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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: ¶ 0057 refers to “the movement resistance of the piston 6,” although numeral 6 identifies the cylinder and numeral 7 identifies the piston.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 206830715 U).
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses a damper device (magneto-rheological damper) comprising:
a cylinder (damper cylinder body 4) including a magneto-rheological fluid with a viscosity that is changeable in accordance with magnetic field application (see English translation, p. 1 “Content of the invention”, p. 3, “The utility model works as follows”; Fig. 1);
a movable body (piston-head assembly 5-9) moveable in the cylinder (4) and partitioning the cylinder into a first compartment (left working chamber) (see Fig. 1) and a second compartment (right working chamber) (see English translation, p. 1 “Content of the invention”; pp. 1-2, paragraph beginning “The technical scheme adopted…”; Fig. 1);
a fluid passage (mixed liquid-flow passage) to enable the first compartment and the second compartment to communicate with each other (see English translation, p. 1, “Content of the invention”; p. 3, “Figure 6 is a schematic diagram of the utility model liquid flow path”; see Figs. 1 and 6); and
an electromagnet including an electromagnetic coil (excitation coil 14) and an iron core (magnetically conductive steel core member 8) inserted into the electromagnetic coil (14) (see English translation, pp. 1-2, paragraph beginning “The technical scheme adopted…” and p. 3, paragraph beginning “Figure 5 shows….”; Figs. 1 and 5);
wherein a magnetic field is applicable to the fluid passage (mixed liquid-flow passage) by energizing the electromagnetic coil (14) to increase a flow resistance of the magneto-rheological fluid in the fluid passage so that resistance is applied to movement of the movable body (piston-head assembly 5-9) (English translation, p. 3, “The utility model works as follows”; Figs. 5 and 6); and
the fluid passage (mixed liquid-flow passage) includes:
a first fluid passage (radial liquid-flow passage formed by the 1mm axial gap between 5 and 8) facing one end portion (left end face of core member 8) of the iron core (core member 8) (English translation, p. 2, item 2 under “Compared with the background art…”; Fig. 6); and
a second fluid passage (axial liquid-flow passage including the circular passages in piston rod 2 and the eight circular through-holes in right end cover 8) extending through the iron core (through core member 8) (see English translation, pp. 1-2, paragraph beginning “The technical scheme adopted…”; p. 3 paragraphs beginning “Figure 2 shows…,” “Figure 3 shows…,” and “Figure 6 is…”); wherein
the first fluid passage (radial liquid-flow passages between 5 and 8) and the second fluid passage (axial liquid-flow passages through 2 and 8) are positioned such that the magnetic field is applicable by the electromagnetic coil (14) to the magneto-rheological fluid in each of the first fluid passage and the second fluid passage (see English translation, p. 3, paragraph beginning “Figure 5 shows…” and “The utility model works as follows”; Figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses the damper device according to claim 9, wherein the second fluid passage (axial liquid-flow passages) includes a flow passage (mutually perpendicular circular through-holes and internal circular through-hole of piston rod 2) that connects one end of the first fluid passage (inner end of the radial liquid-flow passage between 5 and 8) and the first compartment (left working chamber), and a flow passage (eight circular through-holes in piston-head right end cover 8) that connects the other end of the first fluid passage (outer end of the radial liquid-flow passage between 5 and 8) and the second compartment (right working chamber) (see English translation, pp. 1-2, paragraph beginning “The technical scheme adopted…”; p. 3 paragraphs beginning “Figure 2 shows…,” “Figure 3 shows…,” and “Figure 6 is…”; see Figs. 1-3 and 6).
Regarding claim 12, Wang discloses the damper device according to claim 9, further comprising a metal plate (steel piston-head left end cover 5) defining a yoke (magnetic-return yoke formed by 5 and 6) of the electromagnet (excitation coil 14 and steel core member 8) and facing the first fluid passage (radial liquid-flow passage between 5 and 8) (see English translation, p. 3 paragraphs beginning “Figure 5 shows…,” and “Figure 6 is…”; see Figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 14, Wang discloses the damper device according to claim 9, wherein the first fluid passage (radial liquid-flow passage between 5 and 8) and the second fluid passage (axial liquid-flow passages through 2 and 8) are connected at an angle (approximately 90 degrees) (see English translation, p. 3, paragraph beginning “Figure 6 is a schematic diagram…”; see Fig. 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 206830715 U) in view of Sodeyama et al. (JP 2002168283 A) (Applicant cited).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses the damper device according to claim 10, as set forth above.
