DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statements have been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear from the specification what figure 2 is a ‘section’ of. Figure 2 appears to be either drawn wrong or different embodiment.
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 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.
Claims 9 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 9 it is unclear if the ledge claimed on the last line is the same one claimed on the last line of claim 8.
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) 8- 9,14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Seminara et al. 9,834,058.
Regarding claims 8 Seminara shows in figures 2,3,5,7,8:
A suspension hydraulic lift system having a collapsed position and an extended position comprising: a stepped support tube 22 having a first section 22a and a second section 22b (see figs 5,7,8), said first section 22a having a first diameter, said second section 22b having a second diameter, said first diameter being less than said second diameter defining a tube shoulder 22c (fig 5) between said first and second sections; a housing 24 having interior surfaces, said housing 24 receiving said stepped support tube 22, said support tube 22 being adapted to reciprocate within said housing; a fluid chamber 26 positioned between said stepped support tube 22 and said housing 24; said fluid chamber 26 being adapted to receive hydraulic fluid to act upon said tube shoulder 22c and a ledge 24c to reciprocate said support tube relative 22 to said housing 24.
Regarding claim 9 in figure 5 note the first portion diameter at 24a and the second portion diameter at 24b defining the ledge 24c.
Regarding claim 14 note the spring seat at 18,28.
Regarding claims 15-17 as discussed above with regard to claims 8, 9 these limitations are met.
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) 13,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seminara in view of Navarette et al. 5,014,603.
Regarding claims 13,20 Seminara shows in figures 7-9 first and second seal arrangements in the areas of both 34 and 36.
Lacking in Seminara is a specific description that one each of the lower and upper pairs 34,36 can act as a ‘guide’, as broadly claimed.
However Navarette shows a hydraulic actuator and in figures 3 and 4 shows that the seals may be formed into two parts, one of which is an O-ring and the other a piece of Teflon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used such a 2 part seal arrangement in Seminara simply to promote better sliding capability between the tube 22 and housing 24. IN such an arrangement the Teflon part of the seal arrangement could function as the ‘guide’, as broadly claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, are allowed.
Claims 10-12,18,19 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
7/15/26
Prosecution Insights