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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s amendment filed December 12, 2025. Claims 1, 3-9 and 13-24 are pending on the merits.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashaito (JP 201495441) in view of Duerre et al. (US 2016/0298720).
Re. CI. 1, Mashaito, discloses: A damper disposed in a holding hole that passes through, in a passing-through direction, a supported member the damper comprising a tubular body (40) defining therein a through hole that extends in the passing-through direction, wherein the tubular body is elastically deformable between a first form and a second form due to elastic force of the tubular body, the tubular body has a first outer diameter in the first form and a second outer diameter in the second form (Figs. 3, 5, 7, 16 and 17) the first outer diameter is less than an inner diameter of the holding hole, and the second outer diameter is larger than the inner diameter of the holding hole (Based on the cited figures and associated specification, when screw (32) is put in (40) it will expand from 1st form to 2ⁿᵈ form), the tubular body in the first form has an outer shape that is smaller than the holding hole, the tubular body in the second form has an outer shape that is equal to or greater than the outer shape in the first form and is in contact with the holding hole (Figs. 3, 5, 7, 16 and 17) the tubular body has a first end and a second end opposite to the first end in the passing-through direction.
Mashaito fails to disclose, however Duerre et al. teaches a tubular body defines a gap extending between the first end and the second end, and the gap is larger in the second form than in the first form (See Figs. 3, 4, 7, and [0052], [0046], [0058], [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mashaito’s damper with Duerre’s tubular body having a gap extending between the first and second end. Doing so would achieve a particularly high level of calibration. As a consequence, the obtainable radial rigidity of the connecting device in the pressed-in state continues to increase.
Re. CI. 4, Mashaito discloses: a damper 40, further comprising an adjusting member 42 disposed in a space surrounded by the tubular body (as seen in Fig. 3) and configured to adjust a height of the tubular body, and the height of the tubular body is a length between a first end and a second end of the tubular body.
Re. Cl. 5 Mashaito discloses: a protrusion radially protruding from an outer circumferential surface of the tubular body.
Re. CI. 6, Mashaito discloses: wherein the tubular body has a first end and a second end, the protrusion includes: a first protrusion disposed closer to the first end than to the second end and protruding from the outer circumferential surface of the tubular body; and a second protrusion disposed closer to the second end than to the first end and protruding from the outer circumferential surface of the tubular body, the first protrusion and the second protrusion being located between the first end and the second end, and a distance between the first protrusion and the second protrusion is equal to or greater than a thickness of the supported member (Figs. 3-8 and 16-17).
Re. CI. 9, Masahito discloses: an electronic controller comprising a supporting member wherein the tubular body in the second form is disposed in the holding hole and presses an inner surface of the holding hole, and the supported member is supported by the supporting member through the damper (Figs. 3-8 and 16-17).
Re. Cl. 19, Masahito fails to discloses, however Duerre et al. teaches a protrusion radially protruding from only a part of the first end of the tubular body (Figs. 5-6).
Reg. CI. 24, Masahito fails to disclose, however Duerre et al. teaches a slit in a tubular body wherein the tubular body would have an elliptical shape in the first form, and has a shape closer to a true circle than to the elliptical shape in the second form (Figs. 3, 4, 7, and [0052], [0046], [0058], [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mashaito’s damper Duerre’s protrusion radially protruding from only a part of the first end of the tubular body, and wherein the tubular body would have an elliptical shape in the first form, and has a shape closer to a true circle than to the elliptical shape in the second form. Doing so would provide an alternate tubular structure for damping vibration.
Claims 7-8, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashaito (JP 201495441) in view of Duerre et al. (2016/0298720) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Neumark (2016/0069112).
Re. CIs. 7, 8 and 16-18, Mashaito as modified by Duerre fails to disclose, however Neumark et al., teaches: wherein the tubular body is formed by weaving metal wires such that spaces are defined in the tubular body [0033, 0036, 0037]; wherein the tubular body is composed mainly of a shape memory alloy [0019]; wherein the tubular body includes a protecting member soaked into the spaces of the tubular body ([0134]); wherein the protecting member is formed of an organic substance having viscoelasticity; and wherein the tubular body is of a shape memory alloy ([0019]).
it would have been very obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a tubular body formed by weaving metal wires such that spaces are defined in the tubular body; wherein the tubular body is composed mainly of a shape memory alloy; wherein the tubular body includes a protecting member soaked into the spaces of the tubular body; and wherein the protecting member is formed of an organic substance having viscoelasticity. Doing so would provide different materials, and protective coatings for making stable and secure connection for the tubular dampers.
Claims 3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashaito (JP 201495441) in view of Duerre et al. (2016/0298720) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Nemark (2016/0069112) in view of Davis (US 2013/0189459).
Re. Cls. 3 and 14, Mashaito as modified by Duerre et al., and Nemark fails to disclose wherein the gap is filled with an adhesive when the tubular body is in the first form, and the adhesive is to be melted by heat. Also, the gap in the second form is not entirely filled with the adhesive.
Neumark et al., discloses: adhesive is melted by heat [0006, 0007, 0038, 0047, 0050, 0329]. However, Davis teaches the well-known use of adhesive used between gaps or slits to bond tubular structures [0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Mashaito’s tubular damper with Davis's adhesive wherein the gap is filled with an adhesive when the tubular body is in the first form, and the adhesive is to be melted by heat. Also, the gap in the second form is not entirely filled with the adhesive. Doing so would provide a stable and secure connection for the damper.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashaito (JP 201495441) in view of Duerre et al. (2016/0298720), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Ishida et al. (JP 2001124426).
Reg. CI. 15, Mashaito as modified by Duerre et al. fails to disclose, however Ishida et al. teaches the use of a tubular body (26 Figs. 2, 4) consists of woven metal wires such that spaces are defined in the tubular body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to furthermore modify Mashaito’s damper with Ishida's tubular body consisting of woven metal wires. Doing so would provide reliable alternate tubular body based on a given design characteristic.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 12, 2025 have been fully considered and persuasive. Applicant states, Nuemark et al. discloses plastic deformation not elastic deformation as cited in amended claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-9, and 13-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRELL L MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-4797. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 am to 4:30 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, Terrell L McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632