DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final rejection in response to application filed 12/10/24. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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) 1-3, 6-8, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delorenzis et al. (US 2017/0241504).
Regarding independent claim 1 and 12, Delorenzis teaches a reaction force controlling apparatus, comprising: a first deformable body 241 that includes a first space 298 inside of the first deformable body, the first space having a variable volume [0068-0069]; a base 242 that includes a second space that communicates with the first space through a circulation hole 275 [0064,0078], and a third space 236 that does not communicate with the first space or the second space [0065]; and a second deformable body 236 that separates the second space from the third space, the second deformable body being deformed to change the opening area of the circulation hole [0066], the deformation being performed due to fluid flowing into the third space or flowing out of the third space [0066,0070-0071]; and
a controller 235 that controls the first fluid control mechanism to adjust an internal pressure in the third space.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Delorenzis teaches wherein the second deformable body expands due to the flow of the fluid into the third space to close a portion of or all of the circulation hole, and shrinks due to the flow of the fluid out of the third space to be spaced from the circulation hole [0070-0071].
Regarding dependent claim 3, Delorenzis teaches further comprising a first fluid control mechanism 235 and 231 that causes the fluid to flow into the third space, and that causes the fluid to flow out of the third space.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Delorenzis teaches wherein a plurality of the circulation holes is provided, and the number of the circulation holes closed with the second deformable body is changed according to an amount of the deformation of the second deformable body [0092].
Regarding dependent claim 7, Delorenzis teaches wherein the circulation hole 233 is shaped such that the area of a portion of the circulation hole that is closed with the second deformable body is changed according to an amount of the deformation of the second deformable body [0066].
Regarding dependent claim 8, Delorenzis teaches wherein the first deformable body has a bellows structure [0062].
Regarding dependent claim 11, Delorenzis teaches wherein the second deformable body is a stretchable deformable film [0065-0066].
Regarding dependent claim 13, Delorenzis teaches wherein the controller 235 keeps a relationship between an amount of the deformation of the second deformable body and the internal pressure in the third space, and adjusts the internal pressure in the third space such that the amount of the deformation of the second deformable body is a specified amount [0070-0072].
Regarding dependent claim 14, Delorenzis teaches further comprising a load sensor that detects a load applied to the first deformable body, wherein the controller adjusts the internal pressure in the third space on a basis of output from the load sensor [0066-0071].
Regarding dependent claim 15, Delorenzis teaches the controller changes the internal pressure in the third space as necessary according to the load [0070-0071].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delorenzis in view of Orth et al. (US 3960169).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Delorenzis teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Delorenzis is silent to wherein the first deformable body has a piston structure.
Orth teaches the first deformable body has a piston structure (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the bellows of Delorenzis with a piston structure as taught by Orth. It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element to obtain predictable results (in this case, piston actuated variable volume actuating element) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, MPEP 2141 III B.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delorenzis in view of Wasnick et al. (US 11001244).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Delorenzis teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Delorenzis is silent to wherein the first deformable body has a balloon structure.
Wasnick teaches wherein the first deformable body has a balloon structure 26/28.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the bellows of Delorenzis with a balloon structure as taught by Wasnick. It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element to obtain predictable results (in this case, balloon structure variable volume first space with the benefit of reduced leak paths) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, MPEP 2141 III B.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delorenzis in view of Pierce (US 5335695).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Delorenzis teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Delorenzis is silent to further comprising a range sensor that detects an amount of deformation of the first deformable body, wherein the controller adjusts the internal pressure in the third space on a basis of output from the range sensor.
Wasnick teaches further comprising a range sensor that detects an amount of deformation of the first deformable body, wherein the controller adjusts the internal pressure in the third space on a basis of output from the range sensor.
It is noted that the use of a known technique (in this case the use of a height control valve approace as taught by Pierce), to improve a similar device (in this case modifying Delorenzis bladder control with Pierces height sensing) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, MPEP 2141 III C.
Regarding dependent claim 17, Delorenzis in view of Wasnick teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Delorenzis further teaches wherein the controller changes the internal pressure in the third space as necessary according to the amount of the deformation [0070-0071].
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delorenzis in view of Ryan et al. (US 2013/0328277).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Delorenzis teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Delorenzis is silent to further comprising a range sensor that detects an amount of deformation of the first deformable body, wherein the controller adjusts the internal pressure in the third space on a basis of output from the range sensor.
Ryan teaches wherein the controller adjusts the internal pressure in the third space on a basis of input performed by a user [0022,0039].
It is noted that the use of a known technique (in this case the use of a height control valve approace as taught by Pierce), to improve a similar device (in this case modifying Delorenzis bladder control with Pierces height sensing) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, MPEP 2141 III C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of a manual user input control scheme, as taught by Ryan, to the device of Delorenzis, as part of an obvious combination of known prior art structures, in this case manually adjusting dampers, to achieve predictable results, in this case, manually adjust pressure as needed or desired. See KSR; MPEP 2141 III A.
Regarding dependent claim 19, Delorenzis in view of Ryan teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Ryan further teaches wherein the controller adjusts the internal pressure in the third space on a basis of designation performed by an application [0022,0039].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delorenzis in view of Morris et al. (US 2009/0194179).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Delorenzis teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. Delorenzis is silent to wherein the reaction force controlling apparatus further includes a second fluid control mechanism that causes the fluid to flow into the first space, and that causes the fluid to flow out of the first space, the first space is connected to the second fluid control mechanism through a third flow path, and the controller further controls the second fluid control mechanism to adjust an internal pressure in the first space.
Morris teaches wherein the reaction force controlling apparatus further includes a second fluid control mechanism that causes the fluid to flow into the first space, and that causes the fluid to flow out of the first space, the first space is connected to the second fluid control mechanism through a third flow path, and the controller further controls the second fluid control mechanism to adjust an internal pressure in the first space.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the reaction force controlling apparatus of Delorenzis with the control mechanism as taught by Morris. It is further noted that a simple substitution of one known element to obtain predictable results (in this case, height control valve mechanism for controlling damping and ride height) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, MPEP 2141 III B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are 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 CRAIG SANG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1418. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 3:00 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/CRAIG KIM/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights