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 .
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 and 14 are 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 second sealing means” and ”the third sealing means" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 14 references a fifth groove. With respect to the written description and drawings, no such groove is discussed. The examiner notes that claim 14 depends from claims 13 and 1, which do not disclose a first, second, third, or fourth groove.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Groves et al. (US 2005/0121268).
In Re claims 1 and 13, Groves et al. disclose an interface element (48; fig. 1) adapted for use in a shock absorber (10) having an inner cylinder (16); a fluid chamber (24, 26); a first central cylinder (44); a second central cylinder (46); at least one valve (see figs. 2 and 3) to create a fluid connection between the fluid chamber and the outside of the outer cylinder (see 22), wherein the interface element has a cylindrical shape, and is arrange coaxially around a center axis of the shock absorber cylinders, wherein the interface element comprises: a first engaging end (upper end) configured to seal a surface of the first central cylinder; a second engaging end (lower end) configured to seal a surface of the second central cylinder; an engaging part configured to seal against a surface of the inner cylinder (see center of 48); and at leat one valve slot (see 56 and 58) to seal against the at least one valve (see 22).
In Re claims 2 and 3, see central protruding part (adjacent 48) having a groove and o-ring.
In Re claims 4, 5, and 14 see second and third grooves and associated o-rings adjacent the valves (see 22, 50, 56, 58, 80, 88).
In Re claim 6, see unlabeled o-rings in fig. 1.
In Re claim 7, see end apertures (130, 132) creating a fluid connection between the at least one valve and the fluid chamber.
In Re claim 8, see connection between the interface element (48) and the upper and lower central cylinders (44, 46).
In Re claim 9, see first and second valves (22, 50) and associated connections with the interface element (22, 50, 56, 58, 80, 88).
In Re claim 13, see shock absorber (10)
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groves et al. (US 2005/0121268) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reybrouck et al. (US 2016/0201751).
In Re claim 15, Groves et al. fail to disclose a welded or press-fit connection with the central cylinders.
Reybrouck et al. is related to the art of hydraulic shock absorbers, and teaches that it was know in the art at the time of the invention to employ the use of welding or press-fitting (par. 0048) to attach a central cylinder (30) within a shock absorber (fig. 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have press-fit or welded the central cylinders within he shock absorber of Groves et al., as taught by Reybrouck et al., as they were well-known attachment methods known for their fast installation, and strong joint strength.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights