DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement has 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 manner in which the expansion chamber 132 is in fluid communication with the inner volume 131 of the rod, as claimed in Claims 6(b) and 7 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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: It appears the word “or” should be inserted before “ ii a sintered metal…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6,7 is 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 claims 6,7 it is unclear from the specification and drawings how the expansion chamber 132 is in fluid communication with the inner volume 131 of the rod, as claimed in Claims 6(b), 7(b). Corrected drawings should be submitted illustrating how this happens for increased clarity should the device mature into a patent.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 2730405 A1 in view of Beck 7,370,849.
Regarding claim 1 DE ‘405 shows figures 1-3 nearly all of the structural features claimed (as readily apparent from the drawings) including a hollow housing 1, upper and lower chambers 7,8 (or 207,208—fig 3), a piston rod 4,5 (or 104,105—fig 2) defining a chamber or inner volume 6,9 (or 106,109—fig 2) , a piston package defining an orifice (2,10 or 102 or 202) where the inner volume of the rod is connected to a lower chamber 8,108 or 208 and where the rod defines a bypass at 24,24’ or 131 or 255.
Lacking in DE ‘405 is a specific showing of using a semi-permeable membrane of some type in the bypass 24,24’ or 131 or 255 allowing fluid to pass through it.
However the reference to Beck shows a spring strut unit having a filter shown in the several embodiments at 7. In the last paragraph of col 3 in regard to the embodiment of figure 6 Beck states:
The material of the sintered filter can be pressed to varying degrees, so that filters with different degrees of fineness can be installed in the flow connection 6. Other known filter materials, of course, can also be used in this MacPherson strut unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have installed some type of filter element in the bypass opening in one of the embodiments in DE ‘405, as taught by Beck at 7, to remove dirt particles from the fluid as it flows from one chamber to another.
Regarding claim 8 in view of the modification above note that t he semi permeable bypass 24 is arranged adjacent to the end of the rod 4,5 residing within the hollow housing (1.
Regarding claim 9 DE ‘405 lacks specifically showing a fluid duct within the inner volume of the rod 4,5 in the several embodiments.
Beck shows a fluid duct between the pump rod 10 and the piston rod 14 defined by a sleeve like element (not labeled) but between 10,14.
It would have been obvious to have modified the rod of DE ‘405 with such a sleeve-like element to define a duct within the inner volume of the rod 4,5 (or 104, 204) since DE ‘405 wants fluid flow to move between inner volume of the rod and the other chambers.
Regarding claim 10 in view of the modification above the sleeve-like element in Beck would qualify as a ‘bushing’ as broadly claimed by applicants.
Claim(s) 2,3,5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘405/Beck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wootten et al. U.S. 2010/0244340.
Regarding claims 2,3 while DE ‘405 shows valves in the piston arrangement 2,10 in figure 1 they are not labeled and only schematically shown.
The reference to Wootten shows a variable spring rate suspension damper and in figure 2A indicates it is known the valves 205, 210, 217 may be added to the partition 200 to control the level of damping. Note 217 is a blow off valve or an ‘overpressure’ valve.
It would have been obvious to have used a valve 217 as taught by Wootten for one of the valves shown by DE ‘405 simply to adapt the damping characteristics to a particular application.
Regarding claim 5 since DE ‘405 shows valves (not labeled) in the piston package 2,10 and Wootten teaches it is known to add valves in figure 2A to vary the damping characteristics of the suspension it would have been obvious to have selected the valves to meet the flow resistance limitations for the reason above.
Claim(s) 6,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘405/Beck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schuttler 5,450,933.
Regarding claim 6 DE ‘405 lacks specifically showing an expansion chamber as claimed. Note however DE ‘405 shows a spring 122 and “pot” assembly 142 in figure 2. Note also the spring 222 and accumulator arrangement at 249,250 in figure 3.
Beck shows an expansion chamber at 3,15 that communicates with the fluid inside of the hollow rod assembly 14.
The reference to Schuttler is relied upon to show in figures 2 and 3 it is well known that coil springs can be replaced with fluid chambers. See elements 166 and 266.
It would have been obvious to have substituted an expansion chamber of the type taught by Beck at 3,15 for either the spring arrangement in the area of 7 in figure 1 or 222 in figure 3, or for the pot arrangement 106,142 in figure 2 of DE ‘405, simply as the obvious substitution of one well known spring arrangement for another.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE ‘405/Beck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LoBue 11,133,775.
Regarding claim 11 DE ‘405, as modified, lacks specifically indicating that the damping device can be used with a solar array panel.
However such devices are known as taught by LoBue. See figures 1 and 5.
It would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled worker in the art to have modified the device of DE ‘405 so that it could be further utilized with a solar panel array simply to save on manufacturing costs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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