DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statement has been received and considered.
The claims filed in this application are a substantial duplicate of the claims filed in the parent application 17/507,169 on 7/31/23.
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) 1-7,10-15,17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabriel 8,196,721 in view of Ehre 9,303,713 and Sawarynski et al. 11,505,024..
Regarding claim 1 Gabriel shows in figures 4 and/or 7 : A shock assembly 1 comprising : a damper chamber 1c; a damping piston 1b coupled to a piston shaft 1a, the damping piston 1b disposed in the damper chamber and axially movable relative to the damper chamber,; and an internal floating piston (IFP) 1g.
Lacking in Gabriel is a specific showing of the rebound chamber and an IFP location sensor, with an IFP location sensor to determine a position information for the IFP; and a processor configured to: receive the position information for the IFP from said IFP location sensor; and utilize said position information for said IFP to determine a shock stroke position of said shock assembly. However note the sensors at 6,7 (temperature and pressure) and that Gabriel provides for a position sensor 16, (that may be employed in a variety of ways) in some of the other embodiments to determine the length i.e. stroke of the shock assembly. The sensors at 7,8 are pressure sensors. See the top of col 9 over to col 10 in its entirety.
Also, although not applied this time Cepic et al. 10,112,702 (previously applied) states in col 6 around lines 15-30 the known idea that the position sensor 116 can measure the position of the piston 102 to measure the shock stroke position.
The reference to Ehre shows a piston cylinder unit having a piston 13 separating a compression chamber from a rebound chamber. Note that the sensor 14 can be employed as either a pressure sensor or a position sensor placed in a number of different locations. See for instance figures 10-12. Note the floating piston at 21. The position sensor 14 can measure the position of the floating piston 21 to determine an internal pressure of the device.
The reference to Sawarynski is relied upon to more definitively show in figures 18-20 the piston 122 divides the internal chamber into compression and rebound chambers 114,118. Note the sensor assembly at 18. Also, as discussed at the bottom of col 16 the P/T sensor assembly 18 can be configured to wirelessly transmit pressure and temperature data to the controller 20 or any module 140 in the vehicle 200. Also Sawarynski states in col 4:
"...In another configuration, the P/T sensing device described herein can be installed directly to a passive damper or passive damper reservoir installed to the vehicle, in fluid communication with a gas chamber of the damper or the gas chamber of the passive reservoir attached to the damper, and calibrated to transmit a P/T signal of the pressure and temperature of the gas in the damper gas chamber to the vehicle network for application of a damper position algorithm to the P/T signal to determine the damper position in real time, such that the damper position technology described herein is readily adaptable to existing vehicle hardware and/or to any passive damper or damper-reservoir installed to the vehicle. The use of the measured gas pressure to determine damper position is unexpected and the system and method described herein provides significant advantages, including reduction in vehicle hardware, weight, cost and complexity as compared with conventional damper position measurement systems, demonstrated correlation to conventional damper position measurements, and flexibility, as the damper position measurement system described herein is adaptable, e.g., installable to any passive damping system with little or no hardware modification of the passive damping system and/or vehicle.
Since Gabriel also desires information regarding the shock stroke position of the damper assembly one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a pressure or position sensor to determine either directly or indirectly the position of the floating piston 1g by detecting directly either the pressure of the gas or the position of the floating piston and to have used this data to determine a stroke position of the shock strut. Further to have modified the strut of Gabriel to include both a compression chamber and a rebound chamber, as taught by Ehyre at 10-12, would have been obvious since this is a notoriously well known shock absorber configuration utilized in a wide variety of motor vehicle suspension systems.
Regarding claims 4 note the external reservoir 2 in figure 7 of Gabriel. Note the sensors at 8,15, which as broadly claimed could be interpreted as ‘location sensors’ due to their inherent function. Also either of these sensors could be replaced with a location/position sensor simply as an obvious choice of using one well known type of sensor over another.
Regarding claims 5,6 as modified above, Gabriel is considered to meet the claimed limitations since the sensors as shown could be located in a number of places.
Regarding claim 7 see the discussion above in regard to claim 1. Also, in light of the discussion in the last para of col 16 over to the top of col 17 of Sawarynski et al. it would have been obvious to have incorporated this technology into Gabriel as an upgrade into a more finely tuned suspension system with enhanced capabilities.
Regarding claims 10,11 it would have been obvious to have located the position sensor in Gabriel as modified within the compression chamber, or external to the chamber, simply as an obvious choice of location for the sensor well known in the art. Note Ehre indicates in the several different embodiments that the placement of the sensors 14 can vary.
Regarding claim 12 note the external reservoir 2 in figure 7 of Gabriel. Note the sensors at 8,15, which as broadly claimed could be interpreted as ‘location sensors’ due to their inherent function. Also either of these sensors could be replaced with a location/position sensor simply as an obvious choice of using one well known type of sensor over another.
Regarding claims 13-15,17-20 as explained above these limitations are considered to be met.
Claim(s) 8,9,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabriel/Ehyre/Sawarynski as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of CN 102943785 and Hamilton 6,296,091.
Regarding claim 8 Gabriel, as modified, lacks specifically incorporating the various sensors into a modular unit within an end cap of the shock strut. However note the varioius location of the sensors in Ehyre.
The reference to CN '785 shows it is known to incorporate a sensor 70 arrangement into the end cap of a shock absorber.
The reference to Hamilton is relied upon to provide more a detailed illustration of an enclosed sensor unit. Note the position sensor at 30 and the controller at 56.
Since the embodiments of Gabriel are largely schematically shown one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have incorporated the sensor arrangement in Gabriel in an end cap assembly, as modified above, into a module within the end cap simply to reduce the amount of cables need and to make replacement/installation of the sensor arrangement easier.
Regarding claim 9, as broadly claimed, these limitations are capable of being met.
Regarding claims 16, as explained above, these limitations are considered to be met by Gabriel as modified above.
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
Prosecution Insights