Wang does not expressly disclose wherein three or more of the electromagnets are positioned in parallel or substantially in parallel; the first fluid passage is positioned along first end portions of the iron cores of the three or more of the electromagnets; and the second fluid passage extends through insides of the iron cores of the three or more of the electromagnets positioned at both ends of the three or more of the electromagnets.
Sodeyama teaches that three or more of the electromagnets (a large number of electromagnets 12) are positioned in parallel or substantially in parallel (arranged side-by-side along the axial direction of bypass pipe 4);
and the first fluid passage (gap S) is positioned along first end portions (inward-facing portions adjacent gap S) of the iron cores (cylindrical pure-iron peripheral-walls 10) of the three or more of the electromagnets (12) (see Sodeyama, ¶¶ 0006-08 and Figs. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s electromagnet arrangement to include Sodeyama’s plurality of axially arranged electromagnets along the first fluid passage and to route Wang’s axial inlet and outlet portions of the second fluid passage through the iron cores positioned at the opposite ends of the plurality, in order to subject the magneto-rheological fluid to multiple successive magnetic-field regions, thereby increasing controllable flow resistance and damping force while retaining a compact flow-path arrangement.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 206830715 U) in view of Xu et al. (CN 209762121 U).
Regarding claim 13, Wang discloses the damper device according to claim 9, as set forth above.
Wang does not expressly disclose wherein the first fluid passage is between a plurality of laminated plates.
Xu teaches wherein the first fluid passage (radial disc-type liquid-flow channel A) is between a plurality of laminated plates (axially stacked positioning plate I 17 and plate-shaped piston-head left end cover 5) (see Figs. 1-2 and Xu English translation, pp. 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s radial first fluid passage to include Xu’s stacked-plate arrangement in order to extend the effective damping-channel length and more fully utilize the available piston-head volume and magnetic field, thereby increasing controllable damping force without increasing the overall damper size.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 206830715 U) in view of Hu et al. (CN 108953467 A).
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses the damper device according to claim 14, as set forth above.
Wang does not expressly disclose wherein a flow passage cross-sectional area changer to change a flow passage cross-sectional area of the first fluid passage is provided at a position at or adjacent to a connecting portion between the first fluid passage and the second fluid passage.
Hu teaches a flow passage cross-sectional area changer (threaded, axially adjustable valve core 9, right end cover 13, and lock nut 14) to change a flow passage cross-sectional area of the first fluid passage (effective damping-gap thickness of conical liquid-flow channel A) by changing an axial position of the valve core (9) within the bobbin (10) (see Figs. 4, 5, and 10 and Hu English translation, p. 1, “Summary of the Invention”; pp. 2-3, paragraph beginning “The technical solution adopted…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s connecting portion between the radial first fluid passage and the axial second fluid passage to include Hu’s threaded, axially adjustable core arrangement, specifically by configuring Wang's core member 8 to be threadedly inserted into and connected to Wang's magnetic-return yoke formed by members 5 and 6, so that changing the amount of insertion of core member 8 changes the flow passage cross-sectional area of the radial first fluid passage at or adjacent to the connecting portion. A skilled artisan would have made this modification to permit mechanical adjustment of the damping gap for different operating requirements, thereby predictably changing the magneto-rheological fluid flow resistance and widening the adjustable damping-force range.
Regarding claim 16, Wang, as modified by Hu, discloses the damper device according to claim 15, further comprising a metal plate (steel piston-head left end cover 5) defining a yoke (magnetic-return yoke formed by 5 and 6) of the electromagnet (excitation coil 14 and steel core member 8) and facing the first fluid passage (radial liquid-flow passage between 5 and 8); wherein
the first fluid passage (radial liquid-flow passage between 5 and 8) is provided inside the yoke (within the magnetic-return structure formed by 5 and 6), the second fluid passage (axial liquid-flow passages through 2 and 8) is provided inside the iron core (core member 8), the iron core (modified core member 8) is inserted into and connected to the yoke (threadedly inserted into and connected to magnetic-return yoke 5 and 6); and
the flow passage cross-sectional area changer (threaded core member 8 and locking arrangement based on Hu's 9, 13, and 14) is operable to change the flow passage cross-sectional area of the first fluid passage (radial liquid-flow passage between 5 and 8) by connecting the iron core (modified core member 8) to the yoke (magnetic-return yoke 5 and 6) while changing an amount of insertion of the iron core into the yoke (axial threaded adjustment of core member 8 relative to yoke 5 and 6) (see Wang English translation, p.3, Figs. 4-6 and Hu English translation, pp. 1-3 and pp. 4-5, Figs. 4, 5, and 10).
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