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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2024, 05/04/2025, and 02/28/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 15-18 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 15 and 17 recite “the main tube.” However, claim 14, from which claims 15 and 17 ultimately depend, does not provide antecedent basis for “the main tube.” Therefore, it is unclear what structure is being referenced by “the main tube.” Claims 16 and 18 depend from claims 15 and 17, respectively, and are indefinite for the same reason.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10 depends from claim 5, which ultimately depends from the twin-tube configuration of claim 2, but claim 10 appears to further limit the monotube embodiment recited in claims 6, 8, and 9. In particular, claim 10 recites a gas cup disposed in the main tube and separating the standard fluid chamber from a gas compartment, which corresponds to the monotube embodiment disclosed with the gas cup 170.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner suggests amending claim 10 to depend from claim 9, if appropriate.
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, 6, 8, 11-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marking et al. (US 20110083929 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Marking discloses a magnetorheological (MR) damper (100; see ¶¶ 0017, 0019, 0024) comprising:
a main tube (105) defining an MR chamber (200) containing an MR fluid (201), the MR fluid having a viscosity that varies in response to application of a magnetic field (electromagnetic 250 generates a magnetic field that changes/increases the flow resistance of MR fluid 201 through orifice 255; see Marking ¶¶ 0019, 0024);
a piston rod (rod 115) disposed at least partially within the main tube (housing 105, see ¶ 0014);
a standard fluid chamber (120) containing a standard fluid (121), the standard fluid having a viscosity that does not vary with application of a magnetic field (first fluid 121 is described as relatively Newtonian, while the variable rheology/MR fluid is separately identified as fluid 201 in second chamber 200; see Marking ¶¶ 0017, 0023); and
a base valve assembly configured to regulate a flow of the standard fluid (valve assembly including axially adjustable member 130a and fluid path 130d for permitting/restricting flow of first fluid 121 between compression side 120a and rebound side 120b; see Marking ¶ 0014).
Marking does not expressly disclose an MR piston connected to the piston rod and dividing the MR chamber into an MR rebound chamber and an MR compression chamber, the MR piston including an MR rebound valve configured to regulate a flow of the MR fluid from the MR rebound chamber into the MR compression chamber during a rebound stroke, thereby generating a rebound damping force; and wherein the rebound damping force is generated substantially entirely by the MR rebound valve of the MR piston.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marking by arranging the MR fluid in Marking’s piston and rod chamber and arranging the standard fluid in the separate chamber, because Marking already teaches using both standard fluid and MR fluid in the same damper and teaches that MR fluid is used to selectively control damping resistance, including during rebound. Marking also teaches piston/shim valving for regulating fluid flow during rebound. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to place the MR fluid in the piston and rod chamber so that the controllable MR fluid is regulated directly by the piston rebound valve during rebound, while the standard fluid is regulated separately by the standard fluid valve assembly. Such a rearrangement would have predictably provided separate control of MR controlled rebound damping and standard fluid compression damping while maintaining controllable damping characteristics.
Regarding claim 6, Marking as modified discloses the MR damper of claim 1, wherein the MR damper has a monotube (see Figs. 1-2) configuration including the main tube (105) defining the standard fluid chamber (120) (see ¶ 0014).
Marking does not expressly disclose wherein the base valve assembly divides the standard fluid chamber into an upper chamber and a lower chamber. However, Marking teaches a valve assembly configured to regulate flow of the standard fluid (valve assembly including adjustable member 130a and fluid path 130d regulating first fluid 121 between compression side 120a and rebound side 120b; see ¶ 0014), Marking further teaches an MR-fluid valve/control arrangement configured to regulate flow resistance of the MR fluid (electromagnet 250 and orifice 255 regulating flow resistance of MR fluid 201 in second chamber 200; see ¶¶ 0019, 0024), such that Marking teaches valve/control structures for both the standard fluid and the MR fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Marking’s standard fluid chamber such that the base valve assembly divides the standard fluid chamber into an upper chamber and a lower chamber, because Marking already teaches regulating standard fluid flow between chamber portions using valve assembly 130a/130d, and such an arrangement would have predictably provided metered standard fluid flow in a monotube damper.
Regarding claim 8, Marking as modified discloses the MR damper of claim 6, further comprising a fluid separator (flexible end walls 210a, 210b) disposed within the main tube (105) and separating the MR chamber from the standard fluid chamber (120) for isolating the MR fluid (201) from the standard fluid (Marking teaches second chamber 200 containing MR fluid 201 is fluidically isolated from first chamber 120 containing first fluid 121 by flexible end walls 210a, 210b; see ¶¶ 0017, 0035).
Regarding claim 11, Marking as modified discloses the MR damper of claim 1.
Marking does not expressly disclose wherein the MR piston has an asymmetrical force profile, generating less force in a compression direction than the rebound damping force in a rebound direction.
However, Marking teaches selectively activating or deactivating the electromagnet (250) during one stroke, or a portion of one stroke, and not during the opposite stroke; see ¶¶ 0024, 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate Marking’s selectively controllable MR damping mechanism to provide an asymmetrical force profile generating less force in a compression direction than the rebound damping force in a rebound direction, because Marking teaches selectively activating or deactivating the electromagnet during one stroke or part of one stroke and not during the opposite stroke. Since the relative damping force profile may be selected such that the compression force is equal to, greater than, or less than the rebound damping force, selecting the claimed profile would have been an obvious selection of a desired damping profile to achieve the intended damping characteristics of the damper.
Regarding claim 12, Marking as modified discloses the MR damper of claim 1.
Marking does not expressly disclose an MR coil disposed within the MR piston.
Marking teaches an MR coil/electromagnet configured to generate a magnetic field and to thereby adjust at least one of the rebound damping force and a compression damping force (electromagnet 250 configured to apply a magnetic field to MR fluid 201 flowing through orifice 255 to increase flow resistance and control damping; see ¶¶ 0019, 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MR piston of Marking as modified to include the electromagnet/coil arrangement of Marking within the MR piston because Marking teaches using an electromagnet to apply a magnetic field to MR fluid flow to vary damping resistance. Locating the coil within the MR piston would have predictably applied the magnetic field directly to MR fluid flowing through the MR piston to adjust at least one of the rebound damping force and the compression damping force.
Regarding claim 13, Marking as modified discloses the MR damper of claim 12.
Marking teaches wherein the MR coil is configured to adjust both of the rebound damping force and the compression damping force (electromagnet 250 configured to apply a magnetic field to MR fluid 201 flowing through orifice 255 to increase flow resistance and control damping, and the electromagnet can be activated during a compression stroke and a rebound stroke; see ¶¶ 0019-0024).
Regarding claim 14, Marking as modified discloses a method for operating a magnetorheological (MR) damper, comprising:
moving, by a piston rod (115), an MR piston (110) through an MR chamber (piston and rod chamber of Marking as modified) containing an MR fluid (201),
the MR fluid having a viscosity that varies in response to application of a magnetic field (MR fluid 201 having particles 202 acted on by electromagnet 250 and orifice 255; see ¶¶ 0017, 0019, 0024),
the MR piston dividing the MR chamber into an MR rebound chamber and an MR compression chamber (piston 110 dividing the chamber into rebound side 120b and compression side 120a as modified to contain MR fluid);
regulating, by a MR rebound valve of the MR piston (rebound shims 125b of piston 110), a flow of the MR fluid from the MR rebound chamber into the MR compression chamber during a rebound stroke, thereby generating a rebound damping force (rebound shims 125b permit rebound flow back into compression side 120a; see ¶ 0014); and
regulating, by a base valve assembly (valve assembly including axially adjustable member 130a and fluid path 130d), a flow of a standard fluid having a viscosity that does not vary with application of a magnetic field (first fluid 121, described as relatively Newtonian; see ¶ 0023).
Marking does not expressly disclose wherein the rebound damping force is generated substantially entirely by the MR rebound valve of the MR piston.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of operating Marking’s damper by arranging the MR fluid in Marking’s piston and rod chamber and arranging the standard fluid in the separate chamber, because Marking already teaches using both standard fluid and MR fluid in the same damper and teaches that MR fluid is used to selectively control damping resistance, including during rebound. Marking also teaches piston/shim valving for regulating fluid flow during rebound. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to place the MR fluid in the piston and rod chamber so that the controllable MR fluid is regulated directly by the piston rebound valve during rebound, while the standard fluid is regulated separately by the standard fluid valve assembly. Such a rearrangement would have predictably provided separate control of MR controlled rebound damping and standard fluid compression damping while maintaining controllable damping characteristics.
Regarding claim 17, Marking as modified discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the MR damper has a monotube configuration (single housing/main damper housing 105 containing first chamber 120, second chamber 200, and gas chamber 300; see Figs. 1-2) including the main tube (105) defining a standard fluid chamber (120) containing the standard fluid (121).
Marking does not expressly disclose wherein the base valve assembly divides the standard fluid chamber into an upper chamber and a lower chamber. However, Marking teaches a valve assembly configured to regulate flow of the standard fluid (valve assembly including adjustable member 130a and fluid path 130d regulating first fluid 121 between compression side 120a and rebound side 120b; see ¶ 0014). Marking further teaches an MR fluid valve/control arrangement configured to regulate flow resistance of the MR fluid (electromagnet 250 and orifice 255 regulating flow resistance of MR fluid 201 in second chamber 200; see ¶¶ 0019, 0024), such that Marking teaches valve/control structures for both the standard fluid and the MR fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Marking’s standard fluid chamber such that the base valve assembly divides the standard fluid chamber into an upper chamber and a lower chamber, because Marking already teaches regulating standard-fluid flow between chamber portions using valve assembly 130a/130d, and such an arrangement would have predictably provided metered standard-fluid flow in a monotube damper.
Regarding claim 19, Marking as modified discloses the method of claim 14.
Marking does not expressly disclose generating a magnetic field by an MR coil disposed within the MR piston.
Marking teaches generating a magnetic field by an MR coil/electromagnet, and thereby adjusting at least one of the rebound damping force and a compression damping force (electromagnet 250 configured to apply a magnetic field to MR fluid 201 flowing through orifice 255 to increase flow resistance and control damping; see ¶¶ 0019, 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of operating the damper of Marking to include generating the magnetic field by an MR coil disposed within the MR piston because Marking teaches using an electromagnet to apply a magnetic field to MR fluid flow to vary damping resistance. Locating the coil within the MR piston would have predictably applied the magnetic field directly to MR fluid flowing through the MR piston to adjust at least one of the rebound damping force and the compression damping force.
Regarding claim 20, Marking as modified discloses the method of claim 19.
Marking teaches wherein the MR coil is configured to adjust both of the rebound damping force and the compression damping force (electromagnet 250 configured to apply a magnetic field to MR fluid 201 flowing through orifice 255 to increase flow resistance and control damping, and the electromagnet can be activated during a compression stroke and a rebound stroke; see ¶¶ 0019-0024).
Claims 2-4, 7, 10, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marking et al. (US 20110083929 A1) in view of Knapczyk et al. (US 20210033165 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Marking as modified discloses the MR damper of claim 1.
Marking does not expressly disclose wherein the MR damper has a twin-tube configuration including an outer tube disposed coaxially around the main tube and defining a compensation chamber annularly between the main tube and the outer tube.
Knapczyk teaches wherein the MR damper has a twin-tube configuration (1) including an outer tube (2) disposed coaxially around the main tube (3) and defining a compensation chamber (13) annularly between the main tube (3) and the outer tube (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the damper of Marking to include the twin-tube configuration of Knapczyk because Knapczyk teaches a known twin-tube damper alternative for the same type of damper, wherein the compensation chamber is positioned annularly between the main tube and the outer tube. Such an arrangement would have predictably provided compensation volume around the main tube for compact coaxial packaging while maintain the damping functions of the damper.
Regarding claim 3, Marking as modified discloses the MR damper of claim 2.
Marking does not expressly disclose wherein the base valve assembly includes:
a base compression valve configured to regulate flow of the standard fluid during a compression stroke, thereby generating a compression damping force and
a base check valve configured to allow fluid flow from the compensation chamber into the standard fluid chamber, while blocking fluid in an opposite direction.
Knapczyk teaches wherein the base valve assembly includes a base compression valve configured to regulate flow of the standard fluid during a compression stroke, thereby generating a compression damping force (base valve 7 provided with compression valve 72 for controlling working fluid flow passing between compression chamber 12 and additional compensation chamber 13 during compression stroke; see Knapczyk ¶ 0021).
Knapczyk further teaches that the base valve includes a rebound valve configured to control flow between the compensation chamber and the compression chamber during a rebound stroke (base valve 7 provided with rebound valve 71 for controlling working fluid flow passing between additional compensation chamber 13 and compression chamber 12 during rebound; see Knapczyk ¶ 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the damper of Marking to include the base valve arrangement of Knapczyk because Knapczyk teaches using rebound and compression valves in a base valve to control working fluid flow between a compression chamber and an annular compensation chamber in a twin-tube damper, and using such valve structure in the modified Marking damper would have predictably regulated standard fluid flow during compression and rebound. It further would have been obvious to configure the rebound flow path of Knapczyk’s base valve as a check-valve flow path to allow fluid flow from the compensation chamber into the standard fluid chamber while blocking fluid flow in the opposite direction, because Knapczyk already teaches direction-specific rebound and compression valves in the base valve for controlling working fluid flow between the compensation chamber and the compression chamber.
