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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/15/2024 and 02/06/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The presented disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0022] states that fastening portion 7 is arranged at the end of guide component 6 “remote of the piston rod,” whereas claim 1 identifies that end relative to the piston rod guide. The terminology is inconsistent and should be corrected or clarified without introduction to new matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “the guide component comprises:” is joined to the preceding independent clause by a comma. The language should be revised, for example, to “wherein the guide component comprises:”.
In claims 1 and 4, “remote of” should be corrected to “remote from.”
In claim 4, the phrase “at least two webs in each instance” is grammatically unclear. The language should be revised to expressly identify the intended grouping of the webs.
In claim 10, “respectively” lacks a corresponding plural relationship and should be deleted or the limitation should be revised to clarify whether adjacent axial length portions are connected by respective connection portions.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann et al. (US 20170028804 A1) in view of Collis et al. (US 20020189441 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lindemann discloses a motor vehicle vibration damper (100), comprising:
a piston rod guide (closure assembly at cap 25) (Lindemann explains that a closure assembly includes guide elements for the piston rod, and the disclosed embodiments locates that closure at cap 25, where piston rod 13 exits damper tube 11 (see ¶¶ 0004, 0022-24, and Fig. 1). Thus, the embodiment at least necessarily includes the claimed piston rod guide);
a damper cylinder (damper tube 11) which is closed at least at one of its axial ends by the piston rod guide (closure assembly and cap 25) (see ¶¶ 0004, 0024, Fig. 1);
a piston rod (13) which is partially guided out through the piston rod guide and is configured to be axially movable relative to the damper cylinder (damper tube 11) (see ¶¶ 0022, 0024, and Fig. 1);
a protective tube (protective element 12) which circumferentially surrounds the piston rod (13) (see ¶ 0023, Fig. 1); and
a guide component (ring-shaped main structure 16 and tongues 15 of spring plate 1) that extends axially along the damper cylinder (damper tube 11) in an installed state and which is radially arranged between the damper cylinder (damper tube 11) and the protective tube (12) and axially guides the protective tube (12) along the damper cylinder (damper tube 11), the guide component comprises (see ¶¶ 0025-26, Figs. 1, 3):
a fastening portion (ring-shaped main structure 16) arranged at an end of the guide component remote of the piston rod guide (closure assembly and cap 25) (see ¶ 0025, Fig. 1); and
an extension portion (tongues 15) arranged at an end of the guide component closest to the piston rod guide (closure assembly and cap 25), which extends axially from the fastening portion (ring-shaped main structure 16) (see Figs. 1, 3);
wherein the guide component (ring-shaped main structure 16 and tongues 15 of spring plate 1) is radially supported by the fastening portion (ring-shaped main structure 16 including supporting shoulder 20) at the damper cylinder (tube shoulder 21 of damper tube 11) and/or is connected to the damper cylinder in a positively engaging and/or frictionally engaging and/or bondingly engaging manner (positively locking engagement between supporting shoulder 20 and tube shoulder 21) (see ¶ 0027 and Fig. 1).
Lindemann does not expressly disclose a protective tube which is connected to the piston rod.
Collis teaches a protective tube (sheath tube 1) which is connected to the piston rod (piston rod 17 through piston-rod-side fastening element 45) and circumferentially surrounds the piston rod (17) (see ¶ 0025 and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lindemann’s protective element 12 so that its piston-rod-side end is secured to piston-rod-side fastening element 45 in the manner taught by Collis, while retaining Lindemann's spring-plate attachment and guide tongues, in order to make the piston-rod-side portion of the protective element move with the piston rod while the bellows expands and contracts over the guide tongues, thereby maintaining contamination protection during compression and rebound while preventing direct rubbing against the damper tube.
Regarding claim 3, Lindemann as modified discloses the motor vehicle vibration damper according to claim 1, wherein the extension portion of the guide component is formed from a plurality of webs (tongues 15) axially extending from the fastening portion (ring-shaped main structure 16) (see Lindemann, ¶ 0025, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Lindemann as modified discloses the motor vehicle vibration damper according to claim 1, wherein the fastening portion (ring-shaped main structure 16) is formed as a closed ring (see Lindemann, ¶ 0031, Fig. 3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann et al. (US 20170028804 A1) in view of Collis et al. (US 20020189441 A1), and further in view of Gessner et al. (DE 102016200306 A1) (Applicant Cited).
Regarding claim 2, Lindemann as modified discloses the motor vehicle vibration damper according to claim 1, further comprising:
a spring plate (spring plate 1) which is arranged at the damper cylinder (damper tube 11) (see Lindemann, ¶ 0022, Fig. 1).
Lindemann does not expressly disclose wherein the guide component is axially supported at the spring plate by its fastening portion.
Gessner teaches the claimed axial-support arrangement: a component (tubular protective component 4) is axially supported at the spring plate (3) through a spring-plate-adjacent fastening portion (end having recess 7 engaged by projection 6) (see ¶¶ 0025-26 and Figs. 2, 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lindemann’s guide component so that its annular fastening portion is formed separately from spring plate 1 and axially seated and retained at spring plate 1 using the fastening interface taught by Gessner, in order to provide a defined axial seat and prevent axial migration while retaining Lindemann’s protective-tube guidance.
Claims 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann et al. (US 20170028804 A1) in view of Collis et al. (US 20020189441 A1), and further in view of Henneberg et al. (DE 102021202400 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lindemann as modified discloses the motor vehicle vibration damper according to claim 3.
Lindemann does not expressly disclose wherein at least two webs in each instance are connected to one another at their ends remote of the fastening portion.
