Patent Application 15882604 - TWIN TUBE SHOCK WITH ADJUSTABLE PRESSURE

Title: TWIN TUBE SHOCK WITH ADJUSTABLE PRESSURE REGULATION

Application Information

Invention Title: TWIN TUBE SHOCK WITH ADJUSTABLE PRESSURE REGULATION
Application Number: 15882604
Submission Date: 2025-05-22T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2018-01-29T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2018-01-29T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 188
National Sub-Class: 266200
Examiner Employee Number: 91219
Art Unit: 3616
Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

US 0290991🔗
US 1505315🔗

Office Action Text

DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/31/2025 has been entered.

Claim Objections
Claims 18, 26 and 29 are objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 18, 4th to last paragraph, recites “a user”, but “a user” was previously recited in the second line at the top of page 5. The second recitation should recite “the user” for consistent antecedent basis.
Claim 18 recites, “the first adjustable valve preventing hydrolock” and “the second adjustable valve preventing hydrolock”. The limitations give the appearance of a method step within an apparatus claim. To improve clarity, the limitation should read “for preventing hydrolock” or the like, to convey a capability rather than a method step.
Claim 26 recites, “a user”, previously recited in claim 18, and should be amended to “the user” for consistent antecedent basis.
Claim 29 recites, “a user”, previously recited in claim 18, and should be amended to “the user” for consistent antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.

Claims 18, 19, 25, 26 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonaga et al. (EP 1505315 A2) in view of Cox (2015/0290991) and further in view of Marking (8,763,770).
Regarding claim 18, Tomonaga discloses (fig. 1) a fluid damper comprising:
a damper housing (11) having a first fluid volume (S2) and a second fluid volume (S1);
a damping piston (30) reciprocatingly disposed within said damper housing separating said first fluid volume from said second fluid volume (as shown), said damping piston having damping piston valving (32, 34) coupled thereto;
a piston fluid pathway (flow path through 32, 34 respectively) through said damping piston and said damping piston valving, said piston fluid pathway permitting fluid communication between said first fluid volume and said second fluid volume when a pressure in one of said first fluid volume and the second fluid volume exceeds a threshold value of said damping piston valving (see pgh. 0023);
a fluid accumulator (11C) having a pressurizable gas volume (53) and an accumulator fluid volume (S3) isolated from one another by a separation member (52);
a first fluid pathway (P1) extending solely between said first fluid volume and said accumulator fluid volume;
a second fluid pathway (P2) extending solely between said second fluid volume and said accumulator fluid volume;
a third fluid pathway (41) fluidically coupling said first fluid volume and said second fluid volume to enable fluid flow through said damping piston without passing through said fluid accumulator and without flowing through said piston fluid pathway through said damping piston and said damping piston valving (41 does not flow through 11C, 32 or 34), said third fluid pathway extending between said first fluid volume and said second fluid volume but which does not extend through said fluid accumulator (as shown),
a first adjustable valve (50), said first adjustable valve disposed in said first fluid pathway (as shown), said first adjustable valve having a selectable threshold value which exceeds said threshold value of said damping piston valving (see fig. 5 in comparison to fig. 6. Element 60 has more spring elements than element 32, thus an element of the first adjustable valve 50 has a threshold value that exceeds that of an element of the damping piston valving at 32. Additionally, the number of springs used on the valve is “selectable” in that one of ordinary skill in the art can select how many springs are needed to achieve the desired characteristics), said first adjustable valve including a pressure relief valve (60), said pressure relief valve of said first adjustable valve disposed to automatically allow fluid flow from said first fluid volume into said accumulator fluid volume when a pressure within said first fluid volume exceeds a first pressure relief valve threshold value (standard check valve operation as is known in the art), said pressure relief valve of said first adjustable valve preventing hydrolock of said fluid damper 1;
a first externally adjustable interface (fig. 6, 75) coupled to said first adjustable valve, said first externally adjustable interface configured to enable a user to select between at least two settings for said first adjustable valve (pgh. 0030);
a second adjustable valve (80), said second adjustable valve disposed in said second fluid pathway (as shown), said second adjustable valve including a pressure relief valve (94), said pressure relief valve of said second adjustable valve disposed to automatically allow fluid flow from said second fluid volume into said accumulator fluid volume when a pressure within said second fluid volume exceeds a second pressure relief valve threshold value (standard check valve operation as is known in the art), said pressure relief valve of said second adjustable valve preventing hydrolock of said fluid damper 1, such that saif fluid damper has two pressure relief valves (60 and 94), said pressure relief valve of said first adjustable valve and said pressure relief valve of said second adjustable valve, for said preventing hydrolock of said fluid damper 1;
a second externally adjustable interface (fig. 7, 88, 99) coupled to said second adjustable valve, said second externally adjustable interface configured to enable a user to select between at least two settings for said second adjustable valve (pgh. 0038 & 0042);
wherein adjustments made to said first adjustable valve, via said first externally adjustable interface, do not affect said second fluid pathway through said second adjustable valve (the valves are separate as shown); and
wherein adjustments made to said second adjustable valve, via said second externally adjustable interface, do not affect said first fluid pathway through said first adjustable valve (the valves are separate as shown) such that said first adjustable valve and said second adjustable valve are independently adjustable (the valves are separate and have separate knobs).

Tomonaga shows the third fluid pathway passing through the piston, while the claim requires the third pathway to go around the piston. In the same field of endeavor of dampers, Cox teaches a damper having a third fluid pathway (space between 102 and 106) extending between a first fluid volume (109) and a second fluid volume (108) but which does not extend through said fluid accumulator (30), said third fluid pathway comprising: an internal bypass fluid path formed within said damper housing; and internal bypass openings (110a-d) formed in an interior surface of said damper housing (the surface containing 110a-d is radially interior to the damper housing), said internal bypass openings fluidly coupled with said internal bypass fluid path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the damper of Tomonaga to comprise a pathway such as taught by Cox in order to allow for altered damping properties depending on the location of the piston (pgh. 0050-0051 of Cox at least).

Tomonaga does not appear to disclose automatically operating the first externally adjustable interface based upon at least one driving condition of a vehicle. It is noted that the valve itself “operates automatically”, but this is not the same as automatically operating the adjustable interface, i.e. turning the knob to make adjustments to the valve operation. Marking teaches automating the operation of valve 500 in place of a passive check valve 280 to operate at different settings based upon various conditions including driving conditions, (col. 10, lines 42 to end).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the damper of Tomonaga to include automation of valving such as taught by Marking in order to automatically control the valving to operate at different settings according to various conditions including driving conditions to provide comforts and convenience to the driver and passengers.

Regarding claim 19, Tomonaga shows said first fluid volume (S2) is a compression chamber of said damper housing and said second fluid volume (S1) is a rebound chamber of said damper housing (both chambers, as shown).

Regarding claims 25-26, Tomonaga as modified teaches the first external adjustable interface is powered (automatic operation, thus it receives power to operate) and operable by a user located remotely (abstract, “remotely operated”) from said damper (see fig. 8, user settings are incorporated into the valve control).

Regarding claims 28-30, Similar to the first external adjustable interface, Tomonaga does not appear to disclose automatically operating the second externally adjustable interface based upon at least one driving condition of a vehicle. It is noted that the valve itself “operates automatically”, but this is not the same as automatically operating the adjustable interface, i.e. turning the knob to make adjustments to the valve operation. Marking teaches automating the operation of valve 500 in place of a passive check valve 280 to operate at different settings based upon various conditions including driving conditions, (col. 10, lines 42 to end).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the damper of Tomonaga to include automation of valving such as taught by Marking in order to automatically control the valving to operate at different settings according to various conditions including driving conditions to provide comforts and convenience to the driver and passengers.
After modification, Tomonaga as modified teaches the first external adjustable interface is powered (automatic operation, thus it receives power to operate) and operable by a user located remotely (abstract, “remotely operated”) from said damper (see fig. 8, user settings are incorporated into the valve control), and would be able to be automatically controlled based upon at least one driving condition of a vehicle to provide comforts and convenience to the driver and passengers.

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the remarks, Applicant quotes a number of limitations recited in claim 18 in combination, and alleges that the combination of references fails to teach the following:
Applicants respectfully submit that Tomonaga, Cox and Marking are silent with respect to “said pressure relief valve of said second adjustable valve preventing hydrolock of said fluid damper, such that said fluid damper has two pressure relief valves, said pressure relief valve of said first adjustable valve and said pressure relief valve of said second adjustable valve, for said preventing hydrolock of said fluid damper” AND “wherein said first externally adjustable interface is operated automatically based upon at least one driving condition of a vehicle to which said damper is coupled”.
It is noted that the arguments do not explain why the combination fail to teach the quoted limitations. Regarding the function of “preventing hydrolock”, no particular structure is recited other than the pressure relief valve itself in order to carry out the function of “preventing hydrolock of the fluid damper”, as described in the rejection above. The claim language suggests that the mere presence of the pressure relief valve in the claimed location carries out the function, absent evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, to the same extent that the presence and location of the pressure relief valve of the instant application prevent hydrolock, so too do the pressure relief valves 60 and 94 of Tomonaga, as the valves are present and in the same claimed location as claimed.
Regarding the automatic operation, while Tomonaga does not appear to disclose automatic operation of the first externally adjustable interface, Tomonaga was modified by Marking, which teaches automatic valve operation, as described in the rejection above. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MORRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.

/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616

1 As best understood, the mere presence of the pressure relief valve disposed in the fluid pathway prevents hydrolock. Accordingly, if the prior art contains the same valve in the same location, it is deemed to prevent hydrolock to the same extent as the instant valve.