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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 in regards to claim 1 - 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the previously applied combination of prior art (Becker and Michel) fails to teach or suggest the limitation of claim 1 requiring that “the bas adjusting device includes at least one bag that forms a fluid chamber of variable size”. Applicant further argues that Becker discloses only a rigid ring cylinder working chamber, and that Michel is relied upon merely for a spatial or dimensional relationship and does not cure the alleged deficiency regarding the bag formed fluid chamber.
Applicant argument is not persuasive against the rejection as modified. The present rejection does not rely on Becker and Michel alone for the bag formed fluid chamber limitation. Becker is relied upon for the vibration damper unit, the spring supporting base adjusting architecture, the first and second adjusting partners, the working chamber and the movable spring supporting structure. Michel is relied upon for the claimed radial dimensional relationship of the bridging element. Eike is relied upon for teaching a pneumatic spring bellows bag forming a variable size working chamber in a vehicle suspension strut. The alleged deficiency by applicant with respect to Becker and Michel alone is addressed by the teaching of Eike.
Applicant further argues that Becker’s working chamber is a rigid ring cylinder chamber and that there’s no disclosure in Becker or Michel of a bag extending between adjusting partners to form a fluid chamber. This argument is not persuasive because Eike teaches that a flexible pneumatic spring bellows may at least partially enclose a working chamber in a suspension struct, and that the bellows can roll on a pneumatic spring piston to form a roll fold. The proposed modification uses Eike’s flexible bellows as a known chamber forming structure in Becker’s variable size working chamber arrangement. Becker remains relied upon for the base adjusting device and first second adjusting partner architecture.
Applicant argues the recited combination is not merely an arbitrary aggregation of a narrow bridging element with any actuator. This argument does not overcome the rejection. Michel teaches a reduced spatial arrangement of an adjustment structure for reduced installation space and robustness, while Eike teaches a bellows bag type chamber for a suspension strut. The combination would have predictably provided a variable size chamber formed by a flexible bellows bag while maintaining Beckers axial spring seat adjustment and using Michels reduced space arrangement. The same packaging concerns identified by the applicant would have provided further reason to combine the known reduced space structure of Michel with the known bellows type chamber.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed 04/09/2026 regarding claim 12, and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claim 12-17 has been withdrawn. Yamada teaches an in wheel suspension environment generally, the applied combination does not teach or suggest the claimed arrangement in which the vibration damper unit of claim 1 includes a bridging element disposed next to the wheel and a base adjusting device arranged at least partially inside the rim interior. Becker teaches an adjustable suspension strut with a ring cylinder base adjusting structure, and Eike teaches a pneumatic spring bellows working chamber but the modification of the packed Becker/Eike base adjusting device in Yamada’s interior rim wouldn’t result in the limitations of claim 12.
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 12-17 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 12 recites “a longitudinal axis…a damper, a counter bearing, a first spring face, a spring, a base adjusting device…a first adjusting partner … a second adjusting partner… a force absorbing element …and a bridging element” all of these elements are included in claim 1, it is unclear if these are the same, or separate from those in claim 1
Claim 16 recites “a fluid chamber of variable size” in line 2, it’s unclear if this is the same or a different fluid chamber as the one recited in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US 6676119) further in view of Michel (US 20090045595), and Eike (US 20130147099).
In regards to claim 1, Becker discloses a vibration damper unit (adjustable suspension strut see fig. 1), comprising: a longitudinal axis extending therethrough (arranged in an axial direction corresponding to a longitudinal axis), a damper (2, cylinder 4 and rod 7), a counter bearing (11), which forms a first spring bearing face (interacting with spring 13, see fig. 1), a spring (13), which bears against the first spring bearing face (11), and a base-adjusting device (automatic adjusting device implemented via 16, 18, and 25), which is offset from the counter bearing (11) along the longitudinal axis (see fig. 1) and has a first adjusting partner (16) and a second adjusting partner (18), which is arranged along the longitudinal axis at least partially between the first adjusting partner (16) and the spring (13)and is mounted movably relative to the first adjusting partner in an adjustment direction parallel to the longitudinal axis (cylinder 18 is received at least partially by the first ring cylinder 16 movably, telescoping see col. 2 lines 54-67), has a force-absorbing element (the lower face side piston like force receiving portion of the second ring cylinder 18 adjacent working chamber 25, see face side 31 or corresponding wall portion acted on by pressure in the working chamber 25) for absorbing an adjustment force (receives hydraulic pressure/force to drive piston and absorb adjustment force) and forms a second spring bearing face (seat 12) against which the spring bears, wherein the second adjusting partner (18) comprises a bridging element (the part of 18 between spring face 42 on the spring seat 12 and a lower face side 31) between the second spring bearing face (42) and the force-absorbing element (corresponding wall portion acted on by pressure in the working chamber 25), the bridging element having an outer surface, which faces away from the longitudinal axis (outer surface 20).
Becker teaches a variable size working chamber (see chamber 25) whose volume is changed by a relative axial displacement of the first and second ring cylinders. However, Becker does not expressly disclose that the base adjusting device includes at least one bag that forms a fluid chamber of variable size. However, Eike teaches a vehicle suspension strut having a working chamber that at least partially enclosed by a pneumatic spring bellows composed of elastomeric material, Eike further teaches that the pneumatic spring bellows is fastened to a pneumatic springs cover and tot a pneumatic spring piston and can roll on the outer side of the pneumatic spring piston so as to form a roll or fold. Eike therefore teaches a flexible bag forming a variable size working chamber in a vehicle suspension strut. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified Becker further in view of Eike to include a flexible bellows as taught by Eike because Eike teaches that a flexible pneumatic spring bellows was a known structure for enclosing a working chamber in a vehicle suspension strut while accommodating relative axial movement. Such a modification would have predictably provided Becker’s base adjusting device with a sealed variable size fluid chamber formed by a flexible bag for applying adjustment force to the movable spring supporting structure.
Becker teaches a stepped cylinder (28) having two diameters, D1 and D2, where the first distance D1 is smaller than D2. Becker fails to explicitly teach this of the bridging element on the second adjusting partner as claimed. Michel teaches arranging a second adjusting partner (ball nut 28) above the support spring (18) such that the ball nut does not exceed the inner diameter of the support spring in projection along the spring’s central axis (see para. 0008, the control sleeve and therefore the ball nut may have a greater diameter inside the support spring, and thereby smaller outside of it). Michel teaches this arrangement is advantageous for the ball nut to be guided (bridging element) in a positive fashion into a section of the guide sleeve via a ring flange) see fig. 1 and para. 0008, the lower portion of the bridging element having a larger diameter (near 28a) for the advantage of reduced space with increased robustness. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Becker's Bridging element in view of Michel to have, at least in some regions, a first distance from the longitudinal axis, the first distance being smaller than a second distance at least of a region of an outer surface, facing away from the longitudinal axis, of the force-absorbing element and/or of the first adjusting partner from the longitudinal axis so as to increase the strength while reducing the space required.
In regards to claim 2, Becker in combination teaches wherein a first auxiliary surface (W2 or 21, see fig. 1 and 2), which surrounds the longitudinal axis (down the center) at a uniform distance and within which the bridging element is arranged, intersects the force-absorbing element (corresponding wall portion acted on by pressure in the working chamber 25) and/or the first adjusting partner (26).
In regards to claim 3, Becker in combination teaches wherein a length of the bridging element measured in the adjustment direction is greater than the second distance (see fig. 1, and 2).
In regards to claim 4 and 5, Becker as combined teaches an axially extending ring cylinder structure that is the bridging element measured in the adjustment direction longer than the second distance (greater than the first distance) providing an axially long coaxial member for guidance and adjustment. However, Becker fails to explicitly disclose the length is greater than twice or three times the second distance. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the length of the bridging element to be greater than twice or three times the second distance with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See in Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In regards to claim 6, Becker as modified teaches wherein the bridging element is tubular (the bridging element of the second adjusting partner 18 is cylindrical around the damper 4, thereby tubular see fig. 1 and 2).
In regards to claim 7, and 8, Becker , Michel, and Eike fail to teach wherein the bridging element is such that the first distance corresponds to at most 70% of the second distance. Or in regards to claim 8, such that the first distance corresponds to at most 50% of the second distance. However, Becker in view of Michel teaches that the bridging element (Michel) has a larger second distance for the space saving advantages without compromising robustness. Examiner notes the specification provides that regarding the first distance being smaller than that of the second "a fluid chamber of sufficient size is made possible on the one hand, and sufficient space is created even for wider tires next to the bridging element on the other hand." merely stating it be of sufficient size for reduced space and the use of wide tires as Michel also teaches. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first distance of the bridging element to be at most 50% or 70% of the second distance with a reasonable expectation of success, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size or proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. The Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See in Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc.,220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In regards to claim 9, Becker as modified teaches wherein the second adjusting partner (18) has, between the bridging element and the spring (3), a spring bearing element (spring seat 12), which protrudes radially from the bridging element and has the second spring bearing face (42).
In regards to claim 10, Becker as modified teaches wherein at least two axial guide rings (guide rings 22, 24), which are offset from one another in the adjustment direction, are arranged between the second adjusting partner (18) and the damper (4)(see fig.1).
In regards to claim 11, Becker as modified teaches wherein at least one of the axial guide rings (24) is arranged between the first adjusting partner (16) and the second adjusting partner (18).
In regards to claim 18, Becker, Michel and Eike in combination teach wherein the at least one bag comprises a rolling bag or rolling bellow. As discussed above in claim 1, Eike teaches a pneumatic spring strut having a working chamber (3) at least partially enclosed by a pneumatic spring bellows (2) composed of elastomeric material (see para. 002, 0011). Eike teaches that the pneumatic spring bellows (2) is fastened to a pneumatic spring cover (7) and to a pneumatic spring piston (9) and can roll on the outer side of the spring piston so as to form a roll fold (8)(para. 0026-27, 0033-41). Therefore, as combined (see claim 1), Becker in view of Eike includes wherein the bag comprises a rolling bag or rolling bellow.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 - 17 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 13-17 are rejected for the dependency on claim 12. As discussed above, the prior art fails to teach alone or in combination the vibration damper unit of claim 1 wherein the bridging element is disposed next to the wheel and the base adjusting device is arranged inside the rim interior in the arrangement as claimed. While Yamada teaches an in wheel suspension arrangement generally, the prior art does not teach or suggest the base adjusting device and bridging element in the wheel rim relationship as recited in claim 12.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for a list of relevant prior art to the vibration damper unit claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (est).
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.
/C.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights