DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description:
· 353a and 353b in Figs. 32, 34
· 343´ in Fig. 35
· 516c˝ in Fig. 49, the reference character is shown in the bottom-right corner.
· 789 in Fig. 56
· 776b˝ in Fig. 58
· 841 in Fig. 59
· 1085´ in Fig. 66
· 1254´ in Fig. 78
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 § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemeny (US2020/0353774A1) in view of Jo et al (JP56164244A; hereinafter “Jo”) and Hannah (US1608392A).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kemeny discloses a wheel assembly comprising: an inner rim 31 (Fig. 2); an outer rim 33 (Fig. 2) surrounding the inner rim 31; and a plurality of gas springs 50 (Fig. 2) coupled between the inner 31 and outer rims 32, each gas spring 50 comprising a cylinder body 51 (Fig. 2), a piston rod 52 (Figs. 2-4; Abstract; Para [0084]; A piston 52 movable within the gas cylinder 51 and comprising the piston rod/shaft at 52) movable within the cylinder body 51, but fails to disclose a damper assembly coupled to an end of the cylinder body and comprising a plug body coupled to an end of the cylinder body and having an opening to permit passage of the piston rod therethrough, a damper end cap coupled to the plug body to define a wedge cavity surrounding the piston rod, and a wedge body surrounding the piston rod within the wedge cavity to frictionally dampen piston rod movement; wherein the damper assembly comprises a spring between the wedge body and the damper end cap to axially bias the wedge body toward the cylinder body.
Jo, however, teaches a damper assembly coupled to an end of the cylinder body (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
367
913
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 2 of Jo
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the gas spring of Kemeny by incorporating the damper assembly, as taught by Jo, such piston rod damping and locking assemblies is well known in the art for controlling piston rod movement and improving operational reliability.
Hannah teaches a plug body 18 (Fig. 3) coupled to an end of the cylinder body 16 and having an opening to permit passage of the piston rod 27 therethrough (Fig. 3), a damper end cap 19 (Fig. 3) coupled to the plug body 18 to define a wedge cavity (The space where the wedges 26 are inserted as shown in Fig. 3) surrounding the piston rod 27, and a wedge body 26 surrounding the piston rod 27 within the wedge cavity to frictionally dampen piston rod movement. Further, Hannah teaches the damper assembly comprises a spring 32 between the wedge body 26 and the damper end cap 19 to axially bias the wedge body 26 toward the cylinder body 16 (Figs. 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the damper assembly of Kemeny, as modified by Jo, by substituting its locking arrangement for the wedge locking arrangement including a spring 32 and end cap 19, as taught by Hannah, such wedge mechanism is well known for frictionally engaging and controlling movement of a rod, thereby providing predictable control of piston rod movement and improving operational reliability.
Regarding claim 3, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, discloses the wedge body (Hannah: 26) has a recess (Hannah discloses the recess where the spring 32 is located) adjacent the damper end cap (Hannah: 19) to receive the spring (Hannah: 32) therein.
Regarding claim 4, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, discloses the wedge body (Hannah: 26) comprises a split wedge body (Hannah: “This block 18 has a tapered bore 24 within which a plurality of tapered wedges 26 are positioned” per page 1, lines 85-87; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, discloses the wedge body (Hannah: 26) has a conical shape (Hannah: Fig. 3); and wherein the plug body (Hannah: 18) has a conical cavity (Hannah: where the wedge body 26 is located) to receive the wedge body therein.
Regarding claim 7, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, discloses the wedge body is sized to extend beyond an end-face (Hannah: Refer to the end face of the plug body in the below annotated Fig. 3) of the plug body 18 when received within the conical cavity.
PNG
media_image2.png
647
627
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Hannah
Regarding claim 13, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, discloses wedge body (Hannah: 26) has frusto-conical shape (Hannah: Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, discloses a wheel assembly comprising: an inner rim; an outer rim surrounding the inner rim; and a plurality of gas springs coupled between the inner and outer rims, each gas spring comprising a cylinder body, a piston rod movable within the cylinder body, and a damper assembly coupled to an end of the cylinder body and comprising a plug body coupled to an end of the cylinder body and having an opening to permit passage of the piston rod therethrough, a damper end cap coupled to the plug body to define a wedge cavity surrounding the piston rod, and a split wedge body having a conical shape and surrounding the piston rod within the wedge cavity to frictionally dampen piston rod movement (The limitations are disclosed as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 16, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, discloses the damper assembly comprises a spring between the split wedge body and the damper end cap to axially bias the split wedge body toward the cylinder body (The limitation is disclosed as discussed above with respect to claim 2).
Regarding claim 18, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, discloses the plug body (Hannah: 26) has a conical cavity to receive the split wedge body therein (Hannah: Figs. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 21, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, discloses a method of making a damper assembly for a gas spring of a wheel assembly, the damper assembly to be coupled to an end of a cylinder body of the gas spring, and the gas spring to be coupled between an inner rim and an outer rim surrounding the inner rim of the wheel assembly, the method comprising: coupling a plug body coupled to an end of the cylinder body and having an opening therethrough to permit passage of a piston rod of the gas spring to be movable within the cylinder body; coupling a damper end cap to the plug body to define a wedge cavity surrounding the piston rod; and positioning a wedge body to surround the piston rod within the wedge cavity to frictionally dampen piston rod movement (The limitations are disclosed as discussed above with respect to claim 1).
Regarding claim 22, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, discloses the method further comprising positioning a spring between the wedge body and the damper end cap to axially bias the wedge body toward the cylinder body (The limitations are disclosed as discussed above with respect to claim 2).
