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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/19/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/18/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Action on 2/25/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2008/0203694 to Gartner in view of US Patent 9,353,818 to Marking.
Regarding claims 1, Gartner discloses a sway bar system (see Figure 1) comprising: a sway bar (10) having a first end (11) and a second end (12); a first link (16) coupled to said first end (11) of said sway bar (10) and said first link (16) configured to be coupled to a first location of a vehicle (see Figure 1), said first link comprising: a damper cylinder (18), said damper cylinder having a damper cylinder volume (42, see Figure 6); a damping piston (41) axially movable within said damper cylinder, wherein said damping characteristics of said first link are altered by selectively controlling the flow of the damping fluid through said damping piston (characteristics are controlled by control means 21; see at least also paragraph [0040] discussing control and displacement of piston rod 19 based on control valve flow); a shaft (19) fixedly coupled to said damping piston (41); and a second link (17) coupled to said second end (12) of said sway bar (10) and said second link (17) configured to be coupled to a second location of said vehicle (4; see Figure 1).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Gartner discloses a vehicle (7) and sway bar system (see Figure 1) comprising: a vehicle (7); a sway bar (10) having a first end (11) and a second end (12), said second end (12) distal from said first end (11; see Figure 1); a first electronically controlled (21) damper link (16) coupled to said first end (11) of said sway bar (10) and said first electronically controlled damper link (16) configured to be coupled to a first location (5) of a vehicle; and a second link (17) coupled to said second end (12) of said sway bar (10) said first link comprising: a damper cylinder (18), said damper cylinder having a damper cylinder volume (42, see Figure 6); a damping piston (41) axially movable within said damper cylinder, wherein said damping characteristics of said first link are altered by selectively controlling the flow of the damping fluid through said damping piston (characteristics are controlled by control means 21; see at least also paragraph [0040] discussing control and displacement of piston rod 19 based on control valve flow); a shaft (19) fixedly coupled to said damping piston (41); a valve fluidly coupled to said damper cylinder (valves 23 connected by actuating line 20 to cylinder 18; and said second link (17) configured to be coupled to a second location (6) of said vehicle (see Figure 1).
Gartner fails to disclose said first link having operational lock-out characteristics which are electronically controlled, wherein when said first link is placed in said operational lock-out, said sway bar system can be selected to be rendered essentially rigid and non-functional or to operate with increased stiffness but still remain functional, and selectively controlling said flow of said damping fluid through said damping piston is at least partially achieved using said vehicle’s on-board source of pressurized hydraulic fluid.
However, Marking discloses a damper/shock configuration including a valve 200 that is intended to be shifted to a “locked out” position. Including where the activating pressure is controlled remotely allowing the levels to be adjusted where the lock-out is not energized and levels where the lock-out is full energized (see col. 4, lines 38- col. 5, line 35 describing the lock out position and control). Further, Marking discloses that when the damper (100/200) is placed in said operational lock-out, said sway bar system can be selected to be rendered essentially rigid and non-functional or to operate with increased stiffness but still remain functional (see at least col. 6, line 13-61 describing lock out characteristics including controlling the bypass valve to achieve rigid/non-function or another embodiment of stiffer by still functional). Marking also discloses that the fluid pressure for controlling the valve (200) is provided by the vehicle’s on-board source of pressurized hydraulic fluid created by, for example, the vehicle power steering system (see at least col. 5, lines 16-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to have the electronically controlled lock out characteristics of the damper using an on-board pressure source as in Marking on the damper of Gartner with a reasonable expectation of success in order to better control the dampening characteristics of the damper/shock absorber. The combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 2, 14, and 19, Gartner is discussed above in regards to claims 1, 10, and 18, but fails to disclose the damping piston is a solid piston having no valving therethrough.
Marking discloses, in at least one embodiment, using a damping piston (205) that is a solid piston having no valving therethrough (see at least Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to have a solid piston from Marking on the sway bar system of Gartner with a reasonable expectation of success in order to better control the fluids within each side of the damper and provide better adjustments for the suspension. The combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 4, Gartner is discussed above in regards to claim 1, but fails to disclose said operational lock-out characteristics include: preventing fluid flow through said damper cylinder of said first electronically controlled damper link including during the occurrence of a compression event and during the occurrence rebound event.
Marking discloses the operational lock-out characteristics of the valve includes preventing fluid flow through said damper cylinder of an electronically controlled damper link including during the compression and rebound event (see col. 4, line 38 – col. 5, line 35 discussing the operation of the valve 200 in the locked-out characteristics).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 16, and 17, Gartner is discussed above and discloses controlling the dampers electronically, but fails to disclose controlling by manually adjusting a switch or automatically controllable based upon one or more driving conditions.
Marking discloses the damper can be remotely controller from a passenger compartment by an operator-actuated switch (see col. 5, lines 13-16). Marking alternatively discloses the damper can be automatically controlled based up on one or more driving conditions (see col. 6, lines 62-65).
Regarding claim 7, Gartner is discussed above, but fails to disclose said operational lock-out characteristics are automatically controllable via features selected from the group consisting of: user input settings, manipulation of operational parts of a vehicle coupled with said sway bar system, input from a microprocessor coupled with said sway bar system, and a combination of said features.
Marking disclose the characteristics are controllable through a logic unit/microprocessor (502) with user definable settings; operational variables of the system including rod speed, rod position, and vehicle speed; or a combination thereof (see col. 7, lines 16-44; and col. 8, lines 12-21).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Gartner is discussed above, but fails to disclose the details of the operation lock-out characteristics, including being controllable via wired or wireless communication.
Marking discloses that the valve and characteristics can by controlled and operated via a physical conductor or wirelessly (see col. 5, line 57 – col. 6, line 12 discussing using a physical or wireless control).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to have the electronically controlled lock out characteristics and control of the damper in Marking on the damper of Gartner with a reasonable expectation of success in order to better control the dampening characteristics of the damper/shock absorber and provide more options for controlling. The combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 11, Gartner is discussed above, but fails to disclose the damper is a twin tube damper.
Marking discloses the remotely operated suspension damper (Abstract) being a twin tube damper (102, 128; see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to have the twin tube damper of Marking on the sway bar system of Gartner with a reasonable expectation of success in order to better control the fluids within the damper and to provide easier adjustment of the suspension. The combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 12, Gartner discloses the damper is a non-twin tube damper (single tube shown in Figure 6).
Claims 3, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gartner and Marking as applied to claims 1-2, 4-12, 14, and 16-19 above, and further in view of US Patent 5,921,360 to Moradmand.
Regarding claims 3, 15, and 20, Gartner and Marking are discussed above, but fail to disclose the damping piston is a digressive piston.
Moradman discloses having a vehicle damper that includes a digressive valve with the piston (67, see Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to have used a digressive piston with a digressive damper as disclosed by Moradman on the combination of Gartner and Marking with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a simple means for tuning performance and providing high handling control without compromising impact harshness (see at least col. 1, lines 8-10 and col. 7, lines 46-51). The combination would yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant merely argues that the prior art applied in the most recent Final Action does not contain the limitations of the amended claims. Applicant has only argued the limitations of the independent claims; however, Examiner believes that the previously applied prior art does disclose the newly added limitations to the amended independent claims. Applicant argues that Marking does not teach or suggest the newly added limitation, however, Examiner has explained in the above rejection of the claims how Marking explicitly discloses the newly added claim limitations.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant has merely asserted that the prior art references do not contain the limitations added to the amended independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tiffany L. Webb whose telephone number is (571)272-3950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30-5.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at 571-270-5985. 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.
/T.L.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614