DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/2/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14, and 16-19 remain pending and are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The phrase added to the amended claims 1, 10, and 18 recites “said valve configured to have only a first state and a second state, wherein said valve completely blocks fluid flow between said compression portion and said rebound portion when said valve is in said first state, wherein said valve is fully open and allows said fluid flow between said compression portion and said rebound portion when said valve is in said second state.” Applicant points to paragraph [0063] for support of the amendment. However, paragraph [0063] only mentions where in one embodiment where compression flow is completely blocked, closure of the damper link results in a “lock out.” The same paragraph states that in another embodiment some compression flow is allowed by closure of a remotely controllable valve. Examiner can find no place in the written description to support that the valve is configured to have only a first and second state of open or fully closed. Rather, the written description discusses using various opening amounts of the valve to control the stiffness of the sway bar based on driving conditions. In the paragraph that mentions the closed/blocked state of the valve, there is no mention of a second state. Thus, the written description fails to support the amended claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the valves of claims 1, 10, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the elements added to the claims appear to be new matter. The new matter is addressed in the above rejection of the claims.
Applicant's arguments regarding the stiffness of the sway bar controlled by the damper links have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art uses both actuators and springs to control the stiffness of the sway bar and that does not meet the newly added limitation of “wherein a stiffness of said sway bar system is controlled by controlling at least one of said first electronically controlled damper link and said second link.” However, Examiner maintains that the prior art contains this limitation as it controls the stiffness with the electronically controlled links, and the springs. The claim does not require that the stiffness is only controlled by the damper links. Examiner notes, that requiring the stiffness to be only controlled by the damper links would not be supported by the written description.
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
Prosecution Insights