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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in line 4 of the abstract, the word –an—should be inserted before the term “annular spacer” for the text to read more clearly. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the last line of the claim, the term “the spacer” should read –the spacers--, since previously a plurality of spacers were recited in the earlier lines of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the ports" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,964,493 to Yamaura et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Yamaura et al disclose a damping valve 136 (see Figures 1 and 2) having all the features of the instant invention including: a valve seat member 102 including an annular recess portion 112, a port that opens at a bottom portion of the recess portion 112 (see Figure 2), an annular valve seat 134 that rises from an outer circumference of the recess portion 112, and a facing portion (see Figure 2 and the inner surface of element 114) that is an annular shape and has an inner circumferential surface facing the recess portion 112, a sub valve 138 that is disposed in the recess portion 112 (see Figure 2), to be separated from the bottom portion of the recess portion 112, is in the annular shape, forms an annular gap 114 between an outer circumferential surface and the facing portion (see Figure 2), and is allowed to be deflected in a direction separated from the valve seat member 102 in the recess portion 112 with an outer circumference side as a free end (see column 7 lines 1-11), and a leaf valve 140 that is in the annular shape, is disposed to be separated in an axial direction on a side of the sub valve 138 opposite to the valve seat member 102 (see Figure 2), is allowed to be deflected with an outer circumference side as a free end, and is able to be separated and seated on the valve seat 134 (through element 136 as shown in Figure 2 and described in column 7 lines 1-65).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamaura et al further disclose that the valve seat member 102 has an inclined surface (see Figure 2 and the inside inclined face of element 114) between the facing portion and a seat surface (see Figure 2 and the lower surface of element 134) on which the leaf valve 140 of the valve seat 134 is seated and separated (see Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamaura et al further disclose a valve stopper 144 that is disposed between the sub valve 138 and the leaf valve 140 to be separated from the sub valve 138, is in the annular shape, allows to be deflected on the outer circumference side, and regulates deflection of the sub valve 138 when the outer circumference of the sub valve 138 is deflected in a direction away from the valve seat member 102 and comes into contact with the valve seat member 102 (see Figure 2 and column 7 lines 1-11).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamaura et al further disclose a shock absorber (see Figure 1 and column 5 lines 40-61) comprising: a shock absorber main body that has a cylindrical outer shell 10 and a rod 20 movably inserted into the outer shell 10 and is extendable and contractable (see Figure 1 and column 5 line 62 – column 6 line 6), and a damping valve 136 according to Claim 1, wherein the valve seat member 102 partitions two operation chambers 12,14 communicated with the shock absorber main body by ports 116,118 (see Figure 1 and column 6 lines 13-61).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamaura et al further disclose that the annular gap 114 provides resistance to a flow of liquid passing through the sub valve 138 (see Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamaura et al further disclose an orifice 158 between the valve seat 134 and the leaf valve 140 (see Figure 2 and column 8 lines 13-19), wherein a flow path area of the annular gap 114 is smaller than a flow path area of the orifice 158 (see Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamaura et al further disclose that the free end of the sub valve 138 is allowed to be deflected in a direction toward and away from the valve seat member 102 in the recess portion 112 (see Figure 2 and column 7 lines 1-11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and/or as outlined above, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (and if Claim 4 is also rewritten to overcome its objection).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PG Publication No. 2001/0042664 to Masamura et al., PG Publication No. 2022/0316549 to Yasui et al., and Japanese Patent No. JP 2017072179 to Takagi all disclose damping valves similar to applicant’s.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 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, 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.
PAMELA RODRIGUEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/PAMELA RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 07/13/26
Prosecution Insights