target damping rate and PWM to control opening and closing of the valve, pg. 7 lines 14-18).
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TERUI (JP H02-182514) in view of DICK (DE 10 2014 205 147) and MOURI (US 2011/0012317, provided by Applicant on 09/12/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 8, TERUI as modified teaches a vehicle suspension comprising the control device according to claim 1, and further comprising:
the first member (cylinder 50);
the second member (piston rod 58) movable relative to the first member (Fig. 2); and
the adjuster (i.a. switching valve 66 and solenoid 80 taken together, Fig. 2) including the valve (66) being provided to the second member (Fig. 2) and the electric actuator (80) configured to open and close the valve (i.a. pg. 5 lines 2-14 and pg. 6 lines 2-6 and 11-13; the solenoid 80 causes the valve to open and close by setting the pressure on plunger 82).
TERUI further discloses the control device to obtain desired damping characteristics using a freely set map of damping force characteristics, greatly increasing the degree of freedom in setting the damping characteristics (pg. 8 lines 9-11).
TERUI is not relied upon to teach the suspension is a human-powered vehicle suspension.
MOURI teaches a human-powered vehicle suspension comprising a control device (abstract lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vehicle suspension of TERUI for that of MOURI to obtain desired damping characteristics using a freely set map of damping force characteristics, greatly increasing the degree of freedom in setting the damping characteristics.
Regarding claim 9, TERUI as modified teaches the human-powered vehicle suspension according to claim 8.
TERUI further discloses wherein the first member (50) includes an outer tube (Fig. 2) and the second member (58) includes an inner tube (piston rod 58 is hollow in Fig. 2), the inner tube being provided at an inner side of the first member (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, TERUI as modified teaches the human-powered vehicle suspension according to claim 9.
TERUI further discloses wherein the valve (66) is provided to the inner tube (58) of the second member (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, TERUI as modified teaches the human-powered vehicle suspension according to claim 9.
TERUI further discloses wherein the electric actuator (80) is provided to the inner tube (58) of the second member (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, TERUI as modified teaches the human-powered vehicle suspension according to claim 9.
TERUI further discloses wherein the valve (66) is configured to be moved in an axial direction of the second member (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, TERUI as modified teaches the human-powered vehicle suspension according to claim 8.
MOURI is relied upon to teach the vehicle suspension is a human-powered vehicle suspension (abstract lines 1-3).
MOURI further teaches the same suspension may be provided to both a rear suspension and a front suspension of a front fork of the human-powered vehicle (0025 lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vehicle suspension of TERUI for that of the front fork of MOURI to obtain desired damping characteristics using a freely set map of damping force characteristics, greatly increasing the degree of freedom in setting the damping characteristics.
Response to Arguments
The following remarks respond to Applicant’s arguments filed 06/01/2026.
Applicant’s arguments regarding TERUI and MOURI failing to limit certain features of claim 1, see pp. 5-6, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because they do not apply to newly discovered reference DICK applied in the current rejection of the claim.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims, see p. 6, have been fully considered but are not persuasive because no deficiency is found in the rejection of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights