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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the controller and the chassis must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 14, line 19, “52” should be changed to --52.--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 16-18, 22 and 23 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 16 recites the limitation "the pump pressure" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the pump pressure” to --a pump pressure-- in line 3.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the working range" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the working” to --a working-- in line 3.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the acceleration" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the acceleration” to --an acceleration-- in line 1.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the vibration damper" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the vibration” to --a vibration-- in line 2.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the values" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the values” to --values-- in line 3.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the pump pressure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the pump pressure” to --a pump pressure-- in line 2.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the working range" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the working” to --a working-- in line 2.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the acceleration" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the acceleration” to --an acceleration-- in line 2.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the vibration damper" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the vibration” to --a vibration-- in lines 2-3.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the values" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the values” to --values-- in line 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 15, 19-21, 24 and 25 are allowed.
Claims 16-18, 22 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, as suggested above, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art does not teach at least the limitation(s) “specifying or determining by a sensor the valve positions and/or voltage and/or current applied to the valves and from this determining the force actually acting on the piston rod”, as recited in claim 14, and/or the limitation(s) “the pressure adjustment arrangement contains at least one sensor for determining or a controller for specifying the valve position and/or the voltage and/or current applied to the valves and wherein the sensor or the controller is connected to the control/regulation device and this is designed to determine the force actually acting on the piston rod from the data transmitted by the sensor or the controller”, as recited in claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Said prior art teach damping systems/methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH J FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)270-7802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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.
/KEITH J FRISBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights