DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statements have been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “gap”, as claimed in claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5 it is not clear from the specification and drawings what ‘gap’ applicant is referring to.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montagna 11,698,120 in view of Katayama et al. 9,309,948 and Bergfeld 11,965,581.
Regarding claims 1, Montagna ‘120 shows a similar shock absorber to that of applicant’s in figures 1-4 including:
A shock absorber for a vehicle comprising: a pressure tube 24 defining a fluid chamber 26; a piston 28 slidably positioned within the fluid chamber and defining a first working chamber 46 and a second working chamber 48, the piston including a passage 34 extending therethrough; and a valve assembly (figs 3A-3C) selectively opening and closing the passage, the valve assembly including: a spring 116 or 118 comprising: a ring defining a center aperture; and a plurality of arms 124,126 extending around the ring, each of the plurality of arms including a radially extending leg, a base end positioned proximate to the leg, and a distal end, each of the plurality of arms extending circumferentially outward from the base end and a disc 76,36,90 (fig 3B) at least partially disposed between the piston 28 and the spring 116.
Lacking in Montagna is a specific showing of wherein a first dimension of the base end is greater than a second dimension of the distal end.
Katayama shows in figures 6,9,10 it is well known to change the dimensions of a spring of the type shown in Montagna simply to vary and/or adjust the damping force vs. speed characteristics of the damper as applications warrant.
The reference to Bergfeld provides an example of what this could look like in figures 1 and 2.
One Having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have modified the spring arms 124 or 126 of the spring 116 or 118 of Montagna so that a first dimension of the base end is greater than a second dimension of the distal end simply dependent upon the specific vehicle application or to meet predetermined ride requirement adjustments/characteristics.
Regarding claim 2 Montagna, as modified, shows that each of the plurality of arms is bent at an angle with respect to a plane of the ring.
Regarding claim 3 Montagna, as modified, shows that the spring is movable between a first position and a second position, and wherein in the first position, the spring is compressed and each of the plurality of arms is positioned at a first angle with respect to a plane of the ring.
Regarding claim 4 Montagna, as modified, shows that in the second position, each of the plurality of arms is positioned at a second angle with respect to the plane of the ring, wherein the second angle is greater than the first angle.
Regarding claim 5, subject to the drawing and 112 1st rejection above Montagna, as modified, shows that each of the plurality of arms includes an inner surface that is spaced apart from an outer diameter of the ring defining a gap therebetween.
Regarding claim 6 Montagna, as modified, shows that each of the plurality of arms includes an outer surface, wherein the outer surfaces cooperate to define an outer diameter of the spring.
Regarding claim 7 Montagna, as modified, shows that the piston includes a plurality of circumferential walls, and the plurality of arms of the spring are positioned radially inward from the plurality of circumferential walls. See the piston of figure 3B.
Regarding claim 8 Montagna, as modified, lacks specifically showing that the first dimension of the base is greater than or equal to about 2 millimeters to less than or equal to about 7 millimeters.
However this is merely a dimension/size requirement of the existing structure and would be obvious modification for the reasons above.
Regarding claim 9 Montagna, as modified, shows the plurality of arms includes a first arm, a second arm, and a third arm.
Regarding claim 10 Montagna, as modified, shows the piston includes a first surface and a hub (fig 3b—as per applicant’s) extending axially outward from the first surface to an annular end, wherein the disc circumscribes the hub, and wherein the ring of the spring contacts the annular end of the hub.
Regarding claim 11 Montagna, as modified, shows at least a portion of each of the plurality of arms of the spring are adapted to contact and exert a force on the disc and urge the disc toward a first surface of the piston to restrict fluid flow through the passage.
Regarding claim 12 Montagna, as modified, shows at least a portion of a piston rod is received in the central aperture of the spring.
Regarding claim 13 Montagna, as modified, shows the spring is made of an elastically deformable material.
Regarding claim 14 Montagna, as modified, shows the spring is made of a spring steel.
Regarding claims 15-20, as explained above Montagna, as modified, meets the claimed requirements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
7/24/26
Prosecution Insights