Henneberg teaches wherein at least two webs in each instance (webs 8) are connected to one another at their ends remote of the fastening portion (opposite-end ring 10) (see ¶ 0011 and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to join the ends of Lindemann's tongues 15 remote from ring-shaped main stricture 16 with the distal ring taught by Henneberg, in order to brace the otherwise free tongue ends and increase deformation stability of the guide cage, thereby maintaining circumferential spacing and predictable protective-tube guidance under lateral loading.
Regarding claim 6, Lindemann as modified discloses the motor vehicle vibration damper according to claim 1.
Lindemann does not expressly disclose wherein the fastening portion is formed as a discontinuous ring interrupted by at least one discontinuity location.
Henneberg teaches wherein the fastening portion (one ring 10) is formed as a discontinuous ring interrupted by at least one discontinuity location (interruption in ring 10) (see ¶ 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Lindemann's ring-shaped main structure 16 as the interrupted ring taught by Henneberg, in order to provide radial compliance during installation over tube shoulder 21, thereby facilitating placement around the damper tube while retaining the tongues’ axial protective element guidance.
Regarding claim 7, Lindemann as modified discloses the motor vehicle vibration damper according to claim 6.
Lindemann does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one discontinuity location is arranged at the fastening portion in each instance between two webs of the guide component which are connected to one another.
Henneberg teaches rings (10) at both ends of a plurality of webs (8) and teaches that a ring may be interrupted at least at one point (see ¶ 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position each interruption of Lindemann’s ring shaped main structure 16 in the circumferential span between adjacent tongue-to-ring junctions, rather than through a junction, in order to preserve load transfer at each junction while providing split-ring compliance, with the opposite-end ring maintaining the connection between the tongues.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann et al. (US 20170028804 A1) in view of Collis et al. (US 20020189441 A1), and further in view of Henneberg et al. (DE 102021202400 A1) and Meinen et al. (DE 102017215231 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lindemann as modified discloses the motor vehicle vibration damper according to claim 7.
Lindemann does not expressly disclose wherein the fastening portion comprises a plurality of discontinuity locations which are arranged at the fastening portion in such a way that the guide component extends overall meanderingly around the damper cylinder.
Meinen teaches a motor-vehicle shock absorber (1) having a protective tube (15) surrounding the piston rod (11) and damper tube (10), wherein the protective tube comprises a plurality of discontinuity locations (material interruptions 21) evenly distributed around its circumference. The material interruptions (21) from flexible material segments (22) capable of performing radial yielding movements (A) (see ¶¶ 0009, 0038-40, and Figs. 1-3). Meinen further teaches a material interruption (21) having a serpentine course and expressly states that several material interruptions (21) are preferably arranged evenly around the circumference of the protective tube (15’’) (see ¶¶ 0043-44, and Fig. 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 the interrupted fastening ring (10) taught by Henneberg, as incorporated into Lindemann’s guide component, to provide a plurality of circumferentially distributed discontinuously locations (material interruptions 21) having the serpentine course taught by Meinen, with the discontinuity locations positioned in the ring spans between adjacent webs connected at their opposite ends. Meinen expressly teaches distributing several material interruptions around the circumference to optimize radial deflection capability in all directions. The proposed modification would therefore predictably distribute radial flexibility around the fastening portion while preserving the web-to-ring junctions and circumferential support, thereby producing a continuous, alternating path through the circumferential ring segments and connected webs such that the guide component extends overall meanderingly around the damper cylinder.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann et al. (US 20170028804 A1) in view of Collis et al. (US 20020189441 A1), and further in view of Tsunekawa et al. (US 20160084336 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Lindemann as modified discloses the motor vehicle vibration damper according to claim 3.
Lindemann does not expressly disclose wherein the guide component has radially inwardly protruding ribs which extend axially along the fastening portion and/or at least partially along the plurality of webs.
Tsunekawa teaches radially inward protruding ribs (ribs 30, including main ribs 31 and guide ribs 32) which extend axially along an inward-facing cylindrical portion (circular-cylinder portion 21) of a cap (bump stopper cap 20) that is pressed fit to the cylinder (see ¶¶ 0042-43, Figs. 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Tsunekawa's circumferentially spaced axial inner ribs 30 to the inward facing surface of Lindemann's ring-shaped main structure 16, which is the guide component’s fastening portion, in order to guide the component into alignment during installation and provide controlled localized interference contact with the damper cylinder, thereby easing assembly while securely centering and retaining the guide component without full-surface friction.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann et al. (US 20170028804 A1) in view of Collis et al. (US 20020189441 A1), and further in view of Loof et al. (WO 2012069161 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lindemann as modified discloses the motor vehicle vibration damper according to claim 1.
Lindemann does not expressly disclose wherein the extension portion is divided into at least two axial length portions of different diameters which are connected to one another, respectively, by a connection portion.
Loof teaches a guide cage (644) formed by axially extending spacer elements (660) whose diameter increases from a first diameter (d1 at damper cap 642) to a larger diameter (d2 at closing ring 670) (see ¶¶ 0069-72, and Fig. 6). Loof also teaches a protective tube (350) divided into two axial sections (352 and 354) of different diameters (see ¶ 0060, and Fig. 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 the extension portion of Lindemann to include two different diameter axial length portions joined by an intervening transition connection portion, using Loof’s increasing diameter guide cage and two-diameter protective tube arrangement, in order to maintain controlled radial spacing as the surrounding diameter changes, thereby preventing impact or rubbing throughout the compression movement.
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