Regarding claim 4, Marking as modified discloses the MR damper of claim 2, further comprising a fluid separator (flexible end walls 210a, 210b) disposed within the main tube (105, as modified) and separating the MR chamber from the standard fluid chamber for isolating the MR fluid from the standard fluid (second chamber 200 containing MR fluid 201 is fluidically isolated from first chamber 120 containing first fluid 121 by flexible end walls 210a, 210b; see Marking ¶¶ 0017, 0035).
Regarding claim 7, Marking as modified discloses the MR damper of claim 6.
Marking does not expressly disclose wherein the base valve assembly includes:
a base compression valve configured to regulate flow of the standard fluid between the upper chamber and the lower chamber during a compression stroke, thereby generating a compression damping force; and
a base check valve configured to allow fluid flow from the lower chamber into the upper chamber, while blocking fluid in an opposite direction.
Knapczyk teaches a base compression valve configured to regulate flow of the standard fluid between chambers during a compression stroke, thereby generating a compression damping force (base valve 7 provided with compression valve 72 for controlling working fluid flow passing between compression chamber 12 and additional compensation chamber 13 during compression stroke; see Knapczyk ¶ 0021).
Knapczyk further teaches that the base valve includes a rebound valve configured to control flow between chambers during a rebound stroke (base valve 7 provided with rebound valve 71 for controlling working fluid flow passing between additional compensation chamber 13 and compression chamber 12 during rebound; see Knapczyk ¶ 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the damper of Marking to include the base valve arrangement of Knapczyk because Knapczyk teaches using rebound and compression valves in a base valve to control working fluid flow between chambers in a damper, and using such valve structure in the modified Marking damper would have predictably regulated standard fluid flow during compression and rebound. It further would have been obvious to configure the rebound flow path of Knapczyk’s base valve as a check-valve flow path to allow fluid flow from the lower chamber into the upper chamber while blocking fluid flow in the opposite direction, because Knapczyk already teaches direction-specific rebound and compression valves in the base valve for controlling working fluid flow between chambers.
For purposes of examination, claim 10 has been treated as depending from claim 9 in view of the objection above. The rejection of claim 10 is made without prejudice to the objection to claim 10’s dependency.
Regarding claim 10, Marking as modified discloses the MR damper of claim 9.
Marking does not expressly disclose the MR damper further comprising a gas cup disposed in the main tube and separating the standard fluid chamber from a gas compartment containing a gas, wherein the gas cup is slidable in an axial direction within the main tube.
Knapczyk teaches a gas cup disposed in the main tube and separating the standard fluid chamber from a gas compartment containing a gas (gas cup 7a located in compression chamber 12 and adjacent to a closed end of main tube 3 to define gas chamber 13a extending between the closed end and gas cup 7a for containing gas under pressure).
Knapczyk further teaches that the gas cup is used to compensate volumetric differences caused by movement of the piston rod, thereby indicating that the gas cup is slidable to accommodate volume changes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the damper of Marking to include the gas cup arrangement of Knapczyk because Knapczyk teaches using a gas cup in a main tube to define a gas chamber containing gas under pressure to compensate for volumetric differences caused by movement of the piston rod. Incorporating Knapczyk’s gas cup arrangement into Marking would have predictably allowed the gas chamber to compensate for volume changes during operation while separating the standard fluid chamber from the gas compartment.
Regarding claim 15, Marking as modified discloses the method of claim 14.
Marking does not expressly disclose wherein the MR damper has a twin-tube configuration including an outer tube disposed coaxially around the main tube and defining a compensation chamber annularly between the main tube and the outer tube.
Knapczyk teaches wherein the MR damper has a twin-tube configuration (1) including an outer tube (2) disposed coaxially around the main tube (3) and defining a compensation chamber (13) annularly between the main tube (3) and the outer tube (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of operating Marking’s damper to use the twin-tube configuration of Knapczyk because Knapczyk teaches a known twin-tube damper alternative for the same type of damper, wherein the compensation chamber is positioned annularly between the main tube and the outer tube. Such an arrangement would have predictably provided compensation volume around the main tube for compact coaxial packaging while maintaining the damping functions of the damper.
Regarding claim 16, Marking as modified discloses the method of claim 15.
Marking does not expressly disclose wherein the regulating the flow of the standard fluid further includes:
regulating, by a base compression valve of the base valve assembly, a flow of the standard fluid between a standard fluid chamber and the compensation chamber during a compression stroke, thereby generating a compression damping force; and
communicating, by a base check valve, fluid flow from the compensation chamber into the standard fluid chamber, while blocking fluid in an opposite direction.
Knapczyk teaches regulating, by a base compression valve of the base valve assembly, a flow of the standard fluid between a standard fluid chamber and the compensation chamber during a compression stroke, thereby generating a compression damping force (base valve 7 provided with compression valve 72 for controlling working fluid flow passing between compression chamber 12 and additional compensation chamber 13 during compression stroke; see Knapczyk ¶ 0021).
Knapczyk further teaches that the base valve includes a rebound valve configured to control flow between the compensation chamber and the compression chamber during rebound stroke (base valve 7 provided with rebound valve 71 for controlling working fluid flow passing between additional compensation chamber 13 and compression chamber 12 during rebound; see Knapczyk ¶ 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of operating the damper of Marking to include regulating flow with the base valve arrangement of Knapczyk because Knapczyk teaches using rebound and compression valves in a base valve to control working fluid flow between a compression chamber and an annular compensation chamber in a twin-tube damper, and using such valve structure in the modified Marking damper would have predictably regulated standard fluid flow during compression and rebound. It further would have been obvious to configure the rebound flow path of Knapczyk’s base valve as a check-valve flow path to allow fluid flow from the compensation chamber into the standard fluid chamber while blocking fluid flow in the opposite direction, because Knapczyk already teaches direction-specific rebound and compression valves in the base valve for controlling working fluid flow between the compensation chamber and the compression chamber.
Regarding claim 18, Marking as modified discloses the method of claim 17.
Marking does not expressly disclose wherein the regulating the flow of the standard fluid further includes:
regulating, by a base compression valve, a flow of the standard fluid between the upper chamber and the lower chamber during a compression stroke, thereby generating a compression damping force; and
communicating, by a base check valve, fluid flow from the lower chamber into the upper chamber, while blocking fluid in an opposite direction.
Knapczyk teaches regulating, by a base compression valve of the base valve assembly, a flow of the standard fluid between chambers during a compression stroke, thereby generating a compression damping force (base valve 7 provided with compression valve 72 for controlling working fluid flow passing between compression chamber 12 and additional compensation chamber 13 during compression stroke; see Knapczyk ¶ 0021).
Knapczyk further teaches that the base valve includes a rebound valve configured to control flow between chambers during a rebound stroke (base valve 7 provided with rebound valve 71 for controlling working fluid flow passing between additional compensation chamber 13 and compression chamber 12 during rebound; see Knapczyk ¶ 0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of operating the damper of Marking to include regulating flow with the base valve arrangement of Knapczyk because Knapczyk teaches using rebound and compression valves in a base valve to control working fluid flow between chambers in a damper, and using such valve structure in the modified Marking damper would have predictably regulated standard fluid flow during compression and rebound. It further would have been obvious to configure the rebound flow path of Knapczyk’s base valve as a check-valve flow path to allow fluid flow from the lower chamber into the upper chamber while blocking fluid flow in the opposite direction, because Knapczyk already teaches direction-specific rebound and compression valves in the base valve for controlling working fluid flow between chambers.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marking et al. (US 20110083929 A1) in view of Knapczyk et al. (US 20210033165 A1), and further in view of Jolly et al. (US 6131709 A).
Regarding claim 5, Marking as modified discloses the MR damper of claim 4 and the fluid separator.
Marking does not expressly disclose that the fluid separator includes a floating piston which is slidable in an axial direction within the main tube.
Jolly teaches a floating piston (40) which is slidable in an axial direction within the main tube (22) (see Jolly Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid separator of Marking as modified to include the slidable floating piston of Jolly because Jolly teaches using a slidable cavity partition to separate field responsive/MR fluid from non-field responsive hydraulic fluid in a damper, which reduces the amount of MR fluid needed and permits use of lighter weight, less-expensive hydraulic fluid through the piston damping valves. Such a substitution would have predictably provided a slidable fluid separator for isolating the MR fluid from the standard fluid in the modified Marking damper.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marking et al. (US 20110083929 A1) in view of Jolly et al. (US 6131709 A).
Regarding claim 9, Marking as modified discloses the MR damper of claim 8 and the fluid separator.
Marking does not expressly disclose that the fluid separator includes a floating piston which is slidable in an axial direction within the main tube.
Jolly teaches a floating piston (40) which is slidable in an axial direction within the main tube (22) (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid separator of Marking to include the slidable floating piston of Jolly because Jolly teaches using a slidable cavity partition to separate field responsive/MR fluid from non-field responsive hydraulic fluid in a damper, which reduces the amount of MR fluid needed and permits use of lighter weight, less-expensive hydraulic fluid through the piston damping valves. Such a substitution would have predictably provided a slidable fluid separator for isolating the MR fluid from the standard fluid in the modified Marking damper.
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