Regarding claim 23, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, discloses the method wherein the wedge body comprises a split wedge body (The limitations are disclosed as discussed above with respect to claim 4).
Regarding claim 25, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, discloses the method of Claim 21 wherein the wedge body has a conical shape; and wherein the plug body has a conical cavity to receive the wedge body therein (The limitations are disclosed as discussed above with respect to claim 6).
7. Claims 5, 17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21-23, and 25 above, and further in view of Schoonover (GB191325124A).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, discloses the plug body 18 comprises a plurality of threads (Hannah: Refer to the threads in the below annotated Fig. 3) to threadably engage adjacent threaded portions of the damper end cap 21, but fails to disclose the plug body comprises a plurality of threads to threadably engage adjacent threaded portions of the cylinder body.
PNG
media_image3.png
602
470
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Hannah
Schoonover, however, teaches that a plug body (11 “bushing”; Fig. 3) is in threaded engagement with the inner surface of the cylinder (Page 1, lines 34-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the engagement between the plug body and cylinder of Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, by including the threaded engagement, as taught by Lochner, such threaded engagement is well known in the art for securely coupling mating structures and resisting loosening during operation.
Regarding claim 24, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, discloses the method wherein the plug body comprises a plurality of threads to threadably engage adjacent threaded portions of the cylinder body and the damper end cap (The limitations are disclosed as discussed above with respect to claim 5).
8. Claim 8, 19, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21-23, and 25 above, and further in view of Eifflaender et al (US9758004B2; hereinafter “Eifflaender”).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, fails to disclose the wedge body has a conical shape; and wherein the damper end cap has a conical cavity to receive the wedge body therein.
Eifflaender, however, teaches that the end region 3a of the vibration damper 1 has a conical shape, and that the element 4 disposed within the end region 3a also has a conical shape (Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the wedge locking arrangement of the damper assembly of Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, by utilizing a complementary conical configuration, such mating conical wedge arrangements is well known for generating predictable wedge action and frictional engagement between a rod and a surrounding locking structure.
Regarding claim 26, Kemeny, as modified by Jo, Hannah, and Eifflaender, discloses the method wherein the wedge body has a conical shape; and wherein the damper end cap has a conical cavity to receive the wedge body therein (The limitations are disclosed as discussed above with respect to claim 8).
9. Claims 9, 10, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21-23, and 25 above, and further in view of the attached NPL document (“Hydraulic Cylinder Seals”).
Regarding claims 9, 10, 12, and 20, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, fails to disclose the damper assembly comprises a plug body seal between the plug body and the cylinder body.
The attached NPL document, however, teaches various sealing members disposed along a reciprocating piston rod within a damper assembly, the sealing members being configured to engage the piston rod and protect internal components of the assembly (Refer to the seals and components as annotated in the below Figure).
PNG
media_image4.png
418
947
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Figure from the attached NPL document
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the damper assembly of Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, by incorporating the seals as taught by the attached NPL document, such using seals in reciprocating rod assemblies is well-known for reducing leakage and preventing ingress of contaminants, thereby improving operational reliability and service life of the assembly.
10. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21-23, and 25 above, and further in view of Bauer et al (US4946143A; hereinafter “Bauer”) and the attached NPL document (“Hydraulic Cylinder Seals”).
Regarding claim 11, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, fails to disclose the damper assembly comprises a rear wiper seal carried by the plug body adjacent the wedge cavity to frictionally engage the piston rod.
Bauer, however, teaches a seal 15 frictionally engaging a piston rod 4 and positioned adjacent internal operating components, including a wedge cavity (Fig. 1; Refer to the wedge cavity in the below annotated Fig. 3) through which the piston rod 4 extends, within the gas spring assembly.
PNG
media_image5.png
223
300
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Bauer
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the damper assembly of Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, by providing a seal adjacent the wedge cavity, as taught by Bauer, such placement of the seal adjacent the wedge cavity is well known for preventing contaminants carried by the piston rod from reaching internal operating components, thereby reducing wear and improving reliability of the wedge mechanism.
The NPL document teaches a wiper seal (Refer to the below annotated figure) for engagement with a reciprocating piston rod in a damper assembly.
PNG
media_image4.png
418
947
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Figure from the attached NPL document
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the damper assembly of Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, by utilizing a wiper seal because the wiper seal is well known in piston rod damper assemblies for preventing contaminants from reaching internal operating components.
11. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21-23, and 25 above, and further in view of the attached NPL document (“Teflon Products Eastex Rubber”).
Regarding claim 14, Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, fails to disclose the wedge body comprises a self-lubricated rigid material.
Jo, however, teaches a movable locking member 31 that may be formed from Teflon (Refer to Page 5, line 6 in the attached English translated document of Jo). Further, the attached NPL document discloses that Teflon is a self-lubricating material and reduces wear in mechanical systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the damper assembly of Kemeny, as modified by Jo and Hannah, by utilizing Teflon for the wedge body, such material is well known in the art for providing self-lubricating, low-friction, and wear-resistant characteristics in sliding mechanical interfaces, thereby reducing friction and wear between the wedge body and the piston rod. Further, the selection of a self-lubricating rigid material for the wedge body would have been an obvious matter of routine material selection, with the particular material being selected according to the desired frictional, wear, and structural characteristics of the wedge body.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference disclose gas springs including damper assemblies coupled to cylinder bodies, wedge-based rod engagement mechanisms, sealing arrangements for piston rods, and resilient wheel structures utilizing spring-type support members.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEKWON (TAE) CHOI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights